So what does it mean for the big battle?
December 18th, 2007
Who’ll be most relieved that it’s Nick?
Wow - what a close margin? Who could have predicted that?
Only five weeks ago I entered into a wager with Observer for £500 at even money that Huhne would get more than the 42% that he achieved in 2006. Well that bet is won. (Observer - I do appreciate that we need to find a way for you to pay me without you revealing your identity).
Even when I entered into that bet I did not envisage that the outcome was going to be that close. I thought that it would be closer to the YouGov 56-44% poll of a fortnight ago.
But what does this mean now for the big fight between Gord and Dave? On the face of it the Tories, who have taken maybe a quarter of the support that the Lib Dems got in 2005, could be most at risk.
But Labour is the party that is finding it hard to hold onto its share at the moment and might be most vulnerable.
The nightmare for the Lib Dems, of course, is that it doesn’t make much difference.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
As advertisement for Clegg’s team up and running already.
Good stuff.
Go on Kingbongo, you know you want to.
Congratulations to Jennie.
Reposted from old thread…:
Fantastic result - for Tories and Labour!
Lib Dems elect a lightweight non-entity, but 50% of the party wanted someone else!
Split asunder, right down the middle.
Is this the end for the Liberals?
Oh dear, I’ll stop laughing shortly….
It’s hard to think of a worse result for the Lib Dems. A favourite who has an unconvincing campaign and who wins by a whisker from a candidate who has been more energetic and more visible, taking over from an unexpectedly successful stopgap leader. No momentum, no clear direction, no enthusiasm. For the Lib Dems’ sake, I hope that Nick Clegg realises just how serious the dangers are for them.
What was the full turnout (inclusing spoilt papers etc.?), was he actually elected on less than 50% of votes?
Nobody, I don’t believe this guy can really haul the LD’s back to their poll heydays over the short term as the prevailing political wind is against them right now, despite the possibility of a new leader boost.
Turnout is down. Huhne will have to be given a top job due to that small margin. Wonder how the spreads will react.
5 - he must have been.
At least ONE of the three main party leaders can claim a mandate from his own party!
I wonder how many spoilt ballot papers there were.
A bad result for the Libs. Clegg loses momentum and scrapes in by a whisker. (Clegg will always know that Huhne should have won this and would in any other system). Clegg already handicapped by close result and following Ming. Plus it’s Xmas so who really cares.
but yes, he shouldn’t have much trouble outperforming my expectations, which are pretty low.
Very good result for Huhne.
If only he hadn’t done “Calamity Clegg” eh? I’m too biassed to be fair- what did people think of Cleggs acceptence speech (I found the first few minutes good, but after that is dissappeared into a bog of soggy platitudes)
6 - I do think they will finally attempt to rectify that in a year’s time when Cleggy is knifed and Charlie makes his comeback to popular claim.
Well, I wonder if we can get Betfair to stick up a new market straight away
BTW, Ralph thanks for the numbers.
Has Kennedy been on the sauce?
Join Nick Clegg’s team for nine pounds a year?
Blimey, when Labour do cash-for-access at least they get a million quid out of it
Huhne must be gutted.
There’s nothing worse that not be elected by just a few votes.
It leaves you with so many “if onlys……”
Against Incapability Brown and Calamity Clegg, I would think Cameron will have no difficulty dominating PMQ.
Reposted from the last thread
Sorry it’s O/T and has nothing to do with Clegg, but it’s important:
“Conservatives admit to receiving illegal donations”
David Cameron’s constituency party has admitted receiving £7,400 in invalid donations, it was revealed today.”
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,2229373,00.html
15 Test, its a £9 min and £45 recommended payment!
Clegg: good choice IMO. I wouldn’t like to predict the impact, but a pleasant manner goes a long way these days, and Huhne doesn’t really have it…
I wish it had been a clear majority, at least you know where you stand then. Clegg’s speech was vacuous but that’s only to be expected in any victory speech.
Given that Gordo wasn’t even elected and the headbangers on ConsHome continue to rile against centrist Dave (albeit more vocally when the polls are not so favourable), some of the comments above are rather strange.
Surprised it was so close. Huhne fought the better campaign, but as I said the day Ming resigned, it was Clegg’s to lose, and his approachability is a vital asset we need to make the most of. Congratulations to him and I look forward with real confidence to his leadership.
18 If the facts reported are correct, this hardly looks “important”.
14 i thought exacly the same
Well- Congratulations to Nick Clegg. I voted for Huhne, but am happy to accept the skills claimed for Clegg as a solid and often charismatic leader. In some senses I think the closness of the result reflects not so much a verdict on Nick Clegg, but a lack of confidence in the party grandees who made him their candidate- as they did with Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell. I think that Clegg now has a free hand to ignore the grandees, reach out to the former Huhne-ites and continue the recovery that began under Vince Cable.
Huhne as Shadow Chancellor might be a bit more imaginative than keeping him at Environment.
18. Not really in David Abrahams league is it. And it’s been resolved and the money forfeited. Won’t even register. Good day to bury it.
