“Dyed In Some Wool” puts the case for voting NO

When considering the upcoming referendum, AV seems to me not only to be the wrong answer, but the referendum itself is the wrong question. Let’s look at the main reasons for considering a yes vote.

I want a more proportional system
AV is not proportional and will not lead to parliament reflecting the national vote, most seats contested at the 2010 election would remain in the same hands. AV will create a handful of additional marginals on which the parties will concentrate campaigning efforts to the detriment of other areas of the UK. Will democracy be better served by parties campaigning locally on ‘How To Ensure xxxx Does Not Get In?’ The right answer offers a proportional system, AV is not the right answer.

My vote is a wasted vote
Under AV, anyone will have the ability to state secondary preferences, but if the party or candidate you wish to win does not secure 50% of the vote, then your vote is wasted in any case, if your secondary choice also fails to win then again your vote remains wasted. In a constituency system, clustering of party support will always tend towards supporters of an unpopular party locally feeling their vote is wasted. However, we have not been given the option to rebase our democracy away from the constituency based to a proportional system that would properly address the notion of a wasted vote. The right answer addresses the perceived waste of votes, AV is not a comprehensive, or the correct, answer.

I hate the notion of the safe seat/I want to punish the individual MP
AV will not address this problem. The safest seats in the country will remain safe under AV as the main party will secure over 50% of the vote making the alternative votes unecessary. The very problem stated as a reason to vote for this change will remain as is under the new system. There are more effective ways to deal with a problem MP in a safe seat, the open primary being but one example which would erode the apparant safety of party selection and thus prevent bed blockers or expense cheats prospering. The right answer addresses the problem, AV is not the right answer.

It is a step in the right direction
We should be wary here. If the referendum passes, the yes supporters will have nailed their colours to the mast and it is unlikely a further change to the system will be offered (and indeed should not be) until the electorate has seen and experienced AV for a few elections. Therefore a yes vote from those who wish to go further will likely delay the possibility of this. This also goes to the very heart of the matter, are we unhappy with our political system and if so, what change do we want? We are being offered a solitary answer to a question we have not been consulted over.

I suggest that the vote must be no. I would amend the referendum to state ‘do you wish to retain FPTP?’ and if no is victorious, spend the following 4 years consulting on the sort of features we want, offering, at the next general election, a series of options in a referendum. The very least we deserve is that the right question is asked.

Is he now value for Tory leader?

Just as you can buy bargain stocks in the midst of a stock market panic, there is rarely a better time to bet on a politician than when they are seen as being in trouble. Of course, if the trouble is serious then they might be best avoided, but sometimes the damage to a politician is more shallow than it appears. Taking advantage of the maxim “markets don’t react: they overreact” I wonder if it might be time to put some money on William Hague.

There has been much discussion of his decision to hire a 3rd Special Advisor, 25-year-old Durham graduate Christopher Myers, who acted as his driver and aide-de-camp during the General Election campaign. In appointing Myers, more long-standing staffers like pressman Will Littlejohn and speechwriter Chloe Dalton and foreign policy experts were not chosen, which raised some eyebrows and probably more than a few hackles.

Myers has since resigned, and Hague has put out a very personal statement attacking as lies any implication that his relationship with Myers was anything other than professional. Guido Fawkes and Iain Dale are at loggerheads, and once again (as with David Davies’ bizarre resignation from the Shadow Cabinet) Mike Smithson’s holiday co-incides with talk of David Cameron losing his most senior colleague in odd circumstances.

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, so unless Guido is able to show proof that Hague has lied, I think most newspapers will be cowed by the threat of legal consequences (if not their dubious consciences) into letting this story die. This will be marked down as an ill-advised hiring decision, and likely lost in the sympathy for Hague’s recent personal tragedy. The prospect of the resignation of the Foreign Secretary, over which some were salvating earlier this week, has passed.

But what of the markets? Well Hague’s price for Next Conservative leader on Betfair has moved from around 4/1 out as far as 33/2 and now settling (with Ladbrokes price) at around 10/1. Ladbrokes odds have him now as a less likely choice than Boris Johnson, George Osborne, or Michael Gove: he is in the same price bracket as Liam Fox and Rory Stewart with Betfair. If there were a liquid “Next PM” market available, you’d probably get a much better price than that.

I think this is crazy. William Hague is not only Foreign Secretary, but as First Secretary of State de jure the next in line to the Prime Minister (Deputy PM was traditionally a colloqiuel honorific accorded some First Secretaries - this is the first time the titles have been separated). As Jeremy Paxman reminds us, in ‘The Political Animal’, it is odd that Hague was the first Conservative Party leader since Austin Chamberlain not to become PM, given he achieved the totemic “Quadruple” (JCR President of Magdalen College, Oxford University Conservative Association President, President of the Oxford Union, and getting First Class Honours in PPE). With respect, the other candidates are not (yet) quite in his league.

Boris is not in Parliament, Osborne and Gove are less-palatable (to the party) members of Cameron’s inner circle, Rory Stewart is a freshman MP, and Liam Fox is reputedly to the right of Attila the Hun. If Cameron were to cease to be PM tomorrow, or at any point in the next five years at least (perhaps longer), there is almost no chance that anyone except William Hague would be asked by HM the Queen to form a government.

A fair price on Hague as next Tory leader would probably be between 5/1 and 6/1 - whilst 10/1 or better is available, and as long as nothing more damaging is revealed, I think he’s the value bet of the day.

Morus
Mike Smithson is away

PS - it should go without saying, but in light of the contested nature of allegations the Foreign Secretary has decried as unfounded, please be careful in the comments not to say anything that might be contrued as defamatory or libellous. Mike is away, and moderation may be slow in his absence, so please help the duty editors out by erring on the side of caution.

…and what impact has today had on the leadership race?

 
Hague statement

William Hague has issued a statement after the resignation of his special assistant Christopher Myers, which is available here.

 
Mike Smithson is on holiday and has very limited internet connection

Double Carpet

This is from the Press Association report:

“Tony Blair lays bare the divisions at the top of the Labour Party with the publication of his memoirs, focusing attention on his relationship with “maddening” Gordon Brown.

Former prime minister Mr Blair’s book, A Journey, reveals the depth of the rift between the figures who dominated British politics between 1997 and 2010. Mr Blair said he was put under “relentless personal pressure” by Mr Brown but could not sack his chancellor because he feared that would lead to him being ousted earlier.

In an interview with The Guardian Mr Blair said towards the end of his time in office the relationship with his eventual successor became “difficult, very difficult” with disagreements on major aspects of policy.

The newspaper reported that at one point in his book Mr Blair says he concluded that unless Mr Brown defined himself along New Labour lines his premiership “was going to be a disaster. I knew it”. But in the book Mr Blair wrote that he was powerless to prevent his successor moving from No 11 to No 10 Downing Street.

