Is Crewe the answer to Maguire and Kellner?
September 10th, 2008
Does Brown really have a chance of saving the day?
There’s an interesting piece by Kevin Maguire of the Mirror quoting an as yet to be published article by Peter Kellner of YouGov suggesting that Labour might still have a chance.
The arguments are ones we have seen before - governments, it is said recover from mid-term lows and we all know that the Tories need a vote margin of 6% just to be equal on seats and a 10% gap for a majority.
Where I take issue with the two of them is on the lesson from the Tory victory in Crewe and Nantwich last May. Kellner points to the massive loss of Tory votes at Dudley West in 1994 which was on a far bigger scale than Labour’s loss in Crewe.
But where they are all making a huge mistake is judging by elections by percentage movements which can be distorted by very low turnouts. That happened in the 1994 case and Labour won its great victory even though it lost actual votes on its general election total two years earlier.
What was dramatic about Crewe was that turnout was nearly at general election levels and that the Tory vote in actual numbers rose from 14,162 in 2005 to 20,539. There has been no real precedent for this.
At Glasgow East in July the same thing happened to the SNP vote. It rose from 5,268 at the general election to 11,277 in the by election. Like Crewe turnout was not too far off the general election level.
These two results very much support the huge swing in the polling that we have seen since the March budget.
Yes Labour can recover and if they can get to 30% or more then it could be really interesting. But we are, I believe, heading for a general election where turnout is considerably up and based on the by elections the “new” voters will be coming out to oppose Labour.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Great piece, Mike. Labour are not going to lose because their voters aren’t coming out, but because more and more are prepared to vote for alternative parties for whom they have never voted before - this is true of the Tories, but especially true of the SNP. That is extremely worrying - it implies that Labour voters from 2005 have gone beyond passive disillusionment, but swung all the way to active opposition.
I still struggle to believe that the Tories need to be so far ahear to get parity/a majority. Aren’t these predictions based on the last few elections where there was widespread tactical voting against them? At the next election this will have gone at least, if not reversed to hit Labour. Yes there will be inequalities in the % to seats ratios, because of differential turnout, but I can’t see it being that big next time.
2 Mike S. Ivor Crewe ??
New PPP poll for North Carolina :
McCain 48% .. Obama 44%
Note - Polled yesterday. McCain +1 from last poll. A wee bit different from the SUSA “poll” !!
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_910.pdf
I suspect that Kellner’s analysis is a little more substantial than the skewed version presented by Maguire.
Kellner must surely be aware that it is not just the performance of the Labour and Conservative parties that will influence the outcome of the GE. The strength of the SNP, the failure of the LibDems to progress and the way the BNP have started to take significant numbers of votes will all be factors.
The 10p tax disaster will haunt Labour for years - it took away their ability to claim to stand up for those at the bottom of the income ladder as well as damaging their claims to being economically literate.
The Tories are not guaranteed to win a sizeable majority whenever the election comes. Any party that assumes this will ultimately fail. However, the realities of the current political climate are very different to the way Maguire presents them.
Gordon Brown is the least popular premier in the history of polling - that, above almost any other issue, is going to be a defining factor.
2. this effect isn’t because of tactical voting per se, rather lack of nationwide presence. in other words their support is relatively concentrated in safe seats.
they might get some of that presence back, but will be hampered by lack of organisation on the ground and the rise of nationalist parties.
2, yeah… that does seem strange to me as well. The gaps necessary for majorities have got to shift over time. Now people may actively vote anti-Labour, whereas in the past they were anti-Tory. I cannot believe that a Labour party on 30% at the next election stands a chance of winning. I know they won the last with 36%, but Cameron’s polling is miles ahead of Howard’s, as are his real results (council elections better than Labour’s worst nightmare, London and Crewe).
There are also the boundary changes to take into account - they always make things slightly harder to predict.
People aren’t just simply not voting for labour as they did in the past, many are now voting for the alternatives as well. Labour has damaged itself so badly over the last year it no longer has any cards to play, no credibility with the working class and being hated by the middle classes.
A very good piece Mike.
Some points:-
1. The swing against the Conservatives at Dudley West came from a starting point of the Conservatives winning 42% of the national vote. That at Crewe came from a starting point of Labour winning 36% of the national vote.
2. It’s unlikely that political geography will favour Labour if they are well behind the Conservatives in overall vote share. Forced choice questions gave Labour a big lead in 2005, and give the Conservatives a big lead now.
3. The only pollster whose methodology has remained unchanged since the mid 90s is ICM. Mike has pointed out that there was no improvement in the Conservative vote in 1997, compared to ICM’s rating two years previously.
4. Labour’s woes are different to those of the Conservatives in the 90s, but that provides no source of comfort.
5. Labour’s share of the vote in local elections is now even lower than the Conservatives achieved. In fact, it is the lowest share achieved by a governing party in the post-War era.
6. The Conservative Party doesn’t put people off to anything like the same extent that the current government does.
2 - I tend to agree that the idea that the Conservatives need to be 10 points clear to win a bare majority and all that remains to be seen. I think that the value of UNS models diminishes the greater the swing input into them. Also I suspect that the swing is distorted depending on where the vote movement is going. A 5% swing Labour to Conservative can be made up of an 8% drop in Labour support and 2% increase in Conservative share or the reverse a 2% drop in Labour support and an 8% increase in Conservative share. The results in each scenario would be very different but the swing would be the same and the position at the end of the process will be the same difference between the parties.
6. Racking up huge, but useless, majorities in safe seats, wasn’t the Conservatives’ problem in 2005. The real problem was getting significantly fewer candidates elected on 35-45% of the vote than Labour did, which points to anti-Conservative tactical voting.
