What’s Cable up to with his “coalition” comments?
January 10th, 2009
How do you calculate a ‘moral victory’?
Hat Tip to James Forsyth over at the Spectator Coffee House for drawing our attention to an interview with Vince Cable in today’s Times. The key passage that is attracting all the attention is:
Although he started his political career in the Labour Party, once working as a special adviser to John Smith, Dr Cable emphasises that the Liberal Democrats would be happy to prop up the Conservatives if they won a “moral victory” in a hung Parliament.
“It would be arrogant for us to choose one or other. Whoever gets the largest number of seats . . . whether it is Conservative or Labour, we will work with either.”
There are three ways to read this quote. Firstly that it is an obvious statement of equidistance, no deal is off the table, and that there is no behind the scenes manoevring for a coalition with either main party at the moment. There is no change in policy, and nothing said that could not have just as easily come from the mouth of the actual Leader of the Party.
The second way to read this is that Vince Cable is tying his leader’s hands by setting out his personal limits on coalition agreements - ruling out supporting the second-placed party, even if their combined seats would deliver a majority. This would appear to be a guarded warning about propping up a government that failed to win the largest number of seats at the next election.
The third way I read this was that it was introducing an expectation of Gordon Brown. There has been this week, as Dr Cable will be more than aware, much speculation about a Labour-LD coalition which would include Sir Menzies Campbell as Speaker. This might just as easily be read as a warning shot that if the Prime Minister wants a deal, and wants the Lib Dems to tie themselves to his continuation in office, that he will need more than the Constitutional minimum (enough seats that by adding the LDs would allow him to form a majority) but rather a moral majority. The message to the PM seems to be ‘if you want a deal, you need to at least be the largest party’.
Several people have commented that the idea of ‘most seats’ is strange given the Lib Dem predeliction for proportional representation - surely, they insist, the Lib Dems should support the party that wins the popular vote, rather than the party that leads in the warped seat-count measure? There might be an idealogically purist argument here, but as long as we have FPTP elections, the Lib Dems’ path to government must recognise that they will have to deal with the largest party in Parliament, not the most popular party at the polls.
Of course, the most plausible reading of this quote is that it was never meant to deliver a significant message at all, and this is over-reading of a fairly light interview. If that’s the case, then I can’t help but feel that Dr Cable should perhaps not have allowed himself to be led into making any sort of statement about coalitions at all. Nick Clegg might well have some difficult and important decisions ahead of him in the next couple of years. Worrying about which potential coalition partner has won a ‘moral victory’ is perhaps an unhelpful additional burden this side of a General Election.
Morus
MessageSpace Advertising
Morus - I disagree with you on the votes versus seats argument because I don’t think you fully understand the Lib Dems
If it was Labour with most seats but 5% behind there would be massive debates within the party and those who resolutely opposed to Brown would be looking for any argument to stop the party propping him up. In that context the votes-seats equation would be very powerful.
Early!
A very fair summary Morus. Essentially it is, and should be read as, an affirmation that the party won’t bend over backwards to keep Labour in office. That is, Cable is backing his leader’s position and dampening suggestions of a pre-election coalition with Brown.
& to 1. I would be more confident about Clegg in such a situation than any previous leader.
Sky News is showing protestors throwing shoes in London and Edinburgh.
5 — Can you see the ” well-heeled” BannedHorse throwing leather boots at the Israeli Embassy?
4. Mike, it seems to me that your attitude to Clegg has thawed somewhat of late. Is this entirely a response to Greengate or are other factors at work?
Also, what is your reading of Clegg’s reshuffle? Was Steve Webb promoted or demoted (I’m tempted to see it as a sideways move acceptable to both parties), and has Clegg got his three left-leaning predecessors sufficiently on board to ensure party unity in a hung parliament?
Noisy, re the Hill’s 2010 election price discussed on the previous thread.
The obvious bet would be to take the 8/11 that Hill’s are offering for as much as you can get on and then arb that with both the 2009 options on BF, which average out at above 2/1
3. Or perhaps Cable’s intention is to try to pull the wool over the eyes of centrist voters, who might be wavering between the Lib Dems and the Tories, by giving them the impression that the Lib Dems are not merely Labour lapdogs.
I think the prospect of the Lib Dems supporting the Tories if they have most seats will mean a lot of the labour tactical voters in Lib Dem -Tory marginals - lets call them “Braggists” - will be much less inclined to do this next time around. Without these borrowed votes, a fair few Lib Dem MPs will be out the door.
A bit childish isn’t it - throwing shoes around. When nonsense like this stops then perhaps politics and diplomacy might move into this century rather than those in the past!
Via Drudge: Israel “warning of an escalation in attacks”
Israeli forces pounded rocket-launching sites and smuggling tunnels in Gaza Saturday and planes dropped leaflets warning of an escalation in attacks, as Palestinian militants fired at least 10 more rockets at Israel.
…
Flames and smoke rose over Gaza City amid the heavy fighting. The Israeli threat to launch a “new phase” in its two-week-old offensive that has already killed more than 800 Palestinians came in defiance of international calls for a cease-fire.
“The IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) will escalate the operation in the Gaza Strip,” the leaflets said in Arabic. “The IDF is not working against the people of Gaza but against Hamas and the terrorists only. Stay safe by following our orders.”
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090110/D95KB8C80.html
1 - That’s true Mike - I can see it would be a huge issue within the party, but I don’t think it would be quite as shocking in the country as a whole, especially if the LD and Labour combined share of the vote was over 50%.
It depends how much of a fuss critics of Brown within the LDs make - if I were them, I’d take it, but I know that isn’t a popular idea within the Party.
Great hat.
That Vince really has some style.
10. Surely this would apply in Lib Dem -Labour marginals too.
6- I recommend throwing grey squirrel-skin moccasins instead. Why not save the red squirrels and advertise one’s hatred of Israel at the same time?
16. Perhaps a few old German lampshades instead?
14 - A little sombre compared to your trademark though, PtP!
