1970 - when a Labour PM was misled by the polls
September 30th, 2007
-
What happened when Wilson went early with a 7% lead
If there is one past general election that might worry Gordon it is 1970. Harold Wilson, the prime minister, did not have to go in the June and could easily have waited until the following year.
Bob Worcester, the Mori founder who was our guest this morning, has noted that when Wilson decided to go Labour had a lead of poll lead of 7%. Wilson decided to take the gamble and a Tory victory, as shown above, was the result.
Historically 1970 was a very odd and exceptional. It was the only time since 1945 when a party with an ample majority sufficient to govern was replaced by another party - also with an ample majority. In 1979 and 1997, the last two changes of government, Labour had lost its majority in the first and the Tories in the second. In 1974 it took two election before Labour got a majority and then only a small one.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I’m no real expert on pollsw but would it not be fair to say that they are more accurate now?
plus any more rumours of any defections?
Interestingly of course there will also be a (Rugby)World cup going on during the campaign this year as in 1970. Could GB be putting his chances in the hands of Brian Ashton as Wilson famously did with Alf Ramsey? Lol
1 - I’m not sure you can draw that conclusion. There are specific reasons why pollsters had to adapt their methods to what we had today, reasons which weren’t necessarily relevant in 1970.
1 As Sir Bob said he presented Wilson with a poll showing a Tory lead before election day. So it shouldn’t have been the surprise it was.
Whereas Patrick was inconsolable in Bournemouth in 1992, I was over the moon in Bournemouth in 1970!
Powerful Observer editorial against an election today:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,2180330,00.html
While Prime Ministers enjoy the constitutional right to dissolve Parliament, traditionally that right is exercised towards the end of the legislative cycle or when there is a crisis of confidence in the government. Those circumstances are not present now.
What’s interesting is that this comes from a paper that wants Brown to win. I.e. even those who want a Labour victory see the inherent danger of such an opportunistic move for the future credibility of ‘Brand Brown’.
My favourite by-election presently on UK Gold !!
Also on UK Gold + 1 hour ….. in errrrrr …. an hour !!
2
Then Brown’s in trouble, because I don’t see England beating Australia, let alone getting to the final.
Re: Main article
Are you sure of that statement Mike? According to my recording of Election 1970, the polls only turned against Labour when the trade figures were announced (and that was on the Monday of the election), the rest of the time Labour were cruising for a landslide win.
Amazing to see that in 1970 Labour & Tory combined secured very nearly 90% of the vote.
8 …… who cares about trade figures these days? They hardly even merit a mention on the main tv news programmes
9 - Perhaps the title should be changed to
“1970 - When a Labour leader was seduced by the polls”
That was addressed to Harry @ 8
The administration issues for an election are going to be enormous. IT is not yet fully in place in many areas to manage issues such as the identification of a very large number of postal voters, the election register is at the back end of its yearly cycle, hundreds of thousands of voters could, nay will be disenfranchised, the local authorities see it as a bit of a nightmare, systems in England and Wales are different to Scotland.
Frankly to contemplate an election against this backgound over such a short period of time is bordering on madness.
Another reason why I think it has never been on, and is being used as evidence to support the view that fixed term parliaments will be best.
There is one variable no on talks about - England and the English Question which polsters continue to ignore.
As soon as Brown calls an election, the West Lothian Question will immediately come to surface, Labour activists have already been slammed by voters that their party is anti-English but they do nothing about it and us voters know it. Cameron will play the English card via ‘English Votes on English Matters’ and this resonates with the English electorate along with immigration, NHS funding bias in favour of Scotland/Wales, EU constitution, pensions, etc, etc., the election will then become too close to call. Many voters I have come across do not trust Gordon Brown one bit, and want to see David Cameron do more. If the SNP do well in Scotland (remember Alex Salmond is popular) Labour could effectively be 5-10 seats lower there, UKIP voters are returning to the Tories so too are many BNP voters and sadly some English nationalists.
I expect Labour to win the most number of seats this time but they will need the Lib Dems to prop them up in government. This next parliament sounds like a repeat of of the 1974-79 government, only the election after this one coming will Labour will be hit harder by the loss of Scotland through independence and it will be their own fault because they delivered devolution that according to former West Lothian MP will be the ‘motorway to independence’. You reap what you sow.
By-election on now
A bit OT but the Politics Show had a chap from the Association of Electoral Administrators on who basically said that an autumn election would be a disaster because the electoral roll won’t be up dated until December (apparently disenfranchising up to a million voters) and the systems aren’t in place to hold one.
If true an Autumn election will make Florida in 2000 look good.
13-16. It’s simply not going to happen. Unless Gordon’s looking for an excuse for abolishing local Government.
If he’s got any sense he’ll get the non-announcement in before Cameron’s conference speech.
8 - Yes, which Labour figures afterwards blamed on BOAC taking delivery of two new 747s. It’s a classic example of the way events influence the election narrative; but Wilson was probably on the way to losing anyway.
13 I think you are right on administration and logistical reasons why Brown wont callan early election. The only way to determine when Brown will call an election will be when changes in the electoral system are made. Will they introduce Alternative Voting? Will citizens from non-British EU states be allowed to vote in General Elections in addition to the local and EU Parliament elections? Why can these EU citizens vote in Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliament elections but not UK wide General Elections? I can see a legal challange being made and these 1.7 million people voting could change things drastically and change the balance of power.
19 EU agreements state that EU citizens can vote in local elections (so we saw the Brits standing in Spanish locals); and the Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish Parliaments/assemblies are only jumped up district councils after all
Commonwealth & Irish citizens can of course vote in GEs.
14. What if Labour wins England? What would you say then? (Note that Labour holds an English majority at Westminster, and in 1997 and 2001 won the popular vote in England handsomely. the current polls look a lot like 2001).
But I do take your broader point - if you want Britain to stay intact, Labour is the only way to go. Not sure how the Scots would cope with the Tories at Westminster. Obviously this wouldn’t be an issue at all if the Tories had some presence in Scotland, but they appear to be making zero attempts to build one (why is this?), so the default position for those who want to keep Britain together is Labour. The Lib Dems too appear to be in retreat in Scotland.