6. can anyone point me to any analysis showing the conservative votes being concentrated in safe seats compared to Labour? My idle checking of some figures seems to show that Labour also has a very strong tendency to rack up large number of ‘unnecessary’ votes in safe seats. Presumbaly the big movement of swing voters to Labour in 1997 gave them a lot of marginals and therefore a seemingly broad spread of support but this is likely to swing the other way at the next election. Is it not just a fact of our FPTP system that the party in government always looks like the beneficiary of tactical voting even though as ed says it may not really be tactical voting?
Interesting points, Mike.
I think the only thing holding up the Labour seats market is that people in Labour seats simply cannot imagine how they could lose such large majorities.
Let’s take Tooting, as Morus and I were discussing the candidates’ merits earlier. This is the 2005 notional result, according to UKPollingReport:
Labour: 18208 (42.8%)
Conservative: 13018 (30.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 8256 (19.4%)
Other: 3054 (7.2%)
Majority: 5190 (12.2%)
The polls would suggest Labour losing about 20% of its 2005 support - i.e. 3,600 votes. Say we assume this is split equally between Tories, LDs and DNV. That’s the Tory vote up 1,200, Labour down 3,600.
That leaves you with Lab on 14,600, and the Tories on 14,200 without any allowance for new voters turning out to teach New Labour a lesson, or LDems switching Tory, or moderate Tories returning to the fold.
That’s how the 112th target seat becomes too close to call and Pickfords wait by the phone for Brown’s call.
This is not the first time that kellner has come out in support of labour - and I say support because he keeps making these remarks solely to socialist papers.
Can it be that Peter Kellner is a Labour Party member, who when he rises each morning is sickened by his own polls?
It proves one thing though; that Kevin Maguire will latch onto any crumb of comfort he can find, for his beloved Leader.
Maguire is clutching at straws.
The man is a total tool.
12. the simple fact is that Lab’s vote share is spread across scotland, wales, the north, big cities including london, and certain parts of the south, whereas the Cons support is much more concentrated geographically.
there was certainly some “tactical voting” as well, insofar as that is actually any different from the effect described above.
13. don’t look at the safest seats, look at the map.
I think it’s more the case that people like Kellner have a vested interest in elections being close and interesting. If the election is seen as a foregone conclusion, will papers (particularly left-leaning ones) invest so much in opinion polls from organisations like YouGov?
Kellner may or may not be a Labour man. But his interest is in keeping things interesting and I think his comments reflect that rather than anything else.
17 Actually, that’s not so. There are a lot of rural constituencies where Labour support is below 10%. And there a couple of dozen seats where Labour support exceeds 60%, whereas in no constituency did the Conservatives do so well.
Will indicating that the next GE will be much closer than conventional ‘wisdom’ suggests help Mr Kellner sell more of YouGov’s polling services? If the media think that it is a foregone conclusion, they are less likely to commission polls so frequently (they won’t feel they need proof of what they already ‘know’.
19/21. I think there is a bit more to it than Kellner just touting for buisiness.
19,21. seems a likely hypothesis.
20 And the Conservatives’ best region, the South East, gave them 45%, while Labour’s best region, the North East, gave them 49%.
Guido has an excellent picture capturing Gordo and Blair in the same picture that was taken this morning…
http://www.order-order.com/
17. And Labour’s vote is now plummeting “across scotland, wales, the north, and bit cities including London” and ALL of the South.
That’s Labour’s problem. Their core vote is in freefall, and people are actively turning out to kick Labour in the electoral goolies.
This is why previous models do not apply - it relied on apathy, on Labour voters turning out for Labour in lower numbers in safe Labour seats (and Tories piling up useless votes in safe seats).
The evidence now is people ARE voting in higher numbers in safe Labour seats - AGAINST Labour. And the Tories are winning everywhere except Scotland, where the SNP is rampant.
Alternatively, look - as I said before - at the popular vote. Labour is in freefall there, too - from 13.5m in 1997 to 9.7m in 2005. Merely extrapolating the trend puts them on a seriously losing 8.5m votes next time; and I think the trend against them has dramatically worsened. Their popular vote could be under 7m next time around: the sort of vote the SDP got in the 80s.
11. The result would not be very different, except for the effect on the LibDems. In 1983 there was a 4% swing to the Tories, although both Labour and Con lost votes. The result was not that much different from a forecast 4% direct switch.
Mike, you also have to factor in the turnout at the previous election. In 1992 the national turnout was 77%, and an astonishing 82% in Dudley West. It could have hardly been higher in the by-election. In C&N in 1992, the Tories got over 25,000 votes and still lost. Timpson got 20,000 in this year’s by-election. So it’s not as straightforward as you suggest, although you may be correct that the increase signifies a stronger protest against Labour than the swing suggests. Inconclusive would be my position…
Afternoon all
I think a third factor needs to be considered and that is abstaining Labour voters. I have no feel for how many Labour voters abstained at C&N for instance.
The theory advanced by many Conservatives after 1997, and based on the lower turnout figure, was that many Conservative voters had simply abstained and this had magnified the scale of the Labour victory.
In the same way, abstaining Labour voters could hand a bigger victory to Cameron BUT, if Brown is somehow to get the abstainers back on board, the contest does become that bit closer.
Latest Rasmussen Tracker :
McCain 47% .. Obama 48%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Swingback? Again?
I don’t know how many times you need to debunk this one, Mr Smithson, but it don’t wanna stay dead.
The picture accompanying this excellent article shows you why such a significant swing is required for a decisive Con victory - the subset of seats they are competing in (and relatively low base) means there simply aren’t enough seats where they are within any sort of striking distance.
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/10/17/where-the-next-election-will-be-decided/
Re. 26, and less than the ‘eight million votes for socialism’ (in Tony Benn’s phrase) in 1983.