Looks like Dave’s luck shows no sign of running out
17. What does that actually mean? You think that the “Calamity Clegg” document means he can’t deal with PMQs? Maybe the Current Bun has some vacancies for sub-eds.
An excellent result for the LibDems and the country as a whole and I actually voted for the winner . huhne was the finished article , Clegg is not but he has the potential to develop and grow into a great leader who can show up Cameron for the vacuosness and lack of policies that is the Conservative party today .
I can’t see a narrow victory being a problem, per se, unless Clegg and Huhne are at daggers drawn.
26 - Cable at home office would be interesting given that it’s where a lot of government disasters are emanating.
I wonder what the odds are for the next main party to hold a leadership contest.
I think I just heard on Sky that the turnout was 64%.
Yes, Clegg has to give Huhne a top job, but he’d be foolish to replace Vince Cable as Shadow Chancellor.
Re. the close margin, one of the things held against Charles Kennedy through his leadership was that he only just beat Simon Hughes in 99. Maybe Clegg’s narrow margin (500 or so votes, which wouldn’t be all that much in a Westminster constituency election) will mean that he, like Kennedy, will have his leadership dogged by accusations (fair or unfair) of a lack of vigour.
30 Mark Senior dos his usual party piece on here with an attack on the Conservatives at the end. Talk about living in the past. Mark, the Govt is not the Conservatives anymore!
33 - maybe
Lib Dems 1/2
Tories 6/4
Labour 50/1 (haven’t had one since 1994)
30: More objective stuff from the Ave it of the LibDems
So Huhne’s 568 wafer thin majority in Eastleigh is now greater than Clogg’s 511 vote margin for the leadership, from a similar sized electorate.
Not exactly convincing, is it?
36. That 50/1 looks tempting. Are you open for business Aaron?
35 HF - The government is not the Conservatives anymore and electing Clegg as leader makes it much more likely that they will not be the government after the next General Election .
39 - not at those tongue-in-cheek prices
37. Whereas comments from “Bob Sykes”, Test, Woody, “Sveik” (et cetera) have been notable objective.
*notably
Very low turnout for a leadership election…..less than two-thirds voting. Clegg’s winning number of votes way less than Huhne polled in losing in 2006.
Gracious losing speech by Huhne…..As a Lib Dem I hope the party has made the right choice but I just don’t see it myself…..but fingers crossed.
Tories out in force here, trying to rubbish the result. Only to be expected, of course.
This comes hard on the heels of Cameron’s attempts to seduce Lib Dems into his tent.
Nick Palmer gives Cameron a master class of how it should be done….. (if he wanted to, of course).
39 - seriously, I think it would be something like
Labour 4/6
Tories 2/1
Lib Dems 9/2
42: any objective observer would be forced to conclude this is the wort possible result for the LibDems. Sorry,to be fair a write in Cable victory would have been worse
His Eminence @ 37
If I was “Ave It” I would sue you for that comment!
looking forward to Clegg showing up “Cameron’s Progressives”…
Hmmm, after bemoaning the lack of work I’d managed by spending too time much on here today, I for one welcome the avalanche of tiresome partisanship that is suddenly making a colossal pile of untouched paperwork look positively enticing.
48: true apologies
20 I agree with Nick Palmer — I think Huhne (despite being quick-witted and clever) would have been a worse choice than Clegg for precisely the reason Nick says.
The best solution would have been to keep Charles Kennedy as a figurehead (Chief Executive), and to have someone like Vince Cable (Managing Director) organizing, developing and implementing the strategic plan.
Whatever Kennedy’s drawbacks, his public image was very attractive — it was warm, charming and graceful. It should have been capitalized upon, not wantonly destroyed.
The assumption that a new lib dem leader will somehow unsettle Cameron is odd. A few months ago he was close to being usurped by an unhappy tory party as they faced another election defeat, now as they surge ahead in the polls and finally look electable the fact that Clegg may try and attack him won’t worry him a bit. He knows what it’s like to be very close to the edge, and the lib dems don’t stand a chance of bringing him that close again, so he can just press on with what he is doing.
13: Your welcome.
18: What made the donorgate story was that senior Labour Party figures knew illegal donations were happening and at best did nothing. At present this story seems to have no legs.
40: I disagree Mark. Unless there is a major change in opinion it is Labour, not the Tories that the Lib Dems could win seats off. Clegg still seems to think it’s 1997.
What a crying pity it wasn’t Huhne.
I think, once again, the Lib Dems have shot themselves in the foot. They seem to be developing a pechant for it.
They’ve arrived on the “heir to Blair” route two years too late: Cameron has been there, done that and has cemented that position for himself. At the next election, many marginal constituency voters will have the option of voting for:
a) A Blair Clone who waffles on about liberalism, opportunity and giving power to people, but the most likely to gain a plurality in the Commons
b) A Blair Clone who waffles on about liberalism, opportunity and giving power to people, but stands no chance of beating Labour.
