Could Obama’s pledged delegates switch to Hillary?
February 19th, 2008This article by Roger Simon appeared on the Politico site this afternoon. Click in the graphic to read the full feature.
If this is the case then it could add even more uncertainty.
MessageSpace Advertising
Are pledged delegates allowed to switch sides? If they are, and if an Obama lead in pledged delegates were overturned in this way, I imagine it would destroy the Democrats’ chances.
I think it varies by state. But it seems like a Clinton blunder anyway. Firstly, it looks anti-democratic at a time when elections are still very much underway (”by the way, if you don’t vote for us we will sweet talk your delegates”). Secondly, it looks desperate. Thirdly, the way the momentum has moved since Super Tuesday, there are surely more pledged Clinton delegates vulnerable to Obama right now than the other way around. So if they really do start to play that game, they don’t have a strong hand.
This from RCP’s Horserace blog is worth checking out:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/
This is an extremely foggy issue with little that is clear cut. If it’s close over the next two weeks the nomination could trail on into August.
I’ve laid Obama at 1.11 for Wisconsin - I’m guessing we are going to see some more of the New Hampshire “Spiral of Silence” and that his 4% poll lead could easily vanish.
Own goal by Hillary’s team.
3. has the “Spiral of Silence” been seen anywhere since New Hampshire?
A republican win in Novemeber at 2/1 must be value? The direct, but more importantly the indirect, attacks on each other by the dem candidates must have a cumulative effect?
6 - only if Hillary wins the nomination, I think. Admittedly it’s just anecdotal, but talking to American friends over the weekend there does seem to be an enthusiasm for Obama that McCain will struggle to combat.
Looks desperate, also looks anti-democratic.
And why would a super-delegate switch if Obama has more chance of winning the presidency anyway?
2. Agree with all three points.
6. Agree as well. To animal’s point, enthusiasm can go up and down. Obama won’t seem as fresh in November as he does now - the Republicans will see to that even if Hillary doesn’t (and she’s trying her best to, anyway). McCain by contrast doesn’t really have any star quality to get tarnished. I’d still say Dems favourite, but not by a huge amount - especially considering the uncertainty remaining over their candidate. 4/6 or 8/13 rather than 1/2.
2,4,8 - Agreed, and they are already rowing back from it. However don’t expect it to have much effect as it is very much an inside the beltway issue, a process story that not many voters will pick up on. Just another sign that things are slipping away for Clinton.
New Virginia numbers from SUSA:
McCain 48 Clinton 45
Obama 51 McCain 45
10 New Virginia? Is this a State I’ve not heard of before?
11 Formerly known as North Virginia perhaps….?
6/7 Agree with both these posts - but it looks like bare knuckle fighting for the Dem nomination for at least the next 3 weeks and probably longer, so the betting strategy is peobably to back McCain on Betfair and then lay him, hopefully at a profit, if/when Obama looks a sure fire thing to win the nomination, but if against the odds, it turns out to be Hillary then simply hold.
11 - How drole
The Clinton campaign have said that they’ve raised $15m in the first 15 days of February, which means they are just about matching Obama’s January pace. I’d guess Obama is now raising more, but not significantly more so the money race seems to have evened up. We will find out in the next couple of days just how desperate the financial position of the Clinton campaign was at the end of January - tomorrow is the deadline for finance reports to be filed.
http://tinyurl.com/2rr2gh
2 But that’s the point. They are desperate and hence will do whatever it takes to try to get the nomination. The key for them is to find a way of derailing the Obama train. Do not underestimate the Clintons or the lengths to which they will go.
11/12 First cousin of Golden Virginia perhaps. No, no I mustn’t harbour such thoughts!
14 So what’s your guess for tonite, Kieran?
I reckon another Obama win, but not by much, and then Texas and Ohio are make or break for Hillary. She has to win both by 10% minimum to stay competitive, I believe.
Voter Bulletin
Washington State Presidential Prefence Primary
Am just getting ready to leave my humble abode and walk down to my polling place to cast my ballot in today’s Washington State presidential preference primary.
But will not be signing the poll book and casting a poll ballot. Instead, am simply dropping off my absentee ballot. I can actually do this at any polling place or election office anywhere in the state of WA. Or could put a stamp on it and mail it at the post office (provided it gets postmarked by today).
One reason that I’m going to drop my ballot off at my polling place, is so I can get a handle on the turnout at the polls today. Will send you a report when I return.
BTW, here are the steps required to properly cast my absentee ballot:
1. Circle the oval next to ONE candidate running for president. In King Co, the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are listed separately on the same ballot.
2. Place the voted ballot inside a blank “security envelope” and then put the security envelope into the return envelope.
3. Mark the checkbox next to the oath of the party I wish to affiliate with; if this is not done, my presidential preference vote is not valid.
4. Sign the return ballot envelope; note that no absentee or vote-by-mail ballot can be accepted for counting in any WA election, unless it is signed by the voter and the signature matches the voter’s sig on the registration rolls. (There are special provisions for illiterate voters.)