5 - Similar in some ways to my post in the last thread regarding the morality of an early election. It took a while so I hope some have read it!
“If Mr Brown’s speech was meant to expound a vision for government, it failed. It left the audience barely enlightened on the Prime Minister’s agenda for public services, crime reduction or foreign policy. If it was meant as a ploy to discomfit the Tories, then it could backfire. By cutting off the Tory leader’s retreat to a reactionary hinterland, Mr Brown might encourage Mr Cameron to renew his advance into more liberal terrain.”
That’s the key and, if the Observer are cottoning on now, then the left liberal vote is going to start peeling away again.
Heseltine’s still got lots of energy left in him.
20. I think the EU will soon change the arrangements to allow EU citizens full voting rights once the Constitution is ratified. The rights of Commonwealth citizens may then be reduced by the EU. There are so many French, German, Italian, Portuguese and other EU citizens living and paying taxes here that their voting rights will logically be extended to include voting rights in General Elections (the same of course is true for UK citizens living in other EU states). The SNP have already targeted the EU citizen as a new potential voter, so the momentum will grow and grow. Expect EU citizens full voting rights in each EU state by 2009/2010.
The Conservative conference has got off to a great start with positive TV coverage of Cameron and an excellent, “barnstorming” speech from Hague, with his attacks on Brown’s mendacity atracting much media interest.
I can feel the polls turning around already!
I can see the headlines now
“Brown bottles it”
There have been other threads on election timing. One point that has not been made is that there is the possibility of a backlash from the electorate over a very early election. Gordon has an enormous Parliamentary majority and, rationally, there is no reason for a general election. Voters may well resent being asked to return to the polls a couple of years into a Parliament.
There is now just enough negative economic prognosis in the public domain to make people smell a rat if a snap election is called - the ‘what have you got to be afraid of?’ line.
It is also possible to portray a snap election as bad for the country. With the financial markets still fragile, and just weeks after the first British bank run for 150 years, is it right to make things unnecessarily uncertain?
One final point. There hasn’t been an autumn/winter election since 1974. For over 30 years, general elections have been conducted in the early summer sunshine of May and June. History weighs against a November poll.
24 - francis, we don’t agree on much, but I am sure you agree that it is daft that somebody with citizenship of Mozambique (a country with no historic ties with the UK, who joined the Commonwealth to trade with neighbours), can vote in a UK GE as soon as registered on the roll, but a French person, who may have lived, worked and paid taxes here for years, cannot. There is a touch of inconsistency.
21 Snowflake - so Labour have created a constitutional settlement dependent on Labour holding on to power? Not a satisfactory situation is it?
SNP and Tories (unfortunately in my view) seem to get on quite well in Scots Parliament, Annabel certainly more acceptable to Alex than Wendy. Cameron would probably prove a better partner to Salmond in terms of re-negotiating the settlement because he wouldn’t be hamstrung by Labour’s internal battles. No, IMHO the modern Tory Party and Scotland would deal well enough.
Interesting article Mike, and an interesting parallel. I still take the view that Gordon will not call an election, but if he does, then I see an awful lot of volatility ahead.
21 Do you means the most number of seats or popular vote, or both? Remember this is not 1997 or 2001 when the English electorate (myself included) were happy to see Labour returned. Things have changed a quite bit since then. In 2003/2004 Scottish MPs were used to force through unpopular policies in England - University Tuition Fees for English students, Foundation Hospitals which are devolved issues - they are not accountable to the English electorate. Why do Scottish elderly not pay care fees but English ones do? Why do they have free prescriptions but not in England? Why are certain life saving cancer drugs available in Scotland not available in England? Why does Labour promote Scottish/Welsh parliaments but opposes any form of English national self government? In England there is very little appetite for saving Britain and the union because of devolution - Labour started the breakup so its the Pot calling the Kettle Black here about which party will keep Britain united. Labour never talks about England but always talk Britain this, Britain that and deliberately confuses England and Britain. There was English civil war never a British one and Magna Carter was before the existence of Britain. Why does Scotland receive 25% more public spending per head than England? Does Morningside (Edinburgh) have more needs than say Easington or Peckham? No way. Labour are fiercely anti-English and I promise that I will NEVER EVER EVER vote for and support them again in my life. If the Tories play the English Card I may vote for them, and believe it there are many people who share my views. I would be very surprised if Labour win the popular vote in England at the next election but there again the fiddled boundaries will help your anti-English Labour party win the next election.
Bottling it would be difficult for Brown; he won’t be able to bear taunting by Tories forvthe remainder of this Parliament.
27. I would rather see French/German people voting in our General Elections than citizens from certain Commonwealth countries. I would happliy allow all EU citizens living in the UK full voting rights if we could stop Commonwealth ones from voting here.
Re 31, Observer, Brown is a tactician not a strategist. He will not think that far ahead. As a consequence he will make the GE decision on short term factors mostly.
He is boxed in now, but that does not mean he wont wriggle out. When he does it will cost him though.
1970, remember it well, got married for one thing.
You cannot compare the situation now with then. The Tories were a much more formidable political machine then than they are now, 2 million members for a start. The Tories were also a truely national party, still strongly represented in Scotland and Wales.
Politics was still dominated by the, ‘Trade Union Question’ the Labour governments abandonment of ‘In Place of Strife’ and Wilson’s ‘Pound In Your Pocket’ statement during the devaluation crisis was being used with considerable effect by his critics.
The Liberals were not the force then they are now, (very few seats in parliament) there were no Nationalists, or, ‘The Others’ to complicate matters. The FPTP system by and large favoured the Tories, it disadvantages them now. This is a different world, comparison with nearly forty years ago are not relevant.
26.
Very good analysis yourself! I am hoping for GB to take an early election because I think the current polls are very misleading and there may be the fun of an upset. I totally agree with your point about the electorate either smelling a rat or resenting what they may see as a pointless exercise. It is interesting how the media are goading him into taking an early election, I think they are looking forward to a bit of fun themselves.
