ComRes has 48% saying it is “Time for Change”
December 24th, 2007
But why has the Indy been sitting on the survey for a week?
What is almost certainly the final poll of 2007, ComRes for the Independent, is published this morning and the most surprising element is that the field-work took place during the weekend before last and so pre-dates the latest YouGov and ICM surveys.
Quite why the paper has been holding on to this for so long is not clear but it does mean that the poll takes no account of the change in Lib Dem leadership or what was probably a better week for Gordon.
The figures with changes on last month are CON 41% (+1): LAB 30%(+3): LD 16%. (-2) So the Tory lead was down a couple of points although Cameron’s party’s vote share was up a notch.
Of the non-voting questions the one that could be most significant is that is that 48% agreed with the statement that “it’s time for change and the next government should be a Conservative one”, while only 36 per cent would prefer a Labour. Lib Dem supporters split 41%-44% on this forced choice.
-
Andrew Grice, the paper’s political editor notes: “Privately, ministers are worried that “time for change” will become a potent weapon for Mr Cameron, just as it was for Tony Blair in 1997’s election. Previous surveys have suggested a narrower gap when similar questions were asked, raising Labour hopes that there is no great clamour for a Tory government. The ComRes findings will raise Tory expectations that a sea change may now be under way.”
I think that we are going to have to wait until we have seen the January polls before coming to firm conclusions. What’s going to be the impact of Clegg’s leadership of the Lib Dems? His challenge is to enable his party to recover some of the voters lost to the Tories since 2005 whilst retaining ex-Labour voters.
Mike Smithson
News of the 2008 Politicalbetting.com Party – Sponsored by Ladbrokes! (by Peter Smith). This year’s PB Party will once again be held at that excellent venue, The National Liberal Club, Whitehall Place, London SW1A 2HE, on Friday 25th January 2008, from 6pm until about 9.30pm, or when thrown out if sooner.
There will be a cash bar and a £5 entry charge, payable on the door, as a contribution towards sandwiches and nibbles. Ladbrokes have generously donated £150 towards the event, thanks to the influence of regular poster Matthew Shaddick (Shadsy) of The Magic Sign.
Since it is pay on the door, no firm commitments are necessary but it would be helpful if you could give an indication if you are intending to come. We have worked on the basis of about 50 attendees, but if it looks like being much more or less, we may want to alter arrangements. Name tags showing stage names will be available but are strictly optional.
Last year’s Party was an unqualified success. Let’s hope this year’s will be the same and will provide a suitable launch pad for another brilliant year for Politicalbetting.com.
I look forward to renewing some old acquaintances and making some new ones.
Seasons greetings to everybody - Peter Smith (Peter the Punter)
MessageSpace Advertising
Interesting poll and despite a strong result for Cameron, it’s clearly not all good news for the Tories.
Good to see Labour ahead on the economy and that the majority don’t agree that it’s time for change and that the next govt should be a tory one…
After the worst mid term period in years, Cameron still isn’t loved like Blair and hasn’t won the election yet. Close, maybe. But still not there yet. Will be v. interesting to see what happens if his lead begins to shrink. Roll on 2008!
A long shot I know, but - are there any PB-ers based in Singapore, keen for some sort of festive gathering in the New Year over here? Either post or e-mail me at anatolep@hotmail.com.
This is not some sort of personals ad, I assure you.
Can Obama really win? He is certainly an inspiring speaker and is running on the perennially successful outsider ticket (opposing the Washington insider, Clinton).
But after a closer look at some of the debates, the more I see of Obama, the less reassured I feel. He does not seem to believe in anything very much other than reasonableness. The idea that, if only those nasty political hacks would clear the stage, experts and men of goodwill could solve all the nation’s, and the world’s, ills.
We sometimes hear the same arguments from advocates of NOC on councils. Even if valid, though, we need politics to prioritise problems, let alone solutions.
But from Obama it is refreshing and inspiring and new. And who would not agree, after Bush’s (and Blair’s!) wars, that it is time to give the diplomats some rein, that jaw jaw is better than war war?
But suppose these appeals to reason and fair-mindedness are just a cover, that Obama has no firm opinions, that there is no beef. Or that, where he does have a view, he is keeps quiet for fear of frightening off his supporters.
And that’s the problem. When Obama does commit to something, too often it is uninspiring — on health, his plan is less comprehensive than Clinton’s; on illegal immigration, he is arguably outflanked even by Republican Huckabee, who described proposals to restrict benefits as un-Christian and un-American — or, when he ventures into foreign affairs, silly bordering on dangerous, as when he advocates banning Chinese toy imports or talks about bombing Pakistan.
Polls show Clinton has about twice the support of Obama. If this lead narrows, people might start to ask sharper questions.
3. Read his latest book, which entirely covers his views. You’ll find they are very thoughtful and very strong. His plans for healthcare, immigration and especially foreign policy are all more nuanced than the US media is capable of covering.
Independent’s poll article.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3280439.ece
It does sound odd, Mike. Maybe it’s just a typo — I’ve certainly never heard of a newspaper sitting on a poll. If it isn’t a mistake, it’s probably a sign of the Indie’s financial crisis. The lack of money and staff would hit hard over Christmas and it may haved saved this up to see it through a lean weak.
Yet more evidence of the Conservative and Labour share having become decoupled. This is of course crucially important to the debates yesterday about Govt recoveries from mid-term slumps.
Remarkable Scotland figures from this ComRes/Independent poll (% change on UK GE 2005):
1. SNP 41% (+23%)
2. Lab 28% (-11%)
3. Con 16% (n/c)
4. LD 12% (-13%)
5. Grn 2% (+1%)
This confirms the general Scottish Westminster voting intention pattern outlined in the Guardian last week, which had the SNP on 39%, ahead of Labour on 36%.
We await the detailed datasheets from ICM. They should be fascinating because I think the Tories were up slightly (+3%?), which means that ICM must have measured Scottish Liberal Democrats support below the 10% mark - an amazing collapse.
If you bung those Scotland numbers through Martin Baxter’s model (Electoral Calculus), you get:
1. SNP 43 seats (+37)
2. Lab 9 seats (-31)
3. LD 5 seats (-6)
4. Con 2 seats (+1)
I haven’t run them through Anthony’s yet.
Those +/- seats numbers don´t add up presumably because Michael Martin, the Speaker, would lose his seat to the Scottish National Party? Hard to say though because for some reason Baxter’s “Table of all seat results in Scotland” thingie is not working. Maybe the big SNP landslide just blew the server’s gasket (or whatever servers have inside that sleek exterior?)
When was the last time an incumbent Commons Speaker lost his seat?
The North of England numbers are pretty amazing too:
1. Con 41%
2. Lab 39%
3. LD 15%
4. Grn 2%
5. BNP 1%
If those numbers are anywhere near accurate then Mr Bean is out on his *rse. We all know that Labour is going to get obliterated in southern England, but if they lose in the north too they’ll be crippled for a generation.
