Will Vote-2009 be on the same day as the Euro Elections?
May 10th, 2005
-
Book it in your diary - the next General Election will be on June 11 2009
If the next General Election is held in four years time then it will be the first time that the vote to determine the next House of Commons will coincide with the cycle of five-yearly Euro elections.
If Prime Minister Brown/Straw/Hain/Clark/follows the pattern of his/her predecessor then the next General Election looks like being held on June 11 2009 - the Euro date that has already been fixed. For Tony Blair has always shown himself to be keen to have two or even three different elections on the same day as we saw on June 10th last year.
Given the precedent has been set a new Prime Minister could appear profligate to be seen to be staging two national elections within a short time of each other. It would also be the low risk strategy.
For Labour’s performance at the last two Euro elections has been abysmal and only last June the party managed to poll a mere 22.6% on the GB vote. To hold the General Election on the same day would at least deal with that embarassment.
Played carefully, as well, the juxtaposition could have the potential to harm the Tories and the Lib Dems who were pushed into fourth place behind UKIP last year. Given UKIP’s strong appeal in a Euro election year it could be that joint elections could give them a boost at the expense of the Tories.
The whole political strategy for the EU depends on the planned EU constitution referendum next year and Blair/Brown must be hoping that the French vote on the issue later this month gets them off the hook. For a “Non” would make it easier to sidestep or even abandon the UK referendum plan which was only introduced to take the wind out of Michael Howard’s sails before last June’s vote.
A yes vote in France would almost certainly mean that the UK would have its referendum and this is already being seen as the point of Tony Blair’s departure.
Current betting on the French vote is strongly in favour of a yes. But there are still two and a half weeks to go.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Lordy. First the Tories don’t want to be called “Tory”, and now the uber-Unionists do not wish to be called “Unionist”.
“The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party” may as well just go the whole hog and drop the misleading descriptor “Scot…
1 - The Tories have never said “dont call us Tory”. As usual this is a distortion of the truth. What was said that in each press report it would be more appropriate if we were introduced as Conservative before the shorthand of “Tory” was applied. Some reporters were ONLY using Tory and spitting it out with venom.
BTW The correct full name of my party is the Conservative and Unionist Party and I like BOTH names!
I think there is almost no chance of this happening - even in four years I don’t think the Labour party would want a campaign where europe got a big mention.
I also expect the next parliament to drag on for five years as is traditional when the government expects to lose its majority as it will next time. I’d pencil in May 6th 2010, with the county elections moved to the day you suggest in 2009. I’d also like to make another bet that this election will be conducted under the AV system - anyone offer me odds on that?
Stuart - Th term Unionist was brought in to show solidarity with Ulster Protestants at a time when people in Scotland voted on sectarian lines. I’m not entirely sure what it has to do the Euro elections though.
3.The Euros already are conducted under some form of PR aren’t they?
2. I forget was it S&C or Torbay you were in?
Was Stanley Kalms sacked as Conservative Treasurer by MH?
And let the (in)fighting begin…….
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=637139
I have a feeling that David Cameron will be the next leader. (BTW, its great living in a Conservative constituency!)
Whats the betting on Bercow fighting the next election for Labour?
3 - The latest date for dissolution would be May 5th 2010 so the election would be several weeks later depending on bank holidays etc. Hence in 1992 the election was at the beginning of April. In 1997 it was 5 years and a few weeks later.
6 - S&C. Interestingly in Torbay the swing was from Lib to Lab (
); this, of course, gave in illusion of Tory progress.
Fighting a FPTP and a PR election on the same day could be the final nail in the coffin of FPTP. I note that today’s Indy front page is an excellent graphic showing the distortions produced. One issue that won’t be going away.
12 - indeed, is anyone offering odds on a change in voting system?
9. Why Sofia? Have the trucks come to remove the illegal immigrants?
12. Who Cares when you win the Seat? You guys don’t when on occasion a Tory rise in the vote helps you oust Labour. PR, not even thought about unless ther’s a hung Parliament, even then many Labour rebels would rather vote against it than vote for a system that allows the growth of a rival Centre Left Party. Just because the Indie splashes it over it’s front page and Liberal Democrats care passionately i would not predict Change.
14 “Have the trucks come to remove the illegal immigrants?” - I wish, and send them back to where they come from, Mitcham, Morden and Croydon.
Can’t see Bercow switching - he’d definitely need a new seat (Red Buckingham, anyone?)
Actually Bercow has put his finger on the button which is more than anyone else has managed on this site or elsewhere. Instead of suggesting he changes party why not give consideration to what he has to say? And what about him as an outside bet for the next leader? At least he makes himself sound normal which is more than you can say for the other proposed runners and riders.