If people want to rid themselves of the tired Labour government, pray tell which Blair clone would you vote for? At least Huhne offered something different in terms of approach and presentation.
(Oh, plus, it’s a minor point, but someone *must* tell Clegg not to refer to the Lib Dems as “his” party. He was prattling on ‘my party’ this and ‘my party’ that. ‘Our party’ is much more inclusive and less likely to rattle people).
[53] Actually I think that you contradict yourself in your posting- the fact is that politics is extremely febrile right now and it could therefore even be that Cameron is back in the clarts before the next election.
Agree with Cicero that there is an element of rebellion against the party grandees here.
The most significant decision for Clegg will be what to do with Kennedy - no one will notice what he does with Ming, but if CK is ready for a comeback, it will grab some narrative. Is Shadow Home Sec too far? Othewise Huhne/Featherstone/Goldsworthy.
And againi congratulations to Clegg, as long as Huhne doesn’t kick up a fuss about the result, the low proportion won’t affect him. He would be right to be concerned about the low turnout however.
“Huhne as Shadow Chancellor might be a bit more imaginative than keeping him at Environment.”
Er, I think George Osborne might have something to say about that!
I think you mean “Treasury Spokesman”.
11 Speech far too long….waffle again.
Wll done LibDems. My faith in you as a party is undiminished.
I see the BBC Home Page - for reasons unclear - has a big picture of a Grinning Lembit and a pair of Cheeky Girls splashed across it.
Wonderful timing, BBC!
It’s clear Cable will keep the Treasury brief.
Huhne will have to be promoted now. One of the Great Office briefs certainly. Home Affairs looks the most promising as it’s just been vacated. Charlie for Foreign Affairs if he wants to make a comeback?
Ok, money where your mouth time is for Lib dem, what’s an acceptable poll rating in say 6 months for the Lib Dems for Clegg to be seen as a success?
John Rentoul’s verdict in the Independent
Nick Clegg, the wrong choice for possibly decent reasons. Half the Liberal Democrat members were obviously not going to be swayed by considerations as grubby as mere campaigning. Chris Huhne, whose policies I find less appealing, ran a much sharper and more effective campaign. We have no idea whether Clegg really was 12 percentage points ahead at the end of November, as YouGov suggested. But if he was, the Huhne insurgency very nearly pulled it off. Huhne was more aggressive in pursuing Labour on the secret funding issue, and he was more aggressive in opposing Trident - the party is now led by someone whose position is shrouded in fog and mired in fudge.
Just as they got it wrong electing Sir Menzies last time, Lib Dems decided to vote for the nice guy, not the street fighter.
The speeches delivered at the announcement of the election result this afternoon were a good guide. Vince Cable was best. He made a small slip at the start, welcoming past leaders “Paddy, Charles and Menzies”. Someone shouted out that David Steel was also in the audience. “And David Steel - that was before the merger,” he said, recovering well. Huhne was simple and gracious. For a man who had come within 511 votes, 1.2 per cent, of winning, he hid his disappointment well. And Clegg was completely vacuous. His election was a fresh start, he said. Which new leader does not think that - they have to prove it. He was elected to change Britain, apparently. And he’s a liberal. Blimey.
Mmmmmm…is Clegg going to be greeted with a baptism of fire by the media?
63
10%
56. He could be, however the chances are remote. He’s been through a very bad patch, come out the other side more experienced and wiser for it. He knows how to deal with serious problems, both from within his party and from other sources. The chances of him being unsettled by Brown at this point are unlikely, as Brown himself has lost all credibility. The chances of Clegg doing it are…..remote at best, for he lacks any name recognition or experience (something Cameron has had to learn the hard way but has done).
61 Yes, it really turned my stomach.
Lembit has his usual wonky, lecherous grin, and the Cheeky Girls look mercenary and ugly.
I hope the photo is splashed all over Montgomeryshire by Lembit’s opponents.
1 Thanks for the invite! However, much as Clegg might be a good Liberal his party is peculiarly unattractive to me and I would rather eat my wn spleen than ever vote LD.
party rankings really go
1 tory philosophy of the individual over the State and the Nation over the Superstate
2 Labour social events - usually the most fun
3 LD old ladies - always barking mad in woolly hats and Kaftans with no clue about the world and its workings but a quaint view that if only more people were hippies the world would be a better place - always very pleasant when handing out scones and tea
I wish Nick Clegg the best of luck and hope he is able to get his activists to recognise that to be Liberal is not to be a fan of the Labour party - the statist authoritarians de nos jours.
An excellent result in my opinion. The small margin of victory isn’t a problem. A thumping majority might have imbued us with complacency and a false sense of unity. As it stands, Nick and his like-minded Liberal Democrats must employ all their intellectual vigour to win over the doubters in the party. This won’t be easy and there may be some fraught days ahead, but I think the revolution that will take place over the coming weeks and months will be salutary to an enormous degree.
Where does this leave the other parties? I predict a pronounced shift to the left by Labour and with it the cementing of their unelectability under Gordon Brown. Cameron’s vacuity will become increasingly apparent. His survival under such scrutiny is in no way assured.
