The Battle for Number 10 Begins
April 5th, 2005
-
Poll boosts for the Tories and Lib Dems as the campaign opens
With Tony Blair due to announce the election date today four new polls this morning show that the race could be much tighter than was being forecast. All of them show Labour leads over the Conservatives to be on the decline and one has Michael Howard’s party five points ahead. The polls are with changes on the last surveys from each pollster are:-
NOP in the Independent has LAB 36 (-2): CON 33 (-1) : LD 21 (+2).
ICM in the Guardian has LAB 37(-3): CON 34 (+2): LD 21(+1).
Populus in the Times has LAB 37(-2): CON 35(+3): LD 19 (-1)
MORI in the Financial Times has LAB 34(-3): CON 39(+2) LD 21(nc)
All these polls took place following the controversial sacking and removal as a Conservative candidiate of Howard Flight which many pundits believed would do serious damage to the Tories. It clearly hasn’t and the the almost nil reaction on betting markets seems to have been the right one.
-
The Flight case shows that punters were much more in tune with public opinion than the pundits some of whom were talking last week of a “Tory meltdown”
It should be noted that ICM, Populus and NOP are telephone surveys which weight the responses by past vote recall and also prompt for party choice. The MORI poll is face to face and, as usual, the headline totals show only those who said they were “absolutely certain to vote” - a factor that has had the pollster showing better Tory figures than the other for several months.
For Labour the hope will be that a close race will galvanise their supporter and boost turnout.
For the Conservatives these figures are a huge boost for Michael Howard and his Australian campaign manager Lynton Crosby.
For the Lib Dems there will be relief that there is no other poll with a rating near to the 16% that CR had on Sunday and real optimism that they will be starting the campaign in a substantially better position than four years ago.
We’ll be carrying a betting reaction in our Campaign Countdown later this morning. There’s little doubt that there will be move to the Tories on IG Index and Spreadfair spread-betting markets.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Recent poll results suggest that Labour momentum is pretty much nil. Any thinking that Blair is getting cold feet, or is it too late to stop the train from leaving the station?
Pluggin in the new MORI poll into Baxter results in:
Lab 285
Con 281
LD 49
Op-ed by Frank Luntz — Republican focus group expert — in The Times yesterday suggests that Blair is possibly in real trouble.
What do people think?
Its not their momentum thats a worry but rather that they seem to be shooting blanks see e.g. the flight affair.
But I doubt TB can call it off - his stars on the wane and the only terms the party would accept a delay would be to have a go with Brown at the helm. TB’s many things but he’s not a team player - he want to have historic shot at a third term even if it risks the party going under!
I can’t help but wonder what Graham makes of all these polls, showing no weakening of the Conservative position in the wake of the Flight affair at all. I seem to recall him predicting massive damage a week ago. Should be …. interesting.
Oh, JV… Don´t you read what other people post?
The MORI poll is “dodgy”, because it takes into account only those “certain to vote” which gives a bias to unthinking Tories, who have already made up their minds without waiting for the evidence.
If you put the raw data into the Baxter machine, you get the following:
Lab 371
Tory 187
Lib Dem 58
And then you have to take into account any tactical voting or tactical voting unwind, which, I have argued before, will depend enormously on local factors, not only on the strength of the local Lib Dem campaign, but also on the extent to which the defending Lab MP is anti-Blair.
Why should Blair want to stop the process when he has such favourable figures in front of him?
I think Martin Baxter could have a lot of egg on his face come 6th May.
Oh, AHM…. No need to have a go at Graham like that - the Flight affair is in full swing still, but has been overshadowed by the death of Jim Callaghan, that of the Pope, the postponement of the Royal Wedding, the ballot fraud scandal in Birmingham…. You Tories have all the luck, don´t you? - as well as all the money!
But for the above factors, and the Easter holiday as well, you Tories would have well and truly sunk - and Graham proved 100% right.
But Flight lives on….
Did you not see the nice little piece by Ros Taylor in the Guardian… It went as follows:
……ways to stretch your candidate’s doorstep skills.
This one’s for your Tory candidate: “Like Howard Flight, I’m in favour of low taxation and small government. Do you agree?”
Do tell us how they coped - you can post comments here on the blog [to the Guardian, of course, not Mike]. We won’t be forwarding the names of offenders to Conservative Campaign HQ, but bear in mind that even Tory staffers occasionally visit the Guardian’s website.
Good fun, eh? I don´t agree with Flight, but then I´m a Lib Dem… Not my problem, AHM…. Over to you……..
Following on the comment by AH Matlock (5), I have never been fully convinced by the Baxter model. We are facing a series of elections in individual constituencies to elect our own MPs - as indeed is constitutionally correct - and uniform swings (both of the underlying pattern and of tactical movements) play havoc with those looking for a uniform national swing. But Martin´s calculator is fun though - but misleads the unwary, I think.
Are we in agreement on this one, AHM?
Howard Flight lives on, does he? In fact, he’s due to be replaced on Wednesday. He hasn’t affected our polling figures one whit.
I wasn’t having a go at Graham other than to point out that the ‘meltdown’ he was predicting has hardly come to pass, and we Tories hardly control events like the Death of the Holy Father, or of Lord Callaghan - before you start on something there.
And no, I don’t read the Guardian, that great bastion of socialist, egalitarian mendacity. Though I think I’ve used to to line a bird cage or two in the past.
7 - My response to 6 must have been caught in the spam filter and I can’t be bothered to re-do it at 5 in the morning, so hard cheese on that one.
I agree that the Baxter model is probably quite wide of the mark, namely because a uniform swing never happens, and secondly, it’s all based on figures from 2001 which was far from a normal electoral cycle. Others here have said in the past that they believe the H&N calculator to be more reliable. I suppose we shall see.
I’m happy to admit I was wrong about that one AH Matlock. Even I read things wrong sometimes, which I’m sure is scant consolation to you mere mortals
But I was also told by one of your standard bearers (Mr Richard Willis) that the LDs were getting squeezed and would become an irrelevance in this election. I also said repeatedly that I thought that the ’starting figures’ would be 38/33/20 which wasn’t that bad really hey AH - leaving out MORI (I can’t get my head around their figures - much like CR Research) I was 1.5% out on Lab, 1% out on the Tories and .75% out on the LDs - Shall I claim my fiver and be off 
You’re right though AH. I did think that the Flight affair (from a neutral standpoint) was playing badly for the Tories, but obviously not - or not in the short run anyway.
Anyway, assuming the phoney war is now over, we shall see where we are. I have said all along that I thought the Tories needed to be in the lead. Perhaps I was wrong about that - and a ’seeming’ bandwagon (I say seeming, because they have really only put on 3% at most apart from the MORI method) may be enough for them to have a good go.
I still think the ones to watch are the Liberal Democrats. They have quietly jostled their way back up to the starting line. They start this GE at 21% - the last 2 elections they have started at about 11-12 (97) and 13-14 (01) and have finished 4-5% higher. The poll bounce traditionally seems to kick in about 1.5 to 2 weeks in. The question is - will they get one this time? And if they do, how big will it be - I have 1 theory where if it does happen it will be bigger than ‘normal’ as people become more aware that the LDs stand a chance. Anyway - Labour and to a certain extent the Tories won’t want to see that, because it would put the cat amongst the pigeons.