15 - P, the Lib Dems won Torbay. The comment I was making was a psephelogical one: the votes shifted from LD to Labour; the Tory % was the same as in 2001 (if my memory of the BBC graphic serves me). However, because of the way these things are reported it shows as “Swing Lib to Con” because the gap closed.
The opposite happened in many other seats including my own of Rushcliffe, ie KC’s vote went up by 2% and ours by 3%; Labour’s reduced by 5%. But the bigger swing (from Lab to Lib in this case) is ignored.
17 - I imagine something could be arranged! I cannot think of any defectors who have not been given a new seat (except that Tory MEP who went Lib Dem a while ago - I think they just bumped him up the list in the same region when Nick Clegg stepped down to stand for Parliament).
Roger. I doubt you would wish the Tories well, just as i doubt Labour MP’s did when they wore sticking with IDS stickers. I think the Tories would need a double lobotamy before they thought that you were trying to be helpful as opposed to giving them destroying them.
17. Course he could switch just find him a safe Labour Seat. Shaun Woodward anyone? Speaking of him he now appears to have achieved the unique feat of being loathed on both sides of the House.
By any yardstick, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are to the Right of John Bercow.
20 - if you’re referring to Bill Newton Dunn, yes.
19. Yes i know the Lib Dems one. Just making the point that if enough votes shift tio Labour and the Tories then or or now ended up winning the Seat, i doubt they would be bothered in the slightest if they didn’t gain one extra vote so long as they Won the Seat.
9. Sophia, are you surprised by the result in Wimbledon?
23 - That’s the fellow! Actually, I should add that quite a lot of MPs just defect when they are retiring anyway so don’t need to be found new seats (Temple-Morris - though was he given a peerage? - that man in Leeds in 1997, Sedgemore, Marsden etc). I have a grudging admiration for Paul Marsden - I support Charlie et al but it is hard not to see the funny side.
25 - Andrea, I suppose I am. There didn’t seem to be many Tories around but loads of Labour supporters and an (ex)MP who seemed, pretty popular.
12. I think the Indy’s front page is a little simplistic. The graphic assumes that the electorate all voted for their favourite party rather than being a little more sophisiticated. Whatever you think of the current rules of the game, voters are at least vaguely aware of them and collectively vote with the overall outcome in mind. People of various political hues were keen for a much-reduced Labour majority - and that’s broadly what happened. The individual votes cast would almost certainly have been different if the rules had been different.
I met Bercow, a couple of months ago. He is much calmer in person, than he is on paper. Most of the points he raises though are perfectly valid one’s. Our manifesto, was strikingly thin, and patchy. Calling TB a liar, was not clever (why do something the media is doing for you). As for immigration, he does forget the party only had one press conference on it. It spiralled out of control because of the media’s obsession with it (however there is no doubt the policy needs improvement). As for the stuff on public services, I do disagree somewhat. While he is right to suggest that our policies were not fully formed, a greater use of the private sector is recognised by all major right wing think thanks and magazines like the Economist as the right way forward. As for protecting civil liberties and not opposing for opposition’s sake he is spot on. On his final point about deselections, I don’t know what he is talking about.
The best article though on modernisation remains Willett’s piece in the Sunday Times.
I am not tribal when it comes to politics P. I would be happy to vote Tory if they lost their more unpleasant traits. Fighting this last election from a position close to the BNP has not only alienated me but also if the results mean anything the vast majority of the rest of the country. The evidence is in the fact that where the Labour vote went down it went to the Lib Dems who if anything were further away from the Tory right wing agenda than even Labour.
Like our genial host, my first thought was that the next GE might be piggy-backed onto the Euro elections (with the locals deferred, too). Might be doable with touch-screen voting - despite all the cries of woe before the US election, the “audit trail” issue seems to have petered out there.
Suggestion for the Lib Dems - introduce a bill for a referendum on PR to be held together with the Euro-referendum, allowing people to vote on two questions: PR for Westminster, PR for your local authority. Start in the Lords (it might even pass there :)) and keep the issue alive.