So in conclusion: remember this day. British politics has change irrevocably, and the change will prove a splendid one.
(Blast! Added to wrong thread, originally. )
Be nice to LibDems Day.
So Clegg has defeated Chris Huhne
And Tories think this is a boon
but beware a surprise
as the poll figures rise
So don’t count your chickens too soon
64. The thing is that for all it’s impassioned delivery (that didn’t work well in a small hotel room), the speech out-Cameroned Cameron. We got:
“I want to change my party”
“I want to give more power to people to run schools/hospitals”
“I want to restore faith and trust in politics”
“People are growing tired of top down government.”
It could have come straight from CCHQ. The Tories must be delighted that the third party have become a mere shadow of the main opposition.
Another lesson from this leadership campaign: assertion of an alleged quality is all that is required, even in the face of lack of evidence.
Just as long as the assertion is repeated endlessly, preferably by the media, it doesn’t matter. People will soon believe it, and cast their vote in accordance with it.
69: A spoof, surely?
9,860 fewer votes than in the 2006 contest which is a drop of 19%.
Lib Dem membership down to 64,700 which is just under 100 members per seat in a 650 HoC. That said we should expect Lib Dems to outman Labour in Lib/Lab battlegrounds as Labours decline has been more rapid.
LD Membership declined by 6% in 12 months. (Lab by 8%). Turnout of 64% this time compared to 72% last time. For LDs a declining membership and a declining turnout is not a good sign of party morale.
Historical footnote, Simon Hughes promised to double the party’s membership when he became its President. It has actually almost halved. Must rank as one of the worst election promises.
Huhne looks to have run a better campaign and have a better Get Out The Vote operation.
OK - how about Laws to Shadow Chancellor (sorry Bob, I do realise there is something shadowy about Ozborne, but I don’t see why the Tories have the monopoly on the word Shadow), Cable to Home… will Mike (never on TV) Moore stay at foreign affairs, or will CK be in line for a comeback.
and who is for the chop? I would say Mr Opik and Mr Foster.
Bring Jeremy Browne to the front bench.
57. I think Kennedy has ruled himself out of a serious front bench return because of his international commitments. He is doing something EU related as far as I remember. And as for Shadow Home Sec: Huhne.
63. I’m not a Lib Dem, but I think Clegg needs to be polling in the 20s if he’s to be seen as somewhat of a success.
I’m still sticking with my GE prediction of 45-50 Lib Dem seats. Not meltdown, but a bit setback.
Not all of us who think that this is a terrible result for the Lib Dems are gloating Tories. I remain a floating voter, and may yet vote Lib Dem at the next election (albeit tactically, and albeit that for me they are a joke party).
This from the Spectator Coffeehouse blog takes a very similar line to the one that Lib Dems seem to think is just a wind-up by highly partisan Tories:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/409416/the-challenge-for-clegg.thtml
Of course, the Spectator is stuffed full of partisan Tories, so those that do not want to believe this analysis will disregard it, but it does suggest that it isn’t just the headbangers who hold this opinion.
75 the term Shadow has an official status, just like HM’s Loyal Opposition.
I suppose your guys could be shadow spokespeople but the attempt to portray the LDs as the ‘real opposition’ has run it’s course and the silly self puffery just comes over as silly.
Just been thinking, Clegg is the first major party leader who has a big city seat since Thatcher. Though I voted for Huhne, I think Clegg will do a good job & I wonder if his city constituency situation might help the party in the city seat fight against Labour.
64. To be honest I didn’t listen to it. I’m only going on comments second hand. However, Rentoul’s observations don’t surprise me. Having seen Clegg on TV a few times I think he is in for a rough ride (whereas Huhne handled the occasions better). Whatever the rights and wrongs, the Calamity Clegg label rattled him noticeably and I expect the other parties to work hard on doing the same.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Great Clunking Fist swats Clegg a few times at PMQ’s before he finds his feet.
Re 75 SBS “OK - how about Laws to Shadow Chancellor (sorry Bob, I do realise there is something shadowy about Ozborne, but I don’t see why the Tories have the monopoly on the word Shadow)”
We don’t, the official opposition have the monopoly, and since the 1920’s, the Liberals and Liberal Democrats have been largely an irrelevence, and certainly not the official opposition.
80: Khunanp, Iain Duncan Smith was and is MP for Chingford and Woodford Green, NE London
74 What was the % turnout of the membership in the Conservative leadership election in 2005 and what has been the decline in their membership since then - yes I know it is a difficult question to answer as the Conservative party does not like to be as open as the other parties in this matter .
Charles has already ruled out returning to the front bench. I think that Huhne would be an effective Shadow Chancellor, Cable Home affairs, Mike Moore has not shone at Foreign Affairs- but maybe perhaps Lynne Featherstone or even that Ming comes back? Ed Davey, Julia Goldsworthy and Jeremy Browne are probably overdue for promotion too.
