Will we ever learn to love the Tories?
March 28th, 2008
Look at the “Dismayed - Delighted” figures
There’s now the full detail from this morning’s YouGov poll and I have extracted the above responses which I find interesting.
Thus on the forced choice question Cameron now has a comfortable lead and the Lib Dem supporters questioned are almost neck and neck.
The next question “Suppose a Conservative Government were formed under David Cameron which of these three statements would come nearest your own reaction?” provides a note of warning to the Tories. The 22% - 32% “delighted-dismayed” split is not that encouraging. Notice that only three out of five Tory voters put themselves in the delighted category.
The final one of the three “Which party do you think is more likely to run Britain’s economy well – the Conservatives or the Labour Party?” is now showing a distinct Tory margin and might be a good pointer.
The spread markets have reacted to the poll with a three seat jump in the Tory position.
There will be no Sean Fear slot today. He is otherwise engaged.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
They’re my favourites!
I’d be very worried if we ever ended up with the ‘celebrity’ love-in hysteria of ‘things can only get better’ and Blair in 1997 I really would.
1. Mine too
Are you trying to stir up the hornet’s nest Mike?
Will we ever learn to love the Tories?
That would be the “Royal” we presumably Mike?
May I be one of the first to congratulate Sean Fear on his engagement!
2. I bet Cameron is so pleased he’s not heading for a 1997 style landslide. I bet he’s ecstatic about it.
2. Agreed. The hype over Blair only increased the sense of disillusionment both with him and politics in general.
Cameron wants people to be willing to give him a go, rather than doing a jig in the streets [although I am up for it if you are Ave it?]. This is particularly important if you inherit a bad set of books in a bad climate.
The results may also indicate the public are realistic and don’t think any politican is going to be able to pull an ecomonic rabbit out of a hat.
Two things:
Tories and Tory leaners are pragmatists not emotional idealogists.
Labour inherited a piggy bank full of cash and a good economic environment.
You do the maths.
I’m a Tory - and I’m big and warm and cuddly. What’s not to love?
I would like to also congratulate Sean Fear on his engagement.
218 Previous Thread - Many thanks Stuart. No quite the bonanza I was hoping for, but equally you seem to be agreeing with others that there’s virtually no downside either. I’m on this one at 8 seats.
Surely the most interesting thing about this poll is that 27% of people think neither of the main two parties would run the economy competently?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AUJUEgRZBMY
Ronnie O’Sullivan’s in trouble!
2. Marcus, I too found the (largely manufactured) hysteria when Blair came to power a litte cloying too - but nonetheless that’s an odd thing to say. Don’t you want your party to be liked?
11. By ‘two main parties’ are you impling they might think the Lib Dems could?
2/7 - Oh really, do come off it! Cameron would love nothing more than to inspire the sort of widespread positivity that surrounded Blair in 1997, as of course would Clegg. It won’t happen and the election will in fact be won and lost on competence, on getting that “dismayed” figure down etc. But it really is just self-serving tosh to say Cameron doesn’t want people to love him. Of course he does.
13 Blair was a bit like the teacher who wants to be popular, can be cringing, usually doesn’t make the class work and almost always goes wrong.
I’d rather my Party was respected than liked.
7 - “Tories and Tory leaners are pragmatists not emotional idealogists”
I don’t think that’s true of active Tories, who are among the most ideological in politics these days if you ask me.
But do you think people who voted Blair in 97 were doing so for emotional reasons? Do you think they weren’t pragmatic?
13. I’m sure the Tories want their respect to be earned on what they do in office and not on what they might do like Labour tried.
7 - yes we will all be jigging in the streets when Camo wins.
14 - LDs = LOL
13. He is not saying he doesn’t want the Tories to be liked. He wants a rational sober reaction.
11. No, it isn’t. But perhaps you might derive some comfort from it, to offset the huge deficit your Labour chums now face.
Poor dears ……. Let’s have a ‘Hug a Tory Day’ !!!
14 - Christ no. So preoccupied with partisan politics are you that you misread me. I’m just saying that the only two parties who could possibly win aren’t trusted on the economy by a large number of people. Is that good? Or do you not care as long as those wearing your colours come out ahead?
16. But they aren’t respected either, the question asked in this poll wasn’t “which party would you like to have a beer with” but “how would you react to seeing them in government?”.
This is interesting for the comments as well as the film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui_YVew5rNU
21 - “my labour chums”??
Yet another fool who assumes everyone is as partisan as they are. I have no connection whatsoever to the Labour party.
The responses I’ve received from you and at 14 suggest Tory cheerleaders don’t care if they public is unenthused by them, as long as they come first in the vote. That’s a shame really, isn’t it.
16. Spot on. ‘Like’ is fine, ‘respect’ is excellent, ‘love’ would be worrying.
26. No no, course not. You are a wholly unbiased and objective observer haha.
Do you think because you’ve been away a while people don’t remember your previous relentlessly anti-Tory and left wing posts?
As for your final observation, it’s pathetic. Of course politics is about winning. If the boot were on the other foot, you’d be on here gleefully celebrating Tory woes and wouldn’t give a t*ss about obscure poll details.
Obama starts a run at Pennsylvania :
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/us/politics/28strategy.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
27 How ironic! David Cameron is an even bigger “love me” politician than Tony Blair. Obama is currently the master though.
16 - fair enough. I quite agree with that, and with 27.
I suppose my only point would be that surely there’s no reason why you can’t be respected *and* liked, and if you aren’t you should question why not. There seems to be an unwillingness among Tories to face up to that.
Remember, in the US elections:
McCain will fry the opposition!
28 - fool, fool, fool. It’s not about being impartial - I freely admit I tend to dislike Tories and am left of centre - it’s about not being partisan. I’m not partisan, in that I don’t support any particular political party.
Scotland numbers:
Lab 37%
SNP 26%
Con 19%
LD 15%
Grn 2%
UKIP 1%
BNP 1%
London numbers:
Con 47%
Lab 41%
LD 13%
BNP 5%
Grn 3%
Fascinating, I just compared Blair arriving to tears of joy in ‘97 with Thatcher in 79 where you can clearly hear people booing her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ3WJRvZeN8&feature=related
Thatcher wasn’t even ‘loved’ the day she took office; but we wanted her policies and we knew we needed her leadership.
Sorry! London Labour only 31%, NOT 41%.
33. You remind me of those people who say ‘I’m not racist, but…’
Obviously the spiral of silence correction some of the pollsters use to find ’shy Labour’ voters has at least one individual justifying it…
34. Paddick winning here ?
25 She, like Blair, never won a majority of the vote, let alone those eligible to vote. Talk of “we” is a touch OTT. Like all PMs there are always more people against them than for them.
37 - but, you see, I’ve never voted Labour in my life. I voted Conservative in 1997 and in some local elections around that time. I voted Lib Dem in 2005. I don’t think I voted in 2001.
You really are a fool, aren’t you.
17. As an activist, it is always about what works. Our ‘ideology’ is that Labour never does.
Activists and ardent Labour supporters were emotionalin 1997. They were so desperate to win after years in the wilderness some of them were delirious.
The natural Tories he attracted who turned to Labour, less so.
The former group are still there, but disillusioned.
The later are b***** off.
Mike
You miss an important point.
“Suppose a Conservative Government were formed under David Cameron
The key is the last two words. There is a significant proportion of the Conservative party that are not enthused by Mr Cameron, but range from Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells, with his “lefty agenda”, to accepting of his watered down conservatism for pragmatic reasons. Judging by the numbers DOTW is a very small number whilst the latter is a full third of the party’s supporters.
I would be interested to see if left wing Labour supporters felt similar about Bambi pre 1997.
stonch- it really isn’t worth getting into a personal discussion with the Tories here.
jackW- do you think that Obama stands a realistic chance in Pennyslvania? What odds would you put on his hopes.
O/T - Cant find it online but ES has a story about a new campaign overseer being imposed on Ken Livingstone by Gordon. The new person in charge is Tessa Jowell..
40. It’s just like the mid-1990s, in reverse. Now even many rabid lefties won’t admit supporting Labour for fear of ridicule and embarassment.
Re 192 last thread
Stuart Go to Iain Dales blog http://www.iaindale.blogspot.com
and look for
Has Wendy Alexander Revealed the Date of the Next Election?
43 - ok you are probably right. I won’t. I think it’s just that they can’t believe things are really going as well for the party as they appear to be, so they get upset when someone says anything critical. Perhaps they’ll chill out if and when Cameron wins the election.
45 - idiot.
What made the 1980s so particularly dislikable to many was their social illiberalism with undercurrents of racism, homophobia and general stick in the mudness. With Dave, the party is more in tune with the nation’s soul in a way that Thatcher could never be. Boris being mayor of London will do the Tory brand a power of good in this regard.
Sorry, the 1980s Tories
Heres a weird fact.
1997-2001 Labour lost roughly 3 million voters
2001-2005 Labour lost 1.2 million voters
Iraq war effect was much smaller than the loss of 1997 hysteria.
48. How we have all missed your intelligent and thoughtful contributions.
Glad to see Stonch is making his usual valuable contribution today……
51. Weirder fact - Kinnock’s Labour won more votes than Blair’s 97 Labour.
48 My guess is you weren’t the one LibDem YouGov polled who said they would be ‘delighted’ with a Tory win.
For whats its worth, I think there is a big gap between delighted and not bothered.
Most switchers are more likely to say pleased/relieved etc.
It one of those questions where the ansers would be more negative in a face to face poll.
‘Me.. excited by politics..NEVER!’.
15. You are the one getting all hot under the collar.
Which rather proves my point.
I remember my sister geting a copy of this through the post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmwqEg-06Ww
The clear skies; the bright-shirted handsome young men; the empowered mini-skirted lovelies; the thrilling sense of the moment; the anticipation of all that the future was poised to bring…
I doubt even David Cameron would have the neck to put himself in this sort of propaganda today. The early Blair era was strange. I wonder if this country will ever see its like again.
