Is this optimism justified?
September 5th, 2008-
Or is Chris Hune indulging in a little wishful thinking?
Chris Huhne, the Lib Dem spokesman on Home Affairs, has written an article for LibDem Voice that seeks to reassure activists the party will in fact do better at the next election than the prophets of doom suggest.
He writes: “The new conventional wisdom at Westminster is that the Conservatives are heading for an overall majority at the next election, and that the Liberal Democrats are therefore bound to take a pounding. On this view, the Lib Dems’ fortunes are inextricably linked with Labour and we are supposed to lose seats as we did when the Conservatives won in 1951, 1970 and 1979.
I don’t believe a word of it. After each Liberal Democrat advance – in 1997, 2001 and now 2005 – the commentariat has written our obituary. But we went on to increase our seats at the next election. We can and will do the same again.”
The general structure of the argument is that a swing which provides for a narrow Conservative majority doesn’t cause as much damage as is commonly believed, especially when you factors in LibDem gains from Labour. Added to that the ‘first-term incumbancy factor’ that LibDems have seemed to have recently, and he concludes that the overall number of MPs serving under Nick Clegg will remain the same.
This is a well-written and well-referenced article (few senior politicians deal in actual psephology, preferring tub-thumping), but I wonder if it still tinged with a little optimism. I don’t believe that the Tory majority will be huge at the next election, but i would not surprise me if the swing radically exceeded the 6.9% Huhne uses for his example (which would give the Conservatives a single-figure majority).
My other concern is that this looks at the three-way game - Lib/Lab/Con. As I suggested to Ed Davey, the Lib Dem prospects are actually worst in Scotland and Wales where, outside the capital cities that have a base of LibDem councillors, there is already an alternative to both the Tories and Labour in the SNP and Plaid Cymru. This could cost Nick Clegg up to three MPs in Wales and even more in Scotland.
I think that Mr Huhne makes a strong case that reports of the death of the Liberal Democrats have been severely overstated, but I wonder if equalling (let alone increasing) their number of MPs on 2005 is still something of a bridge too far.
Betting note from Mike Smithson The current numbers on the Lib Dems on the Commons spread markets are 45-48 seats. So if Chris had a bet at £100 a seat and they got the 63 seats that they currently have then he’d pick up £1,500.
Morus
MessageSpace Advertising
The mood of the electorate is anti-Labour just as in 1997 it was anti-Tory. The Lib Dems are not going to do as badly in seats they are defending against the Tories as the polls suggest. Likewise they are going to do much better where they are the clear challenger to Labour.
If you want to know about the power of Lib Dem incumbency just ask Iain Dale (him of the blog fame) about his North Norfolk campaign in 2005. The LDs took it by a whisker four years earlier but Norman Lamb went onto to win it by a vast margin on election day in spite of Iain’s very professional effort.
I think the current spread of 45-48 seats is about right. A net loss of 15 or so may disappoint Lib Dems, but it’s still a good performance by historical standards.
Mike S the LibDems are as much a prisoner of their own myths as the Tories used to be and Labour increasingly are.
Wishful thinking.
Factors they had in 2005:
1) very well-known and popular leader
2) Iraq was a major issue and they were ont he ‘right’ side
3) disenchantment with Blair but no realistic prospect of a Tory victory (or desire for one, frankly)
None of these are present today, or will be in 2010.
However, Huhne couldn’t say anything else. He isn’t going to say “We’re all doomed.” He’s not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, you know.
1 - I agree with your first sentence but your second sentence does not follow. In 1997, the Lib Dems abandoned the idea of equidistance between Conservative and Labour so as to capitalise on the anti-Tory mood. So far, the Lib Dems have not even got back to equidistance. If the voters fret that a Lib Dem vote might be used to prop up a Labour minority Government, the Lib Dems can wave bye bye to swathes of seats.
As I pointed out on the previous thread, the starting point of Chris Huhne’s analysis is that the swing to the Conservatives will be far less than current polls suggest. That seems an heroic, even foolish, assumption.
OK, his article is probably intended mainly to boost the morale of LibDem activists, who are no doubt bewildered by the fact that they are not doing better in the polls at a time when Labour is imploding. But you don’t improve morale by claiming it’s sunny when everyone can see it’s tempestuous out there.
I agree with Sean Fear at 2: 45-48 looks plausible, but they may not even do that well. I’m certainly not buying LibDem seats at 48!
What I’d like to know is why anyone with real brains and talent - and political ambition - would join…. the Lib Dems.
I mean, Clegg can speak about eighty languages and he’s descended from the Romanovs and he’s tupped several dozen ladies so he’s obviously not without charisma, brains etc. And he seems personally ambitious given that he went straight for the “top job” in the LDs.
Yet when choosing his party in the first place he joined… the Lib Dems. Given that the chances of the LDs wielding serious power are, very roughly, zero - that either means he doesn’t care about weilding power or he is, despite appearances, without serious political ambition.
If he doesn’t care about wielding power why not go work in a bank and earn lots of money? If you have no political ambition why go into politics at all?
Can a Lib Dem explain this paradox to me? Why do some apparently intelligent, ambitious people join your risible and ridiculous party?
I agree 100% with Sean here. It’s not like you join the Lib Dems out of some kind of principle. Most of their voters are guilty middle-class people who won’t vote Labour.
1. Iain Dale was humiliated in that seat, hilarious!
7, 8, incurable europhilia perhaps?
The Lib Dems are likely to get squeezed. Many Lib Dems wont want another Labour Govt, and they will make sure it doesn’t happen.
I think Mike is right to consider England separately from Scotland and Wales. I could see the Lib Dems compensating for English losses to the Tories with English gains against Labour. It’s even possible, now that Clegg is apparently targeting Labour seats, that the number of gains in England will outweigh the number of losses.