83:oh dear, just when it seemed things couldn’t get any worse
Given the support that Nick Clegg received from the Lib Dem “establishment”, it’s not a terribly good result. It also shows how far to the left are most Lib Dem activists and by implication viscerally anti-Conservative - given Huhne received 49% of the vote with an avowedly socialistic programme. That said, Huhne was a more substantial and serious prospect, whereas Clegg is truly vacuous and facile without a compelling narrative to attract middle ground voters.
David Cameron - whilst never complacent - will not be unduly perturbed by today’s developments.
Voters who want new policies, change for the country and a real prospect of enacting that change, will not waste their time with the Lib Dems - as it will be back to a 1992-style choice - and no new Lib Dem leader will alter that dynamic.
Good to see that the use of the word shadow annoys the Tories- pesonally I prefer “Minister” or “Secretary of state” without any qualification, but if the Tories are determined to be mere shadows instead then good luck, I say. But before we get the kiddies playground “you’re irrelevent, nah nah nah” back from these people, I would point out that the chances of an NoC Parliament are extremely high and if you don’t play nicely then we can reserve the right to tell you to get lost after you fail to get a majority- which is why your leader, however insincerely, is trying to be nice to us.
81 It’ll be interesting to see how this unfolds. As things stand Labour could do with a Lib recovery as perhaps now the best chance of preventing a Con majority at the next election. One thing that PBC (and the posts above) demonstrates is the extraordinary animosity of tories to LDs - it’s not on the whole shared by Lab. And on a related point Clegg’s opponents in Sheffield Hallam are Tories not Lab (see 80); it is after all, I think, one of the ten most prosperous seats in the whole country.
84. According to Wikipedia (link below) it was 77% (198,000 votes approx)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2005
As for membership as you point out who knows? Wikipedia reckons around 290,000 (with the same caveats) but unless membership has risen since Cameron’s election the figure doesn’t quite tally with the election figure.
87 - “It also shows how far to the left are most Lib Dem activists and by implication viscerally anti-Conservative”
Mark Senior being the prime example of this.
[87] Stweart, If you think the Huhne programme was “avowedly Socialist” then you might try actually reading it- you could hardly be more wrong.
84. 198,844 voted on a turnout of 77%. I believe current membership is about 240000. More than the 2 other parties combained.
91 - and Mark Senior cheerfully admits to voting Labour when it suits him too.
(If I am wrong and have mixed him up with someone else, then my apologies in advance!)
84 Mark, “What was the % turnout of the membership in the Conservative leadership election in 2005 and what has been the decline in their membership since then”
You asked for some comparable stats, must be a glutton for punishment!
* David Cameron 134,446 [67.61%]
* David Davis 64,398 [32.39%]
Total number of valid ballots - 198,844. Turnout 77%
Membership stated at end of 2006 = 247,394
A drop of 2.4% over 2005. Probably a similar 2% fall this year, but figs not available until circa May 08.
Therefore the Conservatives had a higher turnout and nearly 5 times more voting members than this LD election.
I see that Betfair have already paid out on Nick Clegg. Well done because there have been occasions in the past when the exchange has been a little tardy in getting winnings into punters’ accounts.
I’m still waiting for PaddyPower to do the same and I have yet to hear from Observer about the £500 wager. All told it worked out well for me from the betting perspective.
I am a dedicated Cameroon - but that doesn’t mean I can’t be objective about the LibDems. I had no preconceived ideas about either Huhne or Clegg. But it became obvious during the campaign that Huhne has what it takes to lead a party and Clegg showed no outward sign of any leadership skills at all. Perhaps he has hidden talents, but until they are visible how can one judge? His speech was exactly as Rentoul describes - utterly vacuous - and I’m afraid he doesn’t connect like Cameron can.
91 and 94 It must be all those fine illiberal policies of; the ID cards, removal of planning powers from councils to Central Govt, 42 days detention etc etc that Mark Senior finds so appealing in the Govt rather than the Conservatives?
87 - Huhne wasn’t ‘avowedly socialistic’, he was just better at communicating his ideas and able to stand his ground in an argument.
94 Not quite correct Bob , I have voted Labour once in my life in the 2001 GE which was a personal vote for Des Turner who helped my wife and myself in a long fight against the previous Conservative and the following Labour government .
On a serious note, I did not think that Ming looked at all well. I hope I am wrong.
88 It’s not annoying it’s sad. There was a brief window of opportunity for the LDs to throw off the shackles of socialism and rise once again as a force for good - they threw it away by not giving the only candidate with a Liberal worldview a stonking majority.
Huhne’s ego is too big and his ambition too wide ranging to accept such a slim loss. Never mind, we in the tory party will happily welcome David Laws and Nick Clegg into their proper home. Then they can dream of becoming real Ministers rather than pretendy shadow ones.
