Why Labour under Brown is certain to lose
December 17th, 2007
Did the controversial “named leader” question get it right all along?
The above table is reproduced from UK Polling Report’s record of the controversial “named leader” questions that several pollsters asked during the period between David Cameron’s election as Tory leader in December 2005 and Gordon’s arrival in June 2007.
These findings proved to be highly controversial and every time I featured them on the site they came under fierce attack. For what was being presented was dynamite. For on almost every occasion when compared with the standard voting intention findings Labour was shown to do considerably worse with Gordon in the job.
The idea that the man the party was going to make leader was an electoral liability was just too hard to swallow and Team Brown put an enormous effort into discrediting the findings.
What these historical finding suggest, I contend, is that Brown was never going to be popular once the novelty of his honeymoon period had worn off. The PLP have elected unopposed someone who could lose a lot of MPs their jobs - and there was lots of data about to support this when they decided not to support a rival candidate.
Given that the pattern of big Tory leads over a Brown-led Labour now goes back for two years you have to question whether, indeed, we are going to see the pendulum swing back to Labour while the current leadership is in place.
In my view there is a trend going back over a long enough period to suggest that a Brown-led Labour is almost doomed to failure. The big question is whether the Tories can do enough to win an overall majority.
Maybe this time I’ll stick with my Conservative seats buy spread position.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I’m reposting from last thread…
We need to get some perspective on the Hilary bump.
Ok she is still ahead in many areas, but the problem is that it is whittling away in a number of places, most notably in the early primary states and this can’t go on or else everything really is up for grabs. She could lose both NH & Iowa and come back but it would be all the harder. A win in either and the ship will have been potentially steadied even if the weather remains rough which it could well do.
About two months ago some Democrats started to raise the issue of Hilary’s electablity in a much more co-ordinated way and perhaps this is the kick start to what issues Hilary is facing now. There was always going to be a Stop Hilary campaign and I firmly blieve its underway with attacks on a number of fronts.
Hilary does have a lead to play with and thus deserves her position at the head of the market, however, what should be watched is the Clinton campaign response which so far to this wearing down of some of her leads has been ineffective and sometimes damaging. It is this that makes me think that there is more difficult ground for her to traverse before she comes out of this bump. It’s timing however couldnt be worse with the few weeks to go before the primaries. In short she is in difficulties and those could get to the point where its death match material, which it isnt right now.
My overal view at the start of this whole show was to have a lay bet on Clinton but ultimately a feeling that she was favourite to get there and deservedly so. My opposition to her was because she was bound to have a tricky period, her potential diviseness would be raised and so it has proved.
My alternative, much promoted on here was Good Hair Edwards on the basis that when the Stop Hilary effort began he might just be the man who it would rally round.
By the looks of it I’ve got 2 out of 3 right. Pity about John, not dead in Iowa but, could suffer from a squeeze and is dependent I believe on a tactical vote from either Obama’s people or Hilary’s who fear the other side winning more than they do their own candidate losing. The only plus he has now is that things could get very bitter between the two front runners.
Its a fair point Mike, and like Guido says here,
http://www.order-order.com/2007/12/we-told-you-so.html
its not like people were not warning of the doom.
However Gordon Brown was (and perhaps still is) the master of internal Labour politics.
Will Labour ditch Gordon Brown? No, like him, they simply have not got the bottle.
Fancy a tenner on that Mike?
Fair point. I for one was extremely critical of the named leader questions - and for some time, my criticism seemed justified.
I suppose it all depends whether Labour’s poll ratings have dived because people dislike Brown, or whether they’ve dived because Labour are perceieved to be incompetent - ie Labour’s poll ratings wouldn’t be much different now if Blair was still in charge.
Dangerously provocative, Mike.
You’ll have Roger and others foaming at the mouth if you carry on suggesting that those of us who claimed Comrade Brown was a disaster waiting to happen were right all along.
What will be interesting to see is whether there is any positioning going on amongst those who could take over from Brown after the next election as the ‘rebuilders’ of the party in the next few months.
Expect a rash of books and essays from the next generation in a bookshop near you soon…
Are there likely to be any more polls before the new year e.g. Guardian monthly ICM?
146 (previous thread) This is the same market that you “alerted” us all to when you backed Brown to be gone in 2010 at 3/1.
stjohn - Oh Dear, don’t remind me! I believe in boxing parlance, this is referred to as leading with one’s chin! The good news, however, is that having checked my account I did indeed buy this bet at odds of 16-1.
I said on the last thread that it’s unlikely that Brown will go before the next election. Unlikely yes but by no means out of the question. If Mike’s view, which I share, that Brown is unelectable becomes common currency then anything could happen. Cameron must be praying Brown hangs on. What Cameron wants can’t be good for Labour.
4. ‘You’ll have Roger …foaming at the mouth’
Calmer than usual, then?
Stjohn, from the previous thread “Re 146, Stjohn, ““Mustn’t grumble”.
and
“Dipso fatso bingo asbo Tesco”. ”
Itis apiss potanda tinone
“
6. Pleased to hear it Peter. I’m beginning to think we have a reasonable chance of collecting on this one.
Trends continue.
Unless Brown has a personality transplant (Not NICE approved so no NHS funding), he’s a permanent liability.
I suspect he knows this: why does he resemble that cat when times are bad? Cos he knows he’ll make things worse when he speaks.
At the time, Mike, I seem to recall that you pointed the high probability that these polls were more an indication that the Tories benefited when Cameron received exposure - by his name being mentioned.
If I recall correctly, there was only one poll which directly compared Brown/Cameron with Blair/Cameron (rather than Brown/Cameron with Labour/Conservative). I believe that this poll was positive for Brown, though only by a couple of points.