However, in Scotland in particular, the situation for the Lib Dems appears to be dire. They were part of a coalition government that has been defeated since the 2005 UKGE, and it would be surprising if they did not make losses to the SNP.
Were it not for the prospect of a Scottish meltdown, the current spread would look very tempting. The maximum downside is clearly a lot smaller then when trading on Labour or Tory seats for a start.
6. Actually, I think that even if the results indicated by current polls came about, the Lib Dems would still hang onto 40 or so.
I’m pretty sure the Conservatives will take both Sutton seats, and Richmond. I’m sure they’ll take Hereford, Romsey, Torbay, Somerton & Frome, Taunton, and Cheltenham.
I think it’s probable that they’ll take North Devon, Mid Dorset, Newton Abbot, Berwickshire, Winchester, and Chippenham, and if current polls are replicated, I expect Portsmouth South, Southport, Eastleigh, Southport, likely a couple in Cornwall, Colchester, and Bath to go too.
BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the contents of a new ARSE (BUTT) poll of polls that indicates :
McCain 45% .. Obama 51% .. Others 4%
The PISSED Jack W Index with added SOAMES BIG MAC weighting shows :
McCain 157 .. Obama 264 .. Toss Up 117
Changes Since Last Projection - Alaska moves from Likely McCain to Safe McCain. Iowa moves from Likely Obama to Safe Obama. Minnesota moves from Likely Obama to Safe Obama. Mississipi moves from Safe McCain to Likely McCain. Montana moves from Toss Up McCain to Toss Up Obama. New Hampshire moves from Toss Up Obama to Likely Obama. New Mexico moves from Likely Obama to Safe Obama.
Toss Up - Up to 5% .. Likely - 5%-10% .. Safe - Over 10%
Eliminate Toss Up States - 270 required for an Electoral College majority.
McCain 224 .. Obama 314
Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America
……………………
Sources :
WIND ….. Whimsical Independent News Division.
JNN ………..Jacobite News Network.
ARSE …… Anonymous Random Selection of Electors.
BUTT …… British Underpinned Tracking Totals
PISSED … Political Intelligence Seat Selector Election Determinator
SOAMES …System Of Amending Measured Election Scores
BIG MAC ..Ballot Indicies Grid Manifesting America’s Choice
13. Cornwall will be the big test I think - if the Lib Dems do lose 2-3 seats there, where they have genuinely deep roots, their overall losses will be very substantial.
“Why do some apparently intelligent, ambitious people join your risible and ridiculous party?”
Well, apart from the fact that some might actually agree with the Lib Dem brand over that of the other parties, it’s a perfectly rational thing to do if you want to get into parliament or win a council seat in some parts of the country.
I’m not sure how long it will last, but being a Lib Dem council candidate in the Highlands, for example, more or less guarantees you a seat on the council if that kind of thing floats your boat. In fact, the only seat they don’t have representation for is the one where they didn’t field a candidate.
1
In 2005 the Lib Dems had Iraq and an unpopular Tory party to help them,not so in 2010.
What is the average swing required for the Lib Dems to win in their top 10 Labour target seats?
I don’t know the impact of boundaries on the Lib Dems but can’t see Sarah Teather beating Dawn Butler in Brent.
Reposted from previous thread (jumped the gun!)
Just to put to bed the Lib Dem ramping on here, I have done a little maths. To equal their standing in the last elections from here (the current Times poll), the Lib Dems would need to do one of the following:
(1) gain a swing of 9% from Labour (C:46, L:17, LD:25). Given that Labour have never polled as low as 17%, seems unlikely. The lowest Labour poll since 2005 at 23% (C:46, L:23, LD:19) would give the Lib Dems 31 seats.
(2) gain a swing of 7% from the Tories (C:39, L:26, LD:23). The last time the Lib Dems polled 23% was January 2007. This gives the Lib Dems 21 months until the next election to claw back a position it has taken the Tories 20 months to achieve. To achieve this the Lid Dems have 1 month to find someone of Cameron’s stature and appoint them as leader. Unlikely.
(3) gain a swing of 4% from the Tories and 3% from Labour, making a total swing of 7% (C:42, L:23, LD:23). As above Lib Dems need to hit 23% in the polls to achieve this. Unlikely.
The best thing for the Lib Dems to do is to try to limit seat losses to between 10 and 20 by polling at about 22%. Last time this happened - January 2007.
David Cameron is the next PM.
7: Pop psychologists could have a field day - say a need to be distinct from the mainstream combined with a fear of genuine responsibility?
The strangest thing to my mind is the apparent lack of a key issue to attract activists and pols. You could understand some level of emotional commitment if they were a true liberal party, especially given Labour’s dailymailifyou’vedonenothingwrongyou’vegotnothingtofear attitude to civil rights, but so much of the LD’s potential ideological fire there is compromised (imo) by that suffocating mishmash of social democratic stuff. That’s only going to get worse over time too, as they attract those on the soft left who would previously have gone to Labour.
ps canbet/iasbet paid up on McCain/nomation, woohoo…..
One thing that Lib Dem boosters don’t consider is where their presumed revival in the polls will come from. Chris Huhne refers to expecting the usual uptick in the campaign itself. But with Labour at rock bottom and Mr Smithson himself regularly pointing out the value to the Tory rating of David Cameron, will this happen this time?
13 - I think you’ve cited 23 possible losses, on current poll ratings, all in England. Add into that possible Scottish losses, so there is further downside risk. Against this, they’ll hope to pick up Labour seats, but the evidence that this will happen is patchy, given that tactical voting may go into reverse. Overall, it’s perhaps not desperate, but neither is it encouraging for the LibDems. I’d say the 45-48 spread-bet market is about right in the sense that it doesn’t look like value either to buy or sell at that level, but my hunch is they’ll do slightly worse than that, unless something drastic changes.
Intrade moveing towards evens now. McCain at 45.5. I’ve just bought another chunck at BF. Good arb. possibility. Still cannot access Rasmussen.