29. statistical noise or the mccain bounce starting to fade away?
28. And that way madness beckons. Or at least a core vote strategy. Ask Hague and Howard what they think.
13. Ron Johnston did a study of the various components of electoral bias in the 2005 election. Basically, while Labour has more safe seats than the Tories, their vote is more efficiently distributed due to the relatively high turnouts in Tory safe seats.
http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/epop%202005/papers/biaepop.pdf
Obama vs. Mac
–> Obama & Cie. decided to switch their focus from McCain-Bush to Sarah Palin… A bad move.
–>According to recent polls, Mac is now attracting “lean Obama” voters and undecideds — especially among white women.
–>McPalin are now focusing on “Real Change”, breaking the monopoly Obama had on the change message. The Biden pick might have helped Mac operating this strategic shift. And every elections, every winning tickets are about change…
–>The GOP base is now “electrified” — thanks to Palin and to the Convention. Cultural conservatism — the promotion of cultural issues — is coming back, incorporated into the magical persona of Sarah Palin.
–>More importantly, Republicans now begin to believe that they can win this thing. This belief will certainly snowball into even more enthousiam, and thus strongly facilitate GOP’s operations on the ground to get the vote out.
Re: 34 - The point is that if the core vote is all you’ve got, you still have to maximize it. Michael Howard’s “triumph” in 2005 was getting enough Tories out to keep the Labour majority down to 60.
Had IDS still been Tory leader, Blair might have got a third landslide and things now would be very different.
28 et al C&N result had several similarities with experience down here in Preseli, apart from the obvious.
In both 2005 and 2007 I think it is fair to say that labour people like myself were taken aback by the sudden surge in Tory support. We hadn’t seen it coming to the extent it did.
Much of this surge in support came from the rural part of the constituency, which is, I believe what happened in C&N.
Whether the turnabout was a result of good campaigning by the Tories, or abstainers who had come back into the Tory fold, I do not know, but I do believe it has a significance much wider than those two constituencies.
29 - This represents a gradual move back to Obama since McCain’s post-convention high. McCain led by 1% on Monday and it was level yesterday. Rasmussen say they have state polls for New Mexico (important swing state), North Dakota (Obama had been competitive there but I expect that to change) and Alaska (Palin makes that very safe but the associated Senate poll will be interesting).
36 - “every elections, every winning tickets are about change”
Apart from the grammar, incumbents sometimes win elections.
33 Dan S. It might be either or a combination of both. I’m waiting until Thursday to get 3 full weekdays of non convention noise to come through. But my early view is that we’re back to pre-convention numbers of Rasmussen at levels and Gallup a few points up for McCain. That said both sides appear to have added a point or two to their score as the number of “undecideds” falls.
One important point to note. The party id sampling has changed in the GOP’s favour by several points. The big question is does this now accurately reflect the ground position ? especially in the swing states. FWIW my take is that the GOP are now oversampled in some polls. Looking at the crosstabs, where available, becomes even more important.
I think it is foolish to try to say that Peter Kellner as a messenger is biased, where the arithmetic accuracy of the message is undoubtedly true. Interpreting the figures, however, is necessarily subjective.
I’d add the following to what others have been saying:
1) During 1994, opinion polls were fairly variable, but the range for the Conservatives was between 21% and 31%, average something like 26%. The Conservative vote share in the 1997 election was just under 31%. So there was apparently some recovery, although the opinion polls may have been overstating Labour support somewhat.
2) But we can’t just look at the psephology. We also need to look at other factors likely to influence voters, notably the rise of the SNP, disarray in the Labour Party (surely even greater now than in the Tories under Major), a Prime Minister treated with ridicule by much of the electorate, and the economy which is likely to get worse, rather than (as in the lead-up to 1997) better.
My conclusion? Yes, a significant improvement in Labour’s prospects is certainly possible when you look at historic precedents. But I don’t think any big improvement is likely. Indeed, it is not impossible that their support will further weaken as the economy worsens.
Where Are the Independent Standing?
CBS’s poll asked independents if watching Obama’s speech made them more or less likely to vote for Obama. Half of those who watched (29% overall) said it made them more likely to vote for Obama. The other half said it made no change (17% overall) or that it made them less likely to vote Obama (12%).
They then asked if McCain’s speech made them more or less likely to vote for McCain. More independents watched McCain’s speech - 67% of independents surveyed, compared to 58% for Obama’s…and among those who watched, the impact was far more positive. 43% of independent voters watched McCain’s speech AND said it made them more likely to vote for him. That’s nearly 2 out of every 3 independents who watched the speech.
… 61% of independents said they thought McCain/Palin would bring real change to Washington, compared to 33% who disagreed…a bigger margin for change than Obama/Biden, where 57% of independents said they’d bring change and 37% disagreed…
…On the question of national security, Independents prefer McCain over Obama 62-24 …
…on health care, …Obama’s lead over McCain is 36-35. That’s right - one point.
…economy and gas prices…
…In the Diageo/Hotline poll Among Independents, McCain leads Obama on the economy 37-33, and leads on energy 40-32.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/with_an_eye_to_the_middle_inde.php
29/39. I think statistical dead heats are to be expected for the next 48 hrs. But the movement to McCain is gathering pace:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaWaPymjJ3rk&refer=home
So much of this is sophistry, anyway. Its plain as the grin on Alex Salmond’s face: the people want rid of Labour.
They are recording an historically low 25% in polls. In every single election for six months Labour have been trounced - by the Tories (from Henley to Yorkshire to Crewe) or by the SNP in Glasgow. In the locals, as SeanF says, Labour did WORSE than the Tories in their deepest depression. Boris even beat Ken in multiculti London. Duh?