It is clear to me that the proximate cause of Labour’s poor position in the polls is the series of mishaps that have created a sense of incompetence.
It is entirely possible to produce the same outcome due to two different causes.
Brown had a brilliant opportunity and he has blown it. The simple truth is that on so many issues he does not represent a change from the Blair years and he has nothing new to say or do (and no more money either).
Voters were not predicting this when they answered those poll questions months and years ago. This was not inevitable.
6 - 3/1 2010 is still decent enough value, Peter - that is clearly favourite for the next G.E. (6/5 on betfair) - and if the election is that year it implies a fair chance Brown will lose it.
In fact I wouldn’t discourage anyone from that 3/1 at all - it’s the 7/4 2009 that looks very ropey (since a G.E. called that year implies Brown doing better).
Obviously the unknown is Brown being forced out but I really can’t see that happening. It looks like he’ll go down with the ship.
Mike, just so we can calibrate your use of the word “certain”, what do you think is the % probability of Labour winning?
Maybe this time I’ll stick with my Conservative seats buy spread position
Ahem ….. probably a good call Mike! That said, the Tories’ current GE Seats spread prices are already factoring in a net gain of around 100 seats vs the last GE, which in itself be quite a feat. Don’t the laws of probability, about which I know nothing, suggest that it’s unlikely to get a whole lot better for them?
Yes, but what a shower of PC-do-gooders, we’ve loved multiculturalism types, sit on the benches behind. They will only represent the traditional working classes if they don’t smoke. Frank Field is a straight intellectual exception, a realist, fully understanding incentives and how Labour has benefit-financed a burgeoning benefits “riff-raff” (the very term he used on Radio 4 last week).
I’d say a lot of Labour MPs deserve to lose their jobs. Their finances are crooked, the discs are lost (who knows who’s got their mitts on the data) and the election is lost. Just 30 months, when we’ll be seeing Gordon Brown’s “miracle” unravel, to wait.
I know Brown going before the next election is very speculative. But if he did what would happen to Labour’s General Election prospects and price? Depending on who succeeded him, presumably Labour would shorten?
Although I think Brown is likely to lose the next election , there is nothing certain about it . I suggest that if pb.com had been around , similar threads by Mike headed ” Why Conservatives under Thatcher are certain to lose ” would have appeared and been totally wrong .
1981 - average Thatcher approval rating Minus 31 worst figure minus 41
1986 - average Thatcher approval rating Minus 28 worst figure minus 38 .
PfP
I am taking a modest punt on this house price index that you mentioned last night. Makes sense.
Mind you, if it goes wrong I’ll obviously throw a strop.
9. Good one Benedict.
I’m getting concerned - Cameron will be facing his third Lib Dem leader since he became Conservative Leader and now people are discussing whether he’ll face his third Labour leader!
On purely partisan desires I want Gordon to continue as leader - maybe yesterday’s poll would then come to fruition.
Afternoon all
Very interesting research - I think the question is was there any other potential Labour leader who could have polled better figures than this or even better figures than Cameron ?
I suspect not.
From the last thread - Ben had a go at some comments I made about the US primaries. While I ought to bow to his greater knowledge, I’m not going to. Even if Obama (or Huckerbee) were to win Iowa, the fact reamins that, as Nick pointed out, they are not well enough organised or have campaigned enough in the big states where the primary votes are.
Winning in Iowa keeps you in the race, losing in Iowa knocks you out if you make an early strong start the be-all and end-all. The other option is to go low-key in Iowa and even NH and rely on no clear trend emerging before the bigger states come into play.
Re 17, Stjohn “I know Brown going before the next election is very speculative. But if he did what would happen to Labour’s General Election prospects and price? Depending on who succeeded him, presumably Labour would shorten?”
Well, it does depend on both who suceeds, how Brown then behaves and how the party behaves.
There is no obvious candidate with the support base to do it.
Re 20, Stjohn, I knew you would get it
19. Which one? I’ve put a bit on Spreadfair’s London House Prices for next year. I think the market is over pessimistic and buying at 295 for Dec 08 (against 320 for Aug 07) is good value.
9
Surely more logical as “Tesco, fatso, bingo, dipso, asbo”
18-”Although I think Brown is likely to lose the next election , there is nothing certain about it .”
I agree with Mark Senior…
Looking at the timelines, if the current downturn is just about biting now and its systemic and part of the cycle (as opposed to sudden event stuff) themn Gordo will preferably want to hold out until late for an election to try to ride it out. That makes 2010 a better candidate for an election. Therefore, if he doesnt go due to a party push then thats the likely date of his leaving No 10.
25. fr. Makes sense. I guess the order Dipso fatso … was chosen as it sounds like ipso facto.
19 Yokel - it’s good to know someone reads my early morning drivel!
I was surprised to discover that the market has not really reacted to Rightmove’s December house price horror, which can only mean it doesn’t believe their numbers (although even were they half as bad they would be awful), so we shall have to wait for Nationwide, followed by the mighty Halifax to pronounce.
29. But beware the difference in what is being measured - Rightmove is asking prices, Halifax is mortgage based, I don’t know Nationwide’s methodology. And remember they are averages, open to distortion by things like HIPs deadlines, as Rightmove point out.
25
Aah, the benefits of a classical education!
30. Spoke to a friend who works for a big midlands housebuilder. He says sales this month are -7 (cancelled purchases). Anacdotal but seems to reflect trends. Without the housing market, what does Gordon have?
24 buying at 295 for Dec 08 (against 320 for Aug 07) is good value.
