So what does it mean for the big battle?
December 18th, 2007
Who’ll be most relieved that it’s Nick?
Wow - what a close margin? Who could have predicted that?
Only five weeks ago I entered into a wager with Observer for £500 at even money that Huhne would get more than the 42% that he achieved in 2006. Well that bet is won. (Observer - I do appreciate that we need to find a way for you to pay me without you revealing your identity).
Even when I entered into that bet I did not envisage that the outcome was going to be that close. I thought that it would be closer to the YouGov 56-44% poll of a fortnight ago.
But what does this mean now for the big fight between Gord and Dave? On the face of it the Tories, who have taken maybe a quarter of the support that the Lib Dems got in 2005, could be most at risk.
But Labour is the party that is finding it hard to hold onto its share at the moment and might be most vulnerable.
The nightmare for the Lib Dems, of course, is that it doesn’t make much difference.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
As advertisement for Clegg’s team up and running already.
Good stuff.
Go on Kingbongo, you know you want to.
Congratulations to Jennie.
Reposted from old thread…:
Fantastic result - for Tories and Labour!
Lib Dems elect a lightweight non-entity, but 50% of the party wanted someone else!
Split asunder, right down the middle.
Is this the end for the Liberals?
Oh dear, I’ll stop laughing shortly….
It’s hard to think of a worse result for the Lib Dems. A favourite who has an unconvincing campaign and who wins by a whisker from a candidate who has been more energetic and more visible, taking over from an unexpectedly successful stopgap leader. No momentum, no clear direction, no enthusiasm. For the Lib Dems’ sake, I hope that Nick Clegg realises just how serious the dangers are for them.
What was the full turnout (inclusing spoilt papers etc.?), was he actually elected on less than 50% of votes?
Nobody, I don’t believe this guy can really haul the LD’s back to their poll heydays over the short term as the prevailing political wind is against them right now, despite the possibility of a new leader boost.
Turnout is down. Huhne will have to be given a top job due to that small margin. Wonder how the spreads will react.
5 - he must have been.
At least ONE of the three main party leaders can claim a mandate from his own party!
I wonder how many spoilt ballot papers there were.
A bad result for the Libs. Clegg loses momentum and scrapes in by a whisker. (Clegg will always know that Huhne should have won this and would in any other system). Clegg already handicapped by close result and following Ming. Plus it’s Xmas so who really cares.
but yes, he shouldn’t have much trouble outperforming my expectations, which are pretty low.
Very good result for Huhne.
If only he hadn’t done “Calamity Clegg” eh? I’m too biassed to be fair- what did people think of Cleggs acceptence speech (I found the first few minutes good, but after that is dissappeared into a bog of soggy platitudes)
6 - I do think they will finally attempt to rectify that in a year’s time when Cleggy is knifed and Charlie makes his comeback to popular claim.
Well, I wonder if we can get Betfair to stick up a new market straight away
BTW, Ralph thanks for the numbers.
Has Kennedy been on the sauce?
Join Nick Clegg’s team for nine pounds a year?
Blimey, when Labour do cash-for-access at least they get a million quid out of it
Huhne must be gutted.
There’s nothing worse that not be elected by just a few votes.
It leaves you with so many “if onlys……”
Against Incapability Brown and Calamity Clegg, I would think Cameron will have no difficulty dominating PMQ.
Reposted from the last thread
Sorry it’s O/T and has nothing to do with Clegg, but it’s important:
“Conservatives admit to receiving illegal donations”
David Cameron’s constituency party has admitted receiving £7,400 in invalid donations, it was revealed today.”
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,2229373,00.html
15 Test, its a £9 min and £45 recommended payment!
Clegg: good choice IMO. I wouldn’t like to predict the impact, but a pleasant manner goes a long way these days, and Huhne doesn’t really have it…
I wish it had been a clear majority, at least you know where you stand then. Clegg’s speech was vacuous but that’s only to be expected in any victory speech.
Given that Gordo wasn’t even elected and the headbangers on ConsHome continue to rile against centrist Dave (albeit more vocally when the polls are not so favourable), some of the comments above are rather strange.
Surprised it was so close. Huhne fought the better campaign, but as I said the day Ming resigned, it was Clegg’s to lose, and his approachability is a vital asset we need to make the most of. Congratulations to him and I look forward with real confidence to his leadership.
18 If the facts reported are correct, this hardly looks “important”.
14 i thought exacly the same
Well- Congratulations to Nick Clegg. I voted for Huhne, but am happy to accept the skills claimed for Clegg as a solid and often charismatic leader. In some senses I think the closness of the result reflects not so much a verdict on Nick Clegg, but a lack of confidence in the party grandees who made him their candidate- as they did with Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell. I think that Clegg now has a free hand to ignore the grandees, reach out to the former Huhne-ites and continue the recovery that began under Vince Cable.
Huhne as Shadow Chancellor might be a bit more imaginative than keeping him at Environment.
18. Not really in David Abrahams league is it. And it’s been resolved and the money forfeited. Won’t even register. Good day to bury it.
Looks like Dave’s luck shows no sign of running out
17. What does that actually mean? You think that the “Calamity Clegg” document means he can’t deal with PMQs? Maybe the Current Bun has some vacancies for sub-eds.
An excellent result for the LibDems and the country as a whole and I actually voted for the winner . huhne was the finished article , Clegg is not but he has the potential to develop and grow into a great leader who can show up Cameron for the vacuosness and lack of policies that is the Conservative party today .
I can’t see a narrow victory being a problem, per se, unless Clegg and Huhne are at daggers drawn.
26 - Cable at home office would be interesting given that it’s where a lot of government disasters are emanating.
I wonder what the odds are for the next main party to hold a leadership contest.
I think I just heard on Sky that the turnout was 64%.
Yes, Clegg has to give Huhne a top job, but he’d be foolish to replace Vince Cable as Shadow Chancellor.
Re. the close margin, one of the things held against Charles Kennedy through his leadership was that he only just beat Simon Hughes in 99. Maybe Clegg’s narrow margin (500 or so votes, which wouldn’t be all that much in a Westminster constituency election) will mean that he, like Kennedy, will have his leadership dogged by accusations (fair or unfair) of a lack of vigour.
30 Mark Senior dos his usual party piece on here with an attack on the Conservatives at the end. Talk about living in the past. Mark, the Govt is not the Conservatives anymore!
33 - maybe
Lib Dems 1/2
Tories 6/4
Labour 50/1 (haven’t had one since 1994)
30: More objective stuff from the Ave it of the LibDems
So Huhne’s 568 wafer thin majority in Eastleigh is now greater than Clogg’s 511 vote margin for the leadership, from a similar sized electorate.
Not exactly convincing, is it?
36. That 50/1 looks tempting. Are you open for business Aaron?
35 HF - The government is not the Conservatives anymore and electing Clegg as leader makes it much more likely that they will not be the government after the next General Election .
39 - not at those tongue-in-cheek prices
37. Whereas comments from “Bob Sykes”, Test, Woody, “Sveik” (et cetera) have been notable objective.
*notably
Very low turnout for a leadership election…..less than two-thirds voting. Clegg’s winning number of votes way less than Huhne polled in losing in 2006.
Gracious losing speech by Huhne…..As a Lib Dem I hope the party has made the right choice but I just don’t see it myself…..but fingers crossed.
Tories out in force here, trying to rubbish the result. Only to be expected, of course.
This comes hard on the heels of Cameron’s attempts to seduce Lib Dems into his tent.
Nick Palmer gives Cameron a master class of how it should be done….. (if he wanted to, of course).
39 - seriously, I think it would be something like
Labour 4/6
Tories 2/1
Lib Dems 9/2
42: any objective observer would be forced to conclude this is the wort possible result for the LibDems. Sorry,to be fair a write in Cable victory would have been worse
His Eminence @ 37
If I was “Ave It” I would sue you for that comment!
looking forward to Clegg showing up “Cameron’s Progressives”…
Hmmm, after bemoaning the lack of work I’d managed by spending too time much on here today, I for one welcome the avalanche of tiresome partisanship that is suddenly making a colossal pile of untouched paperwork look positively enticing.
48: true apologies
20 I agree with Nick Palmer — I think Huhne (despite being quick-witted and clever) would have been a worse choice than Clegg for precisely the reason Nick says.
The best solution would have been to keep Charles Kennedy as a figurehead (Chief Executive), and to have someone like Vince Cable (Managing Director) organizing, developing and implementing the strategic plan.
Whatever Kennedy’s drawbacks, his public image was very attractive — it was warm, charming and graceful. It should have been capitalized upon, not wantonly destroyed.
The assumption that a new lib dem leader will somehow unsettle Cameron is odd. A few months ago he was close to being usurped by an unhappy tory party as they faced another election defeat, now as they surge ahead in the polls and finally look electable the fact that Clegg may try and attack him won’t worry him a bit. He knows what it’s like to be very close to the edge, and the lib dems don’t stand a chance of bringing him that close again, so he can just press on with what he is doing.
13: Your welcome.
18: What made the donorgate story was that senior Labour Party figures knew illegal donations were happening and at best did nothing. At present this story seems to have no legs.
40: I disagree Mark. Unless there is a major change in opinion it is Labour, not the Tories that the Lib Dems could win seats off. Clegg still seems to think it’s 1997.
What a crying pity it wasn’t Huhne.
I think, once again, the Lib Dems have shot themselves in the foot. They seem to be developing a pechant for it.
They’ve arrived on the “heir to Blair” route two years too late: Cameron has been there, done that and has cemented that position for himself. At the next election, many marginal constituency voters will have the option of voting for:
a) A Blair Clone who waffles on about liberalism, opportunity and giving power to people, but the most likely to gain a plurality in the Commons
b) A Blair Clone who waffles on about liberalism, opportunity and giving power to people, but stands no chance of beating Labour.
If people want to rid themselves of the tired Labour government, pray tell which Blair clone would you vote for? At least Huhne offered something different in terms of approach and presentation.
(Oh, plus, it’s a minor point, but someone *must* tell Clegg not to refer to the Lib Dems as “his” party. He was prattling on ‘my party’ this and ‘my party’ that. ‘Our party’ is much more inclusive and less likely to rattle people).
[53] Actually I think that you contradict yourself in your posting- the fact is that politics is extremely febrile right now and it could therefore even be that Cameron is back in the clarts before the next election.
Agree with Cicero that there is an element of rebellion against the party grandees here.
The most significant decision for Clegg will be what to do with Kennedy - no one will notice what he does with Ming, but if CK is ready for a comeback, it will grab some narrative. Is Shadow Home Sec too far? Othewise Huhne/Featherstone/Goldsworthy.
