Will we ever learn to love the Tories?
March 28th, 2008
Look at the “Dismayed - Delighted” figures
There’s now the full detail from this morning’s YouGov poll and I have extracted the above responses which I find interesting.
Thus on the forced choice question Cameron now has a comfortable lead and the Lib Dem supporters questioned are almost neck and neck.
The next question “Suppose a Conservative Government were formed under David Cameron which of these three statements would come nearest your own reaction?” provides a note of warning to the Tories. The 22% - 32% “delighted-dismayed” split is not that encouraging. Notice that only three out of five Tory voters put themselves in the delighted category.
The final one of the three “Which party do you think is more likely to run Britain’s economy well – the Conservatives or the Labour Party?” is now showing a distinct Tory margin and might be a good pointer.
The spread markets have reacted to the poll with a three seat jump in the Tory position.
There will be no Sean Fear slot today. He is otherwise engaged.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
They’re my favourites!
I’d be very worried if we ever ended up with the ‘celebrity’ love-in hysteria of ‘things can only get better’ and Blair in 1997 I really would.
1. Mine too
Are you trying to stir up the hornet’s nest Mike?
Will we ever learn to love the Tories?
That would be the “Royal” we presumably Mike?
May I be one of the first to congratulate Sean Fear on his engagement!
2. I bet Cameron is so pleased he’s not heading for a 1997 style landslide. I bet he’s ecstatic about it.
2. Agreed. The hype over Blair only increased the sense of disillusionment both with him and politics in general.
Cameron wants people to be willing to give him a go, rather than doing a jig in the streets [although I am up for it if you are Ave it?]. This is particularly important if you inherit a bad set of books in a bad climate.
The results may also indicate the public are realistic and don’t think any politican is going to be able to pull an ecomonic rabbit out of a hat.
Two things:
Tories and Tory leaners are pragmatists not emotional idealogists.
Labour inherited a piggy bank full of cash and a good economic environment.
You do the maths.
I’m a Tory - and I’m big and warm and cuddly. What’s not to love?
I would like to also congratulate Sean Fear on his engagement.
218 Previous Thread - Many thanks Stuart. No quite the bonanza I was hoping for, but equally you seem to be agreeing with others that there’s virtually no downside either. I’m on this one at 8 seats.
Surely the most interesting thing about this poll is that 27% of people think neither of the main two parties would run the economy competently?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AUJUEgRZBMY
Ronnie O’Sullivan’s in trouble!
2. Marcus, I too found the (largely manufactured) hysteria when Blair came to power a litte cloying too - but nonetheless that’s an odd thing to say. Don’t you want your party to be liked?
11. By ‘two main parties’ are you impling they might think the Lib Dems could?
2/7 - Oh really, do come off it! Cameron would love nothing more than to inspire the sort of widespread positivity that surrounded Blair in 1997, as of course would Clegg. It won’t happen and the election will in fact be won and lost on competence, on getting that “dismayed” figure down etc. But it really is just self-serving tosh to say Cameron doesn’t want people to love him. Of course he does.
13 Blair was a bit like the teacher who wants to be popular, can be cringing, usually doesn’t make the class work and almost always goes wrong.
I’d rather my Party was respected than liked.
7 - “Tories and Tory leaners are pragmatists not emotional idealogists”
I don’t think that’s true of active Tories, who are among the most ideological in politics these days if you ask me.
But do you think people who voted Blair in 97 were doing so for emotional reasons? Do you think they weren’t pragmatic?
13. I’m sure the Tories want their respect to be earned on what they do in office and not on what they might do like Labour tried.
7 - yes we will all be jigging in the streets when Camo wins.
14 - LDs = LOL
13. He is not saying he doesn’t want the Tories to be liked. He wants a rational sober reaction.
11. No, it isn’t. But perhaps you might derive some comfort from it, to offset the huge deficit your Labour chums now face.
Poor dears ……. Let’s have a ‘Hug a Tory Day’ !!!
14 - Christ no. So preoccupied with partisan politics are you that you misread me. I’m just saying that the only two parties who could possibly win aren’t trusted on the economy by a large number of people. Is that good? Or do you not care as long as those wearing your colours come out ahead?
16. But they aren’t respected either, the question asked in this poll wasn’t “which party would you like to have a beer with” but “how would you react to seeing them in government?”.
This is interesting for the comments as well as the film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui_YVew5rNU
21 - “my labour chums”??
Yet another fool who assumes everyone is as partisan as they are. I have no connection whatsoever to the Labour party.
The responses I’ve received from you and at 14 suggest Tory cheerleaders don’t care if they public is unenthused by them, as long as they come first in the vote. That’s a shame really, isn’t it.