8. If repeated in a GE, Scotland would look something like
(simple uniform swing)
Con 2 (+1)
Lab 13 (-28)
LD 7 (-4)
SNP 37 (+31)
Gorbals Mick would be looking at a recount in Glasgow NE. Gordon Brown would end up sitting for a marginal seat.
Overall, the UK central probabilistic forecast is (assuming average LD incumbency)
Con 330
Lab(+SDLP) 223
LD 35
Nats 43
Oth 3
NI 11 (SF abstain)
Tory majority 15
The standard deviation on this model is about +/-5 seats, so the Con majority could be as high as 35, or they could be a few seats short of a majority, simply due to random variation in the swing…
“When was the last time an incumbent Commons Speaker lost his seat?”
the unpopular Mr. Speaker Onslow, who lost his seat in 1710…..
13….. whose devotion to pedantry earned him the soubriquet “Stiff Dick”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Onslow%2C_1st_Baron_Onslow
LOL
12. RodCrosby
Thanks. You’re seat calculator looks a tad more realistic than Mr Baxter’s. What are the primary differences in methodology between the two models?
- “Gordon Brown would end up sitting for a marginal seat.”
When was the last time an incumbent Prime Minister lost his seat?
The SNP Seats spread on Spreadfair is only 6.5 - 7.2
Is it really realistic for us to expect the SNP to gain just one single seat (Ochil and South Perthshire)? I think not.
15. I don’t think a sitting PM has ever lost his seat. The closest I can think of are the following.
Balfour lost Manchester East in the 1906 landslide, but he had relinquished office one month earlier…
Had Churchill fought Epping in 1945, instead of moving to safer Woodford, in theory it could have happened, since Labour gained Epping…
MacDonald lost Seaham in 1935, 5 months after resigning as PM…
Attlee had to move from Limehouse, which was abolished, to Walthamstow West in 1950…
Baxter’s method is discredited, even apparently by Baxter himself, as he has recently made an ad hoc change to his calculations, when it started showing the LibDems on zero seats….. It is based on the theoretical proposition of “proportional loss”, meaning in a nutshell that declining parties lose most votes where they start with the most votes. While there is some evidence to support this at the extremities of the seat distribution, in the critical marginal region a uniform loss fits the data far better, although still imperfectly.
No mainstream psephologist uses the Baxter method.
It will take some weeks in the New Year for the nature of the ‘Clegg effect’ to stabilise, so perhaps we need to wait for the polls in the second half of February. These should give pretty firm clues as to the results of the local & London mayoral elections.
I suspect that David Cameron will be well pleased to have established a lead of around 10% in the polls, after two years in the top job and a starting point located at the bottom of an extremely deep pit.
8 Remarkable deductions based on a sample of 54 people . Margin of Error on this sample size is +/- 15% .
re 17 Rod - the fact that Martin Baxter has made changes to his model does not mean it is discredited - rather that the ex-Cambridge mathematician is looking all the time at ways of evolving his system
I still find it hard conceptually to accept the other approach which can see party shares in a particular seat being reduced to minus numbers. Thus when the polls had the Lib Dems on 11% your favoured approach would have had the actual result in a seat minus the difference on 2005 used as the basis of the calculation. The result is that all seats where the Lib Dems had less than 11.7% of the vote in May 2005 would have been shown on the model you support to have minus vote share numbers. That is a nonsense.
My approach is to use both systems and then make my own manual adjustment at the end. I delete all suggested Tory gains in Scotland and a proportion of Tory gains from the Lib Dems.
When you are betting on the commons seat spread markets you have to be ultra careful.
You always include SDLP MPs in your Labour totals. I understand the reason but it might be more helpful on this site to separate off that element. Just operate on a GB basis as do the pollsters.
18 John Marston:
“I suspect that David Cameron will be well pleased to have established a lead of around 10% in the polls, after two years in the top job and a starting point located at the bottom of an extremely deep pit.”
I think this is a very important point John, and one I was pondering watching “DC’s incredible journey” the other night. He really has brought the Tories such a long way politically and polling wise in the last 2 years. The change in fortunes (and confidence) is almost seismic. We shouldn’t just judge him on the size of the poll lead (getting in a froth if it is “down” to 5%), but judge where we are now against the average deficit for 1994-2006 along with the increasing tide wanting “a change”.
When all is going well and we have consistent & significant poll leads, his strategy looks far-sighted and that of a true leader. During the reverse period (as in over the summer), his strategy is so counter-intuitive to many core-voters/members that it is dismissed as shallow stunts with no coherent linkages. That he stayed in the course in Blackpool rather than retreat to just core-vote was a significant event.
How important is it that the mood for a change is greater than the Conservative poll rating? Is it always a few points higher than the opposition poll, or is this evidence of a bandwagon effect now beginning? I think it probably demonstrates the decontamination of the brand continues to work.
19. True, but we can deduce there is about an 88% chance the SNP are leading Labour… Not much more than that…
16. Yes, that is ridiculously low. The SNP high watermark was Oct ‘74, when they won 30% of the vote and 11 seats. They ought to beat that next time, surely?
I agre with Mike that it’s a little strange that the poll’s been sat on for as long as it has. Still, whatever the reason, it goes further to confirm the trend of Con low-40s, Lab low-30s, LD mid-teens, others about 10.
As in previous polls, I believe the forced choice question to be a good indicator of tactical voting intent, and that’s less bad news for Labour. Although there’s still a marginal advantage there, which is well down on the last general election, after the change in headline figures is factored in, the second choice of Lib Dems + Others can’t have shifted that much. That’s interesting as it might go against the findings of the ‘time for a change’ question given that the Tories are the only game in town on that one.
Excellent news about the party. I hope to be there again. Thanks to all concerned in getting it organised, and especially Peter.
Finally, that’s me signing off for Christmas. Have a good one everybody.
If those poll results come true for Scotland, the SNP could be major players in any coalition deal after the next GE. In fact, would make a pleasant change for Alex Salmnd to be asked about who he’d go into coalition with every other question instead of the Lib Dems!
My guess is that as the SNP will have made all their gains at Labour’s expense, they won’t consider working together, but did I read somewhere that they have over-turned a long-standing ban on working with the Tories? I never thought of it this way before, but could that be in preparation for a Tory-SNP coalition Government?
And disappointed to hear of the date for the pb.c party - it’s the one Friday in January I’m out of the country, and not in Singapore
Hope you all have a good time though.
Please count me in for the Party in January. Thanks to Shadsy and Ladbrokes for their generosity.
[6] I’d like to say a big thankyou to Nick Cohen for his acute analysis of the collapse of the Left (click on his name and look around), and in particular its abandonment of any commitment to social justice in favour of more or less demented “identity politics”.
One thing that Thatcher sought to achieve was that the “best and the brightest” should remove themselves from public service and the professions into entrepreneurship - which Blair also believed in, though it was hardly the kind of thing which would bring a Labour conference to its feet - and in that she was surely wildly successful. Remember, of course, that public service and the professions include MPs!