And againi congratulations to Clegg, as long as Huhne doesn’t kick up a fuss about the result, the low proportion won’t affect him. He would be right to be concerned about the low turnout however.
“Huhne as Shadow Chancellor might be a bit more imaginative than keeping him at Environment.”
Er, I think George Osborne might have something to say about that!
I think you mean “Treasury Spokesman”.
11 Speech far too long….waffle again.
Wll done LibDems. My faith in you as a party is undiminished.
I see the BBC Home Page - for reasons unclear - has a big picture of a Grinning Lembit and a pair of Cheeky Girls splashed across it.
Wonderful timing, BBC!
It’s clear Cable will keep the Treasury brief.
Huhne will have to be promoted now. One of the Great Office briefs certainly. Home Affairs looks the most promising as it’s just been vacated. Charlie for Foreign Affairs if he wants to make a comeback?
Ok, money where your mouth time is for Lib dem, what’s an acceptable poll rating in say 6 months for the Lib Dems for Clegg to be seen as a success?
John Rentoul’s verdict in the Independent
Nick Clegg, the wrong choice for possibly decent reasons. Half the Liberal Democrat members were obviously not going to be swayed by considerations as grubby as mere campaigning. Chris Huhne, whose policies I find less appealing, ran a much sharper and more effective campaign. We have no idea whether Clegg really was 12 percentage points ahead at the end of November, as YouGov suggested. But if he was, the Huhne insurgency very nearly pulled it off. Huhne was more aggressive in pursuing Labour on the secret funding issue, and he was more aggressive in opposing Trident - the party is now led by someone whose position is shrouded in fog and mired in fudge.
Just as they got it wrong electing Sir Menzies last time, Lib Dems decided to vote for the nice guy, not the street fighter.
The speeches delivered at the announcement of the election result this afternoon were a good guide. Vince Cable was best. He made a small slip at the start, welcoming past leaders “Paddy, Charles and Menzies”. Someone shouted out that David Steel was also in the audience. “And David Steel - that was before the merger,” he said, recovering well. Huhne was simple and gracious. For a man who had come within 511 votes, 1.2 per cent, of winning, he hid his disappointment well. And Clegg was completely vacuous. His election was a fresh start, he said. Which new leader does not think that - they have to prove it. He was elected to change Britain, apparently. And he’s a liberal. Blimey.
Mmmmmm…is Clegg going to be greeted with a baptism of fire by the media?
63
10%
56. He could be, however the chances are remote. He’s been through a very bad patch, come out the other side more experienced and wiser for it. He knows how to deal with serious problems, both from within his party and from other sources. The chances of him being unsettled by Brown at this point are unlikely, as Brown himself has lost all credibility. The chances of Clegg doing it are…..remote at best, for he lacks any name recognition or experience (something Cameron has had to learn the hard way but has done).
61 Yes, it really turned my stomach.
Lembit has his usual wonky, lecherous grin, and the Cheeky Girls look mercenary and ugly.
I hope the photo is splashed all over Montgomeryshire by Lembit’s opponents.
1 Thanks for the invite! However, much as Clegg might be a good Liberal his party is peculiarly unattractive to me and I would rather eat my wn spleen than ever vote LD.
party rankings really go
1 tory philosophy of the individual over the State and the Nation over the Superstate
2 Labour social events - usually the most fun
3 LD old ladies - always barking mad in woolly hats and Kaftans with no clue about the world and its workings but a quaint view that if only more people were hippies the world would be a better place - always very pleasant when handing out scones and tea
I wish Nick Clegg the best of luck and hope he is able to get his activists to recognise that to be Liberal is not to be a fan of the Labour party - the statist authoritarians de nos jours.
An excellent result in my opinion. The small margin of victory isn’t a problem. A thumping majority might have imbued us with complacency and a false sense of unity. As it stands, Nick and his like-minded Liberal Democrats must employ all their intellectual vigour to win over the doubters in the party. This won’t be easy and there may be some fraught days ahead, but I think the revolution that will take place over the coming weeks and months will be salutary to an enormous degree.
Where does this leave the other parties? I predict a pronounced shift to the left by Labour and with it the cementing of their unelectability under Gordon Brown. Cameron’s vacuity will become increasingly apparent. His survival under such scrutiny is in no way assured.
So in conclusion: remember this day. British politics has change irrevocably, and the change will prove a splendid one.
(Blast! Added to wrong thread, originally. )
Be nice to LibDems Day.
So Clegg has defeated Chris Huhne
And Tories think this is a boon
but beware a surprise
as the poll figures rise
So don’t count your chickens too soon
64. The thing is that for all it’s impassioned delivery (that didn’t work well in a small hotel room), the speech out-Cameroned Cameron. We got:
“I want to change my party”
“I want to give more power to people to run schools/hospitals”
“I want to restore faith and trust in politics”
“People are growing tired of top down government.”
It could have come straight from CCHQ. The Tories must be delighted that the third party have become a mere shadow of the main opposition.
Another lesson from this leadership campaign: assertion of an alleged quality is all that is required, even in the face of lack of evidence.
Just as long as the assertion is repeated endlessly, preferably by the media, it doesn’t matter. People will soon believe it, and cast their vote in accordance with it.
69: A spoof, surely?
9,860 fewer votes than in the 2006 contest which is a drop of 19%.
Lib Dem membership down to 64,700 which is just under 100 members per seat in a 650 HoC. That said we should expect Lib Dems to outman Labour in Lib/Lab battlegrounds as Labours decline has been more rapid.
LD Membership declined by 6% in 12 months. (Lab by 8%). Turnout of 64% this time compared to 72% last time. For LDs a declining membership and a declining turnout is not a good sign of party morale.
Historical footnote, Simon Hughes promised to double the party’s membership when he became its President. It has actually almost halved. Must rank as one of the worst election promises.
Huhne looks to have run a better campaign and have a better Get Out The Vote operation.
OK - how about Laws to Shadow Chancellor (sorry Bob, I do realise there is something shadowy about Ozborne, but I don’t see why the Tories have the monopoly on the word Shadow), Cable to Home… will Mike (never on TV) Moore stay at foreign affairs, or will CK be in line for a comeback.
and who is for the chop? I would say Mr Opik and Mr Foster.
Bring Jeremy Browne to the front bench.
57. I think Kennedy has ruled himself out of a serious front bench return because of his international commitments. He is doing something EU related as far as I remember. And as for Shadow Home Sec: Huhne.
63. I’m not a Lib Dem, but I think Clegg needs to be polling in the 20s if he’s to be seen as somewhat of a success.
I’m still sticking with my GE prediction of 45-50 Lib Dem seats. Not meltdown, but a bit setback.
Not all of us who think that this is a terrible result for the Lib Dems are gloating Tories. I remain a floating voter, and may yet vote Lib Dem at the next election (albeit tactically, and albeit that for me they are a joke party).
This from the Spectator Coffeehouse blog takes a very similar line to the one that Lib Dems seem to think is just a wind-up by highly partisan Tories:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/409416/the-challenge-for-clegg.thtml
Of course, the Spectator is stuffed full of partisan Tories, so those that do not want to believe this analysis will disregard it, but it does suggest that it isn’t just the headbangers who hold this opinion.
75 the term Shadow has an official status, just like HM’s Loyal Opposition.
I suppose your guys could be shadow spokespeople but the attempt to portray the LDs as the ‘real opposition’ has run it’s course and the silly self puffery just comes over as silly.
Just been thinking, Clegg is the first major party leader who has a big city seat since Thatcher. Though I voted for Huhne, I think Clegg will do a good job & I wonder if his city constituency situation might help the party in the city seat fight against Labour.
64. To be honest I didn’t listen to it. I’m only going on comments second hand. However, Rentoul’s observations don’t surprise me. Having seen Clegg on TV a few times I think he is in for a rough ride (whereas Huhne handled the occasions better). Whatever the rights and wrongs, the Calamity Clegg label rattled him noticeably and I expect the other parties to work hard on doing the same.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Great Clunking Fist swats Clegg a few times at PMQ’s before he finds his feet.
Re 75 SBS “OK - how about Laws to Shadow Chancellor (sorry Bob, I do realise there is something shadowy about Ozborne, but I don’t see why the Tories have the monopoly on the word Shadow)”
We don’t, the official opposition have the monopoly, and since the 1920’s, the Liberals and Liberal Democrats have been largely an irrelevence, and certainly not the official opposition.
80: Khunanp, Iain Duncan Smith was and is MP for Chingford and Woodford Green, NE London
74 What was the % turnout of the membership in the Conservative leadership election in 2005 and what has been the decline in their membership since then - yes I know it is a difficult question to answer as the Conservative party does not like to be as open as the other parties in this matter .
Charles has already ruled out returning to the front bench. I think that Huhne would be an effective Shadow Chancellor, Cable Home affairs, Mike Moore has not shone at Foreign Affairs- but maybe perhaps Lynne Featherstone or even that Ming comes back? Ed Davey, Julia Goldsworthy and Jeremy Browne are probably overdue for promotion too.
83:oh dear, just when it seemed things couldn’t get any worse
Given the support that Nick Clegg received from the Lib Dem “establishment”, it’s not a terribly good result. It also shows how far to the left are most Lib Dem activists and by implication viscerally anti-Conservative - given Huhne received 49% of the vote with an avowedly socialistic programme. That said, Huhne was a more substantial and serious prospect, whereas Clegg is truly vacuous and facile without a compelling narrative to attract middle ground voters.
David Cameron - whilst never complacent - will not be unduly perturbed by today’s developments.
Voters who want new policies, change for the country and a real prospect of enacting that change, will not waste their time with the Lib Dems - as it will be back to a 1992-style choice - and no new Lib Dem leader will alter that dynamic.
Good to see that the use of the word shadow annoys the Tories- pesonally I prefer “Minister” or “Secretary of state” without any qualification, but if the Tories are determined to be mere shadows instead then good luck, I say. But before we get the kiddies playground “you’re irrelevent, nah nah nah” back from these people, I would point out that the chances of an NoC Parliament are extremely high and if you don’t play nicely then we can reserve the right to tell you to get lost after you fail to get a majority- which is why your leader, however insincerely, is trying to be nice to us.
81 It’ll be interesting to see how this unfolds. As things stand Labour could do with a Lib recovery as perhaps now the best chance of preventing a Con majority at the next election. One thing that PBC (and the posts above) demonstrates is the extraordinary animosity of tories to LDs - it’s not on the whole shared by Lab. And on a related point Clegg’s opponents in Sheffield Hallam are Tories not Lab (see 80); it is after all, I think, one of the ten most prosperous seats in the whole country.
84. According to Wikipedia (link below) it was 77% (198,000 votes approx)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2005
As for membership as you point out who knows? Wikipedia reckons around 290,000 (with the same caveats) but unless membership has risen since Cameron’s election the figure doesn’t quite tally with the election figure.