On balance I don’t think he will risk it but I am enjoying the fact he must be sweating over the decision!
27: I thought Mozambique got in because of the damage caused to it by South Africa.
26/31: The head of the Association of Electoral Administrators’ comments might give him an out, ‘I’d love to call an election but the electoral roll isn’t ready…’
“The FPTP system by and large favoured the Tories, it disadvantages them now”
Not so. I think the Tories got a higher percentage of the seats in the last election that they did share of the votes.
34. That’s why I think no one will win but Labour largest party propped up by Lib Dems who support Labour.
26 In 1974 the turnout was very high in the February election due to the situation at the time - Miners strike - 3 day working week - electricity blackouts - tv shut down by 11pm. ‘Who governs Britian?’ was the slogan by Ted Heath when he called the snap election on 7 February. Labour got less votes than the Tories but they won more seats. It was a three week campaign and the postal votes worked very well during that election (they were using a new electoral register)but it was more difficult to qualify for them then.
If we move back to 2007 I would think there is a clamour by those in marginal seats for GB to call the election as the political atmosphere can be radically different next year and this may be their only hope of survival. The famous phrase ‘events dear boy’ as James Callaghan would not have realised what was to happen in early 1979 with the ‘Winter of Discontent’ If GB doesn’t call a snap election he will be called a coward. If he delays then things go pear-shaped as I expect they will damned him for not doing so. Not an easy decision for him. Deal or no Deal as my husband said today. Lets open the ballot boxes.
37 - The Conservatives’ vote/share ratio in Great Britain in the last election was almost exactly proportional.
33 - I think Brown is a strategist in policy terms, however, despite his display as tactical feinting. He’s clever enough to have realised that the time to kill the prospect of a GE without incurring any damage was last week. If he does have a get-out clause, it’s probably been prepared a couple of weeks ago.
AFAIK HM is still holidaying in Balmoral. I suspect that when Gordon goes to see her she would try and dissuade him otherwise. I also presume that this conversation is not one you could have on the phone so does Gordon have any trips to Scotland planned in the next week or so.
37
Doesn’t it now take almost twice as many votes to elect a Tory MP as a Labour one. I was reading something on I think Conhome that made this point.
There has probably been informal discussion on the matter between the Palace and No. 10 already. There is precedent for a PM going to Balmoral to request dissolution, so that isn’t a major factor - indeed, we might not know about it until after the event.
42. Surely this proves that the electoral system is fiddled and not democratic.
42 - so the system, at the last election at least, was broadly neutral for the Tories, but hugely biased towards Labour. Should the Tory share rise, then it is likely that the Tories will also benefit from a bias.
In respect of Mike’s article, it is worth pointing out that in 1970 the Ulster Unionists were still part of the Conservative Party. Had they sat as a separate party- as they have for over 30 years now - Ted Heath’s majority would only have been 15 - rather than 31 - and so vulnerable to by election losses at a time when there were rather more of them!
9.Peter- In 1970 Liberals only contested 330 seats- the effect of which was to artificially inflate both the Tory and Labour % of the vote nationally.
45 Agree, I think PR is the best option, not AV.
28. “so Labour have created a constitutional settlement dependent on Labour holding on to power?”
Labour has tried to solve a problem the Tories created. A poll in Scotland in 1992 showed 50% wanted independence within the EU. That has fallen to about 25%. So we have clearly drained some of the poison that the Tories wilfully injected into the concept of “Britain”.
Unfortunately we are the only party doing the heavy lifting here. As long as Tories act like little Englanders, the Scots won’t vote for you. Which means that there is really only one truly “national” party. There should be two. What are you doing to make it two? Nothing.
re 39. Campaigns are always 3 weeks - well 23 days actually. But IIRC before the RPA 1986 Saturdays also counted in the calculations so that would have made pre-1986 campaigns only 20 days.
48. Could you please stop your anti-English racist comments. The UK was a unitory state before devolution. If Scotland can have a national Parliament why can’t England? … because Labour hates England and all we get from Labour supporters are anti-English vitriolic comments.
44
There is a solution its called PR, but the Tories won’t entertain it: yet!
After a fourth defeat, perhaps, they may have a change of mind.
With regard to Scotland, we unionists, of all parties, have misjudged Salmond. I think there was a widespread assumption that he would cock up early, and the SNP would soon nosedive in the polls. But we are wrong.
This miscall of the SNP bounce, is a bit like the Tories’ utter confidence that there would be no Brown bounce. It is wishful thinking rather than sound reasoned judgement.
As for me though, while I disagree with his politics, I do think that Salmond has one of the shrewdest political minds of the last 20 years. And when he makes mistakes, like quitting the party leadership in 1997, he gets away with it.
48. If only 25% Scotland supports independence why did the SNP win the Holyrood elections? because they are unionist???? No they want Scottish INDEPENDENCE not more devolution.
44 - No. The structural bias comes laregly from the higher absention rates in safe Labour seats (if you introduced ocmulsory voting, and assume all other factors are unchanged, there should be a significant rise in Labour’s vote share) and population movement from Labour-dominated to Conservative-dominated areas. In most periods under the current boundary regime, the Conservatives haven’t suffered unduly from these factors, although they’ve probably had an effect in some elections; for instance, the Conservatives would probably have had more comfortable majorities in both 1979 and 1992 had the boundary commission reported before those elections. The winners’ bonus is largely a reflection of the fact that the party which wins an elections can usually boast of superior perfromance in target marginal seats.
53
For the same reason that the Cornish, the most anti-European people in the UK, vote Libdem, the most pro-European party in the UK,they like being contrary: ask seant!
Is it just me or is Michael Bloomberg’s speech staggeringly bad and cheesy?
53 - It is perfectly possible for Scots to vote SNP without favouring independence; it is possible to welcome a period of anti-Labour government without wanting independence, as the Quebec parallel demonstrates.
52 - Personally, I thought it’d take at least a year foor the cracks to show. Salmond another clever politico who knows that his opponents would expect the nationalists to crash and burn. His main task now is simply to govern quietly, building up creidbility for a referendum. I still don’t think the government will last the full term, but the other parties will have to wait for events to do the work for them.