Baskerville - you’re a brave man IMO. If Rightmove’s figures are correct and the London market dipped 6.8% in December alone (unlikely I grant you), this would take us quite close to your buying level of 295 with a full year to go. My fear, especially in the Capital, is the thought of all those “Buy to Lettors” rushing for the exit door.
29 There are many people who would not think of Rightmove’s house price figures if correct as bad or awful , in fact there are many who would welcome a substantial correction after the very big rises of the last few years .
stodge@22: “Even if Obama (or Huckerbee) were to win Iowa, the fact reamins that, as Nick pointed out, they are not well enough organised or have campaigned enough in the big states where the primary votes are.”
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but what’s your source / evidence for thinking that Obama isn’t well organised in the bigger states? My impression - not sure where I got it from - was that (unlike Huckerbee) he’d built quite a strong nationwide organisation (being financially only slightly behind Hillary).
the final nail in the terror detention limit coffin??
and/or the start of the blarite revenge!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7148108.stm
29. If Rightmove is reporting asking prices then sale prices are likely to be down even more, if they’re selling at all.
O/T. Putin agrees to become Prime Minister after the Presidential elections in Russia.
30 Your points are well made, but what I think has really changed over the past 2 months is that there is now a more or less universal perception that prices are headed south next year. I did my own min survey amongst my colleagues this week - the minimum expected decline for 2008 was 5% and the maximum was 20%, the average around 11%. I’ve taken sell positions at each quarter end.
Re 34, Mark Senior “29 There are many people who would not think of Rightmove’s house price figures if correct as bad or awful , in fact there are many who would welcome a substantial correction after the very big rises of the last few years .”
Yes, I agree, but it won’t help growth or tax revenue which is where the problem is. If we were where we should be, mild year on year government surpluses, and low government debt, then the storm would only be in a teacup. Alas, it could spread a bit further.
Re 37, Matt J “O/T. Putin agrees to become Prime Minister after the Presidential elections in Russia.”
Bit of a shocker that one
33/38. Well that’s what gambling’s about isn’t it? My view is based on fears being overdone, several more interest rate cuts over the next 12 months, London being a better bet than the rest of the country, around 2% GDP growth in the next year, historical precedents (early 90s) and a damp finger in the air. I’m guessing at a max 10% fall (to 288) and a min 0% fall (320) between Aug 07 and Dec 08. So, on my figures, a downside of 7 points and an upside of 25.
40. Yes he must be confident of the result.
Personally I think it’s very positive. He’s built up huge political capital in Russia over the past decade and it would be perverse to push him out of a public role in the government now. He’s also played it by the book constitutionally. Being Prime Minister is an infinitely preferable outcome to him acting from behind the scenes.
Dour, Scottish, money-grubber.
Three winning qualities in Scotland, to be sure, but the kiss of death in England.
Yokel - O/T - The X Factor (of all things)
Read your comments on a previous thread and had a small lay bet on The Scottish Lad (I’ve forgotten his name, that’s how much he impressed me.)
I watched a fair bit of this year’s competition but not with betting in mind. Fwiw, I was mildly surprised the kid didn’t go out early, but then what do I know about current pop music? I remember being struck though by his performance a couple of weeks back when he did a Nat King Coal number and, clearly affected by nerves, he missed the intro, was out of tune much of the way, got the words wrong and looked awkward performing an arch and cheesy bit of interplay with a member of the audience. I thought ‘he’ll get slated’ by the famously acerbic panel, but he didn’t. They didn’t enthuse, but they didn’t criticise, and it struck me as odd.
Now he has won, against all expectations, and there’s a hint somewhere I believe of voting ‘peculiarities’. I begin to sniff a rat and a betting opportunity.
One wouldn’t bet the mortgage on it of course; the market requires a sound understanding of the workings of the Pop Music Industry and its main customers, pre-pubescent girls. Since I would regard the former as rather less pure and white than the driven snow and the latter as completely unfathomable, any punt would strictly be for fun.
The odds are attractive however. If the Pop Public gets a whiff that it has been sold a pup in questionable circumstances, our out-of-tune celtic chanteur may not be quite the shoo-in for number one that his odds (1/6) currently suggest.
It’s faintly reminiscent of the SPOTY, isn’t it? Media hypes up its favorite despite the manifestly superior claims of numerous others. Public latches on to this late in the day and refuses to play ball.
Be great fun if it happened again.
Btw…what’s this about Hillary’s bump? Does Bill know…and how do you think it will affect her election chances?
Re: 35 - Edmund, I think Obama may well be the exception here. This is clearly a well-financed and thorough campaign. My contention is however that were Obama to do poorly in say Iowa and NH that organisation would swiftly unravel.
Candidates like Obama usually have to make a strong early impact. If Clinton is the “establishment Democrat” candidate, she could in theory afford to run a reasonable second in the early states safe in the knowledge that the timetable plays to the strengths of the established candidate.
As we saw with Dean in 2004, it IS about momentum. Dean lost it and never recovered. Obama can, in my view, win or finish a close second and still have a chance. If he were to finish a bad third for example, questions would be asked.
Edwards might just survive with say a good second in Iowa but I think Hillary could survive finishing second in Iowa. Were she to finish third, that might be different.
On the GOP side, Huckebee needs the momentum of a strong performance in Iowa to carry him on to states where he has (so far) not been so well organised.
from the previous thread
re 132 and others. But what about Gordon, realising the way the writing’s on the wall, takes down the ceremonial sword and commits political hara-kiri? I know the man’s nature is not courageous, but you never know.
by Chris A December 17th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
re 146 stjohn -don’t despair - there’s always the number 11 bus. Certainly the genes don’t make it likely.