5. NOTE: when election workers back at the King County Election Center actually process my returned ballot:
a) They will first sort it into the group which contains ballots where the voter marked the Democratic oath.
b) Then my signature will be checked against the signature on my voter registration record.
c)Provided these two signatures match, the return & security envelopes will be extracted and separated. d) At that point, the ballot gets a visual inspection, to make sure it isn’t torn or otherwise damaged, and also that it is marked by me in a way that the machine can correctly record my voter intent; also to ensure that a person who signs the Democratic oath doesn’t try to cast a vote for a Republican candidate, or visa versa
e) If there is nothing out-of-the-ordinary with my ballot, it will be ready for tabulation; if there is a problem and the solution is clearcut, then the ballot will be duplicated onto a blank ballot in a way that both reflects my intent AND will run through the counting machine; if the intent is unclear or there is some other problem, will be refered to the county canvassing board for adjudictation.
6. Further note that whatever happens in processing, my ballot will NOT be counted today; instead, it will likely be tabulated later this week.
So when you are getting the returns from WA State tonight, remember to add one vote to the count for Obama!
“We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama.” - Phil Singer, the Clinton campaign spokesman.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/clinton_campaign_will_not_lobb.php
17 - I reckon an Obama win in the upper single digits - around the 8 point mark. But this is the most unpredictable of the primaries/caucuses (possibly with the exception of Maine) since ST. I wouldn’t be that shocked to see a narrow Clinton win.
Clinton absolutely has to win TX and OH by a minimum of a 10-point average (i.e. Texas by 5, OH by 15 etc.) SSI didn’t comment on it but I think people should keep an eye on the popular vote numbers, they may turn out to be as important as the pledged delegate ones.
Sounds like a made-up story to me, possibly anti-Clinton spin. In theory it’s possible, but in practice the Convention would make Chicago ‘68 look like vicars’ tea-party. It’s about as credible as saying Clinton would “target” McCain’s Electors in November. There’s no law against it, but….
Mistake.
Man = ruthless.
Woman = bitch.
Soooo not fair, but that is how it will play in an election reportedly in the hands of white men - where she supposedly already reminds them of their ‘first wives’.
No one doubted she was tough. She needs to seem ‘human’ and not look like she is threatening to coming back for more maintainance immediately after the last decision was processed.
19 missed out the “but will welcome any that come across of their own accord. if that should happen, by chance, not related at all to our employment of a PI with camera at the Convention centre, ransom demands made for missing pets, favours being called in by Godfather Clinton”
Seriously this looks like anti-Clinton spin. There have been a few well placed stories that make her look desperate (she may well be of course) and damage her chances. Think though her Texas Firewall policy though is stupid - the media becoming focussed on Texas to exclusion of Ohio and elsewhere.
22 - I do think that this election has shown that misogyny is more socially acceptable than racism. Some of the descriptions of Hillary, and comments about her looks/hairstyle/dress sense, have been close to or over the mark of what is seen as acceptable. In contrast, racism is today almost completely taboo. A news presenter making racist remarks would be sacked immediately, whereas sexist remarks (for example Chris Matthews on MSNBC) merely merit a lackluster apology.
The Gallup tracker has narrowed again.
Obama 46 (-3) Clinton 45 (+3)
That is quite a big swing for one day. Both Rasmussen and Gallup have shown the same general pattern over the last week with Obama’s lead expanding to the high single digits before contracting to within the MOE.
Although she is likely to lose I think Clinton has stood up pretty well to the Obama phenomenon, despite her campaign making several key strategic mistakes. I guess these polls show Clinton may have a low ceiling but she also has a very high floor. It also indicates she has staying power if she can get good wins in OH and TX.
New Press Register/Uni Alabama Poll for Alabama.
McCain 58% - Clinton 29%.
McCain 59% - Obama 31%.
New PPP for North Carolina.
McCain 48% - Clinton 43%.
McCain 47% - Obama 42%.
26 - Surprised the Dems are that close in NC to McCain. Indicates his posible weakness in southern border states.
27. When has North Carolina been a border state? It’s nowhere near Mexico or Canada.
1. I may be wrong but I believe that pledged delegates are only bound for the first round of voting at the convention (it might vary by state). It’s possible that Obama won’t have a majority for the first ballot, meaning that all of his delegates are up for grabs in the second ballot.
…then again 80% of my knowledge of the US political system is drawn from the west wing
Ahem !I think this is tomorrows Guardian ICM poll.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/19/polls
30
Yep it is!!
Carried out over the weekend, before news of the nationalisation of Northern Rock broke, it shows the Conservatives retain a narrow lead over Labour, widening slightly this month to three points. Conservative support is 37%, unchanged since last month.
Labour support stands at 34%, down one since the last Guardian poll in January but up two since another slightly more recent ICM poll.
The Liberal Democrat recovery has been sustained, with the party on 21% - up one on the last Guardian/ICM poll. Support for other parties is 9%, down one.
30. 3 point lead, although it is ICM.
30 - It amuses me that the poll simultaneously reports 67% of respondents claiming they paid too much tax, and 51% suggesting that they’d prefer to see government spending maintained rather than tax cuts. Are we really sure that the questions asked were entirely neutral?