What’s the argument? The people have evidently had enough - they are turning out, in numbers, to get rid of this wretched, lying government with its stupid embarrassing leader, and no amount of psephological wankery can change that.
This of course is also supported anecdotally - when was the last time anyone of us met an enthusiastic Labour voter? I don’t mean a begrudging “oh I’ve always voted for them, guess I will again” I mean a voter who happily says “Labour, of course!”
They don’t exist any more. I’ve got lots of lefty friends. Not one of them has a good word for this government - Labour are despised by their own natural voters. I think most of these people will abstain next time, or vote Green, or even Cammo.
Labour have lost. Question is whether they get toasted - or interred.
Sean I doubt your friends are very representative
46. Most of the people at my work can’t stand labour, and they all admit to voting for them in the past.
44 weathercock. There is no net movement to McCain. We are effectively where we stood two weeks ago.
46: ‘Sean I doubt your friends are very representative’
I think seanT once said that most of his friends are lefties.
49. yes i can imagine - i’m sure he has a fair old sampling of europhiles as well
The 2001 & 2005 elections were based on low (61%) turnouts. The next is likely to be much higher, perhaps even as high as 75%, because the mood suggests that a change is not only afoot but can be achieved by going to the polls.
In these circumstances, a swing back to Labour’s poll share of the recent low turnouts will be of little help as it will be swamped by the rise to new, higher turnout level.
46. What, Nong, Tiffany, Neung, Kittygirl and The One in Hot Pants? Not representative???
Actually I think the bulk of my lefty friends are reasonably representative of MIDDLE CLASS Labour voters - and they ALL despise this government. So that’s them gone (most will abstain I reckon, a fair minority will vote Cammo).
I do confess I have only a couple of acquaintances who I’d say are white working class core Labour - again they despise the government. One will probably vote Mebyon Kernow (hey, it’s Cornwall), the other Tory or even BNP.
So yes its anecdotal but its a fair old anecdote. Of all the lefty people I know well enough to make an informed stab at their voting intention (maybe a dozen voters all in all), NOT A SINGLE ONE is going to vote Labour, as far as I can guess.
Make of it what you will…
49. “I think seanT once said that most of his friends are lefties.”
By SeanT’s standards that’d be everyone not to the right of Ghengis Khan….
Interesting piece.
If you look at the vote distrubutions and number of votes needed to elect an MP in 1992 - they changed dramatically by the time you get to 1997. This could easily flip back to help the Tories at the next election and indeed I think it likely. Must be remembered that the Labour Notional majority is in the 40’s at the next election and quite a few Labour MP’s are steping down or have died in C & N (Surely a first time incumbancy affect for that By-election MP?). I don’t believe the 10% figure for a bare Tory majority, it is cobblers!
New Mark Blenkenship Enterprises poll for West Virginia :
McCain 44% .. Obama 39%
Note - Unlikely good poll for Obama. This is around McCain +10 at least.
http://www.wsaz.com/political/headlines/28118604.html
Only a fool would think that two years out it is possible to predict Labour have no chance. Infact as Mike pointed out on a previous thread only last February Labour had a healthy lead. It’s impossible for Labour to have gone from hero to zero and the Tories to have done the reverse in six months unless something profound had changed. Apart from Brown being seen as useless nothing has.
So necessarily it’s most likely a short term blip. A brand new leader and Cameron can go back to waitress bothering with the rest of his Bullindon chums.
56. It’s about 20 months now! That poll you mentioned is more about identification - just because you identify with a party does not mean you would vote for it.
56. It would also be foolish to bank on this government lasting for two more years. If this winter turns out to be as bad (politically, economically, weather-wise, etc.) as some predict/expect, then they’d be lucky to last until Valentine’s Day.
56.
Wishful thinking. You’ve forgotten that the mood - and the polls - was profoundly poor for Labour at the end of Blair’s time. That’s why for two years in a row after the local election results there was plotting and scheming to get rid of him.
The ‘blip’ was relief that Blair had gone and Brown was in. It didn’t take long for that blip to subside. And a 2007 election would have punctured it as well.
Free money needs to start showering from the heavens, permanent balmy sunshine to last all year round and pigs to fly for Labour to have anything like a chance next time round. They’re done for.
51 GeoffH. Not sure about that. Indeed on your analysis turnout in 97 would have soared.
This has more to do with electoral anticipation. In 97 The punters knew the Tories were out and the polls very clearly showed it. Accordingly the world and his dog didn’t feel the need to stick the knife in quite so much. Lord only knows what would have happened if significant differential turnout had occured on a 75% turnout !! …. Labour GAIN Ave It I wouldn’t wonder.
‘The dilemma that will face the new Labour leader’
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/-The-dilemma-that-will.4474808.jp
56. What has happened to dear old Roger. He used to be quite on the button. Now he posts feeble piffle like this:
“It’s impossible for Labour to have gone from hero to zero and the Tories to have done the reverse in six months unless something profound had changed.”
I can feel your pain Roger. What happened, eh? I see these inane, absurd and pointless posts of yours as more of a cri de coeur than an actual argument, therefore I shall refrain from eviscerating them.
My advice: have a biscuit and a nice sit down, and maybe a little nap.
Polls: Latinos favor Obama in 3 important battleground states
Bendixen’s polls …
• Nevada: Obama led McCain 62% to 20% among Hispanic voters. Among the state’s non-Hispanic voters, McCain was favored 46% to 37%.
• New Mexico: Obama led McCain 56% to 23% among Hispanic voters, while McCain had a 50% to 34% edge among non-Hispanic voters.
• Colorado: Obama topped McCain 56% to 26% among Hispanic voters. Among non-Hispanic voters, Obama’s narrow 45% to 41% support was within the poll’s margin of error, Bendixen said.