I’ve heard Bercow speak and he does talk a lot of sense, but the problem is that essentially New Labour got there first. One of the reasons why the election was fought on immigration was that the tax cut package was minimal and radical public service reform was shoved down the agenda in favour of technocratic and uninspiring issues such as cleaning. Bercow makes a persuasive critique of the campaign, but his alternative is too close to New Labour to really make the Conservatives a viable alternative government. Given how many people think that the two big parties are much of a muchness, the Bercow/Willetts model closes off that wafer-thin gap between important issues such as tax and spend. I’d like to see a socially liberal and economically liberal party a la Anatole Kaletsky or the Economist, which offers a genuine alternative to Labour but isn’t regarded as nasty. As for the much-vaunted panacea of candidate selection, I think it should be mandatory for Bercow, Portillo et al. to visit Blaneau Gwent!
Immigration was one of the five mantras of the Tory party so I don’t understand what you mean when you say he only had one press conference on it? And he managed to conflate it with Gypsies and diseases being brought into the country by making a couple of speeches in the two weeks leading up to the campaign. He also claimed yesterday that if he’d just had one more push on immigration at the end of his campaign he could have won an extra ten seats.
31. I am not sure about the ‘paper trail’ question having petered out. The Irish governement had plans to introduce all-electronic voting for the last European elections, but had to back down precisely because of the lack of a paper trail (although the attraction of e-voting is much stronger in Ireland because of the rather drawn out process of counting votes under STV. Interestingly, they trialled it in 3 or 4 constituencies in the last general election there, but hadn’t really thought through all the practicalities of announcing the results; about half an hour after the polls closed they just flashed up on a screen who had been elected, taking away all the drama, the transfers, the different counting stages, and there was unanimity that it ruined election night. If and when it ever comes in on a national scale they are going to, somewhat artificially, try and keep some of the suspense and drama of election night by announcing the results of each stage of the count at 15 minute intervals or something like that, just to draw out the process and keep the excitement alive!)
I don’t understand Bercow’s point about deselection at all. I would criticise Conservative constituency associations for their unwillingness to deselect non-performing MPs, rather than the reverse. I can’t think of any MP who was deselected for his or her opinions.
If, however, you had the elections before the Euros, the winning party would be bound to benefit from the post-election bounce (the 1979 Euros were the last time the Tories beat Labour in the popular vote in Scotland in a national election).
34 - Chrisco, drop me a line on tabman@thatsaid.co.uk cheers.
0/T - can anyone tell me why some Labour results are down as Lab Co-Op? Thanks.
38. AFAIU, for historical reasons, in certain constituencies the candidate is a joint candidate of the Labour and Co-Operative Parties (the political wing of the Co-Op: Flora Light in one hand, ballot box in the other…)
I think the Euro elections should be distinct from Westminster and local government/parish elections. The election process is bad enough for some poor confused pensioners, but having another election on the same day would really have them scratching their heads! The compulsory postal voting for last years elections in the NW were bad enough…. and I’ve not even touched on the likelihood of voting/postal fraud.
Re my 34. That said, what was funny about the way they just announced the results, was that a senior government minister lost her seat. Imagine the ‘97 Portillo moment, but where he had only had about 30 seconds to digest the news, rather than a few hours…
I thought MH fought the GE as well as he could, bearing in mind how he comes across on the TV.
There are three issues only which determine a GE.
The charm/personality/colour/leadership-skills/luck of the leader. Only one winner there. (It will be much different when TB is replaced by GB).
The big picture/big issue/’smell’. TB had the buzz words like ‘choice’ and ‘opportunity’. ‘Small govt’ was a reasonable shot, but from MH to TB, looked lightweight.
Individual policies. MH did better here, but the gap was obvious when voters were asked to mark policies out of 100, without knowing whose they were. Tory ideas were given good marks. When told the policies were tory, voters were less keen on them.
The gap between the political ability of TB and all the other MP’s, on all sides of the house, is huge. A brilliant politician. I think thats what he’ll be remembered for, rather than any achievements.
Without him, we’ll have a much more even contest.
39 - I like the idea of convenience stores having political wings. I think Lib Dems should consider standing as Liberal Democrat Happy Shopper candidates and Tories might like to go for Conservative Kwik Save.
On the Bercow criticisms I feared immigration etc was going to do badly in posher seats while winning eg North Kent marginals. But in fact the reverse seems to have happened see London results as compared with Kent results.
39, 43 - Dame Shirley and Provisional Tesco might have something to say about that !
30 - “a position close to the BNP” - I suggest, Roger, that you have not read either party’s manifesto - please feel free to correct me and explain the above statement
I may have missed it, but has anyone seen detail on how many of the 6.5m postal votes applied for were actually sent back?
30+46 I think we have had a variation on Godwin’s law appearing on this site over the campaign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Basically as an online political conversation develops non-conservative voting posters eventually refer to the conservatives as “racist” or “akin to the BNP” without giving any plausible explanation why.