OT: Murray breaks Roddick to love early in first set. Roddick is playing well this tournament, as well as has for a couple of years, but he’s totally outclassed here. Murray is also a terrible opponent for him, with the best returns on tour neutralising Roddick’s main weapon.
I’m pretty careful with superlatives, but Murray on current form is clearly the best player in the world. Best backhand, best returns, a defence only second to Nadal (who himself is the greatest defensive player of all time), supreme fitness now, great variety, terrific patience, best lobs. Even the serve is a serious weapon now - his only remaining weakness is the 2nd serve (see match vs Nalbandian in Paris).
Some great betting opportunities highlighted on the last thread. noisy summer is now a 4/5 shot to win PB.com betting value identifier of 2009.
noisy points out that William Hill are laying 8/11 a 2010 election. massive value. I’m on!
noisy also points out that Paddy Power are laying Ed Miliband at 20/1 for next Labour leader. I heard Ed on the Today programme the other morning and he came over very well. Mike rates him and apparently women fancy him. I have never been a fan but I am starting to rate him more and 20/1 is great value. Maximum bet sadly is only £13.56.
Mike identified Clarke at 6/4 to be back in the cabinet soon. Probably was value but I missed the price and 11/10 doesn’t really tempt me.
Thanks to HenryG for responding to my tennis betting enquiries yesterday. Henry suggests a wait and see approach on Murray to win Wimbledon. The problem with this Henry is that the bookies also see. I made my move last night and hoovered up plenty of 5/1 Murray. Now best price in the village is 9/2. Still value I would have thought. Remember the punters will get behind Murray at Wimbledon simply because he is British and is the first real quality player we have had in decades.
Finally, Villa beat the Baggies to gain another 3 points. Probably were lucky again not to concede a penalty in the dying minutes. But as Napoleon reportedly said, “Give me lucky Generals…”. If Stoke can hold Liverpool to a draw and if Chelsea draw against Man Utd then Villa will shorten to 16/1 for the Premiership!
Laters…
19, think he’ll win some Grand Slams this year?
15 - But the Lib Dems have less of these to lose. For a strategy of holding on to what they have got, they need to keep the Braggists on board.
Vince is auditioning for the remake of Minder…
Isn’t this just stating the obvious. I suspect what Cable thinks will happen is that Cameron will get the most seats and win the election with 5-7% of the vote, but not be able to form an outright majority. In such a situation the Lib-Dems would have a moral duty, really, to side with the Tories. Of course there are other scenarios where Brown gets the most seats, but Cameron gets the most vote share, but thats more unlikely.
Personally I think all of this rather pointless, becauase I suspect the Conservatives will get a workable majority.
Save the Red Squirrel — to manufacture trendy hats? (It’s cold out there.)
Wouldn’t Red Squirrel’s fur make beautiful hats — like that Stetson of mine from their Playboy collection, only way, way softer (even softer than rabbit’s)?
I can well imagine us Canadians holding our moose-killing sticks to hunt squirrel on Park Avenue and Downtown Montreal…
But then, we might hurt the sensibility of some oldish British bards and former French beauty icon.
24, I think a hung Parliament remains unlikely.
The government will either be resurrected or shafted by the economy. In that case, they’ll be returned to be power or ousted by the electorate. I can’t really see the general public opinion being “Labour are so-so” in 2010 or whenever the GE is.
Murray is 8/1 with Paddy Power to win the most Grand Slams this year. I’m on.
26. Yes, I think we’ll get a decisive result from this election. The Tories will get masses of votes where it counts (the marginals) and Labour…. Won’t!
24 Re moral duty - the Lib Dems in Scotland don’t have a moral duty to back the SNP as the largest party, so why should it be any different at Westminster. Surely you ally yourself with the party who have a manifesto closest to your own?
If there was a district council where the BNP had most seats, I hope no party felt they had a moral duty to form a coalition with them.
For big Murray fans:
Betfair has him 15/1 for 3 GS, 6/1 for 2. He’s also 7/2 to be number 1 seed.
Anyone think those are worth a nibble at?
29. If a party wins an election by 5-7% but doesn’t have enough seats to form a majority, would it really be acceptable for the the third party to side with the party that lost by a 5-7% margin? I don’t think it would be and I doubt Cable, Clegg etc… think its acceptable either.
20: I’m a bit dubious about Murray for Wimbledon - he doesn’t move nearly as well on the surface as he does on hard court. Nadal may be a clay monkey, but he’s a total natural in his grass footwork (as is Federer, who also grew up on clay). It’s easy to see how Murray’s game could evolve well on grass, but there are tons of very good hard court players who simply never adapt to the surface at all (Soderling, Davydenko, Blake, Ferrer, Verdasco, Safin, arguably even Djokovic). Also, have a huge hunch Federer will retake it this year, although the odds will be terrible so won’t be betting on it.
21: Hard to see how he won’t, in particular the Aus Open situation looks terrific (with Djoko/Nadal off form). The US Open is his best surface, but Djoko/Federer may be more of a threat then - and you don’t know if Murray might get injured again (his hard court retrieval game will tend to a lot of injuries, he really needs to be more aggressive and go for shorter points as he heads towards his mid 20s). He has no chance at Roland Garros though - unless perhaps Nadal gets injured, but I can’t see him beating Federer there either. Don’t fancy the odds on Murray being number 1 either, Nadal looks incredibly hard to beat in that respect with his consistency on all surfaces and utter dominance on clay.
To LDs who think the party (believing in PR) would have a moral obligation to support the party largest vote:
If the Conservatives won 39%, Labour 33% and LD 18% (Other 10%), would that mean that a Lib Dem coalition with Labour was wrong? Even though Labour’s share plus the Lib Dem share would equal 51%?
To my mind, such a coalition would be ‘more proportionate’ than a single party winning majority government on as limited a share of the vote as they have managed the last half a century.
33, doesn’t matter if it’s ‘more proportionate’ than in the past if the Lib Dems refuse to go for the ‘most proportionate’ option available to them.