[18] - The Lib Dems lost vote share but gained seats in 1997. Looking at national vote shares is not so meaningful for a party with 60-odd seats.
In 2005 the Lib Dems gained a lot of vote share from Labour, but few seats as a result, because they were fixated on the mirage of “decapitating” the Tories - eg by going after Dorset West. It was as though they hadn’t noticed IDS was no longer Tory leader.
If they play the tactical game right - by hammering Labour - then they can do better than the headline numbers predict.
Latest Rasmussen Tracker :
Obama 48% .. McCain 46%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history
24. so its going to be about even coming out of the conventions, game on !
The problem with the LibDems is their choice of Leader. Is it Clegg?
Who is he?
Where is his appeal?
And charisma?
All AWOL.
Why does Huhne have to speak for him?
In all seriousness, they have lost centre stage of the UK political scene as far as the electorate are concerned.
And after their shambles on the Referendum they are as trustworthy as a bunch of rattlesnakes. Allegedly.
Now, do LD’s seriously expect people to believe that there vote drops 5% (23% down to 18%) nationally and the Tories goes up (from 33% to say 43%) nationally by 10% at the next election and LD’s are going to stay in place due to incumabcy and local factors!
You have got to be kidding the next election is not about cleaning dog shit up or village fates: It is about the real economy, peoples jobs, houses etc. LD’s = No chance against many Tories.
Also the LD incumbancy was not so great in 2005 as some LD seats went Tory, obviously there were some other seats like W & L plus Solihul that went the other way but to state LD incumbancy as being a secret weapon: Forget it! LD’s are fighting the last war, the only way LD’s can realistically gain seats or retain them is where Labour are the challangers.
Chris Huhne would say this as his neck is on the block - No doubt we will hear the usual LD: wha wha wha on this!
The LD’s should get used to the fact that they will need a yellow Taxi on election night for there MP’s!
26, a problem for them was that they let Iraq become almost their sole defining feature (aside from kissing eurocratic posteriors, obviously…[metaphorically speaking]).
SO now Iraq has drifted away as an issue, what do the Lib Dems stand for? More integration with Europe and nationalising banks?
Nick Clegg is like Neil Kinnock!
*Without the number of MP’s
The Lib Dems have the best chance of getting their own back on Labour - they must kill them and use an aggressive strategy to become the main centre left party, somehow I doubt they have the killer instinct.
28. The answer is the same as always - supporting Labour.
The Lib Dems should stop being a poodle to Labour they need to replace them. English Nationalist Parties are promoting social democratic policies, we will replace both Lib and Lab soon.
interesting that palins speech has only increased mccains share by %1…
30-32, that seems to be the crux. Rightwingers (amongst which I count myself) have pointed out repeatedly that this country isn’t leftyland and there is no prospect of the political scene being dominated by two leftwing parties.
Therefore, the Lib Dems must crush Labour to become one of the Big Two.
They’ll never have a better chance than now. A pity their leader is a dimwit EU-phile.
32. It’s the way you tell ‘em francis
:)
btw. which party has the most illuminati/flesh-eating aliens in its leadership?
33
no it is not.
It appealed only to the faithful.. no call to any outsider.
The GOP is a tainted brand like the Conservatives were in 1997 and Labour are now .
I believe the ARSE is going to be correct - again.
Also from previous thread.
I read Huhne’s defence of Libdem chances, which predictably stresses the importance of incumbency for the Libdems, their current size compared with the 1970s and their ability to win councils in former Labour heartlands.
1. The Libdems held around 50 councils at the start of 1997. They have won and lost a number since then, but on my reckoning they have held only seven continuously: Eastleigh, Stockport, Sutton, Lewes, South Somerset, Oadby and Wigston and Vale of the White Horse. They can be dislodged. It is not inevitable that once they win they put down roots and can’t be shifted.
2. Their small size in the past meant that the other parties did not bother with them. The Tories concentrated on Labour and vice-versa. Cameron in particular realises the danger from the Libdems. He has targeted them and this will, I believe, be a significant part of his election strategy. I’m not sure how the Libdems will combat this, especially if they are trying to court Labour voters at the same time. Fighting an election on two fronts will not be easy.
3. Will the LibDems win in Labour heartlands? Well, if Labour collapse, I’m sure they will have successes. However, I look at Liverpool, where the LibDems have long been strong at a local level but have failed to convert this into parliamentary seats. A ‘core vote’ strategy by Labour might stymie the Libdems. In some places the BNP seem to benefit from Labour weakness. Even many of their wins from Labour in 2005 were in seats held by the Tories in the 1980s, which still had a large middle class or numerous students. If the Tory vote picks up it could pick up in these seats, as well.
34. Cable would have been a much more plausable leader of the unified left than Clegg. Cable of course is a lapsed Socialist from the 1970’s.
33 Dan S. Also factor in Rasmussen’s house bias of aroung McCain +2%.
38
I disagree. Ming appelaed on his subject as the Opposition speakers were so poor, he made a bad leader.
Don not mix politicla expertise in a subject with leadership qualities : they are ENTIRELY different.
38. There’s an excellent chance that the division of the left between Lib Dems and Labour will produce a rout on the scale of 1983.
33,36 I guess that is a possible way of looking at it. My take differ: Obama’s lead is down from 5 to 2 in the 3-day tracker, which strongly suggest McCain was ahead yesterday, after Palin’s speech. We will see if Gallup confirms this later today, and if the momentum is kept up next week.
I have bought McCain for more than £2000 on BF today, but sold a bit on Intrade.
36 madasafish. I’m getting a wee bit bored with ARSE’s outlandishly accurate projections and will probably throw in a few “Scottish Conservatives Sweep Nation” outliers for fun !!
42. i don’t deny he was ahead, but remember what we keep saying about british polls: look at the individual shares, not the gap.
7 - why do people read your risible and ridiculous books? There’s no accountign for human variety and taste, I suppose.