25 The Gallup report notes that Clinton led Obama in the most recent interviews .
Evening all
For me, the most interesting aspect of the ICM poll is there is still a majority supporting spending rather than tax cuts though three quarters of Tories back tax cuts.
33
Mikes law! a rogue poll is one you don’t agree with.
I spotted it first, I claim my prize, a free copy of seant’s latest novel.
second prize, two copies.
28 - I meant border with the Northern states, probably wasn’t the right terminology. I meant states like Arkansas, Kentucky and Tennessee which are Southern but not as Republican as those in the deep South, like Alabama and Georgia. Hope that makes sense.
26 If North Carolina is that marginal,that augurs well for the Democratic Party crrying Ohio-which with the exception of 1960 has been carried by every post-war winner-the GOP won by 2.1% last time,on:
(a)An unusually high turnout
(b)Bush using the crude ‘faith,family,flaf’ dog-whistle slogan that may well have tipped some blue-collar workers to vote GOP
I hope and pray the Democratic Party do NOT snatch defeat from potential/probabale victory!
Mean of last 5 polls:
Con 38.6 Lab 31.8 LD 18.4
37. I do agree with it, however ICM have recently shown a closer margin than other pollsters.
I hold ICM as the gold standard though.
38. “The Upper South” is the term I’ve been using…
35 - If the negative attacks of hers work there will be hell to pay, the 1968 dem convention could be a picnic in comparison.
Isn’t it ICM that seems to get better labour results when the polls are for the Guardian? Has there been any official comment about that?
41 - ICM in the Guardian, or ICM in the Sunday Telegraph?
Washington State Preference Primary
report from the front.
Turnout at my polling place (a church basement) so far is light; just 10 regular poll votes cast in 6 precincts from 7am-10am PST. In addition, about a half dozen absentee returned so far including mine.
Would expect it to pick up around lunchtime and this evening before polls close at 8pm.
Keep in mind that most WA voters are either ongoing absentees or live in all vote-by-mail counties. So except for folks like me who return their absentee ballots at the polls (which will be a HUGE number this November!) these voters never show up at the polls.
Don’t believe there’s any difference.
Are we gonna get a new thread for this or is it gonna continue to be US elections because of tonight?
43 That was the case last November/December but has not been so in the polls this year . Probably a statistical blip which some including myself tried to read too much into .
Intrade gives Clinton a 28.2% chance of winning the Democratic nomination and a 17.1%-18.6% chance of winning the Presidency. I’m beginning to think that it might be worth be worth laying her as President.
I’m starting to think that if she wins the nomination then she will have done so by turning off so many Democratic voters (especially young and black voters) that McCain will win on a low turnout.
Central probabilistic forecast (ICM)
Con 258
Lab 299
LD 57
Nats 15 (assumes 13% SNP rise)
Oth 3
NI 13 (SF abstain)
Rolling average (6-poll)
Con 284
Lab 282
LD 47
Nats 16
Oth 3
NI 13
44 - The Guardian compared to the others.
Here’s what I mean (polls since October when the lead swapped most recently)
Guardian tory lead -
3 - 2 - 5 - 6 - 5 (average 4.2% lead)
Other papers’ tory lead -
5 - 7 - 11 - 8 - 7 (average 7.6% lead)
That’s a pretty big margin over five polls.
Sorry O/T
Brown’s Chief of Staff [former/current?] has been appointed to the Board of Northern Rock.
Never heard of him myself, but here is some background reading on Mr Scholar.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010086
46 & 47 - Proof at 50, strange that every month there’s a dip or spike at exactly the right point don’t you think?
43/44. ICM in the Guardian has shown the difference between Conservatives and Labour to be 2 to 5 points less than other ICM polls in every set of polls since November and 3-7 points less than other polls from the same time.
The ICM Guardian poll is the only poll in the period since the Conservative conference not to record a Conservative poll rating of 40% or above. There has to be some sort of rational explanation to this as it seems consistently out of kilter with the rest of the polls.
Anthony Wells usually tells you to follow the trend.
Last time the Guardian’s ICM variation came up, I think he suggested looking at the same poll and organisation combined [although not able to point to a specific reason as to why an organisations results for one paper] would differ. No doubt he will post soon and comment.
IF I am right, this means the lead is up by 1%.
Mark
I expect you would make no comment if the DT regularly posted better results for the Tories?
I don’t really suspect ICM would be part of a conspiracy to ensure Guardian readers read what they wanted to read.
Smithson’s law seems to be holding strong.
There are repeated observations that, in the democrat contest, it is more reasonable to be mysogonist than racist. Hillary is often referred to as a ‘bitch’, which seems to remain a socially acceptable description.
Only black men are allowed to use the word ‘nigger’, while nobody descibes Obama as ‘negro’, ‘mulatto’, or even ‘mixed race’. And he describes himself as a ‘black man’.
Hillary is 100% woman, while Obama is not 100% black. But the main difference is in the language used. Words matter. In this case, not to Hillary’s advantage.
There is very little evidence to suggest that Hillary’s supporters are anti-black, or Obama’s supporters are mysogonist.
