The Steve McCabe view of Crewe & Nantwich
May 30th, 2008An interesting piece here on Steve McCabe’s view of the Crewe & Nantwich by election. He was, of course, Labour’s campaign manager who came under a lot of flack.
He says “We set out to secure between 10,000-11,000 votes. Allowing for a turn out of around 35-40%, that was not unreasonable for a by-election. If there was no Liberal Democrat collapse, victory was possible, however unlikely.”
Alas turnout was nearly 58% and the Lib Dems saw a partial collapse in their vote.
There’s a direct link to McCabe’s Tribune article here.
Mike Smithson
Coming up on PB: Sean Fear - “Looking Forward to Next Year” at 5.30
MessageSpace Advertising
So was the “Toff Campaign” a trap set by the Tory spinmeisters?
“The Prime Minister was not involved in devising or sanctioning any aspect of the campaign and those who gossiped never once spoke to me.”
Surely though, if the PM had a strong objection to the ‘toff strategy’ he would have given comrade Steve a call at 6am and requested/ordered a change of approach?
An interesting insight into the disengenuous and cynical mindset of the Labour Party.
New Labour, new dissembling. I wouldn’t trust a word any of them said. Even Frank Field backed down despite 1.1 million people not being compensated for the 10p tax con.
Thats Labours biggest problem. Noone trusts anything they say.
Scottish sub-sample from today’s YouGov/Daily Telegraph voting intention poll. Usual caveats regarding sub-samples of GB-wide polls apply.
YouGov/Daily Telegraph
Westminster voting intention - Scotland
Sample size: 182
Fieldwork: 27-29 May 2008
1. SNP 41% (+23%)
2. Lab 25% (-14%)
3. Con 19% (+3%)
4. LD 13% (-10%)
5. BNP 1% (+1%)
oth 2%
… giving the following seat distribution, according to Electoral Calculus (Martin Baxter):
1. SNP 43 seats (+37 seats)
2. Lab 7 seats (-33 seats)
3. LD 5 seats (-6 seats)
4. Con 4 seats (+3 seats)
(Speaker - Michael Martin: 0 seats (-1 seat))
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/DT30052008results.pdf
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll_scot.html
High profile Labour casualties to the SNP include: Michael Martin, Douglas Alexander, David Cairns, Des Browne and Alistair Darling.
This is self justificationary rubbish. And as for the Lib Dems ‘partially collapsing’ - you either collapse or you don’t (and they didn’t).
What next Anne Widdicombe - a bit of a virgin?
5. Lib Dem meltdown!
Latest Rasmussen Presidential and Primary Trackers :
McCain 46% .. Obama 43%
Clinton 43% .. Obama 48%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
6 - Souffles partially collapse if you open the oven door at the wrong time. Perhaps that was the problem with the Lib Dem campaign in Crewe & Nantwich: half-baked?
“I knew from day one that it was mission impossible”
So it’s the view within Labour high command that defending a 7000 majority at a by-election is impossible??! Talk about sour grapes!
9. Or just half-hearted? Perhaps the Lib Dems were concerned that if they contested the seat too hard they would risk helping the Tories beat their Labour chums. Hence the obsession with Henley.
Interesting to note that the Lib Dems vehemently denied they were directing resources away from C&N and towards Henley during the C&N campaign…but some of them are now using that diversion as an excuse for their poor performance!
6/9 Dan/antifrank. How about Anne Widdicombe in the oven ??? …. well, we know it wouldn’t be a bun in the oven !!
If that wasn’t their main tactic, and it wasn’t pushed much, why did so many of their leaflets contain stuff about Timpson (MP for crewe and nantwich
) being a toff, and Tamsyn Dunwoody being ‘one of us’.
7 - yp - “Lib Dem meltdown!”
Not really. The Scottish Lib Dems have been trawling along the bottom at about 10% - 14% ever since early 2006, when they kicked out Charlie Kennedy. Today’s poll is totally in line with all other evidence that the Scottish Lib Dem vote has approximately halved since the UK GE 2005.
That’s what you call protecting your own backside. but credit to him for not criticising Moyra Tamsin Dunwoody-Kneafsey, who based on her media appearances, came across as a pretty disagreeable individual to me.
15 spot on, she really came across as an awful candidate.
16. I think mediocre is closer to the mark.
New Field Presidential Poll for New York :
McCain 36% .. Clinton 53%
McCain 35% .. Obama 52%
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20080530-9999-1n30field.html
14. Indeed - I was thinking medium term. And just having some fun at the expense of our Orange friends.
She came across as labour - enough said. Mind you they could have had Mary Poppins / Mother Theresa and would have struggled.
4 - that’s interesting (and, speaking as a Tory, more realistic)
Didn’t a recent Yougov poll sub-sample put us on about 28%?
14 Get ready for the Rumble in Roxburgh Hoylrood 2011 Salmond v Kennedy it’s the fight all the punters want to see. It will happen I hear Don King is already negotiating………
“Bottler” Brown’s position becomes more untenable by the day
New headache for Brown as health workers reject three-year pay offer
Published by Jon Land for 24dash.com in Central Government , Health
Friday 30th May 2008 - 11:35am
Thousands of health workers have massively rejected a three-year pay offer, setting themselves on a collision course with the Government and causing fresh problems for the Prime Minister, it was announced today.
The GMB, which represents 25,000 NHS staff in England and Wales, said its members voted against the three-year deal by more than 96%.
A separate ballot of ambulance workers showed an even bigger rejection - 97%.
Members of the GMB are the latest group of health workers to vote against the Government’s offer of a deal worth just under 8% over three years.
The Royal College of Midwives said a consultation of its members showed a massive 99.7% rejection of the deal earlier this week.
