Why Labour under Brown is certain to lose
December 17th, 2007
Did the controversial “named leader” question get it right all along?
The above table is reproduced from UK Polling Report’s record of the controversial “named leader” questions that several pollsters asked during the period between David Cameron’s election as Tory leader in December 2005 and Gordon’s arrival in June 2007.
These findings proved to be highly controversial and every time I featured them on the site they came under fierce attack. For what was being presented was dynamite. For on almost every occasion when compared with the standard voting intention findings Labour was shown to do considerably worse with Gordon in the job.
The idea that the man the party was going to make leader was an electoral liability was just too hard to swallow and Team Brown put an enormous effort into discrediting the findings.
What these historical finding suggest, I contend, is that Brown was never going to be popular once the novelty of his honeymoon period had worn off. The PLP have elected unopposed someone who could lose a lot of MPs their jobs - and there was lots of data about to support this when they decided not to support a rival candidate.
Given that the pattern of big Tory leads over a Brown-led Labour now goes back for two years you have to question whether, indeed, we are going to see the pendulum swing back to Labour while the current leadership is in place.
In my view there is a trend going back over a long enough period to suggest that a Brown-led Labour is almost doomed to failure. The big question is whether the Tories can do enough to win an overall majority.
Maybe this time I’ll stick with my Conservative seats buy spread position.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I’m reposting from last thread…
We need to get some perspective on the Hilary bump.
Ok she is still ahead in many areas, but the problem is that it is whittling away in a number of places, most notably in the early primary states and this can’t go on or else everything really is up for grabs. She could lose both NH & Iowa and come back but it would be all the harder. A win in either and the ship will have been potentially steadied even if the weather remains rough which it could well do.
About two months ago some Democrats started to raise the issue of Hilary’s electablity in a much more co-ordinated way and perhaps this is the kick start to what issues Hilary is facing now. There was always going to be a Stop Hilary campaign and I firmly blieve its underway with attacks on a number of fronts.
Hilary does have a lead to play with and thus deserves her position at the head of the market, however, what should be watched is the Clinton campaign response which so far to this wearing down of some of her leads has been ineffective and sometimes damaging. It is this that makes me think that there is more difficult ground for her to traverse before she comes out of this bump. It’s timing however couldnt be worse with the few weeks to go before the primaries. In short she is in difficulties and those could get to the point where its death match material, which it isnt right now.
My overal view at the start of this whole show was to have a lay bet on Clinton but ultimately a feeling that she was favourite to get there and deservedly so. My opposition to her was because she was bound to have a tricky period, her potential diviseness would be raised and so it has proved.
My alternative, much promoted on here was Good Hair Edwards on the basis that when the Stop Hilary effort began he might just be the man who it would rally round.
By the looks of it I’ve got 2 out of 3 right. Pity about John, not dead in Iowa but, could suffer from a squeeze and is dependent I believe on a tactical vote from either Obama’s people or Hilary’s who fear the other side winning more than they do their own candidate losing. The only plus he has now is that things could get very bitter between the two front runners.
Its a fair point Mike, and like Guido says here,
http://www.order-order.com/2007/12/we-told-you-so.html
its not like people were not warning of the doom.
However Gordon Brown was (and perhaps still is) the master of internal Labour politics.
Will Labour ditch Gordon Brown? No, like him, they simply have not got the bottle.
Fancy a tenner on that Mike?
Fair point. I for one was extremely critical of the named leader questions - and for some time, my criticism seemed justified.
I suppose it all depends whether Labour’s poll ratings have dived because people dislike Brown, or whether they’ve dived because Labour are perceieved to be incompetent - ie Labour’s poll ratings wouldn’t be much different now if Blair was still in charge.
Dangerously provocative, Mike.
You’ll have Roger and others foaming at the mouth if you carry on suggesting that those of us who claimed Comrade Brown was a disaster waiting to happen were right all along.
What will be interesting to see is whether there is any positioning going on amongst those who could take over from Brown after the next election as the ‘rebuilders’ of the party in the next few months.
Expect a rash of books and essays from the next generation in a bookshop near you soon…
Are there likely to be any more polls before the new year e.g. Guardian monthly ICM?
146 (previous thread) This is the same market that you “alerted” us all to when you backed Brown to be gone in 2010 at 3/1.
stjohn - Oh Dear, don’t remind me! I believe in boxing parlance, this is referred to as leading with one’s chin! The good news, however, is that having checked my account I did indeed buy this bet at odds of 16-1.
I said on the last thread that it’s unlikely that Brown will go before the next election. Unlikely yes but by no means out of the question. If Mike’s view, which I share, that Brown is unelectable becomes common currency then anything could happen. Cameron must be praying Brown hangs on. What Cameron wants can’t be good for Labour.
4. ‘You’ll have Roger …foaming at the mouth’
Calmer than usual, then?
Stjohn, from the previous thread “Re 146, Stjohn, ““Mustn’t grumble”.
and
“Dipso fatso bingo asbo Tesco”. ”
Itis apiss potanda tinone
“
6. Pleased to hear it Peter. I’m beginning to think we have a reasonable chance of collecting on this one.
Trends continue.
Unless Brown has a personality transplant (Not NICE approved so no NHS funding), he’s a permanent liability.
I suspect he knows this: why does he resemble that cat when times are bad? Cos he knows he’ll make things worse when he speaks.
At the time, Mike, I seem to recall that you pointed the high probability that these polls were more an indication that the Tories benefited when Cameron received exposure - by his name being mentioned.
If I recall correctly, there was only one poll which directly compared Brown/Cameron with Blair/Cameron (rather than Brown/Cameron with Labour/Conservative). I believe that this poll was positive for Brown, though only by a couple of points.
It is clear to me that the proximate cause of Labour’s poor position in the polls is the series of mishaps that have created a sense of incompetence.
It is entirely possible to produce the same outcome due to two different causes.
Brown had a brilliant opportunity and he has blown it. The simple truth is that on so many issues he does not represent a change from the Blair years and he has nothing new to say or do (and no more money either).
Voters were not predicting this when they answered those poll questions months and years ago. This was not inevitable.
6 - 3/1 2010 is still decent enough value, Peter - that is clearly favourite for the next G.E. (6/5 on betfair) - and if the election is that year it implies a fair chance Brown will lose it.
In fact I wouldn’t discourage anyone from that 3/1 at all - it’s the 7/4 2009 that looks very ropey (since a G.E. called that year implies Brown doing better).
Obviously the unknown is Brown being forced out but I really can’t see that happening. It looks like he’ll go down with the ship.
Mike, just so we can calibrate your use of the word “certain”, what do you think is the % probability of Labour winning?
Maybe this time I’ll stick with my Conservative seats buy spread position
Ahem ….. probably a good call Mike! That said, the Tories’ current GE Seats spread prices are already factoring in a net gain of around 100 seats vs the last GE, which in itself be quite a feat. Don’t the laws of probability, about which I know nothing, suggest that it’s unlikely to get a whole lot better for them?
Yes, but what a shower of PC-do-gooders, we’ve loved multiculturalism types, sit on the benches behind. They will only represent the traditional working classes if they don’t smoke. Frank Field is a straight intellectual exception, a realist, fully understanding incentives and how Labour has benefit-financed a burgeoning benefits “riff-raff” (the very term he used on Radio 4 last week).
I’d say a lot of Labour MPs deserve to lose their jobs. Their finances are crooked, the discs are lost (who knows who’s got their mitts on the data) and the election is lost. Just 30 months, when we’ll be seeing Gordon Brown’s “miracle” unravel, to wait.
I know Brown going before the next election is very speculative. But if he did what would happen to Labour’s General Election prospects and price? Depending on who succeeded him, presumably Labour would shorten?
Although I think Brown is likely to lose the next election , there is nothing certain about it . I suggest that if pb.com had been around , similar threads by Mike headed ” Why Conservatives under Thatcher are certain to lose ” would have appeared and been totally wrong .
1981 - average Thatcher approval rating Minus 31 worst figure minus 41
1986 - average Thatcher approval rating Minus 28 worst figure minus 38 .
PfP
I am taking a modest punt on this house price index that you mentioned last night. Makes sense.
Mind you, if it goes wrong I’ll obviously throw a strop.
9. Good one Benedict.
I’m getting concerned - Cameron will be facing his third Lib Dem leader since he became Conservative Leader and now people are discussing whether he’ll face his third Labour leader!
On purely partisan desires I want Gordon to continue as leader - maybe yesterday’s poll would then come to fruition.
Afternoon all
Very interesting research - I think the question is was there any other potential Labour leader who could have polled better figures than this or even better figures than Cameron ?
I suspect not.
From the last thread - Ben had a go at some comments I made about the US primaries. While I ought to bow to his greater knowledge, I’m not going to. Even if Obama (or Huckerbee) were to win Iowa, the fact reamins that, as Nick pointed out, they are not well enough organised or have campaigned enough in the big states where the primary votes are.
Winning in Iowa keeps you in the race, losing in Iowa knocks you out if you make an early strong start the be-all and end-all. The other option is to go low-key in Iowa and even NH and rely on no clear trend emerging before the bigger states come into play.
Re 17, Stjohn “I know Brown going before the next election is very speculative. But if he did what would happen to Labour’s General Election prospects and price? Depending on who succeeded him, presumably Labour would shorten?”
Well, it does depend on both who suceeds, how Brown then behaves and how the party behaves.
There is no obvious candidate with the support base to do it.
Re 20, Stjohn, I knew you would get it
19. Which one? I’ve put a bit on Spreadfair’s London House Prices for next year. I think the market is over pessimistic and buying at 295 for Dec 08 (against 320 for Aug 07) is good value.
9
Surely more logical as “Tesco, fatso, bingo, dipso, asbo”
18-”Although I think Brown is likely to lose the next election , there is nothing certain about it .”
I agree with Mark Senior…
Looking at the timelines, if the current downturn is just about biting now and its systemic and part of the cycle (as opposed to sudden event stuff) themn Gordo will preferably want to hold out until late for an election to try to ride it out. That makes 2010 a better candidate for an election. Therefore, if he doesnt go due to a party push then thats the likely date of his leaving No 10.
25. fr. Makes sense. I guess the order Dipso fatso … was chosen as it sounds like ipso facto.
