Can we believe the Guardian’s hustings poll?
November 23rd, 2007
Is Huhne really 20% ahead?
In the absence of any proper polling of Lib Dem party members anybody wanting to have a punt on the leadership election has almost no hard evidence on which to make their choice. The Guardian, however, reports on a survey it carried out on Wednesday night amongst 200 members it questioned at a hustings meeting in Cambridge.
The outcome was certainly encouraging for the former Guardian journalist and now party environment spokesman, Chris Huhne. This found 40% saying Huhne, 20% saying Clegg, and the balance being undecided or preferring not to say.
But Guardian hustings polls have a record of getting it terribly terribly wrong as we saw during the 2006 race.
But also carrying out the same exercise at the same meeting was the other paper that Chris Huhne used to work for - the Independent. It spoke to 100 people and its survey overwhelmingly pointed to a victory for Ming Campbell. The acting leader had 51 giving him their first preference with 31 to Simon Hughes and just 18 to Chris Huhne.
In no way could any of these surveys be described as a proper poll. The samples cannot be said to be representative and those prepared to turn out at a meeting on a cold November evening are more likely to be activists.
Being fair the Guardian is aware of the dangers and does note “Up to 300 members attended the event and of those who spoke to the Guardian, 85 backed Huhne, 42 backed Clegg and 83 did not express a preference. The figures need to be treated with caution: the east of England is a strong area for Huhne and some believe he boasts more support among activists - the sort of people who attend such debates - than armchair members, who form the majority of the 65,000-strong electorate.”
It’s understood that a proper members poll is being carried out by YouGov. We do not know whether this is a public poll or, indeed, if we will ever see the results.
On Betfair Clegg is at 0.39/1 with Huhne at 9/4.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
test
You really shouldn’t encourage her.
Of course he isnt…..
To be fair Mike, the Graun’s piece did not claim that Huhne was 20% ahead, merely that he is doing well with activists. But I think that their piece hit unwittingly on a small point that might be of relevance to the final outcome. That is that this time the support of MPs may be a hinderance, rather than a positive for Clegg’s team. In the Campbell election there was extreme pressure from the upper echelons of the party to vote for Campbell, despite some pretty ropey performances compared to either of his rivals. In the aftermath of the Kennedy debacle, many of the members seemed to content to fall in behind the establishment - a most unLibDem trait. And to many, there may be an inkling that following the ‘establishment figure’ got them nowhere last time, and maybe it is time to revert to type and go for the ‘outsider’.
As someone who was part of the Guardian sample at the 2006 meeting, this probably isn’t all that significant from a betting pov because it was badly wrong before.
But Huhne will enjoy the bragging rights over this (in fact you could almost suggest that doing a straw poll at the Cambridge hustings was designed to show Huhne ahead….) and it’s a useful bit of momentum as the ballot papers go out.
By the way Mike, will the new leader get a slot in the pb.c masthead? I can appreciate why the last one didn’t, but fresh start and all that?
5 Thanks tpfkar.
The result is moderately interesting.
Common sense suggests that as there’s little difference between the two candidates, you would expect a close result.
Re 6. The answer is yes. The plan is to include the new leader in the PBC masthead whether it be Clegg or Huhne.
The answer to Mike’s question is to ask a different question (given that he answers it towards the end of his piece with the caveats in the indented paragraph and the one before). That question is “to what extent can we believe the Guardian’s hustings poll? Because even if its somewhere near to the real picture in the country, there’s value in the Huhne price.
Unscientific pointers have been indicating that the contest would be closer than the odds suggest - anecdote from party members reported on blogs and in the media, the performance in the debates, Clegg’s failure to take any sort of hold on the race - but is this noise with or without meaning? And where does this sounding (I’m not calling it a ‘poll’) fit into the picture?
My guess, uninformed by anything other than the media, is that it’s probably very tight at the moment and if either candidate can land a big hit today or over the weekend, that could be decisive (weren’t the ballot papers scheduleed to go out about now?). After that, I wouldn’t like to call it whatever happens between the candidates, but Clegg’s odds still looks far too short to me and Huhne’s well too long.
Mike you said it hstings are not a representative sample.Those attending are activists and they tend to be the more radical end of the party.Nevertheless a 2:1 lead is impressive for Huhne and remember that they also have a higher propensity to vote.
I think that non activist mebers are more likley to go for Clegg as they get the media message that Clegg is the favourite.Non activists are more numerous but less likely to vote.
I will stick my neck- out a close result but Huhne will win!
Rogerh
I saw Clegg being interviewed on something the other day. He looked pathetic and reminded me of my opinion of David Cameron (i.e the worst Conservative Party leader since Edward Heath). I’ve already got to the stage of groaning automatically when he comes on the screen.
Plenty of room on the ballot paper to write in “Vince Cable X”.
Juat saying….
There’s definitely something going on with YouGov as part of a survey I did last night asked me who I was going to vote for, who I thought would make a better PM and who I think should be the Lib Dem leader.
Problem is that it sounds like a survey to everyone, not just LD members (though I am, alas, one of the latter).
I was asked on Yougov whether I was a Lib Dem member after I had answered the questions on Clegg / Huhne, so they will have an amongst Lib Dem members figure.
I think a new masthead is long overdue. Those eyes are a bit creepy.
The caveat that the Guardian doesn’t give is that the MP for Cambridge is a strong backer of Huhne.
Well two votes for Huhne were posted off from our household yesterday
O/T (I can’t get worked up about the LD leadership; both men IMO have proved themselves deeply unimpressive in this contest, I’m glad Cable’s not running) - the Guardian story on Northern Rock is the scariest thing out there today.
If I read it correctly, it states that NR doesn’t even *own* half its mortgage book, which has already been hived off.
What therefore remains to repay the taxpayer?
Have New Labour just wasted more on NR than any fiscal disaster in our history? Have they poured more than the entire schools budget down the drain?
18- The market is not reacting well (around -10% again for NRK).
16 - indeed!
I received my ballot papers earlier this week. One element that hasn’t yet been commented on is the literature sent out with it, and a glossy leaflet from both candidates just before this which has imo confused things a bit.
Clegg’s campaign has been based on being (and I quote) ‘a liberal, a thinker, and a plain speaker.’ But I found the glossy leaflet such a complex and dull read I gave up on it. The sheet sent out with the ballot paper cleverly quotes Steve Webb & Simon Hughes - see what he did there? - and reads like a decent focus leaflet.
Huhne’s glossy on the other hand is very clear and to the point, but it seems lightweight, with several named MP contributors who say a fairly standard 3 sentences about Huhne’s background. The ballot leaflet is very similar - in fact there is a far clearer branding and consistency to Huhne’s literature, and it feels like a new direction/style, challenging those who say that Huhne is dull.
Still can’t make my mind up between the two, but I’m now going back up to 65/35 for Clegg on who will win - I’m not convinced that Huhne is getting the traction his hustings performances sound like they deserve.
18 - The Economist (world-famous for its socialist tendencies) is now advocating nationalization of NRK !
Posted on the last thread I woke even earlier than Mike!:
“Tories Out Gunned by Liberal Democrats” Says former Conservative candidate Iain Dale in Telegraph
http://tinyurl.com/2d2ggk
“Since David Cameron became leader, he has tried to avoid the European issue dominating political debate. …..
But he has been outgunned by the Lib Dems, who have refused to offer a referendum on the treaty and instead have said there should be a referendum on EU membership itself, to settle the issue once and for all.”
Well, well, well -Iain Dale supporting the Liberal Democrats -I know Cameron is looking like the Steve McClaren of politics with his failure to score against a side as weak as Brown’s Labour Party but…
The tragedy for the Lib dems is that neither will be the leader they wish. Kennedy won’t run and Cable who has put in a fantastic performance over the last few weeks will continue to shine in the future. Who ever wins out of Huhne and Clegg will be a shadow to these two lights.
….and last nights by elections sound good for the Lib Dems - Labour polling 15 in one behind UKIP’s 40.
Yes, we must nationalise NRK but the trouble is NRK has half the asset base we assumed. Billions of taxpayers’ money will end up written off.
It’s an epic disaster. Wars have cost less.
14 - oops, yes you’re right Henry. I just wonder if there are lots of people who lie and say they are LD members in order to influence the survey results.
The Lib Dem leadership race hasn’t really focused on what many commentators said it ought to - “What is the overall direction of the Party?” Over many years, the economic approach of the Lib Dems (and the old Liberal Party) has been one of the most contested features of party ideology (Orange Book versus the others is only the latest incarnation of that struggle.) Chris Huhne has, I think unsuccessfully tried to tarnish Nick Clegg with “being a supporter of education vouchers”, but that apart, economics does not seem to have featured.
To this radical, it seems strange that at a time when the tenets of Thatcherite economics are unpopular generally, that there are not those prepared to argue harder for a new approach - especially in an avowedly radical party. It is the absence of a candidate who can or will do that which disappoints, not the absence of Vince Cable, whi I agree, is doing agood job in difficult circumstances as Acting Leader.
Has there been any discussion of the Newsnight debate between the two? I thought that Huhne came over much better - Clegg reminded me more of salesman than a leader! I am biased, as I’ve had my money on Huhne since the start!
BTW is there a betting market anywhere for what bad news will hit the government (or chancellor) today?!! Given the rate of news discovery this week, it could be turned into a real-time price index - the Darling Scale.
25 - I’m not sure it changes much. I think most of us had assumed that the bulk of NRs corporate borrowing was secured against its assets, and would be senior to (at the very least) the £11bn second tranche of lending from the BoE. If one were being prudent, one would be assuming a large chunk of that £11bn would prove difficult to recover.
The real question is what the true value of the assets underpinning the secured element of the BoE loan is now. I remain unconvinced that nationalisation would be the best way of slavaging value from this disaster.
At the hustings I attended when CK won the leadership, Hughes was a clear favorite at the meeting and even more so after the meeting as he was very impressive. In fact I was aware of those attending who went out and campaigned for him who had no intention of doing so prior to the meeting. I heard similar stories from elsewhere. Clearly though the armchair members out number the activists that attend the meeting by a significant factor.
Good point at 14. YouGov will have real data. I responded yesterday to the poll with a ‘Don’t know’ as I haven’t a clue who to vote for. Not that is going to worry anyone as going back all the way to Pardoe/Steel I have a 100% record of failing to vote for the winner - can’t believe I voted for Beith over Ashdown!
29 - sorry, “salvaging”. Although on second thoughts…
forgive me going off topic but flicking through last nights messages I saw this addressed to me;
“Let me say that I hold Roger in the deepest contempt for this sort of comment, perhaps he should go off to his favourite country France and live there so he can avoid the old buffers. I for one do not want his sort in our country. He is one of the people who have caused the ruin of this country. As one of the “old buffers” said tonight”
Itb was in reply to my criticism of the orchestrated personal attack on the Prime Minister by the ex heads of the armed forces which I thought then was squirm-worthy. I had pictured them gathering behind the bike sheds (now known as Whites) to prepare this ‘coup’ and a sad little coven they made.
Nonetheless ‘Fitaloon’ seems like a passionate person and he’s married to the admirable ChrisD so I’d like to apologize for so clearly offending him.
31 - well, Gordon loses us 11 billion is a hell of a headline. Thus far they have refused to admit taxpayers money will be lost.
We know it, Joe Public doesn’t.
Now Joe Public may find out. And if Cameron is feeling inspired, maybe some Tory ads pointing out how many schools, hospitals, post offices eleven billion quid provides!
Forest Heath DC Manor ward was a shock LibDem gain from Conservatives LibDem 281 Con 211 UKIP 32 - May result Con unopposed
24. The Lib-Dems are very strong in local by-elections in the South. Particularly Hampshire, where they have a very strong Huhne/Gidley/Oaten activist base. Past experience would suggest not to get too excited about these highly isolated and unrepresentative results.
Besides, I hear the old fogeys who won control of Winchester DC for us Tories in May are already c*cking it up. These oldies do irritate me. So stuck in their ways and unwilling to take decisions. They could do more to harm the chances of a Conservative Gain in the next election than good!
What’s really needed is a by-election in a Lab/Con marginal. That would be THE business.
Happy to take one in Winchester due to bottling out, not anybody dying!
35 Indeed the performance of my local govt Tories Horsham is far from a great advert for a Tory govt (shudder the thought).
Darling, the hero of the North-east, who braved the worst of savage conditions in order to rescue those poor souls clinging onto a northern rock. For this, Darling received the plaudits of the nation.
Depictions of Grace mid-rescue began to adorn trinkets, tea-caddies, plates, postcards and chocolate boxes, enabling Darling’s story to pervade households across the country. Locks of hair were requested, portrait painters had to be fought off…
Sadly for Alas Darling, this was Grace in 1838. Can’t see history repeating itself.