54. Just looking at the polls there seems to be some corollary between higher Libdems figures in the ICM polls and lower Conservative figures They are the only pollster to record the Libdems on 20%+ since April (I’ve no idea why).
My last post is slightly wrong. ICM Guardian gave the Conservatives 40% on the 28th October.
56, five rogue polls in a row for the same newspaper?
There’s clearly a significantly better showing for Labour/worse for the Conservatives with ICM/Guardian. It could just be random chance, of course but pretending the difference isn’t there is to wear blinkers.
As 58 points out, the differance between ICM and other pollsters seems to be with the Lib-Dem’s and how that changes Conservatives support. Given the Lib’s are doing consistently, reasonably well at local by elections, I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss ICM. They seem close to how the Lin-Dems are doing,t han the other pollsters, in my view.
59 - who is to say which polling company has the right methodology? (The rogue scenario assumes the methodology is correct.)
Harris were widely derided in the 1992 GE campaign for regularly giving the Tories leads of 5 - 8%. But they were right and ALL the others were wrong. Harris were so concerned that they changed their methodology in the end, which meant that their last poll was also wrong.
59 Surely the the pollsters are bound to report differing results depending on the precise wording of the questions they put?
59. Per my post at 58. It seems to be something between the Libdem and Conservative figures not Labour. Looking at the Labour figures they do not seem out of step with the rest of the polls. The higher Libdem figures seem to apply in other ICM polls as well so it doesn’t seem to apply just to the Guardian. As I said previously I’ve no idea why.
58 Equally of course there is an obvious corollary with Yougov giving the highest Conservative and lowest LibDem figures . Yougov are the only pollster to have given the Conservatives 43% twice and 45% once since December . There is a clear difference between the 2 pollsters that cannot be explained by sampling/MofE and they cannot both be correct . Which one we will believe to be true will depend on our political viewpoint . The differences between COmres , Populus and ICM do have a rational explanation in their different weightings .
59 I think ICM use a different sampling method, there tends to be less extreme results at either end of the spectrum.
YouGov have also shown extremely high Tory shares for the Times/Telegraph, i don’t think this is purposeful just their internet sampling technique favours older voters.
Last 5 YouGov poll leads;
9, 8, 10, 5, 12, which gives an average of 9.8.
Got to say any poll taken before NR can’t be that relevant, surely?
63. Probably got something to do with keeping the customer satisfied; given the leftish leanings of the Gruaniad readership telling them how hopelss Labours situation is looking every month might not be all that good for business.
Call me an old cynic if you like….
65. It was YouGov who gave Labour their famouus 11 point lead shocker that egged on election fever. Don’t think any other npollster gave them such a big lead.
Do not think you can say they always favour the Tories.
If we ignore, both ICM and YouGov polls we get an average of:
Con: 38.8 Lab: 32.8 LD: 17.2
With an average lead of 6.
This covers all polls from january to present.
68. On the basis of that i will say they probably tend to have a more volatile panel, as on the internet and people are likely to be more in touch with current news and more politically aware. But there is probably no definitive explanation for these differences.
I would say that all polls show you a bit of the picture and you should look at all of them to try to get the best viewpoint.
I love the Grundiad, there is something deliciously ironic about a left leaning paper that loses £millions each year but is bailed out by their parent company flogging second hand cars and luxury yachts.
New SUSA poll for Ohio -
Obama 43% - Clinton 52%.
McCain 61% - Huckabee 29%.
69 The problem with taking an average of all polls or even all polls except Yougov/ICM is that it is not a true average of results that vary solely because of sampling variations . Every pollster has it’s own quirks Comres for example weights to give higher Others figures at the expense of Labour , Populus weightings are usually favourable to Labour , Mori face to face polls produce Labour figures a couple of % higher than their telephone polls . In these circumstances taking an average will not produce a more accurate result because you will be including figures based on using incorrect weighting or incorrect sampling techniques . The problem is that we do not know whose methodology is correct or nearest to being correct .
34. This is pretty standard. It’s because it’s a “are you a heartless bastard?” question.
The answers to these are pretty meaningless as Antony Wells attests to over on pollingreport.co.uk.
Just because people say in a poll they’d rather public spending was maintained, doesn’t mean they’d vote for it.
24/57 etc.
This might be because “Race” has been used as an excuse to stigmatise groups of people for mass genocide, persecution, wars of annihilation and lynching, whilst gender bias may ingrain a bit of predjudice, but it’s not exactly the Holocaust, is it?
Just a thought.
73. “The problem is that we do not know whose methodology is correct or nearest to being correct . ”
Mark, Mark, Mark…
Haven’t you learnt yet?
The most accurate poll is the one most favourable to the Lib-Dems!
Natch
73. i am in complete agreement there is no correct poll except for a GE, all of the others are estimates.
That must be a *considerable* Clinton surge in the latest day of the tracker - worth a punt on her in Wisconsin, perhaps, even though tracker one-day samples are very small.
As for ICM, that is a lot better than I expected, comparing like with like, and as with other polls it’s striking that economic pessimism is combined with a narrow gap.
34/74 - perfectly logical.
People don’t think the economy has been run too well in recent years, and so are paying more tax than they should be.