19 Yokel - it’s good to know someone reads my early morning drivel!
I was surprised to discover that the market has not really reacted to Rightmove’s December house price horror, which can only mean it doesn’t believe their numbers (although even were they half as bad they would be awful), so we shall have to wait for Nationwide, followed by the mighty Halifax to pronounce.
29. But beware the difference in what is being measured - Rightmove is asking prices, Halifax is mortgage based, I don’t know Nationwide’s methodology. And remember they are averages, open to distortion by things like HIPs deadlines, as Rightmove point out.
25
Aah, the benefits of a classical education!
30. Spoke to a friend who works for a big midlands housebuilder. He says sales this month are -7 (cancelled purchases). Anacdotal but seems to reflect trends. Without the housing market, what does Gordon have?
24 buying at 295 for Dec 08 (against 320 for Aug 07) is good value.
Baskerville - you’re a brave man IMO. If Rightmove’s figures are correct and the London market dipped 6.8% in December alone (unlikely I grant you), this would take us quite close to your buying level of 295 with a full year to go. My fear, especially in the Capital, is the thought of all those “Buy to Lettors” rushing for the exit door.
29 There are many people who would not think of Rightmove’s house price figures if correct as bad or awful , in fact there are many who would welcome a substantial correction after the very big rises of the last few years .
stodge@22: “Even if Obama (or Huckerbee) were to win Iowa, the fact reamins that, as Nick pointed out, they are not well enough organised or have campaigned enough in the big states where the primary votes are.”
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but what’s your source / evidence for thinking that Obama isn’t well organised in the bigger states? My impression - not sure where I got it from - was that (unlike Huckerbee) he’d built quite a strong nationwide organisation (being financially only slightly behind Hillary).
the final nail in the terror detention limit coffin??
and/or the start of the blarite revenge!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7148108.stm
29. If Rightmove is reporting asking prices then sale prices are likely to be down even more, if they’re selling at all.
O/T. Putin agrees to become Prime Minister after the Presidential elections in Russia.
30 Your points are well made, but what I think has really changed over the past 2 months is that there is now a more or less universal perception that prices are headed south next year. I did my own min survey amongst my colleagues this week - the minimum expected decline for 2008 was 5% and the maximum was 20%, the average around 11%. I’ve taken sell positions at each quarter end.
Re 34, Mark Senior “29 There are many people who would not think of Rightmove’s house price figures if correct as bad or awful , in fact there are many who would welcome a substantial correction after the very big rises of the last few years .”
Yes, I agree, but it won’t help growth or tax revenue which is where the problem is. If we were where we should be, mild year on year government surpluses, and low government debt, then the storm would only be in a teacup. Alas, it could spread a bit further.
Re 37, Matt J “O/T. Putin agrees to become Prime Minister after the Presidential elections in Russia.”
Bit of a shocker that one
33/38. Well that’s what gambling’s about isn’t it? My view is based on fears being overdone, several more interest rate cuts over the next 12 months, London being a better bet than the rest of the country, around 2% GDP growth in the next year, historical precedents (early 90s) and a damp finger in the air. I’m guessing at a max 10% fall (to 288) and a min 0% fall (320) between Aug 07 and Dec 08. So, on my figures, a downside of 7 points and an upside of 25.
40. Yes he must be confident of the result.
Personally I think it’s very positive. He’s built up huge political capital in Russia over the past decade and it would be perverse to push him out of a public role in the government now. He’s also played it by the book constitutionally. Being Prime Minister is an infinitely preferable outcome to him acting from behind the scenes.
Dour, Scottish, money-grubber.
Three winning qualities in Scotland, to be sure, but the kiss of death in England.
Yokel - O/T - The X Factor (of all things)
Read your comments on a previous thread and had a small lay bet on The Scottish Lad (I’ve forgotten his name, that’s how much he impressed me.)
I watched a fair bit of this year’s competition but not with betting in mind. Fwiw, I was mildly surprised the kid didn’t go out early, but then what do I know about current pop music? I remember being struck though by his performance a couple of weeks back when he did a Nat King Coal number and, clearly affected by nerves, he missed the intro, was out of tune much of the way, got the words wrong and looked awkward performing an arch and cheesy bit of interplay with a member of the audience. I thought ‘he’ll get slated’ by the famously acerbic panel, but he didn’t. They didn’t enthuse, but they didn’t criticise, and it struck me as odd.
Now he has won, against all expectations, and there’s a hint somewhere I believe of voting ‘peculiarities’. I begin to sniff a rat and a betting opportunity.
One wouldn’t bet the mortgage on it of course; the market requires a sound understanding of the workings of the Pop Music Industry and its main customers, pre-pubescent girls. Since I would regard the former as rather less pure and white than the driven snow and the latter as completely unfathomable, any punt would strictly be for fun.
The odds are attractive however. If the Pop Public gets a whiff that it has been sold a pup in questionable circumstances, our out-of-tune celtic chanteur may not be quite the shoo-in for number one that his odds (1/6) currently suggest.
It’s faintly reminiscent of the SPOTY, isn’t it? Media hypes up its favorite despite the manifestly superior claims of numerous others. Public latches on to this late in the day and refuses to play ball.
Be great fun if it happened again.
Btw…what’s this about Hillary’s bump? Does Bill know…and how do you think it will affect her election chances?
Re: 35 - Edmund, I think Obama may well be the exception here. This is clearly a well-financed and thorough campaign. My contention is however that were Obama to do poorly in say Iowa and NH that organisation would swiftly unravel.
Candidates like Obama usually have to make a strong early impact. If Clinton is the “establishment Democrat” candidate, she could in theory afford to run a reasonable second in the early states safe in the knowledge that the timetable plays to the strengths of the established candidate.
As we saw with Dean in 2004, it IS about momentum. Dean lost it and never recovered. Obama can, in my view, win or finish a close second and still have a chance. If he were to finish a bad third for example, questions would be asked.
Edwards might just survive with say a good second in Iowa but I think Hillary could survive finishing second in Iowa. Were she to finish third, that might be different.
On the GOP side, Huckebee needs the momentum of a strong performance in Iowa to carry him on to states where he has (so far) not been so well organised.
from the previous thread
re 132 and others. But what about Gordon, realising the way the writing’s on the wall, takes down the ceremonial sword and commits political hara-kiri? I know the man’s nature is not courageous, but you never know.
by Chris A December 17th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
re 146 stjohn -don’t despair - there’s always the number 11 bus. Certainly the genes don’t make it likely.
Bendedict, from the previous thread. IMO it’s not unity that is the problem for the PLP it is uniformity. Just as in life you need a varied gene pool to survive the odd meteorite - in politics you need a variety of talent in the govt/backbenchers to lead you out of events.
IMO one of the problems for Labour are that the generation below the pre 97 leaders Straw etc are very similar and perhaps rather dull.
33, PfP
“all those “Buy to Lettors” rushing for the exit door”
I’m wondering how much this will be exacerbated by the drop in capital gains tax in April - a perfect opportunity to get out of the market and minimize losses.
Re 47, Jonathan, “IMO one of the problems for Labour are that the generation below the pre 97 leaders Straw etc are very similar and perhaps rather dull.”
Yes, you are probably right. I think it is a fucntion of having so many identikit candidates in so many seats in the run up to 1007, so they would not scare the punters.
I do hope we don’t make the same mistake.
re 36 Yes I hope so. But you can guarantee that there will still be another Labour sheep to push it through the Commons. They will say that they listened and made up their own minds, but they will have totally ignored the advice of Falconer, Goldsmith, DPP, West etc and just voted the way the whips told them to.
41 Baskerville - I’m with you on the damp finger in the air test, always an accurate indicator! Maybe we’ll compare notes in January when the Halifax data is out.
re 50 that should read enough sheep
51. Indeed, though the best place to compare notes is on Spreadfair!
US trade deficit reduces for 2nd quarter..
http://tinyurl.com/2c5po9
Eventually the US dollar is turning as well..
48 Andy - won’t the reduction in the CGT rate from 6.4.08 tend to support the market for the remainder of this tax year?
48/55. Forgive my ignorance… but with taper relief, surely most BTL investors would only have been paying 10% CGT if they held their properties for more than two years, so the CGT change is a massive increase in tax, rather than a cut. Or am I being thick?
Re 56, Baskerville “48/55. Forgive my ignorance… but with taper relief, surely most BTL investors would only have been paying 10% CGT if they held their properties for more than two years, so the CGT change is a massive increase in tax, rather than a cut. Or am I being thick?”
The taper relief applied to the sale of businesses rather than assets. A BTL house is an asset not a bussiness, though a bussiness with a lot of housing stock would get such releif. (I think
)
55, PfP.
I’d expect that it would - so could there be a big step-change in BTL sales in April? People hanging on despite losses until the change, and then running for the cash.
49 Well you might be in that position. The A-list is a cloner’s charter, but probably worth it for the sake of avoiding the crazies. It took 97/01/05 to clear out the Tory dross. Hamilton would still be in Tatton!
57 Is right on the CGT changes. Come april i imagine a lot of the commentariat who brought their little darling’s flats for their time at uni will welcome the ’simplification’
Indeed many of the recent tax changes, so long as you aren’t an entrepreneur, have brought these sort of benefits.
Re 59, Jonathan, “49 Well you might be in that position. The A-list is a cloner’s charter, but probably worth it for the sake of avoiding the crazies.”
It may have weeded out some of the crazies, but I don’t think it is as bad as the seemingly identikit form that would concern me. (I may of course be wrong on that)
Re 60 Jim the Lurker, yes, but then who made the system stupidly complex in the first place?
56,57
If you have owned the property for more than three years you will also qualify for non-business-asset taper relief. If you sell within three years you pay tax on 100% of the gain, but this reduces by 5% a year thereafter, down to 60% after 10 years.
So those who bought before the boom will have less incentive to sell up. If you’ve bought sometime in the last 5 years or so, it will make a big difference - and those who have bought recently are the ones most likely to be overstretched on the mortgage versus the rental income.
50. possibly, but i dont think the lords will let it through. makes a change, lords defending the liberty of the many, commons reducing it!!!