• Florida: In the state that decided the 2000 presidential race, the poll found McCain and Obama tied among Hispanic voters at 42% each and among non-Hispanic voters at 43%.
…
Matt Barreto, a University of Washington political scientist, predicts a record-breaking turnout of more than 9 million Hispanic voters this year. That compares with 7.6 million in 2004.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-09-Hispanicvote_N.htm
56 - Whenever I feel afraid, I hold my head erect, and whistle a happy tune, so no one will suspect -
I’m afraid.
There have been three phases of the polling in the Brown premiership. In phase one, the Brown bounce, Labour got a fair wind as the British public decided to give the new Government a chance. This lasted until the Conservative party conference and the election that never was.
In phase two, Labour and the Conservatives were broadly neck and neck, but with a slow erosion of Labour support and slow increase in Conservative support. This lasted until the budget.
Since the budget, polls have been remarkably consistent, with the Conservatives several lengths clear of Labour. The public appear to have lost patience with the Government as a whole and Gordon Brown in particular. The 10p tax row (though in itself fairly insignificant) seems to have been interpreted by a lot of the public as a sign that the Government has lost its moral compass and its way. It will take more than replacing the leader to persuade the public that it has found its way again, and none of the potential replacements have given any indication that they have a plan.
Good to see that Mike still thinks Labour can recover!
58 - Actually that is a good point about the winter weather. This is an unscientifically based hypothisis of mine but for some reason I have noticed that when there is an active hurricane season the following Winter here tends to be colder than the mild ones we have got used too.
So I can well see, a cold and icy winter leading to a termination of the Labour government. It maybe through Labour simply going bankrupt!
56- This is probably a pretty good description of how Brown himself thinks, other than the part about Brown being useless! Once the Conservative “blip” passes and the people will come to their senses, Gordon will be able to look back on the last year and laugh. This is why it seems to me that Brown is unlikely to willingly relinquish power.
60. 1997: Turnout 72%. Clearly, almost certain change in prospect did not deter the voters from turning out.
60 JackW - I think the difference this time may be that it is natural Labour supporters who are most keen to ’stick the knife in’. Certainly, anecdotal evidence suggests that may be the case.
64. The 10p tax row (though in itself fairly insignificant)-
Think you misread that, it was very significant: It was putting taxes up on those who could least afford it for Brown to have a moment in the Sun and potential win a GE2007, which of course never happened and was just talk - As I said at the time.
Roger @ 56 — the fundamental change is the economy. People are skint.
56, have you just emerged from a black hole created by the Abominable Apocalypse Machine?
Since Brown became PM the economy had declined significantly. He’s politically inept and personally unlikeable. There are no Labour heavyweights in the Cabinet, to such an extent that a harridan man-hater and a schoolboy struggling to grow a moustache are the favourites to become next leader.
66. Yeah. Folk on pb.com tend to think in terms of policies, but events outside Westminster could easily decide the fate of this lot.
Posit: A winter a bit colder than recent ones + a moderate sized flu outbreak + public sector strikes. How long do you think they’d last?
A bit of messenger-shooting going on in the thread - some people are so anti-Labour that they can’t stand the thought that anyone thinks Labour might win - he must have a hidden motive, etc. People who put money on it reckon it’s a 3-1 shot, so it’s reasonable to discuss it.
42: Richard Nabavi: ‘disarray in the Labour Party greater than under Major’ - actually, no. As someone who’s been a member all my adult life, I’m struck by the lack of disarray. For most of the last 37 years, I’ve been familiar with rival factions, plots, insurgencies, etc. At the moment, members are naturally downcast about the polls, but there’s very little disarray. Lots of people here feel there *ought* to be - we should be surely fighting like ferrets in a sack, they think - but there’s not much evidence of it, even when the slightest hint of dissent is pounced upon by the media as a nascent plot. We’re certainly worried, but by and large remain disciplined about it, whereas the Tories under Major really were in ferret country.
52: seanT: “Make of it what you will…” - OK. I make of it that none of the 25% of the population who say they’re going to vote Labour are prepared to tell sean about it…
Apropos of slightly less than JohnO’s post yesterday……I’ve just taken a stroll to see the most expensive house in the world which is in Villefranche and went for £350 million (film buffs will know it as the location for ‘Red Shoes’).
It’s not a bad house but the irony is that it’s seriously overlooked by Paul Allen’s monstrosity on Cap Ferrat. So bizarre is it’s siuation that I can only imagine the new Russian owner asked to be within cricket ball throwing distance of an equally rich American.
The Politico: Could Clinton have Palin-proofed Dems?
Sarah Palin’s presence — coupled with Clinton’s absence — may be altering one of the great verities of American politics: that women voters overwhelmingly favor Democrats.
…Obama left Denver with an 8-point lead among white women; by the time John McCain pulled out of St. Paul, Minn., with Palin at his side, he had taken a 12-point lead.
…
Penn said that women are going to be “the absolute swing vote in this campaign, and it’s not clear which direction they are going to go in.
…
Quinnipiac University Polling Institute Assistant Director Peter A. Brown said … “This isn’t about Hillary; it’s about Obama’s problem with white women voters,” he said. “Hillary won about 10 million votes from women voters in the Democratic primaries — there are 52 million women voting in the general election.”
Clinton has said she’ll hit the road for Obama, but her team says she refuses to be an anti-Palin “attack dog.” Further complicating matters for Obama, Hillaryland fundraiser Susie Tompkins Buell is leading a group that will fight media sexism against the Alaska governor.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13317_Page2.html
72- Are the current Labour benches really entirely devoid of talent (other than Dr. Palmer, of course…)? That seems incredible given how long Labour have been in power and how ample their benches are given the majorities they’ve commanded for a decade. Is the next Labour PM perhaps somebody who isn’t even in Parliament yet?