16. Spot on. ‘Like’ is fine, ‘respect’ is excellent, ‘love’ would be worrying.
26. No no, course not. You are a wholly unbiased and objective observer haha.
Do you think because you’ve been away a while people don’t remember your previous relentlessly anti-Tory and left wing posts?
As for your final observation, it’s pathetic. Of course politics is about winning. If the boot were on the other foot, you’d be on here gleefully celebrating Tory woes and wouldn’t give a t*ss about obscure poll details.
Obama starts a run at Pennsylvania :
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/us/politics/28strategy.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
27 How ironic! David Cameron is an even bigger “love me” politician than Tony Blair. Obama is currently the master though.
16 - fair enough. I quite agree with that, and with 27.
I suppose my only point would be that surely there’s no reason why you can’t be respected *and* liked, and if you aren’t you should question why not. There seems to be an unwillingness among Tories to face up to that.
Remember, in the US elections:
McCain will fry the opposition!
28 - fool, fool, fool. It’s not about being impartial - I freely admit I tend to dislike Tories and am left of centre - it’s about not being partisan. I’m not partisan, in that I don’t support any particular political party.
Scotland numbers:
Lab 37%
SNP 26%
Con 19%
LD 15%
Grn 2%
UKIP 1%
BNP 1%
London numbers:
Con 47%
Lab 41%
LD 13%
BNP 5%
Grn 3%
Fascinating, I just compared Blair arriving to tears of joy in ‘97 with Thatcher in 79 where you can clearly hear people booing her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ3WJRvZeN8&feature=related
Thatcher wasn’t even ‘loved’ the day she took office; but we wanted her policies and we knew we needed her leadership.
Sorry! London Labour only 31%, NOT 41%.
33. You remind me of those people who say ‘I’m not racist, but…’
Obviously the spiral of silence correction some of the pollsters use to find ’shy Labour’ voters has at least one individual justifying it…
34. Paddick winning here ?
25 She, like Blair, never won a majority of the vote, let alone those eligible to vote. Talk of “we” is a touch OTT. Like all PMs there are always more people against them than for them.
37 - but, you see, I’ve never voted Labour in my life. I voted Conservative in 1997 and in some local elections around that time. I voted Lib Dem in 2005. I don’t think I voted in 2001.
You really are a fool, aren’t you.
17. As an activist, it is always about what works. Our ‘ideology’ is that Labour never does.
Activists and ardent Labour supporters were emotionalin 1997. They were so desperate to win after years in the wilderness some of them were delirious.
The natural Tories he attracted who turned to Labour, less so.
The former group are still there, but disillusioned.
The later are b***** off.
Mike
You miss an important point.
“Suppose a Conservative Government were formed under David Cameron
The key is the last two words. There is a significant proportion of the Conservative party that are not enthused by Mr Cameron, but range from Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells, with his “lefty agenda”, to accepting of his watered down conservatism for pragmatic reasons. Judging by the numbers DOTW is a very small number whilst the latter is a full third of the party’s supporters.
I would be interested to see if left wing Labour supporters felt similar about Bambi pre 1997.
stonch- it really isn’t worth getting into a personal discussion with the Tories here.
jackW- do you think that Obama stands a realistic chance in Pennyslvania? What odds would you put on his hopes.
O/T - Cant find it online but ES has a story about a new campaign overseer being imposed on Ken Livingstone by Gordon. The new person in charge is Tessa Jowell..
40. It’s just like the mid-1990s, in reverse. Now even many rabid lefties won’t admit supporting Labour for fear of ridicule and embarassment.
Re 192 last thread
Stuart Go to Iain Dales blog http://www.iaindale.blogspot.com
and look for
Has Wendy Alexander Revealed the Date of the Next Election?
43 - ok you are probably right. I won’t. I think it’s just that they can’t believe things are really going as well for the party as they appear to be, so they get upset when someone says anything critical. Perhaps they’ll chill out if and when Cameron wins the election.
45 - idiot.
What made the 1980s so particularly dislikable to many was their social illiberalism with undercurrents of racism, homophobia and general stick in the mudness. With Dave, the party is more in tune with the nation’s soul in a way that Thatcher could never be. Boris being mayor of London will do the Tory brand a power of good in this regard.
Sorry, the 1980s Tories
Heres a weird fact.
1997-2001 Labour lost roughly 3 million voters
2001-2005 Labour lost 1.2 million voters
Iraq war effect was much smaller than the loss of 1997 hysteria.
48. How we have all missed your intelligent and thoughtful contributions.
Glad to see Stonch is making his usual valuable contribution today……
51. Weirder fact - Kinnock’s Labour won more votes than Blair’s 97 Labour.
48 My guess is you weren’t the one LibDem YouGov polled who said they would be ‘delighted’ with a Tory win.
For whats its worth, I think there is a big gap between delighted and not bothered.
Most switchers are more likely to say pleased/relieved etc.