54 Are you sure? Wikipedia says that Kinnock got 11.5million in 1992 whereas Blair got 13.5million in 1997 (under 10million by 2005)
what utter tosh - “Its about what works” by Sally. No - policy is always coloured by ideology, and success is a qualitative judgement, not a quantitative one.
Please pleas no nostalgia fo Mrs T Marcus - she buggared up the country good and proper for 10 years.
Discretion forbids me from mentioning the real reason for our competitive recovery but you can unshuffle the letters “U” and “E” to get the answer.
O/T - Ken has gaffed. In an interview he criticised the news obsession with crime and said that ‘if it bleeds, it leads’. Within hours another stabbing victim. So far no retraction. This will hardly improve his poll rating.
46. Maggie Thatcher Fan
You clearly have never heard of the “Permalink”
Wonderful invention…
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/03/has-wendy-alexander-revealed-date-of.html
57. Erm, remember “You can get it if you really want” they’re going out right now.
15. You’re right, it doesn’t matter too much that the conservatives aren’t liked, they’re seen as being more competent than Brown so they’ll win. But what does that say for the election after, will Cameron last 4, 8 or 13 years?
@ 11 Stonch’s Beer Blog, I was pulling your leg.
You overestimate my emotional excitabilty and I underestimated yours.
LibDems split more or less 50/50 Conservative/Labour. There has been a bit more talk recently of AV. Would the Conservatives be helped or hindered by it with the current opinion polls? Helped I assume.
55 - I’m not a Lib Dem either. I don’t identify myself with a political party. People that do are either (1) actively involved in politics, e.g. Marcus Wood, Sean Fear, Nick Palmer (and hats off to them) or (2) desperately insecure and desperate for something “bigger” than them to identify with. Which are you?
58- I think HenryG was mixed up with the 2001 election.
63 - actually that’s a good comeback. Drat.
61 I have, but when i looked for properties it only gave the blog link, just tried again and it gave the full link..blooming computer!
57 - that is truly hilarous. It’s the dude getting his hair dyed red that makes me laugh. He reminds me of Jeremy from Peep Show a little bit.
60. yep, and a lot of people were saying Boris would be the one making the gaffs.
43 tyson. All things being equal Hillary should win by 10 points plus. Obama needs to keep the loss in that range and ensure the delegate difference is minimzed. Obama will almost certainly make up the difference with a 20 point win in North Carolina. He’ll also take Indiana the same day but by a much closer margin.
62: ‘Erm, remember “You can get it if you really want” they’re going out right now.’
But does it feature Dave as a striding Messiah of the coming utopia?
35 Marcus Wood
On the prior thread you stated that your biggest challenge was getting the Tory vote out in Torbay and that much of it (3/10) had stayed home in 2001 and 2005. I thought that Lord Ashcroft’s paper had shown that the idea that the Conservatives were losing General Elections because their voters didn’t turn out was a fallacy and in any event with Torbay being a marginal didn’t you do a pretty good job targeting and getting the vote out last time even if they were reluctant ? (I agree that your voters may have more enthusiasm at the next election)
72. No but it’s leading down the same road. It hardly promises dull but competent government.
Surely one of the biggest changes is that Lib Dems are now equally likely to support the Tories as Labour. This is a big shift on 3 years ago and makes a mockery of those Tories who think Cameron has popularised the Party. If you’d done this in 2005 when the vote share was 35%, 33%, 23%, most of those Lib Dem supporters would have backed Labour. I’d have had the Tories about 15 points behind Labour then, if we discount the Lib Dems. Cameron’s made a big difference - as well as other factors of course.
59.
Sorry Mr. Wheatley
The EU definately didn’t make us competitive in the 80’s other than form an expensive protectionist racket for continental farmers. In reality it was the fact that employors were less stifled by tax and thus able to flurish. People were paying less in tax and had more disposible income to spend, which led to a boom in the economy. Now back to the betting bit, this extra disposble income was the reason the Tories had the vote of the C2 and C3 catagries of voters. Precisely the loss of this disposibble income, or the threat of it, in the economic downturn is why the valuble swing voters are now shifting to the Conservative side, which could lead to the potential loss of Labour seats in the suburbs of the cities, the Burys, Boltons and Crosbys etc.
70 - Indeed, although this is more monstrous and crass insensitivity.
Afternoon all
Let me be honest, I don’t think I could ever “love” the Tories. I’m a firm believer in equidistance - I hold both the Conservative and Labour parties in equal contempt.
That said, I also think a lot of the support for the Conservatives, while genuine, is based far more on a growing disillusionment/hatred (delete as appropriate) for the Labour Government and its inability/unwillingness (delete as appropriate) to tackle the issues that worry the “man on the Clapham omnibus” be that immigration, transport, care for the elderly, inflation etc,etc.
While I have never voted either Labour or Conservative, I did have the hope that the 1997 Blair Government might be as radical once it got elected as the 1945 Attlee or 1979 Thatcher Governments. The problem was the caution and lack of ambition it displayed in order to convince millions of ex-Tories to either abstain or vote Labour coloured its time in Government and Iraq threw away the opportunity for a radical second term while the third term has been ccategorised by failings of leadership, policy and direction.
The problem is I am totally unconvinced that the Conservatives will do better - all we will get in 2010 is a change of management. I’ve heard precious little from Cameron that convinces me he has any clue how to deal with the substantive issues and there is already a worrying sign that, as Major did, he will try and tell people how to live their lives in an atmosphere of benign moral vacuity backed up by a continuing creeping centralisation.
It was only ever the ‘chattering classes’ who were in love with labour - and iraq finished them off! The hypohtesis is wholly inappropriate - it is not about ‘like’ any party - it should be all about getting the job done!!
Ben Smith @ ‘Politico’ reporting that Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC, wants the Superdelegates to decide their choice by July 1st :
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/BREAKING_Dean_wants_closure_by_July_1.html
…………………..
Splice the mainbrace it’s Admiral Penketh !!
Discretion forbids me from mentioning the real reason for our competitive recovery but you can unshuffle the letters “U” and “E” to get the answer.
Best joke of the year.
re 203 previous thread - certainly in the West Midlands all the Met councils had all-up elections in 2004 and certainly in Birmingham many of the candidates who are up for re-election this year had a huge personal vote then.
59. Thatcher buggered up the country?..She had many faults not least the fact she saw numbers rather than people but she certainly turned the country around from the disasters of Labour in the 70’s and her economic settlement is still the tour de force today..if anyone is suffering from nostalgia its the anti-Thatcher lefties.
Broon and his crew are doing a good job of ruining the country but the Conservatives will come back in in 2010 with some pragmatism rather than overblown insubstantial hysteria and as ever tidy up the Lefties mess.
I would be fascinated to see what the dismayed / delighted figures for the question:
“If The Labour party were to win another General election under Gordon Brown what would your reaction be”
- they could be potential dynamite…
And if they were, I’d have to be cautious enough not to make my response public…
Political Wire reporting that Sen Patrick Leahy (Dem VR) has called, via Vermont Public Radio, for Hillary to withdraw from the race and fully support Obama :
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/03/28/leahy_urges_clinton_to_quit_race.html
Off topic, Has anyone seen The Orphanage? It’s the best film I’ve watched since Atonement
85. Do they know something we don’t know? Any relation to Harry Reid’s comments ( http://therightstudent.com/2008/03/are-democrats-covering-something-up.html )
83 Great fantasy “what if” JH!
And then after 2010…. If elected Cameron will look like Heath. The right wing of the Tories will never love him. He’ll look out of his depth at times. Pragmatism will look like complacency. Youth will go. He’ll ask for a bigger mandate and lose. They’ll replace him with a dynamic right winger.
And thus the circle continues…
64 - If Lib Dems genuinely did split 50/50 across the board then AV would clearly hinder both Labour and Tory regardless of the polls. It would make absolutely no difference in seats where the Lib Dems were third (as their vote would simply split equally) but the Lib Dems would take some seats where they were a close second on first choice.
However, it may well be the case that the 50/50 split conceals big local differences which adds an unknown factor.
88 - Attacking a fantasy with a fantasy, this thread is getting worse!
85. I suspect it will happen either
(1) Immediately after Pennsylvania, if she gets less than a 10% lead.
(2) Immediately after Indiana/North Carolina if she does well in Pennsylvania
or
(3) A few days after Indiana/North Carolina after superdelegates start endorsing Obama en masse because Clinton refused to do (1) or (2).
OT- Basra…
crooksandliars.com are saying “Our members and contacts in city say that there is still a lot fighting going on. They also say that reports in the British media that british troops and aircraft are not involved in the fighting is a flat out lie and that British tanks are heavily involved.”
Anyone here think it could be true?
88. I think ideological left-wingers spectacularly fail to appreciate the change in balance of the Conservative party. They are a bit more right than Cameron, but certainly much closer to him than they are to Norman Tebbit.
Wasn’t attacking it at all! Thought it was amusing/thought provoking.
It’s sad to say, but all political careers end in failure. Even the beloved Cameron will one day fall (2009,2014 who knows/cares?). The philosophical question is where does this get us in the end. Are we trapped in a daft cycle by an even dafter electoral system.
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10927596
Discuss.
94 - Well that assumes that we are living an extended Groundhog day!
34. what poll did you get these percentages from? have you the source please
94. Why is it a daft political system? I would far prefer giving parties with different visions alternate turns in power, as long as they are within the reasonable part of the political spectrum, than have a permanent middle of the road government that never gets to implement any new ideas. Fair competition, complete with winners and losers, is the best way to ensure a healthy democracy and body politic.
80.
Afternoon Jack W. how the devil are you and the fellow patroits exiled in St Albans
88 - as I noted yesterday and earlier in the week, planning on the basis that your opponent is going to screw up is a really poor strategy in politics.
The Conservatives do have a glass jaw though, and that glass jaw is the EU. While the Tory reflex is more closely in tune with the instincts of the British public, the Tories don’t actually have a policy on the EU other than to say “we don’t like where we are now”. This gives Labour a gilt-edged opportunity to conjure up the idea of a five year war with the EU and try to frighten the public into thinking that the Tories can’t be trusted to handle our relations with our fellow EU members. I still think that Gordon Brown made a huge strategic mistake in not calling a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon, but it is not too late for him to adopt this line of attack.