Interesting answers, thanks! - but mostly, I note, from sarcastic Tories.
I’d like an honest answer from a smart, charismatic ambitious Lib Dem, or maybe Mark Senior? How do you square that smartness and ambition with… being a Lib Dem?
Or is it just a party for losers that therefore attracts losers? Mark?
27
THEIR not THERE
THEIR refers to ownership, there to a place. The easy way to remember is that their contains “heir”, who will also own something and THERE contains “here” which is also a place. It is so simple a child can understand it.
Now, there’s no bl00dy excuse any more, “dyslexia” or not.
45. Unfortunately, if you are referring to my “literary fiction” the answer is people DON’T read my books. The f***ers. My last novel, despite some spiffing reviews, barely sold 1000 copies. Gruesome.
The sex memoir did a lot better. But then everyone likes salacious gossip.
We wait and see what will happen to Tom Knox.
But anyway my question abides: why people of talent and brains would willingly waste an entire career in the Lib Dems. People like Clegg and Huhne are not total dullards. (OK Huhne is brain-shatteringly boring but you know what I mean). They could have serious careers in the Tory or the Labour party. Is there a real overriding policy issue that prevents their joining those proper parties?
Can’t think of one, offhand.
In which case why do it? Why join the LDs if you think you have serious political talent? It’s like a 19 year old Christian Ronaldo saying “I know, I’ll sign for Hartlepool, and stay there til I’m 32″.
(Actually, the example of Matt Le Tissier and Southampton FC does spring to mind….)
It could be, SeanT, that there is an enormous amount of baggage in the Labour Party and in the Conservative Party that is off-putting; and at the same time, there is a lot about the Liberal Democrats that is attractive.
At the same time, not everybody is prepared to abandon his principles in order to attain high office.
So it does make sense for people to continue to join and support the Liberal Democrats.
48 - because professional footballers operate in a talent market place, and offer their services to the highest bidder. Now, If Christopher Ronald had been born and brought up in Hartlepool, supported Hartlepool FC all his life and his one ambition was to play for Hartlepool, then you might have the beginnings of an anology.
Politics is completely different - supposedly, principle comes into it. I would argue that it shows far greater ambition to join a party like the Lib Dems with a mission to increase its size and influence, than to join another party. Rather like the difference between someone joining Shell in order to get to the top, and someone starting their own business.
Chris Huhne is, in any case, independently wealthy.
Look at what happened to the LDs in the london elections. True Clegg is not Paddick but Cameron is very good and Clegg is not!! They are doomed along with Broon!!
Chris Huhne is, in any case, independently wealthy
Aren’t all the Lib Dem leaders? And don’t they all get a large chunk of their income from the EU?
“why do people of talent and brains waste an entire career in the Lib Dems?” sneers SeanT.
Simple: they join the Lib Dems because they believe in the party’s policies and philosophy. Principle is more important to Lib Dems than just being in office.
The flip-side of SeanT’s question is why do so many people maintain that all politicians are self-seeking and obsessed with power, yet continue to vote Labour or Conservative?
Personally, I avoid denegrating politicians as a group because nearly all of them would be financially better off having regular occupations, and certainly more leisure time. This applies to both successful and unsuccessful candidates of all parties at both local and national level.
49. Yes, your answer kind of makes sense for people who just want to “take a stand”, but not if you are seriously ambitious, and not if you really want to make a difference.
And even the “take a stand” thing is kinda dubious. On what issue - Iraq aside (for which they deserve credit) - have the Lib Dems really stood out in the last ten or twenty years? Europe? Their Euro-beliefs are repugnant and laughable - they wanted a referendum, then they didn’t, then they did but only in or out, a referendum they would never actually hold as we all know etc etc etc
It’s just… pathetic. The Lib Dems are pathetic. Why would anyone want to join a pathetic party?
Actually, I think the Matt Le Tissier example is interesting. A very talented footballer, who somehow lacked that final element of self confidence that leads to greatness, who therefore preferred to be a guaranteed big fish in the small pool of Southampton FC - rather than risk outright failure at somewhere like Man U or Arsenal.
Lib Dems innately lack self confidence. They are just a bit gay. That’s the answer. Thanks!
Off to watch the Wire now. Ta-ra.
Huhne’s point that historically, the biggest Lab-Con swing has been 5.3%, the 6.9% required for a majority is a little less than a third again that size (note - “nearly half again” rather overeggs the pudding) is true. However, the popularity turnaround (from a seriously damaged brand vs Tony Blair, to a revived brand versus today’s Brown) is unparalleled in postwar Tories-taking-power-from-Labour (a sample of 3 in any case, I note). Compared with the Con-Lab swing in 1997 of nearly 10%, it looks less challenging.
His point that the Lib Dems are far larger has the counter point of “much more to lose”.
A uniform swing relies on identical tactical voting patterns as last time. That is, every one who disliked the Tories so much that they voted Lib Dem instead of Labour would have to do the same again for that to be true.
Incumbency boost is useful - but not a panacea.
I would, however, agree with Mike that the Lib Dem losses to the Tories will be noticeably less than expected and gains from Labour greater - but this will effectively stem a drop from being to the low thirties to being to the mid-forties (As things stand).
OT: On the “LHC could destroy the world”. No it couldn’t. The energies in question are mimicked by Nature regularly in cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere. We haven’t been destroyed by black hole swarms from these millions of collisions per second since the dawn of time.
On the first term incumbency thing, this gets blown out of proportion. It’s true that the best result any MP is likely to get is his first re-election, IF re-elected, having taken the seat from another party first time.
In 1997 the Lib dems had half their party as newly elected MP’s and many of them increased their majority the first time they defended their seats in 2001.
But this happened to lots of Labour MP’s as well and although I can’t be bothered to look up the results I’d bet that lots of new Tory winners in 1979 went on to increase their majorities in 1983.