It one of those questions where the ansers would be more negative in a face to face poll.
‘Me.. excited by politics..NEVER!’.
15. You are the one getting all hot under the collar.
Which rather proves my point.
I remember my sister geting a copy of this through the post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmwqEg-06Ww
The clear skies; the bright-shirted handsome young men; the empowered mini-skirted lovelies; the thrilling sense of the moment; the anticipation of all that the future was poised to bring…
I doubt even David Cameron would have the neck to put himself in this sort of propaganda today. The early Blair era was strange. I wonder if this country will ever see its like again.
54 Are you sure? Wikipedia says that Kinnock got 11.5million in 1992 whereas Blair got 13.5million in 1997 (under 10million by 2005)
what utter tosh - “Its about what works” by Sally. No - policy is always coloured by ideology, and success is a qualitative judgement, not a quantitative one.
Please pleas no nostalgia fo Mrs T Marcus - she buggared up the country good and proper for 10 years.
Discretion forbids me from mentioning the real reason for our competitive recovery but you can unshuffle the letters “U” and “E” to get the answer.
O/T - Ken has gaffed. In an interview he criticised the news obsession with crime and said that ‘if it bleeds, it leads’. Within hours another stabbing victim. So far no retraction. This will hardly improve his poll rating.
46. Maggie Thatcher Fan
You clearly have never heard of the “Permalink”
Wonderful invention…
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/03/has-wendy-alexander-revealed-date-of.html
57. Erm, remember “You can get it if you really want” they’re going out right now.
15. You’re right, it doesn’t matter too much that the conservatives aren’t liked, they’re seen as being more competent than Brown so they’ll win. But what does that say for the election after, will Cameron last 4, 8 or 13 years?
@ 11 Stonch’s Beer Blog, I was pulling your leg.
You overestimate my emotional excitabilty and I underestimated yours.
LibDems split more or less 50/50 Conservative/Labour. There has been a bit more talk recently of AV. Would the Conservatives be helped or hindered by it with the current opinion polls? Helped I assume.
55 - I’m not a Lib Dem either. I don’t identify myself with a political party. People that do are either (1) actively involved in politics, e.g. Marcus Wood, Sean Fear, Nick Palmer (and hats off to them) or (2) desperately insecure and desperate for something “bigger” than them to identify with. Which are you?
58- I think HenryG was mixed up with the 2001 election.
63 - actually that’s a good comeback. Drat.
61 I have, but when i looked for properties it only gave the blog link, just tried again and it gave the full link..blooming computer!
57 - that is truly hilarous. It’s the dude getting his hair dyed red that makes me laugh. He reminds me of Jeremy from Peep Show a little bit.
60. yep, and a lot of people were saying Boris would be the one making the gaffs.
43 tyson. All things being equal Hillary should win by 10 points plus. Obama needs to keep the loss in that range and ensure the delegate difference is minimzed. Obama will almost certainly make up the difference with a 20 point win in North Carolina. He’ll also take Indiana the same day but by a much closer margin.
62: ‘Erm, remember “You can get it if you really want” they’re going out right now.’
But does it feature Dave as a striding Messiah of the coming utopia?
35 Marcus Wood
On the prior thread you stated that your biggest challenge was getting the Tory vote out in Torbay and that much of it (3/10) had stayed home in 2001 and 2005. I thought that Lord Ashcroft’s paper had shown that the idea that the Conservatives were losing General Elections because their voters didn’t turn out was a fallacy and in any event with Torbay being a marginal didn’t you do a pretty good job targeting and getting the vote out last time even if they were reluctant ? (I agree that your voters may have more enthusiasm at the next election)
72. No but it’s leading down the same road. It hardly promises dull but competent government.
Surely one of the biggest changes is that Lib Dems are now equally likely to support the Tories as Labour. This is a big shift on 3 years ago and makes a mockery of those Tories who think Cameron has popularised the Party. If you’d done this in 2005 when the vote share was 35%, 33%, 23%, most of those Lib Dem supporters would have backed Labour. I’d have had the Tories about 15 points behind Labour then, if we discount the Lib Dems. Cameron’s made a big difference - as well as other factors of course.
59.
Sorry Mr. Wheatley
The EU definately didn’t make us competitive in the 80’s other than form an expensive protectionist racket for continental farmers. In reality it was the fact that employors were less stifled by tax and thus able to flurish. People were paying less in tax and had more disposible income to spend, which led to a boom in the economy. Now back to the betting bit, this extra disposble income was the reason the Tories had the vote of the C2 and C3 catagries of voters. Precisely the loss of this disposibble income, or the threat of it, in the economic downturn is why the valuble swing voters are now shifting to the Conservative side, which could lead to the potential loss of Labour seats in the suburbs of the cities, the Burys, Boltons and Crosbys etc.