One thing is for sure - my South West Poll will be interesting, with the Tories and LDs obviously both on the up - which one will win that little duel?
Isn’t this exciting now?
politicalbetting.com With Tony Blair due to announce the election date today four new polls this morning show that the race could be much tighter than was being forecast. All of them show Labour leads over the Conservatives to be on…
Graham & others, this is Bob Worcester’s comment on his poll today from his excellent MORI site
Electoral volatility and low turnout are plaguing politicians, pundits and pollsters as the ‘real’ election is about to begin. With voting day just a month from Thursday, reports of huge differences between one poll and another based on the ‘gap’ or ‘lead’ between Labour and the Conservatives disguises small changes between one poll’s findings and another. But comparing the same organisation’s polls over time, it is clear that public opinion is moving towards the Conservatives.
MORI’s poll from over the weekend shows that among those 55 percent who say they are ‘certain to vote’, the Tories now have a five point lead over Labour, 39 percent to 34 percent, while among those less likely to vote, or certain they will not, Labour has a ten point lead. Most of the volatility is swinging between the Conservatives and Labour, with the Liberal Democrats a pretty steady 21 percent, rising to 22 percent on a 60 percent turnout, and to 23 percent if the turnout miraculously rose to 70 percent, where it was, or above, in every election since the war save 2001.
And whereas in 1987 and 1997, a quarter of those who said they would vote said at the outset of the campaign they might change their mind, and a third said they might in 1992 and 2001, a massive 41 percent now say that although they think they’ll vote for one party or another, they are doubtful to the point of admitting they just might change their mind between now and the 5th of May. A disproportionate number of the ‘waverers’ who say they might defect are coming from the Labour camp, further bad news for New Labour. Worse yet is that while 74 percent of Tories say they are certain to vote, only 57 percent of Labour supporters say they are.
Just an aside. I note ICM is a 1500 poll not a 1000.
I am backing ICM in the election competition - against the ‘wisdom of crowds’ at the time that was going wholeheartedly for YouGov in what for me is the most interesting competition of all (c’mon you phone pollsters! Hey Mike?)
Does anyone have any opinion on whether the coverage of Tony Blair at Pope’s funeral will be beneficial to Labour or not? My theory is the funeral will pretty much block out the Tories from the headlines, and leave Blair with a good opportunity to display his media savvy statesmanship. Of course, maybe it will just remind people everything they dislike about TB…
the libdems usually get a bounce because they actually get a roughly equal amount of coverage for a change. I think LD opposition to Iraq has actually given them a much higher profile than normal and that the election campaign won’t deliver the boost it has done in recent years
That said, I think they may actually get a decent boost if Howard and Blair get involved in a particularly dirty fight. The LDs currently (and ironically) seem to be the party for those who don’t like political games
10 - Graham - I stand by what I said. Last year the Lib Dems reached 30% in some polls in the post-Brent East bounce. They have steadily fallen back and now are about 19-21% on average. If the Tories maintain momentum the Lib Dems will be squeezed as an irrelevance. Remember in 97 and 01 a lot of people voted Lib Dem as a “plague on both your houses” option, or in the South as an alternative to voting Tory. Give those people a reason to vote Tory again and they come back. This is what I am finding in Sutton and I know others are finding the same. I think if it goes well for us the Libs could end up with about 16-17% come polling day. I am very happy to be judged by my consistent line. I think I have so far broadly been proven right!
That doesn’t go against my theory Mike. (I don’t know if you were trying to say it did??) In fact if there is waivering going on and a small reserve of LDs in the ‘not committed’ to voting camp, then my poll surge theory for them is very possible.
Also, one scenario that Bob Worcester has not taken into account is the idea that the Tories are peaking. With their voters ready to vote today (their turnout must be close to its potential maximum)they now have to rely on winning more people over to maintain that gap. Labour on the other hand are going to have to whip their supporters down to the polls (another thing I have argued all along AH
). If Labour can get it together on the ‘Ground War’ front, then they have a chance of pulling away again - they still lead on the economy, just on taxes and public spending etc. accoding to ICM - The Tories are doing well in their ‘areas’. I think that TB is going to have to swallow all his pride (and there is some evidence that he is doing that) and let GB head up the election.
Richard you said that they would go into the election below 20%. I am not sure you have been proven right. I at least have the balls to say my prediction about the effect of Flight was wrong - now can we see the same sort ofcandour from you?
Not sure if anyone has noticed this but the polls that have the best shares for the Tories have the worst shares for ‘others’. Could it be that something methodological picks up UKIP/Veritas voters better in some polls than others? Do UKIP voters not answer the door to MORI?
And Richrd. If you check back the fall back was fairly rapid, and then followed by a consistent 18-22 pattern - with 1 or 2 outliers. In other words there has been no trend as you have described, more a maintenance of what they have. The Tories have gone up 2% and Lab down 1% - 2% since the winter.
17 Oh Graham you really are desperate arent you?!! “Tories peaking”! WHat evidence is there that we have peaked? We have not even started the campaign, we have had the Flight affair and STILL we are going UP in the polls. Charlie boy is looking more and more unfit and worn out and less and less visible as leader and the Libs are stuck at about 20% in the polls, with the big guns of both major parties yet to be brought to bear.
The LIb Dems simply dont have the resources locally or nationally to play in the big league. Now that they have moved beyond targeting a few seats to having to defend dozens they are struggling.
I have deliberately been calling friends in different parts of the country who are candidates or activists and they are amazed at the lack lustre campaign at local level being fought by the Libs. Yesterday in Sutton I spoke to one chap who had not seen a Lib Dem leaflet since last Autumn (and this is not uncommon). In Reading (for all the bravado of some on the “other side” the Lib Dem campaign is barely noticeable.
It is a surprise to me as well but the Libs are just not fighting a good campaign. Why on earth therefore should they get a “campaign bounce”?
The average for these 4 new polls is:
Labour 36.75%
Con 35.25%
LibDem 20.5%
My prediction has always been Labour 35-38%, Tories 30-33%, and the LDs 22-23%. I think we are still on course for that, as the Tory vote is pushed up by the MORI poll, which excludes too many people.
None-the-less if you input the poll figures into Baxter it gives Labour a majority of 70, with 359 seats, the Tories 204 and the LDs 53. Of course we know that Baxter doesn’t take account of targeting or tactical unwind - so I would be very surprised to see a Labour majority that large on that kind of vote.
The first 4 polls of the 2001 election, (conducted by MORI, ICM & NOP) polls gave an average of:
Lab 50.5%
Con 31.25%
LD 13.5%
There looks to be 2 main stories - how much support will the LDs take from Labour, and will differential turnout boost the Tories? The LibDems are currently averaging 7% more than they were at start of the 2001 campaign, the Tories are up 4% and Labour down a massive 13.75%.
As I say the Tories look slightly over-estimated, and whether the LDs will get an election coverage bounce, or whether they have already banked that in the pre-election period is still an open question.
Richard, you are delusional.