The “Left” is intellectually hollowed out - although I don’t see any towering intellects on the Right, either - just more passionate campaigners and blogsters…
So my “apocalyptic scenario” (thanks, Roger ;)) - defined as Labour losing more seats that in 1983 - will surely become the received wisdom of ‘08 - I expect the markets to reflect it before Easter.
And yes, Labour will be out for a generation. Or perhaps forever. There is simply no longer any point to the Labour Party, for the reasons Cohen adduces.
Cameron has indeed “decontaminated” the Tory brand - to the point where I think he can even get Boris the Buffoon elected in place of Snarky Ken - but I think he needs to win as big as he can, because he’s a plausible rogue of the Blair type, and the media won’t want to be suckered for so long twice. That means hitting the Lib Dems as hard as Labour, which I think he has the “space” to do, though I’m less certain of the will.
20. Yes, no forecasting method is perfect, particularly at the individual seat level, and agreed uniform change can produce silly negative results. However, I am sure you can see this only occurs in a handful of seats, and has no effect on predicting who WINS the seat, which is all that matters. As I said, proportional loss seems to fit the data at the extremities, say where a party scores 60%, but this is precisely the area where it makes NO DIFFERENCE to a seat win prediction. In the critical middle ground, say party share between 30% and 55% a uniform change does a better job (in aggregate, which is all that really matters) of predicting winners.
Your rough and ready adjustment is not a bad one. I do something similar, based on actual historical LD incumbency performance, but I don’t write-off the chance of one or two Tory gains in Scotland. I am actually coming round to the view that the next election will be very hard to predict, due to boundary changes, the closeness of the result, the Nats rise, etc… In fact all the same factors that pertained in February 1974…
Re the SDLP. Well I asked this question over a year ago, and no-one seemed to have an answer. What do the bookies class as a hung-parliament? Less than 326 seats, or less than 323 (Shinners abstain.) What do they consider the “Labour” total? Does it include the SDLP, who within the Commons take the Labour Whip. In a close election these differences could be crucial….
Clegg in Telegraph interview. Indications that he is continuing the Ming/Kenendy/Ashdown tactic of using media space to attack the Conservatives. At a time when voter are increasingly falling in love with Cameron and out of love with Brown.
“Mr Clegg repeatedly attacked the Tory leader - while hardly mentioning Gordon Brown ”
“I will be returning over and over again to the fact that I think David Cameron doesn’t understand contemporary families. ”
http://tinyurl.com/28ahwo
Last night’s crossword clue for insomniacs.
Foot abandoned the core assembly (7).
Answer - Trochee.
27. Should read “say where a party scores less than 20% or more than 60%…”
Can’t see why your swear filter should not like mathematical symbols…
On that topic, Mike, is there any way you can get it to tell the poster *what* it is complaining about? I’ve given up on some posts, when the filter is just binning the post for no obvious reason…
Count me in for the PBC party.
Morning all
Christmas greetings to all and you might be able to count me in for the party as well but we’ll see nearer the time.
Re: 21 - I don’t actually agree with a lot of this, Robin. I remain far from convinced that Cameron has as much benefitted from an appalling run of self-inflicted blunders, gaffes and disasters from the Government than he has from whatever he has done.
However…I will concede the point about “decontamination” though I would contend that the one real “red meat” policy announcement on IHT and stamp duty was a huge factor in the gathering Tory advance in the autumn. In one stroke, Osborne outflanked Brown/Darling who then compounded the problem by an extraordinarily ill-measured response.
I would also contend that were David Davis Tory leader, the lead would still be substantial. In other words, there is very little the Conservative leader has had to do other than watch the Government implode. None of that makes me believe there is a genuine enthausiasm out there for radical Conservative Government. Yes, “time for a change” as ComRes states, but a change of management, emphasis and tone rather than a complete change of course as in 1979.
I remain absolutely convinced that David Cameron is not up to being Prime Minister. He “might” well grow into the job but the recent documentary has convinced me still further that he is a brittle character who would be uncertain under pressure. Yes, he will do fine in a “crisis” (they are easy for leaders) but it’s the self-inflicted wound that does the real damage as Brown will attest.
Cameron has, at present, a fair degree of media support but that won’t always be the case and as that unravels (as it will do), we will see what he is made of. We may well find that once Steve Hilton has moved on, Cameron will be left more exposed.
On the American primaries, I watched Dick Morris on FoxNews last night. The GOP race seems as hard to call as ever (Morris contends Huckebee, Giuliani, Romney and McCain will still be standing after “Tsunami Tuesday” as it seems to be called). On the Democrat side, he is virulently anti-Clinton which clouds his judgement somewhat. His view is that the Edwards vote will swing behind Obama and that will be the push he will need to defeat Hillary.
Here’s the problem for the government. Time for a change sentiment I suspect will strengthen over time. I wait to see what happens on the economy in particular in the new year.
I just hope Gordon, since he wants the credit for years of growth will accept responsibility for not putting a bit away for a rainy day.
27. The Shinners are unlikely to change that abstention policy anytime soon. Why would they? They have better access to No.10 than most Labour MPs.
St John, please could you explain that? I know that a trochee is a metrical foot, but where or what is the assembly?
Dear Innocent Abroad,
Thanks for the plug, and I’m sorry if this sounds like and advert*
but — ahem — you can buy the it here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Whats-Left-Liberals-Lost-Their/dp/0007229704/ref=ed_oe_p/203-1731325-0735118?ie=UTF8&qid=1183334084&sr=8-1 or today at a fine bookstore near you just in time for Christmas!
Speaking of which many thanks and a Merry Christmas to Mike for producing such an interesting site.
*Actually I’m not THAT sorry.
34: ‘the core assembly’ = assembly as in putting things together, so it’s a hint to anagram ‘the core’ - I think.
Looking forward to tomorrow’s already!
Thanks, tpfkar. Now I remember why I really hate cryptic crosswords.
36 tpfkar. Yes. Anagram of the core indicated by both abandoned and assembly. Should really only have one indicator for the anagram but I couln’t come up with anything better.
1 “Interesting poll and despite a strong result for Cameron, it’s clearly not all good news for the Tories.”
CON 41% LAB 30% - not good for the Conservatives? Fool
Jonathen is Roger and I claim my case of Socialism Champagne!
G’day peebles.
Just to echo the point above: Well Done David Cameron for proving all the moaning minnies totally wrong. Some people on this site (you know who you are!!) have long dismissed you as a foppish halfwit incapable of leading a scout troop let alone a major party. One asinine poster on here even went as far as to call you a “gaylording ponceyboots”.
I, however, always saw your virtues, and I have kept the faith. Which has been amply rewarded.
To Peter the P: thanks for organising another do. I am to attend this one, gratuitous foreign assignments permitting.
Merry Christmas everyone. I’m off for the festive family punch-up.