62 - By “less incentive”, I meant less incentive in comparison to those who bought later - it will still be better for those who qualified for maximum taper relief (40% (rate) of 60% (tapered) is 24%)
59 Quite a lot of non-A-Listers have slipped through (something like 46% of candidates in winnable seats, IIRC from Con Home), and even the most identikit MPs can become rebellious over time - as Labour have discovered. IMO, the best candidates/MPs are those who’ve had to cope with opposition, and winning people over, rather than those who’ve been used to winning. In the case of the Conservative Party, I’d suggest that would mean the intakes of 1979 and 2005, in recent times (the 2001 intake was still largely made up of people who’d become active in politics prior to 1997).
65 - In the 2010 election (as if Macavity would possibly call it any earlier) the Parliamentary Conservative Party could almost double in size with the number of MPs. Would the 2010 intake of MPs be people used to opposition or those just used to winning?
Well done Mike, I have been pointing out for some time that the polling companies predicted the overall direction with Brown correctly. We just had to wait for the honeymoon and the climax of “Blair’s removal” for polls to return to a normal state.
On the 42 days, following that comment from Lord Falconer, this is the final final nail in the coffin.
Only a cabinet full of fools would carry on trying for 42. So, I guess they will carry on!
36 Ryans, Hell hath no fury like a pensioner scorned.
65 It would be great to see the likes of Milliband and Ball out on the stump earning their spurs and gaining political acuity in a marginal. And with that ludicrous comment you see in a nut shell the problem Labour face. They haven’t had to fight for a single electors vote.
Ah lobbocks. It looks like the real thing at the moment, as if the plates have finally shifted and the Tories will get back into power.
Well, if they haven’t really changed - and I’m not sure they have - they’ll only last one term. That’s the consolation.
I lost money on the Labour succession mainly on the basis that I DID believe those polls, and therefore, thought that any realistic challenger would be stand a good chance. That meant, so I reasoned, that they’d put themselves forward.
Having said that, those polls didn’t predict the Brown bounce. So it may be that they happened to be right, but that that was just a coincidence. We said what we thought, then we waited to see how he did, then we made up our minds, and it happened that the lead was about the same.
Obviously the news may improve significantly over the next few months, if there happen to be no major disasters for the government. And surely Labour will recover as election day approaches, as the Tories always did? Probably, I think that’ll involve the Lib dems taking about 4% off the Tories in total (whether they’re actually the same people we’d have to see.
“Well, if they haven’t really changed - and I’m not sure they have - they’ll only last one term. That’s the consolation.”
Care to elaborate?
43. Gareth - “Dour, Scottish, money-grubber”
Mmmmmm….. those “winning qualities” do not seem to be of much utility to Brown in Scotland either at the moment. Remember, not all Scottish politicians in London are ‘winners’ back home. Some are monumentally big losers:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/10/15/bell512.jpg
O/T a bit frustrating about the Lib Dem leadership betting- the initial odds all pointed to a Clegg landslide, and did not reflect the likely close nature of the contest. In the past few days almost every commentator seems to have remarked how close the contest is set to be! Any initial rumours on the gap?
So a review of Re-Launch Week before Christmas - on Today Peter Hain announces that the Government will after 5 years agree to recompense pensioners after UK, European Courts and Ombudsman all say they should; but Good News anyway.
So what’s the bad news that someone might want buried?
Loss of motorists’ personal details - Ruth Kelly to make statement
Child Benefit discs that went missing in October - MPs on the public accounts committee grill David Hartnett, acting chairman of HMRC, and Nick Lodge, HMRC’s director of data security: Alistair Darling a Commons statement on the interim review by PricewaterhouseCoopers chairman Kieran Poynter
Sir Michael Pitt’s report on July Floods - media interest re-awakened and lots of people in Hull & Gloucester still in difficulty
Then of course Gordon reports on his coffee break in Lisbon and flying visit to Brussels..
69. That’s what Labour thought in 1979 too ahhahahaha
“China’s economy is 40% smaller than previously thought” - World Bank???
Well, if they haven’t really changed - and I’m not sure they have - they’ll only last one term. That’s the consolation. ”
You may be disappointed in this.
76 Has someone nicked it or are there a lot of Yuan behind the sofa cushions?
Good to see the UK go up one place in GDP table!
22 – Trust me, the early states pretty much decide every thing.
The candidate that wins Iowa is then likely to win New Hampshire and by the same logic South Carolina, by then we’ll have had three weeks a media narrative focusing on candidate X is winning, candidate Y is losing (the margin could well be unimportant).
Following that it’s a very long way back for any candidate be they Clinton or Obama. Important as the “big states” are in terms of the number of delegates they award to the convention, it would be very difficult (if not impossible) for a candidate to try and rally in those states having been beat elsewhere, as the races in those states will be defined to an enormous extent by the outcome of the early primary contests.
Clinton has the resources and establishment support to make a fist of reviving her campaign in these states should she lose out in the early states – but her chances of successfully arresting any Obama “break out” following Iowa would be slim at best. Also I’d suggest that Edmud (35) was right, Obama’s operation outside of the early primary states is on a par with that of Clinton (both having similar resources and success in fundraising – no mean feat for Obama!) so I doubt that Clinton has very much of structural advantage in any of these states that could trump Obama (if he were in a winning position – if not its academic).
If we’re into February and Obama has won in IA, NV, NH and SC then he’ll be polling ahead of Clinton in all the “big states” (just as Kerry trumped Dean and Edwards in the polling in those states following IA in ’04).
79-Agree with you again…
Re. 77, yes, almost certainly. Quite apart from the mess Labour would/will be in after even a narrow defeat, the period 64-79 (when there was the equivalent of a change of government every three and a half years) was an exception to the general trend in British political history, that of long periods of rule for one party (often of a decade or more).
I say quite apart - if Labour loses next time, it will have a depleted grassroots base (or even more depleted than it is already), very little (if any) representation in the South outside London, and probably the usual squabbling in which Labour indulges after GE defeats (though possibly not as bad as the squabbling, and leftward lurches, which followed defeat in 1931, 1970, or 1979).
A lot of Labour MPs seem to be doing their Xmas shopping today, to judge from their attendance at the PM’s statement
Re. 65, and the 01 intake, I’ve read a few times that many Tories regard that intake as one of the least distinguished for many years.
80 - Always good to hear.
Off Topic but refers back to one of yesterdays threads. Apologies if this has already been discussed.
I’ve just read this Independent article about the Libdems rejecting David Cameron’s offer to work together on localism.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3258015.ece
Most of the Libdem rebukes are rather farcical, having little to do with the topic David Cameron focussed upon but what particularly amused me were the comments attributed to Charles Kennedy
The former leader, Charles Kennedy, also dismissed the idea, citing Tory hostility to closer ties with the EU. He said: “I don’t somehow see the basis of a great progressive consensus.”
So the EU is an example of good ‘localism’ is it?
I think Clegg and Huhne really seriously need to question whether Kennedy is up to a front bench job (foreign affairs - god forbid!). Is he on the sauce again?
Or should we infer that the Libdems commitment to localism is really just smoke and mirrors and that the Libdems are just ‘Labour-Lite’ - and equally as centralist, statist, authoritarian and anti-democratic as their masters in the Labour Government?
81 I think one could really regard the period 1964-79 as one of (weak) Labour rule, given that Heath’s government was one of short duration - and was pretty unsuccessful.
Re: 77 & 83: As an LD, I think this is hugely significant. There seems a view in Conservative circles that, once elected, a Cameron Government looks to be in for at least two terms (let’s say 2018).
From the experience of the 1970 and 1979 Conservative Governments, that’s far from certain. Both were in serious trouble within two years (1972 & 1981) and both took some heavy mid-term defeats. The former never recovered while the latter, aided by the Falklands Conflict and the disintegration of Labour, went on to govern for a generation.
So much depends on the “scale” of the defeat. I could imagine a scenario where, had the Tories win 265 MPs instead of 165 in 1997, Ken Clarke might well have been the leader and it’s entirely likely history would have taken a different turn.
In 1983, the scale of the disaster meant there was no one from the “old” Labour establishment left to challenge Kinnock, who had been regarded as being on the far-left in the Callaghan era.
So we had one Opposition which fractured (1979) and another which was reduced to a rump (1997) so that’s hardly typical. I can’t see Labour getting below 250 seats next time so the next leader will have a base to build on and that will increase as the Conservatives (inevitably) start losing Councillors. This argument of a declining base is valid up to a point but we’ve seen the Conservative base rebuild from the depths of the mid-90s and there’s no reason to suppose the Labour and LD bases won’t recover when (as will happen) people become disenchanted with Cameron.
The question is how Cameron will react when the councils and councillors start being lost and the poll ratings put the Tories below 30% - no reason why this wouldn’t happen.
85. Sunday Times was not very subtle in suggesting Kennedy was still on the sauce - would seem madness to push him back to the fore - accident waiting to happen ?
What is it that people find so hard in admitting that they look at the opinion polls?
“Most opinion surveys in key states show Obama rising, and Clinton sliding, suggesting the first-term Illinois senator may be peaking at the right time.
“I really don’t pay a lot of attention to that. I have a much longer view about this campaign,” Clinton said.”
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ia68eubnhzRhqJHZf-hjZA-1fqcQ
Comparing Dean to Clinton is futile - aside from their obvious personal differences, you’re comparing a massive lead with a minimal one. Dean was barely above 20% nationally at this point in 2003, lower than Obama now, and well under half what Clinton is polling. When he suffered a reverse in Iowa there was nowhere to go.
Incidentally, when Clinton was included in the 2003 polls, she got 40+%, while Dean plummeted to barely being in double digits. That’s how weak his support was - a fragile bubble just waiting to collapse.
There seems to be a presumption that administrations become unpopular shortly after they are elected. I’m not convinced. (E.g. Reagan was more popular when he retired than when he was elected.)
It all depends on whether the administration ossifies. If it can “renew” itself, with new policies and/or personalities, that are in tune with the changing times, then the unpopularity can be neutered. After all, this was Brown’s plan.
I know that it may sound depressing for Labour activists, but if Cameron knows when to step down, there’s no reason why the Tories shouldn’t stay in office as long as New Labour has. After all, it worked for the Tories in 1992.
re 73 someone in the Electoral Reform Society must know the result by now so why haven’t Betfair closed the market?