87 - “It also shows how far to the left are most Lib Dem activists and by implication viscerally anti-Conservative”
Mark Senior being the prime example of this.
[87] Stweart, If you think the Huhne programme was “avowedly Socialist” then you might try actually reading it- you could hardly be more wrong.
84. 198,844 voted on a turnout of 77%. I believe current membership is about 240000. More than the 2 other parties combained.
91 - and Mark Senior cheerfully admits to voting Labour when it suits him too.
(If I am wrong and have mixed him up with someone else, then my apologies in advance!)
84 Mark, “What was the % turnout of the membership in the Conservative leadership election in 2005 and what has been the decline in their membership since then”
You asked for some comparable stats, must be a glutton for punishment!
* David Cameron 134,446 [67.61%]
* David Davis 64,398 [32.39%]
Total number of valid ballots - 198,844. Turnout 77%
Membership stated at end of 2006 = 247,394
A drop of 2.4% over 2005. Probably a similar 2% fall this year, but figs not available until circa May 08.
Therefore the Conservatives had a higher turnout and nearly 5 times more voting members than this LD election.
I see that Betfair have already paid out on Nick Clegg. Well done because there have been occasions in the past when the exchange has been a little tardy in getting winnings into punters’ accounts.
I’m still waiting for PaddyPower to do the same and I have yet to hear from Observer about the £500 wager. All told it worked out well for me from the betting perspective.
I am a dedicated Cameroon - but that doesn’t mean I can’t be objective about the LibDems. I had no preconceived ideas about either Huhne or Clegg. But it became obvious during the campaign that Huhne has what it takes to lead a party and Clegg showed no outward sign of any leadership skills at all. Perhaps he has hidden talents, but until they are visible how can one judge? His speech was exactly as Rentoul describes - utterly vacuous - and I’m afraid he doesn’t connect like Cameron can.
91 and 94 It must be all those fine illiberal policies of; the ID cards, removal of planning powers from councils to Central Govt, 42 days detention etc etc that Mark Senior finds so appealing in the Govt rather than the Conservatives?
87 - Huhne wasn’t ‘avowedly socialistic’, he was just better at communicating his ideas and able to stand his ground in an argument.
94 Not quite correct Bob , I have voted Labour once in my life in the 2001 GE which was a personal vote for Des Turner who helped my wife and myself in a long fight against the previous Conservative and the following Labour government .
On a serious note, I did not think that Ming looked at all well. I hope I am wrong.
88 It’s not annoying it’s sad. There was a brief window of opportunity for the LDs to throw off the shackles of socialism and rise once again as a force for good - they threw it away by not giving the only candidate with a Liberal worldview a stonking majority.
Huhne’s ego is too big and his ambition too wide ranging to accept such a slim loss. Never mind, we in the tory party will happily welcome David Laws and Nick Clegg into their proper home. Then they can dream of becoming real Ministers rather than pretendy shadow ones.
98 All policies which if a Conservative government had been in place , they would have put forward themselves .
24-Gwynfa-It may not be “important” for you and for others, but for me it is! =)
27-Woody662- “Not really in David Abrahams league is it”
Never said it was!Agree with you that is a good day to bury bad news
54-Ralph-I’m not saying it’s like the “donorgate”, just that I think it’s important…
102 You should not have listened to Rik W and his 3 LibDem MP’s are going to defect rubbish . There is more likelihood that the next defection of an MP will be from Conservative to LibDem , the Conservatives have a history of losing MP’s at a regular rate .
Hot new topical story from the Lib Dems. This is a bit of “a did you know what bears do in woods” story.
“The Liberal Democrats have calculated that over the three-day Christmas holiday, the number of repeats on all channels is up by 25% on last year and the proportion of children’s programmes already shown at least once is 80%. On the BBC’s terrestrial channels, that rises to more than 90%.
Channel 4 was the only terrestrial broadcaster not to have increased the volume of repeats. Channel Five was the worst offender, with almost 60% of its schedule made up of old programmes. BBC1 was best at 16%.
“As channels dish up yet more of the same old Christmas fare , it’s not surprising that viewers are turned off by Christmas TV,” said the Liberal Democrat culture spokesman, Don Foster.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/14/bbc.tvnews
Quel surprise!
” I want the Liberal Democrats to be the future of politics ” - Nick Clegg.
Honestly, is he being serious?!?
105 - yes Mark, general elections do come around regularly lol!
Disappointed to read from Cicero that CK has ruled out returning to the frontbench. If he is not ready then we must respect that, but he can refresh parts of the country no one else in the party can.
Some news on Northern Rock.
The Treasury annoounced that it widened its guarantee to those who have extended credit to NR.
On paper this is to encourage private money in now and also to maintain its credit rating which clearly would affects its ability to gain funds in future.
Perhaps less well known is that NR is sitting on a big debt via an investment vehicle, based in Jersey I think, that has secured it a large amount of loans in the past. Here’s the problem. If NR’s credit rating with the rating agencies falls below a certain rating, those creditors under that vehicle can apparently demand their money back pretty much immediately. Given that stories suggest that 10’s of billions were secured through that vehicle they could do without any of those creditors locked in start to try to get their money on.
If the above is definitely the case then a drop in the credit rating wouldnt just cause NR trouble raising commercial finance in future but could see it landed with immediate repayment demands that could help sink it.
104/54 It is not important to Ralph because it involves the party he supports , if it had involved a Labour MP/constituency it would have been a resigning matter worthy of bringing down the government .
96. Mike. Hills have paid out.
101. I thought he looked very sad. I do feel a bit sorry for Ming. He did get a rough ride. The papers were very cutting but it’s their job to be cutting. It’s an MPs job to be loyal and as soon as they saw the papers say Ming was too old some of them ran with it and just kept on a-briefing.
104 I am not a Tory, but I honestly think that — if the facts reported are correct — there is not much damage in this story.
As I understand it, a couple of donations were made in August, they were checked out and found invalid, so the money was given to charity. This is not even on the Abrahams scale.
All parties will make these kinds of minor error — it doesn’t make any sense to exaggerate them.
Clearly, the Abrahams business is not a minor mistake, that has already been conceded by Gordon Brown.
Well done Jenny as a former Lib dem I am very happy to come second
110-Mark-I just wonder if it had been Brown not Cameron, what people would say here and in the press…
[102] Well, as The Economist said last week: “Tories insist they are a match for Labour in key positions. None of their top four—Mr Cameron, George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, and David Davis, the shadow home secretary—is outclassed by his Labour opposite number. But lower down is a problem. Mr Cameron is said to be disappointed at the number of cabinet-worthy MPs at his disposal”.
Lib Dems have a much more talented front bench- as even many Tories privately will confess.
116
Please elucidate me.. on these talented people with ministerial ambitions.
113-Gwynfa-I’m not saying it’s the same thing as Abrahams donations, it’s not even close, I just thought it was important, nothing more, nothing less!!!
105 With a large % of Conservative candidates selected the opportunity for defection of the LD MPs has probably passed.
Now that we have moved to a LD Leadership with a 40 yr old, will this spur more of the 60 yr olds to announce they are standing down at the next GE.
Is this the first Liberal Leader from a non-Celtic area in many (40+) years!
116. Who are they all then. Cable, Clegg, Laws and maybe Huhne. Can’t think of any more, and I’ve never even seen the Shadow Foreign Secretary on the TV before.
At least it will stop your website going on and on and on about the LD leadeship race.
All the front benches are poor save for some select few - Hague, Davis and increasingly Osborne for the Tories; Cable, Laws for the Lib Dems… struggling with Labour but you could say Straw and Milliband at a pinch.
119 Yeovil and Devon, North are hardly Celtic areas.
Well, at least, not after the 6th Century.
119 not sure yeovil was all that Celtic
20. Nick, did you know that Clegg was a member of Broxtowe Lib Dems….Winning in Broxtowe!
123,124. Paddy was bought up in ireland though wasn’t he?
83. Ah yes, IDS, how could I have forgotten the quiet man, then again Chingford is really in Essex isn’t it, just by accident is in London. Ok, instead then, when was the last time that each of the major parties had a seat in one of the major cities outside London?
89. Yes I know that the Tories are the opposition in Hallam, I was merely speaking generally as to the battle in the cities is by & large a battle with Labour.
116
‘Lib Dems have a much more talented front bench- as even many Tories privately will confess.’
Shame that they will never get the chance to be in government.
120 - How come you’ve never seen William Hague on the tv? Where have you been since 1997??
Stewart Jackson (87) said:
“Voters who want new policies, change for the country and a real prospect of enacting that change, will not waste their time with the …..”
He then went on the apply all this to the Liberal Democrats. In this, he was much mistaken - but then he is only a newish Tory backbencher, and still has faith in the handouts he gets given by CCHQ.
Since, in point of fact, the Tories are almost indistinguishable from this authoritarian and incompetent Labour Government, people who want “new policies” and “change for the country” will not be looking towards friend Stewart and his chums.
Indeed, Cameron is already starting to line the Tory Party up behind Liberal Democrat issues and policies, and has been for some time. But it seems that the penny has not yet dropped for Stewart Jackson and his like.
120 Woody, I disagree, the Lib Dems have more talent than Labour’s cabinet.
Re 110, Mark Senior, “104/54 It is not important to Ralph because it involves the party he supports , if it had involved a Labour MP/constituency it would have been a resigning matter worthy of bringing down the government .”
No, it is about waht people knew and what they should have known, and have they fibbed about it. Like for example with Wendy Alexander and the Jersey donor.
And before anyone underestimates the importance, the Top Five most read stories on the BBC site are:
1. Rape inquiry after Man Utd party
2. F1 star Hamilton clocked speeding
3. Radio 1 censors Pogues’ Fairytale
4. Giant rat found in ‘lost world’
5. Nick Clegg is new Lib Dem leader
Re. 101, yes, without wishing to be morbid, I agree. I hope we’re wrong.
129. Sorry I fell into the LD shadow trap. I’m just going to purge myself.
133 Clearly, the stories have been up for different lenghts of time.
So, it’s not a fair comparison.
133 - and item 5 has only registered on the radar since the news broke and the BBC has, for now, elevated it to main news story.
Although the Pogues story is the really big one of today for me. Disgraceful censorship and further evidence of political correctness gone mad under Labour.
104: What do you think makes it important? And I ask because I’m interested.
110: Mark, actually I see a difference between a silly mistake (which is what this looks like), and knowingly accepting illegal donations (which is how donorgate looks).
If it turns out that someone in the Tory party knowingly took illegal donations they should be sacked and investigated by the police. And you can quote me on that.
