ComRes data: the biggest shift has been LAB>CON
October 30th, 2007It’s not just been LDs moving to the Tories?
Whenever a new poll comes out now the standard explanation from Labour observers is to observe that much of the change that has seen the Tories move above a 40% share in six consecutive surveys has been the result of Lib Dems switching. Once a replacement for Ming is in place, it is argued, then the Tories will decline.
We saw that overnight with the Independent’s ComRes survey that had with changes on mid September - CON 41%(+7): LAB 33%(-4): LD 16%(+1)
Yet looking at the detailed data the biggest move to the Tories has not been from the leaderless Lib Dems but from Labour.
One in eight of those who said they had voted for Tony Blair’s party in May 2005 now say they are supporting the Tories. This is about the same proportion as the LD>CON switchers but, of course, there are far fewer of them.
Hopefully we will have the October ICM survey for the Guardian tomorrow and it will be interesting to compare. Both pollsters follow similar methodologies and, indeed, ComRes often uses ICM to carry out its fieldwork.
Another detail from this latest poll also suggests there has been second big trend as well - support for “others” has been showing a marked decline.
In the latest ComRes poll, like last week’s survey from Ipsos-Mori, the total for “others” is down at 6% which is just about the lowest share since the 2005 general election and is even more remarkable given the progress that the SNP is making in Scotland.
Thus just a month ago ComRes had a balance of 14% for “others” while Ipsos-Mori had this at 10%.
Part of this seems to have been caused by a decline in recorded support for UKIP and BNP which looks as though it has gone to the Tories.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
test
The Buy line on Spreadfair looks fairly attractive as you can buy everyone for a very small loss.
I took my first tranche of profit on a Buy of Tory seats at 270.8 with a Sell at 277.
One more good poll could see them go odds on on the Betfair market which would make the current 278.0 look attractive.
Also the ‘No Overall Majority’ option on Betfair begins to look good again at better than 2.5.
I’m struggling to get my head round these figures and unless they’re backed up by another poll, will treat them with caution. The main problem is that comparing results between different firms can be dangerous, but so much has happened since the last CR survey that doesn’t form a good baseline either.
On the face of it, 16% looks high for the Lib Dems after a run of scores around 11-13% (though not from CR). There’s not been much coverage of them despite the leadership election and no obvious reason for them to get a boost.
I’m not so sure about the absence of ‘others’. The Indy quotes them at 10% and that is what the figures for the other parties implies. That would be in line with ‘form’. Even so, it will be interesting to see whether highlighting immigration squeezes minor parties or benefits them by raising their stronger issues (and in either case, if there is a change, where it comes from).
Also a point to note from the Indy article on the gender split. Brown seems to have taken a big hit from male voters which they put down to perceived his weakness / indecisiveness over the election. Could be, or it could be a case of right issue, wrong person: it’s surely equally likely that now the Conservatives have started producing some policies - and popular ones at that - and any lingering effects of his conference speech could have attracted those who like strong leadership.
Betfair still have Labour as favourites for most seats.
I think that will cahnge this morning.
When Tories had a poll lead before Blair went they were down between 1.65 and 1.70.
A bit of money to be made here .
Agreed on NOC value - I’ve put some money on.
The single most worrying thing for Labour is the next generation of party leaders. The public will grow to loathe arrogant cocks like Liam “So What?” Byrne and James “Photoshop” Purnell.
O/T. Betfair have also introduced markets on the next holders for the 4 ‘great offices’ and on exit dates for the current incumbents. Possibly could be interesting in the future but almost no money traded on them so far. I still think a ‘next leader’ for the three main parties would be a more interesting market.
Re 3. Whoops. I’ve made a simple mathematical error on the “others” figure. I’ve deleted.
Thanks David.
When I bought Tory seats at 270.8 I made the resolve that ‘this puppy is just for Christmas’ !
Whilst the immediate prospect looks bleak for NuLab and I can certainly envisage the Tories going fav. to win most seats,I think it is fanciful to start thinking about a Tory Overall Maj. come election time.
Neil Kinnock’s time was characterized by poll leads and great results in council elections.Everyone recalls the Sheffield rally prior to the ‘92 election,but I also recall the triumphalist nature of the Labour Conference of ‘91 with everyone joining hands and singing ‘We Are The Champions’.It went on for a full ten minutes and was highly embarrassing.
Don’t embarrass yourselves similarly you Tory fans.
I’m not qute sure how even the most optimistic L\bour supporter can argue that with figures of +7 for the Cons and +1 for the LDs that the drop in Labour support is the result of a shift in LD support to the Tories… Not unless the shift in support from Lab to LD is even more massive!
(from the previous thread)
Chris A at 111 (and others) - the point was on the inaccuracy of seat forecasters. For example, Martin Baxter is commendably open with his results, and in the “small print” he states that up to 50 seats will be mispredicted, and these could well be all in the same direction (and historically have sometimes been). So a prediction of (for example) a Labour majority of 10 should have “plus or minus 100″ after it. He actually highlights the errors from previous election predictions in order to learn from them - which is why we know that the prediction on the basis of the final polls last time was a Labour majority of 132.
Which is why we were discussing what was plausible away from UNS calculations.
Look at 1992.
Tactical voting against the Tories : check.
Scores quite close to 41/36/16 : check
Labour largest party? Nope.
If UNS worked reliably, you could run it in reverse to get historical results. Running backwards from 1997 to 1992 would be extremely inaccurate.
I stand by my guess that 5 points lead with a score in the 40s from the final ICM poll would see a Tory majority.
For the record,AC,Major’s margin of victory in 1992 was 7.5% which gave him a 22 seat majority.
It is of some significance surely that JM was the incumbent at the time.
So the tories now have some policies? At tory conferences, there are always ‘announcements’. One this year that seemed popular was on raising the threshold for paying IHT. That suggestion was given legs by being copied the following week by GB.
During the 90’s, TB was given the credit for having an ‘attractive policy portfolio’. Nobody exactly what was in it (and still nobody does). Policies didn’t matter then, and don’t matter now. What’s important is to be thought to have some ’sound’ ones.
And that is key progress for the tories. No, not having policies. But being treated as though they do. That perception will be very tough for the govt to unwind.
It looks to me as if the “Blairite Tories” have taken a quick look at Gordon Brown, decided they didn’t like what they saw, and decided to return to the Conservative fold.
Glad that the Useful Kind of Idiot Party is starting to come home. Gordon Brown has done a great job in unifying opposition. It will be the achievement for which he will be most remembered.
That’s why Clegg won’t help the Lib Dems. People really want to get rid of Gordon Brown, like they didn’t Blair. That is the driving force behind the swings in voting intention.
People really cannot stand the man. Some days I get a run of hits on my blog from people searching on google under ‘I/We hate Gordon Brown’. He really knows how to motivate people, it seems.
12 spot on - once the narrative becomes ‘tories brimming with fresh policies whilst government flounders around’ the perception is hard to shift. If Brown doesn’t set out his clear and purposeful vision soon he will be destined to be a fag end PM of a tired government.
It’s not too late but he doesn’t have long - if the tories are scoring 40%+ in Feb then Gordon will find it virtually impossible to turn things around. Anything he then does will most likely be seen as playing ‘catch up’ or be described as ‘desperate’.
Well, well, well! I didn’t expect Cameron to be so tantalisingly close to a full “Roger” so soon. And as Labour drifts on whilst GB works out what his “vision” is, if indeed he actually has one, and the LD leadership contest continues to get the media coverage it merits (ie, virtually nil), and Cameron continues to set the policy agenda, then the prospect of a sustained Tory lead seems set fair. We’ve haven’t even begun to see the benefits of the “English votes” issue yet (I don’t agree with the likely Tory policy here, but the damage to Labour/Broon will be done).
A tragedy though that we now have to wait until May 2010 for the return of a Tory Govt - if GB hadn’t bottled it, DC would have been seeing the Queen this coming Friday morning!
On the headline figures, isn’t 41/33/16 not far off the 1992 election result, the last time the Tories won a GE with a majority that would probably have been in the 40s on the current seats? Brown = Kinnock, and about as popular with most English voters. As some of us said all along. We might have been wrong about the bounce and the length of it, but I think we can now safely talk of a “blip” not a “bounce”.
BTW, Dave - if you’re reading
- check this out:
http://tinyurl.com/35pgtr
Talking of Roger, is he out there?
Surely house prices are key. Ultimately it was negative equity which did for Thatcher and if reposessions rise in 200,8 as are being predicted by some, this could blow a massive hole in Brown’s USP of bringing economic prosperity.
16 LOLOLOL!!
Brown could shore up his position with the electorate if he refuses to support a US attack on Iran (if/when that happens). Somehow, though, I think that he’ll just follow along in “Poodle Mark 2″ mode.