Watching Labour slide in the polls is like watching Northern Rock’s share price slide.
They may recover on an hourly/daily basis - but the general trend is down.
Traders can make money on fluctuations but Northern Rock’s 350million pounds market value is meaningless compared to the 30-40 billion pounds of debt.
It is a bit like watching the Cayote on Road Runner run off the edge of the cliff - he is running in thin air for some time before looking down. Then he plummets.
Similarly Labour stock is worthless.
Are we heading for a sterling crisis in 2008? The deteriorating value of the pound will import inflation and will be highly damaging for Brown. With the retail sector heading for the doldrums and prices of many essentials rising we may be looking at a very destructive period of stagflation (followed by a deflationary slump?) Just don’t expect inflation matching wage rises this time, like we had back in the seventies:
“Pound Falls to Record Low Against Euro on Interest-Rate Outlook
By Gavin Finch
Dec. 24 (Bloomberg) — The pound fell to its lowest ever against the euro as a report showing a decline in house prices stoked speculation the Bank of England will keep cutting interest rates to shore up the economy.
The U.K. currency also dropped to near a four-month low versus the dollar after London-based research group Hometrack Ltd. said the average cost of a home dropped the most in three years in December. The pound is headed for its first annual decline versus the common European currency since 2004.
“From a foreign-exchange perspective one should be prepared for further losses in the pound,” said Niels From, a currency strategist at Dresdner Kleinwort in Frankfurt…..”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a._UCS.OaviY&refer=uk
re 30. I’m not a programmer and we rely on “add-ons” for our software, WordPress, being produced. If anybody knows of one which will help here then please let me know.
re 32. So we can get the measure of what you are saying do you think that Gordon Brown is, in your phrase about Cameron, “up to being prime minister”?
As a senior Lib Dem do you think the Clegg approach of attacking the Tories is the best way to win back Lib Dem supporters who have gone over to Cameron?
40 - Dissed by SeanT; my Christmas is complete!
32 - stodge - but surely the point is that the changes DC has brought are precisely the reason why we are benefitting now. He has taken us to places we’ve not been for a long time (socially liberal, environmentally aware, and socially more just). Without those deep changes, we would still be waiting for the pendulum effect to kick in, and Brown would be on top of the polls still, because we were not seen as a credible and likeable government-in-waiting.
As for your comment “Cameron has, at present, a fair degree of media support but that won’t always be the case and as that unravels (as it will do), we will see what he is made of.”
That is precisely my point about Blackpool. He had little media support then, Brown riding high, “gaffe” after “gaffe” from Cameron over the summer, party said to be ready to assassinate him, etc. In this context he stuck to the strategy, rather than retreat to core values and shore up the internal position.
27. I should also have added that on the face of it, a methodology that predicts a party which currently holds 63 seats as ending up with zero seats is a lot more silly than one which predicts a negative vote share in 20 no-hoper seats… I don’t doubt Mr. Baxter’s mathematical qualifications - it’s his common sense that is open to question…
Time for a Change is a potent emotion - look at Howard’s election loss in Australia. There is reason behind it. After a few years Governments are increasingly led by bureaucrat ministers who see legislation, metrics, governance as the political argument and accustomed to power lose their political antennae. Experienced ministers look tired and have accumulated mistakes and enemies, new front benchers have risen through patronage or their administrative records, not necessarily a bad thing but their is a tendency to associate with the department and policies without the distance of objectivity a good politician has.
Look at last week - turns against pledges on pension rights for non-working women, on mixed sex wards, not because either a the wrong thing to do but for administrative reasons. John Major fought for Masstricht and the ERM because they were policies not because they were necessarily sensible politically; dumping Masstricht after Denmark voted no would have saved him a great deal of political grief. Gordon Brown is in danger of repeating that with the Reform Treaty.
Time for a change will get more potent and for Labour its especially dangerous considering their poor electoral base in 2005.
Re: 43 - Morning, Mike
To take your second point first, I think the question is why have LD supporters gone to the Tories. Is it because of “nice Mr Cameron” or because they think somehow it’s “safe” to be a Tory again. I don’t know but I do know that whether it’s Nick or me or you for that matter, as prospective citizens of a Cameron Government, we are entitled to ask (and expect answers to) the questions about what a future Conservative Government would be like, what it would do and how it would deal with the problems and issues facing a 21st Century society.
There’s no point banging on about the ineptitude and incompetence of the current Government - there for all to see. What we should, rightly in my view, be doing is asking searching questions of the Tories - what answers have you got and what will they mean for the future of this country ? You may think this is tactically poor, I don’t.
By the way, thanks for calling me a “senior” LD - one, I think you are more “senior” than me, two, I don’t know who “Observer” is either.
As for Point One: I’m not a member of the Labour Party so they can choose whoever they want as leader. I think Brown was a “lucky” Chancellor in that he enjoyed a period of unprecedented growth, low inflation and low interest rates predicated as much on external factors than anything either he or his predecessors had put in place.
The history of Chancellors moving next door counsels caution and, as I said at the time, terrorist attacks (especially botched ones) are manna from heaven to leaders. I think the political response to Osborne’s IHT/Stamp Duty announcements and the political/economic response to Northern Rock has told me everything I needed to know.
I also think that as the Sir Menzies experience showed, assuming that “trading up” from Chnacellor, Foreign Sec or Home Sec is some form of natural progression is mistaken. It’s far more about character in the PM role than simple ability/command of brief etc.
47: yes J. Major too
Shock, arch Brown supporter Mrs Jackie Marr turns on the Govt.
“Last week’s volte-face on women’s pensions must not be dismissed as an act of prudence. It speaks of a party lacking a rudder.”
“…it’s one of those things that makes you ask about Labour’s fundamental values.”
“But if Labour doesn’t remember why it’s in power, it is all rather beside the point.”
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,2231969,00.html
If a Conservative made those points nuLabour folk on here would say I was being partisan!
Another indicator that Brown lacks a strong commitment to his core vote and has severed links with the chattering classes that backed him. In 1979 core Labour supporters had also reached the same conclusion “what was the point”. No wonder 48% want a change of Govt.
Re: 44 - I’m afraid I don’t agree with you, Robin. After three election defeats (and pretty heavy ones too) the Conservatives had nowhere else to go. Trying to tack further to the Right would have been pointless so the other option was to move “forward” - ie: project the image of the Conservative Party as the “future” party.
I remain far from convinced that David Davis could not have said similar things. In any case, noen of it would have mattered had Brown/Blair “enjoyed” smooth, gaffe-free Government since 2005. It’s hard to believe, looking back, what a chain of disasters (remember Charles Clarke ?) overtook the Government from about early 2006 onwards.
As far as Cameron is concerned, he had a poor summer. I don’t seriously think anyone in the party wanted him out and the media played up this angle. Brown (and to a lesser extent Osborne) have helped him enormously and it is very often all about the juxtaposition of forces and cirumstance which can be called “luck”.