On the other hand, assuming year zero, they don’t think there is scope for tax cuts.
48 simon- the in trade position which shows Clinton at 28% for the Dem nom, and 18% for the presidency is pretty good for her. By my reckoning if she gets the nomination she would be clear odds on to take the presidency, possibly a 66% likely position.
Clinton’s biggest stumbling block for the presidency is Obama, ditto Obama. Whoever gets the nod will steam roll poor ole great grandaddy Warmonger McChips.
77.Narrowing gap? Not sure it is?
If the advise is to follow the commissioning paper AND polling organisation, it got 1 point wider.
Incidentally, back on Northern Rock, will it change Govt policy on intervention in the Housing Market? Will it change interest rate policy?
78.Yep that’ll be right.
73. Yeah, but at least it’s their money; unlike the ‘much loved’ BBC.
It is kept going by our money, taken with menaces whether we want to fund it or not.
We are slinging hundreds single mums into prison every year for not paying the licence fee while it’s watched by an overwhelmingly comfortably middle class audience.
Estimates vary, but roughly half of all female criminal convictions related to television licence evasion the last time research was done a decade ago (Christina Pantazis, David Gordon (1997) Television Licence Evasion and the Criminalisation of Female Poverty The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 36 (2) , 170–186 doi:10.1111/1468-2311.00047 )
Explain that to a visiting American and then convince them we live in a free country!
34 “It amuses me that the poll simultaneously reports 67% of respondents claiming they paid too much tax, and 51% suggesting that they’d prefer to see government spending maintained rather than tax cuts.”
I wonder what the answers might be if, instead of, say, asking whether they’d prefer to see Government spending maintained [in order to maintain the NHS, improve schooling etc.], those being polled were asked whether or not they’d prefer to see Government spending reduced [by attacking the billions of pounds wasted each year, thereby enabling tax reductions to be introduced.]
83 - I obviously have no statistics, but i doubt there is a single “single mum” in prison for TV license evasion.
83 Surely no one is sent to prison for not paying their TV licence fee?
81 It shouldn’t. It’s at arms length remember!
That will be why Gordon’s Chief of Staff has been put on the Board. At £75,000 per week [?}
83. No one is forcing them to get a TV. If they want one they have to pay the price. I’m sure that if you bought a toaster but neglected to pay for it, you’d have no problem at them being convicted for theft.
85 - I am sure Marcus will let us know how many single mums are in prison for TV licence evasion, and the source of his information.
Or perhaps he could ask his MP to find out for him…!
84 - the standard public attitude is that tax should increase for those who earn a bit more than me - but they should not increase for me.
88 But no one would go to prison for stealing a toaster.
86 - People are sent to prison for defaulting on their fine.
http://spiderbomb.com/tv/womenprison.html
87 - Just because Northern Rock is being run independently of Govt (I sense you have some doubts…), that doesn’t mean the Govt can’t change their own policies on the Housing Market to suit.
93. Your intuition serves you well.
91. I said convicted, not imprisoned.
85. I do; go here:
http://spiderbomb.com/tv/prisonstats.html
Scores of people end up in prison every year for non payment of their licence fee.
88. Relating non payment of a TV tax to stealing a toaster is totally misleading. The licence fee is levied on people whether they watch the BBC or not -(and many don’t; BBc audience share is around 33%) - it subsidises BBC features like BBC online, BBC Radio and the world service available to people who don’t pay the licence fee because they live abroad.
92 It would be interesting to see those figures brought up to date - perhaps we should ask Nick P to ask a question of the relevant minister .
Obama trades at 1.08 in WI primary. Trades @ 89 on intrade - some early exits coming through?
96 - Sorry Marcus, perhaps you could direct to the statistics on single mums in there?
96 but those figures are 15 years out of date , we need rather more up to date figures to agree with you .
93 I suspect you are correct - e.g. we’re unlikely to see sharp increases in stamp duty on house purchases any time soon which might otherwise, but for the NR nationalisation, have been a prime target in the forthcoming budget.
Bit selfish of single mums to abandon their children for 100 quid.
96. Someone who doesn’t live in my house can still use my toaster if i let them.
People who don’t watch ITV or C4 or five, still lose the chance for there to be other, better channels instead. They also still pay the cost of the advertising when they buy the goods advertised on those channels. The license fee also pays for the infrastructure which Tv and Radio need.
Have you ever actually met anyone who doesn’t watch or listen to the BBC?
96 - 1991-1994 stats. Weren’t the Tories in power then?
So how many single mums are in prison for TV licence evasion now?
Isn’t interest rate policy run by that other publically owned independent arms length bank.
If the BoE doesn’t play ball, Gordon could hand over interest policy to Northern Rock. Coinage with Bobby Robson’s head on it.
US Border States
In US history and politics, the term “border states” generally does not refer to states bordering Canada or Mexico. Instead, it means states that were “on the border” between North and South in the Civil War.
In 1861, this did not include any free states, but rather the northernmost of the slave states: Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri.
By logical extension, West Virginia was added to the list. And over time, Delaware and Maryland have tended to be removed from the list as they became less “southern” and more “northeastern” in economy, culture & politics.