Failing some major event like this, where he can look useful, it really seems all downhill for him personally. But it doesn’t have to be this way for the Labour government as a whole. There is still a small chance that Labour could ditch him and go into the next election with a genuine renewal platform.
The Conservative position is good enough for me to feel optimistic about the next election, but not yet confident of victory.
15 Sorry kingbomgo , Brown does have ages of time to turn things round . I fully expect polls in the early part of next year to be similar to those of the early part of this year but the relevance to the outcome of the next election will be as great as mid parliament polls always are . An election in 2009 or even 2010 will be decided on the politics and mainly the state of the economy and how well off the majority of voters feel then . We are in for a normal mid parliament state of affairs where the incumbent government will trail behind the opposition but still have the result of the next GE in its own hands .
16/19 lolololololololololololololololololol
Re the correction of the immigration figures. Again can you imagine
Campbell/Blair admitting they had got the figures wrong on the day that Dave gives his immigration speech? The speech had been trailed too. This is worse than the day to day incompetence of the Major government.
18 No - the Tories won in 1992 with the recession at its height. By the time 1997 came along negative equity had largely disappeared. This should be a cautionary tale for those who believe that an economic downturn would automatically be good for the Tories.
23 - I imagine Blair and Campbell are wetting their pants with laughter at the moment, although they’ll also be sad to see the New Labour project seemingly beached beyond salvation. But then they probably knew it would end up this way at some point - namely when GB took over - and at least Tony got out before the ship went down, even if he did leave it too long.
24 Yes, but Major was seen as a new broom whereas Brown is really the same old same old as regards the economy. Also, Major had the unappealing Kinnock to beat.
26 - yep, Broon is the new Kinnock, Cameron the new Major.
No, hang on there a minute…
25 - you might well ask how my metaphorical ship can end up “going down” and then “beached”. Whilst nothing is beyond Gordon’s talents, perhaps I was just a little surprised at an 8 point Tory lead. Forgive me.
I really must start some work now…
A very good poll for the Tories, and with the bad economic news, combined with the immigration cock up, Labour will have to work hard to turn this around.
The only bright spot for Labour, with two years at least to the GE, anything can happen. Though if the, ‘Time for a change’ syndrome has kicked in, there isn’t that much Labour can do about it:a similar thing is happening in OZ.
We await ICM with great interest.
12. It is true that voters don’t give politicians much credit for their policies but that doesn’t mean that the converse is true – that you can get by without policies, as Dave is apparently attempting to do.
For example I’m interested in their attitude to the climate change bill – a pretty important measure, one might think for greeny-blueey Dave. Do they support the bill, or will they oppose or seek to amend it? Have they decided yet? Simple question, but I can’t find an answer on the Tory website.
Thinking about it, this is surely a question for Stuart thingamajig the Tory whip who sometimes pops up on this site. Hello Stuart, can you give me an answer on this one please??
I think we should name 10 Daves the “anti-Roger”
32 - I did warn you to be cautious about MORI, but did you listen… ;)?
Still if we go to war with Lithuania or even Lesbos, it’ll all be Dave’s fault.
http://tinyurl.com/37f2gu
The most corrosive thing for us Conservatives is complacency.
One reason Labour won so convincingly in 1997 was that, haunted by the 1992 disappointment, they kept working and kept campaigning right up to May 5th; even though it was obvious that they were going to win from mid 1992 onwards.
[29] Coldstone-as-was wrote if the ‘Time for a change’ syndrome has kicked in, there isn’t that much Labour can do about it. I suspect this may be at the heart of it.
The Government seems to me to be drifting. The botched Comprehensive Spending Review, the succession of (in the great scheme of things, admittdely minor) c*ck-ups and apologies, the lack of “narrative” and purpose beyond remaining in office - these all look like a government on the way out. I think people are just getting bored with them (though they are not yet despised, as Labour was after the IMF “brokers’ men” fiasco of the 1970s - let alone pitied, as the Tories were after the ERM exit of 1992).
The Tories may do better to “win small” next time - a period of minority government in which they put competence ahead of ideology will give them a better springboard for a big win the time after that, while Labour is still licking its wounds in opposition.
29: A reasonable part of the shift is down to Brown himself and his game playing. Labour might still be able to regain a lead if Brown reprises his dour and dull persona
I salute the “feet on the ground” Tories on this site who don’t go into orgasm at the latest good poll!
Labour are far from out of it - we have a real desire for a 4th term and are just not going to meekly hand over Government. It will be one hell of a fight in 2009. WE are going through a rough patch at the moment (partly due to our stupidity) but we are still in this game.
I am still one of Gordon’s little helpers - till the bitter end!
37. you mean Brown is no longer dull? Did I miss something?!!!
38: Good for you RedFlump. I remember saying the same during the Major Govt.
31. Without David Cameron’s pressure there would not be a Climate Change Bill at all. Let’s wait and see what’s in the bill when it’s published, eh? Then would be the time to decide what to support and what to oppose, rather than reacting to hypotheticals.
39: He has tried to change that image and has looked fake every time.
33 Well I expected the “I told you so” post, but you were suspiciously quick off the mark.
You pays your money and you takes your choice with these polls really. Seen nothing that puts Labour out of it and after the past few weeks and at the moment thats good enough for me. And that is what I said on Saturday night BTW
Anyway, congratulations to all you Tory boys on a good poll - it must feel good after 15 years in the wilderness. Marcus is right, don’t get too carried away.
38/40. Maybe we need a new smiley that means My Party Right or Wrong. It should have both eyes closed, both ears covered and the mouth working overtime. Would fit a lot of us on here.
38. Redflump. Do you also salute their courage, their strength, their indefatigability?
45 - Just you wait till we win in 2009!
21 Mark, I disagree - Gordon is a political animal and can certainly turn the narrative but I don’t think he has ages to do so. I base this on the likelihood of joyless economic growth feeding into a feeling of a tired government.
The great thing is there is a market where we can back up our judgments
I still think if the tories get less than 280 MPs after the next election it will be a terrible result for them but at the same time I also think a hung parliament is the most likely outcome of a GE and Gordon may even limp on in a minority administration.
5 Steve - historic problem for all long running adminsistrations is re-generating the leadership. Leaders are created in the hard politics of opposition. Government breeds administrators who do not have the presentational skills needed but are good in committee. See J Major passim.
3. Unlike David H I think this poll sounds about right. Cameron has hogged the limelight and even Osbourne looked vaguely authoritative the other day on TV. I thought Labour at 40%, given how they have lost control of the agenda lately and how the “trust” theme is resonating was well on the high side in my view.
A lot depends on whether GB can unsettle the Tories by forcing them to concede they would not have a post fact referendum
46 A defeat to break the heart like 1992.
Can you Tory boys now begin to imagine how defeat felt for Labour in ‘92? Today you either think you will or can win next time. Fast forward two years and watch your party being systematically pulled apart by a hostile press for a month and lose.
If you can, you’ll understand a lot more about the Labour party, why you shouldn’t underestimate us now and why you can’t take the next election for granted.
What’s heartening in this and some recent polls is that Conservative polling across age groups and social groups is much more balanced than those last year.
The patterns of support in this poll show much the same picture as in the last ICM one - Conservatives are either equal or slightly ahead in 18 to 45 age groups, behind in 45-55 and way ahead in 55+. That’s very different from polls earlier this year and last when even with poll leads where Conservatives were on the whole behind in all age groups except 55+. It also shows Conservative leads in AB, C1 and again in DE social groups - Labour retaining lead in C1.
The Brown Tories and Worcester Women’s flirtation with Gordon of the summer seem to have evaporated (if they ever existed).
49 Absolutely Jonathan, politics can be a heartbreaker!
Even though with two years to go, Labour shouldn’t be written off, third terms are always difficult. Fatigue sets in on both sides, parties get tired of being in government, voters get tired of the party in government, simple as that.
What political parties should then do, is recognise that and plan for defeat.
The inevitability of defeat, brings freedom, caution can be thrown to the winds, and start to plan radical change, (to the electoral system even) if you have nothing to lose, why worry!
Do political parties do this, of course not, they plod on in the vain hope, something will turn up.
“The great thing is there is a market where we can back up our judgments” Well said kingbongo at 47.
I am the one who has backed the Tories(now at under 270 after some profit taking) and yet seem to be the one most sceptical about their chances when the day finally arrives.
You Tory pundits(not punters)just make me smile.Your(our)boys can be backed at EVENS to win most seats and although some of you are talking about overall majorities I don’t se a silver shilling of your money on the exchange.
Less crowing here by Tories would be a good idea. The next GE is at least 18 months and quite possibly 30 months away. Much water, bridges, etc.