99 Admiral P. Hells ten bells Admiral …. I severed contact with St.Albans many moons ago when the yellow peril looked close to reaching double figures in councillors !!
………………
Meanwhile …. Rasmussen reports that Gore is not the answer !! Hooray !!!!!!!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/gore_not_answer_to_dem_divide
71- jackw- thanks
57. Oh, it’s cringeworthy, just like 1997 in retrospect was.
But at the time to a lot of people I think it felt right - Blair was the future and after 18 years of the Tories there was genuine excitement from some people.
Now we all know PPBs tend to be fairly ludicrous, but just remember the hordes and hordes of people running down Whitehall when Blair’s car pulled into Downing Street for the first time. It was crazy. He was a superstar.
But I think 1997 did damage to Labour in the long term in that they could never live up to the hype. That said in 1997-2005 they had a great chance to be a truly radical, fair government, but they squandered their advantage by, as others have alluded to on here, being too transfixed with losing Tory voters keeping them in power than generally making real, serious changes.
At first I think a lot of people thought New Labour was about optimism, modernism, real reform and hope. We all know in hindsight New Labour has all been about staying in power at whatever cost. And that is somewhat depressing.
103. “At first I think a lot of people thought New Labour was about optimism, modernism, real reform and hope. We all know in hindsight New Labour has all been about staying in power at whatever cost. And that is somewhat depressing.”
Actually I think Blair is best summed up by post 16.
98 The electoral system is crazy. Two points that get on my …
PMs are encouraged “to go on and on”. It’s a huge conceit that there is no-one else capable of the job. Look at the US, how it’s renewing itself by giving Bush a face saving way out. The UK and Labour would have benefited if Blair/Thatcher had known from the start they had 8 years.
What do we gain from alternating massive majorities (that give virtually absolute power for 4 years) pulling this way, then that way, with virtually no correlation with how people actually vote. It’s daft that Blair 2001 had a massive majority with less votes than 1992 Kinnock? Major had to suffer with a minute majority with the most votes ever.
It’s nuts!
New ARG Primary Poll for Pennsylvania :
Clinton 51% .. Obama 39%
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/padem8-703.html
58 and don’t forget John Major got the largest vote of any party leader in 1992 eclipsing both Blair and Mrs T by a long way.
105 - All systems produce odd results from time to time.
105, no voting system is truly fair. FPTP is certainly not the worst there is. I didn’t hear Labour bleating about it when they were winning landslides, nor hurrying to reform it when they were ahead in the polls.
104. At the moment, and I know this is terrible, I feel somewhat like the tretcherous Tory MP must have felt in 1993 sitting in the Commons and watching Major getting savaged by the Labour benches… in thinking “God, why did I hate Maggie so much?”
… with Brown at present I’m actually *yearning* for Blair to be back. Not because I like the man or agree with him (I would still want Labour chucked out at the GE) but because he wasn’t Gordon Brown, who I can’t help but wince at everytime he appears on my screen.
Blair was insincere and smarmy. But Brown is just an embarrasment.
109 Perhaps Cameron will propose to reform it. No that would be a brave move, it would capture the LD vote and probably give Cameron a place in the history books.
64/89. Yes, AV is a big unknown. I have tried modelling it but there are too may variables to be confident in a prediction, other than to say.
i) the LibDems would do better, but at 17% nationally it would not make a huge difference. Perhaps 8-10 more seats than UNS forecasts.
ii) the Nationalists may do slightly worse due to anti-independence transfers. Perhaps 2 or 3 seats worse.
One of the biggest unknowns is how the Others (independents, UKIP, BNP, Green, etc) would split. They make a significant impact on seats, although it’s hard to generalise, since each seat may have a different sort of “Other” standing!
The biggest factor in AV is the LD 2nd preferences. If they split fairly evenly, then overall an AV election won’t produce a result much different to FPTP. e.g. I’ve just run a sim that shows only 12 seats being decided differently under AV.
I don’t think we are likely to love the Tories anytime soon. Being a Tory member is still a major social stigma in many parts of the country. It’s still something to keep pretty quiet about in a way belonging to Labour and the Lib Dems isn’t.
105 - But equally, it is probable that Reagan would have won in 1988 and Clinton in 2000 had either been allowed to stand (and wanted to - Reagan may have called it a day as his health was declining). Was it really sensible to prevent people electing the leader they wanted? Genuine question - I can see merits to term limits but there are also clear costs.
o/t wendy alexander seems to be quite pleased with herself.
“Wendy Alexander has given herself a perfect score in her performance as Scottish Labour leader.
She awarded herself a “10 out of 10″, while saying it was time to move on from the donation scandal which hit her leadership campaign.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7317115.stm
114 - I always thing Jeb Bartlett had it about right ‘It turns out we have term limits, they are called elections!’
Re: 94/96: On the previous threads, some Tory activists/supporters claimed LDs were being deluded in not facing up to the possibility of losing half or more of their MPs at the next election.
I think a similar delusion applies to Tories when they consider the prospects for the Cameron Government. The inheritance will be nowhere near as favourable as it was Blair and Brown in 1997 and commitments on tax and spending have limited Cameron’s room for manoeuvre.
Why is there some kind of naive assumption that somehow everything will be “all right” once the Tories are back in power ? All Governments need some good fortune and many have to endure unforeseen problems. In addition, expectations need to be managed. The Tory victories of 1970 and 1979 had run into deep trouble by 1972-73 and 1981-82 respectively. There’s no reason to imagine the same thing couldn’t happen to Cameron.
105. The US has been stuck with Bush even though he was clearly going to cost the Republicans the next election since 2005. If there was a parliamentary system over here Bush would have long since been forced to resign.
I agree that commons majorities currently have too much power, but that’s been because of the decline of the Lords’ power. However, it’s a much better system than “consensual” ones like South Africa or Grand Coalitions as we currently have in Germany, where there is no-one speaking out against the government. It’s also better than permanent coalition systems where the people never know who to blame for things going wrong because coalition partners blame each other, so people’s prejudices never change.
I think we need to keep a majority type system in the Commons, preferably AV, but have a bit more of a check in the Lords by giving it back some more power and making it elected, with STV the best method.
115 - you missed the best bit:
“And Ms Alexander also dismissed claims of arrogance against Labour politicians and said her party’s fight back was under way.
She added: “Frankly, as I look across the other benches in the parliament, I don’t think the arrogance is on our side.”
114 I think we’ve had enough in the UK of PMs going on and on. Perhaps we should try the two term limit. Brown would have been in a better position if he’d had won the 2005 election himself. The Tories would not have imploded if Thatcher was replaced in 1987/88.
With the exception of the GW Bush debacle and the great Roosevelt success, it’s worked well for the US IMO.
It was good to see Putin have to work round their restriction.
66. Yes that’s correct - 2001 not 1997
119. yes I didn’t get that far, amazing irony that I really doubt she can see.
106 Cracking value, IMO, available on Betfair at 0.15/1 on Hillary winning, for those lovers of nailed-down certainties. The Halifax certainly won’t pay 14.25% net on your money over the next 3.5 weeks.
O/T Something for the weekend Sir? How about 12.5/1 available on Betfair that says Villa will beat United at Old Trafford? Unlikely I know, but big odds for a decent side in a two horse race. As a saver have an equal value bet at 0.9/1 that the match produces more than two goals.
105. I don’t think term limits are right. Yes, Bush is on his way out, but purely *because* he is on his way out he has been a lame duck leader for the past two years (as was Clinton before him). People are looking to the next President.
Paul M at 73
Politics just isn’t as simple or as blindly partisan for most people as I think your post suggests. I also venture that you misunderstood slightly the conclusions of Ashcroft.
What he said in terms was that a core vote strategy (as we pursued in 01 and 05) would always fail; because there just aren’t enough core voters to win power.
It’s the non aligned voters that hold the key; most of these people are naturally in tune with right-of-centre principles of Conservatives - small Government, individual freedom, equal opportunity but not imposed equal outcomes, strong law and order and defence, strong families etc.
Conservative *minded* voters like these didn’t like the look of Howard/Hague and quite liked the look of Blair - especially early on.
112. I think it would make a difference in political platforms, with even more reaching out in a big tent manner. (STV actually has the opposite effect, as prominent candidates first concern would be reaching the threshold, increasingly small with how many seats there are.)
109. It is about the worst there is, apart from the block-vote (and some crazy forms of PR, which no-one seriously proposes.) What is more, FPTP’s flaws were identified long ago… Pliny the Younger in the Roman Senate pointed out its paradoxes in AD.105. In Mediaeval times, Ramon Lull and Nicholas Cusanus proposed alternative voting procedures. In the 18th Century the French noblemen Borda and Condorcet laid down formal criteria that a “fair” voting system should meet. In the 19th Century Englishmen Hare and Hill created STV…
118. I have always thought this - why do we seem to have this position in UK Politics where the idea of granting more powers to a legitimate, elected Lords is balked at?
(Well, we all know the answer really, it’s nothing to do with the Primacy of the Commons but because the Government of the day don’t want a big challenger in the form of a beefed up second house).
I don’t advocate pure power parity, but if the Lords are elected I see no reason why they cannot return to the powers they had before the 1949 Parliament Act.
O/T - Terrorist released early
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7319037.stm
34. Thanks for these figures Stuart.
London numbers:
Con 47%
Lab 31%
LD 13%
BNP 5%
Grn 3%
The Patriots already on 5% and Londoners haven’t even received their free election mailshot yet!
Interesting that Red Ken, Bonking Boris, Camp Commander and the Green haven’t mentioned immigration once throughout the campaign. All they seem to care about is bendy buses, Range Rovers and planting trees. Leave the other topics to the Patriots.
I might have to up my prediction to 3 seats.
Re: 120 - I disagree, Jonathan. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the current system except that most politicians, once in power, start losing some key critical faculties including being able to see beyond the goldfish bowl of Downing Street.