Cameron is not in my view some political genius or master strategist. He’s ridden a wave of good fortune in the past three or four months and fair play to him. Between now and the summer of 2010, he may be able to coast along or it may get more difficult for him. I think a lot will depend on whether the Conservative desire for power is so strong they will be able to maintain internal discipline before the election. My guess is they will.
49. The trouble for Brown is that he’s fighting battles on a number of fronts and his friends are nervous if not silent. His support of the recommendations of the Hayden Phillips party funding review is a time bomb with the trade unions and could blow at any time soon.
Mike, how do you want me to play the quiz tomorrow? Just chuck the questions in the existing thread at a certain time? I think a thread devoted to obscure questions could severely reduce the street-cred of pb.c!
btw, did you get the links for the boundary maps I posted?
32, 47,
1. Have you considered the possibility that more LD supporters “feel safe” in supporting the Tories precisely because of “nice” Mr Cameron?
2. Back to brittle again, I see (surely your vocabulary is more extensive?). Most thoughtful commentators were struck how well he coped under the pressures of September/early October that culminating in the barnstorming performance at the Conference.
FWIW here are the average ICM polls in each year. The biggest change has been after Cameron took over at the end of 2005. (Stodge please take note!)
Brown’s blip of a honeymoon did reduce the Conservative average in 07 and improved Labour’s average a little but the direction of travel is below 34. For the Lib Dems the direction of travel since 2003 has been one of falling by small amounts year on year.
C LAB LD C Lead
Avg 2007 37.0 34.8 18.8 2.2
Avg 2006 37.1 33.5 20.5 3.6
Avg 2005 32.7 38.3 21.2 -5.6
Avg 2004 32.2 36.9 22.1 -4.5
Avg 2003 31.7 38.1 22.8 -6.4
Avg 2002 31.1 42.7 19.8 -11.6
Avg 2001 31.3 46.1 16.7 -14.8
Avg 2000 33.6 42.1 17.6 -8.4
Avg 1999 29.9 48.5 16.3 -18.5
Avg 1998 29.4 49.3 16.6 -19.9
Avg 1997 30.1 49.6 15.1 -19.4
Avg 1996 30.5 47.5 17.5 -17.1
54 The average Conservative lead with ICM prior to Brown was 7 points, Brown’s honeymoon reduced it to 2.
Since the start of Oct the average is back to the 7 point lead that they had over Blair earlier this year.
54. Quite an interesting set of figures HF. A far more sensible approach than leaping on every single poll, and frantically trying to divine what it “means.” That’s like trying to pick up mercury with a fork.
Perhaps you could produce a similar tabulation, say, once a month?
And so here come the enemy salvoes…nothing too hard to deal with though
Re: 53 - Fairly predictable stuff, John, so here goes:
1) Yes, and that’s why Nick Clegg has to challenge it. The LDs have to show people that the Conservatives are not the “safe” option - after all, it’s the future of the country we’re dealing with not whether “Dave” is a guy you’d have a drink with - and, more importantly, giving people a reason to support the LDs (and that’s the hard part).
2) Of course, Cameron did well. He does PR well, he can speak well and were the delegates going to heckle him ? Hardly. In addition, the mood has been changed by Osborne’s speech on the Monday and another bravura effort by William Hague. Cameron did well but he probably could have read the local phone book and got a good reception.
Re; 54 - Another set of stats, whether it be polls or membership numbers, to prove why the Conservatives are on the path to world domination
I’m not disputing the turnround in Tory fortunes. MY contention is that the upswing was the result of residual Iraq issues combined with the series of self-inflicted disasters that overcame Blair in his last months plus the knowledge he was going plus the fact that people were fed up with him. In addition, there was the small matter of the botched ousting of Charles Kennedy. How Cameron could have failed NOT to benefit from that juxtaposition of forces is the real question.
re 52. Name a time when you will be here and I’ll promote it. Is that OK?
It is wrong to say that Churchill moved to safer Woodford in 1945. Due to housing changes some seats had grown enormously and there was an interim bill, agreed by all parties, to divide these.This created a number of new seats (Ealing East, Ealing WestHendon North, Hendon South, Wembley North, Wembley South, Hornchurch etc) in the London suburbs and there were also similar divisions in outer Birmingham (Solihull, Coventry, Nuneaton)
Epping was one of these. Up to 1945 the Epping constituency consisted of the Districts of: BUckhurst Hill, Chingford, Epping, Loughton, Waltham Holy Cross, Wanstead, Woodford and Epping RD. Wanstead and Woodford combined to become a single Borough during the 1930s. Post 1945 Epping became Chingford, Waltham Holy Cross, Epping and Epping RD.
Woodford was Wanstead and Woodford and Chigwell.
There was no reason to believe that either seat was safer than the other, partaicularly as Harlow was then a tiny village.
Certainly to have won a majoirty both would be assumed to be safely Conservative. According to locals, there was considerable competition amongst locals as to which seat Churchill would contest. Woodford was that little more compact and that little closer to London and Chartwell - not that Churchill went there that often.
As is well known there had been a deselection attempt on Churchill initiated by supporters of Stanley Baldwin during the 1930s. This failed and the party officer who had initiated the process was rewarded with a safe seat - in Scotland. His base (ancestral pile) was in the more rural part of Epping.
54. As a matter of interest those Average 2007 figures would give
Con 257
Lab 304
LD 50
Nats 18
Oth 3
NI 13 (SF abstain)
quite a different complexion, innit?
Thanks for the tip to buy SNP seats at 7.5. How can the SNP not double their number of seats at the next GE?
I’d be pleased to go to a PB.com party on 25 Jan, especially at a great venue like the national liberal club. I always come away with a good bet…
Interesting thread.
Firstly I should be at the PBC party.
I have to say I am amused that Nick Clegg is attacking us and not Labour.
Perfect.
Vote Lib Dem get Labour.
We will make it cost them seats by the bucket load.
57 stodge, the decline in LD figures started in 2004 and the “botched ousting of Kennedy” appears to have had little effect on the trend.
If anything the threat of the GE produced a “two party” squeeze on the Lib Dems reducing its “average” in that period to 17.5.
59. Thank-you Peter for that interesting footnote based on expert local knowledge! Of course, it “transpired” that Woodford was the safer of the two, and that is all I meant. Do you think Churchill could have actually lost Epping against Leah Manning in 1945?
57 - A glorious 8 for effort, sadly a mere 2 for star quality.
Er, my point was that Cameron’s coolness under pressure was demonstrated BEFORE the party conference, by not panicking and keeping his nerve in the weeks when the Brown-bounce was at its peak. Even Alastair Campbell in that documentary praised the decision to visit Rwanda! Hardly the demeanour of a ‘brittle’ politician wouldn’t you say?
Sure, Clegg has to do whatever Clegg has to do…but the inescapable fact is that currently a large number of former LD voters are now supporting the Conservatives, and a significant reason for this is Cameron personally and what he is doing to the party.