Of course there was a post by-election bounce - there always is. But we have consistently been above 20 for 3 years & we are at 20.5% now. As I said in my last posting this is 7% higher than the 13.5% we were polling at the start of the 2001 campaign.
Bullseye - nothing delusional at all. Last time the Libs gained a few % during the campaign and finished on 16.7% in the polls (18.8% actual). The Tories lost a few % during the campaign to finish on 30.4% in the polls (32.7% actual). I quite concede that the polls may underestimate the Libs by a couple of % but I still think they will finish on about 16-17% because this time the Tories will pick a few % during the campaign from the Libs. It is of course possible that the Libs will gain more from Labour and thus compensate but I see no sign of that yet, quite the reverse in fact. The Labour support that dallied with the Libs over Iraq is slowing drifting back home again. Thus in real votes the Libs could get 19-21% but lose seats net.
Others will agree that I have been consistent in saying that IMHO the Libs may get a higher % than last time but get fewer seats. They will lose in the South and pick up a few in the Mids and north.
Richard. I am not desperate in any shape or form. I am trying to ascertain the meaning of the polls, not just slag off my opponents. I haven’t said anything today that I haven’t said already - the Tories have done well to marshall their vote into readiness, whereas Labour have systematically failed to do so so far. The Liberal Democrats have held their own - despite your predictions that they were going to drop out the race.
With regards to your other claim about them not having the resources etc. In 1992 they put on 3% from the beginning of the campaign, in 1997 5% in 2001 5% regarding their poll positions. In other words they are the most ‘effective’ (and cost efficient) campaigners of the three (Labour tend to lose votes and the Tories stand still).
Moreover. There have been some interesting analyses of local by-elections that have shown the Lib Dems doing extremely well against both Labour and the Tories - so they are obviously doing some campaigning somewhere.
As for the Tories ‘peaking’, I didn’t say they had - I just said it may be a possibility. The Tory campaign hasn’t been about winning people over, but about energizing the base. They have done this quite effectively. I am yet to be convinced that the campaign has broader appeal than that - but I am always willing to admit I am wrong - are you Richard?
The real dilemma for Labour (and I should declare that I’m still knocking on doors for them) is that when Blair takes centre stage, the polls move away. The doorstep reaction is very much anti-Blair. It’s no longer about Iraq. They just don’t like the man. The reaction Frank Lunz perceived in yesterday’s Times chimes with what I perceive on the doorstep. It may be that these people will still vote Labour but they don’t do it with any enthusiasm. Admittedly this is safe seat Labourland and our candidate will win. The problem is that really it is inconceivable for Blair not to be at the centre of the campaign and that damages us. Another problem in safeseat land is that I don’t think I’m unique that as an activist I really don’t want our candidate to get in by more than a few votes. I want the voters to give a message to the party. The effect of this is the neighbouring marginal is getting nobody from here which would have been unthinkable. For me Labour will win as long as the turnout doesn’t slide too much. Particularly bad weather would worry me.
25 Graham - if I am proven wrong I will always try to back off gracefully!! But I honestly dont think I am this time. Kennedy is a poor leader and I think when he gets more exposure Lib Dem support may drift down a bit. We will see. I couldnt have predicted us starting the campaign with a 5 point lead in MORI, so who knows.
Kennedy’s poor leadership presumably shows up in The Times leadership poll today where he beats the others in every category?!
Richard. With regard to Kennedy. The polls say otherwise. He has consistently the only positive ratings of any leader, he has put his party into a far better electoral position than they have had since 83 with regards support. I know you don’t like him - it’s not your job to like him - he’s the enemy. But I think you would be foolish to underestimate him.
For be it foe me to argue your greater knowlage, but let us consider a few things there are a lot of angry people out there that will not vote Tory and will go LD but will that give the LD a greater % of seats no two elections are the same bet remember the SDP pilling up the votes in the wrong places.
Out of the 100 most marginal seats the Torys are second in 91 of them and LD 5 now there is no such a thing as a uniform swing but it is an indicater.
Just consider for a second is the reverse of 2001 happened? if there is tactical unwind? Labour only have to loose 80 seats can no one here see that happening?
Richard @ 24 - You provide no, absolutely no, evidence to support your assertion. there is no drift back to Labour - the big by-election bounce in Spet 2003 dissapted in a couple of months - but since 2002, the LibDems have consistently been at around 20% in the polls (the exception being CR, which has no tack record at all). Equally show me the polls which are showing you gaining from LibDems - I repeat the LDs are up 7% on 2001 & the Tories are up 4%. The anti-Labour vote is going to both of us - you have motivated your base but you have alienated the centre voters that you need for a majority coalition.
I don’t mind admitting to being biased, it’s obvious -I’m a candidate. What amuses me on this site though is some posts claiming to be from those taking a scientific and rational approach who nontheless end up with the interpretation that suites their own bias! Yes Graham! The best interpertation of the Lib Dems position is a phrase you used often against us - flatlining. You may be right, there may be a poll bounce for you as there was in 1997 and 2001 (but not in 1987, 1983, 1979, 1974 & 1970…) but there is also the counter agruement that since 2001 the BBC have tried much harder to give more airtime to the Lib Dems, so there is not that much of an extra ‘bounce’ to be had. And as Richard says above, the campaign machinery you have is used to a finely focussed effort in a couple of dozen seats. Lib dems have to defend at least 30 of their existing seats and yet they seem much more interested in trying to gain another 30 -so that is 60 ‘active’ battle fronts for them at the least. Any good general will tell you that an under resourced, spread out army fighting two fronts simultaneously is in for a drubbing.
Marcus - Flatlining at a 50% higher rate than we had last time - aint that bad.
27 - Richard, Can’t agree with you on your analysis of the Lib Dems. No evidence from local elections etc that they will be lower than last time. I strongly expect them to be at 22% (up 4% on 2001) come May 5th. But their extra support will be concentrated in the metropolitan seats in the North and Midlands + university seats i.e. damagaing Labour and not the Tories. I think they will get a small bounce in the campaign but not that great, as they have been a lot more visible over the parliament anti-war stance than either the 92 or 97 parliaments. My personal prediction is 64 seats - net gain of around 5 from the Cons, with the rest from Labour(Cardiff Central, B’ham Yardley, Bristol West, Rochdale, Oldham East, Cambridge(?), Aberdeen South - maybe a couple of other complete shocks). Usually in the past when the LD’s are forecast to make big gains (1974/1983) they disappoint, and vica versa (1997/2001).
Can any one link me to a website which has the top 100 targets of each political party, or more potently the Conservatives and Lib Dems?
I would be interested in viewing them.
Thanks
… and as for CK -you may well be right, the public like him but as a strategist he is very poor. Ask yourself - what would Paddy Ashdown have done this time - blagged about winning 100 seats/ - Or hunkered down and made sure he was secure in the 50 he has got already?
I see a Labour PPC has chosen today to defect to the LDs. Was Labours focusing so heavily on a tory deselected candidate such a good idea?
Labour candidate joins Lib Dems
A Labour parliamentary candidate has defected to the Liberal Democrats.