Margaret Thatcher could easily have stood down in 1989, her legacy untarnished but she either wouldn’t or couldn’t. I think leaders develop a form of messianic streak after years of fawning and having everything doen for them. There;s a sense of infallability and a sense that their work is uncompleted and a sense that only they can do the job. I think BOTH Thatcher and Blair suffered from this.
Harold Wilson was of course more worldly-wise and was on his second stint. He more or less voluntarily walked away in 1976. Perhaps once you’ve tasted defeat and recognised your own fallability, your sense of personal judgement and perspective returns.
William Hague has experienced defeat - seriously and massively. I think for no other reason than that he’s the best qualified Prime Ministerial candidate on the Tory frontbench. David Cameron doesn’t know what it’s like to lose - one day he will find out.
129, bloody hell. Not a serious offence? What do you have to do for it to be considered serious?
28. “Of course politics is about winning”
No. Wrong. That’s a politicians way of thinking. Politics is about working out the best way to manage public services and the economy. You don’t “Win” in politics, you gain a mandate.
Brown speaking to Scottish Labour, without notes, BBC24 commenting that it is the “David Cameron way of speaking” which has “become the way of doing things”
35 “Fascinating, I just compared Blair arriving to tears of joy in ‘97 with Thatcher in 79 where you can clearly hear people booing her.”
Perhaps Labour are the type to boo. Perhaps Tories are more polite.
Besides, booing thugs are best ignored. Labour, on the hand give them jobs as conference security.
Latest Rasmussen Presidential and Primary Poll Trackers :
McCain 49% .. Clinton 41%
McCain 49% .. Obama 42%
Clinton 44% .. Obama 46% - First Obama lead for over a week in this poll.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Yes, they could have stepped down, but they didn’t. So the system needs to change. The kind of absolute power the UK system gives it’s prime ministers is not healthy. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
But I reckon I’ve seen enough of the current system to at least give some incremental reform a try. A two-term 8 year limit for PMs would be quite painless IMO. Our parties need to grow beyond the personality cult.
“It’s still something to keep pretty quiet about in a way belonging to Labour and the Lib Dems isn’t.”
In the circles you move in, perhaps.
sorry about the “it’s” - yuck!
113, 137 - if someone told me that they were a member of a political party (any political party), I’d start from the presumption that they had a screw that needed tightening somewhere until proven otherwise - and so I would recommend keeping pretty quiet about it. Being a member of a political party seems like a pretty odd thing to want to be.
131. He lost a safeish seat in 1997. But then so did lots of people.
It’s 2005. I want my Prime Minister to be Tony Blair. I feel his government have done good things for the economy and the public services since 1997. I want to reward him by returning a Labour MP to support his government.
Why if I want this man to be my Prime Minister following the election are you telling me I cannot? Because there is some piece of legislation out there that says no matter how successful you are as a PM, after 8 years that’s it?
126. hardly, since as I have indicated the AV result would be scarcely different from FPTP. It’s also highly inefficient, since in the example I gave, almost 400 seats would have to be recounted, to produce a different result in just 12 seats!
123 - I wouldn’t be too wild about that 0.15/1 about Hillary winning PA, PfP - if the “drum beat” of fellow Senators calling for her withdrawal continues it may have a considerable effect.
Three weeks is a long long long time in politics.
123 - also, football matches are not two-horse races!
139. Agreed. I don’t think being a member of the Labour party is any less of a ’stigma’ nowadays than being a member of the Tories.
For those of you interested in the final results from Texas …. yes you thought Hillary won ..
…. the county conventions are this weekend and the final delegate tally will be reported below. Obama likely to end up around +5 over Hillary :
http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=A651904DDDFEAB23F195356E0DCF0140?diaryId=5455
132 - I’m just waiting for Basher’s comments on this.
34. The Scottish detail on this poll - the Tories at 19%. Is that one of their best performances for years or is it just me?
Hattie Harperson is standing in for GB on next weeks PMQs, that’ll be a laugh.
142. But the problem with your analysis is that your basic data comes from an election fought under FPTP. If there was a different electoral system, politicians would fight the election differently - namely trying to win over more than their core vote and independents that lean their way.
141 Firstly, at present, who the queen asks to be prime minister has technically nothing to do with you anyway. It’s down to who can command a majority in the Commons. You vote for your MP (who may support a party) and nothing more.
Why do I say that certain people are ruled out of the PMs job? It’s purely a temporal form of the separation of powers. One person should not be allowed to have unlimited power.
149. dont mean to sound think, but who?
[83] - A lot of Tories like to make a lot of the benign economic inheritance that Gordon Brown inherited, but it was Thatcher who did a lot to squander the North Sea oil money on tax cuts, instead of investing for the future (as, say, the Norwegians have done). The source of many of our problems (housing for example) can be laid at the door of Thatcher.
The Tories like to pretend that they are business-savvy types who know how to keep their eyes on the bottom line, but their record in government does not inspre confidence. Ken Clarke’s personal record was something of an exception rather than the norm, and it’s taken a lot longer for things to go belly-up economically than the Tories ever predicted.
149 - Hague will tear her to pieces…
152. whoops, mean thick, and do you mean harriet harman?
151. But if voters/MPs would like that person to have that power, why stop it? We live in a representative democracy, surely we are being ‘unrepresentative’ if the most favoured candidate to lead the country is not allowed to?
149, well, I’ll be mildly disappointed not to see a mocking Windsor Castle jibe thrown at Brown, but it’ll probably be worth it to watch a mighty Yorkshireman crush an anti-men harpy.
125 Marcus
Thanks for the response. I agree with your comments about the core vote, and better understand the point you were making.
I am somewhat surprised that even in a key marginal like yours there would be still be so many unalligned right of centre people who chose not to vote at all last time, despite presumably the best efforts of yourself and your LibDem opponent to get them to the polls.
143 Very valid point Aaron and I should have checked the rules to ensure that the bet only stands if she has not previously notified her withdrawal from the nomination, which is of course also a possibility.
151. But they don’t have unlimited power. If they wanted to do something that was opposed strongly by the majority of elected representatives, they wouldn’t be able to get it through the commons.
144 - Indeed not.
I’ll get me coat.
153 Reducing taxes is not squandering money.
And the economic situation that Labour inherited in 1997 was certainly the best any incoming government had enjoyed for many years.
153. Tax cuts ARE a form of investment, as they encourage business to come to the country (as long as they don’t come at the expense of government borrowing).
34. So, Stuart, on the basis of this poll, how many gains do you see the SNP making at the next Westminster election?
160 I theory maybe, but in practice whipping pretty much sees things through. In practice if you have a 100+ majority, unless you are a cretin you can do what you like through the power of patronage.
156 I accept that the argument for limiting terms is a restriction on a freedom, but there are utilitarian arguments for it. I suspect you would not support the prime minister and MPs holding positions in the judiciary even if there was popular will for it. In practice, politicians seem to turn into benevolent dictators the longer they go on. Hence two terms and your out has merit IMO.
From a pseudo-biological point of view I think we benefit from a bit of diversity at the top in the long run
Sorry been away chauffeuring wife and daughter to wedding dress shops.
In summary the Tories have not yet been tested. Their no tax cuts policy and increase taxes on 4×4 s, holidays and students hasn’t yet registered with the electorate and they dare not mention the EU. But this is the problem with polls this far away from an election. They are are reaction against the government - once the electorate begins to realise that the Tories care as little about them as the Labour party does then why bother voting for them.
The answer to Mike’s original question is: No, why should they.
113. Nowhere South of Nottingham it isnt..I think your post perfectly sums up what most idealogical Lefties (including the Labdem anoraks)are just not getting…They are convinced that most people still hate the Tories just like them..its clear from Labour’s strategy against Cameron that this obviously isnt true and it is spectacularly backfiring for Leavingsoon…
Its equally possible to spin the numbers Mike’s put above to show that only 32% of those questioned would actively be dismayed by a Cameron Government and 68% would be delighted, wouldnt mind or dont care enough to have view one way or another.
That said the Conservatives are not generally a party you would love..its non-activist supporters are pragmatists and realists voting for them because they represent their views and would support their families.
This another reason why the local parish elections so beloved by Mark Senior give no indication at all of likely National elections. Conservative supporters tend to be practical and would simply not waste their time on (rightly or wrongly) on voting in what they see as virtually irrelevant elections. They tend to have better things to do with their time.
115,119 Superb dissecting of the comments from Wendy Alexander.
She gives herself 10/10. And then lambasts other politicians for arrogance. Priceless.
All that is needed for Scotland to become independent within a few years is the maintenance of Wendy Alexander in her position.
[136] - “Our parties need to grow beyond the personality cult.”
Therein lies the problem. The disciplie of the party whip is predicated on the idea that a collective decision will be reached which will then be collectively adhered to, nowadays the decision is made for the backbenchers by the figurehead and everyone else has to get in line, otherwise the party “looks bad” in the media.
I’d prefer to see a bit of minority government, and ad-hoc coalitions forming for individual pieces of legislation.
As it is, we have a representative system where we vote for a party, more than an individual, which seems contrary. At least with a PR system you vote for parties and get parties in roughly those proportions. If the parties weren’t so centralised then voting for a delegated representative would make more sense.
149 harman vs hague…… hahhahahahaa
re several - if you really want a dead cert have a bet that there won’t be a record time in tomorrow’s boat race. Not much money available at 1/25 but it’s really like taking sweets of babies.
166 Icarus. About time you made an honest woman of here !!
165. But whipping only has so much effect. If MPs feel strongly enough about something they will, and do, revolt. The reason that rebellions are rarely large enough for a government to lose is because if this looks likely the government works to compromise behind the scenes.
150. It’s to do with the basic distribution of the vote in single member constituencies. Under AV, in Bootle and Surrey, nothing would change, they would still weigh the votes, not count them, and 2nd preferences would not come into play at all. Approx 230 seats would still be declared on the 1st count.
Of the remaining 400+ seats, unless the 3rd (or lower) placed votes split decisively, few seats would change due to 2nd prefs. If the LibDems are on a low national share, e.g. 17%, more of their candidates will be in 3rd place, reducing still the scope for a different constituency result. Only when the LDs approach 25% (and thus start achieving lots of 2nd places) does AV really help them, with (now) 3rd-placed Lab or Tories carrying them over the finish line.