33 The Weekend media will do that free if charge, with ‘analysis’ of an incredible week:
-NR
-Qinetiq
-Discgate
-misleading parliament
-Army brass being open at last
-and extension of 28 days detention without trial attacked by DPP and Labour AG
-HIPs
-PSBR
-Yougov
And it is only Friday morning.
31
I don’t think the Guardian article contains much new news. The Granite offshore stuff is old. The delinquency figures are new.. but not surprising to anyone who posts or reads here (except Gabble
..
There will be provision sfor bad debts and I can’t see £11B of mortages going belly up all at once… (otherwise we are looking at 15% unemplyment, GDP -5% and a a widescale recession on the syle of the early 1930s)
So yes the taxpayer is exposed, yes Darling has lied (so what’s new?) and yes there may be some losses to the taxpayer but to suggest it is in the scale of £11B is just sheer extreme ramping rubbish.. and destroys the case.
If you said £1 to £2 billion it is believable…
And I write as no friend or supporter of Labour.
The big danger for Huhne is that some armchair members will have been put off him by the “Calamity Clegg” affair. However it is not a problem for me as I prefer his robust, streetfighting approach to the more laid back Cameron-lite Clegg. My Huhne vote is in the post.
Re 27 Huhne has shown far more willingness to tackle economic issues than Clegg who takes the approach of several modern politicians that the political debate has moved on from the economy. The fact Clegg is no economist (unlike Huhne) is also a factor I guess. Huhne and Cable (if the latter remains the economic spokesman) would be a formidable team to tackle Brown and the hapless Darling.
See Iain Dale is advocating an in-out referendum on the EU, to be Tory Party policy at the next election. Brown should get there first, and hold it next May, along with a referendum in Scotland on the Union, lance two boils at once.
http://tinyurl.com/3dmuan
42
i agree about Brown’s tactics. Imo he would win both votes. But as he is damaged goods and as he has no political courage, forget it. He will not risk it imo.
“The plan is to include the new leader in the PBC masthead whether it be Clegg or Huhne”
Shame, I think the current one sums up the state of play pretty well - a straight choice in the electorate’s mind between the Dour Scot and the Fresh New Start. The LDs are an irrelevant side show frankly, as their poll ratings demonstrate - two party politics has returned. Although if Labour carry on as they are, it could become a one horse race.
If you are going to include the LDs, Mike (and it’s your site, and you’re an LD), perhaps you might include the relevant bod at half the size of GB/DC and on the outer peripherary of the left of the masthead?
He’ll be there, but nobody will notice. That would, at least, be accurate.
43
Tragically I think your right, but desperate times, demand desperate action.
listening to Lord Boyce and Des Browne on the Today programme then they can’t both be telling the truth, and it was again completely pathetic that Browne was blaming many of hte problems encountered now on the previous Tory administration. Is that going to be the main plank of the next Labour manifesto - it’s not our fault blame the previous lot?
40. £11bn is over the top - but it could easily be more than £2-3bn if the BoE finds it hard to shift the mortgage assets at a decent price. The necessary haircut on these needs to be taken into account as well as possible bad debts.
The BoE - and by extension the taxpayer - really shouldn’t be exposed to these risks.
42 what would turnout be for a pointless vote like this? Why bother voting NO when no party would take any notice even if the public voted to leave?
40 - you misunderstand - I don’t think anyone is suggesting that £11bn of mortgages are likely to go belly up. That isn’t the issue. The question is how NR repays its corporate borrowing (including the BoE loans) as it falls due. If it can’t raise funds from the market to roll these over, it either has to default (bad, particularly if assets are secured at a discount), or sell chunks of its asset base to realise funds (bad right now, because an emergency sale will generate substantially less than they’re currently valued at on the balance sheet, particularly since most of the high quality part of its book will be secured by other charges - it would cause £bns of losses, which would hit the unsecured creditors, amongst others the BoE).
The one advantage to nationalising the company would be that the government would be providing public funds to replace NRs borrowing, allowing them to avoid the fire-sale scenario - but at the cost of even greater public exposure.
46 - “it’s not our fault blame the previous lot”
That’s been the Brown strategy since July hasn’t it?
The “previous lot”, though, being Blair and his cronies.
44 And the straight choice in Burnley will be between Labour who hold the seat and the Conservatives who came a distant 4th at the last GE and in this year’s local elections in Burnley . Think you need a reality check , Bob .
47
Yes £2-£B is possible and yes I agree we should not be where we are.. but we are here. I will be amazed - and delighted - and the first to congratulate Darling - IF the BOE clear NRK with less than a loss of £500million… cos he’s in a buyer’s market.
Of course the shareholders would lose it all.. but that’s life as a shareholder.
48 A binding referendum would mean summit. hence Gordon not doing it… sets a predent of letting the voters realise the politicians should be our servants .. and that would never do.
50- Blaming Blair’s government and his incompetent Chancellor, what a clever strategy!
If things are going down the drain for Labour this could be one of the Lib Dem’s best chances for many years. Despite all this talk about everyone heading for the centre ground the opposite has actually happened.
The Tories with their IHT stuff are just the same old fayre and Brown’s illiberal Labour party are giving Michael Howard a run for his money.
Enter Clegg! A genuine centrist who will remind voters of Blair before the Dr Strangelove years when he was genuinely liked. I’m certainly interested to hear what he’s got to say and I think the country is crying out for an alternative that isn’t Tory.
44 Dream on Bob! The long-term trend indicates that the era of two party politics is well and truly over, no matter what might be suggested by odd polls. And I say this coming from Lab, not LD. I think Huhne would be a much better choice (for reasons already stated above). The next election represents an opportunity for the LDs to increase their number of sets, not just defend what they’ve got. Basically there will be an unpopular/discredited govt and no great enthususiam for the main opposition party, so if the LDs can get their act together …
Would anyone disagree with the summary that Huhne would win back more votes for the LDs from Labour while Clegg would win more back from the Cons ?
Seems to have been a pretty good night for the Lib Dems in last nights local by-elections!
I think that the leadership election is going to be really quite close. I would certainly say that the Huhne price versus Clegg does not reflect what I am hearing. I would say that after the CK exit and the problems that resulted, there is a mood to make a point to the bulk of the Parliamentary party. The insurgent campaign might even get lucky.
53
The Defence Cheifs tended to blur one of the key issues. They want new toys: trident, 2 aircraft carriers , new transport planes, new helicopters etc etc.
I other words act out the status quo despite the fact the Cold War is 17 years dead.
About time a proper review decided our priorities cos money for the Armed Forces is NOT endless especially when an incompetent Chancellor and his boss are rapidly running out of money with PSBR going through the roof.
57- What would be more realistic prices then? 4/5 and 5/4 ?
56 Harry, tend to agree that Huhne would focus more on Labour votes and Clegg on Conservative. The votes that are “softer” and more easy to attract are going to be Labour and ex-Labour non voters.
Brown hasn’t yet shown a courageous side so I doubt he’ll do the clever thing and have an ‘in-out’ referendum. The Tories can’t afford to because half their party would be voting for ‘out’! This could be a serious opening for Clegg’s Liberals. It might have enormous support and give the new leader a real shot of publicity. This treaty referendum hasn’t generated any interest because no one understands it or believes it’ll make the slightest difference to anyones life.
58
Can anyone point to anytime in our history, when the armed forces ever said to any government, ‘We’re really happy with all our kit, thanks very much, we don’t need any thing else’ I don’t think so!
The obvious solution, to remove the obligation to buy British, allow the armed forces to buy their kit from anywhere in the world. As with anything else, buy on merit, not on nationality.
Also realise that the Army, should now get priority, the Navy and the Airforce are only there as support services for the Army. Navy and Airforce equipment should therefore reflect that.
Listening to various Labour MP’s defending MOD policy on the media this morning it became very clear what the weakness at the heart of everything they do. The core of their defence is, “we have spent this much..” “we have increased spending by this much..” Its Brown’s favourite rebuttal in PMQ’s as well.
Dont they realise that these days no one is really interested in the fact that they are spending money..We all, to our significant cost and frustration, know how much of the nations wealth they are “spending”. I’d give them an A-plus for “spending”.
What the country is increasingly much more interested in and what it is desparate to hear from this bunch of polytechnic social science teachers and social oddities is what on earth are you spending our billions on and with what results?
OT Jeff Randall sounds an extremely gloomy note on the economy and lambasts Brown in today’s Telegraph:
“One City veteran said to me this week: “These are the worst conditions I’ve known for 30 years. This does not feel like the stock-market crash of 1987, not even the currency chaos of 1997. It feels like the 1970s - a big one.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/11/23/ccjeff123.xml
It appears that even the left-wing New Statesman are now refering to the wretched PM as “Calamity Brown”.
63
What the country is increasingly much more interested in and what it is desparate to hear from this bunch of polytechnic social science teachers and social oddities is what on earth are you spending our billions on and with what results?
As opposed to second rate PR men who worked for third rate TV companies.
51 - sorry Mark, I hadn’t realised that Burnley was the crucial seat that could determine the next GE! I don’t think anyone in Burnley had realised that either.
As regards that seat, you do realise that the Tories have always come second there before - a young(er) Anne Widdecombe came within 700 votes of stealing it from Labour in 1983 (a different world I accept) - and that a botched Tory decision on candidate selection and a very unusual campaign last time with two high profile local independents (so-called) and a better than expected performance from the BNP, now withering away locally, completely put the cat among the pigeons. The LDs look in local elections because the Tories don’t field candidates in every ward, the LDs do. Since 2005, the Libs are running the local council (with support from the Tories) and not getting a particularly good press for doing so. The leader (and LD PPC) is not getting rave reviews judging by my local paper’s letters page and is a Blackburn Rovers fan to boot (this matters locally…!).
I actually think Labour will hold the seat next time, but the Tories should reclaim their rightful second spot - particularly given the near 10 point leap in ratings nationally.
Woger, before leaving for PLanet Zog, remember you posted that NR would diappear from view and that no one would be interested in two missing CDs.
As someone who earns £6,000 a day for doing very little, I suspect that you would be interested if your financial full details were “posted” and then lost.
Of course if this is of no importance you could flag up your name, address, bank account numbers etc etc here for all to see.
Yesterday you said that the Service Chiefs could not run a “cake shop”. Presumably Brown and Darling can?
What is important and tragic is that people are dying. Soldiers are dying in battles started by your hero Blair, the one you once described as a Giant. Dying because they have substandard or inadequate equipment. All because Broon prefers to spend money on Deborah Mattinson’s focus groups.
I realise that these soldiers are probably ordinary people, without four house, no favourite restaurant in the South of France and that they may even know where Barnet is. Very different to you, sipping coffee in Covent Garden and reading the Guardian
In short fly off to Planet Zog, I suspect that itis better there. France will think that you are as stupid as we do.
66 - that should have read “The LDs look to do better in local elections…”
65. Part time Defence minister = half hearted support of the armed forces.
Can you imagine having a part time Health secretary ?
Broon has finished new Labour - there will be no forth term. GE 2010 will be a bloodbath.
O/T but John Loony asked “39 and 113 et al. If the people of Zimbabwe prefer Smith to Mugabe then how come Mugabe has been consistently and repeatedly re-elected? ”
In much the same way as Eric Honeker, Enver Hoxha, Saddam Hussein, Kim Il Sung etc were repeatedly re-elected.
67 “France will think that you are as stupid as we do. ”
If you must speak, P&K, speak for yourself.
Less of the ‘we’, please.
63
Neither party has a coherent, workable and defensible Defence Policy.
We are trying to act like a mini World Power.. with a reducing budget.. It’s not sustainable.
The economy can’t afford it .. AND all the other commitments on social policy etc..
Instead of hard decisions, we end up continuing all policies…and ending up with fiascos like helicopters that cannot fly in bad weather cos of cost cutting etc..
I cannot see any politcians standing up and saying “we need to make hard choices. Raise income tax by 1p and get new aircraft carriers or not. Or cut unemployment benefit. or pensions.. ete”
…..and Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. Crap electoral systems!
65
You’ve been posting some reasonably astute stuff this last couple of days but that one was just weak. Crass even.
Sean at 70 passes over the election of Leader of the UK Labour Party, where the rules ensured that no one could actually oppose the supreme leader. That is also out of the Mugabe book of democracy
HF. Don’t agree. Why would a Tory be attracted to Clegg if he is a Cameron clone as some suggest? Clegg reminds me a lot of Blair so I imagine those who mourn his passing might well be attracted to Clegg. Huhne reminds me of a provincial accountant so I doubt he’ll appeal to anyone.
69: If they start eating humble pie by the spadeload they might still get away with it, but this ‘we’re always right’ attitude isn’t winning them friends.