103 - though C4 gets no licence fee funding, it pays bugger all for its waveband, I understand.
Weren’t the Govt going to privatise it?
105 - Might as well. I don’t really see the point of the Bank of England any more. Perhaps they should be re-privatised?
It could be used to pay off Northern Rock’s debts!
The day that the Tories stop bleating about the License fee is the day that we will know they’re ready for Govt.
Promising signs that some of their front benchers have realised this, but they haven’t dared do much more than keep quiet about it thus far.
The fact is charging everyone for what only some people watch is unfair to begin with, enforcing that with the law is even worse.
In the days when there were only two channels and Auntie really was everyones friend the system was, I suppose, defensible (mind you the fee was about £4.
Today the BBC is an unaccountable cross-media Goliath that dwarfs any other media organisation in Britain, in influence and spread.
If only its viewers paid (as opposed to all of us) it would be a lot more expensive than anything offered by Sky or Virgin.
107. If it didn’t exist we could have a different channel four, there is still an opportunity cost because of it’s existence.
109. Agreed.
*although that doesn’t mean that they can’t complain about Jonathan Ross’s salary.
108 Fair point, especially now Gordon has sold off the gold reserves and NR has most of its cash.
And they say you can’t make monitary policy on thr hoof!
78. No. That’s not the case. Most people simply aren’t that “au fait” with the government budget to think like that.
Simple fact is, people know they are paying too much tax. They know much of the money has been wasted. Their headd, as well as their wallets, tell them tax-cuts would be a good thing. Tax-cuts are desired. Desired by 40%+ of the UK. Probably 45%+ in England.
It’s just the same number of people won’t admit they want tax-cuts when asked if they’d “rather have cutbacks in public services” (I paraphrase) by an opinion pollster.
IT MAKES THEM LOOK AND SOUND BAD.
Why do people feel strongly about Tax now?
Normal people are paying much more stamp duty, fuel duty, National Insurance and council tax. A much larger chunk are paying inheritance tax too.
THEY DONT FEEL THEY’VE GOT MUCH RETURN OUT OF IT.
They will vote for a party which lowers it in a time of personal economic difficulty and increasing evidence of poor returns on Public Services “investment”.
Look at how popular tax-cutting councils (mainly Conservative) are, despite voters answers to pollsters.
Labour will never win Wandsworth back. Or Hammersmith.
It has to be the right tax cuts though. IHT and Council Tax are the important ones.
I don’t think Income Tax has the same resonance it had in, say, 1979. Much to the chagrin of some unreformed Thatcherites. The tax base has diversified too much since then for that to be the case.
As October 2007 showed us, Tax-cuts are back in fashion.
It’s funny that it’s always the left-leaning who are so keen on preserving the BBC - including it’s most un-progressive ‘the poor pay more’ funding formula.
I wonder why that is?
I think you’ll find Wandsworth is a low tax council, not a tax cutting one.
109. I don’t think the Tories will be complaining so much about Channel Four after they gave the Tories that political slot tonight. Did anyone else see it? It was perfect PR for Boris. I have a review on my page if anyone missed it.
Mike can we have a separate thread for the primaries tonight please?
As others have pointed out, Marcus, your figures relate to the period of Conservative government. During my three years as a member of a Area Probation Board, I can honestly say that I didn’t come across a single case of TV licence-related imprisonment - for women or men
115 - who are you calling “left-leaning”?
OT -Is it just me, or does that MessageSpace ad for Ken Livingstone use the Conservative logo colours?
Anyway, I’m always surprised by Tories who champion TV licence fee evasion?
I don’t recall a tolerance of breaking unpopular laws to have ever been a fundamental function of Tory doctrine when in govt.
119 good job really. Sky news reported that we were 82 prison places away from being full this week.
Probably more pressing cases out there.
119 good job really. Sky news reported that we were 82 prison places away from being full this week.
Probably more pressing cases out there.
*not that polls suggest the TV license is particularly unpopular.
114. It’s an eternal political conundrum, people want more spending and better public services but don’t want to pay for it.
It does little more than create a stalemate between, tax and spenders, and cut and savers.
114. It’s an eternal political conundrum, people want more spending and better public services but don’t want to pay for it.
It does little more than create a stalemate between, tax and spenders, and cut and savers.
122. Point of order.
Tories always pay their bills ….and on time, according to Matthew Parris.
Electoral Calculus makes Labour the largest party on the ICM figures:
CON 263
LAB 303
LIB 53
116. WTF?
Apart from the obvious: HOW IT BECAME A LOW-TAX COUNCIL, Wandsworth has frozen, or kept it’s increases well below the rate of inflation, for many years.
Which, in real-terms, is the same as a continous tax-cut.
Oh dear
:roll:
128 - That’s part of the point. Some Tories fail to recognise when their little obsessions are out of sync with a large proportion of their supporters, ie that proportion of the Tory support that believes in National Institutions, one of which, for all its many faults, the BBC still remains.
