Boost for Labour in new YouGov poll
December 30th, 2007
Tory lead down to 5% but nearly 60% say Gord is doing badly
A new YouGov poll reported in the Sunday Times this morning has, with changes on the last survey by the pollster nearly a fortnight ago CON 40% (-3): LAB 35% (+4): LD 15% (-1).
There’s very little other information in the paper except that “six out of 10 people believe the prime minister is doing badly”. We don’t know when the poll was carried out or any other details. The shares for the main two parties are fairly similar to the ICM survey in the Guardian before Christmas which had C39-L34-LD18.
It is very unusual for a survey to be carried out bang in the middle of the Christmas holiday period and clearly Labour has benefited by the lack of bad news and the fact that the opposition parties have been relatively quiet. The media has been focussed elsewhere. There is a general theory as well that polling over holiday periods can be suspect because of the number of people who are away from home.
Over the past two years there has been a pretty close correlation between the amount of media coverage that Cameron has enjoyed and Tory party ratings. A key driver of the Brown polling bounce in the summer was that the Tories were almost totally blanked out of the news.
The Lib Dems might be a little disappointed to see their share drop particularly after their leader change. But choosing to have the election result announcement just as the holiday season was starting was always going to make it challenging for the new man to get coverage. Not smart - but typical of a party where having an effective media strategy is not seen as being terribly important.
One snippet of political news in the Observer suggests that Brown has “offered to hold talks with the new Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, on constitutional reform”. The report says that there’ll be a government paper on the subject next month.
This could pose a danger for Clegg - for if he is portrayed as getting too close to Gordon that could impede efforts to win back the party supporters who have switched to the Tories since the general election.
- If the new poll leads to a move back to Labour on the commons spread betting markets on the number of seats I might start selling. This is the form of betting where the number of seats the parties will get at the next election are traded like stocks and shares. The great joy is that if your predictions are right then you can close down your position and cash in your profits immediately. There is no need to wait for the election itself.
Mike Smithson
Politicalbetting.com - The Political Website of the Year
MessageSpace Advertising
Test
Proportional representation? Written constitution? Fiscal independence for Scotland? Federal-confederalism England, Scotland, Wales, N Ireland?
More Lib-Lab gerrymandering guaranteed.
Scotland got rid of the Lib-Labs in May. When will England do the same?
Cameron must be livid and Gordon must be delighted!
Brown can wrong foot the Tories (Conservatives) by knowing he is behind Cameron in the polls and facing defeat in First Past The Post by Changing the Electoral Voting system for General election in 2009 or 201O towards a Semi and Half or Mixed Proportional Representation Electoral system of 3 different systems I think of.
1. Alternative Vote Plus (AV+)
2. Additional Member System (Mixed Member System)
3. Single Transferable Vote (STV)
These are the Voting system I recomend to prevent the Conservatives of getting a majority they need about 50% to win on this system the Tories could?
I know in First Past The Post the Tories can win Tommorrow in 2009 or 2010 to end rule of 12 or 13 year Labour Government?
If the House of Lords is going to be a single national list for each party the number of seats needs to be dramatically reduced. Otherwise anyone that anyone’s ever heard of will be guaranteed a seat, along with a load of nobodies that don’t need to campaign but get in entirely on their party label (and more power to the party leadership). Why not an upper house with 100 seats? It’s one of the few strong points to the US Senate, one which creates the famed collegiate feel.
Beyond the 100, there should be non-voting members from business groups, unions, major religious denominations, academia and other expertise fields. That way we could ensure that expert views could be heard without affecting the democratic balance.
4: I’d have thought the most likely thing politically would be for the Second Chamber to have lots and lots of seats, at least some of them on party lists so that supporters could be rewarded. If Gordon was trying to change the Lower House electoral system (not that there’s no evidence that he is), this would be the perfect opportunity to avoid the usual turkeys-voting-for-Christmas problem; Anyone who loses out on bringing in AV/AV+/STV/whatever for the Commons gets a comfy, lucrative 7-year gig in the new Democratic House of Lords.
As far as what he _should_ do is concerned, I guess it’s an improvement if the government wants to move from their current 17th Century system to a 19th Century one. But since it’s now possible to get information from one end of the country to the other in less than a day, I don’t see why we still need to be electing representatives every x years and letting them make all the decisions; Just give everyone a vote on everything, and let them delegate it to someone else (a friend, a political party, a union, an interest group, whoever they like) if they’d rather have someone else represent them.
a decent poll for Brown, if no more bad news turns up, i would expect the number to hold around here
Excellent poll for Labour considering all the bad news recently and backs up the one taken earlier in the week that several posters had down as a `rogue` …
A central probabilistic forecast on those figures..
Con 289
Lab 289
LD 35
Nats 16
Oth 3
NI 13 (SF abstain)
assuming average LD incumbency, and the SNP on 33% in Scotland. The LDs could combine with either party to achieve an overall majority of 2 seats!
Of course the chances of an election producing precisely that result are minimal. In all probability it would tip a few seats one way or the other…
3. Not only must Cameron be livid,he and the rest of the Old Etonian cabal must be replaced if the conservatives are to win the next general election outright.
The next batch of opinion polls should be most interesting and I predict the conservaitive share will not exceed 42%.
Cameron’s honeymoon,if he ever had one,is well and truly over and the Great British electorate are not yet convinced that he has any depth to him.
Now if Vince Cable were to lead the conservatives ??
9; always nice to start the day with a laugh
What the poll says, (if you give it credence) is that people, are still undecided, they see the government in deep trouble, Gordon in a fix, but are still not convinced about the alternative.
Labour’s hope and the Conservative’s dread is that the spring, will see a government revival, its possible, but third term governments are always lurching in and out of trouble: fun times ahead!
9. Cameron’s honeymoon ended a good 18 months ago. His high polls number before and after this summer were more due to dissatisfaction with the government than his own appeal, but now even Jack Straw says Cameron “resonates” with the people.
An interesting year ahead, i wouldn’t bank on more than a minor Labour recovery, by this time next year, we will likely have a good idea which way the next election will go. Im really more interested in seeing where Clegg goes…
There is a fine balance to be struck between the twin enemies of ‘complacency’ and what my good friend Steady calls ‘fidgetation’.
Complacency comes from falling in love with your position as though it were a mistress and ignoring all the empirical evidence telling you to ‘ditch the bitch’.