“It is easy to say now, in the light of his tenure as prime minister, that I should have stopped it; at the time that would have been well nigh impossible.”

Mr Blair acknowledged the strengths that made Mr Brown a formidable rival, and suggested his power base within the party and media would have made it difficult to remove him. “Was he difficult, at times maddening? Yes. But he was also strong, capable and brilliant, and those were qualities for which I never lost respect.”

Will Obama lose both the House and the Senate?

So with Our Genial Host taking a well-deserved break in France, the inevitability of major political news breaking in the coming days is assured. We’ll try our best to be as responsive to news stories as possible (though I suspect Tony Blair’s book - with all proceeds going to the Royal British Legion - will dominate today’s news cycle), but hope I’ll be forgiven for kicking off with a quick preview of the US midterms coming up in November.

Midterm elections are always feared by first term Presidents, and though Obama’s personal approval ratings are reasonable (mid-40s), his party is facing a terrifying picture. Nate Silver, whose FiveThirtyEight.com blog is now hosted by the New York Times, reported on a remarkable poll yesterday, in a post which is worth a read in full.

Gallup have conducted a generic party ballot poll (ie national poll, just asking which party the voter will support) since 1942, and for the first time the Republicans have a full 10-point lead. As Nate points out, a 5-point deficit was newsworthy and worrisome for the Democrats in the Summer - now it is looking like the norm. What makes this even more remarkable is that Gallup polled 1,450 Registered Voters - limit the sample to Likely Voters, and the Republican lead increases by an estimated 4-points.

With a hat-tip to Stars&Stripes on the previous thread, a University of Buffalo professor is predicting the Republicans will win 51 seats from the Democrats - just 38 would see them become the majority for the first time since 2006.

So are the Democrats going to lose both chambers of Congress? The markets suggest that the House is lost but the Senate is safe. It would take the Democrats losing Barbara Boxer in California and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin for the GOP to take the upper house, assuming they hold Kentucky (where Rand Paul is proving a little gaffe prone), win Florida (where Rubio is also running against Independent former Governor Charlie Crist), and see Sharon Angle overcome Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada (which would be America’s “Portillo moment”!).

I remain a little skeptical about Republican John Boehner becoming Speaker. He is no Newt Gingrich, and there is no resonant “Contract with America” theme as there was in 1994. Obama has not had as difficult a political time of it as Clinton did with Hillary-care, and the GOP is far from united - if anything, the unsettling vibrancy of the Tea Party movement means that it is less cohesive at the moment than the Democrats (which is remarkable).

I expect the Democrats to hold the Senate (if not by much - maybe with Chuck Schumer of NY as Majority Leader if Reid falls), and think 1.55 on Betfair is still good value (as is 3.2 on the Dems in Kentucky). I’d probably bet on the Dems to hold the House as well - I’m not convinced they will, but the Republicans are too tightly-priced at 1.36, and 3.15 for Pelosi to stay as Speaker is a far better bet.

Morus
Mike Smithson is away

…I’m off to France for a few days

First thing in the morning we are taking the Eurostar to Paris and then the TGV to Bordeaux for a short break. As I think I mentioned I had a small operation in July and this took a lot out of me.

I won’t won’t be posting very much but there are a number of guest slots lined up as well as the PB AV debate with arguments for and against.

Also the site’s guest editors, MORUS, Paul Maggs and David Herdson will be making their own contributions.

Mike Smithson

Is everything still being defined by the ex-leaders ?

The big news for Labour as we move into September should be the start of voting in the first contested election for a leader since 1994.

Instead the media remain obsessed with the Blair-Brown years and “what really went on”. Just look at this week. A couple of days ago the Mail on Sunday had the second part of the serialisation of the Chris Mullin diaries. Yesterday a short series began on Radio 4 with an abridged spoken word version of the same book.

And on top of that the big one - the publication on Thursday of Tony Blair’s book “The Journey” and the associated media hype.

It is Labour Past rather than Labour Future that the media is interested in.

Look at the the scheduling tomorrow evening in prime time by the BBC of a special programme devoted to an interview with Tony Blair. That’s already been recorded and, as the above piece from the Mail shows, a spin war has broken out over what Blair might or might not have said.

The report goes: “Mr Blair will defend his role in the Iraq War and pass judgment on Mr Brown’s handling of the financial crisis and the election campaign, and the performance of the coalition Government. Mr Brown’s allies are preparing a counterblast amid reports that Mr Blair will blame his successor for losing the election by turning away from his New Labour reforms.

He is likely to stress that his Chancellor and successor was solely responsible for the regulatory free-for-all that led to the economic crisis…”

My reading of Tim Shipman’s story is that this has come from the Brown camp and they are seeking to get their retaliation in early - a classic spin tactic from the whole Blair-Brown period.

The problem for Labour is that the Brown-Blair war gets more fascinating the more detail that comes out. The result - lots and lots of coverage.

In terms of the current leadership battle I wonder whether this might hurt David Miliband a bit - he’s the one contender who is most associated with Tony Blair. In the betting Betfair have DM at 1.39 with EdM having moved out to 4.

Mike Smithson

Is this taking defence cuts too far?

The main news on the front page of the Times which is covered at length in its sister paper the Sun, is about a plan for Britain and France to “share” their aircraft carriers as part of massive economy measure.

The idea is that Britain would scrap or downgrade one of the two replacement carriers which are already under construction at a cost of more than £5bn and that that one of three ships - one French, two British - was always on duty patrolling the seas. The implications for shipyard jobs are enormous as well as the strategic issues.

No doubt in the coming months we’ll hear a lot about the Falklands war in 1982 and the role of the Royal Navy then. Would the French have sanctioned such an invasion if it was “their” aircraft carrier that was “on duty”?

Apparently Cameron and Sarkozy are expected to outline the proposal in a November summit and the arrangement is expected to come into force soon after.

This is getting into very dangerous political territory for the coalition. The Royal Navy has had such an important role in the history of Britain and is deep in the national psyche. That we cannot afford to maintain its role without doing a deal with our traditional “enemy” across the channel will to many people appear shocking.

It does send out a message about the seriousness of the government in its attempt to curtail spending and could become hugely symbolic. Maybe that’s the idea.

One thing that strikes me - only a Tory Defence Secretary could ever propose such a plan. Imagine the reaction from the blue team if it had come from Labour?

Mike Smithson

Who’ll win the old-Etonian stand-off over Cross-Rail?

The big development over Boris that Morus only touched on briefly in the last post was the huge row that’s apparently developing between Johnson (Eton and Balliol College Oxford) and Cameron (Eton and Brasenose College Oxford) over plans by Osborne (St. Paul’s and Magdalen College Oxford) to force a 5% cut to the £16bn London CrossRail project.