87 - “no reason why this wouldn’t happen” - how about after two n a half years of the last 6 months results in Labour being outcast for a generation in a similar position as the tories were in in 1997? Resulting in 2014 being somewhat of a foregone conclusion, with a labour recovery, making 2018 competitive again! If your already hoping for tory poll ratings below 30% you’ll be waiting rather a long time my dear!
18 Mark Senior.Comparing GB with Thatcher in mid-term makes no sense. Even those who loathed her accepted her courage, her determination and decisiveness, so that when it came to voting, she held her ground.Which of these qualities apply to GB?Read what Michael Foot said in the Commons after Falklands,or the interplay with Skinner on her retirement. As I recall even Roger had a good word to sayabout her in an earlier thread- you cant get better evidence than that. If GB retired, the Commons would stand up and cheer.
Re: 91 - Fair points and of course the Labour Government would probably have got an even bigger majority had it gone to the country in 1999 or early 2000.
Re; 93 - Pudsey, you simply don’t know what is going to happen between now and the summer of 2010 and neither do I. To assume it will be like the last six months (you mean huge electoral volatility, I presume :)) is incredibly naive.
Even if 2010 produces a clear Conservative majority (far from certain), Labour won’t slump to the 1997, 2001 or even 2005 Tory numbers. My prediction on the poll ratings is based on what I think will happen in the first 12-24 months of a Cameron Government. I suspect the public finances will be found to be in a disastrous state and the resultant spending cuts will provoke public dissatisfaction especially if the entire economy is weak. The Tories will see they are clearing up Labour’s mess but will anyone listen ? There’s also this thing called “luck”. Cameron has it now, Brown used to have it. Who knows what events might conspire to afflict the opening couple of years of a Cameron Government ?
A below 30% Conservative polling by the time the London Olympics opens with Cameron being booed at the opening ceremony ? Who knows ?
92. Maybe they have forgotten the contest is taking place at all.
85. “Or should we infer that the Libdems commitment to localism is really just smoke and mirrors and that the Libdems are just ‘Labour-Lite’ - and equally as centralist, statist, authoritarian and anti-democratic as their masters in the Labour Government?”
I’m sorry but even those that really hate the LDs can not possibly think this. Four things they definitely are not are:
Centralist
Statist
Authoritarian
Anti-Democratic
Every one of these descriptions is the exact opposite of what LDs believe in.
Re: 97 - Indeed, and one of the problems I have, as an LD, with Cameron’s weasel words is that I have still to see anything approaching a policy commitment to genuine devolution and a substantial repatriation of powers from Whitehall and Westminster to directly-elected and locally accountable Councils.
Even the “co-operative schools” initiative read to me like a plan to have Tory activists running school governing bodies.
It’s bad enough the Tories don’t trust their own Councillors and Councils but it seems they don’t inherently trust any of us
95 If the public finances were disastrous at the time of the next election, then (assuming the Conservatives won it) I think the electorate would blame Labour, at least for a few years.
97 so why support a treaty than further centralises power in Europe, with likelihood on past record that it will further statist solutions to problems? Against the LD manifesto it suggests that this is done without referring to the voters - surely a referendum is the localist & democratic ideal?
Then a senior LD Peer, Lord Carlile, suggests that for Teror trials the UK adopt the Napoleonic method of investgating magistrates rather than the UK one of sep[aration of policing and justice? Pretty authoritarian.
” I know Brown going before the next election is very speculative. But if he did what would happen to Labour’s General Election prospects and price? Depending on who succeeded him, presumably Labour would shorten? ”
The pressure to call a GE would be huge. The public didn’t like Brown becoming PM unelected without a contest. They would like a replacement even less…
98. I know I’m a Tory, but it amazes me that LDs appear so dismissive, even angry about Cameron’s overtures on ‘localism’. Why not take him at his word and discuss it? Why not press for policy commitments? Why not investigate? If he’s a charlatan, you can expose him, can’t you?
Or is it that your basic instincts are more anti-Tory than pro-localism; anti-Toff more than pro-liberty.
95: A Labour version of the Tory 1997 slump could happen if they make themselves unpopular enough. What might make it more likely is that voters might feel they have to counter the electoral bias against the Tories.
Those pondering bets on xmas number one and the X Factor voting might want to read this:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7147931.stm
Ruth Kelly “in the interests of greater transparency” blames a “private agency” has lost the records of three million drivers taking the driving tests - personal data but excluding key personal data.
A good day to bury bad news. Sky report that Government review slates organisation and leadership at Treasury and Inland Revenue.
95 - I know I can’t predict the future, hence the ‘how about’ start to my post, i was merely offering an alternative to your rather absurd statement that theres no reason why cameron won’t be polling below 30%.
Your predictions carry no more weight or likelyhood then the option that i put forward and some of the sweeping statements and predictios you make regarding luck and the london olympics, im hoping are made in jest as they are frankly ridiculous.
Your obvious hatred for cameron appears to be clouding the vision appearing in your crystal ball! Probably because he has taken a large chunk of LD support over the past two years!
To be honest i still think labour have a chance at the next GE without Gordy, although the chances of that are slim to - none! Can’t beleive so many MP’s and Labour activists walked into this minefield in such a blinkered fashion! Only have themselves to blame for once though!
Re: 102 - I think if you actually read what I said, Baskerville, instead of coming up with the usual knee-jerk Tory response, you would have seen that my problem with Cameron’s statement is precisely that it is not backed by significant policy commitments. It is all too reminscent of the Blair language of the mid-90s. We shouldn’t have been taken in by Blair, I suspect that informs our more cautious view regarding Cameron’s “offer”.
Re: 107 - Indeed and the fact we agree that neither of us has a monopoly on foresight is a start. You may be right, I may be right, the odds-on shot is that we are BOTH wrong, time will tell.
I don’t “hate” Cameron. He may be a fine political leader but I’ve yet to see much evidence of this. His speeches are low on substance and high on nice-sounding platitudes. We had a decade of that with Tony Blair, I’d hoped we moved on a wee bit.
O/T, but I see that Bill Binding, formerly Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan in the UK, died a short while ago.
Re 109, Sean fear “O/T, but I see that Bill Binding, formerly Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan in the UK, died a short while ago.”
Really? I am sure he will be missed, but by whom I know not.
108 - “His speeches are low on substance and high on nice-sounding platitudes.”
This oft-given argument annoys me - Cameron has plenty of policies, and you can bet your house he’s got some trump cards up his sleeve, which he will reserve for the election campaign. Why show his hand now so that Gord can nick all the best bits, put them through the mill, water them down and pretend they’re his own?
108. What you ‘actually said’, Stodge, was “Cameron’s weasel words”. I think it reasonable to take this as a dismissive, negative response to his proposal. Your party will continue to flat-line if it fails to take up such overtures. Yes, you made a mistake with Blair in the 90s, but why can’t you learn from that mistake and be more demanding/critical with Cameron, rather than flouncing?
Are we in 1991 or 1996 time?
At end of 1991 Labour only had 814 more Councillors than Labour. It went on to lose the GE1992. To unseat a Govt appears to require several thousand more councillors.
At the end of 1996 Labour had 6,653 more councillors than Labour, it won GE1997 on a landslide.
At end of 2007 Labour will have almost 4,000 fewer councillors than the Conservatives.
Based on present trends, Labour look like entering GE2010 with between 5,000 and 6,000 fewer councillors than the Conservatives.
PS at GE1979 Conservatives also had 6,000 more councillors than Labour.
Re: 111 - I’ve heard this response from Tory activists before, John, and I’m not impressed. On the one hand, you say Cameron doesn’t want to give away detailed policies - the problem with that is those of us who want to know what kind of Government we might expect from the Conservatives and want to ask valid questions are unable to do so.
The second point is that when Cameron starts banging the drum for his “progressive alliance” and LDs like me start questionning his commitment to localism (not surprising given the past Tory record) we are rounded on by Tories like jsfl at 85 for not giving poor “Dave” a chance.
Re: 112 - Baskerville, perhaps my use of “weasel words” was inappropriate but I simply do not trust Cameron on this. I want him to offer one radical and genuine policy commitment which would significantly devolve power from Westminster to local councils.
I’m still waiting
apologies if someone has posted this before but here is todays’ Nulab disaster
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7147715.stm
116
A disaster a day
keeps the voters at bay.
116 - bye bye ID cards. Michael Howard must be gutted.
117
It defies belief , after all that has happened. its just plain incompetence. The form of words about whether it was encrypted or not is Nulab spin of the worst kind. I read it as unencrypted. Techons might understand better than I.
108,Stodge you are write to be careful of Cameron, the Conservatives if the polls are correct don`t need you and would shaft the Lib Dems unless there was hung parliament.
Then hopefully full PR could be extracted but I doubt it.
Blair I believe might have moved your way, but the win was too big and the wider Labour party would not go for fundemental change.
Nevertheless the history book will judge that it was a reforming government on constitutional change, in that it went to PR in European elections and carried forward devolved administrations in the rest of the UK, so all parties including the Conservatives were represented even after 97.
Conservative governments once in power arent pre-disposed to referendums, constitutional change, or PR for fairer representation at any level.
100 - “Then a senior LD Peer, Lord Carlile, suggests that for Teror trials the UK adopt the Napoleonic method of investgating magistrates rather than the UK one of sep[aration of policing and justice? Pretty authoritarian. ”
Carlile’s views are not party policy. I am sure that most parties would strip a maverick like him of the whip; but the LDs are not so authoritarian as to do that.
121. Well if the Lib Dems started stripping ‘mavericks’ of the whip, they would be back to the proverbial taxi-load of MPs pretty quickly, wouldn’t they?
Re 117, Madasafish, Such a good headline, I have used it as the title to my latest blog article
123 - Benedict, what is a blog? Do you know of a good example I could look at? Do you even have your own?
Re: 124 - No, I don’t think he has a blog. He’s never mentioned it.
124
Right click on his Name
117
There is a small charge for use as it is copyright. About £0.10 per viewer.
120
“Conservative governments once in power arent pre-disposed to referendums, …”
Hmm.. Labour Governments promise them… and lie.
You have a choice: honesty or lies.
But then I forget , the LibDems promised one as well and reneged on it.
All this high flown rhetoric criticisng others when you cannot keep your own promises. The LibDems make Labour look - well I was going to say honest - less hypocritical than the LibDems lecturing us on democracy and localisation… but when push comes to shove - it’s just bovine excrement.