Fidgetation is the extreme of the panic evinced by short term punters who cannot abide seeing the market move against them by a few ticks.
I do a lot of things right but have been guilty of both those sins.It was complacency that led me into a very deep hole come August.I had taken the long term view that NULAB couldn’t win an Overall Majority and that NOM(no overall) was very good value.I had offset that position slightly by backing NULAB to win most seats but my position just looked awful and had a four figure negative expectancy.
Fidgetation is something I am guilty of on an almost daily basis and it involves being unable to resist taking quick easy profits.The downside of that is that sometimes the quick easy profits fail to materialize and you are faced with a market moving against you.
Which brings us to the current State of the Parties.
After a lot of hard work in late August,September and October I am out of the hole and nicely in profit having made money on GE Date and having banked money on the Seat Market.
However,if I want to be,I can be in a new hole,as all my current open positions depend for success on a TORY victory or better still NOM with a TORY win.Any result featuring NOM is good.A NULAB landslide would retire me !
Complacency dictates that I stick with my current position and fidgetation says I should make an undignified exit from part of it.
My thoughts for what they are worth is that NULAB cannot have an early revival but that things could change in their favour at some point.This tells me to stay complacent.
My other thought(I always have two) is that strangely enough the market sentiment is massively with NULAB.That is to say that the serious players cannot see the Tories getting many more than 300 seats and yet the vast majority of people who expess an opinion think the Tories will win.
In short I am in need of advice(smiley face).
Good poll for Labour, but its the trend that matters. I have every confidence that New Labour will continue to cock things up, and the economic woes that will befall us in 2008/2009, will make life very difficult for Gordon. The challenge for the Tories is not to make any gaffes themselves.
Has an opinion poll ever been done over the Xmas period before. It seems very unusual …
StJohn previous thread (146) - US markets:
My evaluation of the chances:
Clinton 60%, Obama 30%, Edwards 10%.
McCain 35%, Giuliani 30%, Romney 20%, Huck 15%
Rawnsley sums the present situation up, about right I think.
http://tinyurl.com/3cm6ms
Mike
I disagree with you on two points.
1 Until the Bhutto assassination took out almost all other politics in the media, I thought that Cameron and the Tories were getting some coverage - even on Christmas Day, IIRC!
2 It is certainly NOT true that the Lib Dems do not find having an effective media strategy terribly important. It IS true, that there is a wide disparity of view - and no doubt a lot of argument at HQ level (and more locally) over what that strategy should be and how it should be implemented, especially given the decentralised nature of the party.
I think it was when the spin from above was recognised by party rank and file that Ming “had engineered positive change in how the party operated” (he didn’t), and when finally the idea that there was going to be an early election (which had been a major feature of Lib Dem media releases) was blown out of the water, the inevitable end came. There was a media strategy - or at least a narrative - but a new one, believable and effective for the medium term, must now be built. There is a window of opportunity, and it must be taken.
re 17. The problem with the Lib Dems is that the media people are seen as too far down the food chain. Thus the decision on the day to announce the leadership election should have been led entirely by PR considerations. Whoever was in charge should have been able to demand that a date be chosen to maximise the PR potential. To do it on December 18th was totally dumb.
The leadership of the party is great at producing by-election leaflets but positively inept when it comes to the media world. They simply do not get it.
Clegg has to appoint a top communications chief who is central to everything.
[18] Well he can’t have you, Mike - we need you
Curious that the consensus seems to be that this was a bad poll for the Tories: David Cameron would have killed for these ratings 3 months ago. The party this seems really bad for is the Lib Dems, since their ratings haven’t budged with a change of leader.
The most interesting detail released so far is the respective popularity of Cameron and Brown. It is most unusual for an opposition leader to outpoll a Prime Minister. It backs up what Mr Smithson says about the correlation between Cameron’s visibility and Tory poll ratings.
Andrew Rawnsley has a very good summary of the current political balance in the Observer today:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2233244,00.html
Gordon Brown’s wooing of Nick Clegg is interesting. Clegg should be wary of accepting too unambiguously. If the electorate’s view is that it is time for a change, he would be getting rid of one his main opportunities to rescue own party’s electoral fortunes, and boosting the Tories at the same time.
Sorry, coldstone, I had not noticed your post; clearly we agree!
“Curious that the consensus seems to be that this was a bad poll for the Tories”
Down 3% is always disappointing for a party. It is a disappointing poll for the Tories.
Clegg has work to do. He was announced as party leader at a time when it would make minimal impact. Silly Lib Dems. Whoever decided the timetable (Simon Hughes?) is to blame!
22 I have a post somewhere in the system answering some of your points. I will be watching how they do the traditional New Year Leader’s message - it should be briefer and more incisive than his acceptance speech (on Dec 18th!)
That’s a healthier-looking poll - as Oliver says it hardens up the ICM findings, which I thought a bit too good to be true. Rawnsley’s link by Coldstone in 16 is really very good. I’ve thought for some time that it’s really impossible to predict how things will look in 2009/10, though I remain sceptical about a no-overall-majority outcome.
Mike is right that the timing of the LD contest missed a rare opportunity to grab public attention. They can create more if they produce some interesting new policies - not-Iraq, not-ID, not-nuclear isn’t really enough more mainstream voters. The Tories have clearly decided to keep their powder dry so there’s a vacuum that the LDs can fill if they want.
My main disagreement with the consensus on pb.com is that I think the site is too prone to jump to conclusions when there’s a short-term ebb and flow of support. The general bafflement that Labour MPs weren’t in mass panic when the Tories hit 45% reflected this, as did the general expectation here that Tony Blair would have to quit long before he did. It takes a lot to panic MPs (of any party) who’ve been around a bit - you can’t go by the dial-a-quote exceptions who always turn up in the press. Maybe we should be less stoical at times, but in general you should assume that MPs won’t be much moved unless there are several months of polls in one direction or another.
The key thing is when this Poll was taken. The last Poll was weeks old. I wonder if we may find the Sunday Times has been sitting on this for a while. I would be highly surprised if they were trying to disturb Christmas
I see the absence of creatures/astroturfers referred to yesterday didn’t last long.
Yes. Good news for Labour. There is no reason why this should be a statistically meaningless fluctuation.
In other good news, Northern Rock shares rose from 31p to 35p. With the current trend it should be back at 1200p by 2010.
