What’s the use of poll questions like this?
August 12th, 2008
What we need to know is how people will vote?
As someone who uses polls to try to predict elections and win bets I’ve always been very wary of polling questions which ask respondents for their opinion - not for an indication of what they would do in an election.
This based on the last two general elections only about 60% of people actually vote so the results you get from the opinion questions are distorted by the views of non-voters. Secondly the voting intention questions from the major pollsters are subject to a lot of controls that often don’t apply to the findings that are about people’s views.
Then there is the challenge for the pollster of devising a question that is useful. Just look at the example above from the weekend’s News of the World YouGov survey and it’s hard to draw any conclusions.
What’s needed is the form of polling that we saw during the Tory leadership election three years ago and was a regular feature of Populus and ICM polls until May 2007 - the month before Gordon got his coronation - “How would you vote if Brown/Miliband/Johnson was Labour leader, Cameron was Tory and XXXX was Lib Dem leader.” These were subject to the same political weighting and turnout filters as the standard polls from the firm and have proved themselves with what they suggested about Brown.
I am hoping that within the next few weeks, certainly ahead of the Labour conference, that we’ll have the findings of polling questions like this in relation to possible other Labour leaders. How better/worse would Labour be doing with Miliband/Johnson at the helm rather than Mr. Brown. My guess is that there will not be that much variation.
The other polling material really does not contribute a great deal to our understanding and I tend not to feature it much here. I do not, for instance, pay much attention to the latest PH5000 data on David Miliband - which seems to have got the Guardian a bit excited.
MessageSpace Advertising
No.
Oh poo, it doesn’t work this time. Um.
Labour are doomed - DOOMED who ever lead them into the next election! It will be rather like watching a snail get trooden on at the next GE! Squelch & Crunch followed by your foot swiverling on the carcus!
Labour are doomed!
Plus the LD’s too! 
Were you up for Clegg and Huhne?!!!! 
re 2. Thank you Martin for that well thought out and argued post which, alas, does not add much to our understanding of things either.
@2:
I wouldn’t employ somebody with spelling as bad as yours.
497 from previous thread. Where do you live?
Mike, following up on comments on this topic in a thread a couple of days ago - OK, I take your point about the question, but there is SOME useful content here, namely that there doesn’t seem to be any great enthusiasm for any of the alternatives to Gordon Brown. Things would be different if one of the named individuals were substantially more popular than Brown.
It looks like Obama has found a way to win back those seniors who might have been turned off to his campaign in the wake of age-based criticism of McCain: no income tax for those earning less than $50,000 per year!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080811/D92GAVIO0.html
I only wish I were nearer to retirement age so I, too, could enjoy a tax-free existence. Who knew Obama would turn out to be such a champion of tax cuts?!
@5:
a/s/l?
When PBC goes cyber.
8. Exactly. I am going to lure him in with the promise of a Pot Noodle…
Reposted from the last thread, with apologies, but we can’t let these inaccurate tractor statistics from Nick P go unchallenged.
re 422 Casino you are right to be sceptical. NHS Information Centre figures show an increase in numbers of qualified nursing staff from 1997 to 2007 as 300k to 376k, an increase of 25%. However in terms of WTE the rise is from 246 kWTEs to 308 kWTEs, a rise of 24%.
I am not sure where on earth that Nick gets the idea that the number of nurses has “doubled”. If might be the new Labour idea that a teaching assistant is a techer and a PCSO is a policeman, and a nurse prescriber is a doctor. He’s probably including unqualified people who used to be called nursing auxiliaries as nurses.
4. Do you get paid at Tory HQ for accessing web sites and posting comments?
7 Flag Waver
Now Obama’s cooking. Would Brown suddenly become popular if he did the same in the UK.
Answer - no, well not on this Tory blog anyway.
Malcolm
PS - remember, we are all Tories now.
5. In a castle. With wolves all around. And armed policeman.
@11:
Alas not. That’d be *ace*.
There is one interesting figure in that table. 28% of Labour voters don’t know who on that list would make the best Prime Minister. They’re too disaffected to support Gordon Brown but none of the others have blown their skirts up yet. If anything showed just how demoralised Labour supporters are, that figure is it.
Lib dem meltdown is wildly exaggerated in my view. There is not a pro-tory vote out there, rather an anti-labour vote. many lib dems are good constituent MPs. I don’t see many people rushing to turf a perfectly good lib dem out, just to get a tory in the South (especially as the tories use lib dems as a think tank these days e.g. green taxes). Plus at the local elections, they did well where they had sitting MPs e.g. Eastleigh despite being tory marginals. It is true Clegg hasn’t been inspiring YET, but he knows where the argument is: authoritarianism vs Liberalism. I think he has been spending a lot of time sorting internal party structures out and has thought carefully about what he stands for - now he needs to communicate that.The tories are incoherent and flip flop e.g. liberty vs police surveilance. He showed little appreciation for the complexities of the Georgia crisis at his press conference. The best person I have heard on this is actually Jim Murphy on Newsnight who spoke coherently on the complexities. Please can everyone remember Cameron only started doing well once Gordon blew it on the election not because everyone suddenly thinks tory policy is amazing.