110 I don’t recall the DPM or Hain resigning.
138-What do you define as important?
136 - yes, but that’s not how the viewing statistics are calculated. If you click on ‘Most popular now - in detail’ you’ll see that the Giant Rat (by which I don’t mean John Prescott) had the most hits between 3pm and 4pm. This despite the Clegg story being the main splash on the front page.
Just an insight into the public’s perception of politics I’m afraid, not necessarily a reflection on the Lib Dems in particular.
133 - Now up to no.4 and rising!!!
141 But that is still not a fair comparison.
The longer a story has been up, the more exposure, the more word-of-mouth or email recommendations, and so on.
The giant rat has certainly been up since the morning. You need to compare the Clegg story hits for an hour after the story has been up for the same length of time as the giant rat.
130 - Tressage
Your post was in equal parts patronising and vapid.I’m sure you can do better than that.
If that is the level of debate from the newly invigotated Lib Dems under Clegg, then I don’t envy your electoral prospects.
We know that there is a chasm between the nicey nicey, reasonableness of Lib Dems as purveyed in the media and the vicious, personal and nasty campaigning at grassroots level they invariably indulge in but a touch of humility on your part might not go amiss, given your position in the polls, your terrible electoral prospects and the defenestration of your own leader only three months ago.
Another politically important story which may get attention this pm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtmlxml=/money/2007/12/18/cnrecession118.xml
141 - yes I suppose so. We’ll have to check tomorrow…
Of course , the truth is, the giat rat story is interesting It was, as Shelock Holmes observed to Dr Watson in the “Adventure of the Sussex Vampire”…
“Matilda Briggs was not the name of a young woman, Watson, . . . It was a ship which is associated with the giant rat of Sumatra, a story for which the world is not yet prepared”
Now in 2007, the world no doubt is prepared!
143 - yes I suppose so. We’ll have to check tomorrow…
137 “Fairy Tale of New York” tells us you can say “arse” but you can’t say “faggot” on Radio 1.
Good old subversive Radio 2 aren’t bleeping it though. I hope they play it every hour, on the hour, to stick two fingers up to their idiotic sibling station.
It took Mr Senior an hour and forty three minutes to work out his anti Conservative spin to try and gloss over the Lib Dem vote fall.
145. The link failed - did you mean this one?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/money/2007/12/18/cnsterling118.xml
87/144. Does someone from CCHQ just sit behind you and tell you what to write or do you just let them write your posts for you?
148 JohnKellet, it will be good to check.
But, the Giant Rat is more interesting and photogenic than any politician (and certainly more than Nick Clegg).
So, I am sure the Giant Rat will win.
Tricky management if Kennedy does decide to return. He can’t demote Cable now, yet Huhne has to have a major say - shadow foreign perhaps? Where then does Kennedy go?
More generally, this leads to the odd situation where the government has less “big beasts” in the key positions than both opposition parties - other than Straw, the rest of the Cabinet are complete nonentities.
Clegg seemed a bit prickly on 5Live tonight, considering it was his day of triumph.
137 Yes, it is daft. Dire Straits’ “Money for Nothing” is similarly censored these days - people can’t after all be trusted to hear anything that might offend a vociferous pressure group.
My favourite censored song is Ian Dury’s “Noddy Song”.
137
Walk on the Wild Side ? Censored by Lou Reed himself. Radio 1 changes mind, 5.18.
[116] Well- most parties would be quite pleased with a group that, amongst others, comprised:
Vince Cable- Former Chief Economist Shell- First Cambridge/PhD Glasgow
David Laws- Former head currency trader BZW, VP JP Morgan- Double First Cambridge Economics
Edward Davey- Consultant Omega Partners- First in PPE Oxford, MSc Economics Birkbeck
Susan Kramer- Former VP Citibank- Oxford (President of the Union) MBA Illinois
Chris Huhne- Former Managing Director Fitch IBCA- First Oxford, PPE, Sorbonne
Nick Clegg- Journalist, Civil Servant- Cambridge, Anthropology University of Minnisota, Politics
Danny Alexander- former head communications Cairngorms National Park- Oxford PPE
Julia Goldsworthy- Former development Officer Carrick District Council- Cambridge, Economics, Dai-ichi University, Japan, Brikbeck, doing Post-grad Economics research.
David Haworth- former lecturer in law and economics, Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge- Cambridge, Economics, Yale Law school
Steve Webb- former Professor Social policy, Bath university- Oxford Economics
Sarah Teather-former funds raiser Macmillian Cancer care- Cambridge, Natural sciences
Simon Hughes- Former barrister- Cambridge, law
Matthew Taylor- foremr researcher David Penhaligon- Oxford, President of the Union.
David Heath- former optician- Oxford, MA in Physiology
Alistair Carmichael- former Procurator Fiscal depute- Aberdeen University, Law
Annette Brooke- Former lecturer economics & social sciences- LSE, Hughes Hall Cambridge
Jo Swinson- Marketing director EMap- LSE 1st class degree management.
Roger Williams- former farmer- Cambridge, Natural Sciences
155. fr. I haven’t seen any coverage today but that’s exactly the word that describes him. prickly. mildly irritated was the best I could come up with. Not a good trait.
158
Thanks. Very impressive.
It will be interesting to see how many make the transition to politics and prosper.
158, Not to mention Lembit.
Did the Daily Mash call this election correctly at the start?
“The great thing about Nick Clegg is that he’s a press release in a suit. Meanwhile Chris Huhne’s pledge to abolish cars makes him a huge electoral asset.”
Nominations open this morning and candidates have until the end of the month to make sure someone has heard of them.
A winner will be declared in December, ousted next March and the party will have ceased to exist by April 2009.”
http://tinyurl.com/33ucv2
144. Oh Mr. Jackson, you are ever so slightly touchy aren’t you? Your comments seep insecurity, you really aren’t very happy in your own skin are you? I pity the poor people of Peterborough having such a fragile lamb so full of bile representing them.
No party’s perfect Jacko, but to have the cheek to say that only the Lib Dems partake in ‘vicious, personal & nasty campaigns’ is ludicrous. You should meet some Pompey Conservatives for a start.
Ave, peebles, from a sunny but cold Firenze. The peronis are cool, the pizzas are spicy, the women (continued page 87).
I just want to note that the most ludicrous comment in the history of the galaxy was made today, from Orange Thinker:
“So in conclusion: remember this day. British politics has changed irrevocably, and the change will prove a splendid one.”
The phrase ROFLMAO doesn’t really capture it.
Big mistake choosing Clegg. Banal euro-centrist, vapidly narcissistic, pleasant but meaningless. Same goes for Huhne.
They shoulda chose Cable! Can someone tell me what was wrong with Vince Cable? Likeable and charming, yet serious and clever. I have really warmed to him. He would have made a great contrast with the lightweight foppishness of Cameron and the arrogant cowardice of Brown.
The libs are meant to be different. Cable was different, in a good way (unlike Ming who was different in a bad way). Yet they have gone for a fluffy Cameron ripoff who won’t last a minute. Weird.
158 - Tory boys and girls the lot of ‘em
[158] Ah but, John O, most Tory Boys tend to be Estate agents these days- the Conservatives long ago lost the real achievers..
From BBC website
“Cameron attacked over donations
The Tories say they acted swiftly to declare the donations.
Conservative leader David Cameron’s constituency party has admitted receiving more than £7,000 in invalid donations, it has emerged.”
Perhaps not suprising that the Tories have been a little reticent to attack Brown and Labour - they have apparently known about this for over a month
144 - What an atrociously petty and pinicky posting. The intellectual prowess of some Conservative MPs gives me huge cause for concern. Twenty years ago illiterate noneties like Stewart Jackson would be lucky if they got a paper ward in council elections. Nowadays they are Honourable Members of the House of Commons.
How depressing that he can’t be more like the stateman Nick Palmer MP.
And I say this as a former Tory councillor, activist, constituency chairman and, more importantly, voter.
I hope Clegg is robust at pmq’s and doesn’t make Brown look like he’s improving.
168. “the stateman” whats a stateman? more illiterate nonsense I see
Re 156, Sean Fear “137 Yes, it is daft. Dire Straits’ “Money for Nothing” is similarly censored these days - people can’t after all be trusted to hear anything that might offend a vociferous pressure group.
My favourite censored song is Ian Dury’s “Noddy Song”. ”
So what is censored in both of these?
170. oops just noticed i missed an apostrophe out…..we’re all useless
[158] If you were ever a fan of the Hitch Hikers gide to the Galaxy, I often wondered whether one or two Conservatives were part of the “useless third” expelled from Golgafrincham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Golgafrincham
Especially since many Labourites now seem to come straight from “The most totally evil place in the galaxy”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Frogstar_World_B :->
166 - What a snob…and you’re Scottish
171 In the former, a verse about “the little faggot with the ear-ring and the makeup”, although the singer ends up being grudgingly complimentary about “the little faggot.”
In the latter, references to Christopher Robbin and Peter Rabbit…….”pleasuring themselves” as the News of the World would put it.
170 - but you understand the word ‘pinicky’ I see!! Anyway I’m not an MP.
Late posting but have been out - Hopi Sen asked at 11 what people thought of Clegg’s acceptance speech. I thought it poor - after a gracious speech by Huhne, Clegg started off with an obviously prepared victory speech, then dropped out of that to thank Huhne, then back on the stump. Structurally poor and not responsive to the event or cioseness of the result. Better to start by commiserating with Huhne, congratulating and thanking, then into his vision thing.
Like much of Clegg’s campaign it didn’t live up to his billing as a good communicator prior to the leadership election.
176. No you are “major misunderstanding” and i claim my £5
[174]
Misery loves company 
Re 175, Sean fear, Ah I see. The new “f” word. You can f*ck all you like, but not faggot?
How times change.
Interesting thought about comparing Chris Huhne and David Davis, twice defeated leadership contenders, who would both have had the potential to undermine their leaders. DD has been an absolute asset to Cameron without a hint of sulking, and looks set to become Home Secretary sooner or later. Particularly as there is a similar vacancy for the Lib Dems, will be crucial to see how Chris responds. My guess is that he will take the result with good grace and serve Nick well - the party cannot afford disunity at this stage and I can only hope he feels the same way.
179. I am not miserable!
I am extremely happy. I have just been offered £100,000 for a two book thriller deal, by Harper Collins.
I’m sorry if this seems slightly Off-Topic, but i have to share with someone and i am on my tod in a florence hotel lobby full of Japanese art students and if i start dancing around the foyer they might all freak.
I shall return to “normal” shortly.
The BBC’s have your say (HYS) sums up the mood of the nation with regards to the libdem ‘The Leadership contest’. Most recommended comments one, two and four.