Hooray!
The details of the poll are here:
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/results071227.pdf
and the sampling period was Dec 20-27, something only an online pollster can get away with. I’d think that most people were around sometime during that period but there could be unpredictable ‘differential turnout’ with some types of voter less inclined than others to answer the poll in Christmas week. I can see pb.com addicts settling down on December 25 to assess the key issues.
There’s also a regional breakdown for those who set store by them…
20 That article doesn’t say much apart from repeating Rod Crosby’s thesis about By-Elections. We’ve read that already
27 LOLOL
20. Puzzlng that Brown et al. think the Lib Dems would want to prop up a thoroughly discredited Labour administration - it’s not as if the LDs have any record in this area, is it?
I’m not surprised there has been a bounce back in the polls towards Labour. I never really belived that peoples voting habits had realy changed to the extent the polls indicated. I believe that poll respondents often use polls as a means of sending a signal to their parties over what they think of their performance.
I’m sure there were plenty of Labour voters saying they would not vote or would vote for another party merely as means of sending a message to Gordon Brown and the Labour how unhappy they were with them, but if push came to shove would still end up voting Labour.
However the underlying momentum must still be in the Conservatives favour and real question is to what extent Cameron can feed on tis momentum to lift Conservative support to the 45% level. Labour are weak but the Conseravtives need to strengthen their own position if they are to win the next election. ‘Fortunately’ for them events should move in their favour as deteriorating economic conditions continue to hurt Labour giving Cameon the opportunity to seduce more voters over to the Conservatives.
26 Well, it’s not been a “betting thread” today - but I don’t see people pushing unambiguous party lines today!
I think that for both Labour and Conservatives the poll is interesting but academic. Nothing (save Bhutto’s death, which occurred in the latter stages of the polling period) of political interest happened when the poll was taken.
However, in January there will be lots of juicy political events. Northern Rock, the police investigation and continuing debate regarding 42 days and ID cards. Closing the gap for Christmas week will mean bugger all if we lose £20bn to the Rock and Gordon Brown gets called as a witness in court. Likewise, it could be the beginning of a fightback, though I doubt that given how difficult January could be and the prospect of an economic downturn.
24 - “if they produce some interesting new policies - not-Iraq, not-ID, not-nuclear isn’t really enough more mainstream voters.”
Nick, that is a very valid point. I think, however, not ID still has more mileage in it that you would hope for. As a LD who is marginally pro-nuclear power, I would like to see this issue kicked into the dust. I see it as an opportunistic one.
What Clegg needs to do is raise awareness of the income tax plans. Nobody out there has a clue about the 4p tax cut.
I’ve said before that I don’t give that much credence to polls done in July, August or two weeks either side of Christmas, and I’ll stick by that.
Obviously, these are on the face of it more encouraging figures for Labour (if not for Brown personally), but the circumstances in which the poll was taken, with so little concentration on politics in the media, do lessen the value of the results. I think Coldstone has it right with his assessment at [11], and that although Labour will be pleased that they’ve narrowed the gap, they need to repeat it through to mid-January for it to count in more credible circumstances and they are still behind.
I could well believe Gordon trying to fix the next election by introducing some form of electoral reform and going for a coalition / agreement with the Lib Dems. It’s very much his kind of politics. However, I couldn’t see the Lib Dems buying it (though I could imagine Clegg going too far down the line to avoid damage), as Brown won’t be able to offer what they really want: full PR for the Commons. Besides, any sniff of a ‘fix’ will go down so badly with the media and public that it should become a non-starter this side of a general election.
Reform of the Lords is on the agenda anyway and I’d have thought that to be the most likely proposal for further constitution tinkering. Whether that will be the subject to motivate the lost Labour support remains to be seen. Personally, I remain sceptical. I agree with Socrates at [4] that a much smaller chamber would be better and would personally go for something like six members elected by STV from each of the Euro-constituencies, which would give just over a hundred. Like the US senate, that would break the link with equal representation of population; like the US senate, it probably wouldn’t matter. More likely is EiT’s suggestion at [5], which allows much more party patronage.
Mike, has my post at around 9.30 got caught in a filter of some sort?
Someone in the SNP has hinted to the Scotland on Sunday that our internal polling (usually YouGov at the moment?) shows us (slightly?) ahead of Labour on Westminster voting intention. No actual numbers on the internet edition, but if any readers have a dead tree version of the newspaper?
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/politics/I39ll-fight-to-save-Union.3628201.jp
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/politics/Salmond-scoops-Scot-of-the.3628222.jp
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1932883.0.political_leaders_separately_resolve_to_fight_on.php
35 SBS Better look seriously at the realism of the income tax cut plan - when balanced against the seriously variable likely income from Green Taxes.
13 Excellent post URW, and a good honest account of the way a real punter’s mind works.
The reason the markets have difficulty predicting an outright Tory win is the sheer size of the task they face. Keep telling yourself that they have to win in excess of 125 seats. It’s not impossible but it’s a hell of an ask, and you would need a shift in voter behaviour comparable to 1997.
Think back to 1997 and you appreciate that not only did Labour appear fresh and new, but people were sick to death of the Tories. You’d need the reverse to get the Tories in now with an Overall Manjority. You haven’t got both conditions - yet. You may get them, but then again Labour may recover.
It all points clearly to NOM. My guess is it would be NOM with Tories largest Party, but that could change too. Keep that complacent view in sight, and the fidgetation won’t do you any harm.
30,I trust no-one will be dissing West Ham United for a while after their magnificent home victory against Man U,coming from behind-I am still beaming from ear to ear
29. Well, it’s a sobering fact that NO Opposition in the entire history of our democracy has won government without winning a by-election off of the incumbents…. Who would seriously want to bet against that record?….
Also, certainly since the War(and probably forever..) NO Opposition has ever performed better in terms of swing than it did on average in the by-elections in the preceding partliament. They invariably do worse (the “Crosby Thesis”) Who too would seriously want to bet against that record?….
Currently, the average by-election swing is 4.4%, pretty close coincidentally to the latest YouGov poll. That would result in a near dead-heat if repeated in a GE, as shown at post 8.
Everything still tells me Labour will be the largest party in a HP at the next election….