Stephen Wilkinson, formerly Labour’s candidate for Ribble Valley, said he was disillusioned with Tony Blair’s “increasingly authoritarian” party.
Mr Wilkinson is due to appear alongside Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy at a press conference in Manchester.
Mr Kennedy said: “When Labour cannot even retain the support of their own candidates, it is surely a sign of things to come.”
‘Anger’ at Labour
Mr Wilkinson said: “Until yesterday I was a Labour Party candidate - chosen by Labour to fight the general election.
“Today, I am announcing that I have left the Labour Party and am joining the Liberal Democrats.
“Like many former Labour voters and activists, I feel angry that Labour have become increasingly authoritarian and failed to safeguard civil liberties.”
He criticised the use of the threat of terror to push for house arrest and compulsory ID cards and to justify the illegal war in Iraq.
“Who could have thought that a Labour government would become a lapdog to George Bush’s right wing Republican administration?”
He praised Charles Kennedy’s Liberal Democrats as “honest and straightforward” but said the Conservatives are “neither principled nor credible”.
Mr Wilkinson will not be a parliamentary candidate, as the Liberal Democrats had already picked a candidate for the constituency.
The best posts on pb.com are from activists criticizing their own party. (See Mancunian above). Not in a petty way, but constructively–for example, the votes fraud in Birmingham could be described as ‘leaving an open goal’. But if tories/LDs here were to say, “but I don’t think we are well enough organised to score into it”, it is actually more interesting than (depairingly) pointing out that it is a story with ‘no legs’.
If there are good ways of presenting stories, it is definitely worth posting them here–this site is now widely quoted.
BTW, there’s a story in the London Standard that the Labour PPC for Ribble Valley has defected to the LibDems. Makes a welcome change from the previous treacherous Tory!
I’m just as partisan as Rick and Marcus (hope to do some ‘mutual aid’ for the former), but of course none of us yet know whether the LibDems will advance during the camapign. There’s absolutely no doubt that they have in the past, and that they begin this campaign at a higher level than in 2001. But there are also plausible arguments (much higher exposure over the last 4 years, possibility that the Tories may advance beyond 34% if the Labour campaign continues to stutter, CK’s performance etc etc.). But we will know soon enough. Must say, I have really enjoyed this thread with robust argument but no personal sneering. We like this.
UK Future at 35 - go to keele univeersity website. http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge05.htm
Paddy Ashdown would have killed you and Rik with his bare hands before breakfast… and then gone on to take another 50 seats.
Jon 42 - That comment is a bit over the top. Can we all calm down a touch. There is no evidence that the former LD leader did this.
I admired Ashdown. I genuinely think it was his leadership that got the Lib Dems ‘in amongst it’ in the Tory fallout from Majors Government and was the main reason they did so well in 1997. I have a lot of Lib Dems friends (don’t tell CCO) and they all agree - CK is a disasterous leader with a lemming strategy this election. There was a serious chance he was going to be ousted last year and replaced by Campbell but the Leicester result put paid to that. I’m sticking to my view that the Lib dems will lose seats disproportionately to their vote share -a reverse of their gaining seats in 1997 disproportionately to their voter share.
I live in the Ribble Valley seat. Nigel Evans MP must be delighted. Labour never did too well in this seat, but they will now be in chaos.
The Lib Dems are usually second, but I cannot see them increasing their vote substantially - the man who had real personal following for them, has decided to fight Rossendale instead.
As such Nigel Evans majority should remain stable or increase from the 11000 level.
re S 38. If we are cutting and pasting a story from a news source can we indicate that source and provide a link. Many thanks.
Oh and thanks Marcus for the website link.
re 46
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4411185.stm
I think you are all sadly mistaken if you think the Howard Flight is over. Given that Flight didn’t get on at all with Michael Howard personally, there should be more fireworks in the next 4 weeks. He still has a role to play and he will fight tooth and nail in the courts. Of course, the truth is that the Flight affair has exposed the incoherence of Tory policy on lower taxes. That will be their downfall. Entertainingly, and in a blessing for us all, the personality-less Michael Howard will have to retire after the campaign for fear of falling off the stage a la Bob Dole at the 2009 election. Goodbye!
PS. Must be careful here, but the BBC story about the Labour PPC’s defection also mentions that he was “disappointed” about not being re-selected for his seat on Lancashire County Council. Whether the two are in any way related is….
Re: Conservatives ‘peaking’. One interesting feature of the Mori poll, commented on by Bob Worcester, was that as many as 40% of people(far higher than usual) may change their mind by polling day, the large majority of them Labour. I think people on this site are getting far too hung up (inevitably I suppose considering Rik’s position) on speculation about the true levels of Libdem support, and where it is concentrated, when the true story, from the polls anyway, is that the Labour vote is incredibly soft and in potential danger of imminent collapse!
Why have these people not responded thus far to Labour ’scare stories’ about a Conservative government? If it is because they don’t see what there is to be scared about then Labour could be in real trouble, if it is because they don’t believe the Tories can win then they may be able to claw them back on board.
Alex 51 - I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. I was going to write the same thing but the need to get a bet on before price changes too precedence. I’m buying the Libs Dems and buying the Tories on the spread markets.
A most interesting discussion. And I agree with David Kendrick that this site is at it’s best when it isn’t proselytizing but analysing and also that Mancunians post was a particularly interesting one.
As a Labour voter who has just put money on them getting over 62 seats I must admit to being concerned! The poll that worried me was MORI and not because of the topline figures but from reading the smallprint. Indeed if it wasn’t a rogue it’s difficult to see how Labour can overcome the fact that they just don’t have anywhere the minimum 36% of the vote that the winning party is going to need.
362 rather than 62 I hope Roger!
If Blair is such a turn-off as Mancunian says it will be interesting to see what effect a few days of Blair in Rome, Blair with Chas and Camilla and Blair launching election campaign does to the next polls?
53 Depends what you mean by winning, you mean a majority on a UNS right? On that score Labour i think would still be the largest party even MR Wells has Labour largest by four seats, Bob Worcester by 27? Unless of course you regard having to take CK into Govt with you as akin to a defeat. On the other hand this is the first time these new fangled computer targeting systems haver been used god only knows what impact they’ll have if any.
Sorry I meant an overall majority of 62!
52 - What is your logic for that Mike? It seems to me that backing the Tories AND the Libs seems like an unnecessary risk when you consider that the two are likely to be competing against each other in most LibDem marginals. If the Tories make any improvement at all it’s going to be very difficult to see any upside for the LibDems (or is your Libdem bet a ‘trading strategy’ in the prediction of higher poll ratings during the campaign?
55 Pope may possibly help his statesman image but i doubt it’ll register a ripple in the polls, if he dared to try and milk it the dangers would be huge if it backfired so i doubt he’ll try as for Chazza and his lady well i imagine most people will be at B&Q or wherever they like enjoying the nice weather. Times have moved on since 1981.
Mike - my apologies. That was intended as a joke! Actually I was following Tony Banks “I never insult Paddy Ashdown - he can kill a man with his bare hands.”