Observer It is also possible to vote for Labour whilst supporting independence.
42. Labour votes are spread out geographically, Tory votes are concentrated.
Regarding proportional representation, do people think this has worked out in places like Scotland?
Here’s the number of seats that each party has got in the Scotish parliament since inception:
2007 2003 1999
Labour 46, 50, 56
SNP 47,27,35
Tories 17,18,18
LibDems 16,17,17
Greens 2,7,1
Others 1,10,2
if you assume that the seats are crudely propotionate to total votes, Labour governed in 1999 and 2003 with 43.4% and 38.7%. The SNP govern now with 36.4%
How is this greatly different from a FPTP result? I think voters learn the “rules” of whatever system they are in, and end up with similar results no matter what the particular electoral system is in place.
PS I know that the LibDems were part of the coalitions of 1999 and 2003, but didn’t make much impact on government
55 Are you saying these are unionist voters who are voting SNP because they dislike Labour and Tory?
I am aware that Cornwall wants more autonomy and I think any future English Parliament can accommodate their (different) needs and possible encourage the redevelopment of their language and culture.
48 Depends when you pick the polls - in September 2006 an ICM poll produced figures of 52% for independence in Scotland and 59% support for Scots independence in England. A YouGov poll that month showed 44% for and 42% against.
TNS System 3 this month found it was 35% for and 50% against - so yes it’s less than a year ago but a year ago it was more than in 1992.
As for being a national party - the Conservative Party is the only party that stands candidates in all four nations of the United Kingdom. Labour manifestos supported Irish re-unification.
59 - Yes. But, on the evidence we have, there is nothing to indicae that this group is particularly significant, or that they would have an interest in supporting Labour at the moment: if they were seriously pro-independence, it’d make more sense to support the SNP get the debate going, on a short-term basis at least.
francis I trust you will also support us in the North of England when we want to return to our ‘historic’ state of independence as Northumbria ~ The lands north of the Mersey and the Humber.
Free from the interference of both the Scotti and the West Saxon!
59. When I was involved in Labour back in the 1990s, nearly half of my (former) Scottish Labour colleagues sought independence. It is a myth to assume that Scottish Labour is a unionist party - it is not. It is a closet internationalist left wing marxist England hating political party that controls ‘New Labour’ in the same way as freemasons control the Police and local government. Anglophobia is rife in Scottish Labour and they’ve been planning to ‘get their own back on us English’ for years - that’s why I left Labscum and won’t go back under any circumstances.
42: Labour got a seat for circa every 27,000 votes while the Tories got one for circa every 44,000 votes, while for the Lib Dems it was circa 96,000.
Francis metioned an interesting issue on an impending GE. I think Brown is going to have to call one now as he is guility of giving it momentum. He will lose all credibility if he does not call one now. Bottling out and using F & M will not work or saying Bluetongue infection is a road block. He could have factored all of this into his calculations before letting the election talk run away!
The interesting issue revolves around WLQ and of course Brown. Due to the percieved strength of the SNP Brown is going to have to spend a fair amount of time in Scotland to shore up his base. The recent BBC survey advised that half of Scottish Labour MP’s feared an election and wanted to play Chicken!
1970 is an interesting example of a government going into an election with great confidence. Whilst i would like a repeat of 1970, the obvious difference is Brown is new in the job whereas Wilson had been PM for 6 years! Having siad that Brown has been the Chief executive of the Labour government for 10 years and so their could still be a comparison between the two.
I don’t think Brown relises that he has stuck all of his chips on the roullete table by trying to trip tories up and i am pretty sure that the election will be very close indeed.
62. I think there was a poll this year that showed only 25% want independence - which is an improvement on the situation in the Tory years. And note that the majority don’t vote SNP (the only party in favour of independence).
As for the Tories standing candidates everywhere - it’s no good standing paper candidates, you have to make an effort to win, and you arn’t really, are you?
64 but would you claim historic Northumberland and the return of those areas lost to the Scotti?
Did we work out in the end whether Bob Worcester thought Gordon should call the GE? Sorry haven’t read the thread in full.
re 84 previously. Punter, GB was beaten by The Marquess of Lothian in 1979.
MAFJ Ancram 17,986
JG Brown 15,526
there was a very small swing to Lab
When canvassing the SNP ask the voter, firstly, who they would be voting for and then, ask if he/she would vote for or against or don’t know in a referendum. It is suprising who will vote yes after saying they would vote Labour or to a lesser extent Tory. Not everyone who say SNP say yes either. We do attract tactical voters to keep Labour or Tory out or they like the SNP MP or MSP.
69. Well Ted we’ve traded picturesque Cumbria for very unpictureque Lothian over the past 1000 years so that seems like a good deal to stay as we are.
All we need now is to find an exiled Norwiegen princeling, set them up in York and we’re set for the next 1000
64. I accept that Northern England and Southern England are different but that doesn’t mean we are not English. It is good to be proud of your region and county, but you are also proud of being English unless of course you are a Labour activist. I am a North Easterner and believe that we are too cut off from the rest of England. We have no M1 or M6 motorway, and the A1M is only two lane carriageway no where near proper motorway standard. North of Morpeth, the A1 is a dangerous, terrible single carriageway, perhaps an English Parliament will sort out the North East’s problems - no industry because both Labour and Tory politicians accepted bribes from the EU to permanently shut down our ship building industry, a coal mining industry that was in decline long before Thatcher and ruined by the combined greed of trade unions and incompetent management. Lets dump the old class wars and left-right debates and move towards a classless, free and patriotic independent united England.
1970 was an aberation. Labour should have gone down to a very heavy defeat. In the 1966-70 parliament they lost 15 by-elections on all fronts - to Con, SNP, PC and Lib, including a record three losses on one night in 1968. They even lost Clem Attlee’s old seat of Waltamstow West in 1967. The swing at Dudley in 1968 was the best Lab-to-Con swing ever. All this was occurring against a background of economic turmoil (devaluation, in place of strife, etc.) and societal unrest (Grovenor Square, Rivers of Blood, Northern Ireland, etc.)