GMB, which represents ambulance crews, porters, catering staff, ancillary workers, blood collection, nursing assistants and practitioners, cleaners, laboratory workers, drivers and maintenance staff, said it will now seek an immediate meeting with Health Secretary Alan Johnson.
22. Punter - “Get ready for the Rumble in… Holyrood 2011 Salmond v Kennedy… “
In the immortal words of Wendy “10-out-of-10″ Alexander: BRING IT ON!!!
(Was that “Roxburgh” just a typo? I do not think that either Mr Salmond nor Mr Kennedy would be standing in Roxburgh?)
deck chairs on the titanic springs to mind
24 Stuart. Chuck Kennedy standing would be considered quite a result in many ways !!
I can cast a bit of light on the inside of the C&N campaign, since it’s now really mostly of historical interest. The team discovered that there had been virtually no formal canvassing done at all, ever, so the initial contact rate was around 0. In the first frenetic fortnight, they got the contact rate up to 50%, with 9500 Labour promises. They then decided that they’d concentrate on getting those out plus converting the identified doubtfuls, reasoning that the other half of the electorate would deliver a few thousand more under their own steam (in the event Labour got 12600 votes), and if there was a low poll and the LibDems got a fair chunk of the anti-Labour vote, we could slip back in. In the last couple of weeks, the 9500 plus those who’d been ‘doubtful’ were recanvassed to death, and as I reported in guarded terms at the time, there was a two-way trade between doubtfuls going Labour and Labours going doubtful, with a trickle going to other parties.
In its own terms, given the crap national position and the blank-sheet starting point, I don’t think Tamsin, Steve McC and their team did a bad job. There was a case for less recanvassing (some solid Labour supporters really got tired of it - ‘yes yes I’ll vote for you, look at the sodding poster in my window, but for f’s sake stop bugging me!’) and more contact with the other half, but it’s easy to second-guess these things. As in London (where a similar ‘inner doughnut’ strategy was folowed), it wasn’t that hard to motivate the core vote to get out, but there wasn’t enough of it.
[377,previous thread] “289: Because the Lib Dems were 2nd in Henley but 3rd in Crewe?”
That’s very simplistic reasoning. The Tories had over 50% of the vote in Henley at the 2005 GE, when they polled just 33% nationally. It was the third general election in a row after 1997, 2001 and 2005 when the Tories lost the general election. If the Lib Dems couldn’t have taken it from the Tories by then, they are extremely unlikely to do so now.
In contrast, Labour are shedding votes left, right and centre at the moment. Even though the Lib Dems concentrated on Tory-LD marginals in the 2005 GE, they gained lots of Labour votes. With some justification the Lib Dems could see themselves as most likely to gain from a collapse in the Labour vote.
However, this requires the Lib Dems on giving up on the mirage of taking Tory seats.
It will be hard for the Lib Dems to change their focus from their Tories to Labour. A lot of their activists have spent a long time working to win Tory seats, but it isn’t going to happen.
There are a lot of Labour seats up for grabs, but the Lib Dems are going to have to work for them, which they can’t do if they are running about the country harrying the Tories in their own backyard.
24.Considering the name of my MSP, that would be interesting.
27. Priceless. Conceding an 18% swing is not doing ‘a bad job’. Nick you are making yourself look very foolish.
Someone’s trying to cover their bottom… against high command
27 - Your candour is appreciated and refreshing. Ironic, however, to see an acknowledgement that the Labour party was looking for a low turn-out at the same time that the Government is seeking to identify ways to encourage a higher take-up of voting.
24 Not a typo just my attempt to parody the thriller in Manila etc. Maybe you can do better.
10 - “I knew from day one that it was mission impossible”
On targer seats needing with majorities of less than 7000 and 7% swing that is over 150 seats to the tories if C&N was mission impossible. Where do they get these berks? If he said things didn’t go well, momentum wasn’t with us, then that would be true. Why bleat on about mission impossible?
How come Nick Palmer can come on here and say it like it is and McCabe is still spinning. Suprised he didn;t throw in a “tories should be doing better - over 50% if they want to win next time” just for good measure.
28.Good analysis.
27…isn’t labour’s core vote about 25% of the electorate?
McCabe manages to make himself look deceitful as well as incompetent.
Yes, Labour campaign manager, the Tories made up all those article in your party literature. Quite hilarious he blames the Conservatives and ‘cowards’ from his own side for the strategy (which apparently never existed) failing.
So… Brown’s managed to be less popular than Neville Chamberlain in the 1940s, lead Labour to its lowest ever level supprt… what’s next? Under Nick Clegg, like so many women?
34 There was a better one on Lib Dem voice I think.
35.We just don’t know yet what that core vote level/box is yet, although the government seem determined to find it and test it to the limits.
31 What Nick is saying is that the swing was down to national factors and the local campaign made the best of the very difficult national position they found themselves in. This is a perfectly logical argument - like most political arguments, it is not possible to give a definitive answer one way or the other - it’s a matter of opinion. And I wouldn’t expect Tories to share Nick’s opinion.
27. That seems to be a bit of a shambolic way to manage an association. Historically has the area not had a fair number of labour councillors? Its only three years since a general election, was no serious canvassing done? Crikey, yet the town kept on returning Dunwoody.
I bet you are somewhat outstanded compared to the level of canvassing done. This kind of institutional bone idleness is what has done it for the Conservatives in some of their seats, when a sharp hard working libdem comes around.
I got mauled in May in a ward that was historically Conservative, but went Libdem four years ago by one vote.
I got selected in the october, and spent six months working the ward like it had never been worked before, the original pledge list was doubled etc.
Problem was, the libdem councillor had spent the entire four years since his original election doing the same thing. A monthly newsletters to the entire ward, attendance at pretty much everything, regular news coverage, and year round campaigning meant despite myself running the strongest Tory campaign in a generation, it wasnt enough and he won by a couple of hundred.