According to the Guardian, though denied by the Mayor’s office, Johnson has let it be known has let it be known that if all the money is not forthcoming then he will stand for parliament at the next available Westminster by-election. This, of course, raises the possibility of mayoral by election in London involving the capital’s 6m voters.

What the veracity of this is we do not know but Boris is a wily political operator who could be a big threat to Cameron’s leadership if he returned to the commons as an MP.

This could have an impact on a range of betting markets. Even though he is not an MP Boris is the betting favourite to be the next Tory leader. Ladbrokes have him at 5/1 the same as Michael Gove but tighter than the 8/1 against William Hague who has seen an easing.

Boris is also the 4/5 favourite to win the 2012 London Mayoral race - though Bet365’s 13/8 against Ken winning starts to look quite tempting. He has, of course, to be selected as Labour’s candidate - a party election that is taking place in September.

The problem with the “Boris returning to Westminster at a by election” theory is that safe Tory seats don’t come up very often. In the past decade only one sitting Tory MPs has died causing a by election - the total of Labour MP deaths in the same period was ten.

If Boris was to try to get back then the best route would be if a current Tory MP decided to stand down to make way for him - and that is fraught with danger. Voters have a history of punishing parties that cause unnecessary by elections. The Tories also have a miserable record defending by election seats while they are in government.

Mike Smithson

And who else could be the Tory candidate?

NB This necessarily-long article was written before this story broke this evening. How better to avoid running again than to resign over a fight with Cameron about cuts?

When I last wrote about the 2010 London Mayoral election in May 2009 (smugly noting my bet on Oona King at 100/1 with Ladbrokes), I suggested that the main value in the market was likely to be found in the Conservative options. Other than Boris, almost no serious Conservatives were listed, which seemed interesting to me for two reasons: firstly, because the Tories have struggled to find a candidate on all three occasions (thus Stephen Norris chosen twice, and Sir John Major refusing before Boris rescued them in 2008), but secondly because I don’t think Boris will necessarily run.

I have read the news stories about him committing to run again (though what sitting politician with half a term left wouldn’t claim to be running again, just to avoid lame duck paralysis?), but I’m not sold. Not only because he didn’t really seem to want the job the first time around, but also because I can’t see how running in 2012 helps him become Prime Minister (which he is rumoured to desperately want). In fact, I think a second term as Mayor seriously hobbles him.

I’m not talking about political cost of being in office. You could offset “being the face of Tory cuts in London” against “being the global face of the 2012 Olympic Games” and call it 6/5-and-pick’em, but I still don’t see how being Mayor doesn’t scupper Boris’ vaunted ambitions from a much more practical perspective: Timing and Opportunity.

There are four possible things that can happen here, helpfully named after 4 US Presidents:

LYNDON JOHNSON OPTION Boris chooses not to run for a second term as Mayor

RICHARD NIXON OPTION Boris runs and wins, but doesn’t finish his second term

JIMMY CARTER OPTION Boris runs, but loses to Ken/Oona/other

RONALD REAGAN OPTION Boris runs and wins, and serves the full second term

Let’s assume the following: that Boris wants to become PM, that General Elections will take place approximately every 4/5 years (as they have done since 1974), and that leaders defeated in General Elections don’t get to stay as leader. How do these four options play out for Boris?

LYNDON JOHNSON OPTION – Boris retires as Mayor undefeated in 2012. He would likely be elected as an MP, at the very latest, by the General Election expected 2015. If the election is earlier, or a handy by-election is called, he could be back on the green benches before then. Even if a ‘new’ MP in 2015, he would be expected to be at least a Whip/Minister, if not full front bench.

If the Conservatives are in Government still (having win the 2015 GE) then, he could expect to be well-positioned (front bench or just short) by Cameron’s expected exit date (probably 2018/19, unless he wants to go on as long as Blair and Thatcher). This would be an election of the PM by the Conservative Party. Boris’ best chance to be PM would be within the decade, with him still in his mid-fifties.

If the Conservatives are in Opposition after the 2015 GE, then he would probably benefit in getting a big front bench job (plenty of room, as there’s no Coalition in Opposition!) in the absence of David Cameron (deposed as leader for never winning an overall majority). Indeed, Boris could even run for leader immediately upon being elected – his previous service as an MP and Shadow Minister, and as the holder of a significant executive office to match even Osborne or Hague. If Leader of the Opposition in 2015, he could realistically be PM by 2020 – again, within the decade.

What is true for the JOHNSON option is actually no less true in the CARTER and NIXON options. Both of these eventualities (Boris losing in 2012 or winning but not completing his second term) would allow him to enter the Commons by 2015, but under different circumstances.

As a CARTER, he would carry the burden of a personalised defeat from the UK’s biggest electorate, and would be much less likely to appeal to the national party as a major election winner. I think losing London would kill his chances of ever becoming PM. Under the NIXON model, he would have to succeed where Sarah Palin has not – giving a justifiable reason for resigning from elected office before the end of term. Leaving for a Parliamentary by-election (which is what it would be) would not sit well, especially as it would leave London in the hands of an unelected Deputy Mayor for at least a year. It would suggest the abandoning of responsibility, even fecklessness, and again probably rule out him taking over the leadership of the national Conservative Party from Cameron.

The fourth option plays out very differently. The REAGAN option would see Boris re-elected as Mayor, and serving until May 2016. He would miss the next General Election in 2015, and would either need a convenient by-election (in, say, 2018) or would have to wait until the General Election in about 2020 to become an MP again.

Various permutations affect his REAGAN path to Downing Street:

1. Boris wins 2018 by-election, Tories are still in power, Cameron still PM (but going soon)
2. Boris wins 2018 by-election, Tories are still in power, but new PM
3. Boris wins 2018 by-election, Tories in Opposition, new leader served since 2015
4. Boris re-enters Parliament at 2020 General Election, Tories (government) win with Cameron
5. Boris re-enters Parliament at 2020 General Election, Tories (government) win with new PM
6. Boris re-enters Parliament at 2020 General Election, Tories (government) lose
7. Boris re-enters Parliament at 2020 General Election, Tories (opposition) win with new PM
8. Boris re-enters Parliament at 2020 General Election, Tories (opposition) lose

(Scenarios 3, 7, & 8 presume Tories lost the 2015 General Election. Again, assuming GE every 4 or 5 years, losing leaders always resign, PMs serve about 8 years on average.)