58 - Sorry “unnecessary risk” is the wrong term. It probably actually reduces the risk but therefore reduces the potential profits. So it increases the risk of not making any money
Marcus. I haven’t used the flatlining line for ages. I think, however, that Bullseye has made a point that your/Rik’s line doesn’t take into account. The LDs are already 2-3 points up on 2001. It would seem bizarre (and I have made this argument before and proved that historically it doesn’t happen) that a party increases its vote but loses seats it already holds. It is therefore completely logical to assume that the LDs will make gains.
As for Paddy Ashdown v Charles Kennedy. I think it is too early to call. Kennedy made a smart decision tactically by disassociating the LDs from Labour - it was that relationship that caused Ashdown to throw in the towel as I recall - and has taken a more ‘oppositional’ stance over the last 3-4 years. If Kennedy hadn’t taken that decision, then the LDs would be in a much weaker position than they are in now - no one likes a ‘poodle’ (see TB and Bush).
I know the Tories dislike Kennedy - but as I said before - you would be quite foolish to underestimate a man who has taken his party to their highest number of seats since the 20’s and has steadily increased both the party and personal poll ratings. You may not like him, but a section of the electorate obviously does.
As for this continuous attack on my ‘neutrality’. How do you know what ’suits’ me? I speak on this site as a bettor, and my views on the Tory party have been confined to that. I must admit that I have been surprised that the Tories campaign has been as effective as it has, but I haven’t changed my opinion that it has a weakness, in that it still relies on Labs (and to a certain extent Libs) staying at home. I am still not sure that will happen this time.
61 - Alex, Mike’s strategy is consistent with the following hypothesis:
Lab voters switch to LD (Cons gain Lab/Con marginals, shores up TV in Lib/Con marginals)
Con/Lib zero sum seat swapping via targetting etc equalling out
Libs take some seats from Lab
Therefore, Libs net gain, mainly from Lab. Tories also from Lab. Profit on both.
I doubt a hung parliament would last for six months so I’m talking about a majority. As for the Baxters’ and the Wells’(apostophe in the right place?)calculations I take the simple view that the winning party will need between 34-36%.
Mori guy is on Radio 5 at the moment
63 - Tabman. Libs need to gain 13 to make a profit.
Mike - instead of buying LD and Con why not sell Labour. Or better still you can trade Labour 1-60 seat majority at 4 on betfair 324-353 seats is a pretty good range I’d say and much better risk profile than selling a party the calculators expect to get 370.
64 - Roger, if you’re using the definite article you don’t need apostrophes. Without them it should look like: “As for Baxter’s and Wells’ calculations … ”
No doubt John O will now leap in and correct my poor comprehensive-educated attempt at didacticism!
64 Really didn’t Sunny Jim go three years with no majority? If GB did replace TB as could well happen in such a scenario unles they are really well eg 3s0 seats short i imagine he’d want to get his feet under the table and maybe have a budget to try and secure himself before going again, as well as giving time to lift party morale and re organise by bringing in his people eg Balls, Whelan and booting out Blairs eg Campbnell and Millburn, but we’ll see io still think the odds favour Tony.
65 Let us know what he says. Cheers.
Interestingly someone just sold Tories to me at 200 on spreadfair…
…and someone sold me LDs at 66.5.
72 plus posts by 10 o’clock .. what’s the ‘betting’ that this thread will set a new record today?!
OK - given everyone is getting over-excited, how about a little crystal ball gazing?
Assuming Rik, Marcus et al are actually more right than even they know, what do we make of the following scenario?
Let’s assume continual erosion of Lab support, anti-Lab TV, Lib Dems flatline at 20% due to poor CK campaign, final outcome:
Con 38%, Lab 32%, LD 20% - 5% anti-Lab TV (in Lib box)
Baxter gives us Con 323, Lab 241, LD 51. One short. The Cons do a deal with the UUP and DUP, say 12 seats so a majority of 24 (?)
Now - is there not a widely predicted crash on the way? Say this takes a couple of years to materialise. Tories blamed for economic mismanagement, coalition falls apart, Gordon brown wins another landslide in subsequent election.
Be careful what you wich for
The thread on here relating to the LibDems is interesting. I simply don’t see them net losing seat to the tories when their poll rating is already 4% higher at @21% at the start of the campaign than the 17% they finished at 01 , let alone any media bounce they historically gain.
The resources arguement is also a fallacy . Yes they have to devote resources to their marginals , but they had to do it last time to win them ! Also I understand they have more money in their election war chest than ever before, remember the full page ads of a week or so ago. When did they last do that.
Kennedy is also an interesting character - chat show Charlie etc, yet the public like him and Howard can only dream of his leadership rating. One other factor will help the LibDems , superficial as it may appear - the Kennedy baby - expect extensive positive coverage of the event , the good news human angle story of the election.
In all I believe the spred betting range for the LibDems is correct - around 65-70 , my own veiw is more at the top of the range with the Lib Dems making a net gain of a dozen or so from the tories and around half a dozen from Labour and losing their by-election gains and Shrewsbury.
Cunning move from the Tories. Howard pretending he’s PM and effectively ‘launching’ the election campaign leaving Blair trailing in his wake
Tabman,
Someone somewhere is always predicting a crash, I don’t pay any attention to these claims. According to some “experts” the UK property market should have collapsed about 2 years ago, errr it hasn’t.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=WLZRKOFNUSFQZQFIQMFSM54AVCBQ0JVC?xml=/opinion/2005/04/05/do0502.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/04/05/ixopinion.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=11339
Tories must be worried about the Lib Dems if they’re having to write propaganda pieces like this
Wonderful name, though, Clemency Burton-Hill … has the ring of Hampstead to me 
Tabman - an interesting post -’The Nightmare win…’ it’s what could have happened to Labour if they had won in 1992 and it’s an oft speculated scenario at Tory conference late night ‘what if?’ drinking sessions. IMO it’s not likely because in the real world even if a crash did come it would happen sooner rather than later (as in 1981/82) in which case the previous Govt would take (most) of the blame. Of course the correct response is that under Conservatives a crash would in any case be avoided…
67 Jon. Mine is a stupid emotional decision. I like to buy the Lib Dems - it makes me feel better even if this means buying the Tories at 203 to have the same broad effect as selling Labour.
I’m also on the Betfair majority market.
76 - alex, link?
77 - Andrew P - yes, you’re right, but this came from a source whom I repspect. He’s already built up one company worth £200m based on software design and is currently setting up another that will produce trading software. As such he’s moving in some fairly elevated circles. The gist of it was that sooner or later the US budget deficit will catch up with it, primarilly when China decides that it no longer wants to trade oil in dollars. The economics of it went over my head (perhaps some of the more ecoonomically literate can expand), but he was advising me to get into commodities!
76 What move?
[74] 323 seats would be in effect an overall majority as long as Sinn Fein remain abstentionist. Even in your scenario I don’t think they would take their seats. The bar at this election is really about 321.
79 I don’t know about a crash, but we’ve had twelve successive years of economic growth. Sooner or later, there will be a recession. This may not be a good election to win.
True Lorcan - you wouldn’t fancy trying to govern off 323 seats without at least an informal arrangement with minor parties though.
83 - Lorcan, good point about the Shinners.