69. I think a lot of natural Labour voters are still p1ssed off on the immigration issue. Remember this was number 1 or 2 or thereabouts, in most people’s political priority lists, for a long, long time. I think that did longterm damage “below the waterline”.
The issue has fallen down the lists of late because crime and the economy have taken over (thought these matters are all linked, of course); but I do not think Labour’s core voters have forgiven Labour for their lies and ineptitude on migration. Indeed I think many voters are biding their time and waiting to wreak their revenge at the polling booths.
What’s more, the issue will recrudesce as unemployment rises in the coming months. All those unskilled people looking for jobs, many of them migrants competing with Brits - how will that play out? And all what about all those migrants and asylum seekers on benefits…. as we all feel the squeeze….?
The picture is unremittingly grim for Labour, unless we get a VERY nifty economic turnaround.
68. hasn’t turnout been on the way downwards for a long time? due to apathy and indifference.
anyone claiming that a high or low turnout reflects badly on their political opponents is indulging in wishful thinking.
74. i think it’s more along the lines of rogers reasoning e.g. labour get a new leader and people will see the tories as nasty and Cameron as a toff.
Martin Day - I am with you on the 10% rubbish. If the constituencies are sorted in order of marginality, the constituency which the Tories would need to win to gain a majority is Brighton Pavilion - requiring a 5.8% swing from Labour. If this was repeated uniformly this would leave the popular vote at Conservative 38.1%, Labour 29.5%, a difference of 8.6%. This is indeed the minimum the Conservatives need to gain a majority.
5. What is shocking about the BNP vote, is that, everywhere they stood in our Constituency, a once Labour stronghold (Carlisle) and within the top 100 target seats for the Conservatives, is that they picked up between 150 and 300 votes per council ward, and in the three or four wards they really targeted they got over four hundred. They got just short of 2500 votes from contesting 9 of the 14 seats that make up the constituency.
They have no track record in this city, yet they pull in a staggering number, if this follows through to the General election, then Labour really have something to be worried about.
Martin Day - 66 - “It maybe through Labour simply going bankrupt!”
Don’t worry - the taxpayer will come to the rescue!
Spot the coincidence.
Fact 1:
An analysis of Electoral Commission figures discloses that in the three years since the 2005 election, the unions have given Labour £29.5 million. This is more than 20 per cent up on the £24.4 million they gave to the party in the three years after the 2001 election.
Fact 2:
The purpose of the Union Modernisation Fund is to provide financial assistance to independent trade unions and their federations in support of innovative projects which speed unions’ adaptation to a changing labour market and new ways of working. It is envisaged that the size of the Fund will be in the region of £5 - £10 million in total, with funding spread over several years, beginning in 2005/06.
74. oh come on Nick, Senoir Labour party figures giving interviews about their background and Job; Miliband, HH, even straw I think along with the one from Alister Darling.
If I were you I would be more concerned that there is no Plan B or anyone even trying to forge one. At the moment the infighting is all chiefs and no Indians. When the Indians start you better get the war paint slapped on!
Obama would have been better citing some of the female Labour MP’s as Pigs with Lipstick on rather than Palin! Palin’s not bad - I’d like to see her Naked!
35 many thanks
77, there are some more talented chaps in Labour than others. Hutton seems reasonable, likewise Denham and Johnson. But the likeliest replacements are Harman the man-hater and Milipede the slimy schoolboy.
74, if you had more fire in your collective belly you would have axed the delusional cretin that leads you and perhaps gained a good measure of gratitude from the nation.
Under bad leaders, Labour is far worse than the Tories because you’re too meek to knife them.
71. very few people, bordering on no people at all, are skint because of the economy. even less so potential Con voters.
some may be so in the future, and some have the expectation that they will be, but that is very different.
What on earth is Barack Obama thinking with his lipstick on a pig remark? Surely going to backfire on him. Just makes him look nasty. Palin might be many things, but she’s not a pig.
When one thinks of her views on guns, science, religion, she’s such an easy target. Why reduce yourself to this?
56 — “So necessarily it’s most likely a short term blip.”
Didn’t Nigel Lawson say something similar, once?
73 “A winter a bit colder than recent ones + a moderate sized flu outbreak + public sector strikes. How long do you think they’d last?”
But going before May 2010 would require Brown (or his successor) to acknowledge that they had failed as a Govt. and the election as about handing on the baton to a new one - with Labour heading to an almost certain electoral meltdown. Short of a “Who rules Britain?” type-election, why would they go early - unless Brown has gone and it is to get a new mandate? They would surely try and tar the Tories with their misery with an offer of national Govt. if the country went broke; the only other scenario is truly massive Parliamentary defections - and Labour has no recent history of floor-crossers of note.
70 - I meant insignificant in terms of numbers of people substantially affected. At the time I did misread the effect on the public mood, my worst political misreading of the year so far. What I had missed was the impact on the general public’s sense of fairness of taxing some of the poorest in society.
[56] - The budget changed things Roger. The whole 10p tax thing was rotten as many people pointed out at the time.
Firstly, it entailed stealing from the poor to try and buy off middle-income swing voters That is grubby politics, mean-spirited and trashes the age-old core Labour message of being on the side of the have-nots.
Secondly, they lied, lied and lied again about this effect. Everyone knew they were lying, and yet they did it anyway, even when MPs on their own side were telling them they were wrong.
Thirdly, they then did a partial u-turn and chucked loads of money at the problem. Just before a by-election. Ooops! Reinforcing that negative message of trying to buy votes. The thing about buying votes is that you have to appear not to be buying votes, but taking the action for high-minded reasons. Brown et al are too ham-fisted to carry that off. Chucking money at it also looks bad when the public finances are heading down the tubes, and doesn’t help to criticise the other party for proposing similar things.