However, Wilson remained personally popular, and the public never warmed to Heath.
I suspect the 1970 poll debacle was due to an inherent pro-Labour poll bias (as in 1992) combined with the personal popularity of Wilson. The analysis I did some time ago shows that Wilson pulled back the geatest lost ground of any incumbent PM. See the swingback figure of 7.2% versus the average of 4%.
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/30/guest-slot-rod-cosbys-by-election-trend-analysis/
For what it’s worth, applying this to Gordon Brown would predict a General Election swing ranging from 1.4% to Con to 0.6% to Labour, with a central prediction of 0.4% to Con.
If Brown manages to “do a Wilson”, expect a 2.8% swing to Labour…..
56 yes its just you
Slightly confused by the main article Mike tbh. What do you mean by the Tories losing their majority? They didn’t lose it in Parliament, so do you mean their time ran out? If so that’s not really comparable with the situation in 1979 when Callaghan lost the No Confidence vote.
Slightly confused by the main article Mike tbh. What do you mean by the Tories losing their majority in 1997? They didn’t lose it in Parliament, so do you mean their time ran out? If so that’s not really comparable with the situation in 1979 when Callaghan lost the No Confidence vote.
From today’s Scotland on Sunday:
THOUSANDS of votes could be lost amid widespread ballot box chaos if Gordon Brown calls a snap Westminster poll, the UK’s leading election official warned last night.
As election fever continued to mount, disturbing new details emerged from the Association of Electoral Administrators of delays in printing and distributing postal ballots, an out-of-date electoral roll and loopholes in anti-fraud laws.
AEA chief executive John Turner last night told Scotland on Sunday he had directly warned the Government and was “fearful” of an administrative crisis should Brown press ahead with a general election as early as November. His comments were backed by other leading election officials.
The Prime Minister will spend today at Chequers, his country residence, discussing an early election with his closest advisers. In Scotland, Labour party officials have been told to prepare for an election on either November 1 or 8.
As the latest polling showed Labour up to 11 points ahead of the Tories, sources close to Brown said only a bravura performance by Tory leader David Cameron at this week’s Conservative party conference could stop the election going ahead.
But the AEA warning could throw an unexpected obstacle in Brown’s path.
Turner said: “If there is an autumn election there will be a significant number of administrative problems. I’m fearful of the possibility of things going wrong administratively because of the pressures involved.”
Concerns centre on the problematic postal voting system, which continues to place election officers under a huge burden. The AEA has called on the Government to change the law to extend the time limit between the dissolution of parliament and an election by at least another five working days to 22 days.
However, if he goes ahead with an early election, Brown looks set to restrict the time limit to the current 17 days.
Turner said: “The small number of specialist, commercial printers who produce the ballot packs will have significant problems in dealing with the additional volumes within the limited time available.”
The AEA is also warning that some people will be unable to vote or to receive a postal vote because the new electoral roll is not published until December 1.
Turner added that he was also concerned that anti-fraud laws introduced in England and Wales in May would not come into force in Scotland until next year. The laws, introduced after a High Court judge ruled that the vote-rigging in Birmingham’s 2004 elections would have “shamed a banana republic”, aim to make postal voting more secure by making electors provide their signature and date of birth.
Turner said: “The danger is that we have a dual system where Scotland does not have the same strictures as England and Wales.”
Difficulties over postal votes, which have been championed by ministers as a way of increasing turnout, could be exacerbated by two UK-wide 48-hour postal strikes on October 4-6 and October 8-10.
The UK-wide AEA, which represents returning officers and other public servants responsible for organising elections, is seeking an urgent meeting with the UK Justice Department.
Turner said: “One minute after the polls closed in May we told the Government about our grave concerns. And at the end of last week, I sent a note to the Ministry of Justice saying that those difficulties still exist and asking how we could overcome them. The message needs to get out that there’s the possibility of problems that could affect the conduct of the election.”
75. One must remember that Jim Callaghan had support of 44% in the polls in 1979 i think over Maggie Thatcher.
My view is once an election is called Brown will suffer a big drop in his rating from 60% down to 35% - 40% range. The exact same happened to John Major in 1992, although he did go onto win the election he never gained any popularity again!
Polling report now has a link to today’s Ipsos Mori Poll actual figures.
A couple of observations.
The Labour claim that if an early election was called their majority would further increase is refuted. According to Ipsos figures it would be further reduced slightly.
Furthermore, whilst the large majority expect Labour to win the election only 23% people expect Labour to win with a large majority.
More food for thought for Mr Brown……
80. As PM or best PM - Sunny Jim did not win!
64 - likewise for Kent, too often subjugated and concreted over for the benefit of the rest of the UK.
81. He is going to have to call it or be labeled Chicken! Ha Ha, what a strategic genuis Brown is!
:lol: 
81 - the expectation of who will win by people normally determines the outcome. A maj of 30 would be enough for Gordon for the 5 year term.
70 - yes read the thread in full: 60/40 for early Nov
78 Major had lost his majority in HoC by end of 1996 IIRC.
71 There you go. Thanks
I seem to have had a post about Guido eaten. Why is this
79 - Just confirms what I said earlier about the morality of an election at this time.
Either Brown has a ‘moral compass’ or not, we will soon know.
I noticed a local government election person said about 1 Million people will be disenfranchised in a Novemebr poll!
The new electoral register does not come into force until Dec 1st. I mentioned this a few weeks ago!
77: When Parliament was dissolved in 1997, the Conservatives were in a minority of 3 - having gone in and out of minority status a few times over the preceding few months, depending on deaths, by-elections, defections and so on. While Labour did attempt (not very seriously) to defeat the Tories on a confidence issue once or twice, the Unionists were disinclined to throw the Conservatives out.