Although, I’m not the sort of chap you’re asking the question
33 Morus - Well, I suppose if they were true to their principles in that scenario, 45% of LibDem MPs would try to form a coalition with Labour, and 54% would try to form a coalition with the Conservatives.
33 - Forget about morals, talk about political realities. With those voting figures, there will be a Conservative minority government - no coalitions or cuddly nuzzlings - that will survive reasonably comfortably on a day-to-day basis before a second election is called within a year.
35 - And the other 1% would be the Speaker!
Morus @ 33. According to Wells 39-33-18 cuts up into a short head photo finish.
I would bet two ranches the Tories would be 20 Length winners on those figures……but who to bet with ?
Any word on whether we’ve got some polls coming out tonight?
Vince Cable only came to prominence after his Bean v Stalin jibe that he made months ago at PMQ’s, and made our Great Leader look like the wally he is.
Since then all the media are panting, like dog’s on heat, to hear what he has to say. And what has he said since; nothing extraordinary.
He supports the government on the economy and tries to out-Gordon, Gordon on this matter. His statements on are sometimes ludicrous, and not supported bu facts, and his statements on the middle east problem are bizarre.
If Morus is taking Cables comments at face value, he should think again. Cable is fishing in political waters, or should I say Phishing.
I wouldn’t over-analyse his comments. Although there is some abiguity as to whether he means the party with the most MPs or the most votes, I think it’s unlikely Labour would get either at the next election.
Of course, none of this means he can speak for the whole party nor that he might not change his attitude later. But I think his position makes sense because if the Lib Dems backed the “loser” in the General Election, especially if somehow Labour clung to the most seats yet came behind in the overall vote, they could easily face a voter back-lash.
What I get from reading Cable’s interview is the fact that the LibDems are deeply divided. Clegg has just carried out a reshuffle and yet seems not to exercise any real authority over his party.
Statements as to potential coalitions should come from the leader. Anything other is a clear challenge to the authority of the person elected to lead the party.
It may not be that the LibDems are the party needed to achieve a coalition - there are other minority parties. A near-miss might see a Northern Irish grouping being the preferred coalition partner.
Some people might view Cable as being able to walk on water. But he is not the Messiah, he is a …
Murray Wins!!! 6-4 6-2
I really don’t see how many LibDems could prop up Brown’s authoritarian administration.
It would require a completely schizophrenic approach to the Govt by many Lib Dems or the abandonment by Brown of many of the ‘flagship’ policies which have defined his ’strong’ image eg ID cards, detention without charge, surveillance, reading everyone’s emails, policing the bloggers and arresting opposition MPs etc. Brown is not a liberal.
Take away his strong arm flexes and what are you left with? A Chancellor who presided over a failed economy.
Mike said yesterday that choosing between the Tories and Labour was like choosing between Chelsea and Man U - he hates them both.
It seems ‘Cheslea’ are far less inclined to police you when you vent your hate than Man U?
Brilliant piece, Morus. ‘Moral victory’ smacks of sophistry, no? A way to justify a very subjective move – a bit dangerous if you are not acting as one, but representing a party. Could lead to terrible distress and misunderstanding. Or am I misreading the situation?
This should be fun…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/10/labour-list-blog-launch
O/T but worth a thought….
This new graduate intern scheme they are cooking up to keep graduates off the unemployment figures in the late summer - how does that sit with the minimum wage? Encouraging graduates to work for an income equivalent to a little more than grant/loan level is hardly going to encourage them.
Trying to keep unemployment figures down for an autumn poll?
44 Lord Carlile, Liberal Democrat Peer, a member of Council at JUSTICE, and independent reviewer of security laws supports extension of detention without charge so not sure all the Lib Dems would necessarily be described as “liberal” in that sense.
47 - I doubt it!
46. Yes, a laugh a minute. Get a bunch of lefties together and they invariably generate splits and feuds, more interested in the purity of the socialist message than in pragmatic accommodation. Despite what they say, I’d expect a lot of ‘comment unsuitable, deleted’ posts, ‘cos sure as eggs is eggs the Guido brigade will be camped on their doorstep doing their bear-baiting bit.
Advice from Obama helpers? First adjustment they’ll need - Brown is no Messiah, more like one of the Four Horsemen.
The chances of the Lib Dems forming a coalition after the election in the event of a hung parliament is still very small. A minority government is far more likely. The Cable comments reflect this reality. Whichever party forms a minority government will have to earn the support of the Lib Dems to pass legislation - this would give them room to exert power without having to take responsibility. A formal coalition would likely split the party. This is seen from the forced vote question. It has varied but shows Lib Dem are split between Labour and Tory leaners. Plus in some seats a coalition would be suicide for Lib Dem MPs. (A Labour alliance probably being worse).
The Lib Dems need to think carefully about their strategy pre-election. Do they go for the ‘most votes most seats’ formula and refuse to talk about coalitions? This is probably there best strategy but may not be sustainable if the election is close and a hung parliament looks likely. There may be some value in ruling out any formal coalition (maybe barring PR for Westminister) and saying they would work with the largest party to get as much of their agenda passed as possible.
A bit more of “dog whistle” anti-immigrant spin from Mr Woolas on amending the Geneva Convention on asylum.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/10/immigration-policy-change-woolas
If the 2005 Conservative Manifesto was, as Labour and Lib Dem posters claim, the most right-wing in living memory presumably Mr Woolas and Labour are now somewhat to the right of Mussolini.
46 Better still here’s the beta site
http://www.labourlist.org/
46 Don’t waste your time. The website is horrible - poor content and bad layout. Dolly Draper is over on Mrs Dales, receiving the bad news from the creatures that normally reside at Guidos.
Afternoon all
As an LD, I’m entirely relaxed about this and I’ll leave the activists of other parties to get excited.
IMHO, if the Conservatives are the largest party, they will form a minority Government safe in the knowledge the opposition parties won’t vote them down. Whether or not David Cameron seeks a “deal” on an agreed programme of legislation with the LDs is up to Cameron. I think it would be a positive move but I don’t expect it.