“This is like asking if we’re happy with the new choice of leader in Lichtenstein - it’s irrelevant”
TopsyTurvy, England, United Kingdom
Recommended by 86 people
“Congratulations to Nick Clegg for being elected leader of the irrelevant party.”
FancyPants United Kingdom
Recommended by 50 people
“Sorry - who and what party?”
TotallyDisgruntaled, Wokingham
Recommended by 40 people
Before Mark Senior makes accusation of ‘selectively published results’ (as if he would do such a thing..!) number three in the charts likened Clegg to a floppy haired Clone.
Well, Hugh Grant made a career from it, so that’s alright then.
There are lots of prickly Lib Dem trolls on here tonight - their objectionable bluster betrays a lack of confidence in their future prospects
Shouldn’t they be euphoric at their “new dawn” (sic)?
Shouldn’t a Member of Parliament offer slightly more considered thoughts and appear somewhat less tribal in public?
184 Nick Palmer tries to do that, but one gets lost in the spin….
186 sorry s/be re 185
I think Stewart Jackson should be a little more measured and intelligent in his comments.
The people of Peterborough are perhaps a little slow, but they can eventually work out when they’ve elected a plonker and do right by themselves as they showed at the last General Election in getting rid of his egregious predecessor.
Mark Senior makes another alter-ego appearance as Reflecting to insult a Tory.
Shock horror.
re 96 and William Hill have paid out too.
re 114 I don’t recognize Jennie as a very prolific poster. Say something when (s)he trounces all us obsessives!
re 149 it’s the same as the Livingstone debate yesterday. I’m not in the least bit offended by the Pogues saying faggot and if the BBC think they’re protecting me from offence then they can forget it. We’ve got to get away from this notion that there are certain words you can’t say, or even worse can’t say to particular groups of people.
191 - Chris A I predicted Clegg to get 60% or so not because I thought he would, but because the votes were all crowded around the low 50s, and I figured there was more chance of doing well in the event of such a result. I’m sure many other regular posters had that in mind too, so there’s your real reason…
But well done Jennie!
189 - are you are newcomer here “Croydon”? Or are you a regular being a tad hypocritical in alleging somebody else is using an alternative name?
168. While I try to refrain from criticism of other poster’s, as a Conservative supporter I wish Mr Jackson would set a better impression of our party on here. Nick Palmer has some God-awful views on ID cards and detention without trial, but his graciousness and tolerance of other people’s opinions make him liked by all.
Stewart Jackson: I am tempted to provoke him, but I feel he will be unpleasant and bitchy without me even trying. So I won’t bother.
Lots of Tory noise on here today. Whatever the result had been they would have been noisy. Best ignored.
182. Mr.T
Thought you might like to know I’m reading your “millions of women” book at the moment. And enjoying it.
It seems remarkably normal so far. Nothing *too* controversial. Funnily enough, I recognise quite a lot of myself in it. Especially the “first love”, the male “thought processes” and some of your experiences on first dates were VERY accurate.
Good work
192. Actually, it’s not the same debate. Yesterday we debated whether what Livingston said was racist or not, not whether he should be banned from saying it.
I don’t see people flocking to a Cameron clone when the real thing is there. If the public want rid of this government (and the LDs continue to rule out co-operation with the Tories) then I can’t see people picking Clegg’s LDs over the Tories
I think the really signifigant thing about today is that Clegg now has four Kings across the water. Kennedy and Campbell are Kninfed ex Leaders and at least one of them provokes nostalgia. Cable has shone in his brief stint and has said many times he would have stood save for ageism. As deputy Leader he is elected by the parliamentry party and not reshufflable. Finally Huhne having come so very very close must be seen as a realistic alternative if Clegg falls or is pushed in front of a bus.
In addition he is mildly wounded from the beginning as it “was his to lose from the beginning” and he nearly has. With a more than to to one majority endorsement from sitting MP’s and all the local campaigning networks that that brings with it and ” calamity Clegg” to win by only 511 votes is quite an achievement.
If he falters at all i suspect thye party has learned the sort of ill disapline that infected the Tories till recently and mutterings will start.
This is of course a shame but also that we didn’t analysise the under lying problems rather than think executing Leaders would solve everything.
195 - hear hear
189.
Who gives a cr@p what Mark Senior thinks?
We all know he’s a chippy, humourless to$$er who can never take a joke, be objective, or admit when he’s wrong.
He’s best ignored.
193. I did the same thing!
Meanwhile…..back on party funding….local news led with an investigation of one of the Tories more generous donors…the Scott family of Jersey….and Michael Crick has been looking at it too:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/12/doorstepping_in_dorset.html
Glass houses…..
204 - I half expect that by the time I press submit, somebody will have said “Typical BBC anti-Tory bias”…
Well here goes… (press submit)
re 198 it is the debate with the same effect - people are forced into having a list of words or phrases than they cannot use because someone might take offence. For instance in the gay community, you’ve now got to say LGBT so you don’t forget the bisexuals and transgendered people, and God help you if you forget.
200. Or in other words, the Lib Dems are no longer a ‘one-man band’.
Heard the uncensored “Fairytale of New York” on BBC Berkshire tonight. How sensible of them! Should I write to thank the local councillor for the ward the station is in? (the LD one, not Rik W).
206 - which is strange as I thought bisexuals were disliked by gays. Well that’s what my bi-ex-girlfriend told me anyway, ha ha.
195/201. Ditto. Virtually all posters on here are politicians, activists or interested observers. Most can see through the spin whatever the source, so if it’s going to be written it would be nice if it was done with some pleasantness, as Nick P does. Some useful, insightful analysis might be even better.
189 As Mike S can show I have not posted ever as reflecting , I was still on the train home when that post was made . What are your other more usual posting aliases ?
Heard Cleggs acceptance speech on the radio whilst driving and I nearly fell asleep at the wheel. Sounded as about as inspiring as the IDS “quiet man” speech.Yawn.
206. No, it’s not the same debate because you’re being ambiguous with the phrase “cannot use”. There seems to be three different opinions emerging from the two issues.
(1) Those who think offensive language should be widely attacked and banned by the law. This is generally the opinion of the overly politically correct.
(2) Those who think offensive language should be legal and also immune to criticism. To these people, having a go at someone for saying something idiotic is silencing the idiot’s right to free speech. This is generally the opinion of people who have offensive views and don’t like facing criticism.
(3) Those who think offensive language should be legal but allowed to be criticised by the decent majority. This is generally the opinion of the eminently sensible, like myself.
I get highly irritated when people try to class opinions (1) and (3) together. Having a go at someone for being rude and crass is perfectly acceptable and I’m surprised that more conservatives don’t agree with me.
Regarding the Faggott word - when I heard it on the the song recently, not on R1, I did think it sounded out of place in the modern world. It’s just a very derogatory word that shouldn’t be said like the N word. I don’t think Gay as a synonym for Crap is very good either. But I don’t believe in censorship - but we should be very intolerent socially of the haters.
Well done Jenny on winning. Despite voting Huhne I’ll be honest that I was starting to hope for a Clegg/Steven Ronald victory.
Well done Mike on the Granchild. And well done seanT on the book deal.
Clegg’s speech was good - there’s a decent chance that he could turnout to be the the great leader that people were voting for.
The LD leadership had been drifting badly since the end of 2003. I think that is when CK started to lose his touch - and stopped talking to his colleagues. Let us hope things are now mended. But Clegg from the noise on here, it is clear that the Tories are going to lay into him from day one. The more effective he is, the noisier and nastier they will be. They were only ever nice to Vince as he was a stop gap.
Err…can someone please explain why Clegg is referred to as ‘Jenny’
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
As a neutral, I didn’t think either candidate had the appeal of Ashdown or Kennedy - Clegg too much like Cameron, Huhne uninspiring to ‘ordinary’ voters.
But: I don’t believe who the leader is matters as much as most activists, journalists and politicians do. My betting position is a buy on LD seats at 48 and I hope and expect to cash this in (as previously) either after the usual parliamentary by-election victory (ies) and/or after the general election itself.
As for the main topic, it seems to me the Lib Dems will go into the next election with a Tory-lite style leader and Labour-lite policies. What’s the USP? What’s the attraction? What’s the point?
I’m not being deliberately dismissive here: the Lib Dems need to sell a message as much as any other party. ‘Not the other two’ won’t be terribly effective if they look and sound (and are) like the other two. Perhaps Clegg has the ability to finesse it so that the Lib Dems are ‘not the Tories’ in Tory seats and ‘not Labour’ in Labour ones - but it’s not going to be easy, especially without much policy substance to differentiate on. What policies we have seen don’t look to me like big winners for the floating vote in the centre: a pro-immigration, pro-EU, higher taxes manifesto more like a core vote strategy to me. In the face of a two-party squeeze, that might be wise - but will it be a two-party squeeze?
As others have said, Clegg’s position is not that strong - a bare majority of a smallish number of members, with two former leaders sitting in his ranks, one of whom could realistically make a comeback in the right circumstances, plus another temporary filler-in who also proved himself up to the job. That will not be an easy position for someone coming in more than halfway through the parliament. When Michel Howard took over the leadership of the Tories in 2003, he was the experienced, safety-first candidate brought in to steady the ship because the stakes were so much higher than they are five years out. The Conservatives couldn’t then afford another mistake, neither can the Lib Dems now. Cable would have been their Howard; we have yet to see whether Clegg will be a Cameron or an IDS.
216 - Jenny won the, almost as important, PBC LD leadership prediction competion.
Radio One now said will play the full version.
O/T sports.
Interesting game at Blackburn tonight, look at the match odds compared to quali odds, was even juicier at this pm.
204: Carlotta, what actually does that story contain? A man with rich father gives more money to the Tories than he spent on his house. So what?
218 - I don’t think the margin of victory is that important. What proportion of Tory MPs backed Cameron on first ballot?
220
R1 is white noise, I never listen to it. more worrying is the political corectness behind the decision.
221 - I agree it is a non-story, unless something else turns up, but it is very odd that somebody chooses to give more money to a political party than their house is worth.
Steven Ronald @ 219 many thanks, all is now clear.
Belated congratulations to both Jenny and Clegg, commiserations to Huhne and to Vince Cable for not standing.
Clearly R1’s change of heart is an indication that values of liberalism have returned to the UK. That man Clegg clearly does not waste a second.
O/T - the Pogues are at number eight in the charts; any chance of a late surge of downloads to make it the Xmas number one, twenty years on? No, I am sure the inane pap of X factor will prevent this.
Another leadership election result:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7149183.stm
133.
“4. Giant rat found in ‘lost world’”
grossly unfair on Sir Nicholas!!
158.
“most parties would be quite pleased with a group that, amongst others, comprised:”
Oxbridge snobs like Cicero?