75. The problem is the UK no longer operates like a unitary state thanks to devolution. Sorry but GB does not have much personality like Wilson did, I expect DC to play the underdog in the whole thing and this is where the problem lies. No one will win outright, the Tories will win most seats in England (not majority), Labour will win most UK seats but no majority but another Scottish leader (LidDems) will help prop up Labour. The media will sieze on this and the WLQ, and Scottish Independence will blow up like a sealed can of petrol that has just thrown into an incinerator - it will explode causing no amounts of damage to the unity of the UK and Labour started the whole thing with devolution. I just hope Gordon Brown carries the can for this error because very few English people want to be British anymore. The current devolution settlement is like providing an NHS that is only available to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not in England because its too expensive. England pays more than 85% of UK taxes but receives no pay back. Why? Labour activists seem unable to grasp this inequality but Brown is about to let it explode BIG TIME. Bring it on.
91 - nowadays, being in a small minority matters less as there are 4 Sinn Feiners who don’t turn up, but are technically opposition. The Tories had no Sinners from 1992 to 1997. No prospect of a reduction in the number of Sinners either.
I have to say, even-handedly, the following:
Brown has good reasons to call an election (good poll ratings) and good reasons not to call one (unknown reaction to Cameron in a real election and Tory conference). People are not going to buy into, or even care about, the idea of establishing a new mandate or the esoteric arguments about whether he needs one or not - the only reaction some people *might* have, is annoyed at having another general election so relatively soon after the last one when no serious crisis exists.
However one thing that some posters are kidding themselves over (and I must say this applies mostly the Tories on this site) is that anyone will even remember this ‘incident’ in three months time if there is no election. This whole episode will be barely a footnote in the story of Brown’s (hopefully only) term - people are not going to look back on things later and think “ooh, that Brown, he really bottled it back then - I can’t vote for him now”. Wishful thinking.
However I remain fairly convinced by Cameron, although I appear to be increasingly in a minority here. I think a snap election will force him, out of expediency, to go slightly more ‘traditional’ and for this election at least shore up the potential UKIP slide. With the boundary changes and potential Lib Dem slide in the South, I would expect an October / November election to go exactly as someone else has already said: reduction of Labour majority to 20 - 30, with some bounce from the conference followed by a further narrowing during an election campaign, and money flowing into crucial marginals from our side. Ultimately I cannot see the “equity story” of a third term government re-persuading people of their charms - at most some might abstain.
So nothing too much to fear, if you ask me …
94 - that scenario would presumably be enough for Cameron, but not Ming, to hang on.
(Notice how LD leaders are much more likely to be called by there first name? Paddy, Charlie, Ming - though I guess in the case of the last two it is to avoid confusion with their namesakes John F etc and Alastair.)
94 - Given that people constantly hark back to Callaghan and 1978 there is a fair chance that Brown’s decision or non-decision may be a historic one too.
re 79 GB can’t just decide to have 22 days rather than 17 - the law says 17 days and 17 it will be.
94. It will be a historical turning point as Brown will have ended his honeymoon either way! Even if he wins an election, i doubt he will see his rating above 50%!
93. There are 5 Shinners, and there is a possibility that could increase to 6. Also the SDLP will probably hold two and take the Labour whip. Blaenau Gwent could be regained, or else Dai Davies could probably be relied on to vote with Labour.
All this means that the majority winning-post is 323, and Labour only need about 320 seats to have a practical majority of 1 in the House….
97 - can’t you pre-announce a dissolution? This government likes to pre-announce things. And IIRC, the 1992 election campaign dragged on for well over a month.
It’s noticeable the attitude of Labour supporters such as Nick P whenever these concerns about the electoral roll (and other administrative issues) are raised. Basically he’s dismissive, and effectively says that it’s the individual electors fault if they’re not registered.
It really puts into perspective all Labour’s talk about investigating innovative methods to encourage higher turnout (methods which have pushed the integrity of our elections towards third world levels). The whole (public) philosophy behind the policies on electoral reform was that low turnout is the primary responsibility of politicians and our ‘antiquated’ electoral processes.
But the moment such questions might jeopardise the prospects of calling an unnecessary General Election all that goes out the window and it’s back to blaming the voters.
99 - If Speaker Martin decides to go, and I think it is likely, we would probably get a Tory or LD speaker (I suggest Boris) and the winning post becomes that bit lower.
Does the law not legislate only a minimum period of time between the dissolution of Parliament and Polling day? Like SBS, I seem to recall that the 1997 election went on for a fair bit longer than 17 days.
103 - missed 1997 as abroad, but 1992 was a very long one.
100 - Brown can’t pre-announce something that isn’t within his power.
94 - Anatole. I agree the consequences of Brown not having an election have been seriously exaggerated. I still can’t see an election happening. That said it will give the Tories a tremendous short-term fillip, especially if Gordon delays the decision until after the Tory conference, and Gordon will likely have a very tricky winter. With the prospect of no election, the focus on the Tories will disappear and the media will across the board likely turn on him again.
102. Hazelhurst or Beith? Mimg, even?
104 - I don’t recall 1992 being quite so painfully long as the 1997 campaign was. Can’t quite understand why…
103/4 - 1997 was about 5 weeks!
More momentously…
Mr Alistair Matlock has returned! Welcome back sir. There must be an election in the air
106 - Sir Alan Haselhurst would be ideal. I am on record having supported his candidacy before though sadly I am not likely to have a vote.
106 - Hazelhurst would be excellent but is too old. Ming - no, not an ex-party leader, and he’s too slow. Beith would be good but is no spring chicken… Is Sylvia Heal running again, as she is a deputy, but as Labour won’t get it.
There are a few senior Tories knocking about. Sir John Stanley?
110 - or Peter Bottomley?
108 - Thank you. Personally I’d prefer there not be an election just now - I’ve just recently been released from hospital (for good behaviour) and am not quite up for a full canvassing diary yet!
102 I fear you understimate Gorbal’s attachment to the flattery of his office. All the indications were he intended to stay on even were the next Election in 2009. I certainly think he wil, were it to happen this year
BTW Can my post to Tressage be freed. I am not sure what word has offended the spam filter
As long as it’s not patrick cormack
112 - Alistair have a speedy recovery.
Sir Alan Haselhurst is a year younger than I am! How can he possibly be too old?
Sir Peter Tapsell would make a fine Speaker as well.