IF Labour emerges as the largest party, the scenario is slightly different. A lot will depend on the arithmetic - it may be the Conservatives and SNP will have enough seats to vote down Labour if the LDs abstain - it may not. I certainly would be uncomfortable to the point of leaving the party if the LDs went into coalition with a Labour minority led by Gordon Brown.
In any case, the Labour Government of 1997-2010 (let’s say) has acquired such a reputation for illiberal, corrupt and authoritarian practices and policies that it stretches credibility (for me) to see the LDs joining forces with them whether Brown is leader or not but of course it’s not for the LDs to decide who leads Labour. They want to stick with Gordon Brown, fine, but I couldn’t support them in Government.
I wouldn’t infer from this that I regard a Con-LD coalition as a desirable outcome but I could envisage it happening.
What I don’t know is whether Gordon Brown (as leader of the largest party), should he fail to find allies or supporters, will simply walk away and allow Cameron to try and form a Government with or without the support of other parties.
It’s a bit odd to pose the question ‘what’s Cable up to with his coalition comments?’ when the quote in question doesn’t make the slightest mention of a coalition. ‘Working with’ a party could easily mean something a good deal short of a coalition.
And, contrary to what Sandy said, the Lib Dems have (at least publicly) in Scotland taken the view that who is the largest party in terms of seats does make all the difference. OK, they haven’t exactly ‘worked with’ the SNP very much, but neither did they block Alex Salmond becoming First Minister.
Of course, we know now that Menzies Campbell and Gordon Brown were cynically trying to stitch up a deal over the heads of their respective Scottish parties, but if that had gone ahead it would have flatly contradicted the Scottish Lib Dems’ public pronouncements in the run-up to the election.
Seems like the graduate internship announcment is another Labour classic, like the mortgage interest relief one, thought up in a second and spat out to the media with little proper thought. I don’t necessarily think the concept is that bad, however it is the lack of thought behind these things that gets me. When asked on News 24, the following questions, David Lammy (the man who should know given he is the minister for Higher Education) only answer to all was I don’t know.
a) Who is going to pay for this scheme? Government or companies or both?
b) How much is it going to cost the tax payer?
c) How may places do you expect to have available?
d) How many companies do you expect to get involved? (answer to this was 4 so far!)
e) When do you expect to have it up and running?
e) What do you expect will happen when the 3 months is up?
I know this is politics, but why announce something when you basically have no idea (or no confirmations) about basically any important parts of the scheme. The only ‘concrete’ bits seems to be 3 months at around the level of a university grant.
How many of you know that “attorneys have reached a settlement in a New York lawsuit accusing Vice President-elect Joe Biden’s youngest son and brother of fraud?”
…
“The lawsuit involved an effort led by the Bidens to take control of hedge funds run by the Paradigm Companies. A partner in the deal, Anthony Lotito Jr., claimed that the Bidens negotiated their own deal behind his back and cheated him out of money.”
http://www.wdel.com/story.php?id=608841775983
Where is all the hard-nosed investigative journalism in this affair involiving the VP-elect’s son and brother? Why is this not being covered outside the state of Delaware? But if Trig Palin had perpetrated this crime, I’m sure we’d all have been promptly informed. As far as I know, he hasn’t yet been implicated in this scandal.
56 Not blocking Salmond becoming first minister is a long way from supporting the SNP in a vote of no confidence (would they?), or forming a formal coalition.
I see the parallel here as abstaining in a vote of no confidence against a minority Tory government at Westminster. Voting with the government in that situation would be virtually being in coalition.
56 - Just to add on the seats issue it does make a difference for the Lib Dems because the party with most seats will form a government unless other parties agree a coalition against it immediately. Therefore the Lib Dems would be responding to the legislative agenda of the government, not the opposition.
Take for example a GE result like this: Con 38 Lab 35 LD 19. According to the Wells calculator this would translate to Lab 308 (17 short) Con 271 (54 short) LD 43 Oth 28. In this circumstance Labour would be highly likely to form a minority administration - the Lib Dems would then respond to the legislation Labour proposed. It couldn’t ‘work with the Conservatives’ short of a formal coalition. Of course a result like this would lead to much discussion about the sustainability of the current electoral system.
The only issue with this analysis is the accuracy of the seat calculators. However even with the Conservatives outperforming Labour would likely be the biggest party. A result of Lab 300 Con 280 LD 40 would be likely in this scenario.
58 S&S there will be about 18 months-two years of “We are the Masters Now” stuff (though Shawcross actually added “for the moment”) when instances of corruption, mismanagement and personal scandals will be played down. It will pass.
58 Re-paste - I agree that Il is hardly Utah but I’m still puzzled how when there is not a single GOP Congressman left in New England after even Shays went over, and given that the soon to be ex Governor was the first Democrat Governor in the state since the 1970’s you can put the two together. Yes Kirk was incumbent but he was hardly that far from the full force of the Obama machine. And for all that Obama could not make IL his banner state. I see easily how your view applies to NJ but equally how someone like say Pawlenty could appeal in IL in a reasonably good year for the GOP in the same way Obama did in Virginia.
59. “I see the parallel here as abstaining in a vote of no confidence against a minority Tory government at Westminster.”
That absolutely is the parallel, Sandy. The point I was making about Scotland is that if the Lib Dems had voted for Jack McConnell in the First Minister election - as they had voted for Donald Dewar in 1999 well before a coalition deal was agreed upon - the SNP could never have taken power. The point is the Lib Dems (publicly) took the view that they could not do that this time because Labour was no longer the largest single party, and indeed in 1999 they specifically stated that they were voting for Dewar because the largest party had the right to supply the First Minister.
Can’t agree that the Lib Dems voting with Labour in a confidence vote would represent a ‘virtual’ coalition - a coalition is something specific, and that’s not it.
Why should I vote for a party that suggests the number of seats won is more important than the number of votes? You either believe in the primacy of votes, as lib dems do, or you don’t. Cable needs to make it clear that he believes this too otherwise the message is hopelessly confused.
Re: 59 - Interesting observation, Sandy, and one that nails the “oppositionalist” tag to some degree. So much depends on the arithmetic though.