I suppose if AV is introduced, the LDs could try and portray it as “PR”, or say that their path to overall victory has become much easier, and hence the “wasted vote” argument no longer holds. That would be somewhat disingenuous, but it might work (on some voters)…
166. They did have a couple of tax policies which seemed to resonate with the electorate - IHT > £1M and stamp duty > £250k for first timers. People remember them alright - thats why there was no election and they are at 40%+.
In summary you are talking rot.
164 Alan - did you see Stuart’s reply to my same question at the end of the previous thread?
175. IHT effects 6% of people.
And the stamp duty proposal was labelled a “gross misunderstanding of the basics of supply and demand” by the economist. If a house can be sold for 300,000 including stamp duty, it can be sold for 300,000 without stamp duty, the market will keep the price the same and instead of the government getting stamp duty the seller will get it.
169. In the United States, Senate candidates will often make a point of saying they oppose the policy of their party leader/presidential candidate. This is probably because they have a high enough independent profile they don’t depend on the party doing well nationally to get in.
166 - Plenty of Conservatives held a similar ‘once x gets found out’ attitude prior to 1997 it was false comfort then and it is now.
170. Hague is good, but he was much too smug against Prescott. Concentrate on the arguments not his lack of eloquence.
It is just journalist gossip, but word on the street is that Speaker Michael Martin (Glasgow North East) is to stand down at the next GE:
No! That means no special communal drink in during the election game.
173 If you think the outcome of the Maastrict/Iraq (you name it) vote was merely down to benign “compromise” behind the scenes I sadly suspect you are probably in denial. But a hat tip to your faith in the system.
177. 6% per annum. Anyway you miss the point - it was a tax policy that resonated so much with the voters that it stopped Gordon calling an electrion. Which totally goes against Icarus’s claim that the public don’t pay attention to the Conservative tax policy and that they have no cuts planned.
178. The *more* unpartisan nature of the Senate is a real boon for the US political model.
The thing that worries me somewhat about an elected Lords is that I expect it to be just as partisan and whipped as the House of Commons. We will lose something there. But our political culture is not the same as the US. As long as a candidate is ‘broadly’ acceptable by the party establishment it doesn’t really matter if they sometimes disagree.
177. You spectacularly miss the point, perhaps deliberately, that whatever the rights or wrongs or practical impact(and personally I think they are both great ideas) they resonated with floating voters and begun Broon’s descent into crapulence..
180 harmen makes prescott look like a talented commons performer.
181. It’s the only sensible decision. He would still be the longest serving Speaker since the War. More than he deserved, imho. Glasgow NE could be one to watch on election night. SNP long-shot.
184 - I think the boon for the US Model is the separate executive.
O/T sorry - but has anyone seen any opinion polls for the Italian election lately? Thanks.
182. Maastrict and Iraq have been the most extreme things (in terms of being different to the party’s wishes) to have got through. But clearly a PM couldn’t really do such contentious votes more than once in a parliament, without getting kicked out.
I’m not claiming that the executive isn’t too powerful at current, or that better checks shouldn’t be put in place. I, for one, would like the Lords strengthened in its powers (once it is elected). But you claimed a decent majority gave a PM “absolute” power. That clearly isn’t the case.
A core of at least 30% would also be dismayed at another Labour government, such is life.
Accept it and move on I say.
190 Once is once too many. Both votes have not done their parties any good. There is slightly too much trust in the system for my liking.
183. That may have been how they have been perceived but in reality the proposals were a lot different to how most people see them. Which reinforces my view that the next election will be fought on spin not substance.
186. Although i am obviously shocked to find you agreeing with Tory proposals are sensible, why do you think that? When someone with a GCSE in economics will tell you that cutting stamp duty will not help first time buyers.
176. Thanks Peter. 9-11 sounds reasonable.
187. I don’t think Glasgow NE will be one of them.
188. I disagree. A separative executive causes far too much gridlock in the system, especially when the legislature is bicameral with two powerful chambers. The failure of the Clinton administration to get healthcare through, despite being elected with a clear mandate to do so, is a case in point.
Also, do you think a leader as poor quality as George Bush would have managed to get enough support from his colleagues to be PM in a parliamentary system?
You also get big problems from earmarking, especially in the House, as representatives are only accountable to those in their constituency. Senators find this harder, because their few number means their profile is large enough for the national media to attack them, but it still happens.
My personal preference would be for a Commonsesque lower house with PM, but an independent Senate. That’s the right balance between checks on power and gridlock, IMHO.
O/T - Appears Gordon has told a lie in his speech. He is quoted on the Beeb as saying “What makes me proudest of all is that I am the first prime minister to represent a Scottish constituency - the constituency I grew up in.”
That is tosh, Andrew Bonar Law was PM when he was also MP for Glasgow Central. The last I looked Glasgow was in Scotland.
Random Question:
When cars have a gCO2/100km figure quoted for them, is this a “clean-burn” figure based on fuel consumption (ie just the CO2), or does it also take into account the other greenhouse gases like NOx, that are a large part of the climatic impact of road transport?
Sorry to hear about your tactical retreat Jack.
124. I agree term limits are daft if the electorate want to keep voting for someone to lead who are we to stop them, the electorate are the boss after all. It opens up the possibilty of a born leader having to step down fr the electorate to find there isn’t anyone comparable in their skills ready to take up the mantle.
193. “When someone with a GCSE in economics will tell you that cutting stamp duty will not help first time buyers.”
Why not?
193. Eh ? 1% could easily help a FTB to get up to the 20% deposit they need to get a mortgage these days.
193. Cutting taxes on the middle classes which effectively is what stamp duty is, is a good idea in the current climate..I accept that Davey C and George O will not do more of it but I wish tehy would..As in my professional life also applaud any effort to keep money in the hands of hard pressed taxpayers and out of the grubby wasteful hands of broon..
196. Asquith at Fife, Campbell-Bannerman at Stirling Burghs. Presumably McBroon meant “in my lifetime”…. but what about Douglas-Home at Kinross & W Perthshire…
McTosh, as you say…
Thursday 27th March 2008.
Abbots Langley PC, Leavesden
LD Stephen Giles-Medhurst 865 (91.6), Lab 79 (8.4).
Majority 786. Turnout 24%. LD hold.
Hertfordshire CC, Bedwell
Lab 1452 (56.5; +1.0), Con 625 (24.3; -0.6), LD Len Lambert 329 (12.8; -6.8), UKIP 165 (6.4; +6.4).
Majority 827. Turnout 29%. Lab hold. (Percentage change since May 2005).
Rothwell TC, Trinity
Con 487 (49.1), Lab 337 (34.0), LD Daniel Garside 167 (16.9).
Majority 150. Turnout 32.8%. Con hold.
Stevenage DC, Pin Green
Lab 671 (54.8; +3.2), Con 303 (24.7; +1.7), LD Mary Griffin 149 (12.2; -0.3), UKIP 61 (5.0; +5.0), Green 41 (3.3; +3.3), [BNP (0.0; -12.9)].
Majority 368. Turnout 29%. Lab hold. (Percentage change since May 2007).
Wellingborough BC, Redwell West
Con 665 (61.0; -16.5), BNP 177 (16.2; +16.2), Lab 169 (15.5; -7.0), LD Jane Brown 40 (3.7; +3.7), UKIP 39 (3.6; +3.6), Green 37 (3.4; +3.4).
Majority 488. Turnout 43.4%. Con hold. (Percentage change since May 2007).
196 - Asquith and Campbell-Bannerman too, not to mention Gladstone.
199. As i posted above, if the market price for a house is £300,000 with stamp duty, it will be £300,000 without stamp duty. If we abolished VAT, prices wouldn’t go down, companies margins would go up. It’s the same principle with house prices, the market price will remain the same but sellers would make more money. It’s not just me, the economist labeled the plans as showing “a gross misunderstanding of the basics of supply and demand”
Daily Mail, Sun and Express have their headline for tomorrow.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/28/nterror128.xml
“Radical Muslim terrorist released from prison early to ease overcrowding”
204. But the market price for a flat would be £202k for a buy to let landlord and £200k for a FTB ergo more affordable.
204. Well its not the only thing showing a gross misunderstanding..house prices are currently falling and in situations with buyers aware that the Stamp duty has come down that would very much enable stronger bargaining from Buyers. The impacr, the price has come down and FTB assisted, job done. I wouldnt believe everything you read if I was you..
204. Surely, in a competitive market, if you cut out a sales tax the resulting new price would be some place in between the previous pre-tax price and the previous post-tax price.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/5/5e/Tax_supply_and_demand.png
203 Campbell-Bannerman was born in Scotland so has first claim - both Gladstone, Douglas-Home though Scots were born in England and Bonar-Law in Canada. Asquith was English.
Another Brown misstatement perhaps?
Understand latest Gallup has Obama leading Clinton 48-42
204. In a competitive market. The housing market is hardly competitive there is a low supply of low cost housing and high demand, leading to superprofits. The best way of helping first time buyers is building new houses.
211. Should be addressed to 208.
211. Maybe a year ago but demand is not high now. Its falling due to dropping affordability (tax and price rises) and a reduction in supply of credit (see Nationwide raising rates etc).
211. Inelastic supply is not the same as a non-competitive market. Use this one instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tax-inelasticsupply-elasticdemand.gif
211. Building new houses is one of a range of measures that would include lowering Stamp Duty.
Its possible the Tories could become loved, as Blairs Labour was in the mid 90’s, but it won’t happen yet.
Although memories of the 92-97 period have faded enough in people’s mind to allow them to consider voting Conservative, I’m sure there are still residual misgivings and concerns. This is only natural considering just how god awful the government was in the dark period.
If Labour was somehow to win the next election, with another five years there-after, I would think that by 2014-2015 you would see some very similar ratings for the Conservatives, that we saw for Labour in the 94-97 period.
209 Perhaps he meant the first to sit for a Scottish constituency where the member was also brought up. I think this might be the case. His syntax is a little unclear.