41. “without David Cameron’s pressure”…cobblers! and it’s equally cobblers to say you don’t know what’s in the climate change bill - it was published in draft in March this year - see http://tinyurl.com/ytml6q.
The point of publishing bills in draft is to get maximum benefit from consultation prior to the actual bill, and it also gives an opportunity for a [hypothetical] responsible Opposition to comment and define its position.
Fat chance.
54: After all that ‘Cameron is finished’ rubbish we had to put up with over the Summer I think the Tories deserve a little ‘ha ha’ time.
54. Peter. The Observer article quoted by many here yesterday referred to a long campaign and an election no earlier than the Summer 09.
This is insane. It’s only one poll and the most favourable Tory methodology at that. I’m not even close to writing Labour off.
52. The truth is Labour ran out of ideas quite a long time ago, especially in the domestic sphere. The signs that the spending splurge policy adopted in the second term was failing were visible within a couple of years, while the various asbo/tsar/taskforce/citizen’s jury/on-the-spot fines/academy/targets wheezes arguably ran out of steam even earlier.
But it has taken time for this to fully sink into the public consciousness. Public opinion is like a supertanker, taking a long time to turn around - but once it does the momentum lasts for years. If the public really have decided Labour no longer have what it takes, their defeat at the next GE is almost inevitable.
It’s good news, but bear in mind that CR tends to come up with better results for the Conservatives than most. I imagine that the next ICM will probably give a Conservative lead of 4-5%.
“Others” have been in decline, in recent polls, and it’s quite likely a lot of people who voted UKIP in 2005 will vote Conservative this time. OTOH, recent by-elections put the BNP pretty steady on 15% or so per candidate, and I’d expect their vote to be up strongly at the next election, particularly because so much of their support is in safe Labour seats, where there’s no incentive to vote Conservative, tactically. If, however, BNP supporters are willing to vote Conservative at Parliamentary level, then there could be a few marginal seats, like Dewsbury or Keighley, where that would be very bad news for Labour.
I’d expect the Green vote to be up next time, and the nationalist vote.
57 stohn - should Brown remain in office, I am becoming increasingly confident that the next GE will be postponed until Spring 2010 - of course, were he to quit in the interim, a distinct possibility IMHO, all bets would be off off.
53. I’ve got some money on IG on Tories being largest party, which I’ve had on for some time. The problem with IG is that you have to tie up so much money and the spreads are too large, so I’d like to get out and invest it on Spreadfair or BetFair, where we can be more adventurous without tying up too much cash.
55.Captain Spaulding
Labour has already made it clear that they won’t follow through on severasl aspects in the Bill. It would seem wise for the Tories to keep their powder dry for now before Brown again pinches many of their ideas. Don’t be surprised if at a more opportune time Cameron makes a big speech on the subject.
60, true. Jonathan, Roger, RedFlump and such like will all be falling over themselves to trumpet the “Tory decline” when ICM shows a 3-4 point lead.
62 Baskerville - it’s not too difficult to open a credit account with IG, Sporting or Spreadex, assuming one is reasonably credit worthy, thereby removing the requirement to place deposits with them - although I very much doubt they would repay any deposits already placed with them against existing bets - life just is that way!
With Betfair, by contrast, it is necessary to cover one’s maximum exposure at all times, before being able to bet.
Is it significant that since Oct 2006 COMRES has not produced a higher Labour figure than 37 , and come up with readings as low as 27 an 29? Perhaps some caution is called for here.
52 - “The truth is Labour ran out of ideas quite a long time ago, especially in the domestic sphere.”
Oh, and like their foreign policy has been full of winners!
PfP. Wasn’t aware that IG did a credit account - I will look into it, thanks. As for BetFair, I have to admit I don’t understand it as clearly as I should, so have refrained from using it yet. I will watch and learn.
64 The last ICM poll 10-1 October (S0-TGPH) showed a 7 point Tory lead. If as Sean suggests it has fallen back to 3-4% that would be pretty decent given recent mauling, but absolutely nothing to crow about. I reserve (incredulous) crowing for Labour leads or Labour in the 40s.
Conservative 43%
Labour 36%
Liberal Democrat 14%
Other 8%
68. Baskerville. If you want a credit account with Igindex of say £5000, which equates to a maximum £50 total buy or sell position on GE seats, 100 seats being the maximum exposure position, then they will request evidence of 3 times that amount, £15,000, in either a bank or building society account in your own name for at least one month, or evidence in the form of shares worth £15,000.
51 A bit of hope for Labour.
Following some comments from Mark Senior I had a look at the historical Leadership Satisfaction ratings. While its hard to show a firm relationship between satisfaction and electoral success (the 2005 election breaks any pattern) it does look as if an opposition leader needs a relatively high positive rating. Cameron’s result in last Mori poll of 36% isn’t yet high enough (though highest for a Conservative leader since John Major in 1996) but neither has he had any really high dissatisfaction ratings - even 45% in September isn’t that high historically.
IMHO Cameron needs to be regularly scoring satisfaction ratings in the high 40’s and above before there can be any confidence in the firmness of poll leads. He is still getting after nearly two years in the job a large number of undecideds.
Campbell’s ratings stand out as lowest for any leader of Lib Dems - have to go back to 1990/1989 for similar ratings. He had to go.
Brown’s aren’t great either, though there’s only 4 months to compare, he never achieved the bounce in satisfaction that new leaders/PMs after election seem to get.
See
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/trends/satisfac.shtml
If the sea change is under way, Labour will be hoping that the tide doesn`t go out as far as it does at Cleethorpes.
However when you kick a winner in the bollocks expect the worse.
Real labour prefers opposition anyways looks like its getting what it wanted.
The only hope for Brown is that 40 to fifty age group cant stomach having to vote conservative again, after the miserable handling of the economy they were put through in the early eighties and ninties.
67. Well I didn’t want to sound too partisan by having a pop at that as well….!
:) 
52. Grumpy-old-man
For the first time in several weeks I agree with you. Yes the Tories should not be complacent and in the end unforseeable future events may determine the next GE result. But it would be unrealistic for Labour to assume it can easily turn things round
and there is a case from a Labour perspective for it attempting radical change. I am glad that I don’t see this happening under Brown.
I was amazed,(gobsmacked was the term I used) when Labour was recording 38/41%, this poll is much more in line with the sort of result I was expecting. I know Comres has been out of line before, and then has fallen in with the rest, so it’ll be interesting to see ICM’s result, although I expect similar.
There is another reason for Tories to calm down and perhaps for most Labour people to still be relatively relaxed about their prospects, which is the sheer scale of a turnaround needed for them to be deprived of power in one go.
54 - Has there been much Tory crowing here this morning? Like Marcus, Test, Sean Fear and your good self, I adhere firmly to the Keep Calm tendency in both good and bad times. Even my fragrant Executive Assistant, Ms. Clare Voyant, is counselling caution about the next election. Of course, Labour can turn things around.
Anyone who takes Communicate research seriously (or indeed any single poll - even by reputable pollsters) is deluded.
As the more sane posters have said - there is now a lot of water to flow under a lot of bridges.
I would put the chances of the Tories (or indeed any party) polling more than 40% at less than 1%. The next election as 2005 will be fought over who can get to the mid 30s. There will also be a solid third or more of the electorate who will not vote for either Tory or Labour, so anyone dreaming of ‘a return to two party politics’ better wake up soon.
76, well, not to be deprived of power but for us to get an overall majority.
78 - ComRes used to be a joke, but iirc they changed their methodology and now weight properly, and are not far off ICM, using ICM’s data collection.
However as Mike has said they are the most favourable to the Tories.
77 - “Ms. Clare Voyant, is counselling caution about the next election”
But I still think that Gordon is looking down the Horror-scope…..
81 - Nice one.
78. Nothing like pure assertion backed up without any facts or arguments whatsoever.
77 See Bob’s link on post 16 to see that there is a tendency towards the crow.
76 Indeed, that and the Liberal Democrat wildcard means that it’s still far too hard to call.
The best precedent for the Tories IMO is the 1964 election, when Labour overturned a 100 seat majority just. But even then because it was a two horse race, Labour had to gain far fewer seats than Cameron has to. Interesting times.
63. Can’t wait for that “big speech”, Slam!
16 Bob Sykes’ link
78. Dan. I would put the chances of the Tories (or indeed any party) polling more than 40% at less than 1%.
In that case would you be happy with a 100:1 (or even 50:1) bet on this ?
84 In 1970 the Tories overturned a Labour majority of 97 - though if the Ulster Unionists had been excluded from the Tory total Ted Heath’s majority would only have been 15.