71- and less pretence of what “France” will think, please
71 I agree with Pot and Kettle and I’m sure I’m far from being the only one around here. Roger’s defence of the government and attempts to dismiss the latest major setbacks is becoming increasingly bizarre and suggests someone who has lost touch with reality.
Blimey!! You don’t think our Rog is Calamity Brown himself do you?
Woger usually posts for the nation. However, I am the second poster to suggest he will not be missed elsewhere, and his increasingly risible posts usually get a chorus of derision.
At 61 Woger refers to the EU Constitution in the terms that “no one understands it” In short he claims to speak for everyone.
12: Yes, I mischievously suggested a write-in campaign to Vince last week after the Politics Show bust-up. He wasn’t tempted!
Generally poor Tory by-elections last night among those reported so far - two LD gains from them, and they failed to take the only Labour seat up for grabs. Because of all the Tory triumphalism here I’ve been more one-sided in my own interpretations than I like to be, but isn’t it objectively a bit striking that the Tories aren’t profiting more from all this stuff? Their 40-43 rating is good but not moving, and they’re still behind in the competence ratings. If people think the Government is shaky and the Opposition unimpressive, potentially a real opportunity for the new LD leader.
74
Gosh! just thought that was a reasonable response. Let me remind you, I don’t do sides, if I’m not happy with the present government, (after all GB cost me money when he backed out of the GE) I’m no happier with the thought of DC and his crowd taking over.
In fact I’m thinking of starting, B.B.T. (Bring Back Tone) you know where you were with ‘Tone’ you may not have liked him, but where you were, you knew: could catch on!
Anyone else worried by THIS:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22808891-601,00.html
Guys - please reassure me that Labor will win (never thought I’d say that?!?!) in Oz.
I’ve got £100 to lose I can ill afford if the coalition pull it off at the last minute
Am I worrying unnecessarily???
79 But if ‘we’ wish to take issue with Roger, ‘we’ can do it ourselves. We don’t need somebody to do it on our behalf.
That’s the point I’m making.
Meanwhile, interesting news from the Lib-Tory coalition in Denmark…probably no poll on the constitution, but a poll to approve joining the Euro!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/23/weu123.xml
‘I agree with Pot and Kettle’. This surely ends any argument about whether or not Voxpop is a creature.
85: ahem! On the treaty, I mean. I’m obviously socialising too much with seanT…
82
You’ve been beaten to it. I hear the BBT (Bring back Tone) campaign is already well underway amongst growing sections of the Labour Party!
Woger is actually a mixture. To create this persona he posts a lot about himeself, unfortunately he tends to forget what he has said.
He once referred to being at Millfield with a leading businessman, whom Woger naturally rubbished. This particular person was born in 1945, making him 62. Woger then got terribly upset when he was reminded that he must be about 60.
Well, he was either telling porkies about when he was at Millfield or cannot remember his age.
Woger could be Broon. After all Broon has probably never met an English person, or one he likes, and therefore has created Woger as the kind of English person Broon would like to be.
Woger also spends a lot of time asking if posters are other posters.
80 If it’s wrong for Roger to speak for others, why is it right for you P&K?
Anyway, the point is that if I want to criticise Roger, or anybody, I’ll do it for myself and don’t need you or anybody to do it for me.
83- Great! That would mean another cliffhanger election to follow on pb.com
81. “If people think the Government is shaky and the Opposition unimpressive, potentially a real opportunity for the new LD leader.”
I know you have been actively provoked to respond with fighting talk Nick, but this statement is pathetic.
You might have had a point in 2004/2005 - but not now.
Once we start to poll regularly at 45%+ it’s all over. That’s just another 3-4% swing - that’s all.
It’s only a matter of time..
81
Any chance of you joining B.B.T. (Bring Back Tone) Nick?
Also Iain Dale’s call for an in-out referendum on the EU, think Labour might back that idea, next May?
Be interesting to see which way DC would jump, in or out?
86 Can we assume from that that you agree with Roger then?
83. I thought they’re were near-certainties to win? C4 news last night carried an item about an underhand attempt by the Liberals to associate Labour with Islamic fundamntalism that has backfired disastrously.
Huhne
91. No it ain’t!! I thought there was no chance of me losing my £100!!
Does no wonder for my nerves..
O/T NIESR warns Rock could end hope of balanced Budget
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article3187167.ece
89 If I want to talk about Roger, or any of his comments, I will. I am not. I am talking about you, and your assumption that ‘we’ all joined you in ‘our’ condemnation.
You do not speak for ‘us’. It is unlikely you ever will.
Got it?
Sorry Hune is 2.96 on betfair now…
Bring Back Tony - yes please. Bring back a bloke who was so much of an electoral liability and hated that he had to replaced with the much more substantial, popular and honest Gordon Brown!
83 “Am I worrying unnecessarily???”
Yes, Casino Royale.
93 It would be pointless. If the government lost such a referendum, would they really pass legislation to withdraw from the EU?
83 Don’t bet money that you can’t afford to lose
100 That’s only on the buy side, Harry. It’s 3.45 on the lay. Huge gap. Illiquid market.
The 3/1 on Alistair Darling not be Chancellor by Xmas 2007 is looking very attractive.
I think we should send Darling a black plastic bin bag.
(to help him clean his desk out)
94 Sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t. His posts are always well-written, courteous, and are often entertaining as well as insightful. In short Roger’s contributions to the site are always worth reading, and it would be a big loss if you succeeded in your campaign to chase him off it.
100. Make that 2.7..
Come on someone - fill up the market - I fancy Huhne but at a better price than that pls..
100. Make that 2.7..
Come on someone - fill up the market - I fancy Huhne but at a better price than that pls..
106- More bad news for Darling : GDP growth revised down in Q3
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/23112007/325/gdp-growth-revised-q3.html
103 the right strategy for DC is to campaign for a referendum and let GB shred the remains of his reputation by forcing it through parliament. the way is then clear to campaign at the GE to repatriate powers from brussels. this will keep the party together and gtee the sceptic vote stays with the tories.
66 Bob , it was only the other day you was forecasting that the Labour MP in Burnley would be packing her bags , remind us to not take that sort of post from you seriously . There is no sign of any recovery in Conservative fortunes there , they even trailed the BNP in this year’s local elections .
On a general note , the reality is that in most parts of the country it is not a straight fight between Conservatives and Labour . In much of the rural South Labour is virtually extinct and the fight is between Conservatives and LibDems . In much ( but not all ) of the urban North the fight is between Labour and the LibDems . In Scotland there is also the SNP . The straight fight that you seem to yearn for may well apply in but only 1/3rd of all the Parliamentary seats and it may be your idea of democracy that the remaining 2/3rds of voters are of no consequence but it is not mine .
93
When the referendum is announced on both the EU and Scotland, it be made clear that it would be binding.
Just think if it were announced, this site would go into the stratosphere, it would certainly brighten up the long winter evenings.
107
My “campaign to chase him off it”…, you what? excuse me? come again? What “campaign” would that be. Disagreeing with another poster doesn’t constitute a “campaign to chase him off” FFS.
Some people round here have a tendency to get a little over-sensitive IMO.
102. Peter the Prophet.
Seeing as your word is as good as the word of the Lord on these matters, I will worry no longer!!!
Should I bet on any Oz constituency results??
Please lead us, oh great one!
111
Party leaders would have to campaign in or out, Labour/Libdems would be in, which way would the Tories go?
114. I’m afraid when you second P&K’s instruction that he ‘fly off to Planet Zog’ (See 71 and 79) that is what you are doing.
97&102 View it as a betting opportunity CR ….and where is Alexander when you need him?
104:
“BAAAARRRYYYY!!!!”
Please leave out the smug moral advice - my house is not going to be repossessed if I lose. I’d just rather not lose £100 this close to Christmas on what I thought was a dead cert.
Capiche?
116 the tories would simply ignore the idiotic and pointless vote, as would the public. Unfortunately the government has no credibility with the public and they would KNOW a NO vote would be ignored.
81. You will remember well where the Conservatives were just 8 weeks ago. Numerous articles, ‘experts’, politicians and bloggers commenting that the Conservatives were finished and unelectable.
We even had the master of the mistimed speech Mr Kinnock bragging inappropriately that it was time to grind the Tories into the dust. In fact for that matter consider the position of the Conservative party for the last 15 years!
Now consider where they are today, the fact that they are consistently polling over 40%, have opened a 9 point gap over Labour and have either drawn level or are ahead of Labour on competence is a truly stunning achievement (helped of course by truly stunning incompetence from Brown et co.
Where you and many commentators are absolutely spot on is in reminding us that none of this matters until a GE and that much could change. However, as a starting base this is an astonishingly good position for the Conservatives and as was shown by teh polls post Black Wedensday, the true impact of Labour’s 8 week horror show will probably not be felt until next year.
The correct result for the Conwy BC result yesterday was as follows LibDem gain from Conservative LibDem 548 Con 517 Ind 80 BNP 61 Green 36 . The result posted on here last night indicating a very big BNP vote was clearly a spoof .
Previous byelection 2006 Con 716 LibDem 479
2004 result Con 1003/751/739 Plaid 760 Ind 502/337 Lab 344
Strangely Plaid seem to have given up here .
120
The government would make it clear, that the decision would be binding and final. The government should also announce. that if the country went against its advice, (in on both) a GE would be immediately called. Which way would the Tories go, in-or-out?
123 but back in the real world nobody would believe the government. After months of being labelled a traitor in the press for reneging on a manifesto promise for a treaty ref not one person would take him seriously. in/out = cheap political stunt and we all know how well they have been working lately!
115 Casino
My Australian spies reconfirmed only this morning that Labor will win.
There has been a poll suggesting the result could be close and that has impacted the markets. It’s hard to tell how significant it is. I’m inclined to dismiss a one-off, so close to the election when all the others have shown a clear Labor win. Nevertheless I closed out my gamble on Bennelong, just to be on the safe side.
I left open some small bets on Forde, Leichardt, Ryan, McPherson and Wentworth.
The spies have promised to text me if there are any interesting further developments and have asked me to post promptly on this Site any news they pass on. Naturally I will be pleased to do so.
124
Humour me, the Tories which way would DC go in-or-out?
Your copping out for the simple reason, its the one thing that DC would hate to have to decide, all the wounds would re-open.
Brown of course, won’t do it anyway, he’s incapable of twisting on 17, TB on the otherhand!
118 PfP
Alexander is busy trying to get Howard reelected, but rest assured that he is thinking of us and will convey any important information promptly.
My post at 125 refers.
Re 109: Sid will still oblige - Huhne still 5/2 at Hills
In 2006 I attended the LibDem hustings and was polled. The Guardian pollster was Sir Michael White himself.
PA reports:
Liberal Democrats are celebrating a by-election bounce during their leadership battle after taking two council seats from Tories.
Their candidate Timothy Huggan won at Manor, Forest Heath District, Suffolk, where Conservatives were unopposed in May.
The second gain came at Rhiw, Conwy County Borough, north Wales, where Trevor Stott triumphed in the ward’s third by-election in less than four years.
Liberal Democrats also scored a landslide victory to defend a previously knife-edge marginal at Norfolk County Council’s Aylsham division where the previous contest was on the same day as the last general election.
The Lib Dem revival, after their gloom leading up to the resignation of Sir Menzies Campbell as leader, is bad news for the Tories’ David Cameron in what was otherwise a good week for him.
His hopes of making it to Downing Street depend crucially on making progress against Liberal Democrats as well as Labour.
There were too few comparable contests to indicate how Labour support has stood up in the face of crises over Northern Rock and the data loss debacle and England’s exit from Euro 2008.
There was a swing to the Tories at Rossendale Borough, Lancashire, where they lost three seats on the same day in September.
RESULTS:
Carmarthenshire County - Llandybie: Ind 496, Lab 337, Plaid Cymru 310, C 52, Ind 49. (May 2007 - Two seats Ind 881, Lab 747, Plaid Cymru 584, 516). Ind hold. Swing 3.4% Lab to Plaid Cymru.
Conwy County Borough - Rhiw: Lib Dem 548, C 513, Ind 80, BNP 61, Green 36. (June 2004 - Three seats C 1003, Plaid Cymru 760, C 751, 739, Ind 502, Lab 344, Ind 337; August 2005 by-election - C 658, Lib Dem 209, Plaid Cymru 147; March 2006 by-election - C 716, Lib Dem 479). Lib Dem gain from C.
Forest Heath - Manor: Lib Dem 281, C 211, Ukip 32. (May 2007 - C unopposed). Lib Dem gain from C.
Norfolk County - Aylesham: Lib Dem 1696, C 854, Lab 177, Ukip 71. (May 2005 - Lib Dem 1862, C 1833, Lab 1279). Lib Dem hold. Swing 14.8% C to Lib Dem.