81 - BBC News now
More Labour “dirty tricks” …. This e-mail was sent to Conservative candidates in London
28 Middle Lane
London
N8 8PL
Daytime tel: 07654625350
Sat Apr 2 2005
Dear xxx
I am working on compiling a guide for voters on the stance of candidates from various parties are taking on key European issues and I wonder if you would take the time to answer a few of my questions.
Please ignore this letter if you have seen it before - but I am attempting to get answers from everybody.
A few people have asked how I intend to use the information and who I represent. My aim is to make views known on the internet, so that everyone who is interested will be able to see who are the true Eurosceptic candidates and make their decisions about voting on that basis. I am not writing to you as a representative of anybody else.
I am trying to get beneath the surface of the party’s slogans and soundbites and find out what people really think. For instance, my personal view is that the Conservative Party’s pledge to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy is unlikely to ever be effective unless it is backed up by the explicit recognition that that approach can only be effective if backed up by a preparedness to leave the EU.
So, my questions to you as a Conservative candidate are:
1. As above, if forced to choose between continued enforcement by the European Court of Justice of our treaty obligation to the Common Fisheries Policy and a Conservative government’s policy of an independent policy for fisheries by Britain, will you support British withdrawal from the European Union?
2. Will you support Britain becoming like Norway - inside the single market but outside the EU’s political structures?
3. Following the exit of Robert Kilroy-Silk - the only serious ex-Labour figure involved with UKIP, would you support a campaign to encourage the very many Conservative members (and voters) who joined the United Kingdom Independence Party to return to the Conservative fold, if necessary by ensuring a formal role inside the Conservative Party for former senior Tories like Roger Knapman?
4. A large number of Britain’s employment, social and health and safety laws are determined within a framework drawn up by the European Union - would you support a Conservative government taking a similar stance on this issue as on Fisheries - seeking a renegotiation that would allow a British withdrawal?
5. Would you support the Conservative Party joining an ‘no’
campaign on the European Constitution that included the broadest range of those opposed to the treaty signed by Tony Blair?
As it appears that an election may be called in a matter of weeks, I would urge you to reply to this letter as soon as possible - a simple email would suffice.
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth Knight
For someone who professes independence it seems strange her address is Barbara Roche’s constituency office in Hornsey & Wood Green.
88. lol
I agree with Alex, 51.
The Labour vote is very soft. Any improvement in Lib Dems will come mainly from Labour. If these non-Mori polls are right, putting Labour support at around 37% that means Labour has lost around 1 in 8 of its voters from last election. Do we really believe that only 1 Labour voter in 8 will either not bother to vote or will vote for another party? I would put the figure much higher, more like around 1 in 5. I also don’t think it is believable that Tory support has barely improved. In other words I believe the Tories are already ahead and that Mori poll looks more realistic.
[88, 89] Might be genuine, the CLP offices occupy the ground floor and there are flats above…
A few comments from the Liberal Democrat point of view. I really think that Rik Willis, Marcus Wood and Alasdair Matlock are whistling to cheer themselves up.
From my perspective, I have never seen a Lib Dem campaign team so well prepared for the election. We have more people on the ground, more money and a much higher poll rating at the start of the campaign than I can ever remember (and I first campaigned in 1979). As for the disparaging comments about Charles Kennedy, I have never seen him so sharp- far from being tired, he is as excited as the rest of us. I have also been in many of the seats where the Conservatives are hoping to make gains from us. Again, more organized than I have ever seen- more canvasssing completed, more literature (and better) delivered than ever.
The discipline of the targetting process is not being undermined by anyone- we have set our clear priorities. The electorate is volatile and we see some real opportunities for remarkable results. We have clear water on Iraq, ID cards and Civil Freedoms between us and the other two parties. We are energized and ready. Fellow posters- I am off to fight Wycombe in the Lib Dem interest and this is probably my last post before May 5th. I have enjoyed our discussions. I wish everyone well, and look forward to the post-election party.
Best of luck James!
92 James - wishing you a good campaign.
All we need now is a pep-message from Lord R
91. It *could* be a coincidence, but then my local parish priest *could* be the next Pope…
re 95 Tabmman. Lord Chris Rennard - the Lib Dems CEO and campaign head - is, I understand a Politicalbetting regular and, it has been suggested to me, often post comments here.
97 …. Is he kinkel with two l’s??
In defence of Charles Kennedy he’s gone three for three so far today.
(i) the Labour Ribble Valley candidate’s defection. (Probably been sitting on it a while; smart to use it today.)
(ii) spending launch day in northern cities, implicitly going after Labour votes/seats. This really is what the LDs should be doing; they’ll never have a softer Labour vote to eat into.
(iii) They’ve placed a few web ads (saw one on the Indie site) attacking Labour by showing Blair pictured with Bush. Every shot of those two together wins the LDs votes from Labour. It should be in the corner of every LD ad between now and polling day.
I don’t think this Labour/Lib Dem defection in Ribble Valley will have much of an impact. It is a seat that is hardly going to change hands at this election. It is just a stunt and I suspect it will blow over very quickly like the Flight affair. I think holding a press conference it CK might be a bit over the top though, if it did have an effect it would probably be one of backfire rather than something that is going to benefit the LibDems.
Asistotle: As a result of our own local research, I have edited my candidate’s election address to make sure references to the “Labour Party” now read “Tony Blair’s Labour Party”
100 - Dave, an alternative viewpoint is that it sends a message to disillusioned Labour voters along the lines of “Are you thinking what I’m thinking?”, to pluck one phrase randomly from the air
Of course the defection is “just a stunt”.
That differs from 90% of what the country’s going to be fed over the next four weeks…how?
At least it’s a good stunt, and it’s aimed where the LDs need to be aiming: at a soft Labour vote.
102 - that’s a very individualistic interpretation of a well known phrase, Tabman
98 - well, IIRC Kinkel with 2ls did make a prediction when he first posted. Around 70 seats I think.
101. Very wise. As a Conservative you can’t really use the Blair/Bush line of attack the way the LDs can, but people get the
message.
The election addresses TB is going to be featuring in are Tory/LD ones.
10-5 - indeed I reprint it in full:
I’ve got to say that this is one Tory who is filled with dread at our prospects in the election . I well remember last time the sense of (false) optimism that pervaded last time . One activist friend of mine in Torbay confidently predicted overturning the 13 ? vote Libdem majority into a 5000+ Tory gain !!! Result Libdem 5000+ maj . In my own seat of Wellingborough , we were utterly confident of knocking off the 250 vote Lab maj into a 2500+ maj for us !!! Result Lab maj 2500 !!! An activist friend of mine in Wellingborough told me last Friday that for all our effort recently we would be lucky to shave the lab maj to 1250 , and he was an optimist !!!