77 John O - Can I volunteer for some counselling from Miss Voyant please?
84 - re 16. Don’t be silly. You keep harping on about silly Tories urging Dave to measure up the curtains, so I thought it would raise a smile. As it seems to have done for a few people, admittedly Tories.
It was a joke. I know Labour bods don’t do “humour”…
78/87. Beat me to it Slam. Dan, I will settle for 20/1 any party polling more than 40% at the next Generla Election. Say £25 at 20/1?
91 stjohn O/T - just had a tiny bet at 20-1 on Villa ahead at half time, draw at full time on Saturday - well one has to keep faith.
78 & 91. stjohn I doubt if there will be any takers even if we offered say 10/1
90 Indeed Bob, until recently the Tories have been jokers and yes it can be hard to tell when your being serious. One way or another, sooner or later, it will be curtains for Cameron!
And they say we can’t do humour.
re 78/87/91 well if we’re in a bidding war how about and party above 40% £15 at 15/1. This is getting like Betfair!
20. I agree that Brown is likely to follow the US with any attack on Iran. One of the most worrying things about the Observer article was brown’s apparent fascination with neo-conservatism and a polemical book about the superiority of the British and American enlightenments over the French one (something to do with the gallic obsession with reason).
As I outlined a sensible Tory manifesto last week, I think it’s only fair if I offer some advice for Labour.
1) Stand up for your opposition to married couples tax allowance. It’s a perfectly acceptable position to have.
2) Think about serious reform to the exam system. If alternative proposals to A-Levels seem intersting and creative the public will get behind them, but the Tories would be woefully exposed in their dogmatic adherence to the ‘gold standard’. Proof that they are just as intransigent as ever.
3) Start dealing with serious constitutional reform. Blair meant to do it, but has left a lot to be done. Again, Tory resistance to change will expose them.
4) Start talking up the New Labour project. People have voted for new Labour at 3 consecutive general elections, it’s not a bad brand. And stop ignoring Blair, it just looks silly.
5) Scrap Sure Start. It’s a disaster. Make people aware that it was Blair’s idea and that the government have learned their lesson.
Frank sometimes I think you should start your own party!
Labour will have to come up with their own vision. Brown almost hamstrung himself by declaring that he did not want to fight on competence, but on change - on his own vision.
Well, what is it?
When will he set it out? When will he enact it? What is Brownism?
The trouble is that it looks like he’s saying that his “vision” was of himself in number 10, and beyond that, there’s no “there” there.
90 - “hard to tell when you’re being serious”
Well you don’t think Dave is likely to order his new curtains from John Lewis online, do you?
“sooner or later, it will be curtains for Cameron”
Not the shutters slamming firmly shut on Gordon’s political career, then?
32 surely 10 daves would be the ‘full todger’!
Brown gets a shot across his bows from several Unions over the direction he is following.
“It says Mr Brown and his government “need to make sense of their actions, and provide an intellectually and morally coherent vision for his premiership. This, needless to say, is a matter of urgency.”
“In retrospect, Labour’s sense of purpose has been further undermined by attempts to construct the kind of political big tent that serves to muddy the party and government’s essential identity - as with the courting of Margaret Thatcher and recent ugly rhetoric about migration (witness the conflation of migration and criminality and the championing of ‘British jobs for British workers’), both of which have undermined the government’s progressive credentials.”
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2201599,00.html
Well as Unions pay 2/3 of the party’s bills he will have to pay some attention. Interesting that the candidate to the Deputy, Mr Cruddas signed it.
I anticipate more surprising twists and turns. The most interesting question is what will happen to the LDs under a new leader. If they can get their act together and present a united front, I would certainly expect a revival - and the question will then be at whose expense.
96 Sure Start was Brown’s - it is a disaster (except for middle class mums who like a good coffee morning) but it is Brown’s disaster.
100 The comment piece it refers to
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2201646,00.html
“We want Labour to perform well with Gordon Brown as our prime minister. To do so, he needs to show that he is not the victim of events but their master.”
That’s a killing phrase - Could be Simon Hughes “We want the Liberal Democrats to perform well with Ming Campbell as our leader. To do this he needs to up his game”.
I cannot tell you how people who I know personally - who were thrown on the scrap heap - have been saved by Sure Start. This is one of the government’s best projects and can only be truly evaluated in 20 years. To say it is “crap” is a travesty and I will not hear of anything against it.
I still think that the ComRes poll was an outlier and that the ICM poll will show a much closer result.
OT: Might be some value in betting against Mitt Romney winning the Iowa caucus.
http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/why-mitt-romney-will-not-win-iowa/
I think ICM has a 3-4, maybe 4-5%, Tory lead.
btw is icm due tonight?
Do you really mean Sure Start or something else? The free nursery provision available through sure start is one of the best things Labour has done. Totally uncontroversial now, but something the Tories would never have done.
108 I mean Sure Start and I do know what I’m talking about. Like all grandiose socialist schemes it has noble intentions and even partly achieves them.
The research I’m afraid doesn’t support the notion that Sure Start is a great success but the government is very proud of it.
104. Redflump, I suggest you read this report available on the bbc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6966112.stm
That’s 21bn that has achieved nothing. Why this is not a more major scandal I find remarkable.
100 103
Gordon’s problem - which he is unlikely to speel out - if financial. A lack of revenues.
True Oil prices will give him a £3billion windfall. But the reduction in the turnover of houses will directly affect Stamp duty on residential homes - worth a record £6.4billion in 2006/7.
So it is likely his oil windfall will be lost. (http://tinyurl.com/3bx3cc)
But the reduction in M&A activity and cutbacks due to the credit problems mean that City bonuses and employment may fall . Last year bonuses were worth £19Billion and the tax take would be around £7-£8 billion. That could halve.
Corporation tax revenues ..At the time of the Budget the forecast was that these would rise by 11.7% in the current financial year. The reality so far is a fall of 3.1%. If this continued, the result would be a shortfall of around £2-3 billion.
So it is conceivable Government borrowing could be up to £10billion worse than forecast (or roughly 25%).
This is neither good news for the Public finances or interest rates.
If it does happen, the public sector spending will be squeezed: expect public sector strikes over pay.. Meanwhile white elephants: the Olmpics, Aircraft carriers, NHS IT systems..- should be cut or delayed…
108 John Major’s Government introduced parental vouchers for 4 year olds - so yes it was something Conservatives would have done. But not necessarily in the same fashion i.e. by putting it under LEAs.
109 Are you opposed to free nursery care for the 3-4s?
109 many socialists might argue that Sure Start was not for children, whom the BBC story shows it has clearly failed, but for parents, to give them more time to work.
But there’s no doubt that the government’s laxity in education standards runs right down to nursery leves. Are they teaching the kids pre-reading skills, like “B says “buh”?” I doubt it.
Madasafish I agree, except about the aircraft carriers - although they are so often promised yet nothing happens so they may be mythical spinning vessels anyway.
Why is the state so keen to give up on parents? Rather than focusing on early ‘intervention’ of the child, might it not be better to try and educate the parents?
Or does that go against Brown’s plan for a dependency culture?
104. Three or four years old is a bit young to have been put on the scrapheap, don’t you think? You don’t still send kids down the mines in Wales at that age, do you?
O/T but I see the latest Newspoll poll in Australia gives 54% to Labour (-4%) and 46% to the Coalition (+4%). That still gives Labour a pretty clear lead, and I think they’ll end up winning by c.52% to c.48%.
Dave has the power Brown the office:
“The government has dropped plans to have councils claw back budget surpluses from schools in England.”
BBC
110 - I’m no New Labour cheerleader but surely Sure Start had other significant aims besides improving education outcomes for younger children in deprived areas. Also the research doesnt seem to have been assessing Sure Start itself. How you can dismiss it as a scandal and having achieved nothing on that basis is beyond me.
116 - Yes - Brown’s 5 step plan towards achieving full “dependency culture” status is well under way. Sheesh.
57/61 PfromP and StJ. For what its worth, I have always thought 2010 was a good bet even before the instant general election option was closed. He needs a good three years to create the impact (and also leave his mark)
Having thought a hung parliament was an absolute banker - because of the electoral aritmetic as much as anything, Brown’s lack of surefootedness (something of a suprise I have to confess) means that he has lost control of the agenda. Like Major, but nowhere near so bad.
It makes hanging on to 2010 and the liklihood of a Tory majority both more likely. Over the next 3 months we’ll see whether it is a trend or a blip in how Brown performs. I suspect we’ll know by February
119. David Cameron is indeed governing by proxy at the moment.
Do Labour have ANY policies of their own?
Is there an over/under on when Darling is forced into a U-turn on CGT changes?
Really, this government is absolutely pathetic. Sorry if I sound cross, but I am. Call an election for the sake of democracy and stand not upon the order of your going.