Of these various scenarios, which lend themselves to Boris attaining the leadership of his party, and then the Premiership in a reasonable time frame? They can be grouped:

CONCLUSION

The REAGAN option (running, winning, serving as Mayor until 2016) suggests that he would not be able to become PM until 2025 at the very earliest (by beating a first term Labour PM), and more likely around 2030. Even the earlier possibilities imply that he takes over the Premiership (as did Brown and Major) at the tail end of a 3^rd or 4^th term Tory government. Is this really what he wants? Pending ignominious defeat at a General Election?

The CARTER, NIXON and JOHNSON options all suggest he could be PM before 2020 – although the CARTER and NIXON options mean he is handicapped by having either lost a Mayoral election, or having abandoned his elected post before finishing his term. This is 10-15 years earlier than under the REAGAN model. Is Boris a patient man?

Two other factors: Boris is in his mid-forties at present. We haven’t had a Prime Minister elected in their 60s since Thatcher in 1987. I don’t think he has more than 15 years to get the top job, and (with respect to the present Cabinet) he stands a much better chance now – Hague has already been leader, and I could only see him being so again if Cameron were to depart suddenly. Osborne, Gove, and May are not obvious leadership material. Clarke won’t lose a fifth time, and Fox is too right-wing. This is an open field, with potential contenders blocked from top jobs by the LibDems. The new Tory cohort are overwhelmingly first time MPs, but they will have matured in 15 years’ time. If Boris wants to win the leadership easily, the sooner the better.

Then consider that winning re-election, with all the risk of the CARTER option if he loses, will not be easy. Boris won the Mayoralty when the Tories were 20-points ahead in national polls. He won by 6-points. If the government’s cuts start to bite by 2012, I wouldn’t want to be facing re-election as Mayor of London, when I don’t even want the job that is delaying my return to Parliament.

Nothing I’m saying here is radical, and I’m sure these debates have been played out in Boris’ head many times before. He may feel committed to running again, in which case he will either be a CARTER, a NIXON, or a REAGAN – but if I were him, and wanted to be PM, I’d be a JOHNSON.

Morus

PS If not Boris, then who runs for Mayor on the Tory ticket in 2012? I have James Cleverly at very long odds, but there is one obvious choice again Ken/Oona.

In 2008, before Boris was chosen to take on Ken, and before Brian Paddick had been selected for the Lib Dems, a rumour broke that the Tories had approached Greg Dyke – a former Labour donor who had lost his job as Director General of the BBC over the Hutton Report. He was prepared to run against Ken (it was reported), but only if the Lib Dems would also endorse him as a joint candidate. Ming Campbell apparently flat-out refused. A Tory-LibDem joint candidate? Madness!

Now Ming has gone, there is a Tory-LibDem coalition seated around the Cabinet Table, and Greg Dyke’s last appearance in the political news was agreeing to act as an advisor for the Conservative Party. Former-leftwinger, businessman and millionaire, good public speaker, beloved-of-the-BBC: I’d give him a good chance against Ken, and if it were Oona King, do you think the legality of the Iraq War might come up as a wedge issue?

The above tables are from the detailed data in the latest ICM poll and show the three main approval findings breaking down the answers on current voting intention and, for the Lib Dems, an extra row on how those who supported the party at the general election are thinking.

It’s that gap that’s interesting showing quite a different response from current LD supporters and those who voted for the party on May 6th.

So less than half of general election Lib Dem voters now think the coalition is doing a good job - yet 61% give a positive rating Clegg rising to 78% amongst those who are sticking with the party.

The general election LD voters are also quite happy with Cameron - with a 58-38 “good job/bad job” split for the prime minister. With current party supporters that rises to 68-26.

Given they’ve lost a fair bit of support since May it’s not surprising that there’s a marked difference between general election LD voters and current ones - but the gap is not as wide as the current media and political narrative is suggesting.

This is, of course, the data from just one poll with all the usual caveats.

Mike Smithson

…are these headlines helpful to the younger brother?

With voting in Labour’s election due to start on Wednesday two papers at the “quality” end of the market have front pages that are dominated by the relations between the US and the UK during the Iraq War and its aftermath.

The Telegraph says that it has been told that Tony Blair sought to hang on to office for longer than he did after hearing concerns from President Bush about the suitability of Gordon Brown to succeed him as Prime Minister.

It reports: “..Senior officials in the US administration sounded the alert after a meeting between Mr Brown and Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush’s secretary of state, in which Mr Brown “harangued” her over American policy on aid, development and Africa. After the uncomfortable session, sources said she reported her misgivings to the White House, and they were sent on in turn to Mr Blair” who then sought to remain in office until 2008.

The front page of the Indy on Sunday looks at the suggestions that leadership favourite, David Miliband, was complicit in the torture of US “war on terror” suspects in the period when he was Foreign Secretary. This is something that has his dogged his campaign though I’m not convinced that it will be that important

On top of this there’s a perceptive feature in the Observer by Toby Helm in which he suggests that the contest gives the Labour movement its chances to give its verdict on the whole New Labour project. And if it turns into that then maybe it could hurt DM who is seen, perhaps unfairly, to be the “Blairite” contender.

But is this election about ideology at all? Labour, surely, will choose the Miliband who is seen to offer the best prospect of returning the party to power.

This long bank holiday weekend was always going to be crucial in this contest. The postal ballot packs go out on Wednesday and all the evidence is that many voters like to fill them in quickly and return them. By next weekend the election could be over for a significant segment of voters.

Meanwhile the betting on the brothers remains very much the same with DM’s Betfair price being 1.44 and EM’s being 3.55.

Mike Smithson

Is this a Number 10 bluff - or a double bluff?

Just four days to go before voting starts in Labour’s election the Guardian is reporting that the contender that David Cameron fears most is David Miliband.

Now how should we treat this? Is it on the level; is it a bluff or is it a double bluff? Could Number 10 be trying to impede DM’s chances by letting it be know that they fear him most?

We all remember Alistair Campbell playing games like this during the 2001 Tory leadership contest. It was put about that Ken Clarke was the man Number 10 wanted when in fact he was the one they most feared. What happened? The Tories made their most disastrous leadership choice ever with the hapless IDS.

Now could it be that the Cameron team really does fear Mili-Major the most and that it’s been concluded that the best way of blighting his chances is to let this story slip out? In this scenario they hope that the Labour movement will think it’s a trick and back the younger brother.

Who knows? The best thing with reports like this is to treat them with a very large pinch of salt.

Mike Smithson

How difficult will their revelations make it for him?

History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second as autobiography. Or something like that. It seems almost obligatory now for retired cabinet ministers to set down their version of the time in office, their influence on events and their view of - amongst other things - their colleagues.

The number of these memoirs being written always starts to increase when any party’s been in power for a while and people start retiring but it takes the sudden impact of a change of government to turn that trickle into a flood. Those ministers are all ejected at once, they have more time on their hands, the value of the memoirs declines with each passing year and delaying means the historical record of their time in government could be established by others before they publish.