The campaign sofar reminds me so much of 2001 . Wild optimism mixed with populist policies Once again it’s asylum seekers, immigrants and now gypsies ; I’m waiting for the cut in fuel duty ,its’ got to come soon . Oh god and I just know we’re going to hit the buffers . A couple of political gaffes from the far too honest Oliver Letwin plus the reappearance of the Vulcan mixed with Labour repeating old Widders something of the night qoute about MH and ……..better pass the cynanide…
As for the Libdems once they get entrenched they’re like limpits. Frankly unless you unseat them first time round they’re buggers to get rid off . Can’t think of too many who have lost their seats once they’ve won 2 elections . Tory optimists look away now , this is my prediction : Con gain 15-20 seats from Lab , Libdems gain 15-20 seats from Con and 5-10 seats from Lab and so Lab lose 20-30 seats overall . Seat allocation :
Lab 370
Con 170
LibDem 75
Others 30
106 - I can confirm that there’s a lovely TB/GB picture in our election address.
99 Frank Luntz said the same in the Times yesterday that all the LibDems needed to gain Labour votes was a poster of a beaming Blair gazing on a smirking Bush with Slogan need we say more throughout the Country.
Kinkell’s first couple of posts and what happened subsequently is one of the great mysteries of our time.
Why all the fuss over these latest polls, they are all still within the +/- 3 margin of error.
110 - a blossoming of a hidden talent, shall we say?
Like others here I am surprised at the lack of understanding of the strength of the Lib Dem position:
1 They go into the campaign 2 points higher than they won last time.
2 They usually go up 4-5% in the campaign.
3 CK is popular across the board and particularly with swing voters.
4 They have more money than previously.
5 They have doubled the size of their national campaign team ad their network of campaigns officers compared to last time.
6 They held nearly all their ‘97 gains with increased majorities last time and have built strong local organisations in most of them.
7 They selected candiadtes in their new target seats early and have built up strong campaigns in this new range of seats.
And all this against a backdrop of dropping popularity for Labour and little upward movement from the Tories.
Finally, and most pertinent to this site, the money is going on the Lib Dems doing far better thann all the polls and pundits predict.
I am now looking forward to hearing Rik’s explanation of how Paul Burstow held his seat with a substantial majority after the event;-)
107 , Tabman , so Baron Kinkel is Lord Renard . Are you of to LibDem HQ to claim 5 quid for your election funds ?
TB on his way to see Liz, according to BBC tickertape.
111 , Burbachchris , Oh don’t spoil our fun !!
Someone will be doing another “impressions” posting soon at this rate
“That said”, Ben is being very quiet.
111 - because the margin of error on four polls combined is not +/- 3%, presumably
Reading the Telegaph commeeeent, pinted out by Tabman (78), I greatly enjoyed that last twoparagraphs…
“The fact that cynicism towards the Government is so widespread means there may well be others in my artsy, cosmopolitan and avowedly liberal circle who are harbouring similarly treasonous plans [to vote Tory]..
I’d wager that none of us, however, will be brave enough to admit them out loud. I’ll certainly be keeping my mouth shut over the dinner table. While the threat of social and familial exclusion remains very real, my imminent transgression, dear reader, must remain our little secret.”
It´s like Rik posing as a defector from the Lib Dems, isn´t it? Not that he has gone that far so far…….
110 , Alex , West Indian old holbine I think !
I did read this critique of the Populus poll in the Times which might suggest that my bet is safer than I’d thought;
“More than two thirds of the public expect Labour to win an overall majority. This includes more than half (54 per cent) of Tory supporters, fewer than three in ten of whom expect their own party to win. More than half the public (55 per cent) would prefer a Labour government, with just a third wanting a Tory administration. A third of voters are disappointed with Labour but still prefer it to the Conservatives”.
harking back to the Luntz article - a winning Lib Dem slogan would seem to be “Vote Blair, get Bush”!
122 - unless printed in the Sport where it could be construed as an election bribe
MORI poll only quoting figures for those absolutely certain to vote seems very dodgy to me - data mining rather than a serious analysis.
Tone’s in the Palace (spotted by Sky TV helicopter hovering above at this moment)
Time for those who bet on May 5th to collect, I think; commiserations to the others.
78. The authress is an ex-st. Paul’s and Westminster girl (fondly remembered by the Westminster boys I believe) and failed actress - I think she briefly starred in Sky One’s Dream-team. I suppose that counts as an ‘artsy background’….
125 - indeed. I’m glad I was around on Sunday when we had some generous odds to take up.
Ah, failed actresses! “Mr Moore, I’m ready for my op-ed.”
124 , Robert , Tone’s in Buck House delivering a toast rack for Chuck and Cammy’s nuptuals ?
If TB was delivering his resignation and advice HM send for Gordon, Labour would be at 48% by midnight.
Labour supporters, be honest: don’t you just wish…
126, 128 - see http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm0123779/
My Tabland supervision partner was at Westminster with Helena Bonham-Carter (good Liberal name ;)), perhaps they specialise in producing thespians.
126, 128 - see http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm0123779/
I understand one of the polls has extensive polling on the party leaders. Would someone post a link or reproduce the figures please ?
125 - did you get any of the 1.3 on offer on betfair two days ago Robert? 30% in 2 days! - just wish i had more in the bank
130 if a Labour supporter is prepared to consider assasination, GB might still get the chance to take over. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
131 - the Tories should be getting her to front their election campaign asap
132 - Jack. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1555563,00.html
If the Tories dont win this time (which they wont) it will not be through lack of trying. This morning I have had my fourth leaflet (paid delivery) from them in about two weeks (Richmond Park). As for Rik and Marcus at 8 O’Clock in the morning especially Rik they should be leafletting the commuters on their way to work. The question is for all PPC’s in winnable seats, do you want it badly enough?
Its gone live!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/vote2005
136 , Alex , Many thanks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/vote2005 is now live complete with the Peter Snow swingometer
131 etc daddy is also a Director.
The PM doesn’t miss an opportunity to make a speech, does he?
It is going to be absolutely fascinating to watch the next 4 weeks unfold
Listening to TB’s statement in Downing Street now, and what am I hearing? “I”…”I”…”I”…no Labour Party…no the Government…no “we”.
Ill-advised, but typical.
How was the speech by TB then.
I like the BBC bus
Today’s Politicalbetting “Balance of Money” Prediction - Labour majority of 54. See new story.
Peter Snow saying hung parliment with 5% tory lead
Average of polls would give TB approx 60 majority
I must say Broadband is marvelous, i’ve been watching live bbc news online and posting comments on here at the same time. Anthony King say Tories not able to break thru 30-34% celing despite labour falling in polls.
130 - personally, yes, replacing TB with GB would get me back to Labour instead of voting Lib Dem.
Re.130 Have to be honest I would much prefer GB as leader not just a left right thing I think he has far more of a vision.
Re.149 Thats what my mother said yesterday!
Labour’s inquest is going to be an absolute hoot…
Anyone know when we get the manifesto launches?
Tabman at 131. She seems to be averaging a small part every three years. She should be writing articles for the Lib/Dems.
Disd anyone notice that Mr Blair said “he is looking forward to meeting the Village People”
In South Dorset!!!!
157 - Fireman, Policeman, Red Indian, Cowboy, PPC
156 Hello Peter! Or rather, for Mr Blair, perhaps Hello Sailor!
Perhaps he wants soem new recruits …
149. What are you saying exactly?
Can I go all the way back to a point raised at 10. above which I have just read? It concerns the likelihood of LDs picking up as the election goes on.