Bendedict, from the previous thread. IMO it’s not unity that is the problem for the PLP it is uniformity. Just as in life you need a varied gene pool to survive the odd meteorite - in politics you need a variety of talent in the govt/backbenchers to lead you out of events.
IMO one of the problems for Labour are that the generation below the pre 97 leaders Straw etc are very similar and perhaps rather dull.
33, PfP
“all those “Buy to Lettors” rushing for the exit door”
I’m wondering how much this will be exacerbated by the drop in capital gains tax in April - a perfect opportunity to get out of the market and minimize losses.
Re 47, Jonathan, “IMO one of the problems for Labour are that the generation below the pre 97 leaders Straw etc are very similar and perhaps rather dull.”
Yes, you are probably right. I think it is a fucntion of having so many identikit candidates in so many seats in the run up to 1007, so they would not scare the punters.
I do hope we don’t make the same mistake.
re 36 Yes I hope so. But you can guarantee that there will still be another Labour sheep to push it through the Commons. They will say that they listened and made up their own minds, but they will have totally ignored the advice of Falconer, Goldsmith, DPP, West etc and just voted the way the whips told them to.
41 Baskerville - I’m with you on the damp finger in the air test, always an accurate indicator! Maybe we’ll compare notes in January when the Halifax data is out.
re 50 that should read enough sheep
51. Indeed, though the best place to compare notes is on Spreadfair!
US trade deficit reduces for 2nd quarter..
http://tinyurl.com/2c5po9
Eventually the US dollar is turning as well..
48 Andy - won’t the reduction in the CGT rate from 6.4.08 tend to support the market for the remainder of this tax year?
48/55. Forgive my ignorance… but with taper relief, surely most BTL investors would only have been paying 10% CGT if they held their properties for more than two years, so the CGT change is a massive increase in tax, rather than a cut. Or am I being thick?
Re 56, Baskerville “48/55. Forgive my ignorance… but with taper relief, surely most BTL investors would only have been paying 10% CGT if they held their properties for more than two years, so the CGT change is a massive increase in tax, rather than a cut. Or am I being thick?”
The taper relief applied to the sale of businesses rather than assets. A BTL house is an asset not a bussiness, though a bussiness with a lot of housing stock would get such releif. (I think
)
55, PfP.
I’d expect that it would - so could there be a big step-change in BTL sales in April? People hanging on despite losses until the change, and then running for the cash.
49 Well you might be in that position. The A-list is a cloner’s charter, but probably worth it for the sake of avoiding the crazies. It took 97/01/05 to clear out the Tory dross. Hamilton would still be in Tatton!
57 Is right on the CGT changes. Come april i imagine a lot of the commentariat who brought their little darling’s flats for their time at uni will welcome the ’simplification’
Indeed many of the recent tax changes, so long as you aren’t an entrepreneur, have brought these sort of benefits.
Re 59, Jonathan, “49 Well you might be in that position. The A-list is a cloner’s charter, but probably worth it for the sake of avoiding the crazies.”
It may have weeded out some of the crazies, but I don’t think it is as bad as the seemingly identikit form that would concern me. (I may of course be wrong on that)
Re 60 Jim the Lurker, yes, but then who made the system stupidly complex in the first place?
56,57
If you have owned the property for more than three years you will also qualify for non-business-asset taper relief. If you sell within three years you pay tax on 100% of the gain, but this reduces by 5% a year thereafter, down to 60% after 10 years.
So those who bought before the boom will have less incentive to sell up. If you’ve bought sometime in the last 5 years or so, it will make a big difference - and those who have bought recently are the ones most likely to be overstretched on the mortgage versus the rental income.
50. possibly, but i dont think the lords will let it through. makes a change, lords defending the liberty of the many, commons reducing it!!!
62 - By “less incentive”, I meant less incentive in comparison to those who bought later - it will still be better for those who qualified for maximum taper relief (40% (rate) of 60% (tapered) is 24%)
59 Quite a lot of non-A-Listers have slipped through (something like 46% of candidates in winnable seats, IIRC from Con Home), and even the most identikit MPs can become rebellious over time - as Labour have discovered. IMO, the best candidates/MPs are those who’ve had to cope with opposition, and winning people over, rather than those who’ve been used to winning. In the case of the Conservative Party, I’d suggest that would mean the intakes of 1979 and 2005, in recent times (the 2001 intake was still largely made up of people who’d become active in politics prior to 1997).
65 - In the 2010 election (as if Macavity would possibly call it any earlier) the Parliamentary Conservative Party could almost double in size with the number of MPs. Would the 2010 intake of MPs be people used to opposition or those just used to winning?
Well done Mike, I have been pointing out for some time that the polling companies predicted the overall direction with Brown correctly. We just had to wait for the honeymoon and the climax of “Blair’s removal” for polls to return to a normal state.
On the 42 days, following that comment from Lord Falconer, this is the final final nail in the coffin.
Only a cabinet full of fools would carry on trying for 42. So, I guess they will carry on!
36 Ryans, Hell hath no fury like a pensioner scorned.
65 It would be great to see the likes of Milliband and Ball out on the stump earning their spurs and gaining political acuity in a marginal. And with that ludicrous comment you see in a nut shell the problem Labour face. They haven’t had to fight for a single electors vote.
Ah lobbocks. It looks like the real thing at the moment, as if the plates have finally shifted and the Tories will get back into power.
Well, if they haven’t really changed - and I’m not sure they have - they’ll only last one term. That’s the consolation.
I lost money on the Labour succession mainly on the basis that I DID believe those polls, and therefore, thought that any realistic challenger would be stand a good chance. That meant, so I reasoned, that they’d put themselves forward.