6. but if his point is right, then the sample will be dominated by people who would never vote Lab under any circumstances, some of which may not even have heard of the candidates, and others with questionable motives.
the signal to noise ratio is questionable.
@12:
Do you think it’s likely that Gordon will announce an audacious scheme to remove half the population from income tax?
Exactly.
Who were the Conservative voters who thought Balls and Brown made the best PM one wonders?
13. Are you Prince Harry?
9. We’re all just waiting to see whether you give your measurements in metric or imperial.
11. seems unlikely - Tory HQ have been trying to distance themselves from most of his views since the early 90s
16. Has anyone actually read the Bones report?
21 - did you see my posts on the last thread at 34/35?
21. Im an imperial martyr.
Martin after studying your logic, spelling, grammar and vindictive nature (re Mr Clegg) may I suggest you immediately send off your CV to HMRC as they always have an opening for someone of your talents.
Here’s the link
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/
On the subject of the thread, this sort of poll is almost completely pointless. Apart from Gordon Brown, the names on the list simply aren’t known by enough of the public. All it tells us is some people have heard of Miliband and Straw.
What Labour MPs and members need to be thinking is whether these people will make a positive impression as people get to know them over six months or so of being leader. The polls provide very little evidence, focus groups a bit more. But the best test is knowing the character of the people involved - do they understand what needs to be done, are they sure-footed, can they cope with the pressure? Those kind of qualities (or lack thereof) are what will determine whether Labour bounce back under alternative leadership - not bizarre hypothetical polls.
17 - ed, Yes, point taken. But you’d think that any candidate capable of transforming Labour’s prospects would at least get some recognition in the responses. It all comes back to what I’ve been saying for a while; there’s no single candidate, of obvious electoral appeal, around whom Labour could unite and who would make a big difference. That being the case, it looks (from the outside) that the evident risks of switching leader are too great to be worthwhile for Labour.
@22:
I don’t think my brand of anarcho-communitarianism with an objectivist twinge was much in demand during the Major years. Localism’s all the rage in Toryland nowadays though.
The Harman figures are relevant.
Harman is quite well known to the general public and yet her support levels in this poll are very low.
This confirms the massive risk Labour would be taking if they hold a contest. Harman would stand an excellent chance of winning and everyone in the Labour Party must know that if she does, the result will be total wipe-out - far, far worse than they’ll do under Brown.
15 - It’s roughly equivalent to the numbers of Tories and Lib Dems who don’t know. I suspect all they are saying is that they don’t know who would be best. Some may be disillusioned, but they are just as likely to believe any PM is good as long as he/she is Labour.
20. Yes, yes I am. The official view from the palace, is that taxes should be raised on the rich.
With regards to the thread: the Pre-Brown premiership had all sorts of surveys which nobody choose to believe.
I think Labour are tested to destruction - they would probably be better reconstructing the Cabinet around Brown than playing Musical chairs and having an election within 6 months of today’s date!
Sorry for the flippant comment at No.2! I just do not believe that any of the contenders in the Labour cabinet are upto the job including Brown. Maybe Brown should make Blair a special adviser in how to be PM? No wonder Blair ram-rodded so many things like Trident before Brown took over. Blair at least could get government to work even if you did not like the direction it travelled. Brown cannot do that and i am afraid that Miliband being from the same academic background will probably be just as ineffectual.
The point of that poll shows that Labour have a worn - out team that is not upto the job.
485. Yes, well, I’m not too impressed with it. I didn’t think it was a problem because I didn’t realise the ban needed to be renewed each year, but it seems a ridiculous swivel to save a few blue dogs who aren’t that loyal anyway.
28. maybe. what was Cameron’s name recognition like months before the conference where he won the leadership? (i know opposition has less publicity attached, but even so)
28. But the lesson of 1990 is that a personable and intelligent newish face CAN turn a political party around when it is heading for the rocks. John Major had two years as PM and won the subsequent general election, yet when he was selected by his parliamentary colleagues he would have been pretty much unknown to the wider electorate.
Are there any polls around from that leadership contest?
32. G, while I am sympathetic for the moral case for higher taxes on the rich, from a pragmatic perspective I don’t think it’s a good idea. I think the UK has got to the point where it’s over the hump of the Laffer curve and cutting taxes (slightly) would get more revenue in the longer term. (Please note this is a different view from more rightwingers, who like to believe we are always to the right of the Laffer hump!)
35
A very fair point, the difference is that Cameron is very impressive, as for the list, none of them are in the least impressive. It begs the question why Balls was even mentioned, they must have been having a laugh.
% of GDP from taxation is probably about right, but the poor pay disproportionately more tax - that’s where the problem is.
16. Please can everyone remember Cameron only started doing well once Gordon blew it on the election not because everyone suddenly thinks tory policy is amazing.