36 - I agree that about 100 members would be ideal for the new “Lords”. But that will never happen. The chamber holds more than that and this alone will mean the government will want to make sure it is fairly fully and have at least 300 or so. (How many does it hold? I guess the chamber could always be gutted and electronic voting booths be installed to seat 100, but I can’t either the govt or the Tories going for this!)
I would favour 15 year terms for members, single term only. Perhaps elections should be held every three years for a fifth of the members. Not sure of the ideal system though. I’d like scope for independents.
I do dislike an appointed element to the House of Lords. But it is fun, if quirky, to think that the last thirty years has seen Lords Olivier, Menuhin, Cowdrey… did any of these ever contribute anything meaningful to Lords debates?
On the House of Lords, second chamber, what will we actually call it? Most people identify with their county, or did till the disasterous 1974 act. Representation could be on a county basis, either fixed like the Senate, or dependent on population and proportional voting.
33. Oh I don’t know - posts that run along the lines ‘I’m not surprised there has been a swing to party X given event Y…’ generally have more than a whiff of spin about them.
42 - good point about by-elections. When did the Tories last improve their place in a by-election? (ie. move from 3rd to 2nd, or 2nd to 1st etc.).
My guess is Darlington 1983!
40,Harold Wilson’s quote ‘A week is a long time in politics’ has been repeated to death many times over-surely it is reasonable to surmise that as the BoE’s base rate,mainstream building society mortgage rates nudge down(I’ve just had a letter fromthe Woolwich announcing a small cut in my repayments),that by spring 2009,it is perfectly plausible that a window of opportunity will open for Gordon Brown(and that by then,a hard-right loony like John Redwood(or our own Stewart Jackson:lol)will put their foot right in,and get slaughtered by the media-so I still beleieve Labour will at least come within a few seats of an overall majority next time-or be so close as for them to be mathematically safe
44 - a Senate basis with 2 Member of the Lords per county is a bit daft. I never figure how Californians put up with being massively under-represented in the Senate compared to, say Montanans, Wyomingers (?) or North Dakotans.
47 - I doubt if all BoE base rates will be passed onto borrowers. Getting hold of cash to lend is big issue for the banks. Don’t expect too much of a feel good factor from base rate cuts.
N Rock shares are at 83p. Al Fresco [27]. I dont understand why, unless Northern Rock shareholders are a special case, they should be 0p.
47
The reality is that noone really knows and its all speculation. For the Tories to win outright from the current position would indeed be spectacular, from memory its only been done twice before ???. One should not forget the winter of economic discontent that is about to befall us. How bad it is and how long it lasts will IMHO be the prime determinator. Gordon doesnt have it in him to bring the electorate onside.
Its the economy that will decide the next election. Te only window likely to open for Gordon will be from a “House of Cards style push through it.
46. There was no change at Darlington 1983. The Tories didn’t win it until the GE, 11 weeks later.
The answer to your question is the Ceredigion by-election 2000, where the Tories inched-up from 4th to 3rd….
Many thanks PtP 40.Am nothing if not a real punter ! Omitted to reply to your thread yesterday …..but does Big Brother count as PB ?If so I had a very good year,but otherwise pretty useless.I have banked £520 on the GE and won derisory amounts on the two leadership contests.
I may be able to offer you some practical help via your £20,000 challenge but not on a public thread.
If you are interested you could get my email from Mike Smithson.
Just to add that I regularly describe pb.com as the most focussed forum on the internet.It is my second or third call every morning.
I do like betting threads and also threads where narrow political jibes are given short shrift.
I think those who compare a reformed Lords to the U.S. Senate are wide of the mark. The US Constitution provides, always has provided for a bicameral legislature where both Houses have equal (tho’ slightly differing) powers - in our Constitution the Commons represents the People, the Lords represents Interests. No MP of any Party is going to want to upset this, which direct election inevitably does. Nor is it clear to me why the Parties should want the expense of further elections, nor why their leaders should want to give up the power of patronage.
The hereditary element did give offence, that has been sorted - it says something for the calibre of our aristocrats that only one of them has managed to exercise his new right to sit in the Commons as a representative of the People (and Thurso is a fairly new creation, I think) - I wonder if Cameron will follow through the logic and create new hereditary peerages - for example, for “national treasures” who don’t actually want to be legislators? (I mean, he’s far too honourable to sell them, of course ;))
Canada has an appointed Upper House, Australia an elected one, New Zealand manages without one. Yet none of us think that any of those countries has a “democratic deficit” by comparison with each other.
42. Has there ever been such a disparity though between the parties’ performances in the scheduled, May elections and their performances in the by-elections? By-elections are becoming specialist events, and ones that the Conservatives still haven’t really got the hang of. And while the performance at mass, country-wide elections on the other hand still leaves room for improvement in terms of targetting, the overall performance is markedly better. To me, NOM + Tory most seats looks (odds-against) favourite.
43. Originally, I’d have proposed nine-year terms (renewable) with a third elected every three years, but couldn’t square that with both a small membership and the use of STV. I too liked the ability of life peers who’d got their honours for services to something other than politics to turn up and contribute. However, the removal of the hereditories meant far more life peers, and this seems to have restricted that source. Given a blank sheet, I’d still propose between one-quarter and one-third of the membership chosen utterly randomly from amongst the electorate: that would give independence, a non-political background and the higher democratic legitimacy to the Commons.
44. A referendum in the transferred areas might be a popular suggestion as to whether they favour a return to their traditional county or not, and would then generally put to bed problems of lack of identification with county / region.
42 The thing about politics is there are no rules - precedents certainly, but how often we hear “unprecedented” used in political discourse. Until 2005 no party had won a majority of seats with 35% of the popular vote, until this year we hadn’t seen such polling variability. Agree in betting that precedents are a guide but as warned above they also lead to complacency.
A Tory victory in 2009 or 2010 remains a big ask and I always looked for a two election recovery but it’s that 35% in 2005 that niggles me - it shows Labour had become unpopular a couple of years back (as Blair recognised at the time) and I’ve seen little to make me think it will be more popular rather than less at next election. So it’s how the votes break between Tory and LD and whether as we saw in Scotland and the early October polls minor parties are squeezed out.
51,Obviously I diffentiate between my mortgage,based on income,through a frontline building society-mine tracks at 0.19% above the base rate,and the sub-prime mortgage market,where peolpe on low incomes have been offered 8,even 10 times their annual income,ususally at a very high interest rate,of at least 8,often 10 or 11%-my heart goes out to those who have pushed themselves too far,an dlost everything.