Like Major, but nowhere near so bad
Early days yet, though, isn’t it? At this point in his premiership Major was doing OK. Brown has plenty of time to descend to ‘cones hotline’ level and beyond…
LOL
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Gordon-Bottler-Brown-ale-signed-by-David-Cameron_W0QQitemZ190163645015QQihZ009QQcategoryZ367QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
122 - Less of the hyperbole please. The nasty stuff will soon hit the fan for the Tories when their councils refuse to site any of the extra government houses.
John Wheatley I have always thought the next GE will be in 2010 as a third term government needs all the manoevering room it can get. An election now would have been a disaster and Brown was lucky to be forced into seeing sense.
Now, though, I am not sure 2010 is still as firm a bet. If Brown does not get his act together then all sorts of mayhem may ensue and then its random chance. for example, he could be forced into an election by clever moves from Salmond that chime with Labour MPs instincts and pressure from Cameron: nuclear deterrent, expenditure restrictions and even the EU constitution seem the most likely three at home, and Iran overseas.
It is worth saying that the condition of “leaderlessness” can clearly be quite positive. It will be remembered that the Lib Dem win at Dunfermline was in the last “interregnum”. It means that all the negatives often associated with any particular leader are not present. One or two caveats - that I wouldn’t like to fight a GE leaderless, I think that would lead to slaughter, and that a “permanent leaderless” state, as in the Green Party, does lose support, IMO.
Henri @ 123. “Like Major, but nowhere near so bad”. Perhaps a little unfair. Major may not have been Prime Ministerial material but at least he was a decent chap, had a sense of humour, didn’t take himself too seriously, and never lost his temper in public. Brown has none of these redeeming features. And, to quote one of his colleagues, a “f****ng awful PM”.
John “in office but not in power” Major was a total disaster and led the Tories to their worst defeat ever and with a little help from his pygmies helped destroy the Tories for a generation. Brown has to go some way to match that record.
129. Agreed on that.
Another bad news day for Labour - found to have miscalculated the immigration figures row continues (playing right into the hands of the Tories’ announcement yesterday) and the ‘pay as you throw’ tax is back on despite seemingly being shelved just a few days ago.
You get the feeling that government is aimless at the moment, doesn’t know where it’s going and is stumbling from one PR disaster to another. I guess you could have predicted this as soon as the master of PR, Blair, left the building. But it’s quite shocking how badly things have gone since the ‘no election’ disaster. At the moment, Cameron does, as some have said, seem to be governing by proxy.
well, not that JM was a disaster, but his govt as a whole was - not all his fault.
The public hates indiscipline.
I’ve been looking at the Comres polls since inception last year and compared them with the nearest (in terms of date)ICM/Guardian. Here are a few bits of trivia (all the standard caveats apply).
- Since April the ComRes poll has been kinder to the
Conservatives (2-9%) than the ICM Poll (before this it was
harsher by up to +9%)
- 41% is the highest that the Conservatives have polled under
Comres (4% higher than any other Comres poll since May)
- The 16% for the Libdems is only 1% above their post May low and
2% above their lowest Comres poll figures.
- Since May the Conservative percentage has been 1-2% higher in
Comres
- Since May the Labour percentage has been 1-3% lower in ComRes
poll.(In one case it was 9% but the two polls preceded the Brown
ascent with the Guardian being published 4 days later the Brown
ascent).
- In general the Libdem figures are lower in the ComRes Poll (up
to 5% since May).
- ComRes Poll in April was closer to reflecting the local election
% votes but was still 4/5% below the actual Conservative vote
(similarly below the Libdem vote but was spot on for Labour).
Did the change to the ComRes weighting method happen before the May poll?
From looking at it clearly there is something that now favours the Conservatives in the ComRes poll so assertions that the ICM poll will be closer seem fair. However, as this is the highest the Conservatives have polled on ComRes and Labour are close to their lowest post April figures it’s still a good poll for the Conservatives and I suspect it will likely not substantively be out of step (last actual ICM poll (Sunday Telegraph poll) was Con 43 Lab 36 LD 14)with the next ICM poll.
129. I agree, but I think Major was a decent man undermined by some thoroughly disruptive and short-sighted opportunists. He should have been able to sort them out, but very few Prime Ministers in his position would have been able to IMHO. The fact that he was more of a “collegiate” PM just made the matter worse, I think.
128. I agree JM can be a charming fellow, unlike Brown whose charmlessness is remarkable. But there is no doubting that his government descended into ridicule by the end. Labour are heading for ridicule rocks pretty quickly too, but Brown I suspect may end up being viewed more with contempt than pity.
132 You could argue that the Major govt’s disaster was not Major’s fault, but you’d be unwise and it kind of misses the point. Major was responsible. Should have gone in ‘95. Brown like it or not is responsible, but equally you could argue that he is still dealing with the legacy.
133 Communicate or Comres as they are now started weighting with their March 2007 poll , it is best to ignore any polls prior to this date .
125: Are you sure that Tory councils refusing to let building on green fields will go down badly with Tory voters?
119: How long before Cameron gets to revisit Lamont’s “in office but not in power” jibe against Major by deploying it in slightly different form against Broon - “Mr Speaker, the fact is that he’s in office, and I’m in power”?
How long before this joker gets the push? Is there a market for first minister to resign/be sacked? Is this non-entity really a minister?
http://news.aol.co.uk/minister-was-told-of-doctored-photo/article/20071029221109990004
139 Unwise of Cameron to raise Lamont IMO, make possible all sorts of comebacks.
137. Thanks, I had guessed that the early polls should be taken with a pinch of salt. Oddly enough the March poll bucks a lot of the subsequent trends I pointed to. Transition issues perhaps?
Cameron still isn’t as agressive at PMQs as Blair was in the dying days of Major’s government. This, in my opinion, is a wise decision. Blair’s very agressive tone (”Weak, Weak, Weak!”) was fine when he knew the public was very firmly behind him, but Cameron doing something similar would look a little too sharp, in my opinion, to a public who are still largely undecided who to vote for. He manages to get his point across without sounding TOO angry. And he doesn’t really need to do anything different to what he’s doing now at PMQs. Brown is being battered all around the House at the moment.
139. Exactly - he might as well be delivering the Queen’s Speech directly rather than by proxy through the media over the last two months!
125,138 - stopping development on nearby green fields goes down pretty well in my experience.
143. I agree. All Cameron needs to do is to carry on goading Brown and he will crack at PMQ’s. I expect British jobs for British workers to be taken apart this week.
145. Yes I can’t see that losing us too many votes.
146 - sadly, no PMQs this week. Gordon’s cancelled them I believe…
Anyway, I think Dave would have needed about a dozen questions with all the ammo he’s got at his disposal!
This, if it is supported by other evidence over the coming months, is critical.
I’ve banged on about it for some time that whilst Gordon would bring back the voters who sat at home over Iraq etc, the key issue is whether he would keep the ‘Tony’s’ those who were Tory up until 1997 but switched directly to Labour and stayed with Labour including in 2005. These people got Labour in and they could kick Labour out.
If these people start to shift Labour really does have a problem.
140 - unbelievable. At best, he should have checked everything before issuing his initial statement of denial. At worst, it’s blatant porkies. And this is the joker weighing down on the media for the TV fakery scandals. You couldn’t make it up…
Is there ANY good news for Labour at the moment?
Is ‘God’ a Tory?
145. Most of these new houses are ‘needed’ because of immigration. The Tories have already outlined an easy and green solution to this problem.
One of the big mistakes that Major’s government made was that they offended many different segments of society. You can get away with making SOME enemies, but making lots is suicidal.
Brown’s administration seem to following the same well-trodden path. The recent statement by Jim Knight (Minister for Schools) is almost guaranteed to annoy every school governor. “…proposal for local authorities to be required to redistribute five per cent of all surpplus revenue balances held by schools in their area.”
This will have one certain outcome: just before the financial end-of-year, there will be a mad rush by schools to spend their accrued surpluses on anything that they can think of. Prudent financial management and strategic planning will go out the door. Indeed, those schools that OVER-spend will be rewarded for doing so by being given money taken from those schools that “saved for a rainy day”.
I thought that the government had decided to drop this idea, but it appears that I was mistaken. Likely topic for the next PMQ?
149: Now it looks like the immigration figures that were 800,000, then 1.1 million may be as high as 1.5 million.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/7069140.stm
151. Thought Andrew Neil said it was being dropped. It that a u u turn in the last 2 hours.
139 - If Cammy were ever to come out with such a thing at PMQs it would be a disaster for him which would backfire. Talk about hubris!
151. No it’s an “O” turn. Just like the rubbish bin saga.
152. Brown can now trumpet ‘Britsih jobs for foreign workers’ then?
So, how many immigrants will Cammy turn away - because he can’t stop EU nationals or Commonwealth families etc etc. How many are left?