43. Surely it would have to be Conservative/Pound Stretcher, and Lib Dems/What Everyone Wants…
Respect would have a choice of .. Socialists Protest At Rightwinglabour or Lefty Idealists Desert Labour or Nutty Eastenders Trounced Turncoat Oona
“Prime Minister Hain”
Heh - the first post for ages that has made me laugh out loud.
50 - Andy - Respect, man, that was excellent!
Re 48 - There was one party who put up a poster saying “Which part of ’send them back’ don’t you understand, Mr. Blair?” and it wasn’t the BNP (though admittedly that’s because the BNP didn’t have the budget to put up any posters).
I hardly think it’s unfair to compare that party with the BNP, it seems that to invoke Godwin’s law on people who make that accusation is to sheild the Tories from some rather reasonable critisism!
48 - Roger actually accused the Tories of “Fighting this last election from a position close to the BNP”. He did not refer to them as racist and I for one am sure that senior Conservatives including Howard are not racists at all and nor are the majority of Tory voters and workers.
It is, I think, true though that there is common ground between the Tories and the BNP on some important points which came out prominently in the election. Both agree that Britain does not have an automatic responsibility to take any asylum seeker with a legitimate fear of persecution who arrives in this country (BNP would take nobody, the Tories would draw a line once the annual limit was reached). Both agree that economic migration should not be driven by economic requirements (Tories may disagree and say that their quota would be purely economic - but that is certainly not what came across in the recent campaign). Both think that immigration dramatically increases the terrorist threat. Neither are at all keen to discuss the benefits of immigration alongside disadvantages.
A lot of centre and centre right people feel deeply uncomfortable about those positions in themselves, thinking them simplistic, hysterical and lacking factual support. That they also happen to be positions which are quite similar to some held by the BNP is in many ways a side issue - but it doesn’t help to make centrists any more comfortable, which is what the Tories need to do.
Can anyone enlighten me about the possible boundary changed ? Is there a fixed timetable ? Where are they most likely to be ? Are they any ‘big names’ from any party that would come under pressure in a re-drawn constituency ?
There is, on some issues (principally economic), quite a lot of common ground between the BNP and the left-wing of the Labour party. But of itself, that does not mean that left-wing Labour MPs fight campaigns like the BNP.
Spartacus - Eddie Balls’ seat is one of the goners - hoovered up by his wife’s!
53 - one of these positions is that of the Tories, one is that of the BNP - which is which?
“we do not accept the absurd superstition of human equality”
“Britain has benefited from immigration - both economically and culturally. We are a stronger, more successful country because of the immigrant communities that have settled here”
58
(i) Tories
(ii) BNP
?
I love quizzes
55 many of the new boundaries are settled, or at public enquiry stage, many of the big cities loose a seat whilst the shires gain one, however it all boils down to where that line is drawn!
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/default.asp
for current situation in England.
Where are they drawing them at the Moment 61? What’s you assessment? Does Cardiff gain at all has been growing rapidly in last 15 years? Cheers.
On Stanley Kalms’s pop was he sacked a treasurer?
Here is another quiz on a similar “match the party to the quote” line, to show we can all play that game:
(i) “Britain is an island nation. We can control immigration. We just need a government with the determination to act.”
(ii) “The skilled people of the developing world need to be encouraged to make their own homelands better places rather than seeking an easier life in the UK.”
I accept that the BNP has a number of pretty obscene racial “theories” which no serious Conservative agrees with. But there are important areas of common ground which were empahised in the election campaign.
There is actually not necessarily anything wrong with sharing common ground but, if you do, you have to be very careful how you project your position, the language you use and the important differences you emphasise. I think the Tories failed to take care with the issue and the way it was projected made people feel uncomfortable. I disagree with their basic positions on it anyway but would have been less repulsed if it had been handled sensitively - and I think that is Bercow’s point too.
Bercow is a troublemaker whoevers in charge, if it wasn’t that he’d moan about something else. Significant i think that serious rumours of himk efecting to Labour after the Election were not laughed out of Court.
At best he was a semi detached member of the party befiore the election. I wouldn’t bet my house on him remaining even that for Long.
After reading Bercow’s article…
Why on earth is Bercow in the Tory party anyway? I would think that he, and a lot of other tory modernisers, are far more New Labour than Tory.
It is very clear that John Bercow´s position and tone are a thousand leagues away from those of some of your Tory posters on this site. Perhaps he could give them a few lessons on how to conduct themselves….
That said, it would be very difficult for the Tory Party to remodel itself along the lines he proposes - we already have two parties which more or less meet his description. Which would be easier for Bercow - the change the dinosaur or to make a change of parties?