Having said that, those polls didn’t predict the Brown bounce. So it may be that they happened to be right, but that that was just a coincidence. We said what we thought, then we waited to see how he did, then we made up our minds, and it happened that the lead was about the same.
Obviously the news may improve significantly over the next few months, if there happen to be no major disasters for the government. And surely Labour will recover as election day approaches, as the Tories always did? Probably, I think that’ll involve the Lib dems taking about 4% off the Tories in total (whether they’re actually the same people we’d have to see.
“Well, if they haven’t really changed - and I’m not sure they have - they’ll only last one term. That’s the consolation.”
Care to elaborate?
43. Gareth - “Dour, Scottish, money-grubber”
Mmmmmm….. those “winning qualities” do not seem to be of much utility to Brown in Scotland either at the moment. Remember, not all Scottish politicians in London are ‘winners’ back home. Some are monumentally big losers:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/10/15/bell512.jpg
O/T a bit frustrating about the Lib Dem leadership betting- the initial odds all pointed to a Clegg landslide, and did not reflect the likely close nature of the contest. In the past few days almost every commentator seems to have remarked how close the contest is set to be! Any initial rumours on the gap?
So a review of Re-Launch Week before Christmas - on Today Peter Hain announces that the Government will after 5 years agree to recompense pensioners after UK, European Courts and Ombudsman all say they should; but Good News anyway.
So what’s the bad news that someone might want buried?
Loss of motorists’ personal details - Ruth Kelly to make statement
Child Benefit discs that went missing in October - MPs on the public accounts committee grill David Hartnett, acting chairman of HMRC, and Nick Lodge, HMRC’s director of data security: Alistair Darling a Commons statement on the interim review by PricewaterhouseCoopers chairman Kieran Poynter
Sir Michael Pitt’s report on July Floods - media interest re-awakened and lots of people in Hull & Gloucester still in difficulty
Then of course Gordon reports on his coffee break in Lisbon and flying visit to Brussels..
69. That’s what Labour thought in 1979 too ahhahahaha
“China’s economy is 40% smaller than previously thought” - World Bank???
Well, if they haven’t really changed - and I’m not sure they have - they’ll only last one term. That’s the consolation. ”
You may be disappointed in this.
76 Has someone nicked it or are there a lot of Yuan behind the sofa cushions?
Good to see the UK go up one place in GDP table!
22 – Trust me, the early states pretty much decide every thing.
The candidate that wins Iowa is then likely to win New Hampshire and by the same logic South Carolina, by then we’ll have had three weeks a media narrative focusing on candidate X is winning, candidate Y is losing (the margin could well be unimportant).
Following that it’s a very long way back for any candidate be they Clinton or Obama. Important as the “big states” are in terms of the number of delegates they award to the convention, it would be very difficult (if not impossible) for a candidate to try and rally in those states having been beat elsewhere, as the races in those states will be defined to an enormous extent by the outcome of the early primary contests.
Clinton has the resources and establishment support to make a fist of reviving her campaign in these states should she lose out in the early states – but her chances of successfully arresting any Obama “break out” following Iowa would be slim at best. Also I’d suggest that Edmud (35) was right, Obama’s operation outside of the early primary states is on a par with that of Clinton (both having similar resources and success in fundraising – no mean feat for Obama!) so I doubt that Clinton has very much of structural advantage in any of these states that could trump Obama (if he were in a winning position – if not its academic).
If we’re into February and Obama has won in IA, NV, NH and SC then he’ll be polling ahead of Clinton in all the “big states” (just as Kerry trumped Dean and Edwards in the polling in those states following IA in ’04).
79-Agree with you again…
Re. 77, yes, almost certainly. Quite apart from the mess Labour would/will be in after even a narrow defeat, the period 64-79 (when there was the equivalent of a change of government every three and a half years) was an exception to the general trend in British political history, that of long periods of rule for one party (often of a decade or more).
I say quite apart - if Labour loses next time, it will have a depleted grassroots base (or even more depleted than it is already), very little (if any) representation in the South outside London, and probably the usual squabbling in which Labour indulges after GE defeats (though possibly not as bad as the squabbling, and leftward lurches, which followed defeat in 1931, 1970, or 1979).
A lot of Labour MPs seem to be doing their Xmas shopping today, to judge from their attendance at the PM’s statement
Re. 65, and the 01 intake, I’ve read a few times that many Tories regard that intake as one of the least distinguished for many years.
80 - Always good to hear.
Off Topic but refers back to one of yesterdays threads. Apologies if this has already been discussed.
I’ve just read this Independent article about the Libdems rejecting David Cameron’s offer to work together on localism.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3258015.ece
Most of the Libdem rebukes are rather farcical, having little to do with the topic David Cameron focussed upon but what particularly amused me were the comments attributed to Charles Kennedy
The former leader, Charles Kennedy, also dismissed the idea, citing Tory hostility to closer ties with the EU. He said: “I don’t somehow see the basis of a great progressive consensus.”
So the EU is an example of good ‘localism’ is it?
I think Clegg and Huhne really seriously need to question whether Kennedy is up to a front bench job (foreign affairs - god forbid!). Is he on the sauce again?
Or should we infer that the Libdems commitment to localism is really just smoke and mirrors and that the Libdems are just ‘Labour-Lite’ - and equally as centralist, statist, authoritarian and anti-democratic as their masters in the Labour Government?
81 I think one could really regard the period 1964-79 as one of (weak) Labour rule, given that Heath’s government was one of short duration - and was pretty unsuccessful.
Re: 77 & 83: As an LD, I think this is hugely significant. There seems a view in Conservative circles that, once elected, a Cameron Government looks to be in for at least two terms (let’s say 2018).