Your mind plays tricks - Cameron before the Blair/ Brown switch got his first double digit leads. The Brown bounce was never really a tangible thing, it just distorted the polls for 3-4 months before going back to trend. The reason Brown did not cause an election was because Cameron appealed to people in key swing seats which would mean some Labour losses!
On thread, I’m not even sure the type of question Mike is suggesting would help punters that much. The one with Gordon Brown worked because voters already knew what he was like (or at least, how he came across) from 10 years as Chancellor. People’s views of Harman or Miliband or Cruddas are going to be based on much less information now, than they would have once they became leader.
39. So how would you change that?
35 ed - Cameron was very little known, but it was to be expected that he would have four years or so to establish himself with the public. But if you switch leaders whilst you are in government you can’t select someone so unknown, for obvious reasons. It’s much easier in opposition. That’s part of Labour’s problem: all of the realistic alternative candidates (except maybe Harriet Harman) are tainted with the same failures as Gordon Brown, and also stuck with the same difficulty of needing to attack their own policies in order to make progress.
Brown bottled it after the inheritance tax announcement from the Oik, which could have (and still can be) argued into the ground as being regressive and uncosted (i.e. tax the living more than the dead?????). Even senior tories admit if he had gone for it then, Cameron would not have won.
31 - I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t regard the Conservative or Lib Dem figures as particularly relevant. A Conservative supporter has no particular stake in who would make a good Labour PM. A Labour supporter would ordinarily have a view or have a default that the answer was the current Labour leader.
It’s not surprising that the Labour “none of the above” figure is so low, because Labour supporters would be cheering on Labour figures. (That 8% may well represent in large part the hard left element of the Labour party, since John McDonnell is not on that list.) It is, however, surprising that given a list of the main runners and riders, 28% of Labour’s supporters can’t bring themselves to back Gordon Brown but can’t pick a preferred successor.
16. Its not just in the south west. Heath, Kramer, Brake, Huhne and so forth are all under threat.
On the subject of Chris Huhne, how the mighty have fallen:
http://www.chris2win.org/
44 - If you think the dead pay any taxes you are seriously misguided. Inheritance tax is paid by the grieving.
35. Good, I had just started work in Leeds in late 2005 at the time of the leadership election: late October. I saw David Cameron when i was in Macdonalds in Leeds railway station with an assistant and a bloke one lunch time!
I told the new office workers that i had seen Cameron and they all said they wanted him to win as ‘he was the future instead of going back to the past!’ That’s no exgeration! So people were aware of Cameron and his potential!
42. Fiddle around with it so that taxes on business are a little lower but income taxes are a little higher on the rich and lower on the poor. However there would be some problems with capital gains tax.
on a different note..anyone seen the play on Harold Macmillan in London? It’s very good. Even as a lib dem - have always thought Macmillan was a decent pragmatist with good values
Huhne won’t be going anywhere if the local elections are anything to go by - plus he has shit loads of money. Kramer may struggle, but then Goldmsith looks a bit of a knob to be frank (especially with his environmental supermarket ideas) compared to Susan Kramer who has had a successful business and city career… I know who I’d want as an MP
37. BTW Laffer has minimal credibility left. his “curve” is no such thing, it was just an argument based on the obvious, but extending it to make an excuse for Reagan tax cuts, which ended in disaster.
50. Somebody said that Macmillian got expelled for Buggery from Eton! Think it was Woodrow Wyatt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Macmillan
I think he only came out about after Mac’s death though!
@52:
Ed, why do we have to keep reminding you that stating something you wish were true doesn’t make it so?
re 16 “Please can everyone remember Cameron only started doing well once Gordon blew it on the election not because everyone suddenly thinks tory policy is amazing.”
I think that Cameron started doing well for the Tories from the point he became leader in December 2005 and have remained good ever since apart from the Brown honeymoon blip.
To blame everything on the aborted election is not right.
I happen to think that the Tories would have got a majority if there had been a November 2007 general election.
51. What if the local elections go against him next year does that mean Huhne is dead meat?
yeah…they suggest that in the play. The official line was that he was ill. Well, you know these Etonians….. a few swingers in the closset. That’s pretty much the tory party isn’t it?
What’s interesting is that Macmillan never got over the guilt of WWI and losing comrades and working class men being treated as fodder. That plus having a seat in Stockton influenced his one nation tory credentials I think and his book the middle way, which I think Blair would have enjoyed!
42. one gaping loophole is the low taxes paid on share options - anyone in a position to channel income through some sort of a front company as CGT pays less tax. lower rate and generous allowances.
if “personal income tax” was in fact a tax on all personal income, the admin would be simpler, the effect would be fairer and the top rate could be much lower.
re 50 Yes - the Macmillan play is brilliant. A pity that its run finishes this week.
51. Huhne did well in areas they had good EARs. I think he is the least likely candidate of those listed to go, but I think he is certainly at risk.