All in all, I can’t see how they realistically could have made a greater mess of it. Lots of people are now convinced that Labour are liars, incompetent, wholly lacking in principle and corrupt. Frankly, they don’t even deserve to come in second, and it’s a shame the Lib Dems have been so inept that they haven’t managed to rub Labour’s nose in it.
Right on the money Mike. I thought we’d got past the first stage of grief is denial with the Labour sympathisers. I exempt valleyboy from that - he can clearly see what is happening. It’s reminiscent of the mood in the Conservative party around 94/5 just after Blair became leader, surely things aren’t this bad…………..oh yes they are that bad!
68 GeoffH. Turnout dropped 6 points from 92. On your analysis it should have increased.
69 Richard N. Conservative voters weren’t too averse to wielding the axe in 97 !!
82- Do skilled tradesmen in the UK have the same problem as France/Germany, i.e. that they are now being undersold by masons/plumbers/cabinetmakers, etc., from countries like Poland?
88 - This is the actual quote from Obama:
“John McCain says he’s about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, ‘Watch out George Bush — except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics — we’re really going to shake things up in Washington,’.That’s not change. That’s just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”
Clearly not a reference to Palin and the implication it is is just a cynical smear.
88 Read the full quote - he was referring to the Republican Party, not Palin. And McCain is already being called out for using the very same expression - about Hillary!! Pathetic schoolyard nonsense.
“Palin might be many things, but she’s not a pig.”
No — pigs are more intelligent than dogs.
97, schoolyard? Surely playground?
88 I mildly prefer Obama to McCain.
However, I did feel in the Obama versus Clinton battle, many of Obama’s supporters were highly misogynistic in their attacks on Hillary — and it’s depressing to see the same ugly strain of misogyny emerge anew against Palin.
Obama fighting backing on BBC News channel.
74. Nick, I agree!
I don’t think you are in disarray in the same way as Major’s Tories were.
In the Tories 1992-1997 there was a serious ideological split over Europe (as well as the usual internecine rivalry). Labour have no such split, for the very good reason that you have nothing to split over, since you guys abandoned any serious ideology or political morality several years ago (”I believe in referendums on principle, no I don’t, yes I do”, etc).
The only thing that matters to you guys is winning. F*** everything else.
What we are witnessing within Labour is, therefore, a classic Kremlin power struggle, a fight between people who don’t disagree on anything important, but just happen to hate each other. It’s not “disarray” - but it is vicious, and highly entertaining. And deeply self destructive.
Keep it up!
88..it is an extremely humorous comment and most importantly it is true!
74 - Nick, from the outside, to me that represents a moribund organisation. If you had some factions that looked like they generally cared then I think it would reflect better on your party, rather than this pathetic, inept wait till the defeat happens attitude. If history is anything to go by, wait for the divisions to rip open after the defeat, not before it, as 1979 showed.
The 10p tax was Labour punching poor people in the face. Labour may have stopped punching poor people in the face; it may even think it has offered them a soothing ice-pack; but voters - poor or not - remember Labour punching poor people in the face. Punching poor people in the face will be neither forgotten nor forgiven. Nor should it.
88- I was wondering the same thing. Here’s an article suggesting that perhaps the polls are starting to get Obama a bit flustered and have caused him to ratchet up his rhetoric post-RNC:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-oba.html
The ‘lipstick on a pig’ punchline was clearly a prepared remark and Obama must have been aware of its implications about Palin (indeed, that’s what makes it a funny line in the first place). But why he continues to fall into the trap of attacking Palin, the most popular of the four candidates on the major party tickets and not even Obama’s direct adversary, is a mystery to me. Somehow he seems blind to the dangers, let alone the foolishness, of delivering such an insulting line. I have doubted the significance of the PUMA movement from the beginning, but Obama may create a lot of PUMA’s himself by the awful implications arising from his own words. The one-two punch of media attacks on Palin plus those delivered by Obama and his campaign are increasingly likely to backfire on him.
[66] - The El-Nino cycle has a large effect both on hurricane formation [a warm El-Nino prevents hurricanes from forming because it creates greater wind shear in the appropriate places] and on winter European climate [but I forget which way round it is]. So you may well be right, with scientific research to support you.
However, the Met Office aren’t currently making such a confident prediction..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/seasonal/winter2008_9/
48. Jack W. Sorry for delay. My son made lightning visit to the old homestead.
I think everyone is now waiting for Palin’s ABC interview, and how poeple react to it. When is it going to be anyway?
31 The Conservatives are within striking distance of Labour in almost any seat with a Labour majority of 20% or less over a second-placed Conservative. That’s about 170 seats.
Remember that SUSA “poll” for North Carolina ??
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/about_that_north_carolina_poll.php
88 - Don’t fall for it, it’s a phrase he’s often used and one which McCain has used to refer to Clinton. Anyone trying to make something of it is not to be trusted.
“Campaigning in Des Moines, Iowa, in October, McCain had criticized the Democratic contenders for president for proposing costly universal health care plans. He had not examined Clinton’s health-care plan, he said, but it was “eerily reminiscent” of the failed plan she offered as first lady in the early 1990s.
“I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” McCain said of Clinton’s proposal.”"
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/obama_palin_lipstick_pigs.html
96. Well said. If this childish lipstick debate is the way the campaign is going to go (to go along with this Macca has just released an ad saying Barry is ready to teach under-sixes about sex) then US politics should hang its head in shame. Anyone remember the shameful Purple Hearys stuff thrown at Kerry last time?
My best guess is that this schoolyard attempt to focus on trivia by the GOP to avoid speaking about serious issues may well bounce back on them.