If the new Conservative MP in C&N is a hard worker, the seat wont come back in two years time, people get used to a hard working MP and are willing to endorse them against the grain.
27: Nick, with all due respect, the whole Labour team up in C&N did a really poor job. From issuing the writ before Gwyneth had been buried, through picking the humourless Tamsin for name recognition and unpleasant nature of your leaflets to the laughable ‘toff’ campaign it was ghastly.
5 - Alex Salmond is playing off the Labourites brilliantly up here. I’m sure the SNP will obliterate Labour at the next Holyrood elections, and for sure will emerge at the next GE as at worst 50/50 with Labour. I shall be delighted if ( in particular) Des Browne and Douglas Alexander get the chop. Having met both of them I can honestly say that not one iota of their beings is concentrated on their constituents, our country, the armed forces or anything else. They just want the trappings of power and their fat paycheques - plus expenses of course.
I think that the Lib dems just need a change of emphasis - leave the tories alone and look like a credible alternative to Labour.
I am sure Labour voters in Lib Con marginals will still vote Lib, but they may pick up the labour votes, and you may see tactical votes from tories helping them. I notice that on electoral calculus you cannot allow for a Lib to Con tactical vote. Could this happen at next election? Is the typical LD voter more in favour of Lab or Con
27 - Interesting stuff Nick… very struck by the suggestion that Labour didn’t have much in the way of canvass data in for the seat.
From my time in Crewe (never got the chance to go to Nantwich
), Labour seemed to have done a good job in identifying their vote (the number of Posters in some bits of Crewe was testament to that)… but, as you say, that ‘core vote’ was simply insufficient to enable them to win.
Furthermore, I think the nature of the Labour campaign only served to stimulate Conservative turnout and alienate voters that might still have either stayed home or even remained with Labour… another feature of the campaign (and the campaign in Ealing) that struck me was the absence of Labour tellers, how can you effectively ‘knock-up’ unless you have an idea of who’s voted?.. a complete contrast to a really phenomenal Conservative polling day operation!
37.Saw that as well and was impressed, Libdem Voice is so bland when it comes to any real debate about their own party, its like a campaign vehicle instead. Plus, I find it odd that they need a private forum to hide behind.
39 It just happens to be the opposite of what Number Ten was saying.
46 - They don’t know what they are saying anymore. They just keeping saying things until something sounds right a la Hazel Blears on QT.
46 Sorry I don’t follow - what is No 10 saying?
28- Zebra fan, although I’m observing from across the Atlantic, your take on the LD’s position intuitively seems spot on. I was discussing with a few others here yesterday what the LD’s should do, suggesting they need to go for the growing “anti-Labour” vote rather than the ever-shrinking “anti-Tory” vote, but one reply was that the LD’s have already recently flip-flopped a few times in that regard and would look foolish going back to “anti-Labour.” But aren’t they supposedly a completely independent party, and therefore are always both “anti-Tory” and “anti-Labour”? If so, all they have to do to scoop up a share of that growing “anti-Labour” vote is to retrain the focus of their attacks on Labour, showing the public that the LD’s understand why Labour is now so detested and they share that sentiment. Otherwise, the LD’s risk looking just as out of touch with reality as Labour, not seeming to understand the growing majority that would rather have Cameron as PM than Brown if forced to choose between the two. This “repositioning” does not require abandoning principle if the LD’s were an independent party all along that was never either “pro-Labour” or “pro-Tory.”
27. I don’t want to think i am over-scrutinising Nick Palmer MP but is the piece on fuel rebillions true in yeterday’s daily telegraph? It listed you as a potential rebel? If this is the case do you have to jack the PPS job in?
I actually think it will stregthern your case with the Broxtowe electorate should you oppose additional fuel taxation and require the government to take a led onsomesort of relief!
I note you seem to think the national picture is electorally difficult “given the crap national position” and hope i am not leading you into further scrutiny to other posters than is necessary! But i get a sense that whilst your support is still to the Labour party - you are begining to give me the impression of frustration with the governments position and maybe its lead?
40 - “If the new Conservative MP in C&N is a hard worker, the seat wont come back in two years time, people get used to a hard working MP and are willing to endorse them against the grain.”
Very probably true, unfortunately. An MP’s job should be to represent his constituents at Parliament and contribute to legislation & national oversight.
However the way to get re-elected in a marginal these days seems to be to go down the route of continual taxpayer-funded mailshots and focus on local issues (which are more properly the concern of councillors and local authorities).
I think Nick is to be congratulated for his update on C&N from inside the bunker; very interesting.
His rueful last line “it wasn’t that hard to motivate the core vote to get out, but there wasn’t enough of it.” is going to be an even more accurate predictor to the next General Election result for Labour I think.
“I am adamant for Freedom and Justice and for defending it” Mrs T just now….
The iron lady, that’s why she was seen as a beacon of liberty for the oppressed people of Eastern Europe…
54. By just now, i am of course talking from within the timewarp that is BBC Parliament….
49 - The danger for the Lib Dems is that the Tories may be able to portray them as surrogates for Labour. Every time a Lib Dem stands up and attacks the Tories rather than Labour, it supports the Tory argument that voting Lib Dem might let Labour back in through the back door. The Lib Dems at present should be focussing their fire on Labour, making it easier for those who do not wish to see Labour remain in power (whether erstwhile Labour supporters or soft Tories) to vote for them.
The strategy seems obvious. The problem is that many Lib Dem activists apparently would indeed prefer to prop up Labour rather than work with the Tories.
51. An MP’s job is actually for them to decide and then ultimatly for the electorate to ratify the MP’s conduct at the next election.