I note that they have tended to do this in the past and I have profited financially from anticipating this. I’m not entirely sure they will do so this time. They certainly start from a much higher base but doesn’t that mean that further progress becomes increasingly difficult? Aren’t they increasingly faced with the task of digging into bedrock Labour and Tory support? For that reason, I guess that this time they will not move up much - maybe one or two percentage points - although I will be very surprised if they drop back. If I am right, they should finish up with about 70 seats and they would probably regard that as perfectly satisfactory.
I agree it is possible that they will bridge the credibility gap and do very much better but my instincts tell me that 22% or so is about as high as they can go.
I’d be interested to hear any views on this. (Sorry to join the thread so late - been away.)
Dear Innocent Abroad - How naive (re 91) -the same email has gone to the Conservative PPC in my marginal seat in Lancashire - twice both times the addresses dont exist!
Labour Dirty Tricks are clearly going to be the hallmark of his campaign
Peter (161) asks:
[As the Lib Dems do increasingly well in the polls], “aren’t they increasingly faced with the task of digging into bedrock Labour and Tory support?”
This is a good question, except that, as has been pointed out often on this site, “bedrock support” (aka party tribalism) is increasingly on the wane. So that makes it much easier for the Lib Dems to do relatively well.
Re [92] My Blog is up and running for those armchair observers who won’t be out campaigning:
http://www.wycombelibdems.org.uk/james.html
All the best
161, Peter the Punter , You’ll have seen Neil @113 , James @92 and my 75. Essentially I think the LibDems will do well this time @70 seats . The fascinating time will be if they start to move from the current 21% to around 24/25% within the next fortnight, with the media bounce they will now get. If that occurs all bets are off and the final fortnight will be great fun for us but hell for the party hacks on here. Then you will hear rapid attacks from both tories and labour.
Thank you John (163) and Jack (165) for your interesting comments.
I agree with you both. ‘Tribalism’ does seem to be on the wane and yes, if the LibDems do get a flier and push up into the mid-twenties in the early days of campaigning, we could be into a whole new ball-game.
I’m still sticking with my guesstimate of about 70 LD seats but the situation is very fluid, so I could easily be a long way out.
Cheers and thanks again.
Tabman @ 68 - the use of apostrophes you have given is the one the Chicago Manual of Style specifically advises against - using ’s and ‘ in the same sentence. They advise this should be “Baxter’s and Wells’s”…
167 - (i) it’s an American book and (ii) I put in a disclsimer
Which decent school did you go to?
Chrisco - Anglo-Polish Treaty
83 - SF are almost certainly going to pick up Newry and Armagh, which means 321 is the target for a majority (and they may even take Foyle as well, meaning 320 will be enough).
168 - I think Chrisco is also of our decent alma mater!
170 - yes, though as I said above, no one really wants to be governing that tightly without at least some arrangement with other parties. Wilson just about managed 1964-66 though.
Re. 8, AH Matlock, what a pity you don’t read The Guardian. You’re missing out on all the (unintentional) laughs provided by Polly Toynbee… Toynbee-bashing (like Hari-bashing) is a sport which often unites Tory and Labour posters at this site.
Re 172. I don’t think anybody’s ever written a good word about Polly Toynbee on the site. Probably the same goes for Hari as well.
172. Hari actually means ‘prick’ (as in ‘needle’) in Japanese…
171. I am indeed a proud Churchillian!
174 - ah, I was just across the road from you at Fitz. Is the Hari thing really true? I hesitate to believe something so perfect?
I think Hari once got a positive mention for his surprisingly reasonable performance on QT. His less reasonable stances (whether on the supposed reactionary snobbery of calling people chavs, the Green Party being ‘more Eurosceptic than UKIP’, and his ill-informed comments on British governments supposedly ‘arming’ Loyalist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland) have been justly savaged.
174 Churchill: “I’m a Liberal. Always have been.”
Re. 171, book value, I remember that Wilson manoeuvred shrewdly to make a Liberal MP (Herbert Bowden) deputy speaker when Labour MP Horace King replaced Hylton-Foster as Speaker in 65, so that the parliamentary arithmetic didn’t become even more unfavourable for Labour.
179 - interesting. In a sense it was simpler in those days. Every member of the 1964 parliament was Labour, Conservative and Unionist, or Liberal. So the majority was the majority. I suppose that made maintaining discipline easier, since the consequences of rebellion were stark, but Wilson did pretty well to hold on without appearing to lose control.
It is a very loose translation of the word, I’ll admit!
Richard @178. Herbert Bowden was Labour MP for Leicester South West and at the time was Leader of the House of Commons. I don’t think there was another MP of the same name. I thought that Wilson actually persuaded a Tory MP to become Deputy Speaker so that Labour’s majority would not be affected. But as usual, I may well be wrong on this.
“All Our Yesterdays….”
Re. 179, there was talk (when IDS was leader) of the old Tory-Unionist link being restored, but nothing ever came of it. Before February 74 (when the anti-Sunningdale Unionists won eleven of the province’s twelve seats), Unionists were, according to Austin Mitchell, just known as ‘Tories with funny accents’ (Robin Chichester-Clark, brother of James, was a junior minister in the Heath govt).
BV. True, but Wilson was forced to abandon steel nationalisation (a manifesto commitment) because of the opposition of Desmond Donnelly and Woodrow Wyatt! And they - heaven help him - were Labour’s majority!
179 - Does that mean the official unionists (then part of the tory party) held all 18 NI seats?
There weren’t 18 (the number of seats relative to population was fewer because Stormont had full devolution - just like the Scottish seats are being removed this time round) - but yes. The boundaries were, shall we say, not unfavourable to the Unionists.
Paul @184. I think that’s correct. Gerry Fitt captured Belfast West in 1966 as Republican Labour…
BV 185, it’s not exactly the same situation. In 1964 the 12 N Irish seats were signicantly larger than the average for any other part of the UK for the reasons you mention (Stormont)- South Antrim had an electorate of 105,000, for example. But now Scotland is merely to be brought roughly into line with NI and England.
178, 181, Richard (0) and John 0 - I think you’re thinking about Roderic Bowen, who was, if I remmeber correctly, Liberal MP for Cardigan.
187. And by 1970 I believe it was something closer to 145,000. The Unionists didn’t object to the large constituencies though…
189: Chrisco - yes indeed, 143,274. Amazing really, and reminiscent of some of the 1945 seats eg Hendon and Harrow.
Like Peter (161), I joined late and found Grahams comments at 10 rather interesting.
He’s implying, if I understand it, that the mostly likely outcome is a small rise in libdem support over the campaign but with a small but significant probably that it could be a very big rise - if they smash the glass ceiling, whatver you want to call it. If we believe that then is this reflected in the spreads? They should be wider than expected? Any comments?
politicalbetting.com
POLITICALBETTING “BALANCE OF MONEY” prediction: Labour majority 52 (+1)
The Battle for Number …
christina aguilera and breast implants…
christina aguilera and breast implants…
Free Teen Bikini Pic…
Free Teen Bikini Pic…
Nude On A Horse Images…
Nude On A Horse Images…
Boob Free Vids…
Boob Free Vids…