97.
“equally as centralist, statist, authoritarian and anti-democratic as”. . . .
the Conservatives who believe it is their divine right to rule?
37.
“Putin agrees to become Prime Minister after the Presidential elections in Russia.”
aha, but Prime Minister of where exactly? Be afraid. . . (he makes Cameron or even Musharraf seem a relatively good deal)
37.
“Putin agrees to become Prime Minister after the Presidential elections in Russia.”
aha, but Prime Minister of where exactly? Be afraid. . . (he makes Cameron or even Musharraf seem a relatively good deal)
O/T-”Will Mervyn go?”
http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/2007/12/will-mervyn-go.html
126 Honesty or lies how very simplistic .
A bit like been in opposition.
87 Stodge In 1983, the scale of the disaster meant there was no one from the “old” Labour establishment left to challenge Kinnock, who had been regarded as being on the far-left in the Callaghan era.
I’m confused. Roy Hattersley challenged Kinnock for the leadership didn’t he ?
Other than Tony Benn, which other leading Labour figures lost their seats in the 1983 General Election ?
120 - we’ve been through this one to the death. I was actually against the idea of a referendum in the first place.
The argument that the treaty is 98% the same as a constitution is fatuous. I am 98% the same as a chimp genetically, but the 2% difference is vital.
Even if I accept your argument about the constitution, it would be Labour reneging on a referendum. The LDs could be accused of changing tact, but the gift of a referendum is not in their power, as they are not actually in government. So the LDs have not reneged.
Blair promised a referendum on electoral reform. I am not aware that Labour has even tried to spin their way of out this promise. They lied on this matter.
Time for a vote of censure methinks.
Mike Smithson is ‘certain’ of a TORY victory if GB is Leader in 2010 or whenever.
This statement is really bugging me because I am currently asking for 2.26 LAB and offering 1.8 TORY and can’t get matched.
Like I say and I have said it a hundred times……’words are inadequate tools to express mathematical concepts’.
All the while on Spreadfair there is £400 looking to BUY Labour Seats at 270.
By the way,congratulations Mike on becoming a grandfather and on running the most focussed forum on th’internet.
129 - who would you rather have as Russian PM? A Communist? A Liberal Democrat (they are authoritarian in Russia)? A member of Kasparov’s coalition of friends (supported by some Chechen terrorists, and the National Bolsheviks)?
Liberals don’t exist these days in Russia. They are pretty much despised after the Yeltsin years. There are many worse than Putin.
re 166 I see that they’re losing our data all over the world now. Organized crime worldwide must be salivating at the rich pickings to come from the ID card database of this bunch of incompetents.
re 126 don’t forget that Labour promised us a referendum on electoral reform as well. Another lie.
re 130 Where’s Mervyn been referring to GB as a dithering depressive then?
No sign on Betfair of any “unusual betting patterns” on the LibDem leadership contest. Trading remains light with Clegg still at 1-6. This must be the exception that proves the rule that “someone always knows and someone always tells”!
What is often forgotten when talking about the Blair/Brown pact in 1994 is that at the time Gordon Brown was arguably the most unpopular Labour politician in the country.
re 104 I’ve been tempted to have a lay. Seems a small risk for a potentially healthy return.
Re 124, SBS “123 - Benedict, what is a blog? Do you know of a good example I could look at? Do you even have your own?”
As it happens i do have an example of one here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
134,
If it is certain that there will be a Conservative victory in 2010, why are the bookies still showing Labour at 11/10 nearly even money.
I think the conservatives will win, however before the last few elections I am sure the conservatives were at times 18-1 against.
Why arent we seeing at least 5-1 against now.
Re 125, Stodge “Re: 124 - No, I don’t think he has a blog. He’s never mentioned it. :)”
Its my innate modesty
With all the bad news from nuLabour floating around, there are emails listed on Evening Standard which chuck the smelly stuff at underlings of Red Ken.
http://tinyurl.com/33wvpf
“She said: “I ran the programme and the contract described in the Standard story last week. I can confirm that everything the Standard reported about that programme and that contract was correct.”
“I cannot understand why the Mayor is denying the truth. Either he is lying to us or he is himself being lied to. ”
“Richard Barnes, Tory group leader on the London Assembly, said: “Ms Stern’s evidence is staggering. It completely puts the skids under Lee and it demonstrates that the Mayor has misled the Assembly and London. It makes an emergency Assembly meeting absolutely imperative. We need the District Auditor in immediately.”"
138-Where? I guess that it was during the lunch he had with Stelzer:
“They are certainly baffled at his decision to speak so candidly over lunch with Irwin Stelzer”
146-And
“Irwin Stelzer(…)reported that the Governor felt frustrated and believed that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor had been distracted by recent political setbacks. Writing in The Sunday Times, he quoted a “senior Bank official” who accused Mr Brown and Mr Darling of being “unable to focus because morale throughout the Government is so low”. Mr Stelzer and Mr King are believed to have had lunch together last week.”
And another one.
Remember Bali .. and Labour’s Green credentials…
Britain’s carbon strategy ‘up in smoke’
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 17 December 2007
Britain’s plans to build new coal-fired power stations as part of the country’s efforts to address its looming energy crisis will completely undermine the Bali agreement on climate change and discredit Gordon Brown’s commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, according to one of the world’s leading climate scientists.
The warning will be made directly to the Prime Minister this week in a letter from James Hansen, the director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, who will urge Mr Brown to block plans to build up to eight new coal-fired power stations – the first in 30 years.
Dr Hansen, one of the first scientists to warn of climate change 20 years ago, said that coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel and that building new power stations that burn it without capturing waste carbon dioxide will tip the planet towards irreversible warming.
He said that coal presents the biggest challenge in the fight against climate change because governments around the world appear to be dead set on using it as a cheap and easy source of energy without thinking about the long-term consequences.
In an interview with The Independent, Dr Hansen said Britain has a special responsibility to lead the world in banning new coal-fired power stations – and dismantling those already in operation – because of the country’s long history of burning the fuel.
He claims that Britain, followed by the United States and Germany, has the highest per capita responsibility for climate change based on the cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide since the start of the Industrial Revolution 250 years ago.
……
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article3258007.ece
97. KJH and other responding Libdems to my post at 85. Apologies for the late response.
Indeed I agree that many Libdem supporters are truly ‘localists’. However, how can they align such localism with the support of the most centralised, statist, authoritarian and anti-democratic constructs in west of St Petersburg? Namely the European Union.
Until we break the hold that the imperialist EU have upon us there is absolutely no way we can have real localism. Devolving power from the UK Parliament down the chain while increasing the power in the EU only further insulates the bureaucrats in Brussels and further undermines and dilutes the power of our own UK Parliament. Only repatriation of powers from Brussels will permit true localism.
If Libdems think they are supporting localism under the current Libdem policies they are sadly mistaken!
140 - Really? Were there polls taken then on that question? I honestly can’t recall that at the time and am very surprised. But I’m sure you’ve checked.
RE 126, Madasafish “There is a small charge for use as it is copyright. About £0.10 per viewer.
:-)”
Well I will try to collect from views, but I don’t hold out much hope
I could giv a hat tip, but you appear not to have a blog…
114. Stodge. I didn’t round on anyone. I was pointing out the hypocritical position your leadership has put you in. Now if you believe in a localist agenda then why aren’t you taking your leadership to task about there policy towards the EU?
By the way, my views on localism and democracy extends way beyond my Conservative alliegances. I hold the likes of Ken Clarke in contempt and not just for his Europhile tendencies but also for his contemptable democracy taskforce report and for the abhorrent notion that we the taxpayers should fund political parties because they cannot be bothered to behave with propriety and competency in matters such as party funding.
In my view none of these areas are yet addressed satisfactorily and I have made my opinions clear whatever medium I am commenting in. Unless the Conservatives provide a genuine consistent localist agenda they may not even get my vote. At the moment though they are the best of a bad lot on these issues……..
I was, shall we say, a little surprised by the heading of this thread. It seems to be based on polling evidence. As an ex-pollster I’d be the first to say that we have close to no evidence whatsoever at present about who will win the next election! I would think there is a fair chance that this will be in 2010, given Mt Brown’s ‘caution’.
On another matter, I’ve just recorded the final three Election battleground programmes at 18 Doughty Street (East Midlands, Yorkshire, South of England) and it was quite hard doing Hampshire without knowing who will be the LD’s next leader (not neccessarily the one at the election, of course!) - I thought I had heard the announcement was due today … anyone know when?
At the end Iain Dale announced that it was his last ever programme for Doughty St too. All it needed to be last night’s Parky was Dame Edna Everage flouncing in.
I am frankly bewildered at The Prime Minister’s utterances and the latest on immigration is beyond belief.
I will take the plunge on the conservatives as I believe they will go on to increase their ratings in the forthcoming polls.
Refusing to shut the door of migrants: Gordon Brown
Gordon Brown has refused to shut the door on further immigration from Eastern Europe.
The Prime Minister admitted “local pressures” had been caused by the hundreds of thousands who have arrived since their countries joined the European Union, but insisted the economy as a whole had benefited.
In a letter to a senior Labour MP last week Mr Brown said he knew of the drain on resources in many towns, but declined to “try somehow to row back from free movement within the European Union”.
The decision came in the wake of the disclosure by the Independent Statistics Commission that as many as four out of five jobs created since Labour came to power had been taken by immigrants.
The Prime Minister had been pressed to go to the European Commission in Brussels to ask permission to place curbs on workers from the eight Eastern countries which joined the EU in May 2004.
All existing EU countries - except Britain, Ireland and Sweden - closed their borders to new workers from the East before that date.
The Home Office predicted at the time that the UK would attract only 13,000 Eastern European immigrants a year.
Under EU rules, the British Government cannot now close the door without asking Brussels for permission to do so.
Mr Brown revealed his decision in a letter to former Labour minister Frank Field - the MP who dug out the true figures on the jobs.
He wrote: “I agree with you that we may need to do more to recognise the social pressure that it is bringing to bear in communities.
The question must be asked: does this man represent the interests and desires of the electorate who did not vote him into power? It seems not hence his minus 26% rating in the most recent poll. His insistance on allowing more immigrants in will hopefully lead to his swift departure from office.