70 - Indeed, although this is more monstrous and crass insensitivity.
Afternoon all
Let me be honest, I don’t think I could ever “love” the Tories. I’m a firm believer in equidistance - I hold both the Conservative and Labour parties in equal contempt.
That said, I also think a lot of the support for the Conservatives, while genuine, is based far more on a growing disillusionment/hatred (delete as appropriate) for the Labour Government and its inability/unwillingness (delete as appropriate) to tackle the issues that worry the “man on the Clapham omnibus” be that immigration, transport, care for the elderly, inflation etc,etc.
While I have never voted either Labour or Conservative, I did have the hope that the 1997 Blair Government might be as radical once it got elected as the 1945 Attlee or 1979 Thatcher Governments. The problem was the caution and lack of ambition it displayed in order to convince millions of ex-Tories to either abstain or vote Labour coloured its time in Government and Iraq threw away the opportunity for a radical second term while the third term has been ccategorised by failings of leadership, policy and direction.
The problem is I am totally unconvinced that the Conservatives will do better - all we will get in 2010 is a change of management. I’ve heard precious little from Cameron that convinces me he has any clue how to deal with the substantive issues and there is already a worrying sign that, as Major did, he will try and tell people how to live their lives in an atmosphere of benign moral vacuity backed up by a continuing creeping centralisation.
It was only ever the ‘chattering classes’ who were in love with labour - and iraq finished them off! The hypohtesis is wholly inappropriate - it is not about ‘like’ any party - it should be all about getting the job done!!
Ben Smith @ ‘Politico’ reporting that Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC, wants the Superdelegates to decide their choice by July 1st :
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/BREAKING_Dean_wants_closure_by_July_1.html
…………………..
Splice the mainbrace it’s Admiral Penketh !!
Discretion forbids me from mentioning the real reason for our competitive recovery but you can unshuffle the letters “U” and “E” to get the answer.
Best joke of the year.
re 203 previous thread - certainly in the West Midlands all the Met councils had all-up elections in 2004 and certainly in Birmingham many of the candidates who are up for re-election this year had a huge personal vote then.
59. Thatcher buggered up the country?..She had many faults not least the fact she saw numbers rather than people but she certainly turned the country around from the disasters of Labour in the 70’s and her economic settlement is still the tour de force today..if anyone is suffering from nostalgia its the anti-Thatcher lefties.
Broon and his crew are doing a good job of ruining the country but the Conservatives will come back in in 2010 with some pragmatism rather than overblown insubstantial hysteria and as ever tidy up the Lefties mess.
I would be fascinated to see what the dismayed / delighted figures for the question:
“If The Labour party were to win another General election under Gordon Brown what would your reaction be”
- they could be potential dynamite…
And if they were, I’d have to be cautious enough not to make my response public…
Political Wire reporting that Sen Patrick Leahy (Dem VR) has called, via Vermont Public Radio, for Hillary to withdraw from the race and fully support Obama :
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/03/28/leahy_urges_clinton_to_quit_race.html
Off topic, Has anyone seen The Orphanage? It’s the best film I’ve watched since Atonement
85. Do they know something we don’t know? Any relation to Harry Reid’s comments ( http://therightstudent.com/2008/03/are-democrats-covering-something-up.html )
83 Great fantasy “what if” JH!
And then after 2010…. If elected Cameron will look like Heath. The right wing of the Tories will never love him. He’ll look out of his depth at times. Pragmatism will look like complacency. Youth will go. He’ll ask for a bigger mandate and lose. They’ll replace him with a dynamic right winger.
And thus the circle continues…
64 - If Lib Dems genuinely did split 50/50 across the board then AV would clearly hinder both Labour and Tory regardless of the polls. It would make absolutely no difference in seats where the Lib Dems were third (as their vote would simply split equally) but the Lib Dems would take some seats where they were a close second on first choice.
However, it may well be the case that the 50/50 split conceals big local differences which adds an unknown factor.
88 - Attacking a fantasy with a fantasy, this thread is getting worse!
85. I suspect it will happen either
(1) Immediately after Pennsylvania, if she gets less than a 10% lead.
(2) Immediately after Indiana/North Carolina if she does well in Pennsylvania
or
(3) A few days after Indiana/North Carolina after superdelegates start endorsing Obama en masse because Clinton refused to do (1) or (2).
OT- Basra…
crooksandliars.com are saying “Our members and contacts in city say that there is still a lot fighting going on. They also say that reports in the British media that british troops and aircraft are not involved in the fighting is a flat out lie and that British tanks are heavily involved.”
Anyone here think it could be true?
88. I think ideological left-wingers spectacularly fail to appreciate the change in balance of the Conservative party. They are a bit more right than Cameron, but certainly much closer to him than they are to Norman Tebbit.