98 All policies which if a Conservative government had been in place , they would have put forward themselves .
24-Gwynfa-It may not be “important” for you and for others, but for me it is! =)
27-Woody662- “Not really in David Abrahams league is it”
Never said it was!Agree with you that is a good day to bury bad news
54-Ralph-I’m not saying it’s like the “donorgate”, just that I think it’s important…
102 You should not have listened to Rik W and his 3 LibDem MP’s are going to defect rubbish . There is more likelihood that the next defection of an MP will be from Conservative to LibDem , the Conservatives have a history of losing MP’s at a regular rate .
Hot new topical story from the Lib Dems. This is a bit of “a did you know what bears do in woods” story.
“The Liberal Democrats have calculated that over the three-day Christmas holiday, the number of repeats on all channels is up by 25% on last year and the proportion of children’s programmes already shown at least once is 80%. On the BBC’s terrestrial channels, that rises to more than 90%.
Channel 4 was the only terrestrial broadcaster not to have increased the volume of repeats. Channel Five was the worst offender, with almost 60% of its schedule made up of old programmes. BBC1 was best at 16%.
“As channels dish up yet more of the same old Christmas fare , it’s not surprising that viewers are turned off by Christmas TV,” said the Liberal Democrat culture spokesman, Don Foster.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/14/bbc.tvnews
Quel surprise!
” I want the Liberal Democrats to be the future of politics ” - Nick Clegg.
Honestly, is he being serious?!?
105 - yes Mark, general elections do come around regularly lol!
Disappointed to read from Cicero that CK has ruled out returning to the frontbench. If he is not ready then we must respect that, but he can refresh parts of the country no one else in the party can.
Some news on Northern Rock.
The Treasury annoounced that it widened its guarantee to those who have extended credit to NR.
On paper this is to encourage private money in now and also to maintain its credit rating which clearly would affects its ability to gain funds in future.
Perhaps less well known is that NR is sitting on a big debt via an investment vehicle, based in Jersey I think, that has secured it a large amount of loans in the past. Here’s the problem. If NR’s credit rating with the rating agencies falls below a certain rating, those creditors under that vehicle can apparently demand their money back pretty much immediately. Given that stories suggest that 10’s of billions were secured through that vehicle they could do without any of those creditors locked in start to try to get their money on.
If the above is definitely the case then a drop in the credit rating wouldnt just cause NR trouble raising commercial finance in future but could see it landed with immediate repayment demands that could help sink it.
104/54 It is not important to Ralph because it involves the party he supports , if it had involved a Labour MP/constituency it would have been a resigning matter worthy of bringing down the government .
96. Mike. Hills have paid out.
101. I thought he looked very sad. I do feel a bit sorry for Ming. He did get a rough ride. The papers were very cutting but it’s their job to be cutting. It’s an MPs job to be loyal and as soon as they saw the papers say Ming was too old some of them ran with it and just kept on a-briefing.
104 I am not a Tory, but I honestly think that — if the facts reported are correct — there is not much damage in this story.
As I understand it, a couple of donations were made in August, they were checked out and found invalid, so the money was given to charity. This is not even on the Abrahams scale.
All parties will make these kinds of minor error — it doesn’t make any sense to exaggerate them.
Clearly, the Abrahams business is not a minor mistake, that has already been conceded by Gordon Brown.
Well done Jenny as a former Lib dem I am very happy to come second
110-Mark-I just wonder if it had been Brown not Cameron, what people would say here and in the press…
[102] Well, as The Economist said last week: “Tories insist they are a match for Labour in key positions. None of their top four—Mr Cameron, George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, and David Davis, the shadow home secretary—is outclassed by his Labour opposite number. But lower down is a problem. Mr Cameron is said to be disappointed at the number of cabinet-worthy MPs at his disposal”.
Lib Dems have a much more talented front bench- as even many Tories privately will confess.
116
Please elucidate me.. on these talented people with ministerial ambitions.
113-Gwynfa-I’m not saying it’s the same thing as Abrahams donations, it’s not even close, I just thought it was important, nothing more, nothing less!!!
105 With a large % of Conservative candidates selected the opportunity for defection of the LD MPs has probably passed.
Now that we have moved to a LD Leadership with a 40 yr old, will this spur more of the 60 yr olds to announce they are standing down at the next GE.
Is this the first Liberal Leader from a non-Celtic area in many (40+) years!
116. Who are they all then. Cable, Clegg, Laws and maybe Huhne. Can’t think of any more, and I’ve never even seen the Shadow Foreign Secretary on the TV before.
At least it will stop your website going on and on and on about the LD leadeship race.
All the front benches are poor save for some select few - Hague, Davis and increasingly Osborne for the Tories; Cable, Laws for the Lib Dems… struggling with Labour but you could say Straw and Milliband at a pinch.
119 Yeovil and Devon, North are hardly Celtic areas.
Well, at least, not after the 6th Century.
119 not sure yeovil was all that Celtic
20. Nick, did you know that Clegg was a member of Broxtowe Lib Dems….Winning in Broxtowe!
123,124. Paddy was bought up in ireland though wasn’t he?