The problem for whichever Miliband wins Labour’s election is that each new publication is going to drag up the past again and reopen old controversies.

Margaret Thatcher certainly didn’t do John Major any favours when she wrote her two volumes and there’s no guarantee Labour’s will be any more helpful. That they tend to be published at or just before party conference season adds an additional hurdle if the new leadership is seeking to ‘move on’ from the Blair-Brown years.

Of the central players in Labour’s term in office, Alistair Campbell, John Prescott and Peter Mandelson have already had theirs published theirs but those of Blair, Brown, Straw and Darling have yet to go on sale (Blair’s will be the first, next week), and have a lot of contentious ground to cover - especially Iraq and the handling of the recession. I’m assuming that they will all write one but I’d be surprised if they don’t.

Also on sale from next week is the second volume of Chris Mullin’s diaries and while Mullin wasn’t central to the Labour government, his earlier book was both very readable and at times biting in its observations. Often the best diarists are not those who attain very high office but who serve close to them. With this volume covering the 2005-10 parliament, he will have had much to observe and a lot to be biting about. I predict a good deal of gallows humour.

In the big scheme of things, the distractions of yesterday’s men and women and yesterday’s events shouldn’t make or break a leadership. They won’t, however, make it any easier, both because the events described in the books will rake over events the leadership may want to leave behind and because with Blair and Brown especially, comparisons will be made between leaders now and then.

That won’t be fair because Miliband won’t have had the opportunity to prove himself in office (it’s very difficult comparing against, say, Blair in 1995 on a like-for-like basis as Blair’s subsequent career intrudes), but then whoever said that politics was fair?

David Herdson

Is he’s going to run to get his old job back?

So far there’s been very little activity on the next UKIP leader market and only Ladbrokes have deemed it important enough to quote prices and lay bets.

At the moment everybody’s waiting to see if ex-leader, Nigel Farage, will enter the fray in the fight to head the party that came second in the 2009 Euro election.

Farage, as will be recalled, stood down in order to devote himsellf full-time to unseating Speaker John Bercow in Buckingham - an effort that ended in disaster in more ways than one. For not only did Farage end up a disappointing third in that fight he was involved in a light airplane crash on polling day.

He says he’ll announce whether he’ll run for the leadership at next week’s conference.

If he does then I think he’ll win. The Ladbrokes evens against Farage winning is almost about whether he’ll take the plunge. It is probably worth a punt.

Mike Smithson

How many will actually use 2nd, 3rd and 4th choices?

In just 29 days time the results of Labour’s leadership contest will be announced after a prolonged battle that has only this week started to attract serious attention from the mainstream media.

This lack of attention has probably helped David Miliband because what polling there has been is likely to have been affected by the name recognition factor - and the former foreign secretary is much more widely known than his younger brother.

We saw that in polling for the 2007 Labour deputy race where the early YouGov surveys had Hilary Benn well ahead - probably because everybody within the Labour movement has heard the name “Benn”. When the ballots were counted Hillary did not even make the top three.

Yes the voters are all committed in some way because they are party members or political levy paying members of the trade unions - but what proportion of the electorates are watching this as closely as those who visit the main political websites each day or track every minute news development? Not as many as we think I would suggest.

But levels of awareness will change as we move into September and there is more coverage. A week on Sunday, admittedly at the non-prime time slot of 10.30am, the Sky New Labour leadership debate will take place and my guess is that it’ll attract a lot of news coverage that weekend.

My reckoning is that the more the contest gets featured the more it will help candidates other than David Miliband simply because it erodes his higher name recognition advantage.

But there is one factor that will help DaveM that has not really been examined - that large segments of the party member and trade union voters will not exercise their alternative votes. This will reduce the number of potential 2/3/4th preferences in play that could help EdM to catch up. For the big theory behind the younger Miliband’s challenge is that he’ll do much better with the alternative votes.

So my reading is that David Miliband is still the odds on favourite but EdM has a better chance than the current prices suggest. As I write the Betfair odds make DM a 71% chance with EdM at 27.4%.

Mike Smithson

Could you write a PB guest slot?

At the start of September I’m going to be out of the country for a few days and I’m setting up some guest slots in advance. Rod Crosby has been commissioned to write a “The case for voting YES” in the AV referendum and I’m looking for someone to present the NO argument.

Dont’ write anything yet but if you’d like to have a bash email me first here.

I’ll need it all sorted by Monday morning.

Mike Smithson

Should they back him for International Development Secretary?

According to Guido Gordon Brown is taking soundings about making a return to the Labour front bench as Shadow International Development Secretary.

When Labour is in opposition the members of the shadow cabinet are not decided by the leader but by the parliamentary which votes on the 19 places. The plan is for this to take place once the new leader is in place. If Gordon is serious about this, and we’ve only got Guido’s report, then he would have to put himself forward for election.

That could be a high risk strategy because he might not do as well in such an election as would be expected for a former leader.

But international development is an area where he took a very special interest when he was both chancellor and PM and he is well regarded around the world. I think that it would be a good idea.

The big question is would Ed or DaveM want him in their line-up?

Mike Smithson

Should the red team look at its own recent history?

One of the most provocative political columns this morning is John Harris’s look at Labour’s view of the Lib Dems by in the Guardian.

He concludes:”… Miserable poll ratings may serve to bind the Lib Dems in, for fear of another election and a real calamity. And one other thing: never forget their deep, burning and often understandable hatred of the Blair and Brown governments – which, given the basic messages given out by the Labour leadership campaign, will endure. As far as Lib Dems are concerned, the two Labour frontrunners effectively cancel each other out: the Miliband keenest to question the last government’s record (Ed, that is) lectures them about the alleged betrayal of their own traditions and jokes about making them “extinct”, whereas his brother is said to be more open to what we must now call “pluralism”, but remains more or less unrepentant about the New Labour fundamentals – and in particular the great Lib Dem irritant cum badge-of-honour that was Iraq.

Yes, this year’s Lib Dem conference will have its moments….But here is what far too many people are missing: that even if the most malign accounts are true and the party has been hijacked by a free market clique, the fact that it has delivered power will probably be more than enough to keep a lid on any trouble. Before Labour people get far too carried away, they ought to remember that until very recently, that was their story too.”

I’m not totally convinced by Harris’s conference point. Lib Dem conferences are much less controlled by the central party machine than Labour and there are fewer constraints on dissident elements. Things could erupt in Liverpool.

The big picture, of course, is that in the last decade and a half all three parties have at some point entered into what amount to Faustian pacts for the sake of power.

The Tory party acquiescence at aspects of the Cameron leadership and now the coalition is a case in point. After all what’s the point of being in politics if you are not in power or striving to achieve it?