67 - like Ken Clarke, Bercow is an “erratic” left behind as the Tory glacier has moved on ….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/issues/4520847.stm
Interesting article on where the voters came from and comparison with 97.
RE: 67, The dinosaur to which you refer has been around for over 170 years as the “Conservative” party, and goes further back in time than that. During the 19th century I think it was in oppostion for much longer than now. It will always get around to doing what it takes to win power.
Interesting postscript to a recent thread on whether the Tories would play the English card. The consensus seemed to be that there wasn’t much of a card to play. However, I think that this Daily Telegraph Article reveals that there may be more to this subject than first thought.
“How Tory England bankrolls Scotland” http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/10/nelec310.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/10/ixnewstop.html
(My fire is directed at the politicians who messed up the situation to allow it to get into this state, by the way. It is NOT directed at Scotland or the Scots. )
The article begins:
The gap between the amount of public money spent per head in Scotland compared with that spent in England has grown despite devolution.
After adjustments for inflation, the difference is now more than £1,300 in Scotland’s favour, up from just over £1,000 in 1999, according to official figures.
The situation will particularly anger Tories, who won about 60,000 more votes in England than Labour. They secured 92 fewer seats although the South voted overwhelmingly Tory.”
The article goes on to explain that this is due to a historical decision that has never been corrected.
63 nothing extra for Cardiff, in fact I think a bit more of the Vale of Glam goes into Cradikk - the review of Wales is also finished. I think most of England has now been done, but some places still sunject to public enquiry and review - so unless NuLab play silly new boundaries will be in for the next GE.
AS far as who benefits most I really havent a clue - would need some etailed knowledge of all the wards etc. I would guess it ’should’ cost Labout seats - but who knows how many.
Having know John Bercow in his ‘youth’ days he isnt at all left wing in his view of the state and its role, I dont believe he has changed that much, I agree with what he wrote in his article - economic efficiency, each to develop to their own potential, freedom.. all pure Thatcherism
Any news about the Shadow Cabinet reshuffle?
Apparently Letwin will stand down as Shadow Chancellor.
Osborne to Shadow Chancellor, Maude to Chairman, Ancram to Defence, Fox to Foreign. Latest inside info. Announcement coming shortly.
And no Hague.
Re. 72 I think the headline figure is that Labour lose around 11 seats and same number are created in the shires mostly Tory but a few probably Lib Dem. However there are knock on effects for example in Norfolk Norwich North is made quite a bit safer for Labour and in Essex a new Chelmsford seat is created which I imagine either Labour or the Ld’s will fancy a crack at. Also Basingstoke becomes just the town itself giving Labour a good chance.
72. You mean a bit extra of the Vale into Cardiff? Which bit. I bet it’s another Tory Part a la Penarth funny to slice off Tory areas into areas they are not administratively connected leaving Labour with a stronger grip on the Vale and Csrdiff South.
No new seats created in Wales then? I mean in administrative boundaries as i do not guess they would gain in Numbers.
No Job at all for Letwin in the Shadow cabinet?
77 - about the only big change is in Gwynedd, instead of the current seats of Conwy, Caernarfon and Meironydd nant Conwy, there are three new seats of Arfon (Caernarfon and Bangor), Aberconwy (co-terminous with the old district council of the same name) and Dwyfor Meironydd (Meironydd plus the Lleyn peninsula). Dwyfor Meironydd would still be safe Plaid Cymru and the other two look to be Labour/PC marginals (Arfon I think will edge PC and Aberconwy will edge Labour)
55, 61. 97. I have a longish post with my current view of all the boundary change effects on 93 on yesterday’s thread.
re 11 The latest day for dissolution will be 17th May 2010. That would mean a general election on Friday, 11th June if I’ve done my counting right.
The things to note about the boundary changes are
a) they are using 2001 population figures so will be 8/9 years out of date when used for the first time
b) the quota for England is still higher than that recently used for Scotland - which should have 55 seats (4 fewer by comparison)
c) it is a downright disgrace that the Welsh quota gives them 40 seats instead of 32 to which they’re entitled.
Of course it’s no suprise why Lab and LibDems haven’t kicked up a fuss about this (and I say this as a Lib Dem supporting Welshman) but it is that the Tories haven’t been making a song and dance about it. Have they gone completely to sleep?
Bercow should be expelled from the Conservative Party as it is quite clear he has no fudamentally Conservative beliefs at all and a True Blue seat like Buckingham should have a REAL Tory as its MP and not a Lib Dem Mark 2!