I have never seen a convincing case beyond this characteristic that Lib Dem MP’s ‘hang on’ against the trend more successfully than anyone else.
The proposal that Lib Dem MP’s have a higher ‘incumbency’ advantage or a stronger personal vote than MP’s from other parties has not been properly tested when the tide is against them and I think it will turn out to be yet another load of b*llocks put about by Reynard and the rest.
14-Have there been any polls in Alaska that make you switch Alaska to Safe McCain from Likely? Or is it merely Palin. I still cannot fathom why you still insist on calling MT a toss-up.
Is your desire to see Obama win so large that you let your heart rule your head?
If come late October MT is still a toss-up I expect Obama to be on course for winning 40+ states. He won’t be, so why do you keep on with this nonsense. BTW-are ND and SD still toss ups in your book? Might as well add UT and WY for good measure. Just as likely too.
Rasmussen : Palin… More Popular Than Obama, McCain
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama_mccain
The effects of this targeting Labour seats thing is very much overated. In the so called “50 target seats” list includes seats like Pendle where the Lib Dems are in third place and have zero prospect of gaining it.
Rasmussen on Fox (apologies if already published):
Palin: Favourability 58% to 37% (better than McCain or Obama)
One third of Democrats consider Palin favourably.
Obama just leads Palin on experience : 48% to 44%
Presidential Overall : Obama 46% McCain 45%
55. LD’s are in deniale the seat calculators are rigged in favour of the LD incumbancy boost and recently they have still pointed to below 30 seats! Again these seat calculators fail to take into account the SNP and welsh dynamics.
The Tory Tsumami will sweep in and sweep the LD’s clean of there seats. If the LD’s could do it to the Tories in 1997, there is no reason to doubt the reverse is not possible or indeed likely.
58. by… 1% ! and the only way is down as well
62 — Still!
That “babe on the ticket” rocks.
The LibDems will poll 13% at the next general election.
They will suffer heavy losses.
Incumbency will be shown to be a fallacy.
What fun…..
Obama is doomed - DOOMED!
Huhne is basically correct in what he says, and sounds suspiciously similar to what I have been saying for a while. LibDem seats in the 55-60 box is my expectation.
I don’t expect the Tories to win a majority, or the swing to exceed 6.9%. By-elections, which throughout electoral history have proven to be the gold-standard for prediction, simply do not indicate a Tory blowout win.
That said, Huhne seems to be basing his assumptions on the LibDem overall vote remaining broadly static since 2005. If the Tories were to obtain a 6.9% swing AND the LibDem national vote share was to fall below 20%, the LibDems would start to lose seats at quite a fast rate (and the Tories would probably also win a majority).
Huhne himself could also well be a gonner…
42. Jan. Good spot on the big move to McCain on intrade. Obama now down 5 to 55 (4/5), McCain up 5 to 45.
Some US punters aren’t waiting for Gallup.
58. It seems the disgusting smear tactics may have backfired. One can only hope so.
68-But BHO did protest his innocence. Perhaps a mite too much?
Hope his campaign implodes within 48 hours. Alas, the MSM and liberal elite will ensure it won’t. One can only dream!
[66] - That’s by-elections over the course of a whole parliament which have been good for predicting the general election. Glenrothes will no doubt nudge the numbers a bit more in the Tories favour, and one would expect more by-elections before a general election to do the same.
58 Philippe. Would you kindly stop shouting at us in bold. Thank you.
66 - You must be the only man on the planet who doesn’t expect the Tories to win the next election. Every by-election and poll since January indicates a blow out Tory victory. A Tory swing of 6.9% is in the bag, the only doubt is how much bigger than that it will be. Too many of Gordons tractor statistics have made you as out of touch as he is.
58/60/67/68-potentially good news re Reps.Wonder why we never hear from Jack re these figs.Only seems to publish when good news for Dems.Bit unbalanced if you ask me.Still nice chap though.
58, 71 — And you can stop quoting Mark Steyn (”The Iraqi insurgency will be over by Spring 2004.”) as well.
72 - I was wrong in hindsight - there is one other person who believes Labour will win the next election :0)
US Presidential
After the conventions, believe things boil down to this: Future = Obama versus Past = McCain
Biden is reassurance to the geezers. Whereas Palin is lipstick on a geezer.
BTW is it some kind of omen that, following the impact of Gustav as a reminder of Katrina, the next potentially killer hurricane now heading toward the US is . . . Ike!
Wasn’t there a poster on here at one time who used to claim Iraq would be a vote winner for Labour?
73 david l. Because they’re not voting figures. You might like somebody, respect their politics but never vote for them in a thousand years !!
77 Matthew JCG Partridge.
77. NP?
76 — In which case, “I *don’t like Ike.”
Whatever happened to the sane, non-fundie Republicans like ol’ Ike, anyhow?
71 — ???
McCain TV Ratings Beat Obama in Preliminary Numbers
http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/09/mccain_tv_ratings_beat_obama_i.php
Though the preceding opening game of the new NFL season gave him a big help!
US Presidential
When the American people have been confronted in a presidential election with a reasonably choice between past and future, the record shows they have always chosen the future. That is something that’s stamped into our national DNA.
76. IKE, yes I had noticed that myself - Lets remember though IKE though scored amazing numbers of ECV:
442 in his first election -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1952
457 in his second election:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1956
Ike of course was a war hero like McCain who was up against a lightweight from Illinois Senator!
Meanwhile in the real word , another abysmal performance yesterday by the Conservatives in Hants . Havant Waterloo ward ( in the new Meon Valley seat ) showed a massive swing to the LibDems
Con 849 LibDem 801 Lab 95
result in May Con 1,808 LibDem 497 Lab 271 .
Southampton apart , the Conservatives have been losing ground to the LibDema in Hants since the 2005 GE . No doubt this is reflectewd in Chris Huhne’s optimism for LibDem prospects .
66
Just read the Labour blogs.