114 So many believe there is just no alternative to our very high levels of taxation without inevitably damaging important public services. But of course there is - by at least making a start in attacking the massive waste costing billons. For example, even the Government’s own advisors readily acknowledge this by estimating that approx only one third of the 2.4 million claiming invalidity allowance should actually be entitled to it. That’s about £4 billion a year for starters.
96. BBC World now carries advertising, so why does it need cross-subsidy?
91. If it belongs to a lawyer you can bet they will
131. I am sure they support it as an Institution. What they don’t support is its perceived lack of partiality.
They resent paying for political ‘propoganda’ - when it is not theirs.
131- alex- I think the lunatics have been running the asylum at Tory HQ for many years now. We have a fair few of these narrow minded nutters pervading pbCOM. Completely detached from reality obviously,
Compelling people on pain of imprisonment to PAY for the privilege of being force-fed political propaganda - I don’t think even Stalin or Hitler managed to do that!
The Licence Fee is an insult to Democracy. It could only possibly be justified if the taxpayers had some control over the spending of their money. They don’t, and so no-one in their right mind should pay it…
Only the moronic, downtrodden Brits put up with such affronts..
“Compelling people on pain of imprisonment to PAY for the privilege of being force-fed political propaganda - I don’t think even Stalin or Hitler managed to do that!”
Eh? You’ll have to run that one past me again.
I am not making a party point, for once.
I never cease to be amazed at how many otherwise rational, intelligent and sensible Britons react when the BBC is criticised.
I am railing and ranting against what I consider to be an unfair, old-fashioned, outrageous infringement of civil liberty and an affront against free trade and consumer choice. I am embarrassed that I live in a country that so frequently lectures other regimes about having a free media and yet which insists on maintaining a state broadcast service, funded by a blanket tax on TV ownership.
119. I don’t think 2001 (the last year figures given) was a period of Conservative Government. The fact is we don’t know how many people end up in prison for not paying their licence fee because as has been pointed out that is not the reason given; they go to prison for non-payment of fines that were given for non payment of the TV licence.
137- I almost lost hope with the beeb when they axed Fame Academy. Anyone deserves a 2nd chance mind
Since we typically have to endure at least two minutes of oft-repeated trailers before every programme on BBC1 & BBC2, we might just as well endure advertising instead on these channels, thereby helping to reduce the licence fee.
The funny thing is that it is often Conservatives who are at the forefront of the protests when the BBc puts out proposals downgrading its current affair content
133 - is BBC World (TV) paid for by the licence fee? I am not sure it is. I think it has always had adverts.
139 - what’s the link to those 2001 figures?
139 - “a state broadcast service” sounds a bit Cuban to me. This rhetoric implies it is a mouthpiece of the state.
It is a quasi-autonomous public corporation operating as a public service broadcaster (apparently).
138. To be fair there are programmes on the BBC that one would only watch on pain of imprisonment…
Cash in the Attic, Car Booty
Re: 132 - Ah, the old chestnut of Government waste !! I can’t speak for central Government but in local Government much of the “waste” comes from the amounts of money spent on private-sector consultants and often high-paid agency staff.
On the broader issue of tax, it has become impossible to have anything approaching a coherent debate on taxation over the past twenty or thirty years. Of course individuals would prefer to pay less but many people also appreciate “the bigger picture” whether it’s the funding of the local school or a good residential care package for an elderly relative.
I may be in a minority of one on this but I would willingly pay more tax if I thought the NHS, education and social care provisions could all be improved. The problem, of course, is that the centralisers in BOTH Labour and the Conservative parties have made such an appalling shambles of trying to run services centrally which could be delivered far more effectively if controlled locally by locally-accountable individuals within communities.
That is of course not an argument in favour of reduced taxation or reduced spending but an argument in favour of more effective spending through decentralisation.
The other side of this argument relates to perceived or actual equalities and inequalities. I think if you are very rich, you’ve probably done quite well from Labour and the same is possibly true of the very poor but the vast majority in the middle don’t think they are doing well at all though of the tax measures often criticised, it’s probably worth mentioning that fuel prices have kept pretty well in relation to inflation while stamp duty and IHT don’t affect everyone all the time. The main “sinner” therefore is Council Tax but that relates as much to the politicised funding of local Government rather than to anything else.
Marcus, OK let’s try you on this one - a favourite with radicals actually. Fund the BBC from Income Tax. Agree the Licence Fee not progressive. And any body who thinks the BBC has a Labour or liberal bias with Nick Robinson in the Political Editor post, must be kidding themselves and everyone else.
115. It’s because secretly, the BBC is a way of redistributing income to one legged polish l*sbians.
But shhh… don’t tell anyone.
Most of what the BBC produces does not merit the license fee. But, if the BBC does lose the licence fee, then I predict:
1) The Treasury will continue to charge a fee for equipment capable of receiving television programmes, and will simply pocket the revenue.
2) The worthwhile parts of the BBC, 75% of Radio 3, 25% of Radio 4, and about 10% of the various BBC television channels, will vanish.
3) A commercially funded successor to the BBC will make an catastrophic impact on the existing commercial channels.
4) Eventually a directly Government controlled and funded broadcasting organisation will emerge; its quality will be questionable.