83. Ah yes, IDS, how could I have forgotten the quiet man, then again Chingford is really in Essex isn’t it, just by accident is in London. Ok, instead then, when was the last time that each of the major parties had a seat in one of the major cities outside London?
89. Yes I know that the Tories are the opposition in Hallam, I was merely speaking generally as to the battle in the cities is by & large a battle with Labour.
116
‘Lib Dems have a much more talented front bench- as even many Tories privately will confess.’
Shame that they will never get the chance to be in government.
120 - How come you’ve never seen William Hague on the tv? Where have you been since 1997??
Stewart Jackson (87) said:
“Voters who want new policies, change for the country and a real prospect of enacting that change, will not waste their time with the …..”
He then went on the apply all this to the Liberal Democrats. In this, he was much mistaken - but then he is only a newish Tory backbencher, and still has faith in the handouts he gets given by CCHQ.
Since, in point of fact, the Tories are almost indistinguishable from this authoritarian and incompetent Labour Government, people who want “new policies” and “change for the country” will not be looking towards friend Stewart and his chums.
Indeed, Cameron is already starting to line the Tory Party up behind Liberal Democrat issues and policies, and has been for some time. But it seems that the penny has not yet dropped for Stewart Jackson and his like.
120 Woody, I disagree, the Lib Dems have more talent than Labour’s cabinet.
Re 110, Mark Senior, “104/54 It is not important to Ralph because it involves the party he supports , if it had involved a Labour MP/constituency it would have been a resigning matter worthy of bringing down the government .”
No, it is about waht people knew and what they should have known, and have they fibbed about it. Like for example with Wendy Alexander and the Jersey donor.
And before anyone underestimates the importance, the Top Five most read stories on the BBC site are:
1. Rape inquiry after Man Utd party
2. F1 star Hamilton clocked speeding
3. Radio 1 censors Pogues’ Fairytale
4. Giant rat found in ‘lost world’
5. Nick Clegg is new Lib Dem leader
Re. 101, yes, without wishing to be morbid, I agree. I hope we’re wrong.
129. Sorry I fell into the LD shadow trap. I’m just going to purge myself.
133 Clearly, the stories have been up for different lenghts of time.
So, it’s not a fair comparison.
133 - and item 5 has only registered on the radar since the news broke and the BBC has, for now, elevated it to main news story.
Although the Pogues story is the really big one of today for me. Disgraceful censorship and further evidence of political correctness gone mad under Labour.
104: What do you think makes it important? And I ask because I’m interested.
110: Mark, actually I see a difference between a silly mistake (which is what this looks like), and knowingly accepting illegal donations (which is how donorgate looks).
If it turns out that someone in the Tory party knowingly took illegal donations they should be sacked and investigated by the police. And you can quote me on that.
110 I don’t recall the DPM or Hain resigning.
138-What do you define as important?
136 - yes, but that’s not how the viewing statistics are calculated. If you click on ‘Most popular now - in detail’ you’ll see that the Giant Rat (by which I don’t mean John Prescott) had the most hits between 3pm and 4pm. This despite the Clegg story being the main splash on the front page.
Just an insight into the public’s perception of politics I’m afraid, not necessarily a reflection on the Lib Dems in particular.
133 - Now up to no.4 and rising!!!
141 But that is still not a fair comparison.
The longer a story has been up, the more exposure, the more word-of-mouth or email recommendations, and so on.
The giant rat has certainly been up since the morning. You need to compare the Clegg story hits for an hour after the story has been up for the same length of time as the giant rat.
130 - Tressage
Your post was in equal parts patronising and vapid.I’m sure you can do better than that.
If that is the level of debate from the newly invigotated Lib Dems under Clegg, then I don’t envy your electoral prospects.
We know that there is a chasm between the nicey nicey, reasonableness of Lib Dems as purveyed in the media and the vicious, personal and nasty campaigning at grassroots level they invariably indulge in but a touch of humility on your part might not go amiss, given your position in the polls, your terrible electoral prospects and the defenestration of your own leader only three months ago.
Another politically important story which may get attention this pm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtmlxml=/money/2007/12/18/cnrecession118.xml
141 - yes I suppose so. We’ll have to check tomorrow…
Of course , the truth is, the giat rat story is interesting It was, as Shelock Holmes observed to Dr Watson in the “Adventure of the Sussex Vampire”…
“Matilda Briggs was not the name of a young woman, Watson, . . . It was a ship which is associated with the giant rat of Sumatra, a story for which the world is not yet prepared”
Now in 2007, the world no doubt is prepared!
143 - yes I suppose so. We’ll have to check tomorrow…
137 “Fairy Tale of New York” tells us you can say “arse” but you can’t say “faggot” on Radio 1.
Good old subversive Radio 2 aren’t bleeping it though. I hope they play it every hour, on the hour, to stick two fingers up to their idiotic sibling station.
It took Mr Senior an hour and forty three minutes to work out his anti Conservative spin to try and gloss over the Lib Dem vote fall.