Kramer would be my own choice as well, but she isnt sending out targeted posted letters on an astronomical scale(by local campaigning standards at least). She has no real differentiation from Goldsmith on Heathrow, and the Lib Dems have taken their eye off the ball in that constituency. Don’t get me wrong, she is a fantastic MP, but after losing the transport brief, and given the other challenges the Libs face across London, may struggle.
If they do, then perhaps. It’s always a good indicator. However, I think it is unlikely. The council is very good in Eastleigh. Am not sure what the tory candidate is like there, but given that Huhne is well known, I expect that will help, plus his money to pay for lots of leaflets!
A quick re-cap on the previous thread, please. Nick Palmer writes “the number of nurses has doubled since 1997.”
Source, please.
I’d agree the lib dems need to step up in Richmond, but I think they are aware. Again, if she is saying the same as Goldsmith and is credible as an individual and has had life experience instead of having a rich daddy why remove her for Goldsmith? The people in Richmond are fairly intelligent people. However, Mr Goldsmith is far better looking than our Susan, so may scrape on that…
Perhaps they are stepping up, but I think that if people voted on the basis of comparible quality rather inherent beliefs we wouldnt have three job Bob in Bromley. In fact I reckon it wouldnt be hard to name a dozen useless MPs and a dozen MPs that have inherited their constituency from some useless MP.
@63:
I think there’s a danger of misunderestimating quite how far Zac’s prettyboy status will carry him.
63. I think that Susan does not always come across in the most postive way to people. I’m sure she is well intentioned and a nice person but she comes across a bit ‘high and mighty’!
re 62. Source - some party spinner. Nick must have read it somewhere or else he would not have posted it here.
64. I think that if people voted on the basis of comparible quality rather inherent beliefs we wouldnt have three job Bob in Bromley.
I must have a look at the 1997 Putney declaration again was Goldsmith Clapping?
well…with Susan’s city spirit, she would knock a striking blow against old Zaccy at any hustings. The lib dems failed to take Bromley pretty much due to the postal votes…never know 3 job Bob may be out next time. Considering how big the tory majority was before the lib dems did well there even though Kennedy had just resigned and Cameron was leader of the tories. Candidate is not always crucial esp in Labour heartlands, but that doesn’t mean it is not relevant and lib dems often have good candidates. They have to, because it is so difficult to win seats for lib dems.
If the LDs were to lose 20 seats to the Tories at the next GE, I’d be surprised if Huhne would be one of them.
63,65 - There is also a danger in believing that the electorate acts rationally as a group.
Dem Veep Nomination - Despite Wes Clark having shortened to 8.2/1 with Betfair, following Mike’s interesting and I thought telling piece here last night, Evan Bayh remains their clear favourite at 2.25/1.
69. Erm - didn’t Bromley vote over welmingly for Boris and then the Tories in the London elections? Surely if we follow that Huhne will be returned due to the local elections your asserion in Bromley is a bit inaccurate!
69. He wont be out next time. I’d recorded wager it and give you decent odds if you fancy it?
oh quite - there’s always surprises at elections and I have no doubt the libs will lose a few to the tories. I don’t personally think it will be as many as 20… I reckon 10. This will be offsetted with Labour, so I think the LDs will enter a period of stagnation to be honest rather than making many gains or drastic losses. everyone was saying it was meltdown at 1997 - again wildly exaggerated. The last local elections reflected this stagnation with no dramatic gains, but no dramatic losses either. However, London and Scotland they do have probs, although will probably take south finsbury and the new one - Hamstead and Kilburn? Brent should be ok I think.
52. Regardless of the intentions of the man, or on how “obvious” his thoughts were, it’s an easy way to describe numeric information in words, so I’ll continue to use it.
it was only ever a 2 horse race for London mayor - partly because for some reason people don’t understand the voting system and it was virtually a media blackout on the LD. I think people still think in binary opposites in many cases but Boris isn’t Bromley’s MP so is a different scenario
@76:
Makes you wonder why, if it’s so obvious, it never found a way through the dense intellectual void of Gordon’s skull.
From the last thread “469 - Of course the top 10% of earners pay a lower proportion of their income in taxes than the lowest 10% so paying for the system, maybe, but paying their fair share, probably not.”
Can you back that up? It seems most unlikely. The top 10% will be mostly higher rate taxpayers, whereas the bottom 10% certainly won’t be. And the bottom 10% will also be eligible for a whole array of benefits that the top 10% won’t get.
[Why is the word 't1tan1um' on the banned list?]
77.
people don’t understand the voting system 
Blame the people not the crock of shite being served upto them. LD’s have no chance in a GE in Bromley at the next election! Indeed ‘3 Job’s bob’ is likely to increase his majority by quite a times!
77.
people don’t understand the voting system 
Blame the people not the crock of shite being served upto them. LD’s have no chance in a GE in Bromley at the next election! Indeed ‘3 Job’s bob’ is likely to increase his majority by quite a few times!