60 Rod yes hung parliament time with the 2007 averages, albeit affected by Brown’s honeymoon.
The question is whether the Conservatives
1. Continue the current 7+ lead
2. Drop below 7
3. Increase above 7.
My guess is that they can increase the average above 7 into the 9+ range because the voters have decided that they want a change and are unlikely to return to Labour because Brown does not represent a change.
Is Clegg attacking the Tories to get the Huhnites on side I wonder. Dangerous tactics.
re 57. My concern is about what Clegg can do to reverse the seepage to the Tories and I don’t think his Telegraph piece today is right.
If I was advising I would suggest that he should never doubt the sincerity of Cameron’s desire to be “more Liberal” because otherwise that makes it personal. Rather Clegg should be questioning whether the Tories with all their baggage are able to move in the direction that their leader wants. There ought to be “applauding of the fact” that this is where the Tory leader thinks his party ought to be combined with a worry that Cameron has set himself internal goals that he will not be able to achieve.
Remember that one in four or five Lib Dem 2005 voters have switched their allegiance and you have to be ultra-careful about alienating them. These are the people you want back so Clegg needs to acknowledge some of the elements that have caused them to move.
I never thought that Ming had worked this one through and the best person I have heard on the subject is Chris Huhne.
62 on the Clegg attacking Conservatives issue, of course I would think it is a tactical error.
The real juicy morsels for attack come out each day from the Govt. The LDs have more limited media opportunities so if they use them to attack the Conservatives they will sound just like the Govt that large % of voters are fed up with.
The choice is to align with an unwanted Govt or align with attacks on the Govt. Clegg seems to have chosen the latter.
69 - No HF - that is precisely the false dichotomy that Cameron offered with his ‘progressive alliance’, and precisely the choice that Huhne and Cable refused.
As soon as the LDs become the junior partner in a slanging match between Labour and Tories, they are finished as a party.
65,
What is he doing to the party?
Will he offer a referendum on the current EU treaty , when he is in power, after its been ratified?
Will he offer a referendum on in or out of the current EU situation?
Will he offer any major constitutional change ?
Will he offer PR.
Looks like the same old moan a lot but do nowt and sign up anyways.
Here we go again
Re: 62 - So if we attack the Tories, Benedict, that means we are going to support Labour. Well, that’s your message and you’re entitled to it. You are of course wrong. I suspect that as soon as the Conservatives offer some “real” policies, we won’t be alone in attacking them. Your language also doesn’t suggest you are that keen on leading a “progressive alliance”. Why don’t you show that it’s more than just rhetoric and withdraw your candidate in Lewes ?
Re: 63 - Ah, more stats
Right, let’s go back for a little history lesson. The LDs were actually polling well in the run-up to the Iraq invasion but our refusal to support the war (though we supported the troops once deployed) cost us support. We were slammed by the media for being unpatriotic (remember “Charlie Chamberlain”).
Support only recovered later in the year as the full extent of the imbroglio became clear. The Tories had a disastrous 2003 culminating in the removal of IDS and his replacement by Michael Howard.
I think Howard did a lot to stabilise the Tory core vote and that drew some support back from the LDs who had threatened (briefly) to take second in the polls following the Brent East by-election.
As some (more thoughtful) Tories on here have admitted, their Party was staring over the abyss in the autumn of 2003 and IDS had to go.
From the previous thread, it was indeed Henry Bellingham, who was opposed by a Referendum Party candidate called Percival in 1997.
Innocent Abroad - did Labour really have any alternative but to opt for identity politics, once Southern working class voters showed that they were inclined to the Conservatives, between 1979-97?
My own view is that, in general, Lib Dems are happier attacking the Conservatives than they are attacking Labour. It’s also interesting to look at the details of the latest Yougov poll, from which you can see that on issues like economic competence, more Lib Dems favour Labour rather than the Conservatives.
73 If he was called Percival, he may not have been descended from Perceval after all…
74 - it is silly for Clegg to spend too much time attacking Cameron. If Cameron is a phoney liberal, it will emerge in the fullness of time.
Hammer Labour on ID cards. Stress his long term opposition to them on grounds of freedom - rather than cost. Bleat on about NR, and say the LDs were right all along and that nationalisation is the only viable option. Attack the government - rather than Brown - leave that to Cameron.
Anyway… hope you all get “on a lucky one; came in eighteen to one… the bells are ringing out for Christmas time.” Have a good one everybody.
73/75. I note with amusement that Percival/Perceval’s vote was more than twice the margin by which Bellingham lost… So you could say the spirit of the long-dead PM got his own back…
Re 72, Stodge, “Re: 62 - So if we attack the Tories, Benedict, that means we are going to support Labour. Well, that’s your message and you’re entitled to it.”
Most kind.
“You are of course wrong.”
What? More wrong than a Lib Dem bar chart? Surely not? In any case so what. What you lot stick on your leaflets is frequently wrong.
“I suspect that as soon as the Conservatives offer some “real” policies, we won’t be alone in attacking them.”
What? You think Labour might as well? (rather than just nicking some of the ones we have announced)
“Your language also doesn’t suggest you are that keen on leading a “progressive alliance”.”
Well, I am not the party leader besides which your party has told ours where to get off.
“Why don’t you show that it’s more than just rhetoric and withdraw your candidate in Lewes ?”
I think the idea was we cooperate in areas where we politicaly agree. It is a shame that your party would rather bash mine than help get some of its policies implemented then we will relentlessly attack you.
Nice to see the reinforcements coming in
Re: 65 - I’m sure your comments are meant in the Christmas spirit so I’ll let it go. Those who are unable to see any fault in Cameron are as destined to be disappointed as those who thought Blair could do no wrong.
Re: 74 - I’m always happy to have a go at this mob of centralising incompetents, Sean, but to be honest the last three months has been so devastatingly inept that it’s all been said far more eloquently than I could ever manage.
My rationale for criticising the Tories is well-known. Do you appreciate that, as a voter, I am entitled to know what to expect from a future Conservative Government and to criticise those plans/policies with which I don’t agree ? The mood among some of your fellow activists is that ANY kind of criticism has to be closed down by insipid ranting about “supporting Labour”. That suggests to me that they are desperate to get into power and to shove their snouts back into the same trough that Labour has inhabited since 1997.
It does seem a bit of back to the future for the LIbdems, they spent most of their time under Kennedy helping Labour double team the tories, but seemed to become more independent under Menzies.
It is a dangerous strategy when more and more people want a real change in government. Moreover there are far more loose Labour voters around than loose Conservative voters and most left wing Conservatives are happy with Cameron whilst those on the right of the party are hardly going to vote LibDem.
Still may the LibDems have been looking at the polls, and at public sentiment, and have decided there is more chance of a Conservative majority than a Labour majority at the next election and think that weaken the Conservatives give them the best chance of a hung parliament.