Maybe until the events of May 11th many on the yellow side took a different view. Now for them the world has changed. It is far better, surely, to be under sustained fire than to be sitting on the opposite benches experiencing the impotence of opposition?

Mike Smithson

Is her equalities measure going to make it harder to govern?

If you’ve got five minutes then listen to Treasury minister Mark Hoban on the Today programme this morning as he was pressed on whether the Treasury had conducted a formal study assessing the impact of the cuts on ethnic minorities ahead of June’s budget.

For one of the final bits of legislation enacted by the outgoing Labour government was a requirement in Harriet Harman’s Equalities Act to “to consider how decisions might help to reduce inequalities associated with socio-economic disadvantage”.

If there has been no formal consideration then ministers can be taken to court and their decision subject to judicial review - and, already, the Fawcett Society is planning such proceedings.

What’s going to happen? The coalition could repeal that bit of the legislation but what an almighty fuss that could create and would be a big peg for the new Labour leader to attack the government. I don’t think that they’ll proceed with that in the short-term.

My guess is that the civil service will come up with some procedure that complies with the act but imposes as little restraint as possible on the process of government.

Mike Smithson

..or is the media trying to breathe life into the contest?

After a long period when Labour’s election has failed to attract much media attention it’s all change this morning with several papers highlighting how “the gloves are coming off” between the brothers.

It makes good copy, of course, and the weird spectacle of two siblings slugging it out was always going to be the focus as we got closer to voting. But are the papers making too much of this today?

For what we are seeing from DM and EM are two hugely different approaches for Labour as it seeks to find a way of winning back. The older brother wants to take the fight with the Tories back to the centre ground while the younger is putting the emphasis on the parts of Labour’s core base which has simply stopped voting.

This is how Andy Grice looks forward to a DM speech in the Independent:

David Miliband will insist that he is the best candidate to prevent the Government painting his party as Old Labour. “We need to break out of the mould the Coalition is trying to put us in,” he will say. “Their attacks on our record are only the first phase of their campaign. They seek to make Labour irrelevant. I will not let them.”

Calling on Labour to shift to the centre ground, he will say: “We must look forwards for new ideas and outwards for a new coalition of voters..

“We are pigeonholed as spendthrift when we need to be prudent; we are seen as accreting power to the state when in fact our mission is to empower individuals, communities and businesses; and we are seen as the establishment when we need to be the insurgents.”

Ed Miliband, the shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, moved to head off his brother’s criticism by insisting he is “the moderniser”. He said that, since 1997, Labour had lost 1.7 million middle-class voters. But he argued that Labour had lost a total of 5 million voters, with the largest losses amongst the C2, and D and E social classes.

Ed Miliband said: “I am the only candidate who can reach out to those whom we have lost.

All of the above is hardly personal but a healthy debate on the way forward.

My own observation is that DM’s is probably the right one but in the context of an inter-tribal battle EM’s ideas might resonate most amongst those who can actually vote in the election.

Mike Smithson

If the election is running to plan then the first ballot papers should be going out to qualified voters in the three sections of the electoral college at the end of next week.

So far the only firm polling evidence has been the single YouGov survey of party members and those trade unionists who are qualified to vote - but that is now nearly a month ago. A lot has happened since the end of July.

I’m continuing to maintain balanced positions on both DaveM and EdM and I’m well covered if one of the others sensationally stages a recovery. So whatever happens September 25th is going to be a nice pay-day.

The EdM campaign is the only one that is keeping me informed and it say that the telephone canvassing of union members has been producing a good reaction.

Who really knows? With a bit of luck there should be a new YouGov poll of eligible voters in the next week or so.

Mike Smithson

The government’s net approval rating drops to zero

The big polling news in the past twenty-fours hours has been the move to a zero rating, for the first time since the election, in the YouGov government approval rating.

The question is a straightforward “Do you approve or disapprove of the government’s record to date?” The latest numbers were 40% approve and 40% disapprove.

These figures started falling back for the coalition at the time of the budget and have edged downwards ever since.

A big problem with comparative figures is that the online pollster implemented a comprehensive change of weightings at exactly the same time which had a marked impact on its voting intention numbers.

But even with that there is no doubt about the downwards in the approval ratings which no look set to negative in the next week or so.

The only other pollster that asks government approval questions in a standard form every month, Ipsos-MORI, has also been showing a decline - the latest showed a three point positive.

I think that going negative, particularly if it is backed up by MORI which has an unchanged methodology, will be a significant moment.

Mike Smithson

Has Clarke become the Lib Dems’ most popular Tory?

On the afternoon of Monday September 20th Nick Clegg will have to make the speech of his life to his party gathering in Liverpool in what looks set to be THE event of the conference season. For the reaction of his audience could determine how long the coalition can survive and with it his own future.

The stakes are high and Clegg has to be able to demonstrate that his party is getting a real return for all it has invested in the controversial deal and that the government is being influenced by liberal values.

There is one area which hasn’t been given much attention but which could could provide good ammunition for Clegg that could resonate with his party - penal policy.

For after two decades in which the polices of home and justice secretaries such as Michael Howard, Jack Straw, David Blunkett, John Reid and Jacqui Smith have repulsed many Lib Dems there is now someone in the job who is pursuing a programme that has a lot of appeal to them - Ken Clarke.

As the Guardian’s, Anushka Asthana, observed in a recent feature “some of the most liberal ideas in the first few months of the coalition have come from the Ministry of Justice - with its Tory secretary of state.”

She noted: “Ken Clarke triggered a furious reaction from some Tory MPs when he argued for radical prison reform that would see less emphasis on locking people up and more on rehabilitation. He indicated that there would be an overhaul of sentencing policy with more alternatives to short sentences and plans to divert the mentally ill and those addicted to drugs into secure treatment centres. He argued it was “virtually impossible” to rehabilitate someone during a jail term of less than 12 months, adding: “Too often prison has proved a costly and ineffectual approach that fails to turn criminals into law-abiding citizens. In our worst prisons it produces tougher criminals.” Later, he claimed rising prison numbers were not linked to falling crime.”

What a rejection of the policies of the last Tory to be in charge - Michael Howard, him of “prison works” fame. You can bet that Clegg will rehearse all of this in his conference speech and that it will go down very well.

Clarke’s liberal (with a small L) regime has not won him friends on the Tory right but then the old bruiser is never one to worry about attacks from that quarter. In fact in the Mail of Sunday at the weekend James Forsyth suggested that Cameron is caused more trouble by Ken Clarke than anyone else.

So what might be an answer to some of Clegg’s problems is not making life easy for Cameron - but hey that’s coalition government for you.

Mike Smithson

Who will win the AV referendum?