An MP does not have to be some great parliamentry debator but should they wish to attend debates and contribute that is their prerogative. Quite often MP’s assist electors in acquiring services from government departments rather than doing anything in parliament directly for them. I would be interested actually in how many Individual cases an MP presents to parliament i should imagine they are very few indeed per seat!
43. In theory yes, but the problem is that a) most Lib Dem MPs are fighting the Tories and more importantly b) the Lib Dems are led by a wringingly wet middle class clique which traditional Labour voters simply cannot identify with.
So while the Lib Dems can snatch Labour seats with a high Guardianista or student quotient, they make no impact in places like Crewe. It’s actually much easier for the Lib Dems to stick to their traditional anti-Tory stance, even if it is likely to prove disastrous….
54, saw a little of that prog. It was infinitely superior to the trash of local election night.
Re Scotland - do we ever get proper Westminster voting intention surveys specifically for Scotland and Wales? The political landscape is so different north of the border that trying to do one poll to cover both England and Scotland is meaningless.
With a strong SNP, I can easily see Cameron gaining a massive majority but with only half a dozen Scottish MPs. This would have massive implications for the Union. We really need some separate polling to see how likely this is, rather than trying to extrapolate from national surveys.
56. This is why the left needs to unify to become one party. This will also benifit the conservatives too as some LD’s will peel off and support them. As i have said before the Libreal Democrats pervert the political system by making it extremly unstable!
Take the 1983 result shown today on BBC parliament or the 1997 & 2001 results. These show a great disfunctuality has entered the parliamentry system with the rise of the LD’s. It creates a situation where governemnts do not have effective parliamentry opposition and things like Iraq then happen! It’s funny i always have a mistrustful respect for Labour but the LD’s whilst closer to me in background and outlook i feel are more repugnent in their politics.
54. I find Maggie Thatcher embarrasing to watch! She reminds me of a camped up cross dresser!
If i had been a voter in the 80’s i don’t think i could have voted for her!
I would have to have voted SDP or Liberal or NF/BNP!
60.”Re Scotland - do we ever get proper Westminster voting intention surveys specifically for Scotland and Wales?”
Very rarely in Scotland, although I think YouGov very occasional do one. The four party system does make it even harder to predict some constituency results, so many choices and so many outcomes.
61: The post 1997 Tories would have been a better Opposition if the Lib Dems hadn’t existed? Would anything have done that?
The point of a third party is to make less safe seats by giving disillusioned voters another party to vote for.
Bradford & Bingley - down again today at 87p, perilously close to its massively discounted rights issue - squeaky bums time
Nick Palmers post
“it wasn’t that hard to motivate the core vote to get out, but there wasn’t enough of it.”
Perhaps the labour party can learn from this for the next election. As they have no money just don’t throw good money after bad and rely on core vote.
Could a modern party run a low key campaign, run GOTV with local activists, rather than waste money on helicopters and billboards? Would they even consider not standing in weaker areas and concentrating on stronger areas.
52 - Can you imagine an MP delivering Burke’s Speech to the Electors of Bristol today, still less acting on it?
“You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.”
There is a lot of sense to it and a lot of MPs know it - but probably wouldn’t say it or act on it.
There’s a direct link to McCabe’s Tribune article here - http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2008/05/30/on-the-right-track-at-crewe/
66. If Nick Palmer’s suggestion that the core vote is too small to win a seat like C&N is actually true (and we need to be careful here) then the conclusions for Labour are utterly dire.
We are talking about a return to 1983 or even worse, with Labour reduced to being a regional party holding on only in the most depressed of the old industrial areas plus very ethnic parts of London.
67 - Overlooking the completion of a sentence with a preposition, that is a fantastic quote.
My favourite turn of phrase of his is from ‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’ talking about new-fangled ‘rights’:
“I can give neither praise nor blame to any thing as it stands in the nakedness and solitude of metaphysical abstraction”
To answer you question, independent of content, I can’t imagine more than a handful of our current MP’s able to deliver that speech, let alone dare to write it.
I don’t know if anyone’s posted this before, but there’s a nice summary here of how the various US States are leaning via Conservative Home. They give McCain a lead of *two* in the Electoral College.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26723#continueA
62 LOL! I suppose this was how Spitting image portryed her, as a female to male cross dresser, rather than the other way round.
POBLANO — OR 538
is actually Nate Silver of Baseball Prospectus, “best known for inventing PECOTA, a system for forecasting the performance and career development of Major League Baseball players”….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver#Other_interests
And also a p0ker player: in 2004, he quitted a financial consulting job to play p0ker….
BTW, Mike, you should really put his website on your roll blog: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
So Brown is telephoning the ordinary man on the street! Did Margaret Thatcher ever telephone members of the public who complained? I would not like to have been on the other end of such a call! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFh3pu0uGxQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFh3pu0uGxQ
71
Thanks for that, Sean.
You’ll notice that Novak reaches the same result as does today Silver of 538: 270 (Mac) vs 268 (Obama).
74. Brown appears to be gaga. Frank Field’s comment about letting people out of the attic seems more and more appropriate.
60. JohnKellett - “Scotland - do we ever get proper Westminster voting intention surveys specifically for Scotland and Wales?”
Wales: extremely rarely.
Scotland: occasionally, see:
- http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html
- http://www.alba.org.uk/polls/2007westminsterpolls.html
- http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/scottish-voting-intention
Unfortunately, none of these sources is completely exhaustive. Infuriatingly, the internet lacks a Rolls Royce website for recording bang up to date, fundamental political data like opinion poll findings with links etc.