44 I think Labour would have got back with a majority of 10 or so, and Labour MPs would now be cursing Brown.
80- And M1ss1ss1pp1, for that matter?
79. Sounds like a confusion between marginal and average rates of taxation. Most of the low paid pay hardly any income tax, though they may face very high effective marginal rates on additional income, due to interaction with the benefits system.
83. Well the Scottish Dynamic may weell have knocked another half dozen Labour seats off! Not to the extent of now but that was already in play after the Scots Parliament election. I think if their had been an election it would have swong dramatically toward the Tories. Maybe enough for tory largest party. Good job Brown bulked at the election as the economic mess would be being blamed on the tories by Labour
re 62 see above, they’ve not doubled. They’ve gone up 25%. the source for that is here, an NHS website
To be honest with London Mayor, there was not really that much difference between the candidates on policy. Boris won because ken seemed corrupt and he has a personality. However, Brian Paddick was deputy commissioner. Now given that crime was one of the major concerns of Londoners I am surprised he did not do a lot better, but I knew loads of lib dems who put boris 1st and Brian 2nd because they wanted Ken out. I didn’t get that because the 2nd vote is designed for who’s likely to win.
So - only 1 in 10 support Brown as the best Labour MP to be PM.
1 in 10.
Sheeesh.
75. Not really sure you have your London map right. Do you mean Islington South and Finsbury? Brent Central is the new constituency and most of the Lib Dem bits go to H and Kilburn. The Libs will win there, I dont think you can be that confident of the Teather/Butler face-off.
The personal standing of the MP does not carry much weight for the Labour or Tory parties in GEs compared to the national swing. Yet everyone says the reverse for the LibDems. I wonder if the same will be true next time round. In the past the Tories have concentrated on Labour. Now, partly as a tribute to the success of the Libdems, Cameron has deliberately targetted LibDem voters. This is new. I live in the Thames Valley and this is very much Cameron country. The Tories will do very well in Hampshire and west London come the next election. Even where the LibDems put in a superhuman by-election effort – as in Henley - we still see a swing to the Tories. I don’t know the figures but the Libdems must have had control of many councils in 1997 which they have now lost to the Tories. The number of Libdem MPs has steadily risen in the last couple of decades, but this will not inevitably continue. If their result go the same way as the number of councils they control I suspect they could be down to 30 or so MPs in 2010.
Comment is free had a very lively thread yesterday, where a gay rights campaigner tried to confect an attack on Boris Johnson as a homophobe on the basis that he redirected £10,000 of funding from Soho Pride to addressing homophobic bullying in schools. As one of the commenters pointed out, in the time that it had taken to write the article, the shortfall could have been found from one or more of the many wealthy gay men in London:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/boris.gayrights
yep meant Islington South. sorry
91 - no, I think 30 is way off the mark. There could be losses in West London, Hampshire (though Huhne at least will hang on), and a few in the west country. Hereford and Cheltenham may be goners, as may a handful of others. I can’t see the Tories gaining more than about 15. And somewhere, probably Eastbourne, may go the other way.
How do the most recent local results in LD held seats compare with the last set before 2005 GE?
The lib dems are ooozing to the tories yes, but I think that is largely in areas where they are in 3rd place. They still continue to do well in areas they have an MP and developing new areas e.g. Sheffield and Derbyshire. They managed to take St Alban’s, which you would have thought was a no-go in tory heartlands. Plus all local by elections this year have shown the lib dems still being able to take from tory and labour and still holding their own. Am not denying the tories are a threat, but to go down to 30??? I think not. In 1997, the share of the vote fell but we doubled seats. Am not thinking that will happen in 2010, but wipe out??? Unlikely
local elections - took St Albans just to clarify
79, 85. see also various tax fiddles, share options, for example
88. Perhaps that is because the Lib Dems’ campaign in London did not make it crystal clear that they wanted Ken out?
@92:
Speaking on behalf of ALL GAY MEN, as obviously I do, I think Boris is an EVIL HOMOPHOBE and because intolerance is bad, he should be killed. To death.
91 - Lib Dem supporters are fervent in their belief that the usual rules of political gravity don’t apply to them. In fairness, the number of Lib Dem seats has not correlated particularly with the percentage of Lib Dem votes - 1992 and 1997 were relatively good years in years of a relatively low percentages of Lib Dem votes, while 2005 was rather disappointing in a year of a relatively high percentage voting Lib Dem.
I believe the key to the mystery is the ratio between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. At present, the Tories are polling anything up to nearly 3 times the Lib Dems. While there will assuredly be some incumbency factor, if this type of disparity occurs at a general election, every Lib Dem seat surely cannot be expected to be held while their vote crumbles to oblivion in nearly every other seat?
To those that think that the number of Lib Dem seats cannot halve: in 1997, the Tories lost half their seats. In 1979, the SNP lost 9 out of 11 seats. Such things can happen.
Are there any Labour MPs under threat in Sheffield from the Libs now its a Lib-controlled council and Clegg is Lord of the Dems?