170
talking of Harman v Hague at PMQ’s, It might make the betting market on which subject Hague picks a bit more interesting…….
213. House prices are still increasing. They are increasing at a slower rate but are still increasing.No politician wants to face the fact that house prices must fall if it is to benefit first time buyers.
208. Imagine if the supply line was virtually vertical, that is the situation of the british housing market. Leading to virtually no change in y for a change in x. i.e. an inelastic good.
219. The Nationwide disagree with you and they published new figures today :
“House prices fell for the fifth consecutive month in March. The price of a typical house fell by 0.6% during the
month, bringing the annual rate of house price growth down to 1.1% - its lowest rate since March 1996. A clear
change in sentiment since the late summer has led to the sharp slowing in house price growth, even in the less
volatile 3-month on 3-month series. Prices on this measure are now 1.5% lower than three months ago.”
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical/Mar_2008.pdf
219. It’s not entirely inelastic. Landlords renting might put some of their properties back on the market, as well as people with second homes, but I get your point.
Here’s a statement to make even the most die-hard unionist consider voting SNP:
“And I believe that Wendy Alexander is not only the leader of our party here in Scotland but she will be the next first minister of Scotland whenever an election is declared.”
Gordon Brown.
Supply and demand theory predict that the impact of a tax change is split between the buyer and the seller, depending on the elasticity of demand. If demand is perfectly inelastic, the tax change impacts entirely on the buyer, if demand is perfectly elastic it impacts entirely on the seller.
The other relevant point has already been made, that whereas most of the cost of the property can be borrowed, the stamp duty usually needs to be paid in cash and so the buyer has to save more to cover both the deposit and the stamp duty.
220. Sky news was reporting something different, i apologise.
217 - I think it would be hard to find many PM’s who represented the Constituency they grew up in. It is a hollow boast whatever he meant, and as it comes across it is utterly untrue.
219
maybe in pockets of the country they are, but overall, I have seriously doubt that they are increasing.
224. They probably picked up the small annual rate rise - which is pretty misleading (journo in poor assessment of figures shock !)
Hague v Harman will be hilarious. Prescott was obviously poor, but there was a certain charm to his garbled, bumbling speech. You couldn’t help but smile to some extent, even though you knew objectively he was tragic. You didn’t take him that seriously.
Harman, in contrast, is such an uncharismatic, unsympathetic and uncharming person that I cannot imagine her raising the same smiles. She’ll be punched all around the ring. She’ll take herself incredibly seriously.
211 well such a supply side reform would certainly be assisted by cuts in Stamp Duty - it is not true to suggest that SDLT doesn’t affect the market price of a house at all - taxes are a distortion and interference in the market (after all that’s the purpose of many taxes). If there were no SDLT bands we would certainly see fewer distortions around the banding points.
Also your posts always treat economics as a matter of scientific precision - a mistake common to the young economists of the world - try and remember that all your “equations” are actually nothing of the sort but a best guess at judging how human beings will react in a given set of circumstances.
your basic error leads you to feel that if the government gets the economics correct everything else will fall into place - it’s that kind of idealism that you should grow out of and lead you to become a tory in your 40’s
225 I think Baldwin might have represnted the constitutency he grew up in. Can’t think of any other PMs.
230 - That was the only one I could think of too, so the comment in Brown’s speech was ridiculous either way.
He ‘believes’ that Wendy Alexander is the leader of the party in Scotland..Thats good to know..was there any reason to doubt she was…
He really is the most in articulate gurner when he speaks..
O/T - More data issues, this time NHS Payroll data…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7319293.stm
229. Okay i admit my error, a cut in stamp duty would help first time buyers, however this help would be minimal as the market is very inelastic. I think everyone agrees that it must be accompanied by an increase in the housing stock.
OT
Well I suppose you have to laugh…..
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/weird/display.var.2149403.0.motorist_gets_3_000_ccharge_receipts.php
232 - It is rather like that infamous announcement that it was the unanimous view of the NEC that Michael Foot was the leader of the Labour Party. Or something like that.
230. Lloyd-George (although born in Manchester, brought up in Caernarvon Burghs); Chamberlain (Edgbaston); possibly Bonar Law (although born in New Brunswick, Can, brought up in Glasgow, represented Glasgow Blackfriars and Hutchesontown, and later Glasgow Central)
I was going to make a post about a feature of AV I don’t like. The point I was making was that by eliminating the lowest polling candidate first and distributing the 2nd pref votes from there, it could mean that the winner is ultimately decided by the loser, which seems a bit unfair.
I was trying to use a four candidate example with Alfie, Barbara, Charlie and Delilah, who poll 1st prefs in that order. Delilah is eliminated first and her 2nd prefs transfered. They carry Barbara over the top. The only thing is that Charlie’s 2nd prefs would be going to Alfie and those are never counted because the election is won after the 2nd round.
I was going to make the point that it seems unfair that the loser is rewarded for losing by getting to decide the outcome whereas the candidate who polled higher, who would have swung it the other way, got no say in the matter. My conclusion would then be that if there is no winner in the first round, all but the top two should be eliminated and the votes transferred accordingly. Two rounds only.
Then I tried putting numbers to that and failed to get them to work. I couldn’t get numbers that would allow Delilah’s 2nd prefs to push Barbara over the top alone. It would have to go to a third round. So I guess I disproved my own point.
But there is another gripe that can be demonstrated. So I couldn’t prove rewarding of the loser, but I can prove punishing of the winner.
Take a three candidate election, Alfie, Barbara and Charlie.
They poll in the 1st prefs thus.
Alfie 40%
Barbara 31%
Charlie 29%
Charlie’s 2nd prefs going to Barbara carrying her over the top. However, all of Alfie’s 2nd prefs go to Charlie, which would have been enough to carry him over the top and with a greater mandate than Barbara. Of course, they don’t matter because it never gets to that point. All Alfie supporters are devastated by the result. Their 2nd pref wasn’t considered because Alfie won the 1st round. It seems like the winner was punished.
In fact, with Barbara winning, 31% are happy, 29% are indifferent and 40% are really pissed off. If Charlie had won by some method that allowed Alfie’s 2nd prefs to be counted, then if Barbara’s 2nd prefs went to Charlie as well, 29% would have been happy and 71% indifferent. A much better situation. Even if Barbara’s 2nd prefs had gone to Alfie, 29% would have been happy, 40% would have been indifferent and 31% really pissed off. Still, better than would AV produced.
But let’s run with the last example. If Alfie had won by some method, 40% would have been happy, 31% indifferent and 29% pissed off. That is the maximisation of happiness.
205. Brilliant. We need to detain them for longer before we have proved they are terrorists, but once we have, we can let them out early.
Joined up Government?
67. Very gracious. TY.[Now I am not pulling your leg.]
235. Stamp duty is a significant extra hurdle to first time buyers who find it hard to raise the cash needed for a deposit.
But a much bigger hurdle is the new lending policies by mortgage providers, many of whom are now asking for deposits of up to 25%. Indeed, the RICS has recently estimated that the total upfront costs of buying a house can reach up to 100% of annual salary for first time buyers.
The credit crunch is threatening to freeze out many first time buyers altogether, and neither stamp duty cuts or more housebuilding will have much impact on this. By way of interest, private housebuilding is also falling, according to the latest data.
most mainstream journalists, even financial ones, have minimal understanding of basic statistics and tend to report a fall in the rate of house price increase as a “fall in house prices”. a real pet peeve of mine.
in fact at present the national average price is modestly higher than it was a year ago. looking at 3-month on 3-month the picture depends who you believe, suggsting prices are roughly static on balance.
i consider the monthly figures to be too ‘noisy’ for analysis
240 - Sally, Nick Herbert made that point as well!
236 and the driver who received the 3000 receipts was blind, you would have thought that they wouldn’t have to pay the congestion charge!
“Mr Ellis, who is a 37-year-old blind fitter, said: “I drive all around the country with my job and inevitably that sometimes takes me through London.”
187.
I wish he’d stand down now, precipitate a by-election and force the selection of a new speaker. Then we could still have a speaker’s seat for the Election Game.
223. Here’s a statement to make even the most die-hard unionist consider voting SNP:
Why not when there is the protection of a referendum? Salmond isn’t going to declare UDI. And if he does, then Grampian is going to declare UDI from Scotland. Why should we share our oil money with Glasgow? And none for the Hebrides. They don’t even allow exploration in those waters.
239 - Isn’t that just a slightly over-long example of one narrow implication of Arrow’s impossibility theorem? The theorem is that, if you apply strict but not unreasonable criteria, you cannot convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking.
It’s a useful theorem in many contexts but people read too much into it. It is perfectly possible to convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking in most circumstances with limited loosening of the criteria. You seem to be saying that a system is bad because it could conceivably result in an outcome which arguably (but only arguably) might not be a wholly accurate reflection of community preferences if you choose sufficiently surprising numbers. That is a curious basis on which to condemn something.
235. Agreed..
242. Nationwide house prices have fallen for five successive months, and the annualised rate of decline is more than 6% - if that is ’static’ then your concept of ’static’ is an interesting one.
244 - Reminds me of the old joke about the nun (not sure why it’s a nun) in the bath. There’s a knock on the door, which annoys her as she’s just got in. But then she hears the person at the door saying, “Is there anyone there? It’s the blind man here.” So she thinks that’s alright and gets out and opens the door. Whereupon the guest says, “nice tits love - where do you want the blinds fitted?”
239. Josh, on your first point, you’ve set it up so that A>B>C>D. So A+C > B+D. So B+D will always be < 50%.
On your second point, I agree that in theory AV can produce some pretty bizarre outcomes, but I imagine that (just as with FPTP) in seats where that is an issue, there would be an element of tactical voting. In your example, polls/past results might incline enough Alfie supporters to switch to Charlie for first preference and Alfie for second to ensure that Barbara is eliminated first.
Latest Gallup Presidential and Primary Trackers :
McCain 48% .. Clinton 44%
McCain 46% .. Obama 44%
Clinton 42% .. Obama 50%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Back-Into-Lead-Democratic-Race.aspx
Obama up 8% in today’s Gallup poll:
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/032808DailyUpdateGraph1.gif
Those pesky snipers…..