145. The link failed - did you mean this one?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/money/2007/12/18/cnsterling118.xml
87/144. Does someone from CCHQ just sit behind you and tell you what to write or do you just let them write your posts for you?
148 JohnKellet, it will be good to check.
But, the Giant Rat is more interesting and photogenic than any politician (and certainly more than Nick Clegg).
So, I am sure the Giant Rat will win.
Tricky management if Kennedy does decide to return. He can’t demote Cable now, yet Huhne has to have a major say - shadow foreign perhaps? Where then does Kennedy go?
More generally, this leads to the odd situation where the government has less “big beasts” in the key positions than both opposition parties - other than Straw, the rest of the Cabinet are complete nonentities.
Clegg seemed a bit prickly on 5Live tonight, considering it was his day of triumph.
137 Yes, it is daft. Dire Straits’ “Money for Nothing” is similarly censored these days - people can’t after all be trusted to hear anything that might offend a vociferous pressure group.
My favourite censored song is Ian Dury’s “Noddy Song”.
137
Walk on the Wild Side ? Censored by Lou Reed himself. Radio 1 changes mind, 5.18.
[116] Well- most parties would be quite pleased with a group that, amongst others, comprised:
Vince Cable- Former Chief Economist Shell- First Cambridge/PhD Glasgow
David Laws- Former head currency trader BZW, VP JP Morgan- Double First Cambridge Economics
Edward Davey- Consultant Omega Partners- First in PPE Oxford, MSc Economics Birkbeck
Susan Kramer- Former VP Citibank- Oxford (President of the Union) MBA Illinois
Chris Huhne- Former Managing Director Fitch IBCA- First Oxford, PPE, Sorbonne
Nick Clegg- Journalist, Civil Servant- Cambridge, Anthropology University of Minnisota, Politics
Danny Alexander- former head communications Cairngorms National Park- Oxford PPE
Julia Goldsworthy- Former development Officer Carrick District Council- Cambridge, Economics, Dai-ichi University, Japan, Brikbeck, doing Post-grad Economics research.
David Haworth- former lecturer in law and economics, Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge- Cambridge, Economics, Yale Law school
Steve Webb- former Professor Social policy, Bath university- Oxford Economics
Sarah Teather-former funds raiser Macmillian Cancer care- Cambridge, Natural sciences
Simon Hughes- Former barrister- Cambridge, law
Matthew Taylor- foremr researcher David Penhaligon- Oxford, President of the Union.
David Heath- former optician- Oxford, MA in Physiology
Alistair Carmichael- former Procurator Fiscal depute- Aberdeen University, Law
Annette Brooke- Former lecturer economics & social sciences- LSE, Hughes Hall Cambridge
Jo Swinson- Marketing director EMap- LSE 1st class degree management.
Roger Williams- former farmer- Cambridge, Natural Sciences
155. fr. I haven’t seen any coverage today but that’s exactly the word that describes him. prickly. mildly irritated was the best I could come up with. Not a good trait.
158
Thanks. Very impressive.
It will be interesting to see how many make the transition to politics and prosper.
158, Not to mention Lembit.
Did the Daily Mash call this election correctly at the start?
“The great thing about Nick Clegg is that he’s a press release in a suit. Meanwhile Chris Huhne’s pledge to abolish cars makes him a huge electoral asset.”
Nominations open this morning and candidates have until the end of the month to make sure someone has heard of them.
A winner will be declared in December, ousted next March and the party will have ceased to exist by April 2009.”
http://tinyurl.com/33ucv2
144. Oh Mr. Jackson, you are ever so slightly touchy aren’t you? Your comments seep insecurity, you really aren’t very happy in your own skin are you? I pity the poor people of Peterborough having such a fragile lamb so full of bile representing them.
No party’s perfect Jacko, but to have the cheek to say that only the Lib Dems partake in ‘vicious, personal & nasty campaigns’ is ludicrous. You should meet some Pompey Conservatives for a start.
Ave, peebles, from a sunny but cold Firenze. The peronis are cool, the pizzas are spicy, the women (continued page 87).
I just want to note that the most ludicrous comment in the history of the galaxy was made today, from Orange Thinker:
“So in conclusion: remember this day. British politics has changed irrevocably, and the change will prove a splendid one.”
The phrase ROFLMAO doesn’t really capture it.
Big mistake choosing Clegg. Banal euro-centrist, vapidly narcissistic, pleasant but meaningless. Same goes for Huhne.
They shoulda chose Cable! Can someone tell me what was wrong with Vince Cable? Likeable and charming, yet serious and clever. I have really warmed to him. He would have made a great contrast with the lightweight foppishness of Cameron and the arrogant cowardice of Brown.
The libs are meant to be different. Cable was different, in a good way (unlike Ming who was different in a bad way). Yet they have gone for a fluffy Cameron ripoff who won’t last a minute. Weird.
158 - Tory boys and girls the lot of ‘em
[158] Ah but, John O, most Tory Boys tend to be Estate agents these days- the Conservatives long ago lost the real achievers..
From BBC website
“Cameron attacked over donations