Wasn’t attacking it at all! Thought it was amusing/thought provoking.
It’s sad to say, but all political careers end in failure. Even the beloved Cameron will one day fall (2009,2014 who knows/cares?). The philosophical question is where does this get us in the end. Are we trapped in a daft cycle by an even dafter electoral system.
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10927596
Discuss.
94 - Well that assumes that we are living an extended Groundhog day!
34. what poll did you get these percentages from? have you the source please
94. Why is it a daft political system? I would far prefer giving parties with different visions alternate turns in power, as long as they are within the reasonable part of the political spectrum, than have a permanent middle of the road government that never gets to implement any new ideas. Fair competition, complete with winners and losers, is the best way to ensure a healthy democracy and body politic.
80.
Afternoon Jack W. how the devil are you and the fellow patroits exiled in St Albans
88 - as I noted yesterday and earlier in the week, planning on the basis that your opponent is going to screw up is a really poor strategy in politics.
The Conservatives do have a glass jaw though, and that glass jaw is the EU. While the Tory reflex is more closely in tune with the instincts of the British public, the Tories don’t actually have a policy on the EU other than to say “we don’t like where we are now”. This gives Labour a gilt-edged opportunity to conjure up the idea of a five year war with the EU and try to frighten the public into thinking that the Tories can’t be trusted to handle our relations with our fellow EU members. I still think that Gordon Brown made a huge strategic mistake in not calling a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon, but it is not too late for him to adopt this line of attack.
99 Admiral P. Hells ten bells Admiral …. I severed contact with St.Albans many moons ago when the yellow peril looked close to reaching double figures in councillors !!
………………
Meanwhile …. Rasmussen reports that Gore is not the answer !! Hooray !!!!!!!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/gore_not_answer_to_dem_divide
71- jackw- thanks
57. Oh, it’s cringeworthy, just like 1997 in retrospect was.
But at the time to a lot of people I think it felt right - Blair was the future and after 18 years of the Tories there was genuine excitement from some people.
Now we all know PPBs tend to be fairly ludicrous, but just remember the hordes and hordes of people running down Whitehall when Blair’s car pulled into Downing Street for the first time. It was crazy. He was a superstar.
But I think 1997 did damage to Labour in the long term in that they could never live up to the hype. That said in 1997-2005 they had a great chance to be a truly radical, fair government, but they squandered their advantage by, as others have alluded to on here, being too transfixed with losing Tory voters keeping them in power than generally making real, serious changes.
At first I think a lot of people thought New Labour was about optimism, modernism, real reform and hope. We all know in hindsight New Labour has all been about staying in power at whatever cost. And that is somewhat depressing.
103. “At first I think a lot of people thought New Labour was about optimism, modernism, real reform and hope. We all know in hindsight New Labour has all been about staying in power at whatever cost. And that is somewhat depressing.”
Actually I think Blair is best summed up by post 16.
98 The electoral system is crazy. Two points that get on my …
PMs are encouraged “to go on and on”. It’s a huge conceit that there is no-one else capable of the job. Look at the US, how it’s renewing itself by giving Bush a face saving way out. The UK and Labour would have benefited if Blair/Thatcher had known from the start they had 8 years.
What do we gain from alternating massive majorities (that give virtually absolute power for 4 years) pulling this way, then that way, with virtually no correlation with how people actually vote. It’s daft that Blair 2001 had a massive majority with less votes than 1992 Kinnock? Major had to suffer with a minute majority with the most votes ever.
It’s nuts!
New ARG Primary Poll for Pennsylvania :
Clinton 51% .. Obama 39%
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/padem8-703.html
58 and don’t forget John Major got the largest vote of any party leader in 1992 eclipsing both Blair and Mrs T by a long way.
105 - All systems produce odd results from time to time.
105, no voting system is truly fair. FPTP is certainly not the worst there is. I didn’t hear Labour bleating about it when they were winning landslides, nor hurrying to reform it when they were ahead in the polls.
104. At the moment, and I know this is terrible, I feel somewhat like the tretcherous Tory MP must have felt in 1993 sitting in the Commons and watching Major getting savaged by the Labour benches… in thinking “God, why did I hate Maggie so much?”
… with Brown at present I’m actually *yearning* for Blair to be back. Not because I like the man or agree with him (I would still want Labour chucked out at the GE) but because he wasn’t Gordon Brown, who I can’t help but wince at everytime he appears on my screen.
Blair was insincere and smarmy. But Brown is just an embarrasment.
109 Perhaps Cameron will propose to reform it. No that would be a brave move, it would capture the LD vote and probably give Cameron a place in the history books.