112 - sorry to hear it. Your return wasn’t prompted by the outbreak of civility caused by having Bob Worcester in our midst then?
Everyone was on best behaviour!
I don’t think there is any prospect of an autumn poll
by Martin Day September 29th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I think Brown is going to have to call one now as he is guility of giving it momentum. He will lose all credibility if he does not call one now.
by Martin Day September 30th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Martin - what a difference a day makes!
115 - Thank you Marcia. Nothing terribly serious - just a knee replacement. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to do much better than hobble about for the next few months. If Brown decides to go now, I’m afraid my canvassing will be limited to the telephone.
117 - I did see that Sir Robert had joined us earlier in the day, but my return is not connected. I had tried to join in on a few threads last week but was thwarted each time by the moderation filter. Things seem to be working properly now though.
If Brown calls an election which he doesn’t need to call, it will put a question mark in peoples’ minds as to why he s doing it. If any bad economic news were to blow during the campaign, it might have a marked effect like 1970 for Wilson.
Brown’s approach is more like Ted Heath’s. He won’t work with anyone who doesn’t agree with him. He prefers to promote minnows who won’t outshine him. He expects the Unions to accept pay rises below inflation, while doing little to rein it in. He’s deceptive about the EU. And he is thinking of calling an election, of which the main theme will be ‘who governs Britain?’
The Thatcher and Blair eras offer few parallels for the Gordon Brown regime. You need to go back 35 years or more to find a period which parallels the Brown approach. No wonder people are finding the change friom Blair to Brown a little confusing.
40.”He’s clever enough to have realised that the time to kill the prospect of a GE without incurring any damage was last week.” Not sure about that, it would have brought up a comparison with another Labour PM who hung on into the Spring.
Full story in the Scotsman “Snap election ‘will cause chaos’”
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1561982007
Alistair, delighted to see you back posting again. Just to echo Marcia, I wish you have a speedy recovery. Now does this mean that Mrs Matlock will let you spend some more time on PB.com?
Gallowglas Where in heaven’s name are your priorities: first we want Aquitaine back, then Normandy, then we can worry about internal English devolution.
122 Galloglass apologies for getting your name wrong.
Ps We do not want Calais back.
re 100 and others. Yes you can pre-announce but certain things happen on certain days. The campaign doesn’t start until day zero and as far as I know there’s no requirement for broadcasters to show impartiality until it does. And whilst a pre-announcement might give more time to book printers etc, there is still only 11 days between closing on nominations and polling. You cannot print the ballot papers until you know who is going to stand.
Perhaps Gimmick Gordon will pre-announce an election this week and the re-pre-annonce it next April and finally announce it in 2010.
That would follow normal Labour government operating procedure.
Milk it for all its worth - and more.
and I forgot to say that if the new requirements to prevent postal vote fraud mean that there isn’t enough time in the electoral timetable it’s entirely due to the fact that this government (as with devolution, banking regulation, PFIs etc) doesn’t think through the consequences of its actions.
Surely it’s notworthy that those 1970 numbers produced a tory majority in 1970 but would now produce a Labour majority of 6(yes, it’s Baxter but it does act as a guide).
Does this support the idea that there is a slight and not a major bias towards Labour in seat distribution? If the unionists are split out from the tories it seems to show the Boundary Commission have done a good job overall in keeping matters as carefully calibrated as possible. One day though the Isle of Wight is surely going to have to be two (tory) seats and some of those empty Northern Industrial heartlands are going to have to be merged?
I had thought there was a noticeable systemic bias in the boundary system at the moment but I can’t see that being true based on this.
snowflake - if Labour are a national party they will need to put up candidates in places like the Cotswolds where the remaining few Labour voters couldn’t even vote for a paper Labour candidate in may -shameful.
C’mon Gordon - after Hague’s speech I’m even more keen on an election and Iain Dale says Boris did a good job too - Conservatives largest party Lets Ave It
Does anyone sense like me that the prospects of a 2007 GE have receded just a tad today? I appreciate there’s no tangible evidence to support this but the Betfair market is remaining stubbornly at or near the even money mark.
Also,the leader in today’s Observer, coupled with Bob Worcester’s views aired here earlier today have convinced me that there are compelling reasons against - time to start offloading at least a portion of my bet methinks and, yes, I realise I’m doing a Martin (118 above) in reverse!
122 My sister belonged to the Invade & Conquer France Party while at Oxford -stated intention to reclaim the English provinces and reclaim the throne of France, but really an excuse to drink I believe. French friends didn’t see the joke and were outraged at the thought.
What no AH Matlock for the election campaign. Gordon’s bound to go for it now! Get well soon. Glad to hear you’re out of the most dangerous of places; hospitals.
102 Only Tory/LD if there is no Labour majority I think
129 Nor did some the more excitable Welsh Nats see the funny side when the EDs stood in Monmouth in May to demand the repeal of the 1284 Treaty of Rhuddlan and the transfer of Monmouthshire to England immediately
Any truth in the rumour that if Gordon doesn’t go for it now, Maggie is going to be back at Downing Street - waving a placard saying “FRIT!”…..?
Hi guys,
As I’m reporting on my website, I have it from a very good source that the election date has already been decided and will be announced on Tuesday or Wednesday at November the first. The source was at a meeting yesterday afternoon, called yesterday morning after the decision was made.
Feel free to lambast me as appropriate (especially on Thursday) if I’m wrong. Of course, all those who lambast me now and I’m right…
121/130, Chris and BlueMoon. Thank you very much for your good wishes.
WRT the election, does anyone else sense that Gordon might be courting a significant backlash for calling an unnecessary election only half way through Labour’s current mandate? This is something that may not register with many people until the campaign has actually begun and the election becomes a reality but I think is a serious potential danger for Brown. I don’t know that it is necessarily enough to change the likely result based on the polls we’ve been seeing, but it may make the difference between a majority and a hung parliament if enough people in the right places simply decide it’s all a ploy and stay at home.
135 - definitely. I think some Labour people have been seduced by the polls. My simple belief is that many people won’t start even properly thinking about what they think until after an election is called. The media narrative is what’s driving various polls at the moment. That might change.