145 I just don’t understand why Livingstone doesn’t appear to realise this is serious. Also, if the allegation is one of theft, why weren’t the police called in on day one?
145 HF - Are you aware of the Evening Standard’s long-standing hostility to Ken Livingstone and its opposition to pretty much everything he does?
I find it irritating, not because I particularly like Ken - I don’t - but because we could do with some serious and intelligent coverage of the activities of the the Mayor’s Office in London. Unfortunately, the ES has put itself in the position where it cannot be taken seriously on Ken-related matters.
It may well be right in this particular matter, but you should be aware of the highly partisan nature of the ES’s reporting before nailing your colors too firmly to its mast.
In non-Ken matters, it is however a very good newspaper.
re 153 Robert it’s at 2.30pm tomorrow I believe.
153. Robert. I’ve very much enjoyed the Election Battleground series. Your insight has added much to my understanding of such matters.
O/T but I’ve just had cause to ring Betfair’s helpdesk and they were terribly polite and friendly (and English!), shame I still can’t see the price graphs though - but they’re investigating.
145
‘With all the bad news from nuLabour floating around, there are emails listed on Evening Standard which chuck the smelly stuff at underlings of Red Ken.’
Livingstone refused to answer questions on the missing millions last week and chose to play the race card instead,a sure sign of lots of smelly stuff.
155 Because, Peter, if the police were called in every time the ES thought it had something on Ken, they wouldn’t have much time left for anything else. Wasn’t enough police time and public money wasted on the silly Nazi/party incident?
160 “Livingstone refused to answer questions on the missing millions last week and chose to play the race card instead,a sure sign of lots of smelly stuff.”
Well with logic like that JohnF, I do hope you’re never called to Jury Service.
162
The hostility runs both ways and not without good reason it seem.
Oliver Finegold: “Mr Livingstone, Evening Standard. How did it …”
Ken Livingstone: “Oh, how awful for you.”
Finegold: “How did tonight go?”
Livingstone: “Have you thought of having treatment?”
Finegold: “How did tonight go?”
Livingstone: “Have you thought of having treatment?”
Finegold: “Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?”
Livingstone: “What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?”
Finegold: “No, I’m Jewish. I wasn’t a German war criminal.”
Livingstone: “Ah … right.”
Finegold: “I’m actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?”
Article continues
Livingstone: “Well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard. You’re just doing it ’cause you’re paid to, aren’t you?”
156 PtP only a little aware of Eve Stds hostility.
The emails provide evidence for the opposition to go after Ken’s underling.
164 No, HF. The emails provide grounds for suspicion, not evidence. The publication in which they appear provides me with grounds for suspicion that they may not in truth add up to much.
162 It certainly does go both ways, EDW, and to my certain knowledge it goes back at least as far as the introduction of the Congestion charge.
The party incident is one of the shabbier episodes in this long running saga which I’m sure is of little interest to Londoners, Standard readers and anybody else not in the business of political point-scoring. It reflected poorly on both sides and is best forgotten - which on the whole it seems to have been.
134. URW. I have noticed and mentioned that 400 pounds+ on Spredfair seeking to buy Labour at 270.5 seats. It’s an awful lot of money to put at risk in my view. I’m guessing that it’s someone seeking to close down a very favourable position? Or could it be a wealthy Labour supporter trying to prevent the Labour seats spread spiralling further downwards? Unlikely I guess. Intriguing. Anyone want to own up to owning this position?
153. Robert Waller. I think Mike’s unequivocal headline statement is to a large extent based on the fact that he has seen enough of Brown now to feel certain that he is not capable of being a competent PM. I agree.
153 Has Iain Dale found a seat???
The problem for Ken, PtP, is that he seems to have assumed that this was all the usual “get Ken, regardless of the evidence” stuff from the ES and has gone, way, way out on a limb in his response to the story. Just look at the stuff on the Mayor’s website. When he’s gone as far as saying that the ES should sack Gilligan for his reporting he is going to have to perform a pretty impressive conjuring trick to avoid some serious flak if he’s wrong about the substance of the allegations. And it’s not looking too good for him at the moment.
re 167, Stjohn, “153. Robert Waller. I think Mike’s unequivocal headline statement is to a large extent based on the fact that he has seen enough of Brown now to feel certain that he is not capable of being a competent PM. I agree.”
Some of us had seen enough in 1994
Re 168, Maggie Thatcher Fan “153 Has Iain Dale found a seat???”
I do hope so, standing around all the time must be uncomfortable
168. No he is going to launch a new political magazine, so he hasn’t got time to do both (presumably his parliamentary aspirations come into the equation somewhere as well). He will still be making ‘guest’ appearances on 18 doughty street from time to time when it relaunches next year.
169 And this is of course the problem, Alex. There may very well be a case to answer here. As a born and bred Londoner, I shouldn’t be the least bit surprised and would certainly like to know more. But I should like it from a more authoratative source.
The ES has no credibility in such matters, and engaging Gilligan as a journalist hardly enhances it.
153 Robert - Iain announced some time ago on his blog that he was leaving Doughty Street. So far as I am aware, he is no longer seeking to become a PPC after his drubbing at the last GE.
173
Never met him, the only thing I hold against him is that he supports West Ham… and thats really bad!
I hope he gets a seat somewhere, despite his apalling choice of fottball team.
173. Ptp Iain is hoping to get the PPC for Maidstone now that Anne Widdecombe is standing down. I imagine he could have a good chance too.
168: No Dale is in for Ann W seat. The first interviews were yesterday. Hundreds of local candidates so he will struggle with his record against the LibDems!
175 Wahey! £1 into the Party Fund please, jsfl - flat rate fine for confusing PfP and me.
176 - Maidstone would be a better choice for ID than Norfolk North was, as he lives in Tunbridge Wells. Ann W was not local when drafted in in 1987, but has worked damn hard there for the last 20 years.
178 - of course, being a West Ham fan is forgivable. The main thing in Maidstone is not to be a Gillingham fan.
More Tory sleaze. Is this what Johnny Major meant?
“Tom Scott gave £500,000 to the Tories in April last year, and has also given two smaller donations of £5,000. Not bad going for someone who is only 32. And yet, as I found last Thursday, Mr Scott’s home, in a quiet, attractive square in the centre of Poole, is a pretty modest dwelling. It’s not the kind of home one would expect for a man who must be pretty wealthy if he can afford to give a political party half a million quid. And yet, according to official records, Mr Scott bought his house for only £420,000 last May. Strange, I thought, that a man spends less money on his home than he does in supporting a political party. He must be a very keen Conservative.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/12/doorstepping_in_dorset.html
167 stjohn - I believe the large chunks of cash often available on either side of the Spreadfair exchande are placed by the site’s owners, presumably to stimulate turnover and/or to sqare their position. I notice, for example after a programme of football matches on a Saturday afternoon, the newly adjusted back and lay prices for Season’s points (a market we both know something about)for each club will appear pretty much at the same time and often for exactly the same amounts, as if by magic. Another reason for believing this may be the case is that, that unlike on Betfair where each bet is matched in strict chronological order, with Spreadfair, when a large sum of money appears to match a bet I had previously offered to the market, it is that money which is dealt first when a matching punter appears.
153 et al. Mike’s headline isn’t all that unequivocal: it depends on what he means by ‘lose’. The explicit hedge is in the bold, inset paragraph near the end: “In my view there is a trend going back over a long enough period to suggest that a Brown-led Labour is almost doomed to failure. The big question is whether the Tories can do enough to win an overall majority”
Again, ‘doomed to failure’ can be interpreted in a number of ways ranging from the loss of a workable majority to seeing the opposition form a majority government. My guess is that Mike means that he is very confident of Cameron forming a government of one nature or another more-or-less immediately after the next general election. If so, that’s a bold statement - to get to level pegging, the Conservatives need about 70-80 gains (depending on gains and losses go between the two main parties and the rest).
Only three elections since 1945 have seen that number of seats switch hands: 1950, 1970 and 1997 (and of those, the 1950 result could be said to be a bit unusual given the nature of the conditions in which the baseline 1945 election were held). To get near a majority would need gains on the scale of Labour’s 1997 win. Obviously, Labour proved that doing that was possible, but whether the mood and conditions are right is something which it’s far too early to tell.
182
“Obviously, Labour proved that doing that was possible, but whether the mood and conditions are right is something which it’s far too early to tell. ”
But becoming more plausible as each day passes
183- I was at a lunch today with a group of nurse managers, liberal leftish sorta types. Politics was discussed, and the genuine feeling was Brown is appalling, unappealing to women, and almost certainly beyond the point when he can redeem things. Most people there felt sorry for him, there was no rancour. Cameron was viewed as “no great shakes”, and pretty underwhelming but a much stronger candidate than Brown.
In my opinion there is real opportunity for Clegg to make a serious breakthrough. There will be no better opportunity for the LD’s, the best they have had in a generation. Is Clegg the man to do this?
180: I wouldn’t make allegations you can’t support on other people’s blogs.
181 stjohn - I would also add that before the concept of exchange spread betting was introduced as “Spreadfair” around 3 years ago, its predecessor, Cantor Index, operated as a conventional spread betting firm, just like IG and Sporting.
184. Tyson.
Even I’m starting to feel sorry for Brown now.
Could his luck get any worse?
167, just because one (or two)people (or more)here have a negative opinion of the PM does not mean he is certain to lose … that’s up to 40 odd million voters, if they should so choose in two or three years time. Please don’t take that as an opinion about GB either!
158: Thanks for your comment, jsfl, it was fun doing the series, and even more visiting all the constituencies!
Iain told me he had already left Doughty Street, I believe he may be starting a political magazine among other ventures, been told he’s been advertising for Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative assistants. He was just back to finish off our series. Yes, I think he’s trying for Maidstone & The Weald. Individual candidates make scarcely any difference when challenging, the result in Norfolk North in 2005 can be explained by Norman Lamb’s double-incumbency bonus.
Where is Ave it when you need him?!
Seriously, this is very worrying for Labour…
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3949&edition=1&ttl=20071217203346
I can’t find a SINGLE positive comment for the government.
And it’s the BBC…
190 - I fail to see why some are obsessed with the idea that the Beeb is pro Labour. I think the Beeb is fairly neutral, but does not mind being carried along by a prevailing wind.