Ever-so-slightly offtopic, but it’s interesting - to me - to compare the Olympic medals table, so far, with overall GDP.
Here’s the top ten world economies, by size
USA
Japan
China
Germany
UK
France
Italy
Spain
Canada
Brazil
Here’s the top ten of the medals table, so far
China
USA
South Korea
Germany
Italy
Australia
Japan
Russia
UK
Czech Republic
What does this tell us? Not much. All the big economies are doing well - the only real surprise is the success of the Czechs.
Oh yes, and France is CATASTROPHICALLY underperforming, given that it is at 20th in the medals table.
Take that, so-called “land of Moliere”!!!! Heh.
In nearly all the polls in the last 3 months the Lib Dems would be down to 29 seats given a uniform swing. Admittedly they may perform against the swing in certain seats but won’t the Tories gain a bigger swing than seen in the polls with the electorate gathering round the winning party? Less than 30 seems likely, so to call it impossible is an example of Brownite thinking from teh out of touch Lib Dem supporters.
102. the only people that have ever benefitted from politicisation of the olympics are those who seek to develop performance enhancing drugs one step ahead of the doping controls.
101. Sheffield Central is a very good prospect for the LDs…
Well that’s the stupidity of the system where we won over a fifth of the popular vote but only gain 10% of the seats. Again anti-frank exaggerates. The vote will not crumble to oblivion where they are in 2nd place, particularly to Labour. I suspect there will be one or two surprise tory takes e.g. Eastbourne where the liberals did well at the last locals. In 1997 the nation hated the tories, which is why they lost half the seats. The same hatred does not exist for the liberals
102 seanT “Oh yes, and France is CATASTROPHICALLY underperforming, given that it is at 20th in the medals table.”
So what? They dramatically overperform in all the things which matter (wine, food, films…). Who cares if some bloke whom you’ve never met can run marginally faster than some other bloke you’ve never met?
102 - North Korea are 11th. How does that fit into your crude wealth/success model? Also the French are 20th but have more medals than Britain (just they are almost all silver).
Far too early to run your little experiment anyway.
107. what about personal hygeine?…
anyway they are good at the sports they care about.
108. DPRK benefits from early scheduling of judo and shooting
the tories should be careful. They don’t want to pound the libs to oblivion where we are 2nd to Labour, they could do with us winning there. This is the strategy Blair used - better to have 2 against 1. Plus the Liberals would be more amenable to working with the tories if it is genuine liberalism they seem to be spouting out these days.
I switched from the tory party to the Liberals though and certainly won’t be going back
Crikey, calm down you tedious gimps. ed, James, Richard. It was a JOKE.
Anyone would think pb.com was dominated by humourless geeks.
110 - Well indeed, hence my comment it is far too early so even bother running the comparison.
112 - It was quite a long joke and really not that funny (you might want to note that down on your list of possible epitaths).
111 RAM “I switched from the tory party to the Liberals though and certainly won’t be going back”.
That’s interesting. When and why? I’m surprised, because conventional wisdom is that the Tories have become more acceptable to LibDem-inclined voters recently.
103. But no-one seriously expects the actual election to mirror the current polls. A small upswing in the LibDems, combined with a small decline in Tory fortunes, and the LibDems are back up in the 50s in seats…
112 - so was my reply!
re 116. But no-one seriously expects the actual election to mirror the current polls.
On what do you base that?
The way that medal tables are compiled are often misleading. At the moment, for example, Germany has four golds but only six medals overall, France has no gold medals but nine medals overall, Italy has a good spread of three gold, four silver and two bronze.
TO be fairer you could assign a figure for each medal - say 5 for Gold, 3 for silver and 1 for bronze to get a better view.
In this case the UK has 16 points, Germany 24 points, Italy 29 points and France 23 points.
Of course you could say that only winning counts, in which case the Czech two golds are superior to France’s medal tally and equal to the UK.
Statistics are there to be manipulated in order to prove a particular point, the same figures could be made to mean many things. They are also a snapshot in time so tomorrow you can tell a completely different story.
Whatever outcome you want, start manipulating….
Anyone remember that David Davis by-election that changed absolutely nothing and made him look like a fool? Now Conservatives want to make it easier for police to spy on people:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2008/08/dominic-grieve.html
I left over Iraq and plus I am pro-european. Was tempted when Cameron was initially elected, but then the car behind the bike thing made me laugh and the policies on Inheritance Tax negated any feelings in me on progressive policies. I think Cameron is good now but long term fundamentally unsound. Plus the oik Osborne looks ridiculous. As the economy is the greatest issue facing us, I have far more faith in Mr Cable than him. Plus Cable is from York originally too and us Northerners stick together!
n.b. post 119 could also be seen as a commentary on the subject of thsi thread.
122 - “this thread” even.
118. History? The Spreads? Future Events? Common sense?
RAM, one difference from the past is that Cameron has targetted LibDem voters. This includes the issues he chooses to cover, the tone he uses and the image he projects. It is a tribute to your success, but it is a threat not faced before. How many councils did the LibDems control in 1997 and how many today?