The volumes have collapsed.
Morale has collapsed.
And more relevant they have lots of loyal Labour voters saying they will not vote Labour again.
Labour is doing now to its core voters what the Conservatives did in 1995-97 … but Mr Brown is more effective at it than Mr Major was.
84. How do Nixon’s two wins fit into that fairytale? He would have won in 1960 too, if it weren’t for vote rigging.
Alex Salmond has done more damage to the Labour Party than any other politician. Local Income Tax will be hit in Scotland, soon Wales and Northern Ireland will follow suit, but poor old England will be left out again thanks to devolution.
84– SSI, You’re right, here, about this American inclination toward the Future.
But why is Mac the Past, seriously?
‘He would have won in 1960 too, if it weren’t for vote rigging.’
No
91. Maybe without the vote rigging and if he had a close shave.
87. Which blogs?
91-There was no vote rigging?
It presupposes that the Reps are always the “past”. Obama and Biden by their self avowed addiction to spending government money could well be characterized as the past.
It’s like saying good=Dems=future, bad=Reps=past with no further analysis. At least it would be more honest.
Afternoon Folks. Here is the good news: SARAH SARAH SARAH
Now the other: Farage is in trouble and is asking SARAH for help:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7600575.stm
And……….wait for it. The markets are going belly up.
Interesting how in 2008 both major party nominees are running as change agents. And that each has won his party’s nomination only after titanic struggle against the entrenched forces of the status quo.
12 - I agree with this view of Scotland (don’t know enough about Wales) but I think there is still value to be found on the spreadbets. Even if you don’t agree with Redcrosby at 66 (and I tend to) you can make money assuming that the Lab+Con total is overvalued.
The sell price of Con 346 + Lab 228 assumes that the non-NI ‘others’ get only 58 seats. I think this is very achievable, even if the Libdems do only got 40 seats (I honestly can’t see them getting less). The SNP+PC will gain at least 6/7, and the two independents will hold. Add in one or two greens and you’re in the money (not to mention Galloway, Spink and Martin if he re-runs).
Call me stupid, but I’ve just sold both Con and Lab on sporting index.
The Rasmussen poll, like one or two others, has the interesting finding that Palin is much more popular with men than women. Presumably the gun-toting machismo thing appeals, a US equivalent to Mrs T? (Was Mrs T more popular with men or women, come to that? - can’t remember) That suggests that throwing Hillary into the breach may not be the best Democrat counter.
Back to the thread: The LD’s are facing a similar massacre to Labour, Especially north of the border. I expect a LD rump of 20/22 in the next parliament.
56. Marcus Wood, a few facts for you.
In 1987, when the Alliance lost votes, 12 out of 13 of those first elected in 1983 did better than the overall drop in vote share.
In 1992, when the LibDems lost votes, 5 out of 6 of those first elected in 1987 did better than the overall drop in vote share.
In 1997, when the LibDems lost votes, 5 out of 5 of those first elected in 1992 did better than the overall drop in vote share.
In 2001, when the LibDems slightly gained votes, 20 out of 28 of those first elected in 1997 did better than the overall gain in vote share.
That’s pretty strong evidence of a LibDem incumbency effect!
98. Well I think Mary Wilson voted for Mrs T in 1979, Harold was re-elected so I hope she was voting elsewhere to where he was standing.
Nick ecluding the incumbant PM - who is your favourite Labour leader? Although not a socialist I think my favourite past Labour leader is either Harold Wilson or Tony Blair: Though Harold Wilson never lied about a war!
98…if she were thrown into the breach then mown down by Mrs.Palin, that would be a splendid outcome.
Much as I would like to see a Lib Dem thrashing, they are political verrucas - have no real reason to exist but once established are very hard to shift (almost impossible if they are working in opposition mode).
I can see them holding their own, but not progressing. Some lost, some gained - treading water.
The big shift will be Labour to Conservative in any consistuency that has the two main parties fighting it out.
Three ways will be down to who has the better resources / quality of campaign / luck I’d expect. Again, the odd hold, gain and loss across all the parties.
101 Wilson was the last decent and honest Labour leader and PM, Labour since Callaghan have been dishonest and corrupt, however Kinnock wasn’t too bad.
78-Can’t wait for next Reps lead just to see Jack publish.It will be just like Christmas.
98. After discarding Hillary the Obama team wont go near her. If they did all their arguments about Obama being a better president that Clinton goes down the drain. But I’d like to see them try. Lol
105. When the dust settles and the TV debates start there polls will move again.
It’s still Obama’s to lose.
86 Mark Senior “the Conservatives have been losing ground to the LibDema in Hants since the 2005 GE”
East Hants District Council results May 2007
Con 30
Lib-dem 14
Con increase of 4 since 2003.
I thought this sort of thing was supposed to be your strong point Mark?
Like Huhne you are making predictions becuase you want them to be true.
Why join the Lib Dems? Well, why join the only major party which isn’t in the pockets of powerful vested interests and foreign millionaires? Why bother to stick to your principles and stand up for real people, when it’s so much easier to gain “power” by just doing what big business, the trade unions, and/or the very rich tell you to do?
Why vote Lib Dem? To get big bossy government off people’s backs. To stop making foreign policy by Victorian gunboat diplomacy and landing in more disasters like Iraq. To switch taxes from income to energy consumption, and thereby take effective action on climate change, not just rabbit on about it endlessly and ineffectually.
Come on then, all you Tories, you’ve sneered at Clegg and Huhne, is it my turn now?
DNC served with Obama eligibility lawsuit…
http://www.americasright.com/
re 86
Mark , despite your risible spin, who actually won the seat last night>…. I’ll give you a clue.. It wasn’t the Lib Dems.