217 - agreed, listening to the acceptance speech I don’t find Clegg inspiring at all, whole tone of voice lacked conviction and sounded like lots of carefully prepared ‘liberal’ platitudes to me.
What I’m interested in is impact on the Hampshire / Dorset seats under Clegg’s leadership - obviously Huhne with double incumbency bounce, strong local council results will increase his majority in Eastleigh, anyone care to make a prediction on Winchester, Meon Valley, Portsmouth South and the Annette Brooke’s seat (Poole N and Dorset Mid) after this result?
Wasn’t there a very good by-election result in Meon recently? I think Portsmouth S, like Eastleigh has a Labour vote to squeeze.
221/224…..it is also odd that someone donates substantially more than his salary, (the son, the registered UK voter - covered in the local report, not in Crick’s blog) of his own money…..assuming it is his own money….lets see where Mr Crick takes it, if anywhere……
232 - sure it’s his own money. Only an idiot would donate under another name.
222. About two-thirds of those in the party backed Cameron in the final round, which is more important, and perhaps one of the factors that saw him through the summer. Clegg’s base is quite simply not as strong as that of the other two party leaders. Brown might well be underperforming, but after over three hundred Labour MPs publicly put their name to his candidature, they can hardly boot him out now!
223. “R1 is white noise”. No - there’s plenty of black noise too.
232 - I think I know the son in question from university days - now doing some digging to see if it is the Tom Scott who I think it is!
Re. 156, Sean, the BBC also banned Drury’s Spasticus Auticus on the grounds that it might offend disabled people. The fact that Drury had polio, and that he’d written it to celebrate disability (in all its forms), was forgotten.
As for the PC behind it, my blood boiled this morning when I heard Nihal (some bloke from Radio 1 standing in on 5 Live for Victoria Derbyshire) sneer about the Daily Mail’s ‘Christmas banned’ stories being false when he didn’t know any Hindus or Muslims who wanted to ban Christmas. That’s the exact point - they’re not offended by it, but Christmas all too often gets turned into Winterval/Winter Celebrations (and nativity plays are frowned on) because PC do-gooding idiots think they might be.
234 - but between Clarke, Fox and Cameron (if not Davis), there were huge differences. Huhne and Clegg are closer policy-wise.
re 214 see Steven can’t even make himself use the N word - it’s just a word.
re 216 people keep saying Jenny, but it was in fact Jennie.
236 - Randy Newman’s Short People is all about predudice - and it got banned for being offensive - this was in the US in the 1970s. Political correctness is hardly new.
re 236 there are even stories of hospital email systems banning “spastick” when it has a perfectly non-offensive medial meaning, but I’ve known people shy away from using it none the less.
re 241 oops that should be medical meaning
241 If it was good enough for Ian Drury, Chris, ought to be good enough for the rest of us.
Worst result for the Libdems.
If they had elected Chris Hune they would have got a bounce in the south of England.
If Nick Clegg tries to go in the orange book direction then HALF the party will be upset, however if they continue with their wet policies such as an amnesty for illeagel migrants than the voting public will be upset.
244 - whirling like a Dervish. Whatever the outcome you would have said it was the worst result.
A few years ago now, the Spastics society changed their name to Scope, on the ground that people were using ‘Spastic’ as a term of abuse. Undeterred, the schoolchildren of Britain adopted the term ‘Scoper’ where previously they’d have used ’spastic’.
I’m not sure what lesson we can draw from this. But no-one really comes out of it well.
Re 233, SBS “232 - sure it’s his own money. Only an idiot would donate under another name.”
That is the interesting one.
One of the reasons why I did not initially get worked up about the David Abrahams donation is that it could have been all his own work and not known to the Labour party. Embarrassing yes, criminal, no.
The same applies here. If he was some kind of vehicle for his fathers money, was it with the knowledge of the party?
That said I expect that after the Michael Brown affair, and then David Abrahams, parties ought to be a lot more careful of large donors.
230 Winchester & Meon - Tory gains
Portsmouth South - tossup
Dorset - likely Lib Dem hold on
248 Meon is a Conservative notional seat with a 2-3,000 majority so cannot be a Conservative gain , Winchester could be close but I fancy a LibDem hold . Portsmouth South should be a comfortable LibDem hold .
248. Tories are not going to gain in Mid Dorset or Eastleigh - with luck Oaten will resign in the new year and then we can have a bye election which will establish the new Lib Dem MP - I look forward to it!
248 - what were the locals in Portsmouth South like this year?
Meon is a new seat but is already notionally Tory. I guess they will hold and George whatshisname, who sometimes posts here, will be an MP. It’ll be nice to have a pleasant Tory MP posting here.
Re. 246, indeed, nor it did take long for the reasonably neutral sounding ’special needs’ to be misappropriated (’He’s a bit special needs’).
251 Portsmouth South locals this May were LibDem 45.2% Con 36.5% Lab 10.6% Others 7.8%
251, SBS, has there ever been or is there (incognito) any LibDem MPs commenting on PB.c?
I always suspected ‘Gabble’ may have been Sarah Teather…!
I suspect Clegg will take a leaf out of Paddy’s book and start marching up and down the country. This is probably a good idea, so long has he has realistic targets. He has to grab and keep the attention of the media. He has to decide how he is going to use Huhne and Cable. He has to decide how he is going to handle Rennard and the ‘Hackocracy’.
In many ways he has the same problems as Cameron had, with the subtle difference that his party is not ideologically divided. Agreed, certain details of approach can create potential divisions, but he’s unlikely to make any mistakes there. On policy & the manifesto, Steve Webb will probably remain in charge through to the General Election. So given the position of the LD’s he has some short term problems to get over, but the long term looks better.
In terms of seats, the LD’s are almost certain to lose some seats (10?) to the Tories (though they might gain some too). The key is how many they can gain from Labour and here we have to assume that Clegg, given his Sheffield seat, would be better equipped than Huhne.
As the polls seem to be all over the place, it’s the May 1st election results that become important.
And just a thought. Could Boris be Cameron’s Nemisis?
254 Gabble is a Labour suppporter .
252 I still smile when I recall a child being described by a well-meaning but hopelessly pc teacher as ‘…well to the left-hand edge of the ability spectrum.’
Just couldn’t bring himself to say ‘thick’.
254 - John Hemming has sometimes posted here under his own name. Mike S has implied that the odd LD MP has posted under an assumed name, but I don’t they have been regular.
Could Colin W be Alan Beith? (joke!)
Gabble is easily the most deranged poster here … but he is still a bit too coherent to be Sarah Teather.
255. Reflecting - Yes I agree with your thoughts about Boris and I have a hunch Brian Paddick will campaign very well and could surprise everybody.
258 I always had Colin down as Dennis Skinner, although I understand The Beast has mellowed in his old age, so maybe not.
500 votes, very close, and not a great endorsement for the new leader knowing half the party wanted someone else. Still, at least the Lib Dem Leadership has created a Lib Dem marginal not under threat from the other parties.
260. Yes, from what I’ve seen of Paddick he has done very well. The question is how quickly he can be brought up to speed on issues other than policing.
262 So, Kevin, you’d have been more impressed with a massive victory or even a walkover - something like, say, the one Gordon Brown achieved in his Leadership bid?
254 Gabble is a Labour supporter….!
Hilarious….it’s the way you tell um.
Not been around all day - work commitments. I did say earlier today that it would be close and Huhne was very undervalued.
In the end his ‘late surge’ wasn’t quite enough - but he will now get a big job as a result.
As a very reluctant Huhnite it is in the end probably the best result - Clegg the man with the ability to communicate to a wide audience, but with a lacklustre campaign gets a big boot up his Stewart Jackson by the insurgent Huhne.
I also think the ‘reshuffle’ will rezsult in a more streamlined and focussed team…
Clegg’s acceptance speech was terrible- and he has had three months to work on it. ~It could have been written by a computer programmed with all the most trite political cliches. If that is his best shot(and it needed to be with all that media attention) then the LibDems have made a big mistake.
250 Err. I didn’t say the Tories would gain Eastleigh or Dorset
re 258. I can confirm that Colin W is NOT Alan Beith.
262
‘500 votes, very close, and not a great endorsement for the new leader knowing half the party wanted someone else. Still, at least the Lib Dem Leadership has created a Lib Dem marginal not under threat from the other parties.’
I thought that the Lib Dem membership was around 70,000,in which case nearly half the members didn’t bother to vote and Clegg ended up with around a third.
Why do you think Eastleigh will no longer be under threat as a marginal?
Oh dear,, serial incompetence, yup you got it in one. take a look at Iain Dale’s post on the Police pay ward under the heading “How incompetent can you get”. You really have to wonder how much worse New Labour can get. If I was a police officer, I would be livid.
http://www.iaindale.blogspot.com/
109. We’re getting into real money now in Northern Rock. I am reminded of P.J. O’Rourke’s comment on the ’80s S&L bail out: “What the ****? What the ****ing ****?” Gordon is now long the UK housing market with 60 billion of our money. For all his manifold and very evident flaws as a PM it’s going to be NR that buries him.
prediction - clegg will start attacking on the id card/ government data handling front almost instantly, as the information calamities are coming thick and fast for the govt.
*273 ..and that’s also the LDs strongest suit at the moment, particularly compared to the recently converted tories.
270 Eastleigh Conservative Association are a basket case and have had to be taken over by CCHQ . Membership was down to below 300 at the end of 2005 and no accounts have been filed at all for y/e 2006 .
263 Imho if Mayor race runs to form and he gets knocked out standing Paddick in tough but doable seat eg Streatham or Lewisham West could pay dividends for the Lib Dems
275 Plus Huhne’s new profile + incumbency bonus + Large Labour vote to squeeze (unlike Romsey)+ Chris Huhne is no muppet like Gidley = Every other Lib Dem seat in Hampshire would have to fall really easily not jst be taken before the tories would be even in sight of Eastleigh
275 Mark, the best time to assess Eastleigh is the May elections. The Conservative PPC will be judged on how well her council candidates do.
270 John F, membership of 64,700. So yes Clegg could only persuade 1 in 3 of the members to vote for him.
Hmm. Closer than I thought.
Clegg seems personable - I know we don’t do “my wife (who’s not political) thinks …” anecdotes, but my wife thought he seemed a nice and agreeable chap.
Mind you, she did say “Kind of a bit like Cameron”, so that might not necessarily be cheering for Lib Dems.
On reflection, it could be a great asset for them - if they do produce two or three “left wing” policies to try to poach some Labour core, A non-Tory Cameron-like chap could help to not scare the ex-Tory Lib Dems in the South and/or poach back Tory leaning floaters.