Rossendale Borough - Hareholme: Lab 591, C 520. (May 2007 - Two seats Lab 713, 693, C 626, 560, Lib Dem 206). Lab hold. Swing 0.4% Lab to C.
Wellingborough Borough - West: C 363, Lib Dem 149, Lab 38. (May 2007 - C 426, Ind 206, Green 106). C hold.
Winchester City - Wickham: Lib Dem 630, C 349, Ukip 40, Lab 15. (May 2007 - Lib Dem 809, C 484, Lab 31). Lib Dem hold. Swing 1.3% C to Lib Dem.
126 They would choose to stay in
” reads like a decent focus leaflet ”
What? - full of bullsh*t and opportunism?
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
125. “My Australian spies”, “The spies have promised to text me”
Love it
Are they hiding in the ballot boxes?
Anyway, surely in your case, it they should be; “My Representatives on Earth”
5/2 Huhne with Blue Square is the best price on offer and even allows a small arb with Betfair.
133 You are too kind, Casino, and exaggerate my powers.
It is true however that I do move in mysterious ways.
Really I’m pleased to hear it, so how about J.Redwood esq, and those Mp’s who belong to B.O.O. would they follow suit?
136 answer to 131
136 you asked to be humoured! and as for TB. that would be the bloke who promised a referendum and then reneged on it. some credibility he has.
128/134 Goupillon/John L
Thanks for that. I took £50 worth. Didn’t want to overcommit. It’s a difficult election to call, for all the reasons given on this Site by numerous posters.
107,
I agree its risible that Pot and Kettle and vox pop chase Roger.
Get a life, and at be prepared to at least listen to a different view to your own, without being totaly derisory and contemptuous.
There is no doubt you are in the ascendancy.
However a bit like the reaction to GB at the moment on a person level people might start to think personal attacks can be over the top.
Going back to Benedict’s 225 on the previous thread:
The point is that the CEO of an organisation is assumed to be competent and aware of his duties (in this case a minister or PM) and assumed to have ensured that such serious duties data protection have been looked after by a person competent to do the job, viewing such reports as necessary. In that sense it is the fault of government.
The key is the relationship between a minister, and the actual head of a standalone agency/department or the permanent secretary. The latter are the clear analogues of a CEO, with responsibility for administration and executive tasks - with the minister being responsible for policy-related decisions and for setting the remits within which the head of the agency/department works. The line can be fairly diffuse - as various crises since the 1995 Howard/Lewis situation demonstrate.
This doesn’t absolve ministers from responsibility: when a crisis like this occurs, then you question whether the Chancellor’s instructions to Paul Gray led directly to the situation; or whether the government’s reactions genuinely protect the people at risk, and seek to correct the errors of the HMRC, rather than simply covering their own hides. But I don’t think, at this level, you can treat any minister as the ultimate executive in charge, unless there’s a clear reason to suspect direct ministerial involvment. That leads to wider problems, such as accentuating the trend of centralisation, and greater manipulation of the civil service for partisan ends.
Sorry, Goupillon @ 128: didn’t see your post. Yes, Hills also 5/2.
It’s all cracking off in Derby:-
http://tinyurl.com/35z92x
114 Voxpop
In case you were unaware, P&K has conducted over a very long period an obsessive campaign against Roger, a kind of unpleasant cyber-stalking.
Do you really want to be associated with it?
138
You’d be surprised how the hot breath of the electorate on a politician’s collar can change attitudes.
The fact that an in-out referendum is being mooted by such as Mr Dale means its in the, ‘trap’ we await the starting gun.
127 Thanks PtP. Do you think this is worth a top-up bet at Labor’s current odds of 1.38, compared with 1.28 recently. There seems little doubt that Labor will win the popular vote, but the seat distribution is another thing - it’s a bit like the UK in this respect only in reverse.
114. etc. If Roger just posted inane drivel he wouldn’t attract the hostile attention that he does. But Roger has in the past also engaged in plenty of bullying and abuse of other posters - while frequently moaning about ‘falling standards of discussion’ (always it seems when Labour is struggling, I wonder why?)
In addition, there is a strong suspicion, as P&K suggests, that some of the biographical details/anecdotes he posts may not be entirely accurate - which makes his endless complaints about posters using pseudonyms a bit rich.
145 On a personal level I would vote to “renegotiate” taking us back to the free trade area we joined but alas I will never get that vote.
146 Yes, in all honesty I do think it’s worth a top-up at 1.38. I did so this morning but I’m now up to £1k and that’s as exposed as I want to be on this election.
I think Labor are safe and value at 2/5, but you can never be entirely sure.
Last news from the bunker:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=9604
From the Guardian report - this is dynamite.
Mortgage loans of over 90% of the purchase price of a house have soared to £16bn, from £2.7bn, in the space of three years.
· Loans have exceeded the value of the property on nearly 2,500 mortgages, with a value of £263m. Three years ago, the figure was just £13m on 158 properties.
· 10,000 Northern Rock customers are a month or more in arrears on their mortgages, on loans worth nearly £1.2bn. At the end of 2003, there were only 2,500 in the same difficulties, with mortgages worth £168.8m.
· In 2003 Northern Rock repossessed 80 properties. Last year more than 1,000 properties were repossessed. By the end of September this year 912 properties had already been repossessed.
147 Fair enough, Simon S, and Roger can address these criticisms should he so wish. My point was that P&K did not speak for us all, and should not talk as if he did.
His relentlessness stalking of Roger is another matter. I presume you do not defend it?
Btw, I don’t recognise the name. New poster?
149. “but you can never be entirely sure”
Peter, you’re right - *we* can’t, but you can!!
I will take your advice and top-up when I get home; assuming the odds are still good.
In for a penny, in for a pound, eh??
If Clegg wins and the Lib Dems make a big play of requesting a referendum on in or out of Europe especially if they have a chance of deciding who is the next government.
Then I think they will be back in the game big time.
A lot of people for one election would lend them their vote myself included.
136,154 The vote would be a sham. However, I would hope Cameron would campaign for a No vote, treating it as a vote of No Confidence in the government’s EU policy.
153 LOL!
Well, you’ve got to bet according to the size of your purse and don’t go beyond your comfort zone. I’ve stopped at £1k. I’m convinced the odds are good and that the Coalition’s chances are no more than about 10%, but it is an Australian election, Howard has made some remarkable recoveries in the past, and we’re not exactly close to the action here.
I wouldn’t be comfortable going beyond my present commitment, even at these favorable odds.
151 Mortgage loans of over 90% of the purchase price of a house have soared to £16bn, from £2.7bn, in the space of three years.
Considered in isolation, these figures appear somewhat alarming, but taking an average time span of 18 months, the value of residential property has increased by at least 15% over this period, which would have the effect of reducing the Loan: Value ratio from 90% to 78%. Still high but manageable unless there is a sharp decline in house prices, as has happened in the US.
The Government’s ability to recover the £24 Billion injected into NRK depends very largely on the future direction of house prices, which has to be a major concern.
148. Out of interest, why do you favour the free movement of capital but not of labour?
158 we can have as much movement of labour as we need, doesnt mean we have to give away control of it.
In Australia, I get the feeling that Labor haven’t been sure-footed at key points in the campaign - and there’s a bit of “better the devil you know” movement among voters, as there often is in the last few days of a campaign with a long-serving government. It’s probably not decisive, but it could make a difference in a couple of seats that looked like unlikely Labor gains.
Who the hell is “The Mole” anyway?
157. I wonder whether the kind of properties those loans were extended on would really be able to be sold at anything like +15% of their purchase price even in normal conditions. In a distress sale situation, definitely not.
The Guardian poll cannot be taken as a serious indicator of the result.
BUT what the various hustings and You Gov polls got right last time was that Huhne was doing much better than the media and higher echelons of the party thought.
My expectation is that Clegg is ahead - because of the impact of the parliamentary support and media - but not by a huge margin.
153 CR - You should be aware that PtP stuck to his guns on there being no GE this year and ultimately he was proved correct. But this didn’t prevent him from undertaking an in-depth study of the his road atlas to assess the best route from London to Beachy Head.
157
If HIPS and the credit slowdown mean that house sales slow to a trickle, it is possible
prices rise(!) as what demand there is exceeds supply
or
prices collpase as no-one buys.
I suspect many sellers view HIPS as a tax … personally I would ignore it as a buyer - so it may slow down the market and accentuate falls…
157. But the govt. will only benefit from that increase in prices if they own, or have claim on, those assets.
My worry is HMG hands over NR cheaply to someone else who will benefit exclusively from future gains.
46 pathetic that Browne was blaming many of hte problems encountered now on the previous Tory administration.
The Previous Government was Labour.
Having a part time defence minister is clear meant to be an insult. It says, Defence isnt important enough.
The Part Time Defence minister is an insult on top of the other insults, slashing defence spending during war time, slashing manpower during wartime, closing the Military Hospitals etc, ad infinitum..
Was it Gordon Brown who said “The Military is second in line to be taken down a peg or two after the Monarchy”?
160: For the first time during the campaign the Coalition are in ‘could win’ territory which will at least make things interesting. We now have two polls (NewsPoll and Galaxy) which put the Coalition in a winning position if the votes fall in the right place.
I have a feeling it is too little, too late but we’ll see.
167. It’s a remark he will live to regret.
164 LOL, PfP!
It’s true, and it all got a bit scary. The denouement turned was complicated and somewhat anti-climactic. I’ll tell you what happened, but not now. Got to get ready for racing.
Toodle pip!
163. A poll of 100 people has a Margin of Error of almost 10%, and that’s assuming a random sample, which a regional hustings clearly isn’t…
A completely pointless, worthless excercise….
re 130 on the face of it, an awful set of by-election results for the Tories. Theories?
172 - I think it takes time for any change in the mood to feed through to local byes (for instance, the Brown bounce seemed to last a week or two longer than the polls suggested). In addition, with so many councils being Conservative, local issues are likely to play against incumbents - and gaining extra ground on election results that are already good can be pretty difficult. Labour, too, might still be doing slightly better at getting their core vote out under Brown, even while they are losing switchers.
Interesting…the old adage about don’t leave the room or you’ll be talked about is true! Thanks to PtP, Dez and John B for your support. It’s always difficult to defend yourself from personal attack without sounding childish and though it’s generally water off a ducks back when directed at me I also find it irritating when directed at others.
I’ve never found Voxpop to be other than a sometimes interesting strongly partisan poster so I’m surprised he finds my similar posts so offensive? P+K I don’t generally read because he only exists to stalk me so no point in giving him encouragement. Like PtP I’m also unfamiliar with Simon though I seem to be his specialist subject!
But to to answer his question I have never knowingly said anything untrue on this site. If one of JC Bamford’s son’s was born in 1945 then the one I went to school with must have been his younger brother who would have been born I reckon about 1952.
But, of course, LD recovery in the locals is the main story - and that’s naturally down to the leadership contest. While it hasn’t been a brilliant advert for the LDs, it’s killed leadership stories for the time being. The LDs are also benefiting from Labour’s collapse in non-urban southern districts.
174
Roger, just got back from walking the dogs to find your post.
Let me assure you that I do not find your posts “offensive” whatsoever, and I certainly do not want to “chase ” you off the site, whatever some of the drama queens on this site may allege.
I suspect they underestimate your ability to withstand robust challenges and it’s become clear to me that you have a much broader back than they give you credit for.
Please keep posting. I welcome your posts. Your increasingly bizarre and, at times, surreal attempts to dismiss the governments growing problems demonstrate the very real and damaging mess they now find themselves in
I note that Northern Rock are still advertising 125% mortgages: http://www.northernrock.co.uk/mortgages/together.asp
One can only presume that Brown/Darling and the Treasury approve of loans like this…
175 - Local elections are very much about enthusiasm and morale. I suspect the leadership election has reenthused a chunk of Lib Dems who were unenthused by Ming and the drip drip of negative media coverage about his age.
177
Taxpayer backed 125% sub-prime mortgages eh? It looks like the last desperate thrashing about to save the rapidly failing housing market.
I see the BBA is reporting October mortgage lending is 37% down on last year. House price slump on the way alongside the credit crunch? 2008 is going to be bloody
Am I bovered?
Who cares whether it’s “Buff” or “Calamity” !
Bring back Charles or bite the bullet and go your separate ways to Labour or the Tories.
178: True - just as Conservative underperformance in the summer and early autumn was partly explained by disillousioned activists not getting the vote out.
There has been a slump in the number of mortgages being approved for home buyers by UK banks.
The British Bankers Association (BBA) said that in October its members lent 44,105 mortgages for house purchase.
That was 19% fewer than in September, and 37% down on October 2006 when more than 70,000 mortgages were lent.
The figures suggest that the housing market is about to go through a significant slowdown due to high prices and higher borrowing costs.