US. Unemployment passes 6 million. More votes for Palin, and I say Palin because I believe that whatever the GOP ticket says, the republican heartland will now see Sarah as the Star.:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atDhpQ6PpJX8&refer=home
103. Yes, the point is with the LD’s: “Opposition mode” - you really telling me that the change at the next election is going to be served by preventing the Tories from governing by leaving 3/4 dozen LD’s in place. Sorry I just do not buy it: In an all change election the LD’s are going to be in as perilous position as ther Labour party.
Alex Salmond will have another bombshell coming - giving Scotland a referendum on the EU Treaty. It’s only a matter of time before this becomes raised.
The Chris Huhne article backed up by Mark Senior’s by election example represent the fact that a large number of LD activists are in denial. They seem to think that nothing has changed since 2005. The swing to the Conservatives from LDs is 7%+ in polls and large elections such as London. The LDs have lost their parliamentary by election advantage. Yet these LDs remain lost in the past, why did they squander resources on the decapitation strategy?
The 31st LD target seat for the Conservatives (new boundaries) is Winchester. It is an outside chance requiring a 7.45% swing. No incumbent there! 4 other LD seats in the top 30 also have retirements and another 3 LD new seats also have no incumbent. Can the Conservatives win 25 out of these 31? Yes. Only 6 of the top 20 have a 1st time incumbent.
What the LDs need to do is ruthlessly follow their new strategy and chase Labour seats. But that is something they have yet to start to do.
108. The Lib Dems have also done amazingly well in the New Forest - down 12 seats in 2007, vs. Tory up 11.
109. Yes - the Lib Dems are run by millionaires who are financed by foreign interests, so I guess there is some distinction to be drawn between them and other parties.
110. Berg believes that the US government was behind 9/11, don’t waste our time with that rubbish again thanks.
104 “Wilson was the last decent and honest Labour leader and PM”
Well he may have been honest (anybody who holidays modestly in the Isles of Scilly and is buried there, as is Ray Gunter of the same generation of Labour leaders, is certainly untempted by the riches of the Eurotrash that attracted Blair like a moth to a flame)but ‘decent’?
By heavens, he was as slimy and tricky as they came. ‘As I said to the Brighton conference……’ etc, etc.
Berg believes that the US government was behind 9/11″
I thought that was common knowledge.
89 Salmond is not proposing a local income tax.
Its a national income tax 3p above the the current rate.
So much for localism, he is just centralising power to Edinboro.
The Lib Dems Labour and Conservatives should let him get on with it and take the repercussions.
103 Matt “Three ways will be down to who has the better resources / quality of campaign / luck I’d expect.”
Yes; however, on balance this is also a reason to doubt whether the LibDems will do as well as some think. The Conservatives do really seem to have got their act together recently in terms of organisation, and of course funding. This in turn translates into good morale. That’s one reason why I’m pretty confident that the Tory poll lead will successfully be turned into votes.
115 TC “What the LDs need to do is ruthlessly follow their new strategy and chase Labour seats. But that is something they have yet to start to do.”
Quite right, but it’s extremely hard to do starting from where they are now. Plus they have left it rather late.
108. It’s not just that Huhne wants his predictions to be true (of course he does); he needs them to be true, otherwise he’s out of parliament.
93
LabourHome
Compass.
and CommentisFree
All well known Conservative supporting blogs.:-)
This is an interesting site which appears to me to be run by ex military right wingers who despise McCain because of his exploitation of his questionable “war hero” status:
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/
They really do not regard McCain as a fit person to be the POTUS at all!
120 Whether its local or national doesn’t matter. He has to power to change it, we don’t thanks to unfair devolution settlement (England excluded).
85 - Ike was never a Republican in the truest, fullest sense. As a serving military officer, under the code of those times he never voted, though like almost all military officers he was an anti-left conservative. In 1948 liberal Dems tried to dump Truman and draft Ike as Dem nominee. He refused, and in 1952 with a clear rising tide for the GOP after two decades of Democratic New Deal dominance, threw hit hat into the ring for the GOP nomination. And was mightly opposed by Robert Taft and the true redmeat Republicans. But the northeastern establishment (then very GOP, today mostly Dem) and the party hacks gave Ike the nomination to ensure that they regained the White House.
84 - the 1960 race is very interesting. Personally would argue that BOTH candidates represented the future. Which is pretty much what McCain is arguing in 2008 when he says both he and Obama are candidates of change. BUT the first Catholic president issue and fact that Nixon was Eisenhower’s VP gave Kennedy a slight advantage in the future states.
Which may well explain the result. Because contrary to popular and GOP mythology, Kennedy was NOT elected on account of vote rigging. Indeed, in the only state were a recount actually occured - interestingly it was Hawaii - Kennedy actually won the recount.
Of course when folks talk about 1960 being a stolen election, they are NOT talking about the Aloha State. They are talking about Texas and most especialy Illinois.
Presidential vote was very close. In Texas, presence of LBJ on the ticket undoubtedly carried the day.
In Illinois, there is also no doubt that the vote turned out by the Chicago Democratic machine under Mayor Daley carried the state for Kennedy. Of course the vast majority of this was not rigging, but rather turning out legitmate vote. The basis of the Daley machine was turnout, in particular getting ID Democrats to the polls.
Of course there was actual vote rigging in Illinois in 1960. By the Chicago Democratic machine in Cook County AND by Republican county machines across a wide swath of downstate Illinois.
The situation in Cook Counnty was especially interesting in 1960. Because that year not only were Kennedy and Nixon on the ballot, but a powerful rival of Mayor Daley himself was running for reelection as Cook County prosecuting attorney. A powerful position held by a Republican who was the most prominent Polish American politico in Chicago (a city with as many Poles as Warsaw so they say) who was considering running against Dailey at the next mayor election.
So Daley moved heaven and earth to beat him. And that included stealing votes. And some of the votes that were stolen for the prosecutors race also ended up helping Kennedy in the presidential race.