68 - Overlooking that when I first read your post, I thought it said McCain had an article in Tribune (I choked on my cup of tea), there are some astonishing phrases in there:
“I’ll credit the Tories with a useful bit of spin. It was smart to take the heat off a weak candidate by turning the by-election into a row about “toffs” rather than the strengths of the candidates. Theirs was a tactic that could only work because of a very uncritical press and some remarkably silly people in London who briefed rather than enquired. I guess that, like the scorpion, it’s in their DNA…”
“[the 'early caricature' that wasn't a 'toff strategy'] might have had some chance of success if it hadn’t fallen prey to a press which chose to ignore the question marks over the Conservative candidate, some useful Tory spin and cowardly criticism from within Labour’s own ranks…”
“I went to Crewe and Nantwich out of loyalty to the PM and the Labour Party. I knew from day one that it was mission impossible, but I’m not one of those who only surfaces when things are easy. Genuine Labour loyalists aren’t like that.”
A certain degree of denial, though it sounds as though they were going to play a defensive negative campaign from the start, whereas I don’t think the opening board was as bad as he suggests. What is striking is the way he talks about the media and the ‘other’ side of the Labour party. Plenty of antipathy to London-types, the media, Labourites who don’t agree with his less-than-appealing campaigning - you can forget sometimes quite how socialist certain sections of the Party still are, post-Blair.
Another thing on that Tribune web page that made me laugh -
“Online Poll
Last week’s question was;
Should Labour make an issue of the ‘toff tendency’ running the the Tory Party?
You said:
YES: 58%
NO: 42%”
42% of Tribune readers think no mention should be made of toffishness? I don’t believe it for a second!
The most relevant of the Somerset by elections is The Somerset County Coucil one at Shepton Mallett,where there was three main party contest,with Lib Dems in a close 2nd place , last fought 2005 GE day.
The result shows a drop of 15% for Labour with 10% going direct to the Tories and 5% to Lib dems-The swing from Lib dem to Tory of 2.5%.
If Henley were similar a tough task for the Lib Dems.
rogerh
rogerh
Nick’s remarks were refreshing as they struck me as being entirely truthful, something his colleagues in Government cannot grasp. So many Ministers have begun to believe the crap they have uttered for 11 years so much they have become totally divorced from reality, something which took the Tories 15 years to achieve.
Nick went straight to the nib of Labour’s problem at the next election. Even when TB achieved his landslides, Labour did well because it persuaded the electorate to vote tactically and in 1997 and 2001 it was a how do we get a Tory out/keep a Tory out rather than how do we support Labour or the LibDems. That attitude has now gone. Labour has never achieved more than around 1/3 of the electorate voting for them in the past decade and of course in the same period, having lost thousands of councillors, its local constituency base, the bedrock of any party’s election campaign team has all but evaporated.
Gordon Brown will only go if he is forced out. He believes he walks on water, he always has. Sadly its a self-righteous attitude common among offspring of the Manse. He almost certainly personally approved the nasty Toff campaign in Crewe. If he had not, cabinet ministers like Harriet Harman who themselves come from the grandest of backgrounds, would not have tried to defend the campaign.
Perhaps Tory Central Office will prepare for the next by-election after Henley, wherever that may be and for the General election by compiling a dossier of which cabinet ministers went to public school, are members of the aristocracy or members of political dynasties and that should cover about 2/3 of them.It was wonderful to see Harriet Harman’s face when Jon Sopel while interviewing her put to her the view that as she is the niece of the Countess of Longford and attended the most expensive Girls public school in Engand, she is infinitely more a toff than the new MP for Crewe and Nantwich.
74 76
No , not gaga imo.
But I have seen similar behaviour in a new MD promoted to his position and totally out of his depth. He concentrated on the things he knew and a few things that made him feel he had achieved something everyday.
He lasted 12 months and was fired after a dire set of results and business deteriorated. Funnily enough, he too had problems when it came to decision making.
76 This is a good illustration of how when things start going wrong for politicians everything they do is seen in a bad light. There were several reports in Blair’s time of him calling up people who complained - this was cited as a positive engagement with people. But for Brown it’s gaga……
71 Yes, thanks for that Sean - a very useful reference (and betting) guide as the election draws nearer, if a little slanted in the Republican direction IMHO - at least I hope so as this summary gives it to McCain 29-21 in terms of States, which makes my £200 of bets with other PBers this week on Obama netting at least 24 States look pretty sick. Realitically, I suppose the are really only about 4 or 5 swing States on either side, so Barack has a fair bit to do.
Dunno about you lot, but I’m feeling as if it’s a calm before an imminent storm, that something stonkingly gob-smacking is going to descend on the political scene pretty soon. Just a feeling - “though I should point out that any psychic-type forecasting is for entertainment purposes only and does not imply an ability to foretell the future”, said Cassandra.
Even so, my expectation levels rise dramatically every time a news bulletin starts.
77. PS
John, if you want to keep bang up to date with Scottish polling data just stay tuned to the threads here at pb.com
or else at Anthony Well’s UK Polling report.
71 - It is interesting and by no means wholly unreasonable. But some of the “leans” are pretty evenly balanced. For example, polling evidence so far if anything suggests New Mexico is leaning to Obama rather than McCain which would reverse the outcome. Indeed, despite Clinton having a good case to say she is more likely to take delegate-rich Ohio than Obama, the polls also point on average to an extremely narrow win for him there suggesting leaning (just) to Obama rather than McCain.
I think it is pretty dangerous to view this kind of analysis as in some way predicting a razor thin victory margin for either candidate. It could easily be the case that almost all the “leaning Republican” states go for Obama or that almost all the “leaning Democrat” ones go for McCain. I have said for months that my view is that this is exactly what will happen - the election won’t be that close and one of the candidates will win very handsomely… the only question is which one!