Stodge My rationale for criticising the Tories is well-known.” Is it? Why, are you famous?
30. The problem is that < and > are used for HTML tags. Most blog software filters them out to stop you putting in any nasty HTML which might cause problems for people looking at the site. A few valid tags are allowed but anything it doesn’t recognise will be removed.
To get < type <. To get > type >.
Hope I’ve got this right since there is no preview facility…
“As soon as the LDs become the junior partner in a slanging match between Labour and Tories, they are finished as a party. “
What nonsense…!
The LibDems ARE the junior partner in a slanging match between Labour and Tories.
They are aligning themselves (again) with an unpopular PM and Government whose ratings are rapidly descending, whilst attacking a popular Opposition Leader whose party is in the ascendancy.
Look where Ming’s policy of attacking the Tories HAS got you; look at your poll ratings and membership figures over the same period, which party have they now joined and how many more will follow?
If Labour goes down at the next election it will take the LibDems with it.
The slogan ‘Vote LibDem, get Labour’ could be the albatross around your neck come the next GE.
Re: 68 - Mike, I’ve not read the Telegraph article so I don’t know what Nick has or hasn’t said. I don’t disagree with a lot of your “advice” though I do disagree that Chris Huhne would have done anything different.
I went to the London Hustings and the more I think about it, the happier I am Clegg won. Chris Huhne is an excellent speaker BUT he says what the activists want to hear. I am in no doubt having heard him that he would be vitriolic in his response to Cameron (as he was on the so-called “progressive alliance” initiative) but for me he closed down too much too quickly.
I realise you were a Huhne supporter. I hope you can support Nick Clegg - the rest of us are trying to move forward.
Re: 78 - Sounds like you ate an iffy sprout, Benedict, old friend
It’s useful if you have a blog - you can vent your spleen on that but then you don’t have a blog, do you ?
I suspect Cameron knew what the response to his “progressive alliance” would be from both us and the Greens so we’ll leave it at that. The worry I have reading your diatribe is that you are so frightened of Labour “stealing” your policies that you aren’t going to announce or have any until the last minute.
Why are you so frightened of this, Benedict ? IF the policies are for the good of the country, who cares whether they are implemented by a Conservative or Labour Government ? Your party does not have a monopoly of good or vad ideas nor does it have a monopoly on stealing other people’s.
Again, are you more interested in proviing good governance for the country and offering sensible solutions to the country’s problems or is the pursuit of power and the defeat of the Opposition all that interests you after a decade in the wilderness ? Try being out of a power for a century - you’ll get some perspective.
Merry Christmas
Clegg identification of the Conservatives as the biggest danger to the Lib Dems shows that he is essentially going to be defending the core rather than having a strategy for expansion. The loss of around a quarter of 2005 Lib Dem voters to the Conservatives obviously is of greater concern than any advances against Labour.
With policies that either the public don’t really care about (PR, Constitutional hanges) or are costly to many of their centre-right or AB supporters the question still is “Why Vote Lib Dem?” - I don’t think that Ming found an answer to give the public on that which resonated so it will be interesting to see if Clegg can.
Each poll seems to signals a slightly weaker position for Labour, even though no single poll is striking a fatal blow just yet.
Bring on more government demise in 2008.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
61. The tipping point for the SNP comes at around the 33% share of the vote. Below that level they have slow incremental gains, above it exponential gains. In absolute terms of seats it’s a smidgin more difficult than in Oct 1974, since there are now 20% fewer Scottish seats.
Ochil and Dundee West look like easy wins, then Aberdeen North and Argyll & Bute come into play. A&B will probably be a nailbiter between LD and SNP with tactical Tories deciding the outcome.
Brown may not lose his seat but his namesake “two-jobs” Browne at Kilmarnock and Loudon looks distinctly vulnerable to me, in a clear straight fight with the Nats. I’d tip him to lose.
Another one to watch is Edinburgh East where the Labour MP of nearly 40 years is standing down. Stirling and Linlithgow are other seats that could go SNP with about 33% overall support.
Beyond this level, the sky’s the limit for the SNP and predicting individual seats becomes fraught, as so many would be on an (often 3 or 4-way) knife-edge…
The strategy of attacking the tories seems to me a strange one. Cameron has managed to make the tories look a more attractive option than they have for over a decade. They don’t have an overwhelming lead in the polls, and I don’t know if they ever will, however if the lib dem leader thinks he can gain some political capital from attacking the tories I think he’s wide of the mark. The tories will be able to use it as proof that the lib dems are labour supporters, and therefore not a viable alternative for people who want to vote for change. It just doesn’t make sense to me to bash the tory party leader, while the government slowly collapses in front of him.
Why not try and position yourself as the alternative to labour for more left minded labour voters who no longer support the government? Instead he appears to be trying to grab liberal tory voters, who are more likely to be interested in Cameron anyway, as he has managed to make himself look like a more liberal tory.
Who is quoted below:
a. David Steel
b. Charles Kennedy
c. Nick Clegg
d. All three of the above
“I have a simple, ambitious, but achievable aim to break the two-party system for good within two elections.”
89-c?
82. Ta. I’ll try to remember that!
<. >.
If the LDs have lost more voters to the Tories then to Labour, surely it makes more sense for them to get the recently switched voters back than to attack Labour who are at core vote levels and unlikely to switch. it doesn’t make sense for the Lib Dems to go easy on the tories just to damage Labour who they are more inclined to agree with ideologically.
The LDs wouldn’t work as a “Left Of Labour” party, as it’s not what the party leadership nor the membership believe in.
84, Stodge “Re: 78 - Sounds like you ate an iffy sprout, Benedict, old friend
It’s useful if you have a blog - you can vent your spleen on that but then you don’t have a blog, do you ?”
A blog? Now there is an idea
“I suspect Cameron knew what the response to his “progressive alliance” would be from both us and the Greens so we’ll leave it at that.”
I suspect you are right, but it will not be left there. The idea is to play your party like a violin, getting the right tune for us out. So far so good.
“The worry I have reading your diatribe is that you are so frightened of Labour “stealing” your policies that you aren’t going to announce or have any until the last minute.”
The problem is that Labour will not implement the policy so that ot works, but so that it neutralises the issue politicaly, or will rubish the idea.
I believe that also answers the rest of your points.
Merry Christmas also
With Brown massively up in the polls and breathing down his neck, Cameron wasn’t just “under pressure” at the recent Tory conference, he was “under extraordinary, weak-at-the-knees pressure”. He must have known that any slip in his speech would have been devastating for him and the Conservatives. To go on and make that speech without notes in those circumstances surely showed remarkable coolness under fire. I’m glad he’s on our side.
89 - not sure, but is it the same comedian who is promising £6.7 billion worth of new green levies on polluting cars, aircraft and other polluters?
Oh, my aching sides!