64/89. Yes, AV is a big unknown. I have tried modelling it but there are too may variables to be confident in a prediction, other than to say.
i) the LibDems would do better, but at 17% nationally it would not make a huge difference. Perhaps 8-10 more seats than UNS forecasts.
ii) the Nationalists may do slightly worse due to anti-independence transfers. Perhaps 2 or 3 seats worse.
One of the biggest unknowns is how the Others (independents, UKIP, BNP, Green, etc) would split. They make a significant impact on seats, although it’s hard to generalise, since each seat may have a different sort of “Other” standing!
The biggest factor in AV is the LD 2nd preferences. If they split fairly evenly, then overall an AV election won’t produce a result much different to FPTP. e.g. I’ve just run a sim that shows only 12 seats being decided differently under AV.
I don’t think we are likely to love the Tories anytime soon. Being a Tory member is still a major social stigma in many parts of the country. It’s still something to keep pretty quiet about in a way belonging to Labour and the Lib Dems isn’t.
105 - But equally, it is probable that Reagan would have won in 1988 and Clinton in 2000 had either been allowed to stand (and wanted to - Reagan may have called it a day as his health was declining). Was it really sensible to prevent people electing the leader they wanted? Genuine question - I can see merits to term limits but there are also clear costs.
o/t wendy alexander seems to be quite pleased with herself.
“Wendy Alexander has given herself a perfect score in her performance as Scottish Labour leader.
She awarded herself a “10 out of 10″, while saying it was time to move on from the donation scandal which hit her leadership campaign.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7317115.stm
114 - I always thing Jeb Bartlett had it about right ‘It turns out we have term limits, they are called elections!’
Re: 94/96: On the previous threads, some Tory activists/supporters claimed LDs were being deluded in not facing up to the possibility of losing half or more of their MPs at the next election.
I think a similar delusion applies to Tories when they consider the prospects for the Cameron Government. The inheritance will be nowhere near as favourable as it was Blair and Brown in 1997 and commitments on tax and spending have limited Cameron’s room for manoeuvre.
Why is there some kind of naive assumption that somehow everything will be “all right” once the Tories are back in power ? All Governments need some good fortune and many have to endure unforeseen problems. In addition, expectations need to be managed. The Tory victories of 1970 and 1979 had run into deep trouble by 1972-73 and 1981-82 respectively. There’s no reason to imagine the same thing couldn’t happen to Cameron.
105. The US has been stuck with Bush even though he was clearly going to cost the Republicans the next election since 2005. If there was a parliamentary system over here Bush would have long since been forced to resign.
I agree that commons majorities currently have too much power, but that’s been because of the decline of the Lords’ power. However, it’s a much better system than “consensual” ones like South Africa or Grand Coalitions as we currently have in Germany, where there is no-one speaking out against the government. It’s also better than permanent coalition systems where the people never know who to blame for things going wrong because coalition partners blame each other, so people’s prejudices never change.
I think we need to keep a majority type system in the Commons, preferably AV, but have a bit more of a check in the Lords by giving it back some more power and making it elected, with STV the best method.
115 - you missed the best bit:
“And Ms Alexander also dismissed claims of arrogance against Labour politicians and said her party’s fight back was under way.
She added: “Frankly, as I look across the other benches in the parliament, I don’t think the arrogance is on our side.”
114 I think we’ve had enough in the UK of PMs going on and on. Perhaps we should try the two term limit. Brown would have been in a better position if he’d had won the 2005 election himself. The Tories would not have imploded if Thatcher was replaced in 1987/88.
With the exception of the GW Bush debacle and the great Roosevelt success, it’s worked well for the US IMO.
It was good to see Putin have to work round their restriction.
66. Yes that’s correct - 2001 not 1997
119. yes I didn’t get that far, amazing irony that I really doubt she can see.
106 Cracking value, IMO, available on Betfair at 0.15/1 on Hillary winning, for those lovers of nailed-down certainties. The Halifax certainly won’t pay 14.25% net on your money over the next 3.5 weeks.
O/T Something for the weekend Sir? How about 12.5/1 available on Betfair that says Villa will beat United at Old Trafford? Unlikely I know, but big odds for a decent side in a two horse race. As a saver have an equal value bet at 0.9/1 that the match produces more than two goals.
105. I don’t think term limits are right. Yes, Bush is on his way out, but purely *because* he is on his way out he has been a lame duck leader for the past two years (as was Clinton before him). People are looking to the next President.
Paul M at 73
Politics just isn’t as simple or as blindly partisan for most people as I think your post suggests. I also venture that you misunderstood slightly the conclusions of Ashcroft.
What he said in terms was that a core vote strategy (as we pursued in 01 and 05) would always fail; because there just aren’t enough core voters to win power.
It’s the non aligned voters that hold the key; most of these people are naturally in tune with right-of-centre principles of Conservatives - small Government, individual freedom, equal opportunity but not imposed equal outcomes, strong law and order and defence, strong families etc.