The most thoruough post-mortem of the 1960 election in Cook Co is “Courthouse over White House” (forget the author) in which actual precinct voting records were carefully examined. The author documented that votes had clearly been rigged. Yet the pattern of the rigging was equally clear: votes were systematically stolen for the prosecutors race. Any detriment to Nixon was collateral damage. And the analysis indicated that the extent of this would have narrowed the maring but would NOT have changed the statewide outcome.
Re Hants. All the LD cllrs standing lost their seats in Southampton
2008 elections. The LDs also lost a seat in Test Valley in 2007 and even failed to put up candidates for some seats creating walk overs. In Eastleigh and Winchester the LDs have gained a few cllrs from Conservatives in last 2 years.
But Mark Senior’s spin paints a different picture. In denial.
121. The psychological change needed just isn’t going to happen. The Lib Dems have spent 80 years being Labour’s lapdogs, scrounging crumbs from the table. Despite them occasionally giving their master a nasty bite on the ankle, the power relationship remains intact and it’s very difficult to see them turning on their pack leader and going for the throat.
13 & 15
Cornwall has been a mystery to me. I don’t understand how a obscenely Europhile party could have the support it has in Cornwall given that it was EU that f****** the Cornish fishing industry.
124. Whilst McCain was the victim of torcher, Obama in the comparable part of his life was doing Coccaine. I don’t think “Swift-boat” type ads are really going to work in this election in the US - Just reinforces the point that Obama has no experience and his only real life & death experience has been at his own hands with narcottics.
Did Obama inject/smoke or snort the drugs by the way?
129. Martin - did they try to set him alight then?
88/94 - Nixon would have needed to win both Illinois and Texas to have won in 1960.
With Mayor Daley involved and the closeness of the result there is certainly serious doubt over Illinois. But although Texas was tight for a big state and there were some reports of irregularities on the Mexican border, only really die-hard Nixon-fanatics really argue the point. The margin was enough in Texas that it is very, very hard to make a credible case.
Rod Crosby, thank you for the detail which proves thew point I was trying to make. MP’s definitely get a boost the first time they are re-elected.
I will agree that in:
East Dunbartonshire,
Hornsey and Wood Green,
Ceredigion,
Cardiff Central,
Birmingham Yardley,
Manchester Withington,
Rochdale,
Leeds North West,
Bristol West,
Inverness,
Nairn,
Badenoch and Strathspey,
Taunton,
Solihull,
Westmorland and Lonsdale,
Cambridge, and Falmouth and Camborne the Lib Dem candidate will be in a stronger position and these seats will be harder to win than the UNS might imply.
Everywhere else - no.
Basingstoke and Deane, Portsmouth, Hart, East Hampshire are all in Hampshire (at least on my map) Recent election results would suggest that the Lib Dem mass movement in those places is on a level with that achieved in Plymouth Harbour; sorry he moved to Henley didnt he!
The Havant result was frustrating, but the Conservative actually won.
94 ‘It presupposes that the Reps are always the “past”.’ IF you are talking about my theory, you are totally wrong. For example, I am arguing that in 1980 Ronald Reagan was the Future and Jimmy Carter was the Past.
Every election is NOT a Future v Past deal. But when it is, the American people vote accordingly.
90 - why is McCain the past? For several reasons, including his age and having to drag the rotting carasse of W, Cheney & Co around with him. But his speech last night shows the real reason: for all his talk about change and desire to continue his service to the nation, McCain’s own thinking is deeply imbedded in the past. In particular in the Cold War past. His speech was a evocation of the past and a contiuation of the past. And that just ain’t the future.
BTW, the dislike and disdain of McCain by rank and file Republican Party activists was palpable last night. Was manifest in the incredible displays of conscious and unconscious sabotage by the crowd during McCain’s speech. They don’t deserve him.
116 The LibDems are also solvent , at the end of 2007 they had net assets of 1.1 milllion , Labour net liabilities of 16 million and the Conservatives net liabilities of 7.75 million , there is only one party fit to run the economy of the country based on their abilities to manage the finances of their own party and it ain’t the Conservatives .
129. Do the allegations against Obama have more substantiation than the the ones made against David Cameron on drug taking?
130. I would not know, I have as much military experience as Obama and so could not comment. They could well have used heat/flames in their interrogation techniques - It was a typo: the torcher, meant tourture.
Several things to comment on today…
313, last thread. runnymede: Labour will be at around 12% by then, at this rate.
To be fair, it’s about 15%. (Trendline of all BPC member polls since 10/10/07 extrapolated to 04/06/09).
12. Timothy (zebras): It’s even possible [...] that the number of gains in England will outweigh the number of losses.
I count 20 English seats on the notionals where Labour lead and the Lib Dems are second and within 20% - and in five of those, the Tories are closer to the Lib Dems than the LDs are to Labour.
83. Caveman: McCain TV Ratings Beat Obama in Preliminary Numbers
I remember when the convention schedule was announced, DemConWatch gloating over how bad it would be for the GOP as everyone would be watching the NFL game and just back from the long weekend and not interested in the Republican convention. Oops!
86. Mark Senior: abysmal performance yesterday by the Conservatives in Hants
Erm… they won. It can’t possibly be an abysmal performance when you win.
135 Any comments regarding the Lib-dem triumphs in Hants Mark?
135
Another bit of nonsense Mark. You really do live in another world.
136. Best read oabam’s biography on that and he will probably explain, why he needed to take the drug’s option over dealing with life.
Cameron has not passed comment on it - Obama has invited it by introducing the subject himself.
132 - That list includes some pretty important marginal seats for the Lib Dems though doesn’t it?
You could add Eastleigh, North Cornwall, Cheltenham and (less relevantly given it is pretty safe anyway) Sheffield Hallam to that list - these were seats where it was Lib Dem to Lib Dem handover in 2005. The evidence from Yeovil, where Laws obviously lost votes in 2001 on inheriting from Ashdown but bounced back very strongly in 2005, suggests the same applies to such seats.