“October’s data provide evidence of a rapidly slowing mortgage market and of consumers limiting their personal borrowing,” the BBA’s director of statistics, David Dooks, said.
“Pressure on household finances, the cumulative impact of interest rate rises over the last year, the expanded application of home information packs and the consequential impact of the credit crunch may well all have a part to play in suppressing current demand and supply,” he added.
Dramatic fall
Last month also saw a big fall in approvals for remortgaging - where people sit still but change their mortgage deals - and for equity withdrawal, where homeowners borrow more against the increased value of their homes.
182
Article on reduction in Mortgage deals.
http://www.charcol.co.uk/knowledge-resources/ray-boulgers-blog/article/view/key-facts-about-the-reduction-in-the-number-of-deals/1377/
During the last few days considerable media interest has focussed on a press release from Moneyfacts pointing out that a consequence of the credit crunch is that there has been a reduction of 40% in the number of mortgage products on offer over the last few months. Like so many statistics this comes in the category of “true but misleading.”
Despite the sub prime market accounting for only 9% of new mortgage business last year (probably less now) because of the huge number of combinations available in the adverse credit market in respect of the number and size of County Court Judgements, amount of mortgage arrears, amount of unsecured credit arrears, etc there were, until very recently, more different adverse credit mortgages than mainstream deals. Also many of the sub prime lenders offer most of their deals on a self cert basis in exchange for an additional 0.25% on the rate and this alone nearly doubles the number of different deals available from some lenders.
Thus, as the Moneyfacts press release goes on to point out, the reduction in the number of mainstream deals is only 15%, whilst the reduction in the number of sub prime deals is well over 50%. The reduction in the number of sub prime Buy-to-Let deals is even greater, over 70%, but this is a tiny sector of the market and so this reduction is of little consequence, although it provides a headline grabbing statistic.
For the majority of borrowers the 15% reduction in the number of deals on offer obviously means there is less choice, but most of these reductions are concentrated in a few lenders, with HBOS Group companies being a prime example, and the more important point is how competitive the deals still on offer are.
Building Societies had an all time record inflow of funds last month, as they benefited from savings withdrawn from Northern Rock and many borrowers with large savings spread their funds around by depositing £35,000 with a number of lenders once they became aware of the compensation scheme limits. Thus some building societies are fairly flush with funds, whilst some banks, which generally rely much more on the wholesale money markets for their funding, are either unable, or unwilling, to increase their lending.
The cost of fixed rate mortgages has fallen over the last couple of months because swap rates have dropped, as the market anticipates the next move in Bank Rate will be down, possibly as early as next month. Therefore, although the shortage of liquidity means that lenders have been able to increase margins and fewer deals are available, the actual cost of fixed rate mortgages has still fallen, which is perhaps the more important point for most borrowers.
Borrowers still have plenty of choice, although some lenders are giving less than their normal notice when pulling deals, and getting good independent advice is even more important than usual in a market where deals and criteria are changing rapidly.
183. All very well but even given the drop in 2-year swaps in recent months, millions of people are going to have to remortgage at substantially higher rates over the next year as the cheap 2-year fixed deals they are currently on expire.
The size of the rate ’shock’ these people face has been reduced a little by recent swap rate moves, but it will still be very large.
Re the banner again, is it just me or does Gordon with each successive day increasingly appear to have beads of sweat running down his forehead and cheek?
Re “who Roger is”, I used to think it may be Gordon Brown, but I don’t think he’s IT-savvy enough to know how to switch on an internet. I now think it’s New Labour cheerleader Tim Hames from The Times. Both have a similar writing style, a loathing of Tories, and a “Comical Ali” refusal to accept reality.
112 - Mark S. I didn’t realise you took my posts so seriously that you are keeping notes. Posting here is only a bit of fun for me. Thankfully!
182, 183. Could HIPS in fact turn out to be a godsend for the housing market?
Say the demand for housing falls due to a shortage of money but is matched by a fall in the number of homes on the market due to HIPS this could help support the market?
Sure, the number of sales will fall (bad news for estate agents, oh dear) but could a short term supply shortage actually help support prices 2008?
186
Very likely imo.
185 Bob - There’s no mystery. He’s a well-known film-maker who specialises in ads. I’d have thought you would have known that.
You can look him up on Google if you’re interested.
188. Really? what’s his surname?
186. It will also annoy growing families who need to move, but don’t want to shell out a grand for a useless document. Should be worth a fair few votes as they kick in next year.
188 - any suggested search terms?
Other than “Roger”, “filmmaker” and “New Labour cheerleader”?
186
It’s the withdrawal of cheap,easy credit that will do for the housing market. If would-be-buyers can’t borrow the money to pay bubble prices then the bubble will burst.
It was cheap, easy credit, largely from the carry trade, that inflated the bubble and it’s the disappearance of that easy credit that will burst it.
It’s all down to what can be borrowed. HIPS, stamp duty, etc are minor side issues.
If Huhne wins, could the LibDems split? There are three stakeholders (to use the modern jargon) for a political party: the MPs, the activists and the wider group of voting supporters in the electorate. Have the support of all three and the leader is sitting pretty. If you have only one, like Duncan Smith, you are in for a bumpy ride.
Clegg, we know, has the MPs sown up. If Huhne has the activists on his side, I see trouble ahead. The two main parties have at least the prospect of power to glue them together. Look how fractious the Tories became in September during the Brown bounce. If you were an ‘Orange booker’ in a party led by Huhne why would you want to stay. I don’t think many would defect. More are likely to just give up and make a career elsewhere or take a sinecure in a Brown guango.
191 Bob
I think I’m right in saying that he’s given it out on Site, but as I’m not absolutely sure, I won’t, just in case he hasn’t and doesn’t want to.
Ask him. I’m sure he’ll tell you.
He came to one of the early PB parties, so he’s plainly not one of those shy about revealing his identity.
Slow news day.. we need a good scandal!
Or a poll…
194. The only person who has admitted to actually meeting Roger is Mike…
163. Very true, and where the poll would have been useful was in another circumstance with a third candidate and establishing whether they were having any impact on the campaign.
I imagine it will be very close - MPs may be siding with Clegg but the members most likely to vote know Huhne.
Of the party membership perhaps 22,000 votes come from the South East region for wich Huhne used to be MEP for. Clegg’s euro-constituency (East Midlands) has nothing like a similar number, and nor does it when combined with Yorkshire and Humber, or even with the North East on top of that.
Is there any point in HIPS, except for creating another group of voters (i.e. the HIPS inspectors)with a vested interest in keeping this particular government in power?
199
That is a rhetorical question ?
193 you clearly know very little about LibDem activists . The supposition you make is wrong and the premiss it is based on fallacious .
186. Most people selling a property will also be buying another one. If you increase costs for the sellers then you will take money out of the housing market and depress prices further. A really stupid thing to do in the current climate of uncertainly.
Yes, I think there is, Disraeli (199). If you are thinking of buying a house, it is surely useful to you as a purchaser to receive a dossier of information about it. And it is pretty inefficient if each prospective purchaser forks out to get give precisely the same information, when it could be done just the once.
The people who have a vested interest in denigrating HIPS are surveyors and lawyers. As far as I can see, HIPS can only help the buying and selling of properties.
197 He sent me a couple of emails, Curious, because he was going to come to the last PB party. He even paid, but he was held up on his way back from France and couldn’t make it.
By the way, we’re organising another party in January. Will you be coming? I’m curious to meet you.
202. So the big question is, why are they doing it?
The only problem with the scenario of Tory speculators Fernando and Obsequi is that most Liberal Democrats would be absolutely delighted to have either Chris Huhne or Nick Clegg as leader of the party. Both are excellent.
This is why so many party members are undecided, even now. It is a very difficult choice.
But I certainly cannot image anybody deciding to leave or split the party because of the election of one candidate or the other. That is pure Tory fantasy land. Very sorry for you both.
203
Anyoe who releis on the HIPS information on a house is asking for trouble. So the work is repeated…
Why? Cos if YOUR surveyor or solicitor go wrong, You have them to blame.
If the HIPS is wrong… oh dear….
I am as yet undecided.
As to this poll, complete and utter bowl axe as the Grauniad’s own article states. Armchair members don’t attend hustings, and the SE is a Huhne stronghold.
208- Long time since your last post!
Jacqui Smith must be relived at the focus of attention this week. It seems like a lifetime ago but I am sure its only last week that she was desperately trying to spin her way out of yet another Labour cover up.
It seemed like that that was big at the time! Now it simply seems like an aperitif to the disasters of this week. Davey should remind Broon of it next week though he is now becoming spoilt for choice in questions with which to embarass McSporran. Maybe he should simply ask one.
“Given events of the last 8 weeks, Why don’t you do us all a favour (including yourself) and resign!”
A few days ago I had a dream in which I heard the words ‘John Howard squeaks back in with a small majority’. Not sure why I even remembered it but it’s so out of character for me to remember much about dreams, let alone have one referencing politics.
Should I take note and bet accordingly? Hmmm…….
The reason for HIPs is that nanny knows best.
Or its a good excuse to get more VAT (ie tax) off house sales.
193 - as an Orange Booker myself, I would have no problem with a Huhne win. After all, he did write for the Sacred Tome!
Tories tend to forget that Orange Bookers are Liberals, not Conservatives. I refer the Hon Gentleman to Hayek.
Last result from yesterday Dundee CC Lochee SNP hold . First pref votes
SNP 2005 48.9% + 1.8% Lab 1395 34.0% - 2.8% LibDem 435 10.6% + 3.9% Con 154 3.8% -1.4% Sol 57 1.3% - 1.6% SSP 55 1.3% + 0.1%
209 - I was abducted by a strange Scottish Noble and imprisoned in darkest Hertfordshire …
Guardian’s 2006 poll showed a Huhne win. They’ve got form!
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/story/0,,1717659,00.html?gusrc=rss
211 UKPaul
“Should I take note and bet accordingly? Hmmm…….”
Yes. With me. How much you want?
215- I think it’s better we never know what happened to you there!
re 81 Nick there you go repeating it again, it is still no more true. The Tories are not behind on economic confidence ratings, but rather neck and neck. Given the trend that’s not likely to be the case for long.
Dear All,
I was watching Question Time last night, and while the panel were discussing the LD Leadership election, someone in the audience asked the panel whether it really made any difference.
Apart from the well-worn hillarity of this being the one sentence that will incite apoplexy with my LD friends, I was genuinely surprised that none of the panel (not even Mr Aaronovitch, whose patience with ill-thought-out populism) countered this view as being absurd.
I think it likely that the LD polls will rise with a new leader, because they rise whenever the LDs get coverage. I don’t think they will reach the 22% peak of the Iraq War protests, but may stabilise at 17-18%. I think that, in spite of this, they will lose seats - that % range would mean roughly a 46-52 seat total based on 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections, maybe even fewer.
Conversely, this puts them in a more powerful position that they have ever been in, since the LD party founded. The odds on no overall majority are sat at around 2.52 on Betfair at the moment, better odds than a Labour or a Tory majority. For the first time in a long while, we are seriously looking at a Coalition Government, and thus for the first time in my life, the likelihood of senior LDs in Ministerial positions at Westminster. I may be wrong, but I think a LD total of 70+ seats would scare the bigger parties, and make them think about minority government. A fall in LD seats makes the party a more attractive Coalition partner, as it will have less clout with a smaller proportion of Gvt votes.
It is difficult to predict what the coalition settlement would be - what price Mr Huhne or Mr Clegg would put on their support. I think the long term interests of the party would be paramount, and I think it is in their interests to make an element of PR part of the deal (kudos to Mr Huhne for making this pledge so early on). That would provide some security for the party for the next 50 years.
More interesting for us gamblers is the probability of LDs in the Cabinet. Based on previous national/coalition gvts (and I accept the comparison is a poor one), I find it inconceivable that the LD leader would not be given a ‘big four’ job (Home, Justice, Foreign, Chancellor) in exchange for his support. Very few PMs would allow the Exchequer or the Foreign Office out of their complete control, so the likelihood would be that Home Affairs or Justice would be given the Huhne or Clegg in the event of a hung Parliament, whether in coalition with Labour or the Tories. Vince Cable and the leadership contest loser would probably get Chief Sec to Treasury or Europe Minister, but three proper jobs is probably the limit.
So, does this contest matter? Yes, but largely because it will elect the man that has a 6/4 chance of being in the Cabinet after the next election, and who will have more sway over Government policy than a LibDem has ever had. ID cards, Trident, and terrorist detention without charge would almost certainly be, if not re-decided, at least back on the table for gvt debate. This contest matters, even if (or perhaps especially if) they lose seats at the next GE.
Responses always welcome.