From the experience of the 1970 and 1979 Conservative Governments, that’s far from certain. Both were in serious trouble within two years (1972 & 1981) and both took some heavy mid-term defeats. The former never recovered while the latter, aided by the Falklands Conflict and the disintegration of Labour, went on to govern for a generation.
So much depends on the “scale” of the defeat. I could imagine a scenario where, had the Tories win 265 MPs instead of 165 in 1997, Ken Clarke might well have been the leader and it’s entirely likely history would have taken a different turn.
In 1983, the scale of the disaster meant there was no one from the “old” Labour establishment left to challenge Kinnock, who had been regarded as being on the far-left in the Callaghan era.
So we had one Opposition which fractured (1979) and another which was reduced to a rump (1997) so that’s hardly typical. I can’t see Labour getting below 250 seats next time so the next leader will have a base to build on and that will increase as the Conservatives (inevitably) start losing Councillors. This argument of a declining base is valid up to a point but we’ve seen the Conservative base rebuild from the depths of the mid-90s and there’s no reason to suppose the Labour and LD bases won’t recover when (as will happen) people become disenchanted with Cameron.
The question is how Cameron will react when the councils and councillors start being lost and the poll ratings put the Tories below 30% - no reason why this wouldn’t happen.
85. Sunday Times was not very subtle in suggesting Kennedy was still on the sauce - would seem madness to push him back to the fore - accident waiting to happen ?
What is it that people find so hard in admitting that they look at the opinion polls?
“Most opinion surveys in key states show Obama rising, and Clinton sliding, suggesting the first-term Illinois senator may be peaking at the right time.
“I really don’t pay a lot of attention to that. I have a much longer view about this campaign,” Clinton said.”
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ia68eubnhzRhqJHZf-hjZA-1fqcQ
Comparing Dean to Clinton is futile - aside from their obvious personal differences, you’re comparing a massive lead with a minimal one. Dean was barely above 20% nationally at this point in 2003, lower than Obama now, and well under half what Clinton is polling. When he suffered a reverse in Iowa there was nowhere to go.
Incidentally, when Clinton was included in the 2003 polls, she got 40+%, while Dean plummeted to barely being in double digits. That’s how weak his support was - a fragile bubble just waiting to collapse.
There seems to be a presumption that administrations become unpopular shortly after they are elected. I’m not convinced. (E.g. Reagan was more popular when he retired than when he was elected.)
It all depends on whether the administration ossifies. If it can “renew” itself, with new policies and/or personalities, that are in tune with the changing times, then the unpopularity can be neutered. After all, this was Brown’s plan.
I know that it may sound depressing for Labour activists, but if Cameron knows when to step down, there’s no reason why the Tories shouldn’t stay in office as long as New Labour has. After all, it worked for the Tories in 1992.
re 73 someone in the Electoral Reform Society must know the result by now so why haven’t Betfair closed the market?
87 - “no reason why this wouldn’t happen” - how about after two n a half years of the last 6 months results in Labour being outcast for a generation in a similar position as the tories were in in 1997? Resulting in 2014 being somewhat of a foregone conclusion, with a labour recovery, making 2018 competitive again! If your already hoping for tory poll ratings below 30% you’ll be waiting rather a long time my dear!
18 Mark Senior.Comparing GB with Thatcher in mid-term makes no sense. Even those who loathed her accepted her courage, her determination and decisiveness, so that when it came to voting, she held her ground.Which of these qualities apply to GB?Read what Michael Foot said in the Commons after Falklands,or the interplay with Skinner on her retirement. As I recall even Roger had a good word to sayabout her in an earlier thread- you cant get better evidence than that. If GB retired, the Commons would stand up and cheer.
Re: 91 - Fair points and of course the Labour Government would probably have got an even bigger majority had it gone to the country in 1999 or early 2000.
Re; 93 - Pudsey, you simply don’t know what is going to happen between now and the summer of 2010 and neither do I. To assume it will be like the last six months (you mean huge electoral volatility, I presume :)) is incredibly naive.
Even if 2010 produces a clear Conservative majority (far from certain), Labour won’t slump to the 1997, 2001 or even 2005 Tory numbers. My prediction on the poll ratings is based on what I think will happen in the first 12-24 months of a Cameron Government. I suspect the public finances will be found to be in a disastrous state and the resultant spending cuts will provoke public dissatisfaction especially if the entire economy is weak. The Tories will see they are clearing up Labour’s mess but will anyone listen ? There’s also this thing called “luck”. Cameron has it now, Brown used to have it. Who knows what events might conspire to afflict the opening couple of years of a Cameron Government ?
A below 30% Conservative polling by the time the London Olympics opens with Cameron being booed at the opening ceremony ? Who knows ?
92. Maybe they have forgotten the contest is taking place at all.
85. “Or should we infer that the Libdems commitment to localism is really just smoke and mirrors and that the Libdems are just ‘Labour-Lite’ - and equally as centralist, statist, authoritarian and anti-democratic as their masters in the Labour Government?”
I’m sorry but even those that really hate the LDs can not possibly think this. Four things they definitely are not are:
Centralist
Statist
Authoritarian
Anti-Democratic
Every one of these descriptions is the exact opposite of what LDs believe in.
Re: 97 - Indeed, and one of the problems I have, as an LD, with Cameron’s weasel words is that I have still to see anything approaching a policy commitment to genuine devolution and a substantial repatriation of powers from Whitehall and Westminster to directly-elected and locally accountable Councils.
Even the “co-operative schools” initiative read to me like a plan to have Tory activists running school governing bodies.