130-Blue Moon- seriously hospitals are not great places to be in- more dangerous than being a US Iraqi translator in Baghdad- so well done Mr Matlock for still being with us now.
128-Peter from Putney- the Guardian editorials are somewhat perplexing at the minute- in keeping with the Guardian’s independent spirit. Unthinkable that Brown can pull back now.
So to coin a phrase-
let’s ave it 2007.
Will Cameron’s tenure be longer than either Howards or IDS’s presuming that he will fall on his sword on November 2nd ?
I made the point earlier that people shouldn’t pay any attention to the various polls on whether people want an election because they don’t make any sense. As everyone says they think Gordon’s going to win, the only people who should logically want an election so early into the parliament are those who think that the Tories will be smashed and actively want to see that happen.
137 - I think you’re confusing the Guardian with the Observer. Two very distinctive newspapers (remember the Observer supported the Iraq war).
Talk of 1970 and Mr Matlock just can’t stay away! A very pleasant surprise to see you back and I’d add my voice to those wishing you a speedy recovery.
It seems to me that those cautioning an early election are doing so administratively (electoral rolls, dark evenings etc.) while those going for it are thinking politically (poll leads, economic uncertainty on horizon, beatable oppositions.) Hard to say which will win the day (although Peter O at 134 - noted!) but if I was PM I think it would take more than an out of date canvas sheet to stop me if my instinct was to go for it.
134-Peter O- I am convinced the decision has been made- the announcement will be a week on Tuesday, or even a week on Thursday- although by next week we will all be under no doubt that the decision is coming.
Who would have thought it- the UK holding a national election before Oz?
134 - Free money available if you’re that confident.
I would like to welcome AHM back, but last time I did he was nasty to me. ): Welcome back anyway!
Haselhurst would be a remarkably good speaker. As would AHM, I have no doubt. But on the LD benches I think that David Heath (if he holds his seat) or Sir Robert Smith would relish it too. Or Sarah Teather….?
137- Alex- the Guardian has also been playing the moral high ground with an unnecessary election- Brown’s get out clause, but I think it has all gone too far now for any kind of get out.
142 - Indeed. I’m not normally a betting man but I have backed this.
127/137 - glad you both appear to have picked up on the key phrase of the election!
Remember everyone: ‘Ave it 07!’
PS Con red hot certs now following positive Camo statement on election. Cameron = 50 maj
137 - I think that the Conservative Party must break itself of this beastly (recent) habit of eating its leaders at the first sign of adversity. Even in the bear pit environment that is British politics, you cannot expect people to grow into a role if you are ready to sack them at the drop of a hat. The only scenario in which I would push for Cameron to go would be if the Party suffered significant losses (ie: ten or more seats net) - which I don’t think is very likely. Otherwise we should take the view that even a losing campaign is likely to burnish Cameron’s skill and leave him placed all the better to fight the next one. Yet another leadership contest takes us back to square one.
Tyson. I was thinking of the danger of post operative infections. My father got one after a hip replacement in the US and it was a very long miserable business getting rid of it, I can tell you.
Just speculating now but would be genuinely interested in views- assuming the polls are correct and Brown is returned with an increased majority- what happens to Cameron?
Do you think he may try and form a new party if the Tories are four time losers, still flatlining in the polls, and scratching around 200 MP’s?
Re 25: “The Conservative conference has got off to a great start with positive TV coverage of Cameron and an excellent, “barnstorming” speech from Hague, with his attacks on Brown’s mendacity atracting much media interest”
Quote from Sky News Active: “Silent Start to Conference” (reporting the lack of microphone sound)
Quote from BBC News Interactive: “Warsi denies pandering to BNP”
Not the universal glowing tribute you make it out to be
Glad to see you hale and and hearty, AHM.
If there hadn’t been so many much moaning about Cameron’s dircton over the summer, it’s possible that Brown would be frightened off an election now. But that’s water under the bridge; the one good thing about an election threat is that it means a united and disciplined Conservative conference.
140 - Thanks, tpfkar.
143 - I wasn’t in very good humour that day, I’m afraid - though I can’t remember why. Apologies. WRT the Speakership, I’m afraid I shall have to insist on Haselhurst. If you Lib Dems play ball during the coming hung Parliament perhaps we may reconsider…
New thread
147 May I also welcome the back BBBB … Buckinghamshire’s Beastly Beaconsfield Bruiser ….. and hope he is successful in repelling the leftist hordes down there !!
Felicitations mi Lord.
132 - I thought Monmouthshire was in Englend - apart from a little matter of Local Government convenience
147- you answered my question while I was slowly writing my post.
I do genuinely think though that the Tories would not be in this position had they gone for DD in 2005. The party miscalculated the public mood- and did not understand how hated Blair was, and how despised Howard was.
DD- has conviction, substance, is not a public school boy, is an alpha male, great hair too boot- and I think Brown has proved this week that a traditional authoritarian populist agenda fits well with the public mood. And people also want tax cuts. Shame- with DD Brown would not have dared toying with an election. Cameron simply presents too much of a soft target.
154 - Thank you, Jack. No cause for alarm - we’ve been diverting the hordes successfully to Slough for years now. How else do you think we manage to keep our property values up?
156 - My respect for David Davis has grown immeasurably since the leadership contest and I think he has conducted himself with impeccable loyalty as one of David Cameron’s chief lieutenants. I did not, however, feel that he was the right man for the job in 2005 and nothing has yet happened to convince me that my judgement was incorrect.
143 Funds would have to be found for an extra cushion on the Speakers Chair were it Teather………
An election in the next few weeks is likely to be fatal for Sarah Teather.
160 Yup
Sarah Teather as Speaker? Jesus wept. Sir Russell Johnston would have been good, but he left the House ten years ago. Richard Sheperd would be excellent, as he would defend the rights of the House. Haselhurst or Lord would be good as well.
Re. 155, indeed, not so long ago people referred to ‘Wales and Monmouthshire’.
162 It would be a shame to deprive the house (and the country for that matter) of Richard Shepherd’s ability to give speeches, not least on the subject of ID Cards.