MORUS
re 105 well I hope that my lay of 3.05 has been mopped up in the process.
203. Buyers are sell having to pay for the information in these docuements. It’s 60 pages of useless information. It’s a terrible nanny idea and I’m glad we’re committed to getting rid of it.
According to wikipedia, opponents of HIPS also include:
- Council of Mortgage Lenders
- National Association of Estate Agents
- “Which?” magazine
- The Conservative Party
I would feel happier with HIPS if they were a result of cross-party agreement on how to tackle problems in the buying and selling of houses. Instead of that, the bullying solution of the Government is to introduce a dossier.
And we all know how reliable dossiers are.
“This house contains no traces of dry-rot or Weapons of Mass Destruction”
214. Did they bother doing the transfers?
Tabman @ 215.
You must be one of the few to escape in the past 104 years!
Nice try PtP but no thanks! It was really weird that this phrase popped up out of nowhere though.
213: Salma Hayek? Mmmmmmmm…..
Sorry, most people wouldn’t know Huhne or Clegg if they fell over them, and don’t care a fig either way. People don’t vote Lib Dem because of your leader, policies or anything like that, they vote Lib Dem as a non-tory non-Labour party. That’s it, simple as. Sorry.
203 - If the HIPs actually included a full survey, with the same legal recourse for the buyer that they would have had they commissioned their own, then it’s relatively easy to see the benefit - thousands of pounds are “wasted” on duplicate surveys on houses by alternative prospective buyers.
Similarly on local authority searches (although these tend not to be duplicated as frequently, since they take place later in the process). At least these have been retained.
Had the government actually stood up to the surveying industry over the first point, which was where the whole idea of the Bill came from, I would have had a lot of respect for them and a lot of time for the concept.
As it is, the Bill was gutted to only the searches and this energy performance nonsense, because it was too politically embarrassing to shelve it, and because it would have looked very bad to be sued by all these expensively-qualified energy assessors.
226- However, if Howard does a “Major 1992″ you can start a career as a prophet
226 LOL UKPaul!
Still, you mustn’t blame a bloke for trying to make a dishonest bob.
228
spot on imo.
220 Morus
Excellent post, and on behalf of all punters here, a big welcome to you.
Yes, you are absolutely right. I have argued regularly that the No Overall Majority price is generous, and it still is. I had not however perceived the point you make about Cabinet posts.
It is wholly logical, and I shall review the relevant markets with this in mind just as soon as the afternoon racing is finished.
Lochee by-election result in Dundee:-
SNP HOLD
SNP 2005 48.89% (+1.8%)
LAB 1395 34.02% (-2.8%)
LD 435 10.60% (+3.9%)
CON 154 3.76% (-1.4%)
SOL 57 1.39% (-1.6%)
SSP 55 1.34% (+0.1%)
SNP WIN ON THE FIFTH ROUND.
TURNOUT= 4101 29.24%
220
‘Conversely, this puts them in a more powerful position that they have ever been in, since the LD party founded. The odds on no overall majority are sat at around 2.52 on Betfair at the moment, better odds than a Labour or a Tory majority.’
What are the odds on a minority government?
As per the current situation in Scotland it seems that the SNP are doing very well.
Maybe Labour might want to hang on (after losing a 70 seat majority) and form a coalition with the Lib Dems if they are the largest party;for the Tories to have a coalition with the Lib Dems and concede PR would be turkeys voting for Christmas.
226 Yes, but maybe in France, Chris. Prophets not recognised in their own country.
O/T. Huckabee last matched on Betfair at 12.0 ie 11/1. Now 3rd favourite. Looks to be heading for single figure odds.
220/232 - thanks for that MORUS. However if you take the 6/4 N.O.M. as a starting point (which, to be fair, many of us don’t) then I don’t think that equates to 6/4 “Lib Dems in Cabinet” - there is clearly the possibility for minority government [with or without concessions to the LDs] or coalitions with other partners if just short (NI parties, Nats).
Given a hung Parliament, I would only put the chances of “Lib Dems in Cabinet” at about evens, so you’re actually looking at a double price of 4/1.
235- LOL
235. Did someone mention profits?
236
btw, noted yr comment last nite bout selling labour - pretty strong pb consensus on that
239 Yup…Gordon Brown is going to ban people from making profits in their own country.
Sell more Labour.
6/4 on an event which has never happened before is far too tight. Lab support likely to go further down. Con win 1997 is more likely than NOM.
232. Thank you, Peter.
Further to my previous post, if people are fans of the speculative cumulative bet, then consider that;
(a) Huhne is about 3.3 on Betfair to become LD leader, and most of us find that longer odds than we would expect.
(b) Unless to replace Darling as Chancellor (which he might refuse for fear of recession), Gordon Brown will simply not move Jack Straw. He is likely to stay in role until the GE. Betfair have Cabinet exit dates on the Foreign Sec, Home Sec, and Chancellor, but not on Justice!
So if you want a £10 value bet, ask your local family bookie for odds on Huhne as the next Justice Secretary. I would expect it to be much more likely than the odds you get offered! I know this is silly, but madcap predictions can be fun!
Morus
PS Hillary to become POTUS is up 0.7 to 49.0 on InTrade, whereas all other major candidates are down. She is hovering around 71.5 to be the Dem nominee! Sell now, before the LA Times publishes the scandalous exclusive it’s been sitting on for a few weeks. This price will crash…
242 Harry
Before you invest any more money on that proposition, do acquaint yourself with The Crosby Thesis. If you still believe 6/4 to be ‘far too tight’, fairy nuff, but I’d hate to see you go charging over the cliff without at least giving it some thought.
243 Noted with thanks, Morus.
I’ll get back to you.
244. Read it but think its flawed - the country doesn’t particularly like hung parliments or the Lib Dems so when its close so there is a “national gravity” away from a hung parliment outcome with FPTP.
Can I raise a non-political issue. I notice that the Oz Labor Party is spelt the American way. Are American spellings the norm in Australia? Is the American convention taking over everywhere?
243-
“Sell now, before the LA Times publishes the scandalous exclusive it’s been sitting on for a few weeks. This price will crash…”
Already some ramping on the US election!
237: Do you really think any party would really contemplate minority government at Westminster? I am sure Labour would not (too much history there), and I cannot see a new Tory administration being that keen on the idea at all. Better to make the concessions, and actually govern, surely?
242 - fair point, 6/4 is too generous, but I think evens in the event of a hung parliament (see 237) is perhaps too mean.
If the consensus is that 6/4 on hung parliament is generous, what is a more realistic price?
246 - and how does that work? How do people know which way to jump?
246 Fine, Harry. Off you go and match my offers!
[220] Hello MORUS- an interesting and thoughtful post, especially for us Lib Dems on this site. I think the scenario you put forward is realistic, but I would also add the caveat that from the political point of view it only works for the Lib Dems if the split between Labour and the Conservatives is such that neither can govern alone and that only the Lib Dems can choose which leader to put into number ten. So while a hung Parliament is a betting favourite (and the great guest piece a few months ago examining the odds on hung Parliaments I do commend to you) it has to be the *right* kind of hung Parliament.
In any event under certain circumstances a majority government could go to a party that polls only around a third of the vote (Reminding everyone that one of the most bizarre FPTP results was when Russell Johnston held Inverness with 26%, and Labour Conservative and the SNP were all within 2.5% of his vote). If the Lib Dems under the new leader do become more popular, then we can not exclude some strange effects from our whacky electoral system.
In other words, there are substantial threats to a betting position that does not try to price in those particular risks.
249 - I think the Tories, if say 10-20 seats short, would probably give it a go for a year or so before seeking a new mandate, and neither of the opposition parties would really be in a position to do much about it.
Not so sure about Labour though, a similar result would imply that they had been “rejected” (esp. the popular vote) and seeking to continue governing in those circumstances would risk a greater defeat further down the line.
250. If the election looks tight people are less likely to throw their vote away on “Others and Lib dems” unless its tactical to keep the “baddie” party out. In the same way turnout can rise and fall on a close result.
Why this Clegg v.Huhne debate? The way things could go in next couple of months, they could both lose their seats in the GE.Is there a precedent for a major UK party leader losing his seat? Perhaps they should vote for the MP for Orkneys. At least, John Major had the sense to have the largest majority in Parliament.
254 - Certainly some of the LD squeeze is due to the effect you suggest, though whether they get squeezed as much in seats where they are the incumbent is open to some doubt.
Nevertheless, even on a very pessimistic view of 30 seats for the LDs (and no Westminster improvement for the SNP), I think we are looking at 60+ non-Tory/Lab seats at the next election, which is substantially larger than at previous close elections. Realistically I would expect a block of about 80.
55. It probably makes more sense to have their leader in a marginal because being party leader probably gives you more votes and the LibDems may save a seat they would otherwise lose.
249
‘you really think any party would really contemplate minority government at Westminster? I am sure Labour would not (too much history there), and I cannot see a new Tory administration being that keen on the idea at all. Better to make the concessions, and actually govern, surely?’
Would the Lib Dems be prepared to bring down a minority government soon after a GE, might not go down that well with the electorate?
Would the Lib Dems,Labour or Tories have the funds to fight a second GE say within 12 months of a previous GE?
You really think it would be in the Tory’s interests to make a concession on PR?
255: Sveik - very good point. I think Allan Rogers of Rhondda had the biggest majority (about 30,000 and a 75% share in 1997! vs 18,000 for Major in Huntingdon), but your point is well made.
I reckon Clegg is safe with an 8,500 majority in Sheffield Hallam, but Huhne is extremely vulnerable with a majority of only 568 in Eastleigh, where UKIP polled 1600ish last time (votes that will now go Tory?).
For the record, Balfour and Asquith both lost their seats whilst leading the Conservative and Liberal parties respectively (1905 and 1918 elections)
Important consideration for all you LibDems before you send off your ballot papers…
Morus @ 249
That surely depends on the Lib Dems, and how flexible they want to be.
I can’t see either the Tories or Labour wanting STV for westminster elections - so if the Lib Dems insist on that, there’ll be no seat at the cabinet table for them.
The same goes for most of the rest of their manifesto - if they insist on x% of their policies being implemented, they’ll alienate their prospective partners long before a formal deal is ever done. A minority government will be formed, and the Lib Dems will be painted as villains if they cause it to fall within the first couple of years.
On the other hand, they could be pragmatic - pushing for input into 50% of policies, rather than getting sole control over 25%, say. Or settling for STV for local & euro elections, and a big role in deciding the fate of the upper house.
In that case, I could see them wielding much more influence than just sitting on the sidelines; and netting a couple of cabinet places would be tempting too!
Only slightly O/T I am getting the replies back from another big survey canvass we have done here and there is one particularly interesting trend in the results I’ve not seen before, which may be very relevant to the outcome of the next election given that this is a tight LIB/CON marginal.
Among the usual questions about VI we asked ‘who will you most likely vote for?’ and then below, ‘who would you most like to see form the next Government?’.
What I have been interested to see is a significant number of the declared LD voters saying they want to see a Tory Government - with a couple of people writing in comments like ‘for a change’.
Is this tactical unwind?
Seeing Cicero post just now reminded me of something.
I’m sure that he is too modest to plug it himself, but can I mention a current article relevant to the LibDem leadership from Cicero’s blog?
“The challenges that the next Liberal Democrat leader must address”
http://cicerossongs.blogspot.com
Very thoughtful and interesting, even to supporters of other parties like myself.
258 - you’re right in that I doubt that Clegg in particular would be prepared to bring down minority gvt (Huhne can be that ruthless, I’m reliably informed!).
No party has the funds to want a second GE, even if they could stretch to it, forcing the unpalletabe choice between minority gvt and coalition with the LDs.
‘You really think it would be in the Tory’s interests to make concession on PR?’
I’m not sure - playing Devil’s Advocate, the FPTP is skewed in quite an even handed way. I reckon there are more life-long Tories than equally loyal Labourites (certainly in England), but that the way constituencies are currently arranged, Labour can manage overall majority with as little as 35% share (see 2005) whilst the Tories need almost 40% to get an overall majority.
PR would definitely be good for the Lib Dems, and bad for the Tories and Labour, but I wonder if a Tory opportunist might gamble on the premise thet PR would be worse for Labour than for the Tories, and that by tacking to Liberal-Conservatism (of the Cameroon variety), they can force Labour back to the left that is their core vote (and therefore more important under PR). FPTP encourages parties to the centre, to win Worcester Woman or Modeo Man. PR forces you to play to your base, to make sure they turn out.
Not sure if I believe this, but this question will need to be asked if Huhne wins, and the polls stay roughly where they are.