(My circumstances are unusual;thriugha complex family will,I three-quarters inherited a scruffy,but soild,four bed detached house,so I have,by todays standards,a very small mortgage of £54K,the prepayments of which are perfectly manageable,at £250/month,as I am doing interest-only for the time being)
A recession is strictly defined by economists as two consecutive quarters of negative growth,I and most analysts do not foresee that,but do foresee GDP growth of circa 2% in 2008,and a very modest rise in unemployment-but certainly a ’soft landing’,as opposed to the late 8-s/early 90s boom and bust-which still resonates in many,many memories
48
Agree to some extent, but the idea of 2 regardless, was based on the idea that the smaller states should not lose out. If Greater London was thought of as a county, how many reps would it get?
Mike - I think the date of the Lib Dem leadership announcement was decided rather more by the date Ming chose to quit. After that the rules of the process meant the result had to be announced that week.
53 Thanks URW. If it’s OK with you then, I’ll get your email address from Mike. You can trust my discretion. As you know, I run a vast network of spies and none of them has ever had any cause for concern about their identity being revealed.
Yesterday’s thread was very satisfying and I am glad you appreciated it. I think we got down to post 168 before we had our first ‘narrow political jibe’. No doubt the Creatures will be back in force today, venting their frustration.
Or maybe they are giving up on the Site generally? They have been much less in evidence lately. Perhaps the persistently intelligent and dignified level of debate is wearing them out.
54. Jack W would never have let you get away with that: there are three hereditaries - as well as Thurso, there is Michael Ancram (13th Marquis of Lothian; created 1701) and Douglas Hogg (3rd Viscount Hailsham; created 1929). Not bad going to have 3 out of about 850 peers, compared with 643 out of 60 million+ commoners.
55 - the issue of county identification is interesting. I have lived in Berkshire since 1999. There is little county identification - and no county council.
I come from Kent and regularly visit. There is extremely strong county identification - and it still exists in the parts not covered by the county council - eg. Bromley etc since 1974 and Medway since 1999 (?). I would say county identification is strongest in Lancs, Yorks, Cornwall and Kent - ie populous counties and geographical extremities.
Hi Patrick. Nice to see you posting again.
Normally I do not encourage non-betting posts, but since West Ham wins are rare, you have permission to gloat.
61 - I also believe Lord James Douglas Hamilton (Lord being a courtesy title) renounced his proper title when his father died in order to stay in the Commons and prevent an embarrassing by-election for Major. He lost his seat the subsequent GE and it is now a safe LD seat.
He does now sit in the Scottish Parliament - and alas cannot reclaim his title.
56. While the 35% was, as you say unprecedented, it was none the less capable of being forecasted… Labour could in theory get a majority on about 31.7% of the vote, depending on how other parties’ votes were distributed…
57
It might not be recesssion according to Govt (adjusted)figures, but I don’t trust them. Does anyone actually believe the current inflation figures???. My loaf of bread that I used to buy in Tescos is now 99p, it used to be 73p, diesel used to be 88.9p, where I live its 108.9p….and so on and so forth…
My experience as a semi retired low wage earner is that inflation is significantly higher than the quoted figures, and there are millions like me who feel the same, whatever the inflation figures might say… Thats why I dont trust Govt figures, the experience of real people is different. In April I will be much worse off after the 2 p tax cut that wasnt a tax cut at all. I will be hundred of pounds worse off.
63,’West Ham wins are rare’-how very dare you?:lol:Serioulsy,Peter,a very happy New Year to you and all other posters,and thanks again to the support from posters when I had my breakdown this summer,from which I am strongly recovering,Bring on 2008-and a Hilary Clinton Presidental victory!!!
66 - some things have gone down in price though. Electrical appliances certainly never seem to go up, and regularly come down. Cars don’t seem to change much in cost these days. Some foodstuffs don’t go up much at all.
Of course, different people get affected by inflation in different ways. Your inflation may well be higher than the quoted figures. Bread and fuel have both had very high increases in the last couple of years.
But I believe the figures from the government.
62. Berkshire is a strange one though. The eastern part is so urbanised, being London overspill really with many of the inhabitants having no roots there - and little reason to become fond of their adopted home either; how can you get misty eyed about somewhere like Reading?
In the west, the severance of a big chunk of the county and its passage to Oxfordshire in the early 1970s has left a rural rump, just a single government district in size. And there too, large scale commuting has eroded the local sense of identity.
67 LOL! Actually, I’m a bit of closet West Ham fan, Patrick. Like a lot of Orient supporters, I used to go down there to watch some football from time to time.
Happy New Year to you, and I hope things continue to progress nicely for you.
See you at the Party?
Latest version of election simulator now available, with user-requested changes…
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/electsim.xls
69 I regularly get misty eyed about Reading. But it’s mainly the smog.
I would say that among the locals here there is a strong Reading identity, but no Berkshire identity. Back in my old home town of Maidstone, there is no Maidstone identity, but plenty of Kent identity.
62, 69, 72
So what’s the bit about “Royal Berkshire” then - just froth to make up the lack of genuine identity? As someone who worked in Reading for nearly 4 years in the 70s, I certainly felt the “Reading identity”, although at that time it was a town seen by outsiders as a bit amorphous and characterless.
64 - Lord James did renounce his hereditary peerage - he would have been 11th Earl of Selkirk, but he was given a life peerage after losing his seat in 1997 election. He is now officially Baron Selkirk of Douglas. He retired from the Scottish Parliament at the 2007 election.
68 SBS The real worry is the discrepancy between RPI and the CPI where the first is used for pay and pension settlements and the latter for inflation monitoring. There is a real danger there of institutionalising inflation in significant parts of the economy, particularly, but not exclusively, the state sector.
Patrick - as a supporter of the current League leaders, I am more than happy to see posts about ManUSA’s loss. I knew Matty Upson would prove useful at some point in his career.
72 Reading was a Borough / County Borough for a long time so not surprising it established a separate identity from Berkshire. The equivalent in Kent would be Canterbury which I’ve always perceived as being in Kent but not Kentish (if that makes sense)
73. Well the irony is that Berkshire is a very ancient territorial district indeed, and with a rich history. But that has been submerged by demographic change and urban sprawl. To some extent it’s a problem of all the home counties, but Berkshire to perhaps the greatest extent. Kent is arguably the notable exception - it has a particularist tradition dating to the earliest period of English settlement which seems to hard to budge.