Or not. Let’s just see how he gets on. There’s no way any of us can really make a useful assessment of the likely move in Lib Dem fortunes at the moment - there’s been an unknown impulse applied to the system and we have to wait to measure the effects in order to get a baseline from which to extrapolate. Both for political puntery and political punditry.
277
The profile of a two time loser?
If there is a large Labour vote to squeeze why was he unable to squeeze it last time?His majority was around 400.
281 What 2 time loser? Err cos the Lib Dem majority drops without exception when a new MP takes over from a retiring one beacuse the personal vote goes as does much of the tactical squeeze. For that alone I rate Winchester in theory a 7,500 majority far more vulnerable than Easleigh
Huhne is completely safe in Eastleigh - anybody want a wager?
283 Mike unless I have misread , his majority is only 568 (1%). Have there been boundary changes there ?
At least Clegg was elected; no one voted for GB as a party leader
re 284 BAxter has it worse for him at a 504 majority.
Perhaps Clegg could think harder about the checks and balances on the directives from Brussels. It is all very well banging on how the UK has been not served well by increased centralised government in the UK, but some thought ought to be directed about how the current set up of the EU is at variance with political and economic liberalism.
How big is his majority in Sheffield Hallam? If the Tories choose a strong candidate to run against Clegg would he survive?
Good choice by the LD’s. Nice party, nice leader, and a good opportunity for progress. I wish Clegg and the LD’s the best of fortune for the future
288 - I thought you’d be voting lib dem given your praise for Clegg. What hasn’t he done that you want him to? I also imagine that Roger is now in the lib dem column given his similar praise.
282/283.
Analysis of previous elections where the LDs are falling nationally shows that
i) first time incumbents do about 4% better than the national change in the vote.
ii) in “open” seats where the LD incumbent has stood down the new candidate does about 5% worse than the national change of the vote.
That would indicate Winchester and Eastleigh will be about equally vulnerable at the next election, and would be both lost if the Tories are more than about 17.5% ahead of the LibDems nationally, which is reasonably likely, given recent polls. So to say Huhne is “completely safe” is overdoing it a bit.
The following seats are safer (or better prospects) than they look for the LDs, due to factor (i)
Cambridge
Brent Central
Hornsey and Wood Green
Richmond Park
Cheadle
Manchester Withington
Rochdale
Westmorland and Lonsdale
Dunbartonshire East
Inverness Nairn Badenoch and Strathspey
Eastleigh
Bristol West
Camborne and Redruth
Cheltenham
Cornwall North
Taunton Deane
Cardiff Central
Ceredigion
Birmingham Yardley
Solihull
Leeds North West
Sheffield Hallam
The following are more vulnerable due to factor (ii)
Winchester
Cornwall South East
Truro and Falmouth
Hereford and North Herefordshire
Harrogate and Knaresborough
my swingometer factors this in
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/Swingometer.rar
288. There we go.. vote lib dem get Labour…
287 - Sheffield Hallam is exceptionally middle class, and in a parallel universe might be comfortably Tory (as it was until 1997). But it’s a certain sort of middle class - university educated, urban, public sector - which nationally, and in particular in the north, and especially in Sheffield has got used to voting Lib Dem over the last 12 years or so. It’s conceivable that the circumstances might arise to deliver Hallam back into the blue fold - this is a seat whose electorate has changed its mind, rather than a seat whose electorate has changed, so it could easily change again - but it’s unlikely in the foreseeable future.
290 - fascinating, Rod - but what is a .rar file and how do I open it?
Clegg seeming a lot livelier with Paxman than he ever seemed on the campaign trail…..giving (almost) as good as he gets….not sure whether its making complete sense….but certainly lively
293. A compressed file. You need WinRAR
(the first file in the list)
http://www.rarlab.com/download.htm
295 - thanks Rod - will have a go…
re 288. Tyson is almost certainly going to vote Lib Dem. He lives in the Lib Dem seat, Oxford West and Abingdon, where Huhne campaigned for many years and which was won in 1997. If he votes Labour he could be letting the Tory back in. A no-brainer.
good job by Clegg on Paxman - he can be combative too.
298 - did I dream it or did Paxo say “Are you seriously going to get people who aren’t party members to vote for you?” - near beginning of interview.
Erm yes. The party has 60,000 members and got 5 million votes last time round. Like all parties the LDs are heavily dependant on non-party members. Is Paxo losing his touch? Is it time he was stuffed?
The LD seats in Hampshire are odd…
Portsmouth S - originally a by-election win, and always fairly marginal since
Romsey - a by-election win
Eastleigh - a by-election win
Winchester - won by 2 votes and then a huge by-election win when re-contested
All by-election wins. Funny that!
Talking of Oxford Mike, or there or thereabouts. Good to see that David Cameron has been doing his bit for cleaning up British politics with his own local party having to hand back £7k of illegal donations. Is this a story with legs or a one night wonder? Any Tory local treasurers out there who can shed some more light?
Rod, this spreadsheet is fascinating! Hours of fun. One thing I hadn’t appreciated is just how low the Labour percentage in the Con / Lib seats like Cheadle and Lewes goes. MIGHT it go that low? (Like, down to about 1%). Is it of any consequence?
re 299 you’re being a bit pessimistic there - it was all but 6 million.
To succeed the lib dems need to get positive media attention - Kennedy had it - Huhne would have got it through an abrasive shock approach which would be unsettling to both major parties - Clegg will struggle as a mini Cameron - not different enough to capture media or voter attention
on the face of it Clegg is a more of a threat in the key com - lib marginals but will strugle to make an impression
Worst of all results for the Lib Dems. Just shows how utterly irrelevant they are. Cameron will make mincemeat of Clegg, who is another little liberal. I think most Lib Dems will lose their seats. They have no policies, and will drift into obscurity under Clegg.
The Lib Dem policies are demented and the public hate them.
305 What is your usual posting alias ?
306 - don’t worry Mark. It is just me doing a spoof and waiting for the first reaction. I thought what I put, including the contradiction in the last two sentences was every bit as hollow as what Tories cheerleaders have put here today.
(I don’t otherwise use pseudonyms.)
305 a totally neutral poster, clearly.
272.
O/T
HELP……. i am having visions of old ladies running cake stalls , children coming home from school with sponsorship forms to support the local Northern Rock branch , people going around streets with collection boxes all doing there bit to raise money for Rock Aid ……….help help…….
whoops!
309 wonder if Cable will be kept in a role to allow more interventions from him on the NRock issue.
311 - yes, it would be nice if he is still able to speak out when nationalisation happens.
Forgive me for posting something off topic here but this is really important
I just found this YouTube video posted on an American internet forum
There was some serious unrest in the European Parliament over the Lisbon Treaty on 12/12/2007
To my knowledge, this story has not been covered AT ALL in the UK media. Frankly it is a pretty shocking video.
EU parliament stormtroopers rip banners out of the hands of protesters and try to prevent the commotion being filmed on mobile phones.
This is the most shocking thing i’ve seen for a long time, not so much the event itself, but that this dissent has been whitewashed and censored from the mainstream media
Anyway, draw your own conclusions
Unrest in EU Parliament, Strasbourg 12/12/2007
I only hope the link works
297 - Mike OXWAB will never fall at the next GE in a month of Sundays as I’ve explained here before! Irrespective of what Tyson and I do, cancelling each other out I suspect.
Personally in answer to my previous question, Meon Valley definitely Tory, Eastleigh increased Lib Dem majority, Winchester marginal Lib Dem Hold with Martin Tod’s ability - can only see Romsey going out of that lot personally although I don’t think Tory local election results in May were that great there.
Seeing as no one can be bothered to answer my post, because the Tories are too busy passing judgement on Clegg after 7 hours of the man getting his job, I thought I would share this bit of Tory wisdom.
“A Tory spokesman said: “As soon as we became aware that these two donations were not permissible we declared and voluntarily forfeited them to the Electoral Commission.” ”
“As soon as we became aware…” Surely they were aware when the cheques came through the post 4 months ago?
307 LOL I thought the creatures of the night had escaped before midnight .
O/T Drudge is reporting that the National Enquirer has a breaking “Love Child Scandal” story on John Edwards. Now the Enquirer is ususally only slightly more reliable than the Weekly World News or the Sunday Sport, but I suppose it could impact the betting..
302. This is a feature of the uniform v. proportional-loss debate.
All seat predictors carry a health-warning when applied to individual seats, because swing (and the change in each party’s share) varies a fair bit from seat to seat. However, since it is the overall forecast that matters - so far as the next government is concerned - problems such as you mention are acceptable if the overall forecast turns out to be reasonable.
Uniform swing has proved to be the most reliable simple forecast for almost all British elections. While keeping it, I have tried to add certian factors that UNS deliberately ignores.
i) UNS was developed in the era of two-party dominance, and didn’t take into consideration the qualitive difference in the pattern of change in third party support. When the Liberals could fit into one taxi, any “unexpected” Liberal performance would by definition have a neglible effect. However, with them now holding 60+ seats, it is time to look a little more closely at their pattern of change. The “0″ incumbency factor (the average historical pattern) shows the LDs doing about six or seven seats better that UNS would predict, when the party is under pressure nationally. As discussed, this isn’t all one-way, but the benefit outweighs any handicap by about 4 to 1. (Comparing the number of seats in categories (i) and (ii) listed in post 290 above)
ii) UNS ignores any regional effects. However, since there are numerous marginals in every region (except Scotland), and an over-swing in one region must be counterbalanced by an under-swing in another, these differences largely cancel out, except in a year like 1992 when essentially Scotland swung significantly one way (to the Tories) and England and Wales another (to Labour)
iii) UNS assumes the distribution of the marginals is uniform. i.e. there are an equal number of marginals vulnerable to each percentile of swing. On average about 15 seats will change between Labour and Con for each 1% swing. However, as was discovered in 2005, if that distribution is not uniform, a particular swing may deliver more (or less) seats than UNS suggests. To get around this, Curtice and Firth designed a probabilistic forecasting mechanism which instead of assigning a binary “win/lose” outcome to every seat, rather calculates a probability of winning and then sums those probabilities to get the seat totals. If the marginal distribution was uniform these forecasts would be the same, but on the Wells notionals at least, there may be differences of up to about six seats for particular swings.
My swingometer is an attempt to bring these variations together, and to make comparisons with the simple UNS forecast. The differences are not huge, but in a close election they could be crucial.
Labour’s Kerron Cross sums it up.
” Lib Dems Are Indecisive - Shocker”
So what do we know from the result?
1.) There aren’t that many Lib Dems in the UK.
2.) Lib Dems are indecisive.
3.) Vince Cable would be a better leader than either of the candidates.
4.) People who failed to use their vote in the leadership election must be kicking themselves.