I assume the Conservatives would vote against a minority Labour Government’s Queen’s Speech but the Government could still fall if the LDs abstained. What would the Nats, DUP do ?
64. In the days of the Liberal/SDP Alliance, the two Davids used to say that which of them became Prime Minister in the unlikely event of an election victory depended solely on which of their two parties had taken the most seats. They might as well have just tossed a coin for it.
63 Just to expand on the “virtual coalition” idea, you could regard the Lib Dem MPs in the same light as “the usual suspects” on the back benches - they would vote against individual bills they don’t like, but when push comes to shove and there is a no confidence vote, they back the government.
62- There are no GOP congressmen left in New England but there are quite a few in NJ (5 out of 13 total), which isn’t too different from IL (7 out of 19). In fact, in percentage terms, NJ’s congressional delegation is MORE Republican than that of Illinois! As I’ve said before, looking at historical control of states’ governorships is perhaps the weakest factual basis for determining the partisan tendencies of the states.
65. Can’t see the DUP blocking an incoming Tory government - at the very least they’d abstain. On the other hand, the SNP would be under some pressure to vote down a Tory government, so they’d probably have to be given some sort of very public concession to Scotland (like greater powers for Holyrood) to be persuaded to do otherwise.
69. Sorry, I’ve just realised I misread Stodge’s post and he was talking about a Labour government trying to hold on.
“Can you see the ” well-heeled” BannedHorse throwing leather boots at the Israeli Embassy?”
I don’t wear boots and I had no intention whatsoever of joining any demonstration, Philippe you f***wit!
69. But with the UUP in a formal alliance with the Tories, wouldn’t the DUP feel honour bound to vote against them?
“If the Conservatives won 39%, Labour 33% and LD 18% (Other 10%), would that mean that a Lib Dem coalition with Labour was wrong? Even though Labour’s share plus the Lib Dem share would equal 51%?”
Yes, because many of that lib dem 18% would never trust the party again if they sided with labour, having purposely *not* voted for them. The best way is to set a non-political target - who gets the most votes being the clearest and less arguable.
“I guess you don’t all live like well-heeled plutocrats such as BannedHorse.”
Go f*** yourself on Tailgunner Joe’s grave.
64 - The Lib Dems though are constrained by the environment they operate in. If the government is formed by a party with less votes then they have a number of choices:
1. A formal coalition with the largest party in terms of seats
2. A formal coalition with the largest party in terms of votes
3. Work with the minority government on a case-by-case basis, supporting them on issues of agreement, opposing on issues of disagreement.
4. Vote down the minority government and force a new General Election.
Given the unattractiveness of (1) and (2) the Lib Dems are left with (3) and (4). 3 may prove more attractive than 4 because a new election may lead to a squeeze in the Lib Dem vote and a parliament with a clear majority for one party removing any Lib Dem leverage. Option 3 offers the Lib Dems the best chance to exert influence on government while maintaining their electoral position.
74- What’s wrong with being a well-heeled plutocrat? If that’s how you take compliments, how do you take criticism?
If the LibDems carry on with this Cable line they will lose out big time. Voters who don’t like Labour but do not want a Tory government will worry that in voting LibDem they will get exactly what they don’t want.
Tory tendencies particularly in LibDem/Tory marginals will fear that in voting LibDem they may get a Labour government which they don’t want.
So there are two big groups who will think twice about voting LibDem if this really is party policy.
Cable really isn’t that smart.
You never, ever talk about hypothetical scenarios of this sort while fighting for every vote possible. You talk about looking at the national interest, LibDem party values, blah, blah, blah. Anything but the Mingist ‘equidistant’ mantra.
51 - (slowly picking my way through the thread!) - that’s my preferred option of any, giving support as and when to a minority government.
55 - I pretty much agree with all of that, stodge.
75 - Hadn’t read your post before I posted my response to 51 but option 3 is the one that seems the most logical.
I see the logo for the new Labourlist site is very approrpiate: crossed band aids.
77 - I never understand those who say Cable isn’t smart. He is the smartest cookie in Parliament.
79 - What this shows is that Cable is wrong to talk about ‘moral victories’. Lib Dem decisions will be constrained by circumstances and the most moral option might be detrimental to Lib Dem interests and Lib Dem values.
However a result like this would bring the debate about PR roaring into public view - and increase sympathy for the Lib Dem position.
SBS this interview itself is less than smart, his performances in the media are more media tart than media magic, his answer to everything is to spend more tax payer money.
One good quip doesn’t make him a man judgement.
80. Did you spot the quote of the day? It will cheer Gordon up no end…
“This downturn was a product of a particular way of running the financial system and that has to change dramatically and fundamentally.
Tony Blair”
How will these interns all be new jobs? Where will the extra desks come from? What is to stop a Company from using them as cheaper Labour? I suspect that all it will do is further impoverish young workers and push out some more expensive workers.
A very corporatist friendly move!
In our system, the only victory that would give a party ‘moral’ authority is if they won an overall majority.
Cable is wrong to suggest that the LDs should just team up with the largest party. Surely they should work with the party from which they could extract the most LD orientated policies.
When did Cable derogate his political principles for simple arithmetic?
A LibDem with a principle? Never encountered one of them
(sorry to any genuine Yellows - but having seen the nasty way the Northampton branch are fighting a by-election at the moment, I am feeling narked towards them)
87 That would presumably be in NN rather than NS right.
82 - there could be a place for ‘moral victories’ in the equation but it’s something that would only be perceived when we see it rather than by setting nebulous targets beforehand.
86 - morality is not based on what exists, morality is based on what is ‘right’. ‘Winning’ is a moveable feast and it may be the ’system’ that is more immoral than the result.
87 - The by-election is taking place on 22nd Jan - I think it is in the South (though with the way the boundaries are being screwed up round there, I have somewhat lost track)
However it is my mother’s ward (she died in November) and the LDs have somewhat smeared her memory with a leaflet.
Not a happy bunny - considering how she was still working for her community up to her last days.