249. I believe a spell of minority government might actually work. I don’t think it would last for the duration of a full parliament but I think *informal* arrangements between parties to pass legislation may go down OK with the public at large. The minority governing party (I’m thinking the Tories) is also likely to get a polling boost if it looks like it is governing reasonably. No party will want to bring down the government before the Queen’s Speech. The first budget of any Tory administration is unlikely to bring in *huge* changes so Labour would look opportunist to oppose it, and if the government falls on the budget it is likely to be returned.
Just look at Canada - the Tories have been in minority government there for just under a year and it seems to have gone much better than expected. What’s more, the Tories are ahead in the polls and seem to have had a reputation boost in government.
Two years as a minority government might be the thing the UK Tories need to demonstrate they are palatable to the electorate to govern with an absolute majority. Of course, the current polls suggest this may not even be an issue, however!
264. Should have read - “no party will want to bring down the government at the first Queen’s Speech.”
Why assume that if the Tories need coalition partners after the election they would chose the LibDems. A better choice would be the SNP. No need to give way on PR. Give the Scottish parliament more tax-raising powers and solve the Barnett problem. Let them have a referendum on Independence, which they would lose.
Also, the Tories are unlikely to win more than 3 or 4 seats in Scotland, even if they do well. The SNP could pick up 20 or so, many from the LibDems. Linking up with the SNP would give Cameron the legitimacy in Scotland he would otherwise lack.
No, it is not tactical unwind, Marcus (261) - because in Torbay the choice in front of the electors is Lib Dem or Tory.
As things stand at present, nobody in his right mind would want to see this Labour Government continue in office - unless suitably moderated by Liberal Democrats, or indeed by you Tories, if you should decide to go into a Grand Coalition (to keep the Lib Dems out, of course, as so often happens at the local government level).
I think, Marcus, you are being unduly influenced by the highly optimistic thinking of Charlie Windsor.
266. Would the DUP (and any UUP MPs) vote with the Tories?
I don’t know how willing the SNP would be to be seen to be propping up a Tory administration. Might hit their support in Scotland badly.
I doubt there will be a PR deal with the Lib Dems. The new minority government would probably challenge the Lib Dems to bring down the government and have another general election, during which the Lib Dems would likely be squeezed badly in order to return a majority government.
247. Spelling of Australian Labor Party - it’s not common usage, but long-standing (dates from before the 1st world war). Australian spelling in general is more like British than US spelling - colour, labour etc is the norm.
204 By the way, we’re organising another party in January.
This is excellent PtP, I’ve cleared the Diary!
Is this to celebrate Mike’s full time commitment to PB.com?
266 - Fernando
It is a sign of the topsy-turvy nature of politics that the Conservative & Unionist Party could even conceive of entering into Westminster Coalition with the Scottish Nationalist Party! The benefits are clear, but Cameron would anger many traditionalists.
Financial independence would be the likely demand from the SNP (easy to sell to the Tory faithful, who believe the Scots to be subsidised), and a new settlement on North Sea Oil & Gas revenues (will never, ever fly south of the border).
Obviously, this would only work in a near-majority parliament, as I don’t see the SNP making significant Westminster gains (people can afford to split-vote now there is devolution - Nationalist in Wales/Scotland, mainstream for Westminster is pretty common amongst friends of mine). Still, more likely than a Grand Tory-Labour coalition, methinks.
Lin 269.
Thanx.
Just how long can Alistair Darling cling on to power??
The Bank of England and the Treasury’s support for Northern Rock could “drive a coach and horses” through the public finances, according to Martin Weale, director of the respected National Institute for Economic and Social Research.
Mr Weale warned yesterday that the public sector’s exposure to Northern Rock has the potential to break the Treasury’s golden rules for the public finances. “It depends on how big the losses are: £2bn is the sort of sum that bounces around when the data are finalised, but if it were £20bn that would put a coach and horses through the idea of balancing the Budget over the economic cycle.”
That would happen if the stricken mortgage lender were to be broken up and the losses accrued as that process went on found their way on to the public sector current deficit, which is supposed to balance over a per-iod covering good years and bad.
The Chancellor has forecast a deficit of £8.3bn on the current budget for 2007/08 and forecast the total public sector net borrowing requirement will stand at £38bn for this financial year. The public finances are already in an enfeebled state due to the slowdown in the economy and they currently show the highest outturn for borrowing seen since Labour took power in 1997.
A failure at Northern Rock would also have disastrous effects on the total national debt, the low size of which has been one of the Government’s proudest boasts. “Should the Rock go bust with unpaid debts of £20bn, the Government’s aim to keep the nat-ional debt at 40 per cent of the national income would be broken quite easily,” Mr Weale said.
Gordon just sinks deeper and deeper as each day passes. IMO, NR is the determinent of Gordon’s future and, possibly, the financial future of our country for a generation or more. Our banking system is essentially insolvent.
Liberal leaders Samuel and Sinclair both lost their seats in 1935 and 1945 respectively. Thorpe came close to doing so in 1970. The SNP lost its leader Gordon Wilson in 1987. Labour lost its Deputy Leader George Brown in 1970.
A hung parliament will happen whether people like it or not, provided the gap between Lab and Con is not too large. It so happens that the range in which a HP could occur is significantly larger than ever before. It is an electoral “Grand Canyon”. Only a swing greater than any since the War (bar 1997) will prevent a HP. Throw in uncertainty about regional swings, boundary changes, LD incumbency and SNP performance, and the average elector will be completely powerless to prevent it.
Far from recoiling from the prospect of a HP, there is an equally sound argument that the electorate might welcome it, if it prevents an incompetent Labour administration from doing any further damage, yet does not give full power to a Conservative party led by untried neophytes….
263
I thought that every piece of research conducted on the effects of PR at Westminster universally agreed that the biggest loser would be the Tories.
Don’t be so pessimistic, Matt I (268). The Liberal Democrats are traditionally very good indeed at organising campaigns on a shoe string, so they could, if there were a second snap election, do very well out of it.
The general response that I have found on the doorstep in recent days is that Labour goes way beyond the bounds of reasonable incompetence (which is to be expected in any government), and the sooner we are rid of them the better.
But at the same time, there is NO ENTHUSIASM WHATSOEVER for the Tories. Instead, there is a resigned acceptance, that the Tories couldn’t be worse than Labour - which indeed would in itself be a considerable challenge for anybody.
A lot depends on how the next general election works out. Being an optimist, I think the Liberal Democrats are going to do quite well, and surprise all you Tory pessimists.
276. Forgive me if I don’t pour money on the Lib Dem’s seats total on the basis of that incisive analysis
Tressage, “nobody in his right mind would want to see this Labour Government continue in office” - isn’t what you are saying the polar opposite of what happened in 1997 and supporting my musings about a tactical unwind?
What will happen if all those voters who tactically voted LD to ‘keep the Tories out’ are replaced by people who tactically vote Tory (here) ‘to keep Labour out’?
275. I don’t think that would be necessarily true. I think the introduction of PR could cause splits in all parties that could attract enough support from over 50% of the political spectrum.
eg - Labour could probably split into a Social Democratic Party, a leftist party (merging with Respect?) and some could even conceivably join a one nation Tory party.
The Tories could split into One Nation and Free Liberal factions, and the Lib Dems might not even exist anymore, joining several of the new parties considering how much a broad church they are anyway. Then we have whatever impact the Greens, UKIP, BNP may make on the scene.
Think there’s a very strong argument that once PR is introduced, the party system in this country could become much more fluid.
274. You dont think that after another 2 years of this trainwreck of a PM that dissatisfaction with NuLab will have reached the mirror of 1997 ? Where is the good news coming from to haul them back ? Who are the darlings of the left that will rush to Gordo’s rescue ? Where is the economic upturn to sway his fortunes ? Do people yearn for Chris Huhne and his oppresive parking taxes to balance Gordo and his income taxes ? lol !
I wouldnt put stolen money on a hung parliment at 6/4. 6/1 and I might be interested.
Following up on my last post…
The divide between liberal and authoritarian is perhaps the most important feature of UK politics at the moment.
The Lib Dems are the only one of the major parties that is consistently on the same side of this debate. Okay, sure, they’re divided into pro- and anti- statist wings, but that’s of secondary importance.
I have sympathy for view, held by some Lib Dem activists, that it’s likely that the LDs will be in a position to win a general election at some stage over the next couple of decades. On the other hand, the shoddily authoritarian nature of the Brown government should be as good a trigger for an upswing in LD support as any - but no such surge is happening.
Forming a majority government therefore can’t be anything more than a long term aim. Yet it sometimes seems as if the party is obssessed with acting as a government-in-waiting.
Rather than formulate a huge set of perfectly-costed policies, complete with all the compromises and contradictions that that entails, surely it would be better to focus on a single, easy-to-articulate strategy.
Charles Kennedy had this with “no war in iraq”, and opposition to ID Cards / the database state could do the same in the near future, perhaps.
Pick a subject, back it up with a small selection of eye-catching policies (steal some of John Loony’s quirky-but-surprisingly-sensible ideas if you want the man in the street to talk about you), and then bang on about it on every interview, in every Focus leaflet, at every conference, and on every doorstep.
Which of Huhne or Clegg is more likely to lead the party away from obsessing about complex tax proposals that’ll never be implemented?
275. Only to the extent that it would prevent a Tory majority government(or any party, for that matter.) Had there been PR in 2005 the Tories would have finished up only 20 seats behind Labour, instead of 160 seats behind.
Politics is supposed to be “the Art of the possible”, yet paradoxically the major parties persist in an “All or nothing” strategy. I’ve never quite worked out why…
276
I agree partly.. but I think the current Gov’t are doing their level best to turn people off politicians altogether :
as total incompetents (well that’s expected)..
but liars as well (which is worse) and
100% untrustworthy (make a promise today, break it next year).
Frankly I cannot have any respect for any politician of any hue who lies and refuses to tell the truth ( by omission).
See Michael Howard with Paxman and prisons. After that interview I had no respect for him and the choice of him as leader showed how hopless the Conservatives were.
Bluntly I can see a market for a blunt speaking open and honest style of politics which tells it as it is.. warts an dall.
Given the likley economics next year it will be needed.
One thing is for sure, we will not get it from the current Government
Morus 271.
If you want to vote against Labour in Scotland what choice is there but the SNP? The Tories seem to be going nowhere in Scotland - except in the Southern Uplands. The Libdems were in coalition with Labour last time round. I can well imagine the SNP winning almost everything north of the Central Lowlands and a few seats even in the central belt, making a block of 20 or so.
284
Having seen Alexander on Newsnight last night I have to agree. if that’s the best of Scottish Labour MPs they have a real problem. The SNP speaker whose name I forget was very much more impressive.
281 - “Which of Huhne or Clegg is more likely to lead the party away from obsessing about complex tax proposals that’ll never be implemented? ”
Clegg. If you put it like that
284. Unlikely. The SNP on current polling are looking at no more than 5 gains at the next GE, probably less. They need to raise their vote share by more than 15% on 2005 to achieve electoral “lift-off.”
280 - get laying the 2.64 and 2.66 then
Rory “I have sympathy for view, held by some Lib Dem activists, that it’s likely that the LDs will be in a position to win a general election at some stage over the next couple of decades..”
I know blind optimism is a prerequisite for being a Lib Dem but this is ridiculous.
I think the Lib Dems are in the very unenviable position of being irrelevant to the current political debate; and unless their next leader leads them into a new pasture where there are some genuinely distinctive policy positions to take I am afraid their outlook at the next election is very bleak indeed.
280. I backed the Con majority down from 4s+ - when I cash out I might have a bit of that.
Morus@243: Would you referring to this rumour, by any chance?
http://tinyurl.com/22avea
Sounds pretty dubious to me, but even if it’s true, who’s to say Hillary couldn’t turn around and use it to her advantage? She could pledge to restore transparency to government by putting a webcam in the Oval Office and keep it transmitting on the internet 24 hours a day. That way voters could keep an eye on any potential hanky-panky between their new female Commander-in-chief and her numerous attractive, glamarous female aides.
284 “I can well imagine the SNP winning almost everything north of the Central Lowlands”
What? Including the Highlands? lib Dem wipe out/ You are Ave it 07 and I claim my five bawbees.
Marcus (289) - You are sounding more and more like Charlie Windsor, you know. Have you been taking lessons from him or what?
289. But, of course, not as bleak as your prospects in Torbay.
284 If you want to vote against Labour in Scotland what choice is there but the SNP?
If you dont want to vote the SNP (Socialist National Party) or Labour (Liar Party), you have choice.
The Conservative party (the next British Government) or the LDs (the Mouth & Trousers party).
Oh, Horse (294) - The Tories - by implication - without either mouth or trousers….. ?
Disgraceful….
Disgusting…..
274. I should have added, of course, that since 1997 many more people have experienced “hung parliaments” in miniature, be it at local council level, Scotland, Wales, and the London Assembly. I don’t think the prospect holds any terror for them whatsoever, or any incentive to prevent it from happening.