Conservative *minded* voters like these didn’t like the look of Howard/Hague and quite liked the look of Blair - especially early on.
112. I think it would make a difference in political platforms, with even more reaching out in a big tent manner. (STV actually has the opposite effect, as prominent candidates first concern would be reaching the threshold, increasingly small with how many seats there are.)
109. It is about the worst there is, apart from the block-vote (and some crazy forms of PR, which no-one seriously proposes.) What is more, FPTP’s flaws were identified long ago… Pliny the Younger in the Roman Senate pointed out its paradoxes in AD.105. In Mediaeval times, Ramon Lull and Nicholas Cusanus proposed alternative voting procedures. In the 18th Century the French noblemen Borda and Condorcet laid down formal criteria that a “fair” voting system should meet. In the 19th Century Englishmen Hare and Hill created STV…
118. I have always thought this - why do we seem to have this position in UK Politics where the idea of granting more powers to a legitimate, elected Lords is balked at?
(Well, we all know the answer really, it’s nothing to do with the Primacy of the Commons but because the Government of the day don’t want a big challenger in the form of a beefed up second house).
I don’t advocate pure power parity, but if the Lords are elected I see no reason why they cannot return to the powers they had before the 1949 Parliament Act.
O/T - Terrorist released early
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7319037.stm
34. Thanks for these figures Stuart.
London numbers:
Con 47%
Lab 31%
LD 13%
BNP 5%
Grn 3%
The Patriots already on 5% and Londoners haven’t even received their free election mailshot yet!
Interesting that Red Ken, Bonking Boris, Camp Commander and the Green haven’t mentioned immigration once throughout the campaign. All they seem to care about is bendy buses, Range Rovers and planting trees. Leave the other topics to the Patriots.
I might have to up my prediction to 3 seats.
Re: 120 - I disagree, Jonathan. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the current system except that most politicians, once in power, start losing some key critical faculties including being able to see beyond the goldfish bowl of Downing Street.
Margaret Thatcher could easily have stood down in 1989, her legacy untarnished but she either wouldn’t or couldn’t. I think leaders develop a form of messianic streak after years of fawning and having everything doen for them. There;s a sense of infallability and a sense that their work is uncompleted and a sense that only they can do the job. I think BOTH Thatcher and Blair suffered from this.
Harold Wilson was of course more worldly-wise and was on his second stint. He more or less voluntarily walked away in 1976. Perhaps once you’ve tasted defeat and recognised your own fallability, your sense of personal judgement and perspective returns.
William Hague has experienced defeat - seriously and massively. I think for no other reason than that he’s the best qualified Prime Ministerial candidate on the Tory frontbench. David Cameron doesn’t know what it’s like to lose - one day he will find out.
129, bloody hell. Not a serious offence? What do you have to do for it to be considered serious?
28. “Of course politics is about winning”
No. Wrong. That’s a politicians way of thinking. Politics is about working out the best way to manage public services and the economy. You don’t “Win” in politics, you gain a mandate.
Brown speaking to Scottish Labour, without notes, BBC24 commenting that it is the “David Cameron way of speaking” which has “become the way of doing things”
35 “Fascinating, I just compared Blair arriving to tears of joy in ‘97 with Thatcher in 79 where you can clearly hear people booing her.”
Perhaps Labour are the type to boo. Perhaps Tories are more polite.
Besides, booing thugs are best ignored. Labour, on the hand give them jobs as conference security.
Latest Rasmussen Presidential and Primary Poll Trackers :
McCain 49% .. Clinton 41%
McCain 49% .. Obama 42%
Clinton 44% .. Obama 46% - First Obama lead for over a week in this poll.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Yes, they could have stepped down, but they didn’t. So the system needs to change. The kind of absolute power the UK system gives it’s prime ministers is not healthy. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
But I reckon I’ve seen enough of the current system to at least give some incremental reform a try. A two-term 8 year limit for PMs would be quite painless IMO. Our parties need to grow beyond the personality cult.
“It’s still something to keep pretty quiet about in a way belonging to Labour and the Lib Dems isn’t.”
In the circles you move in, perhaps.
sorry about the “it’s” - yuck!
113, 137 - if someone told me that they were a member of a political party (any political party), I’d start from the presumption that they had a screw that needed tightening somewhere until proven otherwise - and so I would recommend keeping pretty quiet about it. Being a member of a political party seems like a pretty odd thing to want to be.
131. He lost a safeish seat in 1997. But then so did lots of people.
It’s 2005. I want my Prime Minister to be Tony Blair. I feel his government have done good things for the economy and the public services since 1997. I want to reward him by returning a Labour MP to support his government.
Why if I want this man to be my Prime Minister following the election are you telling me I cannot? Because there is some piece of legislation out there that says no matter how successful you are as a PM, after 8 years that’s it?