Remember how Nixon used to talk about the supportive letters he was receiving from “the silent majority” — many of which turned out to have been faked? Now Labour is resorting to the same shameful tactics when it comes to ID cards:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/jan/10/identity-cards-id-henry-porter-jacqui-smith
If you can see the Lib Dems propping up all this, best get yourself down to SpecSavers!
90 I’d be surprised if they’d be going all out in NS where they are nowhere. NN is their only hope for miles in any direction.
92 - For the Borough Council, they are going in hard
(though from what I have heard, the group is pretty much split - not helped by the council leader recommending people shop in Milton Keynes rather than Northampton or their decision to scrap the Christmas lights in favour of 3 plastic trees)
“Loosen Britain’s ties with European Union, say two-thirds of voters.”
“The YouGov survey for the TaxPayersAlliance and Global Vision, the Eurosceptic pressure group…
The survey – released exclusively to The Sunday Telegraph – also spells out the threat posed to the Tories by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) in elections to the European Parliament which take place on 4 June. Ten per cent of those who would vote Tory in a general election will back UKIP in the euro-election, the survey suggests.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4214369/Loosen-Britains-ties-with-European-Union-say-two-thirds-of-voters..html
94. cont…
“In the first study of voting intentions for the European parliamentary elections in June the Tories are on 35 per cent, six points ahead of Labour on 29 per cent with the Liberal Democrats on 15 per cent and UKIP on 7 per cent. Then come the Greens (5 per cent), the British National Party (4 per cent) and nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales (also 4 per cent). “
If no party wins an overall majority at the next GE, then I think the most likely scenario is the party with most seats being allowed to form a minority adminstration, with other parties supporting them on an issue-by-issue basis.
If that administration becomes popular, they will themselves call a second election.
If they become unpopular, the opposition will combine to force them out.
(PS: I am the poster formerly known as ‘Alan J’)
94 - Looking at who commissioned that poll, it is hard to take it that seriously.
Plus announcing it as 10% of Tory voters is a somewhat misleading presentation
Ah well
81 - no he really isn’t the smartest cookie, but he is a better political operator than Clegg and has basically manoeuvred himself into being the only LD the media pay attention to - I would think a majority of people think he’s the leader of the LDs if they know who the LDs are.
Apart from that he’s just another economist with an amazingly Gordon-like belief in his own pronouncements however wrong they always turn out to be; but we all know that Keynes was right - lay all the economists end to end and they wouldn’t reach a conclusion.
95
Any idea how that would weigh up in terms of MEPs? I assume that since UKIP beat the Lib Dems into 4th place last time this shows a considerable drop in UKIP support?
Also, since this is a PR election, I wonder how second votes for UKIP from Tories might affect the final seat distribution? Or is it not that sort of PR?
96
Simon, are you suggesting that Yougov have somehow altered their polling results to please the people who commissioned it? I don’t think it is wise to be making such suggestions about one of the main polling agencies and as long as they have followed the normal rules and procedures I fail to see how else your statement could be read.
99.
EP vote in Great Britain isn’t preferential. It’s d’Hondt, the same kind of list system use for the additional member vote in Holyrood. Put an X by the list you want. Seat are then allocated according to the d’Hondt method.
100 - No - but when you are commissioned, you are asked to fulfil a brief. I am not saying that this alters their methodology - but it certainly alters the questions they were asked to research
99 - No, it’s a straight list system - they’ll be no preference voting.
Some remarkable pictures of Marseilles blanketed in snow:
http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/2009/01/snow_in_marseille_france.html
According to global warming “experts,” this sort of thing just goes to prove how right they are. But if both warming and cooling prove the same thing, then the theory of global warming cannot be disproved (since things are always either warming or cooling). A theory that cannot be disproved is philosophy/religion. Therefore, global warming is a religion. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Just been watching David Lammey struggling to justify the internship scheme to massage the unemployment figures on C4. Can’t say that I was impressed.
re 7. Yes - I have been impressed by the way Clegg immediately saw the issues at stake in the Greengate case and acted accordingly. He seems to be at his most comfortable talking on civil liberty type issues and, thankfully for him at the moment, Labour seem to be providing a lot of material!
One element about Clegg that we have not really probed is his background - which could matter enormously if the election went in a way that has been described. He worked for a time for the ex-Tory minister, Leon Brittan, when the latter was EU Vice President and Trade Commissioner. Clegg was a policy adviser and speech writer.
I’m sure that at a formative age this had an impact on his political thinking and would perhaps make him less comfortable with Brown than Cameron.
Surely the whole point of the Lib-Dems is not equidistance between the larger parties but distance from both of them (as distant as possible, I’d say, having been screwed by both alternately for the last 60 years).
105 - Has Lammy ever been impressive?
103 Not in NI though.
102
I assume that since this is yougov the questions and the detailed responses will be available for examination.
I don’t understand why you are so quick to dismiss this poll when its findings appear to be broadly in line with both other polling on similar subjects and the expectations of most observers who have concluded that UKIP will see a decline in their share of the vote. If you are bothered by the idea that 10% of Tories are bright enough to see that the Euro elections are unique from general or local elections and would adjust their vote accordingly then it seems you are a alittle out of tuch with the way many Tories feel about the issue of the EU and the Tory MEPS.
95. UKIP got 16% in 2004. If they get 7% next time they will win only a handful of seats, possibly only 1 or 2 depending on the regional splits. I still think there’s a decent chance they will poll fewer votes than the BNP.
@99:
UKIP are getting close to the threshold beyond which they are entitled to no seats. I suspect that this is what will happen in June. UKIP have been so invisible, and so utterly rubbish on the rare occasion, that it’s hard to imagine anybody truly putting their cross in the UKIP box.
Though a lot, of course, will depend on the quality of Dave’s European election campaign.
Another word on that poll:
Labour 29%? When they polled 23% five years ago? Does that make any sense to anyone at all?
113. Its an example of Smithson’s First Law.
@114:
I can never remember which law is which. Is it the “A rogue poll is one you don’t agree with” or is it “The poll that shows Labour in the worst position is most likely to be correct”? Neither seems completely appropriate here.