5.) Lib Dems think that 11% in the polls is “an amazing achievement”.
http://kerroncross.blogspot.com/2007/12/lib-dems-are-indecisive-shocker.html
“Labour MPs ‘appalled’ by Brown’s speeches, says former minister
Clarke accuses PM of not backing his ministers ”
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2229601,00.html
Re 257, Peter the Punter “252 I still smile when I recall a child being described by a well-meaning but hopelessly pc teacher as ‘…well to the left-hand edge of the ability spectrum.’
Just couldn’t bring himself to say ‘thick’. ”
Except that lefties are more able, as demonstrated by the early written scripts being leftie scripts like Hebrew, Arabic and presumably Aramaic. (Cuniform etc as well I understand)
The anti sinister bias is a function of the dexter Romans, who were a bit thick in many regards.
Great line from Finklestein on Newsnight tonight.
“Clegg - the best new Lib Dem leader for weeks”.
If I was a Lib Dem tonight, I would be very depressed. Indecisive & largely irrelevant.
314 Yes, so Hants Lib Dems are up?
http://www.hantslibdems.org.uk/
Their website’s most recent story is from June and Ming still features as a video even though he stood down 2 months ago.
Hey, where’s Ave it? The leader of his party was elected today!!!
“Mervyn King set for second term at Bank as Gordon Brown puts stability first”
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3071318.ece
Re 299, SBS “Erm yes. The party has 60,000 members and got 5 million votes last time round. Like all parties the LDs are heavily dependant on non-party members. Is Paxo losing his touch? Is it time he was stuffed?”
*cough* not Paxman’s finest hour. As the Labour party candidate for the ward next door voted for me when I stood, I suspect all parties expect to get people who are not their own party members to vote for them:)
I wonder if anyone has explained this to Jeremy?
I groaned instinctively when Clegg said the word “change” (and emphasised it in a self-important way) in his acceptance speech - in the same way that I usually groan at David Cameron.
Meanwhile, I predicted that:
(a) Huhne would win the Lib Dem leadership election
(b) Harriet Harman would come 6th out of 6 candidates in the election for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party
(c) Gordon Brown would never be prime minister
I raised this possibility this week, asking what would happen:
“In an InsiderAdvantage poll in Iowa, Edwards leads among (977) likely voters 30-26-24 over Clinton and Obama. Edwards is also the clear second choice winner, 42-29-28 over Clinton and Obama. This is the first poll to show Edwards solely in the lead in Iowa since July.”
And the Republican race is very close too!
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/18/524511.aspx
164: ‘I just want to note that the most ludicrous comment in the history of the galaxy was made today, from Orange Thinker’
Hmm. Well, I used to receive similar barbs from die-hard Lib Dem Mingites when I suggested that Sir Menzies was leading the party into a potential catastrophe and desperately needed to sort his act out. He never did and was duly replaced. So forgive me if I just wait to see how matters pan out.
Miscellaneous late-night thoughts on the thread:
- Yes, John Hemming MP has occassionally posted on pb.com
- As people have defended me because I post here under my own name, I’d like to put in a word for Stewart Jackson. There are reasons why not many MPs openly post here (though a number read it) - they think they’ll get mugged! I know I criticised SJ myself once, but I’d be sorry if he stopped posting.
- Clegg will I think do well with people who are anti-Government but don’t think much of the Tories, and that’s currently rather a large group. He’ll also be more able to Huhne would have been to get tactical votes, because you can only do that if you don’t put people’s backs up. If I weren’t a party activist and I lived in a Tory/LD marginal, I’d might well vote LD under Clegg, but wouldn’t dream of voting for a Labour-basher like Huhne. No doubt Tories here preferred Huhne for the same reason…though I do wonder if they’d be quite so nice about him if he’d won, eh?
- The Witney Tory donations thing isn’t dramatic IMO, but will reinforce the common view that we’re all at it: it makes it a bit harder for the Tories to try to block spending reform.
PS Yes, cynic - the local LDs are fanatical Cleggies to a person!
Re 331 Nick Palmer “No doubt Tories here preferred Huhne for the same reason…though I do wonder if they’d be quite so nice about him if he’d won, eh?”
Your kidding me! Right?
“- The Witney Tory donations thing isn’t dramatic IMO, but will reinforce the common view that we’re all at it: it makes it a bit harder for the Tories to try to block spending reform.”
The difference is of course who knew what? Was it accepted in good faith as Michael Brown’s £2.5 million donation to the Liberal Democrats, or not?
We know that the Abrahams donations were a work around to the law, and quite probably illegal. That said what the public take from it is another matter and depends on how the media want to bash it.
Meanwhile I do know of another foreign donor scandal at Labour HQ but am gathering evidence.
333-Benedict-”Meanwhile I do know of another foreign donor scandal at Labour HQ but am gathering evidence.”
Will you take long to get this “evidence”?
Re 334, Me, “Will you take long to get this “evidence”?”
Dunno. Might not amount to anything, or even if it does, it could just be a mistake resulting in a forfieght. (sic, or I can’t remember how to spell that)
335-Benedict-I really want to know, even if it’s nothing!!!!Anyway you left me curious!
328. Although I did also predict that:
(a) I would come 9th out of 11 candidates in Bromley & Chislehurst
(b) I would come 9th out of 12 candidates in Ealing Southall
(c) There would not be a general election in autumn 2007
Re 336, “Benedict-I really want to know, even if it’s nothing!!!!Anyway you left me curious!”
Well, it was just a trailer to whet the appetite, but I don’t want to sling mud unless it is deserved
338-Benedict-”Well, it was just a trailer to whet the appetite”
You’re cruel!!Now I’m even more curious, you better stop now!!!
Anyone else waiting for Wm Hill to pay out on there not having been a GE in 2007? Are they really intent on holding onto punters’ money until 1 January 2008?
Shoddy petty profiteering!
I squirmed a little when I saw the picture of GB at the top of this thread - it really looks as though his glass eye is about to pop out.
“If Clegg gets it right in 2008, he could bring the Lib Dems into government”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2229671,00.html
“Observer - I do appreciate that we need to find a way for you to pay me without you revealing your identity”
Mike - you really are being incredibly understanding over this issue - surely the clearly self-important “Observer” should not have entered into this bet with you unless he/she was capable of paying you promptly and directly should he lose, no ifs, buts or maybes about it.
Can’t this apparently insuperable problem be resolved by the simple means of he/she posting to you the required number of anonymous postal orders, dear Henry, dear Henry?
Must make mental note never to enter into a bet with “Observer”.
329 - With Edwards doing well in Iowa, the 8/1 with Victor Chandler for him to win the Iowa Caucus looks like good value. They’d only let me have £12 online, but better than nothing!
Re 339, me “You’re cruel!!Now I’m even more curious, you better stop now!!!”
*Cough* sorry
343-He may be a surprise, and he’s the “first second choice”, this will help him at the caucus. Besides he has a good organization that can put his voters out there. On the Republican side,I’m not so sure if Mike can win, it’s a 3% difference(in this poll), that can be easily beaten by Romney organization…
344-Benedict- I can accept that!
Excellent article by Mark Littlewood on what Nick Clegg should do next. Shares many of my own thoughts - particularly towards the Tories, which I sadly don’t think Clegg will be brave enough to do:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/7148179.stm
347-”Excellent article”
Agreed!
Clegg’s honeymoon starts today. Even if this proves worth only 3%-4% in the next round of polls, this will probably be enough to end the recent surge in Tory support. Time methinks to take profits and to sit on one’s hands for a while.
Noticeable that Huckerebee’s price has lengthened today, both in terms of the Republican nomination and the Presidency.
You just feel he’s got to keep it going otherwise he’s likely to disappear just as fast as he surged up the polls a couple of weeks ago.
350-Huckabee has been constantly attacked, it’s the second time this week that I hear a GOP candidate saying he is “liberal”. I don’t think someone can suffer so many attacks and keep his polling numbers like before(but, as I always say, he may surprise me)
Many here and in other places disagree with me. But McCain is becoming news again, in the last few days I have seen many reports about him being the “Comeback Kid”, but he needs to win NH, otherwise all this won’t amount to much…
“Why Nick Clegg’s election could change Britain”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/19/do1901.xml
347 As a Tory, I think Clegg could do himself and his party a big favour by demonstrably being more even handed towards Labour and the Tories, instead of being so obviously Labour
-leaning as was Ming and to a lesser extent Kennedy before him. It really is yesterday’s glimpe of the blindingly obvious that you are going to alienate every actual and possible Tory voter by taking such a stance and so it has proved with the LibDems losing about 8% in the polls during the Ming Dynasty - it’s hardly rocket science is it? Yet the guy somehow just couldn’t grasp it - extraordinary!
Me, I know you are in a significantly different time zone, but here in the UK it’s 2.36am and well past my bedtime.
Speak again soon, goodnight to you and to any lurkers.
“Join Nick Clegg’s Team from just £9 per year”
No thanks, not today, but congrats on getting this advertisement up and running within 12 hours of Nick’s election as leader.
354-PfP-Good night!
The new thread is not accessable. I’m not sure: do you know who Observer is, and don’t want to reveal it, or do you actually not know? I have never bet on anything but I would have thought there would be a way of putting money somewhere before the event, just in case.
If “When the new leader is announced, I hope that you Mike, a fellow Lib Dem can be the Big Man and think of the party over your own quite clear personal preferences. ..”.
The Observer should be the big man and follow through with his bets. If he doesn’t, and is indeed high up in the party, then this truly reflects badly on the honest of the Lib Dem’s higher members.
Surely anyone high up in the party might be forgiven for being distracted yesterday.
true, but as Mike says in his post, this didn’t all happen yesterday, he took the bet in early November, and asked The Observer to contact him at the beginning of December.
Who wrote the LibDem manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the European Constitution? Might be a clue.
Surely the easy thing is to post Mike 500 quid. When I lost a bet to Nick Palmer I sent him twenty quid to him at the house of commons and doodled a cat on the envelope.
I wonder if Mike knows that comments are down on the new thread
i think that was intentional Test.
If it was me who made the bet, I would claim to have sent it through the internal post, and just not send it at all. No one would ever know the difference.
Yes, I can’t access new thread also, suspect the link is thrown by the pound sign, but even pasting a pound sign into the link isn’t working.
Agree that Mike has been very patient with ‘The Observer’ who clearly should have thought about how the transactions should work before agreeing to the bet so enthusiastically. There are many ways to pay up anonymously - this is a lame excuse presented so far.
Labour are certainly the most vulnerable, which is why attacking the Conservatives in the short-term could prove very stupid indeed. Clegg hasn’t got as easy a job as some people think.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
10, “Huhne should have won and would have done under any other system” errr, what kind of system exactly?!