It’s bad enough the Tories don’t trust their own Councillors and Councils but it seems they don’t inherently trust any of us
95 If the public finances were disastrous at the time of the next election, then (assuming the Conservatives won it) I think the electorate would blame Labour, at least for a few years.
97 so why support a treaty than further centralises power in Europe, with likelihood on past record that it will further statist solutions to problems? Against the LD manifesto it suggests that this is done without referring to the voters - surely a referendum is the localist & democratic ideal?
Then a senior LD Peer, Lord Carlile, suggests that for Teror trials the UK adopt the Napoleonic method of investgating magistrates rather than the UK one of sep[aration of policing and justice? Pretty authoritarian.
” I know Brown going before the next election is very speculative. But if he did what would happen to Labour’s General Election prospects and price? Depending on who succeeded him, presumably Labour would shorten? ”
The pressure to call a GE would be huge. The public didn’t like Brown becoming PM unelected without a contest. They would like a replacement even less…
98. I know I’m a Tory, but it amazes me that LDs appear so dismissive, even angry about Cameron’s overtures on ‘localism’. Why not take him at his word and discuss it? Why not press for policy commitments? Why not investigate? If he’s a charlatan, you can expose him, can’t you?
Or is it that your basic instincts are more anti-Tory than pro-localism; anti-Toff more than pro-liberty.
95: A Labour version of the Tory 1997 slump could happen if they make themselves unpopular enough. What might make it more likely is that voters might feel they have to counter the electoral bias against the Tories.
Those pondering bets on xmas number one and the X Factor voting might want to read this:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7147931.stm
Ruth Kelly “in the interests of greater transparency” blames a “private agency” has lost the records of three million drivers taking the driving tests - personal data but excluding key personal data.
A good day to bury bad news. Sky report that Government review slates organisation and leadership at Treasury and Inland Revenue.
95 - I know I can’t predict the future, hence the ‘how about’ start to my post, i was merely offering an alternative to your rather absurd statement that theres no reason why cameron won’t be polling below 30%.
Your predictions carry no more weight or likelyhood then the option that i put forward and some of the sweeping statements and predictios you make regarding luck and the london olympics, im hoping are made in jest as they are frankly ridiculous.
Your obvious hatred for cameron appears to be clouding the vision appearing in your crystal ball! Probably because he has taken a large chunk of LD support over the past two years!
To be honest i still think labour have a chance at the next GE without Gordy, although the chances of that are slim to - none! Can’t beleive so many MP’s and Labour activists walked into this minefield in such a blinkered fashion! Only have themselves to blame for once though!
Re: 102 - I think if you actually read what I said, Baskerville, instead of coming up with the usual knee-jerk Tory response, you would have seen that my problem with Cameron’s statement is precisely that it is not backed by significant policy commitments. It is all too reminscent of the Blair language of the mid-90s. We shouldn’t have been taken in by Blair, I suspect that informs our more cautious view regarding Cameron’s “offer”.
Re: 107 - Indeed and the fact we agree that neither of us has a monopoly on foresight is a start. You may be right, I may be right, the odds-on shot is that we are BOTH wrong, time will tell.
I don’t “hate” Cameron. He may be a fine political leader but I’ve yet to see much evidence of this. His speeches are low on substance and high on nice-sounding platitudes. We had a decade of that with Tony Blair, I’d hoped we moved on a wee bit.
O/T, but I see that Bill Binding, formerly Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan in the UK, died a short while ago.
Re 109, Sean fear “O/T, but I see that Bill Binding, formerly Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan in the UK, died a short while ago.”
Really? I am sure he will be missed, but by whom I know not.
108 - “His speeches are low on substance and high on nice-sounding platitudes.”
This oft-given argument annoys me - Cameron has plenty of policies, and you can bet your house he’s got some trump cards up his sleeve, which he will reserve for the election campaign. Why show his hand now so that Gord can nick all the best bits, put them through the mill, water them down and pretend they’re his own?
108. What you ‘actually said’, Stodge, was “Cameron’s weasel words”. I think it reasonable to take this as a dismissive, negative response to his proposal. Your party will continue to flat-line if it fails to take up such overtures. Yes, you made a mistake with Blair in the 90s, but why can’t you learn from that mistake and be more demanding/critical with Cameron, rather than flouncing?
Are we in 1991 or 1996 time?
At end of 1991 Labour only had 814 more Councillors than Labour. It went on to lose the GE1992. To unseat a Govt appears to require several thousand more councillors.
At the end of 1996 Labour had 6,653 more councillors than Labour, it won GE1997 on a landslide.
At end of 2007 Labour will have almost 4,000 fewer councillors than the Conservatives.
Based on present trends, Labour look like entering GE2010 with between 5,000 and 6,000 fewer councillors than the Conservatives.
PS at GE1979 Conservatives also had 6,000 more councillors than Labour.
Re: 111 - I’ve heard this response from Tory activists before, John, and I’m not impressed. On the one hand, you say Cameron doesn’t want to give away detailed policies - the problem with that is those of us who want to know what kind of Government we might expect from the Conservatives and want to ask valid questions are unable to do so.
The second point is that when Cameron starts banging the drum for his “progressive alliance” and LDs like me start questionning his commitment to localism (not surprising given the past Tory record) we are rounded on by Tories like jsfl at 85 for not giving poor “Dave” a chance.
Re: 112 - Baskerville, perhaps my use of “weasel words” was inappropriate but I simply do not trust Cameron on this. I want him to offer one radical and genuine policy commitment which would significantly devolve power from Westminster to local councils.
I’m still waiting
apologies if someone has posted this before but here is todays’ Nulab disaster
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7147715.stm
116
A disaster a day
keeps the voters at bay.
116 - bye bye ID cards. Michael Howard must be gutted.