113 Yes if people are feeling the imperative to say they will vote in these elections and are then factored in. It’s hard enough to gauge turnout likelihood for Westminster elections as people always want to say the civically minded answer even for the euros.
112
I agree they are in disarray but they still have a very strong single message for anyone who dislikes the EU. They are fundamentally associated with opposition to the EU when the other 3 parties are all seen as at best trying to avoid the subject or at worst actively supporting the EU.
As such UKIP don’t really have to do much except exist to get a portion of the anti EU vote. It is to their shame that they have failed to capitalise on what is effectively a captive audience for this position over the last 4 years.
117. It speaks volumes about the competence and focus of their leaders. Never was a cause more badly represented than the anti-EU cause is by the self-obsessed shambles that is UKIP.
98. I think that was Bernard Shaw, but could be wrong.
104. What’s wrong with something being philosophy or religion? I was under the impression that you were a conservative and religious.
I’m sure you’re aware of the fallacy of moving from a single (or several) incident(s) of extreme coldness or hotness to any impact on the larger trend. I’m sure you’re also aware of how a global change in temperature will manifest itself in different ways across the world.
Remember that in 2004 YouGov grossly over-stated UKIP in the Euro elections. The pollster had them on 21% - they finished up with 16%.
The final voting figures were:
CON 26.7: LAB 22.6: UKIP 16.1: LIBD 14.9: GRN 6.3
YouGov had predicted: CON 26: LAB 24: UKIP 21: LDEM 13 GRN 6
Yougov 8th January
CON 35 (+8)
LAB 29 (+6)
LIB 15 (nc)
UKIP 7 (-9)
@120:
I will reiterate this too: there is a 5% threshold in each constituency to be entitled to list seats, and even then, the d’Hondt method discriminates against small parties. Assuming they’re still overstating UKIP, on this evidence, there’s a good chance that UKIP will get nothing in most constituencies.
117 If they had half a brain they would stop wasting money on scores of lost General Election deposits and throw everything at the Euros until they really took off in them. Wasting their time trying to save deposits in a General Election is a bizarre strategy and just drains them from the one election where their view gets real attention.
I doubt people are really thinking about the local and euro elections at the moment. When the time comes though, I would say those voters that want to turn out and give Brown a hiding by voting Tory will far outweigh those that are actually voting on the issue of europe itself - So, IMO, when the european poll actually happens the Conservative figure is likely to be higher than this poll suggests, the UKIP and Lib-Dem figure a little lower and the Labour figure potentially much lower.
@124:
I’ve got a charity bet with Dr Palmer that Labour’s final share will be under 20%.
BED WITHOUT SUPPER FOR BROXTOWE CATS.
Given that campaigning has yet to begin the figures produced are hardly bad for either the Conservatives or Labour compared to 2004 they come out as:
Con 35 (+8)
Labour 29 (+6)
LD 15 (NC)
UKIP 7 (-9)
Other (-5)
Given the funding difficulties that UKIP has I think it is going to be difficult for them to make further inroads. However, the Conservatives have the ability to heavily eat into the remaining UKIP vote and, given the overall disquiet over Lisbon suggested in the poll take vote share from the other major parties as well.
The fuss the Telegraph is making is clearly based on their profound Eurosceptic stance.
As for Labour I can only think that part of the uplift is from a reduced ‘Other’ vote (Greens perhaps). However, in the campaign potentially the Greens (6% last time) could eat into that Labour figure.
Would be interesting to see if YouGov have a regional split of the voting intention figures
“What’s wrong with something being philosophy or religion?”
Nothing so long as the proponents are advocating it as such. It is when they try and claim that those religions or philosophies are in fact science that many of us start to have problems.
And of course they have to do that because if they promoted their beliefs as nothing more than religious dogma or philosphical theorising then they would get no where near the support that they get when they claim they are scientific ‘facts’.
123
I agree entirely. There was a point when they started to look like gatheringa modicum of common sense when they said they would not oppose Eurosceptic Tories but then egos got in the way again and that disappeared pretty quickly.
126. jsfl: “However, the Conservatives have the ability to heavily eat into the remaining UKIP vote and, given the overall disquiet over Lisbon suggested in the poll take vote share from the other major parties as well.”
Is Cameron now promising a vote on the Lisbon treaty after the next election?
Are we expecting any national polls in the Sundays ?
104. The argument that AGW is happening is rooted in reams of data, the scientific method, and peer review, not merely anecdotes of a few subjective examples as you’re suggesting. You’re knocking down a strawman argument.
128. Good answer. I agree with you that there is a problem when proponents of religion pretend to be supporting science (See “intelligent design.”) However I disagree with this;
“And of course they have to do that because if they promoted their beliefs as nothing more than religious dogma or philosphical theorising then they would get no where near the support that they get when they claim they are scientific ‘facts’.”
Religions and philosophy have done quite well for themselves. I suspect more people in Britain and America are christian than believe in GW.
129 Well Kilroy Silks did fairly spectacularly. The extra thing with the euros is that PR delivers them maximum reward for every vote they get. They must be mental to think that it matters or anyone cares if Farage saves a deposit in Surrey or somewhere. The media does care if they get Euro MEPs though.
130 Yes
130. Not yet as I understand it. They are still keeping their cards close to their chest (presumably waiting for the outcome of the 2nd Irish referendum - is there a date yet).
I am not sure but I think i recall Hague saying (some one correct me if I am wrong) that there should be a referendum if the Irish situation has not been resolved and has not sunk the treaty for good.
As they haven’t already laid their cards on the table they unlike other parties still have some wriggle room on this subject and it will be interesting what they actually say in the campaign.
135. Are you sure Richard - got a relevant link?
135. Richar Howell
Do you have anything more recent than this?
“Mr Cameron, speaking on BBC television, said the party remains committed to a referendum if the treaty is not ratified.