It seems that the government is so busy covering things up that they increasingly forget what porkies they told before.
Immigration, troop withdrawals, Inheritance tax ideas, nicking money from well managed schools, bin taxes. What shambles.
o/t According to the Times website, there is an MP involved in this Royal blackmail tape case..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2767325.ece
Excuse my ignorance with polling but can someone explain what is reality which can be read into shifts from poll to poll, and between different research bodies?
The samples I imagine are random, but weighted to cover a demographic base. I realise it is nothing more than a blurred snapshot but doesn’t it make more sense to ask people who they support, and keep asking the same people over a period of time to identify what changes their mind? Does this happen already?
RedFlump Commonwealth citizens have no automatic right of residency in the UK.
155. Just an ‘O’? More like a figure-of-eight.
“what is the reality” rather.
161. Don’t be too hard on the poor chap - he’s clearly a bit confused today as his earlier post about four year olds being ‘on the scrapheap’ showed…
154: “If Cammy were ever to come out with such a thing at PMQs it would be a disaster for him which would backfire”
Would have been risky used against Blair. But against Brown? Nah, Gordo would be so seething from the insult and the Tory cheers that would accompany it, he’d become a jabbering, stammering mess and any response along the lines of “Now the Leader of the Opposition is quoting Norman Lamont, to whom he was Chief Economic Adviser [sic], Black Wednesday, Black Wednesday, Black Wednesday, ner-ner-ner-ner-ner…etc” would just look pathetic and desperate on the part of Broon. GB is a busted flush, and Dave will have him every time now, until Labour MPs can take no more pain and knife him in the time-honoured political tradition.
159 - I do hope it’s a Tory MP. It would be a real scandal if an aide to a minor royal was found cavorting with Labour or the LDs. Surely Royal standards haven’t slipped that low?…
164 -
If you knew anything about the poor in this country old fruit, you would know that people are thrown onto the scrapheap even before they’re born (if you see what I mean). In any case, I was referring to their parents (usually single mothers).
165 - Bob, be careful what you wish for. What goes down well with the chaps in the House can come out as terribly arrogant to the average punter.
165. You missed out the bit about the “25 billion black hole” in the Cons policy..
It’s getting painful watching Brown now. I was one of those who wanted to see others stand in the leadership election (Benn, Straw, Reid, Miliband) for reasons that I think have now become obvious. Brown has many weaknesses, but what is surprising is that the Labour party knew this. They were always well aware of his flaws and yet wanted him as leader anyway.
Straw is currently 33/1 to be next leader and Brown to leave office next year 9/1. Seem like good odds to me. But does Jack really have the ‘bottle’ to put the knife in? If he does, he might just be able to win Labour a 4th term.
168. I dont think any member of the Labour government has the backbone to take a principled stand. That was pretty much confirmed in 2003 (bar Robin Cook) and we haven’t seen any inner courage since.
165
the whole thing makes UK laws/attempts to keep the thing silent look increasingly 19th century.
166 yes they are: it’s the state sponosred poverty-inducement programme so beloved of you socialist types. The poorer people get the more you emote and hem them in to a world of State control.
It’s a pity really because you mean well for the most part but you are all deluded into beleiving the solution to any problem is more State intervention and control.
Sure Start is a classic case in point where a behemoth of State provision crowds out genuinely useful schemes.
170 You can find out fairly easily who the Royal is, through the internet. Somewhat to my surprise, it isn’t Princ Charles.
Like Bob Sykes, I would be disappointed if the MP in question were not a Conservative.
165 The minor royal has been named in US; not as minor as I thought (not an HRH) but it’s his aide that had the fling not the royal.
On immigration - there are quite a lot of us foreign born British around who have settled here - a particularly large number being German born (Army). Then there are the temporary workers -Commonwealth citizens permitted to work for a year, foreign companies staff posted for a period. Then you get the real immigrants. Lets not conflate the numbers.
What Cameron should be doing in his policy development is to create a real difference between people allowed in for work purposes for a specified job and time (US bankers, Japanese managers, Foreign footballers etc) and those who want to settle.
Lack of clarity of on numbers (do they include or exclude family members) is what makes discussion or decision making difficult.
171. I’ve found another good article on Sure Start.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1386943.ece
172 Isn’t the Internet amazing. The powers that be just can’t cover this stuff up now can they. How about a SF or DUP MP for a really del.icio.us story!
The MP in question is indeed a Conservative, and one whose name will come as no surprise.
I think that royal is pretty minor. Am not really sure that somebody who isn’t a Prince or a Princess is really “royal”. Member of the extended royal family is more like it. To me, a royal has an HRH. Of course perhaps there’s a case for changing the law so that women can pass on some species of title or arms to their children, and not merely in exceptional circumstances. Interesting is that a Princess, if that is all she is, even of the blood royal, is not actually a peer and therefore passes on nothing; a Baroness in her own right passes “the Hon.” to her children, a Princess of the blood nothing unless she has a subsidiary peerage title.
Hard to get too excited about the man in question one way or the other imo.
176. I have a little fear about this. Is the name available by googling?
170/172: Once you’ve worked out who the royal is, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to hazard a guess who the MP might be either.
(I assume from 176 that Sean has found him named somewhere, I haven’t, but I be amazed if it wasn’t who I think it is)
please read Gove’s speech this afternoon re GB - priceless - you can hear the gnashing teeth in No10 even now
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=140017&speeches=1
Could somebody suggest some google terms?
181 - For Surestart or the Royal Gay Scandal…?
181 Just go through wikipedia for the various royals and check out the ‘discussion’ tab.
181:
Guido is currently hinting strongly as to the Royal’s identity.
It’s gone from wiki. Huffington Post suggested.
181 - I googled royal scandal blackmail and ignored all links to reputable sources. It was then on about the third blog I looked at. You can cross check by googling royal scandal blackmail and the name of the relevant royal.
The MP is mentioned in some of these, but it is a rehash of an old story.
The MPin the not quite Royal saga is somewhat tangental. Not quite, but almostlike having tea in the wrong restaurant at the wrong time.
181: Let’s see ‘gay’ plus ‘royal’ plus ’scandal’.
If your really interest(and I’m sure you are) the names involved in the Royal story, are all on http://www.wondertrash.com
But I’ll bet your all to high minded to look!!
173. “What Cameron should be doing in his policy development..” is producing clear figures ref migrant numbers - if he thinks govt policy is so bad.
I agree. But as I said further up the thread, he doesn’t wish actually to develop any policy – he prefers to “wing it” and waffle.
When asked about desired migrant numbers in an interview yesterday he said “we’ll come up with numbers closer to an election”.
That’s why he still sounds like a very good PR man, but not a potential future PM.
168 “Brown to leave office next year 9/1″
Frank, please confirm who is operating this market.
181 Try http://www.the-spine.com/archives/1184
181 “Royal Sex Scandal” should do the trick, so long as you look at foreign, rather than UK sites.
You have to scroll down.
Not that I’ve looked of course!!
182: Orlando - read it - terrific speech - should hit Brown right where it hurts - his intellect.
You should put a health warning with it for Labour Posters (it’s likely to make their blood pressure rise)……
Guido is a bit pathetic on this. Why bother man. The name is out in black and white. Just run a betting market on this and you’ll know the truth in an instant.
You have to be careful with some of these dodgy websites, they might be barking up the wrong tree and really causing damage to an innocent party.
The first site I encountered that looked promising in this respect revealed…..
…one of HM’s corgis
I just hope some poor Tory MP will not be hounded for his sexuality.
Thats errr wondertrash, in case u missed it, but then you wouldn’t stoop to looking would you???
198 Unlikely, as his sexuality is no secret, and, as others have commented, his involvement seems to be tangental.
199 These foreign web sites are useless - searched them all and still no revelation of the most important name.
So who is Jack W?
Almost certain its hmmmmgher (gagging order applied)
His involvement seems to be tangental.
Ummm is tangental a position in the Karma Sutra??
201
Its on Wondertrash scroll down its after the item on the Mcanns
200. It’s an old story, am I right in guessing that?
News 24 lead is that over half the jobs created under Labour have gone to immigrants (yet more revised figures sneaked out last night).
Not only have the immigration figures gone up but they have revised the jobs created down from 2.7 million to 2.1 million. Will it never end?
198 et al. Do you think in the current climate of the new Tory party an MP dogged by these kind of accusations would have to battle for reselection? It certainly wouldn’t be the case in the Labour party where to our credit we’ve always taken quite a liberal point of view on this stuff. It can be a personal tragedy. If the MP in question is a good at their jobs (it as a Tory after all), I hope they get to face the electorate and have the chance to win despite of it.