188. “167, just because one (or two)people (or more)here have a negative opinion of the PM does not mean he is certain to lose … that’s up to 40 odd million voters, if they should so choose in two or three years time. Please don’t take that as an opinion about GB either!”
Robert - see my comment at 190 (and follow the link if you don’t believe me)
184. No, the best opportunity for the Lib Dems was the 2005, when they were up against an unpopular PM, a not particularly popular Labour government, a caretaker leader of the opposition and a distrusted Conservative Party. Add to that a popular party leader and the massive bonus that being the only major party to oppose the Iraq War gave them, and you have a situation where a real breakthrough was possible.
Chances like that come once a generation at best. It’s gone now and the game’s moved on; there’s another opposition party in play now.
184 Yep - I’m sure there will be a honeymoon of sorts and that Clegg will win support from both the other major parties. That’s why, depending on polling evidence, etc I would be a seller of Labour or Conservative, rather than a buyer of my preferred choice. In buying Tory GE seats, Mike clearly doesn’t share this view!
Re 184, Clegg “In my opinion there is real opportunity for Clegg to make a serious breakthrough. There will be no better opportunity for the LD’s, the best they have had in a generation. Is Clegg the man to do this?”
No. Huhne might be, or possibly Vince Cable.
185. I didn’t make any allegations. “More Tory Sleaze.Is this what Johnny Major meant?” Is a question not an allegation.
I have no knowledge as to the fine details of this story. We’ll just have to wait for the Crick Newsnight report.
191. I disagree. I think that, party politically, the BBC is *fairly* good at being neutral. It does exhibit, however, a cultural “liberal”-bias, and it also seems slightly unable to balance europhilia with eurosceptism, but that is not the point.
The point is that the BBC moderators will be doing their *absolute* best to post balanced points of views on tonights “Have Your Say”, as they usually do.
But, tonight, they can’t find a SINGLE one in defence of the government…
stjohn and Peter-That £400 at 270.5 is a provocation.I was silly enough to Sell LAB Seats at 268.9 a short while back and believe me when I say that the Sell at 270.5 is much better than my Sell was.
Currently I am at the limit against a LAB Overall Majority and can do no more !I am still strongly with No Overall and I refuse to believe Mike’s opening statement even though all my dough has been bet that way.
Interesting to read some of the responses from Stodge and others about Cameron’s latest anti-Lib Dem PR offensive.
It really runs as follows…
1. Liberal Democrats and Tories share the same policies.
2. But the Tories have no policies that they can tell us about - only soundbites.
3. Therefore Tories support the well-known Lib Dem policies.
4. Therefore Tories ought to vote Lib Dem.
The next step is that Cameron applies to join the Lib Dems. Followed by Marcus, Rik and Iain Dale…. and Ave.
re 166 if I’d have been doorstepped by a journalist at a private party he’d have been unlikely to get away with being called something really offensive. That whole incident was complete nonsense from beginning to end - and I don’t often stick up for Red(dish) Ken
197
‘Have your say’ has been going mental with Brown since day one.
Look at the ‘readers reccomend’ section.
A typical post on there about almost anything goes something like
‘It all down to the police state polictical corectness gone mad benefit culture asbo hoodie muslim terrorist id card fraudsters fuel duty if they brought back hanging then’ and so on and so on.
But I bet that site gets millions of hits.
197 - have your say is usually more reactionary than the Daily Mail letters page. On issues like “working women” it looked like something out the 19th century. I just thought the moderators edited out the overtly racist, homophobic, sexist stuff…
re 170 Benedict have you ever thought of going on the stage?
202 - which means that they edit out 95% of the stuff. Much of the rest is covertly racist, sexist etc.
196: An allegation of ’sleaze’ based on no evidence is potentially defamatory, and if you want to make claims like that do it on your own site or blog not here.
O/T-”USAT/Gallup Poll: Giuliani & Clinton hold slightly wider leads”
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/12/usatgallup-poll.html
201. Rubbish.
On every “Have Your Say” I’ve ever read, there has been balanced opinions posted. The BBC tries to ensure all points of view are covered online. This is the first one I’ve seen without ONE even vaguely sympathetic post for the government.
And even if you’re right; “‘Have your say’ has been going mental with Brown since day one.”
Doesn’t that tell you something?
200: But would your insults have been borderline antisemitic?
201 - “‘It all down to the police state polictical corectness gone mad benefit culture asbo hoodie muslim terrorist id card fraudsters fuel duty if they brought back hanging then’ and so on and so on.”
No, there are usually many more spelling mistakes than that.
re 191 agree. It’s only the rabid Tories who think the BBC is Labour biased.
208 anyone who thinks what Livingstone said is antisemitic, borderline or otherwise, needs their head examining.
202/204. SBS.
LOL!!
If you want to pull the wool over your own eyes mate, be my guest!
Maybe you two should team up and post a couple of positives there yourselves? They’d be guaranteed to get published! Y’know in the interests of “balance” and all that?
162
Why play the race card if there’s nothing to hide?
211 Chris A-Are you a qualified brain surgeon ?
207
BBC ensures bananced responses. Excuse me. you have to be joking.
Its only since the wind has starting blowing in the other direction that there has been a modicum of balance, on the basis (IMHO) that its impossible not to report it.
Anyone remembering Nick Palmer saying “the polls are bad, but we just have to grin and bear it”
It demonstrated Labour’s attitude to the people. Instead of responding, Labour would ignore the electorate’s concerns and grin.
207
Yes it does tell me something, that the angry make more noise than the content. Having said that, in London at least, there is a growing desire to vote someone, anyone out and then shout rude things at them as they leave.
When the cons. take over and start cutting to balance the busted books they will soon be getting a kicking as another hospital ward closes etc. Twas ever thus.
210. Maybe you failed to read my post at 210??
204. “Total comments: 509
Published comments:293
Rejected comments:7
Moderation queue:208″
Hmm.. rejected 95%?? Where did you learn your maths SBS?
Look, I *know* you guys are upset Labour are doing badly, but here’s a piece of free advice from an old Tory hand who was around in the dark years of 1995/1996..
ADMIT IT, AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
If you continue to think everyone (really) secretly likes you and everyone who disagrees is a sexist, racist or worse, you will be painted as arrogant, ignorant, disdainful, contemptful b*stards and you will head to a crashing defeat as bad as we did in 1997.
210. Maybe you failed to read my post at 197??
204. “Total comments: 509
Published comments:293
Rejected comments:7
Moderation queue:208″
Hmm.. rejected 95%?? Where did you learn your maths SBS?
Look, I *know* you guys are upset Labour are doing badly, but here’s a piece of free advice from an old Tory hand who was around in the dark years of 1995/1996..
ADMIT IT, AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
If you continue to think everyone (really) secretly likes you and everyone who disagrees is a sexist, racist or worse, you will be painted as arrogant, ignorant, disdainful, contemptful b*stards and you will head to a crashing defeat as bad as we did in 1997.
Re 203, Chris A “re 170 Benedict have you ever thought of going on the stage?”
To do what?
215. Ah, I am being criticised by a fellow Conservative as well as the plethora of deluded Labourites!!
Evidence enough I am correct
re 220 tell your jokes
221
You are not being criticised per se,just the assertion that you make that the BBC is not biased. Even their own internal enquiry says as much , if I read it correctly////
153 Robert Waller, any idea when we can view the new 18 Doughty Battleground programmes?
214 no need to be. To assume that calling someone “a German war criminal” or a “concentration camp guard” is antisemitic is to be so thin skinned that’s its amazing be made it past primary school let alone journalist and leads to the sort of madness where a 10 year old gets interviewed by the police for calling another pupil gay.
197: The BBC is biased not by plan but because those who work there have such a liberal bent they see left of centre as middle of the road.
Well all the 1/6 on Clegg is now gone and he’s 2/13. Does anyone know something?
223. “You are not being criticised per se,just the assertion that you make that the BBC is not biased. Even their own internal enquiry says as much , if I read it correctly//// ”
Have another read of (207) mate. Basically, what I said was there have always been balanced opinions posted too. I.e. opinions which balance out (to some degree) the others negative ones. Today, there are none.
Maybe I should have made it clearer and said that the BBC tries to ensure at least *some* balancing opinions!
(on their internal enquiry you are right too, but I think their bias is more a cultural/social attitude one, rather than party political. It’s caused by the very limited ranks from which they draw their journalists and the types of people drawn to apply for a job at the organisation. However, sometimes this does seem to manifest itself in party political bias in appearance. E.g. See Question Time last week. The day of the EU treaty signing (they knew the EU would be asked - a lot) but out of the 6 panellists, they had only 1 (yes, ONE) eurosceptic, Kirsty Allsopp.)
226 whether by design or by nature, it always seems to have a left of centre bias. Thats why I never rely on it. its sad that it has to be said, it was once the byeword for integrity,, but IMHO its not any more
208 Ralph
Like Chris, I’m having difficulty reading any anti-semitism into the comments, even without taking into account the context, the hour of day, the amount of alcohol involved and the reason for the reporter being there at that time.
Assuming that EDW’s transcript is accurate (and given the circumstances in which the exchange took place, how likely is that?) the comments are silly and half-arsed and not what you’d expect from an experienced politician but as I am growing weary of repeating, neither side comes out of it well.
Certainly Finestock’s phoney outrage at remarks he must accept some responsibility for provoking doesn’t amount to one of jounalisms finest moments.
210 It’s only the rabid Tories who think the BBC is Labour biased.
Not really. The BBC is biased. Indeed, it may be seen as the propaganda wing of the Labour party.
Aside from biased reporting, the BBC is infested with Labour cronies & collaborators, Kirsty Walk, Andrew Marr, Greg Dyke etc.
Labour is on the way out. There will be no public head shavings, no “floaters in the Seine”, not even Nuremburg trials…
but…There will me sackings. There will be privatisation & restructuring. There will probably even be trials.
Like collaborators facing the end of the war, BBC workers need to decide whose side they are on. Will they join the people? Or will they join Gordon Brownshirt in his Berlin Bunker?
http://http://www.labour-watch.com/bbcbias.htm
http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
225-If concentration camp guards had had their way(and to a large extent they did) it would have been amazing if any Jewish child made it past primary school or even to primary school.
Maybe you are a brain surgeon.