117. Really?!
Of course, the other alternative is to add together all the medals won by the EUROPEAN UNION. I think we should do that, as the EU is practically a superstate, and good thing too.
So. In that situation, we - THE EUROPEAN UNION - are on top. We have the MOST medals and the BIGGEST economy in the world!!! Hooray!!!!
*hums Beethoven’s Ninth between mouthfuls of chicken penang*
@120:
I think ConHome may have gone mad. They seem to be implying that Grieve is suggesting the police have the ability to bug and wiretap private property without a warrant.
In Tim’s fevered wet dreams perhaps, but not in this country.
124 - Common sense is a dangerous one to cite. Generally, it translates into “what I think”.
not sure on the stats of councils controlled by lib dems compared to 1997. However, the number of councillors is considerably higher
127 - Yes, Grieve is no madcap authoritarian. In fact he gets criticised in the party for being too soft and (whisper it very quietly) keen on the Human Rights Act.
126 - And the best wine.
on the police is more evidence of Cameron flip flopping. The tories were a few months ago the great champions of liberty alongside the lib dems. Now their tune has changed…. Their philosophy lacks coherency and consistency. I think Davies sensed Cameron wasn’t serious on liberty and that was the real reason for his resignation. How could they have espoused this policy with davies still shaddow home secretary?
126 - At the risk of being at the receiving end of more abuse, and it’s a risk I am happy to take, China would still be top of the conventional medals table (i.e. counting golds above all).
131 RAM - No, I think you’re misunderstanding. This is about reducing paperwork, not about increasing surveillance. Some of the restrictions on the police are completely barmy. On the other hand, powers of surveillance given to other bodies (such as local councils) are too wide.
I do hope that DD will be calling a by-election to protest at Grieve’s slide into authoritarianism: bet he’s on the phone to Shami even now!!
129 RAM - presume you share Huhne’s view “all the evidence is that we will gain seats at the next election” and that “If there is a big swing from Labour to Conservative, then you will find that we will be gaining as many potential seats as we will be losing and I would actually say it’s very unlikely that we’re going to lose seats to the Conservatives.”
As Isaby (soon to be on CHome) points out in Three Line Whip - where’s this evidence? and how can you gain as many as you lose if you don’t lose any? Perhaps Huhne expects to lose seats to Labour and gain them from Conservatives?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/jonathan_isaby/blog/2008/08/12/what_is_chris_huhne_on_about
RAM, the reason I was interested in the number of councils controlled is that in our FPTP system the key point is how many votes you get in a specific geographic area. Having local council seats scattered everywhere might not convert into general election wins. I don’t know the exact figures but I think the drop in councils controlled in pretty spectacular.
132 - China has a strong team .. but it’s not that strong! Maybe China could beat the EU if it was limited to 1 (or 2 or 3 or whatever the appropriate number for each event) competitors or teams per event but as things stand EU beats in the medals table both now and also by the end of the Games.
131. By keeping Davis at arm’s length he can argue that it’s not a flip-flop - perhaps he had this announcement and/or similar things planned and that was the reason for the lukewarm support he gave DD. Crime is still a priority for many people.
The thing is, he’ll get away with it. The position we’re at in the electoral cycle the message that the tories are tough on crime will get through and will sit there in the public consciousness next to the perception that Tories are against Labour’s authoritarianism. If Labour had tried a similar move they would get slaughtered for inconsistency. That’s life.
132. Er, no. You’re wrong.
According to my medals table on the BBC - updated an hour ago - the combined EU total of golds is 16. China is on 13.
Maybe China have won three golds in the last hour? But given that its minight here in the Far East, I doubt it.
118.
“no-one seriously expects the actual election to mirror the current polls.
On what do you base that?”
When did the last General Election accurately mirror the polls 22 months before it happened? Even if it does eventually happen, to seriously EXPECT it to happen would be daft. The chances of it being even roughly close to the present poll percentages are what, possibly, 20 per centish? So gamble on it by all means and you may be right. But don’t expect it.
It seems to me that he is wanting to make it easier for the police to conduct surveillance…potentially dangerous without appropriate safeguards and open to challenge as being disproportionate
Perhaps Grieve might be taking his Q from these guys!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/2538545/Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq-alienated-by-cucumber-laws-and-brutality.html
Seems like heaven to me!!
135.
“Perhaps Huhne expects to lose seats to Labour and gain them from Conservatives?”
Don’t think there will be zero Solihulls or Norfolk North (2001)s this General Election, even if the Tories do take some Lib Dem seats. But don’t expect the Lib Dems to name them in advance!
Huhne is obviously going to be positive…we make gains but if we do it will be slight, I just don’t accept it is wipe out based on mid term poll ratings.
On crime - the tory policy of sending more people to jail is just tough talk for the mail, but doesn’t deal with the fundamental issues of criminality particularly with youth crime. chris Huhne sounded impressive on this in my view…. you see, I was only ever a soft tory!