203 not interested in what some manual labourer gets up to (even a blue blooded one) - it’s the Pb.com mystery man I want the low down on.
206 I would certainly hope not. Mps private lives are their own business if no abuse has taken place.
204 Yes.
206 The MP’s constituency party doesn’t seem that bothered about it. I imagine some other constituency associations would take a rather dimmer view.
This immigration malarky - we get young athletic poles keen to work coming in.
We get rid of elderly types who want sunshine and and to play golf, cost the health service a bucket and no longer pay taxes
Sound like this immigration thing is working just fine
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/10/meet-the-royal-embroiled-in-sex-coke-scandal.php
the MP is sort of named here.
More interesting is Brogan on the Gove speech and the new “Brown narrative” among the Lobby:
“Chamberlain after Baldwin, Eden after Churchill, Bush senior after Reagan, Gove argues, “the successor model has never quite recaptured the excitement of the first. They have been Roger Moores cast to replace the original Sean Connery, with the best will in the world the same quality isn’t there”.
Mr Brown, he says, is the latest is in a tradition of tragic historical figures, idealists forced by the imperative of clinging to power to abandon what they once believed in: Lloyd George, LBJ, Mitterand. “In all these cases, when they fell there was not just a sense of an old order passing which had lingered too long, there was also a recognition that behind the swell and grandeur of their administration there was a hollowness, a series of empty exercises in manipulation.”
The danger for the Prime Minister is that this conclusion, helped by his own goals in recent weeks and his uncertain performances at PMQs, is beginning to crystallise in the Westminster Village. The Conservatives cannot afford to be complacent (including the frontbencher who recently told me he was looking forward to inviting me to his first ministerial lunch), but the narrative is changing and Mr Gove has elegantly explained why that might be.”
http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/
208 I agree that they’re private unless the make a political issue out of them or attack their opponents on that basis. And even them if you have a soul you should always deal with the political dimension with a degree of sympathy and genuine care.
209. I take it we’re talking about the MP who’s close to Cameron and whos ’scandal’ was last year.
212 Macmillan is the exception that really undermines Gove’s little speech. A good model to follow for Brown I’d say. If Gove spent less time watching Bond and doing film reviews on BBC2 he might be able to share some genuine political insights.
212
I bet I know what’ll be in tomorrows papers test and it won’t be that!!
There’s no MP story here; it already came out and his name was withheld to protect the Royal, as it identified the Royal. The MP really has no connection at all to the current story from what I can see.
216 - It will probably be another story on the McCanns.
Hang on lads. Gove is an idiot.
Roger Moore went on to do more films than Connery and arguably secured the Bond franchise for the long term. If Brown plays Moore to Blair’s Connery then thats a pretty good result.
Lazenby would have been a better comment, which would raise the question would you want to see Blair back for one last turn in the role. But Gove missed it. I guess he doesn’t watch much Bond.
215 Macmillan followed Eden - so whoever followed Brown might be able to turn the ship around. When within 4 months of your taking over premiership sections of your parliamentary party from both Blairite (last week) and Compass (today) start doubting your strategy it’s not a good sign.
219. Timothy Dalton would have been more apt.
The adage about Churchill I believe was “nothing grows under a heavy roller”.
Labour had two heavy rollers and it should be no surprise that the Ministers are such a talentless pool of nonentities.
219. Except that in the public mind (for some bizarre reason that I do not agree with) Sean Connery is always considered “the best”.
190. The problem is the public is coming around to the idea of letting Cameron off with his plans and figures because of the whole IHT debacle from Labour. Cameron doesn’t need to announce anything substantial at all now because he can keep saying - “Brown will steal it”.
O/T but vaguely related to the scandal issue, I know from personal sources that Andrew Pelling is now back together with his wife (has this already been discussed?). Now there is a lucky man - he just couldn’t have picked a better time for that scandal to errupt. Two days later and we were in full (non-)election swing. Even a month earlier and he may have really suffered the consequences but Brown’s miscalculations saved him!
Excellent dissection of why Brown is doomed to failure. You can’t argue with history and the vast majority of the time, those that take over from powerful leaders dissapoint.
After writing this, won’t it be ironic in 10-15 yeard down the line Gove ends up taking over from Cameron?
219.Sean Connery was the best Bond who enjoyed a lot of success in other movies, unlike Roger Moore, who turned out to be a one trick pony.
Saying Moore secured the bond franchise is a bit revisionist methinks - his last few efforts were so bad that he very nearly killed it off.
See the Conservatives have found something to fill those poster sites booked for the non-election
http://thewrongman.typepad.com/campaignhq/2007/10/halloween-ad-fr.html
Another Brown U-Turn??? Fascinating stuff……
http://tinyurl.com/2n5jyn
;o)
More seriously what is going on at the Telegraph?
219. Roger Moore went on too long and ran out of ideas. The franchise was close to death after his last 2 films. Trouble with him was when he killed someone, you always expected them to get back up. With Connery you knew they were dead.
I think the Asquith / Lloyd george analogy is unfair as well.
229. He was pretty unconvincing in the bedroom scenes as well
The name of the Royal Family member was on an Italian paper this morning…they said UK media can mention it because of privacy laws, but international media can, so they did it.
231. He managed to kill you with a poison dart however
GIN “After writing this, won’t it be ironic in 10-15 yeard down the line Gove ends up taking over from Cameron?”
That is the scariest sentence I have ever read on this site. All three of the propositions in this sentence should give any sane person pause for thought - 1. Cameron as PM, disturbing 2. 10 to 15 years of Tory Government - the 80s and early 90s all over again, ugghhh 3. Gove as PM. - like David Cronenburg’s films unleashed on reality.
I suggest GIN that you seek help now if your imagination can contemplate this without your id crashing in on your ego and imploding into a dark black hole…
Meanwhile, I’m off to contemplate something more pleasant - Italian cooking - to see if thinking nice thoughts can help me overcome the nightmare vision you have produced in me.
233 brilliant
224. Whilst we are in the area of supposition. Let’s imagine that Salmond gets his way and has a referendum. Let’s also imagine that against all the odds he actually wins it.
Forgetting the very serious implications that it has for the Union for a moment. What would it mean for the Labour Government?
Would Brown, Alexander, Murphy et al and co have to pack their bags and begger off back to Scotland?
What impact would it have on the Labour Party?
Would it cause a constitutional crisis?
Would Brown, Alexander, Murphy et al and co have to pack their bags and begger off back to Scotland?
We couldn’t possibly be so lucky as to see the back of such a sorry and annoying bunch of losers/parasites in one go.
Scots thinking of how best to rile the English should bear that in mind before casting their votes for independence
236. By skipping over the implications for the Union and going straight onto what it would mean for Brown and the Labour party shows the danger of being careful about what you wish for…..
Recess Monkey is saying half the flags for the Saudi royal visit were upside down, could it really get any worse.
Radio 4’s PM has just opened with around ten minutes of ‘the Government has apologised/U turned/failed to’.
Doesn’t rain but it pours.
239. The Union Jack is frequently flown upside down…or was it the Saudi flags only?
238. I’m not wishing for anything. I do not want to see the back of Brown so badly as to support wrecking the Union
However, there is below the seemingly partisan nature of the questions above some serious considerations both for the British Government and for the Labour Party in particular.
Whilst it is highly unlikely that Salmond would win such referendum it is not out of the question.
After all, who would have thought Salmond would have been First Minister of Scotland a few years back?
241
http://www.recessmonkey.com/
I Think its just the Saudi ones
234 - I bet you’re having bigger nightmares about the following vision - namely:
Brown becoming PM 10 years into Labour’s turn at power, committing cock-up after cock-up, being a complete numpty at PMQs, making a complete arse of himself over the non-election, nicking Tory policies with gay abandon, appearing childish at every opportunity, failing to articulate any vision whatsoever, seeing the Tories drive the policy agenda with the media four-square behind them, Labour poll ratings in nose-dive, Tories resurgent, Cameron embraced by the public, the WLQ surging up the list of key voter issues but with no answer from HMG, legislation failing to pass through the Commons, constant bad press over the Lisbon Treaty ratification and lack of referendum, Labour MPs despondent, talk of GB being forced out, plotting & scheming abetted by GB’s leadership becoming the media narrative, Labour below 30% in the polls, worse ratings than Michael Foot, by-election defeats to the Tories, successful coup attempt by David Miliband in last ditch attempt to put him into battle against Cameron and Clegg (in hope that 3 identical party leaders might confuse voters and increase Labour share) - and Gordon out of the job in less than 12 months.
And the bugger of it for Labour is that all of the above seems more plausible than Cameron being PM for 15 years and handing over to Michael Gove!
242.I would also suggest that it has serious implications for the Conservative party too!