117
It defies belief , after all that has happened. its just plain incompetence. The form of words about whether it was encrypted or not is Nulab spin of the worst kind. I read it as unencrypted. Techons might understand better than I.
108,Stodge you are write to be careful of Cameron, the Conservatives if the polls are correct don`t need you and would shaft the Lib Dems unless there was hung parliament.
Then hopefully full PR could be extracted but I doubt it.
Blair I believe might have moved your way, but the win was too big and the wider Labour party would not go for fundemental change.
Nevertheless the history book will judge that it was a reforming government on constitutional change, in that it went to PR in European elections and carried forward devolved administrations in the rest of the UK, so all parties including the Conservatives were represented even after 97.
Conservative governments once in power arent pre-disposed to referendums, constitutional change, or PR for fairer representation at any level.
100 - “Then a senior LD Peer, Lord Carlile, suggests that for Teror trials the UK adopt the Napoleonic method of investgating magistrates rather than the UK one of sep[aration of policing and justice? Pretty authoritarian. ”
Carlile’s views are not party policy. I am sure that most parties would strip a maverick like him of the whip; but the LDs are not so authoritarian as to do that.
121. Well if the Lib Dems started stripping ‘mavericks’ of the whip, they would be back to the proverbial taxi-load of MPs pretty quickly, wouldn’t they?
Re 117, Madasafish, Such a good headline, I have used it as the title to my latest blog article
123 - Benedict, what is a blog? Do you know of a good example I could look at? Do you even have your own?
Re: 124 - No, I don’t think he has a blog. He’s never mentioned it.
124
Right click on his Name
117
There is a small charge for use as it is copyright. About £0.10 per viewer.
120
“Conservative governments once in power arent pre-disposed to referendums, …”
Hmm.. Labour Governments promise them… and lie.
You have a choice: honesty or lies.
But then I forget , the LibDems promised one as well and reneged on it.
All this high flown rhetoric criticisng others when you cannot keep your own promises. The LibDems make Labour look - well I was going to say honest - less hypocritical than the LibDems lecturing us on democracy and localisation… but when push comes to shove - it’s just bovine excrement.
97.
“equally as centralist, statist, authoritarian and anti-democratic as”. . . .
the Conservatives who believe it is their divine right to rule?
37.
“Putin agrees to become Prime Minister after the Presidential elections in Russia.”
aha, but Prime Minister of where exactly? Be afraid. . . (he makes Cameron or even Musharraf seem a relatively good deal)
37.
“Putin agrees to become Prime Minister after the Presidential elections in Russia.”
aha, but Prime Minister of where exactly? Be afraid. . . (he makes Cameron or even Musharraf seem a relatively good deal)
O/T-”Will Mervyn go?”
http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/2007/12/will-mervyn-go.html
126 Honesty or lies how very simplistic .
A bit like been in opposition.
87 Stodge In 1983, the scale of the disaster meant there was no one from the “old” Labour establishment left to challenge Kinnock, who had been regarded as being on the far-left in the Callaghan era.
I’m confused. Roy Hattersley challenged Kinnock for the leadership didn’t he ?
Other than Tony Benn, which other leading Labour figures lost their seats in the 1983 General Election ?
120 - we’ve been through this one to the death. I was actually against the idea of a referendum in the first place.
The argument that the treaty is 98% the same as a constitution is fatuous. I am 98% the same as a chimp genetically, but the 2% difference is vital.
Even if I accept your argument about the constitution, it would be Labour reneging on a referendum. The LDs could be accused of changing tact, but the gift of a referendum is not in their power, as they are not actually in government. So the LDs have not reneged.
Blair promised a referendum on electoral reform. I am not aware that Labour has even tried to spin their way of out this promise. They lied on this matter.
Time for a vote of censure methinks.
Mike Smithson is ‘certain’ of a TORY victory if GB is Leader in 2010 or whenever.
This statement is really bugging me because I am currently asking for 2.26 LAB and offering 1.8 TORY and can’t get matched.
Like I say and I have said it a hundred times……’words are inadequate tools to express mathematical concepts’.
All the while on Spreadfair there is £400 looking to BUY Labour Seats at 270.
By the way,congratulations Mike on becoming a grandfather and on running the most focussed forum on th’internet.
129 - who would you rather have as Russian PM? A Communist? A Liberal Democrat (they are authoritarian in Russia)? A member of Kasparov’s coalition of friends (supported by some Chechen terrorists, and the National Bolsheviks)?
Liberals don’t exist these days in Russia. They are pretty much despised after the Yeltsin years. There are many worse than Putin.
re 166 I see that they’re losing our data all over the world now. Organized crime worldwide must be salivating at the rich pickings to come from the ID card database of this bunch of incompetents.
re 126 don’t forget that Labour promised us a referendum on electoral reform as well. Another lie.
re 130 Where’s Mervyn been referring to GB as a dithering depressive then?
No sign on Betfair of any “unusual betting patterns” on the LibDem leadership contest. Trading remains light with Clegg still at 1-6. This must be the exception that proves the rule that “someone always knows and someone always tells”!
What is often forgotten when talking about the Blair/Brown pact in 1994 is that at the time Gordon Brown was arguably the most unpopular Labour politician in the country.
re 104 I’ve been tempted to have a lay. Seems a small risk for a potentially healthy return.
Re 124, SBS “123 - Benedict, what is a blog? Do you know of a good example I could look at? Do you even have your own?”
As it happens i do have an example of one here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
134,
If it is certain that there will be a Conservative victory in 2010, why are the bookies still showing Labour at 11/10 nearly even money.
I think the conservatives will win, however before the last few elections I am sure the cons