141 “open to challenge as being disproportionate”. Dominic Grieve QC is in a pretty good position to make that judgement correctly.
Sorry, but it is simply nonsense to try to portray Grieve as a ‘hang-em-and-flog-em’ style of Tory. We do have some (many!) of those in the party, but Grieve isn’t one of them.
There’s no contradiction and no flip-flop. It’s all about protecting traditional legal rights whilst allowing the police to do their job without a load of nonsensical paperwork.
143. Maybe-maybe not but if the LD’s lose 30 seats, a couple of under the radar gains is nothing!
If it were on that basis the 2001 Tory GE result would be a truimph 1 net gain!!! 
LD’s cannot get away from the fact that they are likely to suffer a systemic failure in their electoral strategy at the next election. Even if LD’s just manage to keep their vote in many seats- if the Tories are up 10 points in those seats nothing will stop LD defeat!
133. If there’s one thing I’d like there to be plenty of paperwork, a paper trail and plenty of safeguards for, it’s surveillance.
Brown finally speaks out on Russia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7557038.stm
Has he not got any more book fairs to attend, rather than having to sully himself with such mundane matters as running a country and international diplomacy…?
144. But this is not going to be a shuffling the deck chairs election. It is a sea change election and the LD’s present seats i am afraid are below the Tory tide serge!
Even one Guardian correspondent said that tatcical voting by Labour voters for LD’s was pointless at the next election! LD’s look set for a humilating experience of seeing the tide go out and leaving a few individuals high and dry.
146 - so are the locals showing the Tories up 10% in say Sheffield Hallam and Eastleigh compared with the last locals before 2005?
140 - Would you accept that the range of possible results centres on today’s polls? And if you think they are skewed in a given direction, why do you think that?
G is right…. the police shouldn’t be doing all the forms though. As Paddick said at the mayoral elections, employ administrators to do a lot of it for the police so that they can get out on the beat. Without paper work and safeguards, slick lawyers will challenge the proportionality of many police decisions and without evidence to justify decisions I can imagine many will get off on technicalities. Proper auditing is sometimes required even if paperwork is frustrating
148. No, still working on the new book on Britishness
150. No idea!
62: mirthios, my figure was wrong. If you scroll down a few posts you’ll find that I checked and corrected it immediately. As Casino later points out, it would have been better to check first. (Not sure how to do a contrite smiley!)
i suspect there will be some tactical voting from tories this time round where they are 3rd to libs to get rid of Labour. The libs should hold firm and keep to their values - the public is generally pretty fickle. It is an anti labour vote not necessarily pro-tory
CLUNKING FIST NEWS “Mr Brown said he had told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev “very directly” that “Russian aggression” has been condemned throughout the world.”
“Look, Dmitry, all my mates think you’re being a bit naughty. Please stop it.”
150. The next election isn’t about local government it is about getting a competent alternative to the Labour party, which has run out of the following: steam, ideas and increasingly governing in the nations interest.
155. Thanks - saw it after I had posted - sorry!
156 - If this is an anti-Labour vote and not necessarily pro-Tory, why has the Tories’ share of the vote increased dramatically since the last election while the Lib Dems’ share has dropped?
Actually, the European Union would be quite a place if it WAS a country, rather an elitist conspiracy of ugly, lying bureaucrats.
Europe as a country would boast the most beautiful city in the world - Venice. And the most romantic city in the world - Paris. And the greatest city in the world - London.
Could anywhere else in the world match it for rural beauty? Provence, the English Lakes, the Dordogne, sunlit Tuscany, the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, the Black Forest, the Austrian alps…
The best cars - from Germany. The best wines and spirits - from France, Spain and Scotland. The cutest girls - from Poland and the Baltic states. The best newspapers and magazines - from London (hooray!). The best food - France and Italy. The best football - England. The most absurd and disgraceful apology for democracy - Brussels.
You see, it’s only that last bit that lets Europe down. Part of me would quite like to be part of a superduper Europe that leads the rest of the world, in the best possible way.
But first Europe has to be rebuilt, as a real democracy, from the ground up. And there endeth the sermon.
SawadeeKAP.
Good Evening. I see that the PH5000 panel sez that Boris is still popular. Hell, I could have told them that without all their adding and minusing and farting around.
Boris is just a very likeable fellow, even if he is Mayor of London; he just lightens the day.
basically everyone is voting for whoever is in 2nd place to remove the labour party. The tories are no where in places such as Newcastle and Sheffield or Manchester. If everyone was in love with the tories as much as you suggest, you would see them lurching from 3rd place to take the seat. That is not happening.
Have to love you and leave you now. enjoy
I’m not impressed at all with these comments from the Tories. Reducing paperwork and bureaucracy is all well and good, but judicial checks and balances are absolutely necessary to allow the police to infringe people’s privacy. I don’t know much about Grieve, but if this is the sort of thing he comes up with we need Davis back quickly.