126. hardly, since as I have indicated the AV result would be scarcely different from FPTP. It’s also highly inefficient, since in the example I gave, almost 400 seats would have to be recounted, to produce a different result in just 12 seats!
123 - I wouldn’t be too wild about that 0.15/1 about Hillary winning PA, PfP - if the “drum beat” of fellow Senators calling for her withdrawal continues it may have a considerable effect.
Three weeks is a long long long time in politics.
123 - also, football matches are not two-horse races!
139. Agreed. I don’t think being a member of the Labour party is any less of a ’stigma’ nowadays than being a member of the Tories.
For those of you interested in the final results from Texas …. yes you thought Hillary won ..
…. the county conventions are this weekend and the final delegate tally will be reported below. Obama likely to end up around +5 over Hillary :
http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=A651904DDDFEAB23F195356E0DCF0140?diaryId=5455
132 - I’m just waiting for Basher’s comments on this.
34. The Scottish detail on this poll - the Tories at 19%. Is that one of their best performances for years or is it just me?
Hattie Harperson is standing in for GB on next weeks PMQs, that’ll be a laugh.
142. But the problem with your analysis is that your basic data comes from an election fought under FPTP. If there was a different electoral system, politicians would fight the election differently - namely trying to win over more than their core vote and independents that lean their way.
141 Firstly, at present, who the queen asks to be prime minister has technically nothing to do with you anyway. It’s down to who can command a majority in the Commons. You vote for your MP (who may support a party) and nothing more.
Why do I say that certain people are ruled out of the PMs job? It’s purely a temporal form of the separation of powers. One person should not be allowed to have unlimited power.
149. dont mean to sound think, but who?
[83] - A lot of Tories like to make a lot of the benign economic inheritance that Gordon Brown inherited, but it was Thatcher who did a lot to squander the North Sea oil money on tax cuts, instead of investing for the future (as, say, the Norwegians have done). The source of many of our problems (housing for example) can be laid at the door of Thatcher.
The Tories like to pretend that they are business-savvy types who know how to keep their eyes on the bottom line, but their record in government does not inspre confidence. Ken Clarke’s personal record was something of an exception rather than the norm, and it’s taken a lot longer for things to go belly-up economically than the Tories ever predicted.
149 - Hague will tear her to pieces…
152. whoops, mean thick, and do you mean harriet harman?
151. But if voters/MPs would like that person to have that power, why stop it? We live in a representative democracy, surely we are being ‘unrepresentative’ if the most favoured candidate to lead the country is not allowed to?
149, well, I’ll be mildly disappointed not to see a mocking Windsor Castle jibe thrown at Brown, but it’ll probably be worth it to watch a mighty Yorkshireman crush an anti-men harpy.
125 Marcus
Thanks for the response. I agree with your comments about the core vote, and better understand the point you were making.
I am somewhat surprised that even in a key marginal like yours there would be still be so many unalligned right of centre people who chose not to vote at all last time, despite presumably the best efforts of yourself and your LibDem opponent to get them to the polls.
143 Very valid point Aaron and I should have checked the rules to ensure that the bet only stands if she has not previously notified her withdrawal from the nomination, which is of course also a possibility.
151. But they don’t have unlimited power. If they wanted to do something that was opposed strongly by the majority of elected representatives, they wouldn’t be able to get it through the commons.
144 - Indeed not.
I’ll get me coat.
153 Reducing taxes is not squandering money.
And the economic situation that Labour inherited in 1997 was certainly the best any incoming government had enjoyed for many years.
153. Tax cuts ARE a form of investment, as they encourage business to come to the country (as long as they don’t come at the expense of government borrowing).
34. So, Stuart, on the basis of this poll, how many gains do you see the SNP making at the next Westminster election?
160 I theory maybe, but in practice whipping pretty much sees things through. In practice if you have a 100+ majority, unless you are a cretin you can do what you like through the power of patronage.
156 I accept that the argument for limiting terms is a restriction on a freedom, but there are utilitarian arguments for it. I suspect you would not support the prime minister and MPs holding positions in the judiciary even if there was popular will for it. In practice, politicians seem to turn into benevolent dictators the longer they go on. Hence two terms and your out has merit IMO.
From a pseudo-biological point of view I think we benefit from a bit of diversity at the top in the long run
Sorry been away chauffeuring wife and daughter to wedding dress shops.
In summary the Tories have not yet been tested. Their no tax cuts policy and increase taxes on 4×4 s, holidays and students hasn’t yet registered with the electorate and they dare not mention the EU. But this is the problem with polls this far away from an election. They are are reaction against the government - once the electorate begins to realise that the Tories care as little about them as the Labour party does then why bother voting for them.
The answer to Mike’s original question is: No, why should they.