O/T-”How Clinton Lost Her Invincibility”
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1698063,00.html
Simon Jenkins had a very public ‘what is the point of the Lib-Dems’ moment in yesterday’s Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/simon_jenkins/article3087435.ece
Reagrding Epping and Woodford. Labour did not oppose Churchill in Woodford and so it must be assumed that had he stood in Epping Mrs Manning would not have.
The scale of the Labour landslide was so unexpected that Epping would have been regarded as safe as Woodford. Remember the last electoral test was the 1935 election. Most local elections at that time were fought on non party tickets - in fact Chingford was Ratepayer controlled up to 1965.
There are still people in Redbridge who remember Churchill as the local MP and the association archives exist.
One final point on this, the constituency was called Woodford. After Churchill announced that he would be standing down it was renamed Wanstead and Woodford by an SI in time for the 1964 election. Patrick Jenkin referred to this in his maiden speech in 1964.
On the subject on which this topic started I once did an a quick note on the constituencies of Conservative Prime Ministers in the 20th century and the 1997 election. I used the constituencies they represented whilst serving as Prime Minister.
Balfour - Manchester East (safe Labour)
Law - Glasgow Central (safe Labour)
Baldwin - Bewdley (Wyre Forest, Lab gain from Con)
Chamberlain (Edgbaston - first Labour gain of the night)
Churchill - (Epping first time, split several ways but Harlow was a Labour gain and Leyton and Wanstead a Lab hold. Only two wards of his 1950 Woodford constituency (Church End and Monkhams) for 1951-55 are in a Conservative seat (Chingford and Woodford Green) as Ilford North (Bridge and Roding wards) was a Labour gain. The Chigwell area was in Conservative Epping Forest)
Eden - Warwick and Leamington (Lab gain)
McMillan - Bromley (Con hold)
Home - Kinross and West Perthshire (SNP hold)
Heath - Bexley (the bulk of this seat is in Bexleyheath and Crayford - Lab gain)
Thatcher - Barnet, Finchley (Finchley and Golders Green, Lab gain)
Major - Huntingdonshire - Con hold
Apologies to everyone for teasing you about this poll last night and then not posting the details.
I was about to post the details when a crisis happened at work so posting fell by the wayside.
O/T
Just a thought re USA elections
PREVIEW TO NEXT NOVEMBER…?
Obama, Romney hold narrow leads in New Hampshire poll
By Mike Maynard … Dec. 23, 2007
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — A new poll of New Hampshire voters finds Sen. Barack Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney holding narrow leads ahead of the state’s Jan. 8 primary. In the Democratic race, Obama has nosed ahead of Sen. Hillary Clinton by 30% to 28%, followed by former North Carolina senator John Edwards at 14%, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson at 7% and other candidates pulling down 20% between them. In the Globe’s November poll, Clinton, D-N.Y., led Obama, D-Ill., by 35% to 21%. On the Republican side, Romney had a lead of 28% to 25% over Sen. John McCain, while former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani slipped to 14%. Last month, the Globe poll found Romney ahead of Giuliani by 32% to 21%, followed by McCain, R-Ariz., in third at 17%. Meanwhile, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee jumped from 5% in the Globe’s November poll to 10%. The survey of likely New Hampshire voters, conducted Dec. 16-20, has a margin of error of plus/minus 4.9 percentage points
= =
If I had to guess now, I would say these two may head their respective tickets.
And I can see Obama persuading Al Gore to be his VP (by agreeing to let Gore implement a “green”
agenda.) Then: Obama/ Gore nose out Romney/ McCain. Just a guess.
100-Long shot!But why do you think Romney will be the nominee?
Merry Christams Everyone!
Mike- No poll from BPIX since 13 Oct. Have they given up?
102-Happy Christmas!
I should be fine for the party, thanks to those who are organising it once again.
On the Clegg thing, I was pleased by his God comment, amused that a non-entity like Rosie Millard thought he was worth attacking in yesterday’s Times but, having suffered through the misguided Ming strategy, am not pleased to see him attempt the same, that way lies 11% in the polls and he knows it.
I have been surprised that the postal problems with lib dem leadership votes haven’t been highlighted. Near to Christmas of course they were going to be late (you trust the Royal Mail?). Apparently, therefore, 1000 votes arrived a day or so late; Huhne wanted them counted, Clegg didn’t, Huhne was rapidly gaining and may well now have been the lib dem leader if they had done so. On the Royal Mail may rest the future government of the country, Clegg being given the opportunity to gift Cameron an outright victory for the want of a few extra posties.
105 I thought Huhne didn’t want counting and Clegg did want counting which he got
92 - But the Lib Dems *are* to the left of labour, it’s quite dificult not to be. In fact, the tories are pottering around either side of labour on different issues. The only party definitely to the right of labour is UKIP.
Just to wish you all a very Happy Xmas - PtP many thanks for organising another party, and I definitely hope to be there - looking forward to it.
Best wishes to everyone for a successful year’s punting in 2008.
106 - Not true according to the inside info -
as per Atticus - “The deadline for party members to have sent in their ballot papers was Saturday, December 15. But officials arrived the following Monday to find a pile of more than 1,000 late entries, according to insiders at party headquarters.
Lord Rennard, the party’s chief executive, asked Clegg and his rival, Chris Huhne, whether they wanted to include the new ballot papers. But the Clegg camp said no – after all, rules is rules – and he went on to win by 511 votes to become the party’s third leader in less than two years.
It’s possible, of course, that every one of the late entries was a vote for Clegg. But it’s widely thought that Huhne was catching up. “Both camps have decided on a truce and have agreed not to mention this,” said a party source. Still, who could blame Huhne for thinking that a first-class campaign was sunk by the second-class post? ”
Rules may be rules but this is a cock up of Scottish parliament level proportions. You don’t hold a postal election so close to Christmas and expect ballot papers all to arrive in time.
I think it is unlikely in the extreme that a deficit of 500 would have been overturned by 1000 ballot papers.
Yes Merry Christmas everyone - see you at the party I hope.
With Clegg on the God thing, but will be listening to the Nine Lessons and Carols this afternoon. Just about the only good thing religion (all religions!) has managed
110 - Well it says over 1000 and, if that meant 1200 then 850/350 would have done it. Unlikely but, because the Clegg camp wouldn’t allow it, it brings the margin of his election (or even the result) into question. Good ammunition for any future challenger in any case (as Brown is finding from having a non-contest).
I agree with Mike’s suggestions above, it isn’t Cameron that needs to be attacked, it is the idea that his party won’t allow him to deliver on his promises. In such a case, lib dem/tory waverers may switch to lib dem in such marginals so that, in order to govern, his right flank is balanced by the need for a truly liberal partner.
Reminds of the “hanging chad” controversy when everyone said that Gore would have won the hanging chad vote by 90% - in the event somebody counted them and Bush’s lead increased.
If people couldn’t get round to posting their vote in time then that’s their trouble. I don’t see why it “calls the outcome into question” in the slightest.
Have a red christmas!!!!!
LAB Gain Lapland!!!!!