Parties need a strategy when they are not doing well and can’t win, but need to prevent a meltdown of support. It is defensive and won’t win an election but it will leave the party with enough of a presence to fight another day. Parties can go into meltdown and die – like the Progressive Conservatives in Canada after 1993.
I suspect that the 2001 GE could have been even worse for the Tories if Hague had not resorted to a ‘core vote’ strategy by stressing opposition to the EU and concerns about immigration. It is not as glamorous as winning a famous victory but there are times when a leader needs to organise an orderly retreat, prop up flagging support and make the best of a bad situation.
Labour really did not expect to win C&N but wanted at all costs to avoid falling to third place. McCabe achieved this. They will need to rely on a core vote strategy in 2010 otherwise Brown will be another Mulroney.
The main difference that I have with the 270/268 EV match ups as above is that Ohio is too close to call in any direction, it isn’t leaning Repubican.
I’d also flip New Mexico and New Hampshire around, the former leaning to Obama and the latter to McCain.
Obama 269, McCain 249, Ohio 20, if McCain did take Ohio that would mean a 269 tie.
84 Out of interest b, what sort of event do you have in mind?(Here’s a chance to make a name for yourself on PB!)
85 - Why are there so few polls? As far as I can see there’s only been one so far this year - that’s pathetic. Why can’t one of the newspapers commission a proper monthly poll of each of the four home nations separately?
89. Resignations (plural) - big ones, possibly associated with a scandal.
No indicators of course, haven’t heard any rumours, either. Wishful thinking maybe?
71 - Good link Sean, but I can’t see McCain taking New Mexico at all. I’d expect the Dems to take the 1st Congressional District, Tom Udall to win the open Senate Seat, Gov Richardson to stump heavily (either as VP or as the presumptive Secretary of State), and that’s before we come onto the financing differetial, general GOP to Democrat swing, and McCain’s flip flop on immigration.
Virginia and Indiana both leaning Republican is the only other spot, assuming it isn’t actually a landslide either way. With the trifecta of Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and Jim Webb, I think Obama is going to throw the book at Virginia, as the only way for the Democrats to get back into the South.
No Democrat has ever won the White House without a clutch of Southern States - solid Democrat territory until Brown v Board of Education and Civil Rights, and then Southern Governors (Carter and Clinton) tipped a few when they won. I think Obama should use this campaign to get the South reconnected with the idea of the Democratic Party.
ukpaul I have not studied the RCP polls as Jack W does, so excuse the ignorance, but isn’t OH very much a Clinton-not-Obama state which would appear, in the event of a clse race and Obama being the nominee, to tip it to McCain?
71/75 With McCains’s odds to win the Presidency nudging 2-1 with Betfair, do these various projections suggest he’s worth backing at this price?
Mike’s view has long been that he’s in for a right old pummelling, once the Democrats have sorted out their own contest and that his age will ultimately be a significant factor.
91 b, you’re a tease!
82. With Brown though, this bizarre behaviour is in line with so many other things we know about him. Actually I think Blair is gaga too, but in a quite different way - madly messianic rather than perversely paranoid.
91. Hmm think you might have to do a bit better than that.
FWIW I think GOP is MASSIVE value at 2.88 to win the White House.
Market says GOP 35% chance - I make it c.50%.
71. Personally, I think it very unlikely McCain will win New Mexico. I believe Hispanics will fall heavily Democrat this year. That result also gives Ohio and Virginia to McCain, which is certainly possible, but they’re both tossups.
96. Yes, I know. Pathetic, isn’t it?
81 Didn’t Nixon do something similar, leaving the White House during the night without protection to talk to anti-war demonstrators. I think he was very depressed at the time, as well, and couldn’t understand the views of his opponents.
90 - Quadruples the cost, because to keep the level of confidence and MoE the same means you’d need to poll 1000 people in each home nation.
If they were going to do that, I’d do a bi-annual poll of 1000 people in Northern Ireland (pop 1.6m) and then scale up - 2000 for the 3m in Walees, 4500 for the 5m in Scotland, and 45,000 for the 50m in England. Total sample would be about 50,000 respondants, which would give an MoE of about 0.5% - we’d have polling figures to one decimal place! And for only 50-times the cost… if only!
71 Murdoch was on TV basically saying McCain has it all to do and criticising him on the economy.Little doubt which way he sees things going.
99.
93 - Not sure who asked me but I responded to a similar question the other day.
Ohio is starting to trend more towards Obama again, the last three polls were Quinnipiac with McCain ahead by 5, Rasmussen with him ahead by 1 and Survey USA with Obama ahead by 9. The fivethirtyeight average has McCain leading by 0.1%!
As I said, that’s too close to call.
Sorry Fernando. Mulroney was more like Blair. He led his party into two landslide election victories.
Having just read the Tribune article and looked at a pile of the Labour litereature in Crewe, I can only say how dire Labour’s effort actually was. It is actually quite nasty and who is McCabe to say that Edward Timpson was a weak candidate? TV and radio interviews suggest that the Lady whose name is in Burkes landed gentry was not exactly top notch as far as by-election candidates go.
I suspect that McCabe was sent there because Brown sees him as a mirror image; dull, uninspiring and a Scot with a large chip on the shoulder.
100 - Yes, he went to the Lincoln Memorial at some absurd hour of the night/morning to debate with protesters (who all probably thought they must have taken something a little stronger than usual!) with his driver and his bodyman (Manolo Sanchez).
New Baselice and Associates Presidential Poll for Texas :
McCain 51% .. Clinton 36%
McCain 52% .. Obama 36%
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/05/052808_texassurvey.pdf
101 Morus 383 In Newport East I’d reckon the LD’s should take it rather than the Tories if any. If the Tories did or the huge national tide split the vote and kept Labour in I think it’d be more to do with the unpredictable national mood than local Tory targetting. Paul Flynn is such an iconic scalp for them the oberwhelming bulk of their effort locally will be directed towards him.