We have a mystic Meg trying to guess Scottish seats - she needs to read this site a lot more.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/29818/Labour-MPs-under-threat-in-super-poll-
77 - but Canterbury has the county cricket ground. It’s also tiny (city has about 35,000 only). Most people from outside Kent mistakenly think Canterbury is the county town. Canterbury is also not that nice. Heavily bombed in the war, it consists largely of ugly housing estates, away from a couple of streets by the cathedral.
79 - such articles betray their stupidity when they get basic facts wrong… “Robert McIntyre won the Motherwell by-election in 1945, but lost it the following year at the General Election.”
Was there a general election in 1946?
81. His triumph lasted 104 days…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Pre-1945
I think this is the Scottish “poll” being referred to:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/29818/Labour-MPs-under-threat-in-super-poll-
Although it is not a proper poll.
Sorry I didnt see 79
2.
Stuart Dickson: “Scotland got rid of the Lib-Labs in May. When will England do the same?”
From South of the border it sems that Scotland is being governed by a second ‘Liberal’ Party. The fact that it has a few slightly different policies and it calls itself something different makes no odds. And if it wasn’t for the proportional representation which the Tories whinged against for years, there would not be a single Conservative representative in the Scottish Parliament.
76,Even as a Hammer,as my dad’s side of my family originate from north London,I will not be upset if,as is likely the case,Arsenal beat West Ham at the Emirates-if its in the cause of a London club winning the Premiership,I would not be too upset.(Mind you,on recent for,a score draw may be on the cards,and last year the Hammers doubled Aresnal and the Mancs-the first time this had been achieved sincew the 1977/8 season)Must go,before Peter the Punter tells me to p1ss off to bbc football:lol:
86 - not so, they won FPTP in Ayr, Edinburgh Pentlands and Roxburgh in May - 3
87 should read 85 - off to specsavers
87. And Galloway - 4. But never let facts get in the way of a rant like that at 86.
86. Are you going on Tuesday by any chance?
There appears to be no political reason for a change in the polling so, if it does exist, then it is built on air. As such it’s probably a good opportunity to benefit from those who are betting on thinking that this is a recovery. As we know what is potentially brewing in economic and civil liberties areas, notwithstanding the resurrection of corruption charges, it would be a brave man or woman to bet otherwise.
For what it’s worth, I think this is partly the element of unpredictability that holiday periods bring with the Cameron tactic of disappearing for a while leading to voters reverting to stock answers. The lib dem figure needs to rise, even if it is yougov, though.
Sorry to p*ss on your parade Patrick but West Ham should not have been playing Manchester United yesterday. Instead they should have been up against Crystal Palace in the Championship. Don’t forget only by cheating did you keep your place in the Premiership.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1029692_north_key_to_tory_hopes
Anyone got a link to this report? Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, and Newcastle are irrelevant to the Conservatives’ prospects at the next election - although some of their environs are crucial.
Currently, there are 19 Conservative MPs in the North, and they need about 55 or so to win a working majority next time - but not one of them need be in any of those four cities.
Not sure if this is the best place to have arguments about political philosophy and constitutional affairs, but I’ll run this up the flag pole and see who shoots at it, anyway…
Plato said there were three forms of government, with a good/bad version of each: monarchy/tyranny, aristocracy/oligarchy, and democracy/anarchy (though the latter should actually be ochlocracy - rule of the mob). Machiavelli, and the other great republican writers of the Early Modern period recognised that a strong republic would include a place for all three forms to prevent descent into an unsatisfactory version of any. Weightings will vary from system to system.
The aspect of monarchy (rule of one) is clear in the Royal Assent, and the Democratic representation of the people should be found in the Commons. Neither is in too much need of reform *from a ‘republican’ perspective* (where republican is not meant as ‘anti-monarchist’ but in the true sense).
The House of Lords traditionally meant aristocracy, but the hereditory aspect is no longer considered acceptable. In the modern world, the aristocracy (rule of the elite) must mean a meritocratic elite representing the various areas of interest in the country. However, whilst the primary question of the Commons is whether it is legitimate, the primary question for an upper House must be is it *authoritative*. On such grounds I see no reason, except fear of corruption, for direct election.
What I would propose is an Upper Chamber of around 350 (to fill the benches!) who would comprise a fixed number of seats for business leaders and people from the world of finance, a fixed quota for former politicians (they are valuable in some respects), a quota for faith leaders, a quota for the arts and the world of sport, a quota for academics and teachers, and one for medical professionals, and one for military leaders and so on.
To ensure some relationship to the population, you may wish to include rules that gender disparity should not exceed a 60-30 split, or simuilar rules for other under-represented parties, or perhaps not. I cannot decide. However, whipping would be light if allowed at all - their role would be to scrutinise and improve the quality of legislation. They would offer expert advice in a full committee of the upper house, as at present.
Individuals would be put forward for election in one quota by being nominated by 1000 citizens (10 senior academics for perhaps 4 seats under the academic quota), and MPs would vote by AV/STV in *secret ballot* for the candidate(s) they feel would best do the job. The secret ballot would help avoid excessive partisanship, and would mirror the way in which Speakers of the House of Commons will be elected henceforth.
Elections every 5 years, on a fixed basis - no bars on re-election.
This would give you an independent-minded, highly-expert house, with practical support of the Commons, but not too partisan, with all interests represented. Legitimate-in-part by virtue of indirect election by the people’s representatives, but justified by their being *authoritative*, rather than solely legitimate.
Sorry - needed to get that idea off my chest. I hate the idea of people voting for a second partisan chamber. I want the Upper House to be authoritative, not legitimate, but break the patronage that has hurt its reputation. This seems as good a way as possible - it mirrors the way in which Speakers are chosen, but ensures that the people we neutrals would want are included.
91 Simon Carr got it about right in his post-Brown press conference 10 days ago:
“”I wouldn’t be surprised if his poll rating rises. As we noted last week – he has stopped getting worse. The Tories need another tactic; jeering is no longer enough.”
He also made point that the journalists didn’t try to press Brown on difficult questions “Maybe it’s the time of year. Or maybe they don’t understand any more about Northern Rock than I do. That’s a depressing thought.”