The media narrative will also prepare them psychologically for the outcome, and I think many people will say to themselves “So what? It can’t be any worse than what we’ve put up with for the past 10 years. Who knows - it might even be a bit better? The less power the bastards have - the less harm they can do…”
OK - TWO RESPONSES
291: I don’t even know which major candidate the LA Times has a scandalous exclusive on (I had seen the Huma Abedin rumours, but can’t open your link) - my point is that Hillary’s price on InTrade is so generous that even the *possibility* that she is the subject (and she is the only candidate I can see the LAT keeping quiet in fear for) means we should be selling. This meta-speculation is enough to dock that price, and I am sorry to say that it probably would be enough to cost her the Presidency.
275: I have just done some snap analysis, looking at General Elections from 1979-2005 inclusive, comparing Labour and the Conservatives on share of popular vote (%) vs number of seats (as % of total seats).
If a party won 35% of votes, but 51% of seats, their ‘FPTP bonus’ is 16%. I have compared these ‘FPTP bonuses’ from ‘79-2005.
Labour have managed ‘FPTP bonuses’ of 5.53 (1979), 5.16, 4.49, 7.23, 20.33, 22.01, and 19.87% (2005). Cumulatively, this means their share of seat exceeded their share of votes by 84.60% or an average of 12.07%.
Conservatives have had ‘FPTP bonuses’ of 9.57% (1979), 19.83, 15.74, 9.71, -5.62, -6.43, and 0.00% (2005). Cumulatively, this equals 42.79% over the period, or an average of 6.11%.
In the period, the ‘FPTP bonus’ for Labour was almost twice that of the Tories, and they never suffered (had a negative ‘bonus’). Therefore, I do not think it is fair to say that the Tories would suffer more than Labour under PR.
Obviously, all these ‘FPTP bonuses’ were at the expense of the LDs and smaller parties.
However, the real point I wanted to make, was even though the loss of the bonus would be ‘bad’ for the Tories as a big party, it would allow them to force Labour off the centre ground, making them less electable. By forcing them to play to their core vote (undiminished Cold Warriors and the Unions) for turnout, the Tories could reclaim the centre ground, without alienating their right-wing base.
If you have any links to show that PR would be worse for the Tories than for Labour, then I will gladly take a look, and if more scholarly efforts convince, I will happily retract!!
Respectfully,
Morus
287: Unless Tories (and others) vote tactically in seats where their own candidate hasn’t a hope.
295 The LDs famous for what they put in their mouth (whiskey) and/or whats going on in their trousers.
There’s a nice (!) description of Hilary there if you scroll down. If this rumour involves the part which references a Greek island, and is credible, I would say that in a US context she could not recover from that.
297 - I don’t think that argument can be justified as you are assuming that people would vote for the same party under PR as they do under FPTP.
Gordon Brown shows utter contempt for British Armed Forces.
Gordon Brown slashed defence spending during Wartime.
Anyone would think he represents the enemy.
300- Cretainly lethal but more than unlikely.
301 - That is a very fair point, and I recognise that ‘past performance is no guarantee of future performance’, which is why I would be happy to review statistical estimations of the effect of PR that do not rely on these past results, if anyone can provide?
Intuitively, I still believe that Labour would suffer more under PR than the Tories. The density of support across England in particular points shows that where the Tories have strong support, it is very strong. Labour have heartlands, but their move to the centre has meant that their biggest gains have been in swing constituencies, taking advantage of the FPTP system. The move to the centre is the correct strategy for a FPTP system. However, under PR, there is an incentive to get out the vote wherever it ilves. It is easier (and safer) to do this in the heartlands, and thus would see Labour move back to the left and north, abandoning the Middle Class Everyman voter. It would also incentivise Tories in safe Tory seats, who do not bother at present, to vote.
As I say, I am open to being proven completely wring on this, but at present, I have only historical data to support my hunch.
Can anyone help us with some authoritative report?
Why not have an elected House of Lords decided by PR, but leave the commons as FPTP?
If the Hilary story is true, then Republicans would rather the story came out(no pun intended) after she gets her probable nomination, ensuring Rudy 2I walked around the sreets on 9/11 a bit, so I am A LIVING GOD!!!” Guliani wins in 08!
Why not allow people to steal on Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays.
292 Augustus
Have sent you an email. Still the same address?
One could even theorise that Labour’s introduction of PR by installments since 1997 has been part of a strategic plan.
To soften the electorate up to accept coalition government in readiness for the day when instead of being soundly defeated (as they ordinarily would be at this point in the electoral cycle under FPTP), Labour carries on at the head of a coalition.
I have thought that this is the logical conclusion of the Granita deal in 1994. Gordon Brown did not simply agree to become a fag-end PM when he’s pushing 60. There had to be more to it. And the answer is a change to another electoral system, most likely AV.
It will be introduced under the guise of a panacea to solving all of the following problems….
The WLQ problem..
The turnout problem…
The legitimacy problem..
The wasted votes problem..
The tactical votes problem..
The unfairness to the LDs problem..
And the succinct answer to the question “Who benefits from PR?” is “A government who ordinarily would be thrown out by the electorate, led by a man who does not contemplate relinquishing office…”
297
Many thanks for such an informative reply.
Is Sean Fear doing a piece today? Why oh Why are the Conservatives making more progress?
I see the Conservative Scottish wing at 3.8% (-1.4%) last night is showing no sign of falling in love with Mr Cameron.
please insert “not” making more progress
Up to a point, Morus (297). FPTP polarises political posturing and tends to force people into one “big tent” or another.
There are very few people who are 100% convinced by the Labour Party programme, or the Conservative Party programme, or even by the Liberal Democrat Party programme. Not 100% - unless they have stopped thinking for themselves completely.
All parties are to some extent, a “big tent” - but this applies to the Tories just as much as Labour. Think of how Cameron is balancing on a tightrope, between being “liberal” and being “traditional Tory”.
The advantage of STV is that people can discriminate among candidates, even those of the same party. The party therefore becomes less important, and the qualities and the principles of each candidate becomes more important.
If we had STV, it is not only the Labour Party that would come to an end, but also the Liberal Democrats and the Tories - as parties. The principles would remain, somewhere.
MPs would have the backing of their constituents (or at least a sufficient number to be able to get themselves re-elected) and they would be able to vote more according to their consciences and principles, than the dictates of the party whips.
The Liberal Democrats are prepared to face this challenge - and probable self-sacrifice - and to go for STV. Tories and Labour are not.
304. I think you are basically correct, with the proviso that moving to the centre ground under FPTP is really only worthwhile if you are certain of more than 1/3 of the total vote. Ask the LibDems if you are in any doubt!
Conversely, appealing to your core vote when you are on the way down is the best strategy. Ask Michael Foot about that one!
Labour overall benefits the most from FPTP, since the structure of their vote guarantees them being either the Government or the official Opposition. As the Tories found out in 1997 and 2001, the structure of their vote (fewer safe seats and fewer wastelands) meant (although it didn’t quite happen) that they were at serious risk of oblivion, unlike Labour in 1983.
As to what would happen under PR, no-one really knows, since it would depend somewhat on the variant used, and assuming it was here to stay, the party indentities would probably evolve into something different to what we have now.
As far as I know, there has been no “study” of this, since it amounts to crystal-ball gazing…
MPs like being in parties - they need the security that it brings and are happy to bend to fit the party straight jacket in return for a little influence in the pattern on the jacket.
I think parties would survive STV The unfettered Presidential government that we have now, might not.
I tip:
ALP 88
LIB/NAT 60
IND 2
This is probably 5 seats more than the Coalition could reasonably expect with such a swing on, but I think there will be a few MPs that defy what is undoubtedly going to be a large swing.
On the basis of what I have seen on the ground, and heard from some very well placed sources, I expect John Howard to lose Bennelong on a 2PP of around 47.5% My views on Bennelong have shifted substantially in the last week.
Reproduced above is part of Alexander Drake’s post yesterday on the imminent Oz GE. He’s now forecasting a huge win for Labor over the Coalition by 88 seats to 60, which makes the skinny odds of 0.36-1 on Betfair look attractive nonetheless.
Possibly better value, however, is his forecast (as a Liberal) that his leader John Howard will lose his own seat of Bennelong - I don’t see Alexander making such a forecast unless he was fairly confident of the outcome. Yet Labor are 2.5 on Betfair, i.e. 6-4, against winning this seat, and 5 minutes ago there was £300+ available at this price.
Guido reports on the Courage of Gordon?
Rod,
Isn’t there a known tendency for AV to accentuate swings when public sentiment changes?
If so, wouldn’t it be unwise for a party facing a probable large swing against it to introduce such a system? If John Major had introduced it in somewhat parallel circumstances (of arguable severity comparability, to be fair) for the 1997 election, would not the devastation experienced by the Tories have been even worse?
311. Yes, but late. I’ve just e-mailed it to Mike.
Yes, Peter, I am still at the same e-mail address. (augustuscarp “at” gmail dot com)
309
‘The WLQ problem.’
How would that effect the key accountabilty issue of Scottish MP’s voting through laws that do not effect their constituents?
‘The turnout problem’
Isn’t this more connected with the general credibilty of politicians and their behaviour over several years i.e filling their pockets with expenses,dream pension plans,communication allowances etc.
You have to have someone worth voting for.
‘The legitimacy problem.’
Apart from the Lib Dems who else sees this as an issue?
‘The wasted votes problem.’
I thought that was mainly used by Tory & Labour candidates as a reason for not voting Lib Dem.
‘The tactical votes problem.’
Why is this a problem,it usually ensures that the most favoured candidate is elected?
‘The unfairness to the LDs problem.’
Apart from the Lib Dems,is there anyone else that sees it as an issue as in terms of voter concern it never makes the top 10 of concerns / issues.
On the contrary I would have thought that a system that gave extremist parties such as the BNP a platform at Westminster would be much more of a voter concern.
As electoral reform for Westminster was not in the 05 Labour manifesto ,how could they introduce it without it being obvious that it’s sole purpose was to keep them in office?
“If we had STV, it is not only the Labour Party that would come to an end, but also the Liberal Democrats and the Tories - as parties. The principles would remain, somewhere.”
I think all three would lose votes, (although the Lib Dems would gain seats), but I think they’d remain in being.
The gainers would be the Greens (largely from Labour and Lib Dem) UKIP (from all three but particularly the Conservatives) and BNP (largely from Labour and Conservatives), all of whom could expect Parliamentary representation.
Overall the Right would gain at the expense of the Left, but less of the Right vote would go to the Conservatives.
Watch this space…….
Breaking News… Home Office again
It is emerging that thousands of illegal immigrants identified 4 Months ago in the SIA scandal are STILL in position and have not been suspended or sacked.
Looks like the sh** is once again about to hit the fan. What are they doing?
New threads - Sean Fear’s Friday slot and more on the Huhne-Clegg race.
317
‘Guido reports on the Courage of Gordon?’
Maybe he should send a copy of his book to the MOD.
318. It’s hard to know. Any “exaggerative” electoral system would be expected to punish the Tories more (than Labour) when they are performing badly, simply because the Tory vote structure is a lot closer to the LD’s structure than Labour’s is.
In 1997 the Tories had the added problem of being “ganged up” on via tactical voting, which lost them a lot more seats than uniform swing suggested.
However, rationally, we would assume that AV removes (for practical purposes) the necessity of tactical voting. So, with that borne in mind, we could reasonably suppose that the Tories would not have done significantly worse under AV in 1997, even though LabLD second preferences were strong. In essence the 1,2,3 would replace the TV, with little net effect.
AV does not materially alter the benefits that Labour enjoys under FPTP in terms of vote structure, differential constituency size and turnout. It helps the LDs almost exclusively at the expense of the Tories, and only if the LDs second prefs go decisively to the Tories, would Labour suffer any net loss of seats at all.
I fear, Sean (322), that you are rather too traditional and even conservative in the way you are thinking.
Why should the traditional parties continue to exist, if the electorate (and hence the MPs) are able to work on a “pick and mix” basis?
I am a Liberal Democrat, but not because I have deep feelings for a party structure. Simply that the Liberal Democrats - as a package - come closest to proposing what I want to see come about.
There could (in theory) be individual candidates in the Labour or Conservative Party who come closer to my way of thinking than a Lib Dem candidate. But I could not possibly vote Labour or Tory because of what else there is in that “tent”.
That is why Cameron’s project is doomed to failure - he is dragged down by the proponents of privilege, the racists and the traditionalists - unless Brown and his lot self-destruct completely.
70. False comparison - Zimbabwe is a bourgeois democracy whereas the DPRK is a people’s democracy (the recent general election gave a vote of 99.82% to the ruling coalition).