As for Lembit he’ll be Ok presently but he is really trying patience there. See the unprecedented Tory gains in Powys. Expect a reduced majority though.
by Punter May 30th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
104 - Also, the same shows Michigan trending away from Obama, not sure what’s going on in the rustbelt but there’s no consistency. The same with the south, Mississippi and Alabama are quite near demographically yet Mississippi is in play for Obama whilst Alabama is out of sight.
Things should start to settle and become clearer by the end of June (only to be clouded again by the conventions shortly after!)
106 - From Wikipedia
The student protests in Washington also prompted a peculiar and memorable attempt by President Nixon to reach out to the disaffected students. As historian Stanley Karnow reported in his Vietnam: A History, on May 9, 1970 the President appeared at 4:15 a.m. on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to discuss the war with 30 student dissidents who were conducting a vigil there. Nixon “treated them to a clumsy and condescending monologue, which he made public in an awkward attempt to display his benevolence.” Nixon had been trailed by White House Deputy for Domestic Affairs Egil Krogh, who saw it differently than Karnow, saying, “I thought it was a very significant and major effort to reach out.”[1]
In any regard, neither side could convince the other and after meeting with the students Nixon expressed that those in the anti-war movement were the pawns of foreign communists.[1] After the student protests, Nixon asked H. R. Haldeman to consider the Huston Plan, which would have used illegal procedures to gather information on the leaders of the anti-war movement. Only the resistance of FBI head J. Edgar Hoover stopped the plan.[1]
The 538 blogger (formerly known as Poblano) Nate Silver has a wikipedia entry here which pretty much shows why his statistical analysis of the US race so far has been so persuasive. Clever guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver
Will seant our, (almost) resident Libertarian be a martyr on Black Sunday , when the LT alcohol ban comes into force?
Or will he be more concerned to protect his hopes of future employment with Boris?
Will there be mass arrests?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23488536-details/Party+time+on+the+Tube+before+drink+ban+begins/article.do
108. It really would be very good for politics generally if a ridiculous buffoon like Opik were to lose his seat.
111. Why would legality bother Hoover.
Sean Fear article now up.
Thanks
Double Carpet
105 Yes, Mulroney - two landslides and then his Party was all but annihilated. I agree that Labour’s campaign in Crewe was dire. But they still retained a sizeable vote in second place. A ‘core vote’ strategy is sometimes necessary, and hopefully one executed more professionally that at Crewe.
111
As I posted earlier, it’s also funny to know that in 2004, he quitted a financial consulting job to play p0ker….
97- DC, I agree that 35% is lowballing it a bit on McCain. I’d put his chances somewhere in the 40%-45% range. While Democrats have momentum, Americans love to hedge their bets. I’m sure it will be crystal clear by October that the Democrats are headed for landslide congressional majorities, and I expect the GOP to run with a late theme of “checks and balances.” This will appeal to a latent voter preference for divided government and may be enough to put McCain over the line in a photo finish. It didn’t work for G.H.W. Bush in 1992, but he ran a really dismal campaign too.
90. JohnKellet
There was actually another Scottish voting intention poll this year, by TNS System 3 I think, just after that YouGov/The Sun one, but none of those websites record it. I probably have a link somewhere…..
118 - Yes indeed
Having seen a number of postings about Scotland today, I thought I would add to the very well written piece by Stuart Dickson, whose politics I dont share but whose passion for Scotland I do.
Consistently for the past 20odd years opinion polls in Scotland have understated the Conservative share of the vote by as much as 5% and seeing the Conservatives polling in the high teens now reinforces views expressed by people like Stuart and me who think the next GE in Scotland will see the SNP as the big winners and the Tories as substantial winners with both Labour and the LibDems taking a hammering.
I am assuming that there is no dramatic event or series of events which will skew the likely outcome but for those of you not seasoned “Scotland watchers” you have to realise the political geographical landscape of Scotland is very different from 1979. Not only does Scotland no longer have 72 Westminster seats, that number now being 59 but in 1979 the City of Glasgow had 14 constituencies and now it only has 7, Edinburgh had 7 and now it has 5. I am hopefully listing the Tory seats of 1979 and where they are now and what’s likely at the GE imho.
1) Ross and Cromarty: went LibDem in 1983, vastly different should stay with Charles Kennedy
2) Moray: went SNP in 1987, now probably safe SNP
3) Gordon: went LibDem in 1987, probably go SNP
4) Kincardine and Deeside went LibDem in 1997, a Tory prospect now as West Aberdeenshire
5) South Angus: went SNP in 1997, was most marginal as Angus last time now probably safe SNP
6) Perth and West Perthshire: went SNP at by-election on death of Nicky Fairbairn, the only real SNP-Tory marginal at next GE
7) East Perthshire: went SNP as North Tayside and probably now safe SNP
8)Stirling: went Labour in 1997: should go Tory at GE but Holyrood seat went SNP in 2007 so anything could happen
9) Argyll: went LibDem in 1987 and now likely to be a 3 way marginal Tory-LibDem-SNP. All 3 parties have held the seat since 1974 but its a very different seat stretching from the western fringes of Greater Glasgow to Oban.
10) South Aberdeen: went Labour in 1997 and now a 3 way marginal LibDem-Labour-SNP and I think SNP will take it. A very different seat from the old Tory held one.
11) Eastwood: was the safest Tory seat with an 11,000 majority until Jim Murphy snatched it in 1997. the only seat on mainland Scotland almost unchanged, it should finally come back to the Tories at the GE where a strong local candidate and active association are fighting hard and the Tories are back to being equal largest party on the local council
12) Ayr: went Labour in 1997 but its a totally different seat. If the Tories win back the Ayr Carrick and Cumnock seat then you know Labour are in for a hammering. Tories increased their Holyrood majority last year substantially.