Brown/Labour will recover, fall again, recover, fall again but IMHO I doubt he can recover his reputation as the competent, Iron Chancellor (Not Flash just Gordon reads very differently now and probably always will).
68 “Some foodstuffs don’t go up much at all”
SBS - are you kidding?
I can only assume that you don’t do the supermarket shopping in your household. Food prices are rocketing upwards, with many everyday items up by 25% or more in just the last few momths!
I don’t think that is quite accurate, Antifrank (20). You see Gordon Brown as setting out to woo the Liberal Democrats and interpret this as an inevitable Labour-Lib Dem coalition government after the next election.
What you have conveniently forgotten is that your David Cameron also set out to vamp the Lib Dems, presumably with the same objective in mind.
The fact is that Nick Clegg has invited both Cameron and Brown to take part in a Constitutional Convention, to try to blow life into our failing political system.
Brown’s reply, in the sense that he is willing to give it a try, though rather more on his own terms, shows that he is a least disposed to consider the matter.
Your David Cameron, in contrast, does not seem to know what to say. Having suggested that the Tories and the Lib Dems should work together more closely, Cameron does rather give the impression of being hoist with a petard of his own making.
94. It does not sound very democratic to me! Talk of quota’s and *10 senior academics for perhaps 4 seats under the academic quota* sounds elitist to me and anything but democratic! Given the use of * * in quotes and the *I hate the idea of people voting for a second partisan chamber.* part of the “statement” - I have a good guess as to the identity of the contributor!!!!
:lol: 
An MP or academic, possibly stradling the two???
What I would propose is an Upper Chamber of around 350 (to fill the benches!) who would comprise a fixed number of seats for business leaders and people from the world of finance, a fixed quota for former politicians (they are valuable in some respects), a quota for faith leaders, a quota for the arts and the world of sport, a quota for academics and teachers, and one for medical professionals, and one for military leaders and so on.
To ensure some relationship to the population, you may wish to include rules that gender disparity should not exceed a 60-30 split, or simuilar rules for other under-represented parties, or perhaps not. I cannot decide. However, whipping would be light if allowed at all - their role would be to scrutinise and improve the quality of legislation. They would offer expert advice in a full committee of the upper house, as at present.
Tory policies are proving popular with the public and the government must adapt to survive, Jack Straw warns:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7164461.stm
Is straw the slowest MP in the commons? of COurse tory proposals are popular, that is why the Labour party have been nicking them!!!
Problem for Labour is they do not enhance the governments popularity!
94 - Martin Day: It’s not supposed to be democratic!! The Commons is the democratic element, the Royal Assent is the Monarchic element, the House of Lord ios supposed to be aristocratic (rule of the elite) - I just mean that the *elite* should be based on merit in an area of life, not on hereditory titles.
I am certainly not an MP, and although I dally with the idea of actually writing the doctoral thesis, I never quite get around to it! I am not fussy about the size of the quotas, or how they would be weighted, I just want to posit that you need a meritocratic elite from *all* areas of life, not a quasi-democratic process that gives just another level of the partisan Political Class.
96 - Peter, you have to realise that large numbers of people live off value baked beans (20p a tin), value mince (£1 for 500g), value bread (37p)… etc. I don’t find that the cost of takeaways has increased by more than inflation since my student days many moons ago either! There are also plenty of bargains to be had among cheap microwave ready meals. These things don’t seem to go up.
I often do the grocery shopping and do agree that some everyday items like bread have rocketed recently, but many have not. We don’t tend to notice the ones that stay the same.
100. Sounds like a reciepe for anarchy to me. Interesting idea all the same.
97 Why should Cameron give the Lib Dems the publicity that would attend an unneccessary Constitutional Conference?
We are more interested in doing something about jobs, education, health, immigration, the environment than a time wasting politico-fest about an assertion that the “political system is broken”. No far better we continue to attract successfully those lost souls who voted Lib Dem in 1997, 2001 and 2005 to the new Conservative agenda.
Oh and remind the voters that while Clegg and Brown prattle on about those grand constitutional matters both of them reneged on manifesto pledges to put another consitution affecting measure to the popular vote.
68 “I believe the figures from the government”
Brilliant… Absolute genius… really!
98 - I like a quota for former politicians. Some former politcos have been brilliant in the Lords - Callaghan, Jenkins, Weatherill to name but three. Others have barely flickered on the radar. Some like Ashdown have taken their talents as far away from the Lords as possible.
104 - actually, I was wrong; the figures are now produced “independent” of government - apparently.
So you think the inflation figures are a fraud?
101 Let’s not pretend that the average shopper lives off 20p cans of baked beans - the price of a Heinz/Branston branded can is actually 47p in Tesco, likewise a regular large loaf of bread is more than double the 37p you quote for the “value” equivalent. Those who do buy low cost value products are unlikely to be the same as those buying high margin “microwave ready” meals.
Dairy products in general have increased by between 25%-40% over the past 4 months, eggs by around 35%, flour by 30%, etc, etc. All these staples are certain affect the price of processed and prepared foods, if they have not already done so.
We have not seen food price inflation on anything approaching this level for almost 30 years!
93 Who is this idiot in this article? Quoting MW a seat last held when the Tory majority was in excess of a hundred as proof of their inability to win a majority. Any psephologist would tell you Cameron could have a three figures majority and be nowhere near MW or any other Northern City seat. Case of lazy northern hack seeking to drum up interest in politically uninteresting area of the country meets helpful academic methinks……
100. Surely there would have to be a constituency reserved for the cross-benchers and independents, if the character of the House of Lords was to be maintained? A separate list or STV ballot restricted to those who had not been a member of any political party for say at least the previous 5 or 10 years…. Also probably a few co-opted seats for the likes of some Bishops and the Chief Rabbi, etc…
108 - the lack of Tory seats in Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle cities is of no relevance to the Tory progress towards an overall majority. Likewise, Labour did not lose sleep over their lack of progress in Surrey as they sped towards their huge majorities in 1997 and 2001.
You must be joking, Ted (103). Cameron and his Conservatives are not interested in doing anything about “jobs, education, health, immigration, the environment”. If they were, they would be putting forward some policies.
All Cameron and his Conservatives are interested in is self-publicity and brushing up their PR skills.