96. Marcus thanks I haven’t laughed as much for a long while as when I read that report - you should read the whole article. In 2000 there were 33 people imprisoned. Today are there any?
Personally the whole piece is utterly specious overkill. At its worst there were some 800 people imprisoned in a year (prison population of what perhaps 60,000? with a far greater annual turnover and an overall population of what 52,000,000?)
This chapter has examined the Criminal Statistics for England and Wales between 1980 and 1994 in order to explore the criminalisation of female poverty in relation to television licence evasion. Despite the difficulties involved in understanding trends in prosecution and sentencing, it has been suggested that there have been real increases in this type of ‘crime of poverty’ over this period. It has further been suggested that perpetrators of television licence evasion are doubly punished through the imposition of fines, which they often cannot afford, and which may consequently lead to their imprisonment for fine default. Television licence evasion now constitutes the largest single instance of female crime, and after excluding motoring offences, accounts for the largest number of imprisoned fine defaulters. One possible solution which could end the criminalisation of people living in poverty would be to abolish the licence fee and raise the level of general taxation as an alternative method of funding the BBC.
There is no breakdown of what demographic groups these people were part of in the report itself or how many are repeat offenders or serial offenders.
I agree the TV Licence was and still is a contentious issue but fine defaulting generically isn’t.
If you default on fines of any sort a bench warrant is issued and you go to jail until such time as you pay the fine or serve the sentence (which is given initially). There is no mention of what range of sentences were dished out and what were actually served. In most cases I suspect it would have been no more that a week.
The comparisons with other types of defaulters are put forward in % terms and not in hard numbers. Always a good way to make specious statistical claims.
Quite frankly that report is outdated, suffers gender bias and is utterly trivial.
However, I’m sure it taxed the minds of our elected representatives for months. What a fine use of the taxpayers money!
As ever I think the political lobbyists need to get some sense of priority and proportion. Oh dear.
147 Stodge Unfortunately, one person’s Useful Public Spending is another’s Total Waste of Public Funds.
As a parent, I strongly value CBeebies and CBBC compared to the imported trash on commercial channels, which have only deteriorated with the restrictions on children’s advertising. CBeebies is public service broadcasting at its best. It serves the public interest.
Can we agree to spell the noun “licence” in the British way, please? Several people have used the US version tonite - sorry - tonight.
142 Sky News recently ran some very interesting comparisions between the Beeb and other news organisations.
Sky tend to send one group to cover an event. The Beeb sent crews from every single programme. There seems to be little or no pooling/coordination.
Not sure we need News at six, News at ten, News 24, Newsnight, Radio 4, Five Live…etc at every……
150 - clever hedging of your bets on the correct spelling of license/licence
72. yet again we’re seeing large clinton leads get whittled down once campaigning tonight, if she doesn’t win tonight going to be very hard to claim the convincing wins she needs in a fortnight.
Of course, the Licence Fee makes no sense in this day and age, although I have to say I’m doubtful many people go to jail for evading it. Just privatise the BBC and let it charge subscriptions for its services. I’m sure it would do very well.
153 - there is some truth in that. I can’t recall how many BBC staff covered the last US election in Nov 2004. It was in the hundreds; Sky had about four and a half staff there, and two of them were flying a helicopter the whole time.
Didn’t i read recently that the French (?) were considering introducing a licence fee for public broadcasters?
It’s quite nice to have something that isn’t owned by murdoch or branson. I’d like it to remain as it is, and i think i’m in the majority. It provides high quality programmes, mostly unbiased news, and is a british institution respected the world over.
156 - wouldn’t you privatise Channel 4 first?
139 - Marcus, the paper YOU quote is dated 1997, so I fail to see how it could have figures from 2001.
And from the abstract of the paper: ‘The focus is on the growth, over the 1980s and 1990s, the disproportionate number of women entering the criminal justice system for possessing a television without a licence’. Note the 1980s and 1990s.
And the key figure you quote of 57% of female convictions relating to tv licences? Form the bastract, again: ‘Thus, by 1994, 57% of all female criminal convictions’
Sack your researcher!
Stodge, middle income people always get it in the neck.
However, I do speak from experience as a former local councillor. and I can assure you that a significant amount of money is spent on things that the government deems necessary, but which would not be deemed necessary by the mass of the population. Either they are statutory obligations, or (if they’re not) you get a hard time from the audit commission for not doing them.
Completely O/T - but isn’t it superbly ironic that just a few days after Mike was telling us that he intended to back Boris heavily in the upcoming London Mayoral contest, we discover that the principal advertiser on this site today is none other than our Ken.
As a certain columnist on the Daily Mail would put it - You just couldn’t make it up!
I have had this debate many times at (Tory) Conference (usually at the bar, usually late, often with Tory MP’s present) and I have always, always been in a minority of one.
So I am resigned to the fact that an incoming Tory Government would do no more about the BBC than this one has, ie nothing.
We have never been weaned off the all enveloping “Auntie” who knows what is good for us:
Lots of multiculturalism, hating America, suspicion of the profit motive, unquestioning acceptance of every green mantra; supporting pacifist, corporatist and interventinist pro-European politics; and jobs-for-li