And I speak as someone who is in pretty long on Macca as the obvious value bet, and thinks he will win.
I hope to lose my money however!
96. That’s not how I HEARD and SAW it. The reference to fish was made before the lipstick remark, and besides Obama looked tired and Drawn as he said it.
95. Indeed they do S & S! As you can tell I am pretty anti- Immigration because it distorts the economy and destabilises the settled population. At times of economic hardship it magnifies the affect.
111- You’re completely missing the fact that the “lipstick” term has become famously associated with Palin given her use if it as the most enduring line from either convention. The implication cannot have been lost on Obama or his handlers. The McCain quote you’ve dredged up therefore has no relevance to the present Obama quote.
will this have an impact?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7608500.stm
111 - And if you want to see what disgusting campaigning is see McCain’s latest ad on educating children about the dangers of abuse, he seems to think by getting children to understand ‘bad touching’ that it’s a paedophile’s charter and that everyone who disagrees is their friend.
McCain deserves to be filleted on this one. Lipstick and pigs? get real.
96. Leaving out the question of intent, the preceeding senteneces to that lipstick quote in speech look to have been plagarised without attribution.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/09/10/did-obama-steal-his-lip-stick-on-a-pig-speech-from-a-political-cartoon/
115 - Come on, you really believe that? I await an explanation for McCain’s latest ad.
Stars and Stripes is a troll, ignore him
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alan_cochrane/blog/2008/09/10/more_trouble_for_gordon_brown_as_spin_doctor_paul_sinclair_resigns
Poor Gordon - no-one loves him anymore
1.”That is extremely worrying - it implies that Labour voters from 2005 have gone beyond passive disillusionment, but swung all the way to active opposition.”
Morus, that is exactly what we saw in last years Scottish elections.
61.The final sentence in that article is the most important one.
“But like every political leader he will have an Achilles heel – whether it’s his arrogance, ego or his lack of attention to detail – and it is up to the new Labour leader to find and exploit it.”
That is exactly the strategy that the new Labour leader should follow, its also one that the Scottish Tories are already adopting.
Only one problem, will Gordon Brown take his meddling mitts out of the mix and leave the SLP to get on with this strategy, or will he wreck it before it gets off the ground by continuing to try and obstruct the SNP administration in a petty and self defeating manner?
116. I doubt it. Another dissapointed politician wanting to diss his party.
106. I suspect they are just annoyed that someone like Palin is so popular. If she really is? I cannot for one minute understand why this gun loving, science questioning, pretty uneducated person is so popular, but then I don’t know America very well.
114. completely wrong if you support a free market economy. economics 101.
anti-immigration is a form of protectionism and distorts the economy. in times of economic hardship, economic migration is good, as the Poles go home again and unemployment does not baloon as employment falls.
120- I’ve been here a lot longer than you and most people here know me much better than you do. If you have anything informed or educated to add, I’m sure we’d love to hear it.
92
“All in all, I can’t see how they realistically could have made a greater mess of it. Lots of people are now convinced that Labour are liars, incompetent, wholly lacking in principle and corrupt. ”
and there you have it. The entire New Labour project laid bare.
I know Labour supporters dont want to believe this but it is honestly what the public think of you. Its what happens when power is the only goal…….
90. Game it out, and those three events would probably result in angry crowds demonstrating at the end of Downing Street.
Consider: a colder winter than recently: fuel poverty + energy prices = at least some hypothermia deaths plus more hospital admissions. Imagine the headlines. Gordo proclaiming that he’s going to lag your loft would garner nothing but contempt, rightly so. Then there’ll be the power cuts (already hints that we’re going to get those).
A moderate flu outbreak would overwhelm hospitals anyway without the added load of hypothermic oldsters (they only just managed last year when there was no significant number of flu cases).
Public sector strikes would be the cherry on the cake - delays in pension/benefit payments? Teachers, maybe hospital staff picketing?
Do you really think they’d be able to hang on?
Only if Lab MPs care more about their pensions and benefits than they do about their constituents. And if that’ becomes evident it won’t be insults they’ll be heaving at Gibson in Tesco’s, it’ll be tins of beans.
126. then act like a senior member of this community and stop the lying, misquoting and almost outlandishly smug dismissal of any fact presented to you that doesn’t conform to your political viewpoint.
107. Yes, it is just something I noticed! I have too much time on my hands!
125 If by that, you mean anti-all-immigration, I’d agree. If you mean anti-controlled-immigration, I wouldn’t.
120 Along with Morus, Sea Shanty Irish, Jack W, and Socrates, he’s one of the best-informed contributors on US politics, on this site.
129 You must be reading a different Stars and Stripes to most of us.
129- I won’t stoop to your level of ad hominem name-calling. And, unlike Dr. Palmer (with whom I have otherwise had no real occasion to quarrel), I will not call for your banning for launching such inappropriate and offensive personal attacks. I am confident that the character, or lack thereof, that you display here will be perceived and taken into account by others in evaluating your remarks.
131. from a purely economic point of view, it is simply matters of degree. lightly controlled immigration is mild protectionism, and no immigration is complete protectionism. it’s still protectionism.
there are of course other, political consequences of uncontrolled anything, and immigration is no exception.
134 A great deal of immigration is not actually driven by economic considerations.
133. S & S - There are a few strange LD/Labour people on here who cannot debate and so just abuse personally! They take it beyond a joke and it is neither necessay or very pleasant!
136. I’m a tory actually
Back to Kellner - at least an edited version of the article is online:
http://fabians.org.uk/images/stories/pdfs/fabian_review_autumn_kellner_for_web.pdf
56 - things can only get better?
OK, the VERY first thing I thought about when I heard Obama’s comment was that it was a reference to Palin. Not that he&#