100 - I think we don’t necessarily want a bunch of intellectuals/high-flyers, who often have idiosyncratic views, as part of the legislature. What we want for the second chamber is people prepared to vote in a non-partisan way according to their common sense, who have been brought up to see performing this function to the best of their ability as a matter of duty, and who are less likely to be swayed by personal financial gain or the whims of the mob. In short, the hereditaries. Bring them back!
95 - There has been a certain element of soft pedalling on Brown at the end of this year (I hesitate to use the term pity but it isn’t far away from that). It’s a cyclical thing; the press would like a turnaround to publicise and, at this point in the cycle, seek evidence for one, this could also become the catalyst for a real upwards tick if events are in favour. If, however, there is another crisis in January then the average flow of positive vs negative coverage would continue to go down.
If I could draw a graph it would be easier to explain but, because of the media’s hatred of stasis you get a series of small up and down movements which can mask the overall drift upwards or downwards. The overall drift for the government is still downwards at the moment, however, and, to create a real turnaround, Brown needs a major event, or series of smaller events to go unequivocally in his favour, in order to be able to achieve this. Northern Rock costing the taxpayer nothing, no investigation into financial corruption, positive reports from the medical and teaching professions and so on.
Looking at the other leaders Cameron should be in the downward part of the media (as opposed to real) cycle, given his successes throughout the latter part of the year. As such he would be well advised to step back for a while in order not to give the media the ammunition that would enable this.
Clegg should have a honeymoon but, being a third party leader, I doubt this will be a long one. The danger is that, Cable having been so successful and media friendly, Clegg is going to be hit hard as soon as the honeymoon ends. Clegg failed to use the election to give himself anything like a defined profile and this is now dangerous in that he has to do so in the thick of being judged more harshly.
Like most people, I suspect the poll is more due to certain types being available.
What I dont understand is the behaviour of the Gordon Brown Regime. Daya after days I read how voters are under assault. Law abiding citizens to receive a criminal record for eating an apple while driving, Parking fines quadruple in 5 years etc. While murderers, rapists and illegals are free to roam the streets, the Sun’s Leader bemoans Brown’s href=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/article244723.ece>Brown’s Police state
I understand that money must be found to pay for all the immigration, human rights cases and corruption - but Labour seems to be targeting their own voters.
Alienating Conservative voters further wont hurt Labour much - except perhaps to strengthen their resolve - but why alienate Labour voters?
Labour really is finished if it has no option but to burn it’s house down to keep warm.
113 - should Clegg have a honeymoon? Did Ashdown (no) Kennedy (don’t think so) Ming (certainly not)?
109 - This is a good point at which to rid the legislature of religious figures, if they want to be influential in a political sense then they can put themselves forwards with everybody else.
109 - I would not be averse to an Independents quota, although by relying less heavily on former polticians in the Upper House, I would imagine that the vast-majority of members under my system would be Cross-Benchers or the equivalent. Perhaps consider the inverse: that only one third of the house could have been members of a political party - that way, government and opposition in the Upper Chamber would need to pursuade non-partisan experts of the merits of a bill.
The Bishops and Chief Rabbi (along with the Cardinals of the UK, and representatives of other faiths) would comprise part of the ‘Religious Leaders’ quota, I would imagine, with sub-quotas for each faith based on the census population of each faith?
108, 110 I expect the report itself is more nuanced - you could quite reasonably say that the Conservatives need to win seats in the environs of Liverpool (eg Sefton Central, Wirral South) and Manchester (eg Bolton NE, Bury North, Cheadle) to form a government, but the article itself is just lazy. Plainly, some journalists have yet to wake up to the fact that places like Liverpool Garston, Wavertree, and Manchester Withington are no longer Conservative vs Labour battlegrounds.
113. You have a point in what you say as i think it is likely the tories will widen their lead in the new year.
THe media will then say that Labour slumps in the the polls.
To my mind this just confirms the trnd of Tories 40+, Labour low 30’s and the Liberal democrats going the way of my caracture of their last leader but one - Skeleton!!!
:lol: 
What a joke of a party: 4th leader in 24 months! They seem to be getting worse as well 
Wonder if the MP for Solihull will defect back to the tories? She was a tory up till the mid 90’s.
110 Quite but lazy hacks still trot it out
42 And what does your thesis tell you on the Lib Dems? Their By-Election performances between 2001-2005 should have led to massive progress extending your theory but it did not. And there lies the crucial difference prior to 1979 they barely registered as a force to draw anti Labour By Election votes. It is a different world. By Elections are their lifeblood and hence their greater skill. You may well be right Labour may well be the Largest Party in HP or even have a majority but I think the rise of the LDs and the Lord Rennard By-Election machinery means there is a fundamental anomaly in your model of pre 1979 comparisons with now
112 - The herditories were not ideosyncratic? Or had a mind to personal wealth? I’m not so sure - I think eleciton by the Commons would ensure that there were exactly the right number of eccentrics mixed into an expert house of all the talents.
116 - They are there because they represent an area of public life. Millions of people describe themselves as having a faith, and millions practice that faith. It is as deserving as any other group of as quota, though I would expect the President of the National Secular Society to get one of the places unser sub-quota rules. Like it or not, ethics and moral philosophy are areas of expertise, that though I disagree with many faith leaders, they are genuinely expert in. They should have a role - albeit less than at present.
106 Fraud is too strong a word.
However any figure that purports to measure cost of living rises without taking into account ‘the cost of living’(*) is a distraction.
Inflation figures are designed to be under measure for pay negotiations. An accurate measure of inflation is in itself inflationary.
(*)heating, council tax, petrol, houses, diesel(!), parking(**) (& parking tickets) rtc
(**) remember when parking in the high street was free?
114 Here is the link to Sun’s leader complaining about Brown’s Police State
115 - In the sense that the media give someone the benefit of the doubt then I think, yes, it’s inevitable and is extended to all new leaders, including the ones that you mention. Campbell was his own worst enemy though in giving ammunition to other parties which, inevitably, was reported. The coverage of him later was decidedly more hostile and the earlier positive coverage, partly reflecting on his successes in his previous post, is maybe forgotten.
101 value baked beans used to be 13p not long ago…
118 Well he is quoted as cite MW. If so he is still being breatakingly careless. MW is as far as the Tories are concerned a wholly irrelevant LD-Lab battle now
But O/T huge Sun Times splash on a wonderfully entertaining spat as Prezza Jr tries to inherit Dad’s seat. Great fun really