“We have elections for the European Parliament next year, we’ll be campaigning very hard for that referendum,” he said
But he declined to say what the party would do if the treaty is ratified when the party takes office. He said: “If that happens, at the time that that happens we will set out exactly and precisely what we’ll do.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/3097376/Conservatives-could-hold-Lisbon-Treaty-referendum-after-ratification.html
126
The Conservatives have done nothing to indicate they have moved in any way towards a more Eurosceptic position. That is not a criticism (although obviously I wish they would) just a statement of fact.
As such I doubt very much whether there would be any ‘positive’ move towards the Tories on this issue. More likely any movement from UKIP to the Tories would come about as a result of the previously mentioned ineptitude of UKIP and their inability to mount an effectve campaign for a whole host of self inflicted reasons.
That said I satnd by my belief thaht their branding is in itself, worth a large number of votes and that in the Euro elections even though they won’t deserve it they will do better than many expect (although worse than last time).
31.”29. If a party wins an election by 5-7% but doesn’t have enough seats to form a majority, would it really be acceptable for the the third party to side with the party that lost by a 5-7% margin? I don’t think it would be and I doubt Cable, Clegg etc… think its acceptable either.”
That was the point Mike was making on the previous thread, and its also the reason why the Libdems must not allow themselves to be backed into doing just that. That is why Cable’s comments were not that helpful to them right now. They *don’t* have to go into coalition with anyone come a hung parliament, and would they would damage themselves in the longer term if they propped up Labour in these circumstances.
The automatic assumption that the Libdems would work with Labour, in what was a very close contest in the last Scottish elections really hurt them, and they don’t appear to have recovered yet.
It was not a coincidence that Stephen Nicol stepped down afterwards, he is going to have to concentrate on hanging onto his seat right now, and he was the supposedly high profile leader of the party.
132
Ello Socrates
Reams of data - yes although that is open to a very wide range of interpretation.
Peer review - yes but in an effective closed shop that is hardly a guarantee of scientific accuracy.
Scientific method - definately not. This is the argument you and I have had many times before and AGW continues to fail to meet this very basic an fundamental criteria for scientific acceptability
140.”and would” should have been removed after a edited the post. DOH!
139. I agree with you generally. Cameron doesn’t seem particularly focussed on the EU issue understandably given the economic crisis but will come under pressure during the campaign, not least from the party to make further clarification of his position and on the EPP issue.
I think the other factor that may already be in play is the classic two party squeeze (possibly already indicated in this poll) and that may have some effect in this election. It will be interesting to see whether any of the major parties try and associate the economic crisis or it’s resolution with the EU in anyway given the Yougov poll suggesting voters want to see cuts in EU related expenditure.
Has anyone got any idea how the poll figures might translate in terms of the share of MEP’s for each of the parties?
104 Saw these pics of flamingos in the snow in South of France
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?src=findsimilar&assettype=Image&sfkc=Flamingo%3BWeather%3BFrance
poor things…
138.Thanks to the Irish, the Tories have the breathing space on this issue. The way that Labour and the Libdems treated their previous manifesto promise on a referendum might yet come back to haunt them.
I suspect that Brown and Clegg thought the Lisbon Treaty would have been ratified long before a GE, and would now be but a distance memory come the election. Brown was maybe hoping that it would in fact still be causing problems for Cameron within his party as they still demanded action on it, and making the Tories seem obsessed by Europe again.
Lady Luck smiled on the Tories here.
126 - I have blogged about the new YouGov Euro poll here:
http://richardwillisuk.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/new-yougov-poll-for-euro-elections
@138:
Do you have any reason to assume the position has changed?
It was certainly my assumption that the intention is to hold a referendum in 2010 if Lisbon hasn’t already been ratified.
New thread on YouGov EU election poll
The Broxtowe cats are rubbing their tiny paws - seems a decent margin over 20%. (You’re betting that we’ll be under 20, aren’t you, Martin?) I think the UKIP share is plausible - if you want to use the European election to express distaste for Europe, without wanting to muddy it with hatred of Muslims or suspicion of black people, voting UKIP is a perfectly clear way to do it, and I can imagine 7% of the voters feeling exactly that.
150 Nick, The Broxtowe cats are only rubbing their paws because its so damned cold
They are not counting chickens either !!
David Herdson at 202. Yes, as conservatives we believe in putting the finances back in good health, but to start doing that during the worst recession for the best part of a century is a huge mistake. You need to get through the crisis first, and then sort out how to stop it happening again. It’s perfectly reasonable to have a go at Brown over wasteful spending like this stupid VAT cut, which won’t stimulate consumption at all. But what I was arguing for is not consumption lead, its infrastructure lead - a far more effective process as it means 100% of those funds will add to aggregate demand, unlike tax cuts which will just be saved in private accounts and do nothing to stimulate the economy (and don’t get me started on the Conservatives’ plans to actually incentivise people to save more at this point in time). I know such borrowing isn’t sustainable, but in the short term it makes sense to borrow from the good times to keep the economy ticking over in bad times and to stop the massive domino effect of dislocation from the huge fall in aggregate demand we will see. Some people seem to think this is just a normal recession and we can afford to take a brief hit and get on with the recovery. It won’t be.
As for this idea that London gets too much money - it’s ridiculous. A far higher proportion of the government funds London & the South East gets per capita are going into investment that allows their natural growth to continue, rather than simply paying benefits, healthcare and the like. That growth in turn will create larger tax revenues. London & the commuter belt are the main engine of the UK economy and current policies will lead to a serious chokepoint on growth. Not satisfied with making London too expensive to live for talented young grads without parents to help them out, we are now making it too expensive to commute in too.
That isn’t to say infrastructure investment needs to be restricted to London of course. Our rail system of all lines lead to the capital means businesses are forced to locate there a lot more. A circular rail line with a radius of about 30-40 miles greater than the M25 would reduce the strain on London and cause greater business growth in places like Colchester, Milton Keynes, Basingstoke, Crawley etc as they could be commuted without going into central London and out again. Equally high speed rail links to the Southwest, East Anglia and North Wales could bring the poorer parts of the country into the UK business system better, and make them well placed for the recovery.