News broke overnight that Matthew Elliott, founder of the Taxpayers’ Alliance and BigBrotherWatch, will be leading the ‘No 2 AV’ campaign in the forthcoming referendum on electoral reform.

Guido has linked to the a betting exchange suggesting a ‘Yes’ win at time of writing. However, if you wander over to Ladbrokes, you’ll find the ‘No’ priced at 2/5 and the ‘Yes’ at 7/4 (again at time of writing). Now it doesn’t take a punter like OGH to spot a little arbitrage, but I’m actually more interested in the reason behind the disparity. Someone always knows, someone always tells, someone always bets - why are these prices so different, and who has driven it?

My assessment of this contest is that the ‘No’ vote should be the favourite. The Conservative party is united against AV, some Labour greybeards and the unions oppose it (though won’t spend too much fighting it), opportunists on Right and Left hope that a No vote might break up the coalition.

With the disclaimer that Matthew Elliott is a good friend of mine, I also rate him highly as an effective campaigner, and if his side (as it seems) combines all the requested support from the Tories (money, institutional support, footsoldiers etc) without actually being an official Conservative party campaign (ie, not a referendum on the government) then they should do well.

On the other side of the fence, it seems that the Yes campaign might be run directly out of Cowley Street (interesting but unconfirmed rumours about staffing to follow!), which might well make the AV vote a referendum on the Lib Dems in government. The proximity of the LibDems to the Yes campaign could be a great strength, if the whole party is mobilised (which I think would have been automatic if we were voting on AV+ or STV), but if support for plain old AV is tepid within their ranks, then association with one party, when the No campaign is a combination of Tories and Labour, could make it much harder for the Yes campaign to win.

For my money, the Liberal Democrat conference will be key. Nick Clegg this week sounded like he was bracing the party for the continuence of the coalition if/when the referendum on electoral reform was lost. If he wants to win it, and avoid the threat of a serious split in his party, then enthusing the LibDem base at conference could be all important.

I think the Ladbrokes price is probably about right, but suspect the market isn’t especially liquid at this stage. Also beware that, in an illiquid market, those with deeper pockets have disproportionate weight. In a campaign that no major party will want to spend too much of its funds on winning, rich philanthropists might have as great an impact on the campaign as on the betting markets following it.

Morus

Could Labour be wrong by “playing nasty”?

One of most provocative “Monday columns” in the the papers this morning is from Jacky Ashley in the Guardian in which she takes Labour to task for not reading reading the public mood right.

She argues: “Labour is playing bad politics. The leadership campaign is turning into a tin-ear, foot-in-mouth competition about who can be nastiest to the Liberal Democrats. As candidates desperately try to prove themselves more true Labour, more tribal than the next guy, they are in danger of missing the big picture about our changing politics. They could end up wrecking their party’s position for the next generation, which is their own.

Part of this is about an underestimated and under-discussed quality in politics: tone. The biggest tone change in politics has been the transition from the raw warfare of the latter days of New Labour towards the apparently collegiate and good-humoured attitude of the coalition. It’s true this is already fraying at the edges….but the crucial thing is that the public seem to like the spirit of co-operation.

If Labour goes into all-out war against Clegg and colleagues, betting on the Lib Dems breaking up, and loses the bet, they may well find British politics has realigned very differently. Put it another way: the behaviour of Labour now may decide whether its future is as an opposition party or the next government.”

I am sure that Jackie right but she is also unrealistic. There’s a battle going on out there to become leader of the party and the contenders’ rhetoric has to resonate with those who’ll be receiving their ballot papers in less than a fortnight.

Those who’ll be voting are not the public at large but signed up members of the Labour tribe - and the best way of appealing to them, surely, is to be tribal.

But one party acting in a fiercely tribal manner is leading to another one, the Lib Dems, doing the same. My reading is that the Labour onslaught is bringing the LDs closer together. It is very much like how Labour reacted when Gordon Brown was under sustained attack. The party gathered round to support the leader.

Mike Smithson

But does MORI give a bit of a relief to the yellows?

In the build up to what one commentator is now calling “Super Thursday” - the elections on May 5th 2011 - we are going to see a fair bit of polling. For on that that day there’ll be elections to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, local councils in many parts of England as well as the planned referendum on the alternative vote.

Ipsos-MORI has just published the above charts from its latest Scottish poll which is, of course, held under a form of PR. These are how the two parts of the Scottish election finished up in May 2007.

As can be seen the big gainer is the red team while the SNP are polling reasonably well with the Tories taking the biggest hit compared to the last elections.

Given everything that’s happened since C-Day on May 11th Nick Clegg’s party won’t feel too uncomfortable with the numbers.

For although they are down a bit in the constituency section they are polling better than the 2007 outcome in the list section. Interestingly it was the same pattern for the party in the most recent polling on the Welsh Assembly election.

Super Thursday will be the first national electoral test for the coalition and the outcome of the range of elections might just impact on its continuation.

Mike Smithson

Would it have taken away the “TINA defence”?

Those old to remember the Thatcher years will recall what came to be known as TINA - “There is no alterative” - her refrain when her policies were challenged. Well I wonder whether TINA has returned as the fact of the coalition continues to dominate the political debate.

The above projection on what AV would have done to the 2010 election outcome is part a mass of information now coming out of the 2010 British Election Study - the huge academic study funded by the Economic and Social Research Council which used a range of different methods to monitor and observe opinion both during and after the election

My guess is that these seat numbers will start to be regarded as the “official” projections of what the impact of a new voting system would be and will be referred to time and time again.

As can be seen the big losers would have been the Tories and the big winners the Liberal Democrats the winners. Labour are down but only by ten seats.

The big element, of course, is that the 283-248-89 total would have meant that both coalition possibilities, CON-LD or LAB-LD, could have led to viable governments. A CON-LD pact would have produced a majority of 94 whilst with LAB-LD it would have been 24.

In those circumstances the task for the Tory negotiators would have been enormous and my guess is that the yellows would have gone, after some hard bargaining, with Labour.

For the main argument in favour of the current coalition deal was TINA - that the seat numbers for the alternative simply did not add up. A CON-LD arrangement was the only one that produced a viable government and during that high octane weekend that was the imperative. Those TV pictures of the Greek riots had a big influence.

This is, of course, a counter-factual but one that could be highly relevant in the current AV debate.

Mike Smithson

t

Has Labour misplayed its defections game?

It’s well known that Charles Kennedy was not happy with the Lib Dem-Conservative coalition deal when it was put together and by all accounts, remains so. That’s been reinforced by a spate of newspaper articles today that suggest that he might be, or might have been, considering defecting to Labour.