251 Still nimble on your pins, I see….!
239. Well the Arrow theorem shows us that there is no electoral system which will be fair in every way it should be. But I believe although you can show there are ways AV does fall down, statistical analyses have shown such cases virtually never happen - mainly because people don’t really have second preferences like these hypotheticals. For example, if Charlie’s position was such that his natural supporters were overwhelmingly likely to favour Barbara, Alfie’s supporters probably wouldn’t be too happy about Charlie getting in either. It’s also worth noting that Babara’s supporters didn’t get their second preferences recorded either.
O/T - Govt U-turn on terrorist early releases….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7319501.stm
251/252 - in light of this and other news today maybe shadsy’s 5/6 Obama +12% in PA is worth a nibble? I have availed myself to modest stakes.
252. It would appear that Wright didn’t do any harm at all. Although I suspect it did really - it just harmed him among those that were already Clinton supporters.
253 MM. I used to be tad quicker when I was 104 !!
234 and 236 - Both these blunders, though unrelated to each other, are being blames on the CAPITA company.
O/T - “SNP to take Scotland back to the 19th Century” says Brown.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/28/scotland.labour
Now if it was the 18th Century, they would get Jack W’s vote!
On ‘dismay’ -v- ‘delight’ for Cameron’s Conservatives - we have been indoctrinated for a long time to hate the Tories. Media folk are clearly over representated on the Left (and the far Left). The ‘respectable’ media, in particular, is full of people who have been brought up to believe that the Right is bigoted, selfish, mean and philistine - in short Nasty. This message has been pumped out for around a quarter of a century. It’s been the subject of successful plays, novels, films and television as well as hard news. By contrast Blair in the 1990s was portrayed as the nearest thing to a saint this society is likely to have. Labour played the good guy to the Tories bad guy. And we all know how contaminated the Tory brand had become by the time Michael Howard showed up (complete with vampire associations and ’something of the night’ smears). So it’s a bit of a miracle to me that Cameron’s Conservatives could be so far ahead in the polls now - let alone people learning to love them. I’m sure that Cameron would love to be loved a little more. But a double digit poll lead is a pretty remarkable thing and not explicable by the economy alone (after all it was only a short while ago that Gordon was supposed to be the reliable man at times of economic stress). And there are dangers in expectations being too high and unrealistic. Better to win an election voted in by a sceptical public and then win respect when in government. Cameron has been consistently under-estimated by people across the political spectrum. I’m pretty confident he will exceed all expectations when in power.
248. the original data presented here suggested 1.1% rise over the year, + nationwide is not the only measure
239
AV should only be activated if the winning candidate polls less than 45% of the vote, this would prevent three way splits. From memory when Seb Coe won Falmouth & Camborne he got about 35% of the vote, Libdems and Labour about 32/33% AV should hopefully eliminate that.
Interesting aspect of that poll, which goes to support my own feelings, probably most other posters too.
Voting is a little like going into a restaurant once every four years and being told the chefs have changed, but there are only really two choices, cod and chips or plaice and chips, of course you could try scampi and chips but they only do that in half portions.
260. “Do we move backwards to a 19th century firmly about nation states with barriers and embassies and consulates? Or do we move forward to the inter-dependent world of the 21st century where people cooperate and work together?”
OK Gord, so where do you stand on Serbia and Kosovo?
OT
but so much for No 10 security…
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23467122-details/Serial+burglar+swanned+into+Downing+Street+using+Lithuanian+lover%27s+ID+in+amazing+security+breach/article.do
265 Reminded me of one reason why Blair was greeted at Downing Street by delirious cheering crowds and Thatcher, while getting plenty of cheers also had some jeers - Gates. In 1997 everyone in Downing Street was invited, as they had to get through the gates, and they were Labour Party workers.
In 1979 anyone could enter Downing Street so while plenty of Tory party workers went so did the general public.
I’m gutted. Tammy Nagalingham isn’t standing for London Mayor again. What is the world coming to?
“Media folk are clearly over representated on the Left”
That’s simply not true. The print media is dominated by right wingers.
Nominations for the London mayoral have now closed. Full list:
Alan Craig Christian Choice
Boris Johnson Conservatives
Brian Paddick Liberal Democrats
Gerard Batten UKIP
Ken Livingstone Labour
Lindsey German Left List party
Matt O’Connor English Democrats
Richard Barnbrook BNP
Sian Berry Greens Winston McKenzie Independent
Interesting that Respect has morphed in ‘Left List party’
Shadsy’s update on the 5K Boris bet from someone in Surrey on the previous thread is also reported in the ES (can’t see it online). The Ladbrokes spokesman says, “If this contest was a boat race Livingstone’s boat would be taking in water and in grave dander of sinking.” Let’s hope he’s right.
re 251. I think that all the tracker reflects is that Hillary has had a bad week.
dander - danger
106 - Doesnt sound too far out of line with other polls (although Rasmussen had a Clinton lead of just 10)… but this is ARG and should be thrown onto the same burning pire as most the ‘uni polls’ you get in the states, totally unreliable pollsters.
269 - Something else that interests me about that list is the alphabetical order. I copied and pasted it from the BBC site. If it was ordered conventionally by surname, Barnbrook would be top. Is it not true that those who are top of the list get more votes? I wonder whether that’s the BBC playing politics … and how the names will appear on the ballot?
Only one independent, I’m shocked “Rainbow” George Weiss isn’t entering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_George_Weiss
269. “Interesting that Respect has morphed in ‘Left List party’ ”
This shows the importance of remaining on good terms with your Nominating Officer.
268. Stonch Beer Blog - I refer you to this item on Ian Dale’s blog:
Do Journalists Generally Swing to the Left?
Iain Dale 12:28 PM
Kiwiblog reports on the political leanings of American journalists.
The Pew State of the Media annual report has an interesting section on how journalists descibe their political leanings compared to the population.
Conservatives - 8% of journalists vs 36% of US population
Liberals - 32% of journalists vs 19% of US population
This explains the New York Times et al.
I wonder what a similar survey would show in Britain. A couple of years ago the Political Studies Association did a survey of the political leanings of their members. I think only 15% admitted to being Conservatives. I’ll put my head on the block now and guess that if you did a survey of all political journalists in the UK you’d find about a quarter to a third would say they were on the right.
273. I like the idea of candidates being listed alphabeticaly by first name.
I would even trump “Alex Salmond for First Minister -SNP” !
re 203 on the face of it, notably good Lab results in Herts. Any info (or references to earlier posts) relating to these?
Left List is the Swappie rump of the Respect debacle. Real Respect is the Gallobullah faction.
88 Ah Jonathon .. Keep talking dirty to me !
277 - unlucky Alan.
276. That’s only because you have to be an absolute extremist right-wing nutbar to describe yourself as “Conservative” in the present-day US.
252 - And thats before you take a look at the hammer Clinton’s (already shaky) positive/negative ratings have taken as a result of her compative approch to Obama and ‘Sniper-Gate’.
252 - And thats before you take a look at the hammering Clinton’s (already shaky) positive/negative ratings have taken as a result of her compative approch to Obama and ‘Sniper-Gate’… IIRC her positive rating is 37%, compared to 49% for Obama (and a similar high forties rating for McCain).
281
260 Alan J.
276. Not at all. Look at McCain. And as for the print media over here - the Murdoch press supports new Labour. Paul Dacre supports Brown (even tho’ the Left love to denounce the Mail as an ‘evil’ rag). Simon Heffer at the Telegraph has been waging war against Cameron. Cameron’s Conservatives are not backed by any of the dailies. I increasingly see this as a battle of the MSM -v- the people.
278 It’s no good asking that question on here Martin , Conservative posters act the deaf monkey at anything that does not agree with the opinion poll leads .
Sorry. I was responding to 282 - Socrates.
288 a couple of local elections in a Labour area hardly smacks of a revival.. dream on.
273 - good spot, and I’d like to believe that was the reason, but I reckon it’s probably that the English-degree-holding junior reporter at the BBC got sent an Excel spreadsheet of the candidates with both names in the same cell, and didn’t know how to automatically split them out before alphabetically sorting, and didn’t bother to do it manually. Or something of that nature, at least.
Remember, cock-up before conspiracy!
re 288 well, vote 2007 site is down!
re 269. I’ve got nearly £3000 on Boris though it’s across three spread betting firms and Betfair and my average odds are in excess of evens.
Anybody know if we’re going to get a MORI/Sun poll tonight?
287. No way will the Mail, even under Dacre, endorse Labour. It’ll either fail to endorse anyone or back the Tories with “serious reservations.” It then allows Dacre to lay out a raft of areas he can attack the Tories on if they form a government.
I doubt Murdoch will go for Labour this time around. The Sun’s endorsement was very half-hearted even in 2005 when we didn’t have data loss/early release scheme/economy problems/big rises on alcohol/Lisbon Treaty, etc, hanging around.
It will be interesting to see what The Times does, though. If Murdoch wants to hedge his bets he could go Tory with the Sun and Labour with the Times.
In short, the Tories may not be rabidly supported at the moment, but things should fall into line as the election approaches
There are electoral systems which satisfy many of the theoretical best attributes of a fair voting method, e.g. Schultze, Ranked-pairs, Kemeny-Young. However, they can be safely ignored for two reasons.
i) the complexity of the count
ii) the transparency of the process
In other words they are not suitable for a mass democratic election, since
i) they can only realistically be counted by computer.
ii) the voter would require a higher-level maths qualification to understand the process.
Excluding these esoteric methods as impractical leaves possibly 5 or 6 realistic methods for determining a single winner election. Each of them has drawbacks, some more than others, and some drawbacks are more important than others, and some drawbacks occur more frequently than others…
In summary, these systems fail the following criteria:-
FPTP: Condorcet Loser, independence of clones, mutual majority.
AV: monotonicity, participation
SV: (London Mayor) monotonicity, mutual majority, independence of clones, participation.
Approval: Condorcet Loser, and depending on the exact definintion, majority criterion, independence of clones.