13) North Ayrshire and Bute: became Cunningham North and Brian Wilson took it in 1987 and since then a safe Labour seat. However SNP took the Holyrood seat last year which albeit is very different, could be an indicator of Labour trouble.
14) Dumfries: lost in 1997 it was the second safest Tory seat with a 9000 majority but the seat was hugely changed and now most of this seat is in the Tory seat held by David Mundellwho should treble his majority given that last year the Tories won council seats within the constituency never held before.
15) Galloway and Upper Nithsdale: This was traditionally an SNP-Tory marginal won back in 1979 and held until 1997 when the new seat of Dumfries and Galloway was won by Labour. The top Tory target in Scotland, survived a swing to the Tories in 2005 and will see the same Labour and Tory candidates slugging it out. Should return to the Tory fold as the Tories are now the biggest group on the Council.
16) Edinburgh South: lost to Alistair Darling in 1987, was merged into Malcolm Rifkind’s seat and held by Alistair Darling. Dont be surprised to see pro Tory tactical voting especially by SNP voters to kick him out. Would be the top Tory scalp of the night.
17) Edinburgh Pentlands: was lost by Malcolm Rifkind in 1997 to Labour and now forms the bulk of Edinburgh South-west. However in 2003 the Tories took back Pentlands in Holyrood and last year David McLetchie increased his Tory majority substantially even though he had been forced out of the Tory leadership due to a row over taxi costs.
18) Edinburgh West: went LibDem in 1997 and on paper should stay that way but could be a Tory scalp if the LibDems unpopular as it contains large parts of the other former Tory seats.
19) Edinburgh North: this seat went Labour in 1987 and then was merged with Robin Cook’s old seat so he moved to Livingston. Now a top SNP target
20) East Dunbartonshire: Tories lost to Labour in 1987 and been a Labour/LibDe marginal ever since. Could be the only Labour gain next time
21) West Renfrewshire: went to Labour in 1987 and held by them ever since but was carved up and no longer exists at Westminster though still held by Labour at Holyrood
22) North-east Fife: won in 1987 by Ming Campbell at 3rd attempt and although on paper a safe LibDem seat, assuming he retires, everything to play for since he has a large personal vote.
23) Glasgow Hillhead: lost to SDP at 1982 by-election on death of Sir Tam Galbraith and then Roy Jenkins lost it to Gorgeous George Galloway in 1987 and its been Labour ever since though much amalgamated especially with the former neighbouring seat of Glasgow Kelvingrove. It is the one Glasgow seat which the SNP could snatch even though Nicola Sturgeon sits for Govan in Holyrood which is in another seat.
24) Banff and Buchan: lost to Alex Salmond in 1987 and probably the safest SNP seat.
With apologies to any of our English colleagues not interested in Scottish politics I hope the above may interest some of you
Surprising to learn just how defensive the Labour C&N campaign was from the very start. This looks like Brown’s influence on events as it seems to fit with his general air of caution. Even more reason for Cameron to hope that Labour doesn’t change leaders before the next GE!
4. If this YouGov sub sample for Scotland has any validity then there is a different dynamic north of the border based on SNP competence at Holyrood rather than Brown v Cameron.
Were the SNP to continue to impress, killing the Labour control of Sottish seats in Westminster, and Labour recover a bit south of the border, could we end up in a situation with the Conservatives a few seats short of an overall majority, with the SNP as the largest party available for support.
What kind of deal might be required to get a stable administration in such a scenario?
121 Thanks for the education much needed by us Londoners.
121 - reading this out of date Easterross, but that was an awesome post - well done!
easterross, great list of Scots stuff.
Are you sure that Con isn’t in the running in Aberdeen South? I’ve run scenarios with it going any of four ways.
I hope so, because a Tory win will be a quadruple shot of vodka to me in the Election Game.
123. it must be remembered that salmond has so far steered quite a populist course….the antipathy still felt by many in Scotland towards the Tories should not be underestimated; as such any deal in which the SNP helped the Tories into power would be extremely unpalatable to a large majority of SNP voters, hence highly unlikely, barring a promise of independence in return!
123.”What kind of deal might be required to get a stable administration in such a scenario?”
Robert, if that scenario became a reality then I would imagine an issue by issue coalition of the sort that the SNP and the Conservatives have in Holyrood. Independence would not be on the table, although I imagine that Salmond would be lobbying to get that Referendum for 2010.
121.Great detailed analysis of the Scottish Seats Easterross.
The SNP have to fancy their chances in Gordon, Malcolm Bruce has a large personal vote so it would be interesting to see how it plays out.
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine saw Robert Smith increase his majority last time with what looks like a swing to the Libdems in areas nearer Gordon and Aberdeen South, which have been rich veins of support for the Libdems. Not sure that they will be this time, and despite his majority, the Conservatives must fancy their chances with the candidate they have, that and the fact that there is a mood for a change of government.
Like you, I can see the SNP coming through to take Aberdeen South, but equally what happens to the Conservative and the Libdem votes will be the key too. At the end of the day, any scenario, including Ann Begg hanging on must be on the cards.
127.Well that antipathy towards the Conservatives from the SNP seems to have largely disappeared in area’s where the Conservatives have been previously strong. I suspect that some of the left leaning SNP diehards would prefer never to have to work for them, but that boil was lanced when the SNP changed its rules to enable them to power share at council level after the Scottish elections last year.
Also it would look extremely hypocritical and cynical for the SNP to suddenly harden it line against a party which supported it as a minority administration, enabling them to get some of their most important legislation through Holyrood.