As Nick Palmer notes in this morning’s thread, the mere fact that the story’s come out without a simultaneous defection indicates that it’s not going to happen. When defections happen, they’re worked out privately to enable maximum positive publicity for politician and incoming party. Announcing that talks took place leaves Kennedy in an awkward position which is something Labour wouldn’t want to do if they still anticipated a defection or defections (the stories mention ‘around half a dozen of his colleagues’ as Labour targets but the names appear to be pure speculation).

Leaking the story of talks isn’t risk-free for Labour either. For one thing, it raises expectations of defections in the future while simultaneously making it more difficult to achieve - MP’s who might be considering defection are likely to more reticent if they know discussions will be leaked should they not work out.

For another, it reinforces the impression of an attitude within Labour that Lib Dems are really just besandelled Labourites at heart. It fails to ask the question of why such politicians joined the Lib Dems rather than Labour in the first place, never mind answer it.

The attitude developed most strongly during the Ashdown years and was in the main a failure to distinguish between an anti-government, oppositionist, stance and a specifically anti-Tory one. The closeness in policy between early New Labour and the Lib Dems also helped to mask the distinction. Despite the Iraq War, Lib Dem criticism was seen as a one-off (and in any case, many Labour MP’s and supporters were also opposed), and anti-Tory was still assumed to be pro-Labour. It wasn’t. The parties come from different traditions and have different values which overlap in places but also have significant areas of disparity, particularly around libertarianism. Labour is much more socially authoritarian.

The Labour whips might also be making the mirror-image mistake in canvassing for defections as if the Lib Dems are mini-Tories. For whatever reason, Conservative MP’s have been much more prone to defecting than Lib Dems (or Labour, for that matter). There have been some defections at local government level but that can be a whole different ballgame.

There’s also another conundrum to answer: timing. A defection now would be a blank cheque. What would the person be signing up to? We can assume that a Miliband will win Labour’s leadership but we don’t know which and we don’t really know the direction Labour will be taken in, nor how effectively.

The lesson of Quentin Davies’ defection ought to have been learned - though it should have been learned before then as well.

It’s natural that some Lib Dems will be unhappy with the current situation, especially those who - like Kennedy - joined via the SDP route. The party’s polling is well down on the election and many of the government’s policies are not ones they like. The polling may well recover if the government turns the deficit and the economy around, for which they’ll be able to take some credit, where Lib Dem policies have been implemented and when they regain more visibility as a party and a more distinct identity: at an election.

As for Kennedy, his political career looks to be heading into a rather sad tailspin. As the most prominent opponent of the deal, he might have been a king-over-the-water were he to be seen to have resolved the difficulties in his private life. Not now. The suspicion that he went into negotiations to defect will further damage his political reputation within his party and among his colleagues which already had ‘unreliable’ writ large across it. Where he goes now is an open question but there has to be a strong possibility that he’s contested his last Westminster election.

David Herdson

Could this cliffhanger election be heading for a hung parliament?

The babies have been kissed, the staged events are done, the former leaders have made their cameo appearances (the knifing of Rudd the “elephant in the room” for Labor), and the psychic animals have had their say (the octopus and crocodile for Gillard, and the snail and spiny anteater for Abbott).

It’s been something of a scrappy campaign, and rather a strange one - indeed it’s been described as a “battle between two Oppositions”. What is clear is that Liberal leader Tony Abbott has outperformed many people’s expectations, and may even be in with a chance of an unlikely victory, although most commentators are expecting a very narrow Labor win, but with the distinct possibility of a hung parliament.

Labor look set for significant seat losses in Queensland (due to the dumping of homestate PM Rudd) and New South Wales (a very unpopular state Labor government), but may scrape over the line thanks to gaining the odd seat in Gillard’s Victoria base and possibly South Australia.

Polls will close at 6pm local time, thus 9am UK for the eastern states and 11am for Western Australia, and although as with American elections many seats will be called on election night, if the election is very tight the result may not be known for a week or so. Like most countries outside the UK, votes will be counted at polling stations (”booths” in Australian parlance), but it will take some days for all of the postal ballots to arrive, which are valid if posted on election day.

Double Carpet

Special thanks to Alexander Drake for his articles during the campaign, and for offering his insights on Australian politics. We may get updates from Alexander as election night unfolds.

ABC

Electoral Commission official results

Betfair

The Australian

Sydney Morning Herald

Poll Bludger

Surely who he chooses will win?

Would it have been worse without the coalition deal?

In a Radio 4 interview to be broadcast on Sunday night the LD leader and deputy PM, Nick Clegg, asserts that his party would be in a worse position in the polls if they had not entered into the coalition agreement with the Tories.

If they had stood aside then nobody would be taking any notice of the party now.

The BBC report goes on: “Being in government meant the Lib Dems were able to make progress with a “liberal agenda,” he argued. “If we weren’t in a coalition now I don’t think people would take any notice of the Liberal Democrats…”If we were in a coalition with Labour, arguably our identity crisis would be even worse…Mr Clegg said that despite his apparent closeness to Mr Cameron they were “tough with each other” behind closed doors.”

My view is that they were on a hiding to nothing - for if the party had turned what appeared to be a generous offer on May 11th then details would have seeped out and the party would have looked as though it wanted to remain irrelevant.

Labour were not prepared to take the situation seriously and looking back it is hard to see what else the Lib Dems could have done.

One thing’s for sure - next month’s party conference in Liverpool will get a lot more attention than if they’d been no coalition.

Clegg also confirms in the interview that the party will stick with the coalition even if voting reform does not get through.

Mike Smithson

What could it do to the SNP’s re-election chances?

It’s exactly a year ago today that the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, was freed on compassionate grounds by the SNP-led Scottish government after receiving a doctor’s report saying that he had only got three months to live.

We all remember the row and how it has continued to erupt as we saw during David Cameron’s visit to Washington last month.

One report today suggests that the SNP might have to get used to these anniversaries - for it’s said that Megrahi could survive for another seven years. That, to say the least, is somewhat at variance with the medical advice on which last year’s decision was taken.

The SNP are clearly sensitive about the matter and last night issued the findings of a poll of Scottish voters commissioned and paid for by the party from YouGov. Interestingly this didn’t ask whether the release decision was correct - rather it focused on the US senate investigation.

The YG polling panel split 72-20 on this “Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in 2001. In 2009 he was released by the Scottish Government’s Justice Secretary on compassionate grounds, having been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer. US senate committee invited representatives of the Scottish government to appear before their committee to explain their decision. The Scottish government declined to attend, on the grounds that they are accountable to the Scottish Parliament, not to US politicians. Do you agree or disagree with Scottish government’s decision not to attend?”

I am sure that I am not the only one to think that the form of the question is far too long and is leading.

The big political question is how this is going to impact on next May’s elections to the Scottish parliament. In 2007 the SNP came out as top party and since then has ruled as a minority. Will a resurgent Labour party win back power?

Mike Smithson