Borda: majority, mutual majority, independence of clones. (Borda can be easily manipulated, and so should be discarded on that ground alone)
Range: majority, mutual majority, Condorcet Loser.
I happen to think the majority, mutual majority, Condorcet Loser and independence of clones criteria are the important ones, and monotonicity and participation are minor niggles in comparison. Therefore it would appear, looking at practical single-winner elections, AV comes out on top by a clear margin….
Of course, single winner elections are incompatible with PR (except by accident) but that is another question.
291 Re Smith. Yes you’re right certainly compared to O’Brien who makes you think that Father Jack was actually awarded the Red Hat he looks so angry all the time. Depends how big a point the Vatican wants to make you think? Smith did inherit a diocese where Priests were writing open letters to the Pope to get his predecessor out and handled it all quietly
295. I suspect in the end all the Murdoch papers will come out for the Conservatives.
….
And The Mail will hedge their bets, I suspect.
291 - a GCSE is Excel - now there’s an idea! Or public information films shown after the news, just to get everyone up to speed.
297 - No-one seems to be able to decide if he was given Cardiff as the parachuted problem-solver, or as a punishment! He has done well until a recent fundraising drive irked some people. Definitely better than his predecessor, for many reasons. Still think the Vatican plans a bigger statement than appointing him though. O’Brien is truly awful, and I see no reason for him to even be replaced when he finaly retires or dies. A lot of goodwill, that would have come in very useful on this embryology bill, was squandered by the incediary and hurtful language and clumsy political response to previous bills, especially the gay adoption bill. If the Catholic Church loses every legislative motion on the Embryology Bill, I think they will only have themselves to blame.
Leaving work shortly, so have a good weekend all.
295. Muroch will back who he thinks the winner will be. I can’t see a hedged bet come the election though clearly that’s what he is doing at the moment.
The DM would never back Labour. The mail is losing enough readers as it is because of Dacre’s broonnosing.
Dacre and his readership are racing off in opposite directions, certainly about Brown. You have to seriously consider if he will still be in the same seat by 2010.
The Daily Mail will support the Tories.
But of more interest - who will the Daily Mash endorse? That will be a fun one to read.
301 Would cause a fair amount of fuss if Scotland is deprived of a Red Hat would it not. Takeover by English Church etc etc
278 288 well I did say earlier on that Labour run Stevenage very competently and no opposition party will budge them easily
hopefully this answers your question and proves the outstandingly humourless and ungracious poster posing as Mark Senior wrong.
Of course if Mr Senior is as confident of his local by-elction theory as he pretends then he will revisit the bet we nearly struck about a year ago where I buy tory seats of him at £5 a point at 280 seats.
At the time stodge said it was an example of how delirious and unrealistic some tory posters are
c’mon Mark - how about it?
300 - It is truly terrifying how many successful, intelligent graduates I know in the legal, medical, banking, academic professions who have only the most rudimentary IT skills.
Basic Word and Excel skills is the usual standard, but I could count the number of friends outside of the IT industry who can use Access, Visio, or Powerpoint properly on the fingers of one foot. What is amazing is that their jobs would be so much easier with even basic training - presentations, data analysis, diagrams, proof-reading - I can’t think of an office-based job that isn’t made easier with an advanced grasp of some of those applications.
It is only a matter of time before IT becomes a CORE subject (with English, Maths and Science), and the Government is sensible enough to have a Department for Governmental IT (to run all Gvt IT projects) funded entirely by recharge to other Depts, and a Chief Technology Officer to oversee IT capability in the UK Civil Service and in Gvt. Obama has the CTO idea as a policy already, I think…
304 - Compared to the fuss I think they’ll cause south of the border, I don’t think that will even register in Rome!
293 - Mike, that ES story isn’t online for whatever reason. It’s only two column inches so I’ve copied it here:
“An anonymous punter has decided to put his faith in the latest mayoral polls, putting £5000 on Boris Johnson.
The bet, placed this morning in Surrey, has meant his odds have been cut from 4-9 to 2-5.
When Ladbrokes drew up its books last September Ken Livingstone was odds-on favourite, but his odds have now gone to 15-8 from 7-4 (sic).
Ladbrokes spokesman Robin Hutchinson said: “If this contest was a boat race Livingstone’s boat would be taking in water and in grave danger of sinking.”
It doesn’t look good for Labour either. In the first change for four months, Ladbrokes has cut the Tories from 4-6 to 8-13 to win the most general election seats and pushed Labour to 5-4 from 10-11.”
It’s next to a far more prominent piece titled, “£20,000 Aslef donation ‘not on Mayor register’”.
Anybody remember who The Mail supported in 1997? Did they stay loyal to the Conservatives?
309 GIN - The Daily Mail always supports the Tories. A few months ago SeanT was suggesting that with Dacre in charge they were unlikely to do so at the next GE. Sadly Sean is not a betting man.
296. Thanks for that, Rod.
I have now looked up Borda on wikipedia.
So, on Eurovision Song Contest night, if anyone asks me why its always a Balkan or Baltic country that wins, I can just explain that the non-independence of clones is a serious weakness of the Borda Count system.
I thought MShad already been put back back in his box earlier when someone quoted him saying almost exactly the same guff as he spouts now about local parish elections before the 900 Conservative gains last May. Still if he keeps repeating so can I ..
Irrespective of national popularity most Conservatives do not waste their time voting in local council by-elections..they have better things to do..
296 - I hadn’t realised before that voting could be such fun. The thought of ever being a condorcet loser, defeated by an independence of clones, would be a humiliation too far. On the other hand obtaining a mutual majority has a vaguely erotic feel to it.
303
I seem to remember on the morning of the ‘Hague’ election, the Mail led with the Michael Barrymore story, I was amazed.
The Mail has been very very luke warm on its support for the Conservative Party since the fall of Mrs T, it confusingly even backed Ken Clarke for leader.
Obama plays goal attack as netball takes centre stage down Indiana way :
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/28/obama-to-play-3-on-3-basketball-to-register-indiana-voters/
288 Mark Senior continues to be LOL
305 kingbongo , sorry I will not take you up on that be as the potential gains and losses are too high . I would accept a straight £ 10 bet that Conservative gains in England this year will be below 280 . How does that suit you .
After what Thatcher did to Britain in the 1980s, I for one will never “love the Tories”.
317
Obit in the Daily Mash for Branson.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/richard-branson-dies-laughing-20080328826/
314 coldstone. Backing ‘Our Ken’ was a lucid period od sanity in the ‘Mails’ otherwise tawdry political history !!
312 That is utter drivel , it is and always has been Labour supporters who disproportionally fail to turn out and vote in local elections to the benefit of Conservatives and LibDems .
Jack are you sure this Obama chap is OK? Does he drink to excess for instance?
321. It clearly isnt drivel as that is exactly what happened last year when you were spouting your guff..guff that is in black and white above..look at the turnouts for heavens sake..you can keep deluding yourself if it makes you feel better but dont inflict it on the rest of us..most people dont turn out for local by elections..I am not talking about national local elections like May 1 (although turnouts obvioulsy low there too)..
135, And still the old guy, too old apparently, too boring and so on seems to be extending his poll leads.
If course this is 100% guaranteed going to go into reverse once the Democrat challenger is in place.
Apparently…
321 - Mark - Yer absolutely right
323 It is you are deluding yourself , if the voters really were enthusiastic to want your party they would get off their backsides and take any opportunity they can and vote . Your support in these polls is mostly froth .
321. Mark - you speak with remarkable authority, given how miserable your predictions invariably are.
327 ‘worthing watcher’ - love it!
327 Check my record in the previous pb.com prediction comps
He has a point……..
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2005/07/16/congratulations-to-mark-senior/
322 Icarus. I hope so !! … don’t want some abstainer in the White House.
re 326. The question, surely, is whether the polling figures will translate into real votes in a general election or a ballot, like the London Mayoral, which is the subject of the poll.
I’ve never bought the argument that you can read that much into local by elections after the famous Thrasher-Rallings analysis suggested that the Tories were going to do so much better than they did at the 2001 general election. There are just too many local factors involved.
May 1st should give us a reasonable guide.
329. How about your amazingly accurate predictions for the 2007 local elections? It was tremendously brave of you to go out on a limb and predict all those hundreds of Lib Dems losses.
A lot of more partisan posters simply wouldn’t have been able to set aside their personal prejudices like that.
326. No they wouldnt..why cant you see this..your predictions are invariably wrong and most people are not sad Labdem anoraks and will only get off their bums if there is something in it for them..a general election gets most interest..and down it goes through the chain..somewhere near or at the very bottom is the local by-election frequented by saddo labdems and other political activists and the elderly looking for someone to talk to..they mean literally nothing..
As the Hansard poll showed..no one is really interested in politics and where your droning has some tiny relevence is where you say there is no great enthusiasm for the Conservatives..I agree..though would add that there is a great deal more enthusiasm for the Conservatives than McBroon’s lot who in turn engenders a lot more lot more than your lot.
334. I hasten to add that I am refering here to MS predictions of national results based on local council by-elections
303, 314,
The Mail went Conservative for 1997, according to GE 1997, newspaper endorsements.
Endorsements prior to that can be found at GE 1964-1997, newspaper endorsements
330. Very cruel of you to dig out that picture.
33 I would rather debate with you under your usual posting alias , I never understand the low mentality of people that need to make up a new name to try and make a point .
311. Yes, Borda tends to select the lowest common denominator option (read- bland), and the more there are of them (clones), the more likely it is one of them will win! Daft, but it does explain the Eurovision results!
Also the points system used can alter the result. A 5,4,3,2,1 points system may produce a different winner to a 10,9,8,7,6 system.
All in all, an electoral system that is only useful when the vast majority don’t give a toss about the result anyway!
337 hehehe - its my duty to keep fellow pb ers properly informed…
I am astonished that Winston McKenzie has managed to arrange the organisation and effort to be a candidate. He usually gets publicxity int he local newspapers in Croydon for being bad at organising charity events, youth activities etc. Incidentally, there was never any intention that George Weiss would stand.