BBC News 24 - Talks on Party Funding have been suspended…..
244
I hope your vision is correct:-)
Daily Mail on Gove on Brown:
http://tinyurl.com/2zlef3
Bob Sykes - surely that is all the prelude? You know, like in The Omen when all the storm clouds portend doom. But when you consider what is to come, that is really when the nightmare begins.
I sometimes wonder if the Tories on here remember what the Tory years were really like? 4 million unemployed, interest rates at 15%+, riots, the NHS on its knees, roads driven through sites of scientific interest with no consideration of the environmental impact, teachers’ strikes, the Miners’ Strike, Black Wednesday, Black everyday. Christ, I’m no Labour man, but when you think about the reality of over 15 years of Tory rule it gives me the fear…sorry I’m back off to my spaghetti and mediterranean thoughts to get over this memory, Bob.
249. The breaking of the miners was a high point of the Thatcher years (IMHO)- the making of the Uk. Harsh on the miners but they did install that nutter Scargill.
249 - 4m unemployed under the Tories?
What is it now (actually) - 5m?
7m?
BTW, it was 18 years of Tory rule, not 15. Apologies if I’ve just spoilt your alphabetti-spaghetti.
Foreign nationals staying over 6 months from outside the EU and the old commenwealth have register with the police within 7 days of arrival.
Exceptions to this rule are USA and Japan.
However chinese nationals students have to register, but Pakistan, Sri Lanka, students to name but two countries do not.
Where is the logic in this.
The legislation needs complete overall,the Police spend untold time on unnecesary bureaucracy, administration,looking at persons that are of no importance, or threat to our nation.
Once a foreign national enters the country on a student visa, but then does not bother to register his address with the Police, that person whereabouts is effectively unknown to the authorities.
The conservatives should demand that this present government, gets a grip of this situation, and let the Police concentrate on those persons it needs to.
Rather than some outdated concept that commenwealth countries should not be required to register, but the old communist countries outside the EU do.
I think we should be using finite rescouces more effectivley.
249. Another Dave Spart impersonator among the Lib Dems…!
Govt trying to bury more bad news. From Adam Boulton SKY.
“Meanwhile there was more bad news in another area from the Home Office. In a written answer David Hanson confirmed that 502 Foreign prisoners have been given early release. Mr Hanson said that the released foreign prisoners were “not eligible for deportation”.”
So that’s 502 foreign criminals let loose early on our streets!
http://adamboulton.typepad.com/
and then there’s Mr margaret Hodge who stops the deportation of this serial sex offender.
“Mr Justice Hodge ruled that Kendeh should be allowed to stay under article eight of the Human Rights Act, which gives a person the right to a family life.”
Even though it is judged that his family in the UK are not safe with him!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490651&in_page_id=1770
Miliband on paternity leave yesterday unable to meet Saudis, but back at his desk today to claim progress in Iraq…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7069963.stm
… interesting.
231 - “He was pretty unconvincing in the bedroom scenes as well”
I’ve challenged my friends to name a more unpleasant sex scene that is suppossed to be sexy than the Grace Jones and Roger Moore one in View to a Kill. So far no one has.
Bob. I did say ‘over 15 years’ - I was tying it in to the point of ‘10 to 15 years’ - see what I did?
Henri. It’s called satire. You probably wouldn’t understand as most of the political satire programmes are past your bedtime.
225
Unlike Connery, (who was pretty unknown) Moore was already an established ‘actor’ Moore had been a name in films and in particular TV, (Ivanhoe, Maverick, the Saint) Moore was given Bond, because there was no one else, considered suitable.
In fact Fleming’s Bond is a very unpleasant character, a de-humanised instrument of government policy. The amazing thing is Bond is heterosexual, if you weren’t aware of this, you’d suspect he was gay. Mid-thirties ish, not and never married, faddish in the extreme, fussed over by a Scottish housekeeper. Either that or Asexual, has no friends, or family, (parents were killed).
No one ever knocks on Bond’s door, (a bijou house just off the Kings Road) and says, ‘Hey Jim, (no one ever calls him that) fancy popping into the Potter for a couple of jars’
258 sounds vaguely akin to Shelock Holmes (except he had a brother Mycroft)
James Bond gay and eight Daves - oh its a dream come true
259
Its common behaviour amongs British fictional ‘Hero’ types loners, with peculiar habits. Bulldog Drummond, Raffles etc. never normal.
260 Pleased I’ve made your day!!
After Goldeneye I always thought Pierce Brosnan would prove to be the best Bond, but the scripts he got given just got worse and worse. I have very high hopes for Daniel Craig, the excellent actor that he is.
I never really rated Sean Connery, although he was admittedly better than Roger Moore. The problem with Connery is that he always plays himself rather than the character he’s supposed to be. James Bond was written as a cynical, upper class Englishman with a heck of a dark streak, not a lovable Scottish rogue.
261. Not me !
Anyone interested in the US Election might be interested in the following high probability trade.
http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/betting-journal-arbitrage/
262. I have high hopes after the reboot as well. Hopefully the films will show why bond became dehumanised after being betrayed by women and the nature of the job ect.
How long before there is a gay spy movie franchise I wonder???
256. Madonna and Willem Defoe in Body of Evidence?
267. Didn’t Diana Rigg and George Lazenby despise each other during the shooting of ‘On Her Majesties Secret Service’. Wasn’t she supposed to have eaten raw garlic just before the shooting of the love scene with Lazenby?
254
‘Mr Justice Hodge ruled that Kendeh should be allowed to stay under article eight of the Human Rights Act, which gives a person the right to a family life.”
Even though it is judged that his family in the UK are not safe with him!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490651&in_page_id=1770
Nothing new here as under New Labour the criminal’s rights are always paramount over the victim’s,generates lots of work for Cherie Blair and the army of human rights lawyers and all funded courtesy of the ever generous UK taxpayer.
265. For some reason, I think the Republicans can hold the presidency but fall short of recapturing the House.
Would you say that the anti-incumbency swing effect tends to vented out on the the party which holds the presidency rather than that which controls Congress?
The problem for both parties seems to be disillusionment among elements of their base. Republicans don’t seem to be raptuously enthralled with the GOP presidential field; while many Democrats are unhappy with what they consider a lack of progress towards ending the war in Iraq on the part of Congressional leaders.
Do you think there are strong odds on a significant third party challenge? Perhaps Ron Paul running as a Libertarian or, depending on the eventual GOP nominee, the emergence of a Christian Right candidate.
Of course Fleming a heavy drinker and smoker was probably impotent,(died at 48) he preferred S/M anyway. His marriage to Anne Fleming was a sham, she had a long term affair with Hugh Gaitskell, to whom she was related.Fleming’s attitude to sex, was heavily influenced by his own behaviour, and experiences.
Comment on Raffles, his companion, was an awestruck younger man, called ‘Bunny’ make of that what you will.
p.s.
In case your wondering, abnormally normal, strictly a leg over man: although thats probably not normal now.
258. Good points. Dalton took the books as his source material and it shows in the films, which despite being new stories are far closer to the character than anything Roger Moore managed. Daniel Craig seems to have a similar attitude to the role which augers well. That they might be the best actors to have played Bond doesn’t harm their case either.
New thread - Will Gord try to stop Ashcroft without agreement?
Sky News reporting ICM poll in tomorrow’s Guardian : CON 40, LAB 35, LD 18
265. There is no chance whatsoever of a third party win. You might make some money on the trade if you can find the proverbial ‘bigger sucker’ in the right conditions, but I really can’t see a remotely credible candidate. We’re not talking about a Liebermann situation here where he already had a very strong base in his state. Any third party candidate would have to take on their own party and the other side from a position of weakness.
It’s true that some third candidates have polled well before the election (Anderson in ‘80 springs to mind), or even up to the election (Perot in ‘92), but to actually win states? That’s just not going to happen, and certainly not the 20+ they would need to win. The last time someone outside the duopoly won a state was back in the Civil Rights days when the south effectively ran their own Dixie Democrat candidate - who was never going to win outside the South. In any case, party machines have less power now than they did then.
Not since 1912 has a third party stood a serious chance - and that was with a former president as candidate who was if not the most popular politician in the country, then certainly the foremost. And here’s the point: despite beating his own side’s candidate, and despite the Roosevelt/Taft vote total being well in excess of Wilson’s, the Republican split handed the election to the Democrats. Besides, had there been a primary system like today, Roosevelt would have walked the nomination. No third party candidate will ever get close to the White House again while the duopoly retains the power it currently has.
262.”not a lovable Scottish rogue.” Well it made sure that Sean Connery was still topping the sexiest male tables even when he was drawing his pension.
Hi the post is funny.
I will definitely read your blog..
bye