Re 222, Chris A “re 220 tell your jokes”
I don’t think that they would get much of a laugh on a stage…
Re 225, Chris A “214 no need to be. To assume that calling someone “a German war criminal” or a “concentration camp guard” is antisemitic is to be so thin skinned that’s its amazing be made it past primary school let alone journalist and leads to the sort of madness where a 10 year old gets interviewed by the police for calling another pupil gay.”
That is bizarre.
228
OK compris
Another day, another data handling disaster; and still they persist with the illusion that they could safely and effectively manage ID cards. Meanwhile, billions of your money continue to be wasted on the useless NHS IT system, which when it eventually comes to fruition will be able to lose all your confidential medical data at the touch of a button.
The real problem with this government is the lack of even a hint of basic competence; and let’s face it, none of them have even run a jellied eel stall before becoming politicians.
228 Maybe I should have made it clearer and said that the BBC tries to ensure at least *some* balancing opinions!
Getting someone on to say “Day is Night” or “Al Qaida is not so bad” or ignoring anti-Labour or anti-Israel bias
consider BBc’s Fake Jenin Massacre stories… Jenin ‘massacre evidence growing’… The massacre that only existed in the lies so eagerly consumed by the Biased BBC
210. Well Andrew Marr and Justin Webb have both said the BBC has institutional “liberal” bias. I think the organisation detests Labour more than anyone now, but when it criticises from a politial point of view (rather than a competency one) it usually argues from the left. The same was true during the Blair years: they always debated whether Blair should have been bringing private firms into the NHS, but when it came to the minimum wage it was phrased as “Have they gone far enough?” rather than the real opposite view held by most economists - “Does a minimum wage cause unemployment?”
Having said that, BBC HYS is undoubtedly hugely right-wing in its comments. About a third of commenters there said they were going to vote UKIP or BNP at the last election. The only exception to this is when there is a thread on America or Israel, when the extreme right and extreme left come out in equal numbers.
226. Precisely right.
230: Likening a member of a minority to their persecutors is racist. As Livingstone started not knowing the hack was Jewish makes it borderline racism.
213 No idea, John F. For the moment I’m relying on your assertion that he did - and given the rather tendentious nature of your posts that’s probably not wise - but assuming he did, and that the image you are trying to depict is a balanced and reasonable one - again, a bit of a leap of faith - I could think of a number of possible explanations, not all of which would necessarily have all right minded people calling for his testicles on toast.
Maybe he just wanted to wind you up?
236 Poor old Alf Resco. Looks like the Bolsheviks at the Beeb mowed him down before he could finish his post.
R.I.P., Alf.
241. Prophet.
You make us mortal ones laugh muchly
235. Spot on.
Mike - brilliant call
Labour is finished under Brown
Con will win, possibly bigger than 1931!
Minimum 20% maj. Conceivable brown will come 3rd in his seat!!!
239 You could just about bend over backwards to see that way if you liked, Ralph.
Another interpretation would be that it was a silly, barely intelligible expression of irritation by a half-pissed party-goer who was unexpectedly confronted by a journalist looking for a story.
Unless, like the ES, you have an axe to grind, I think the second alternative is a bit more like it.
test
It is time for all loyal Labour supporters to hold their nerve.
Consider hypothetically, that the loss of the Learner drivers data, along with the Child benefit data, along with the loss of a mere 30Billion £ to NRK, is hypothetically…deliberate.
Like the accidental release of experimental GM crops, the ‘accident’ could produce a desirable progressive result. If everyone’s identity is available pn the internet, everyone becomes equal. Asylum seekers and so called “Illegal migrants” (whatever that means) are as equal to the so called British. Bank accounts will be accessible to all. ID papers accessible to all. Isnt this what we want?
245. Surely a statement is equally racist (or non-racist) regardless of how intelligible it is, or how drunk the speaker is?
199 - glad i’m bottom of that list!!!!!
All - overall complete labour breakdown - will LDs be second biggest party????!
There seems to be so many of these huge embarrassments coming out I find it hard to believe that the difference between now and before the Brown takeover is entirely down to a sudden organisational incompetence. Is it possible that errors like these happened all the time during the Blair years, but Alistair Campbell had the skill to cover most of them up?
245: If you design an insult to offend someone because of their race then you are being racist.
249/252: PtP is one of the most sensible commentators on here. There is no way he would condone racism.
Oh dear oh dear!
219 - Casino Royale just about accuses me of being a Labour supporter. I am not and have never been a Labour supporter. (Unlike Tony Lit!)
226 - Ralph confuses the word liberal with left of centre. (Is Cameron therefore a left of centre Conservative?)
And then Al Fresco turns up…
I suppose it is still OK to insult and generally stereotype people who are Tories, isn’t it?
254 - aren’t you labour then? (lol)
255 - only if its witty
255 I see no reason why not to, what you cannot do is suggest the Govt is competent…
254 Sorry. No autographs.
249/252 Socrates/Ralph
The original allegation was ‘anti-semetic’ but it seems to have switched now to the more sweeping ‘racist’. No matter. It doesn’t matter how many times I read and re-read the reported text - and I can virtually recite it now - I do not see it as anything more sinister than an expression of exasperation with an inappropriate and quite possibly provocative approach by a story-seeking hack.
Racist? Do us a favour. Save your contempt for some real racism. There’s enough of it about.
252- Ralph- I would guess that your view here is slightly coloured by your own obsessive partisan prejudices. I don’t quite take you as anti racist protagonist.
As said yesterday, I tend to ignore your posts, unless I need a good laugh.
29- ptp- you made the points I wanted to make (in 260) but with more more sophistication, and a whole lot more class
261- was aimed at post 259
I wonder if Al Fresco is a spoof. I do hope not - he’s the sort of opponent who’s good for morale.
On BBC bias, the thing I don’t like is not that they don’t balance the commentators, but that the commentators need balancing. I don’t want a pro-Labour or pro-Europe commentator, though I’m both these things, nor the reverse. ‘Just the facts, madam’.
253 Thank you, Ave It.
In fairness, I don’t think either Socrates or Ralph were accusing me of racism. They do however appear desperate to make a mountain out of a molehill - rather as the ES did at the time.
The point I began with (hours ago, it seems) was that the ES undermined its own credibility with its obsessive pursuit of Ken Livingstone. Perhaps S & R should think about that before imposing on this trivial incident a seriousness it simply does not merit.
235 barry
Is that the English NHS IT system, or the Welsh one or the Scottish one, or the Norn Irish one? Because they’re not the same thing in our “national” health service.
This may not be such an issue if you live in, say, Bedford, Barmouth or Ballachulish. But for those of us who live in border regions whose care may transcend devolved boundaries, or those of us who fancy holidaying in other parts of the UK (with all the attendant possibility for ending up in A&E), this is a concern.
174,TOTALLY non-political point,but why your great aversion to West Ham United,a club I am proud to have supported since age 9,when Trevor Brooking’s header beat Arseanal 1-0 in the FA Cup Final of 1980(Having som,e family connection with north-east London does give a claret and blue tinge to my specs admittedly,but whilst I can understand resentment at big clubs,or other clubs who in the 1980s were hellbent on causing trouble,but why or why would (or could) anyone really hate dear old West Ham United??!!
261 Geesh, that’s two votes of support in the same evening! I better go to bed while I’m winning.
Actually, I think I will. All this ‘political’ stuff wears me out. Betting posts are much easier and the tone of debate amongst punters is far more genteel.
Thanks Tyson. Sleep well.
265 Nick P
Well said. There once was a day when the BBC’s role was simply to educate, inform and entertain. These days is strays into quasi-political territory all too often. It’s hand-wringing charitable “campaigns” are a prime example.
Much as I personally supported the G8 global poverty campaign a couple of years ago, I resented the BBC ramming it down my throat at every opportunity for a couple of weeks culminating in the Christmas ‘Vicar of Dibley’. Global poverty & 3rd world debt is a political issue.
“Just the facts, madam” indeed. The BBC shouldn’t be going anywhere else.
I’ll just put on my flame-proof pants as I finish by saying that laudable as “Children in Need” and “Comic Relief” are, why is the state-funded public service broadcaster spending licence-payers’ money campaigning in this way?
268 - 265 should read 263 - doh!
255 - Icarus:
“I suppose it is still OK to insult and generally stereotype people who are Tories, isn’t it?”
Only if you want Ralph to accuse you of being a tourist!
Geddit?
266 - west ham = lol!
271-Does that mean that
west ham=Liberal Democrats????
272 hahahahahahahahaha
Very good
LDs = 0 seats 2010
271,Why,please?
Looking again at the article at the top of this page, why oh why did the Labour MPs not believe what the polls were telling them?
“Choose Brown and you lose”. Is what these polls and Luntz said.
Is this one of the biggest collective errors that a group of MPs has ever made? Or were they just taken in by the Brownites spinning that “these were only hypothetical polls” or “Gordie’s really a socialist” etc.
274 hehehe only joking - i dont mind west ham - but you were lucky to stay up last time!
273- =)
Nick Clegg, Lib Dem Leadership. Last Betfair price matched: 1.46 .. hmmm.
276:Agreed,On March 4th,after our 4-3 defeat to Suprs,West Ham were 1/20 to be relegated-in my wildest dreams I could not have foreseen we would win 7 of our last 9 games,taking 21 out of 27 points-and whilst I genuinely felt sorry for Sheff Utd,and wish they and not Wigan had stayed up,they fielded weakened sides eg on their trip to Old Trafford in April,Fulham were given 3 points by a massively weakened Liverpool visiting side-if last season proved anything,having 30 points and sitting 15th,as Sheff Utd did in mid-Feb,is NO assurance of actual survival
279 - following our crushing defeat on sat, watford are currently 500000-1 to win another game this season. similar chance of LDs winning in watford in 2010.*
* odds not available from this poster
263. Nick P for the first time in a long time - well said sir!
280,I am shocked at Watford’s horror run after such a good start;the Championship season is a real marathon at 46 games long,so there’s plenty of time for recovery-but I would strongly back West Brom(who I admire for working within their means,and a general no-nonsense approach)being one of the two automatic promotions-from a division that is VERY hard to get of-I still recall how,as a Hammer,after our 2003 relegation,mid-week away trips to Burnley,Crewe etc,after our 1993-2003 stretch in the top flight,how humbled,brought down to earth I felt
253: Two people having a reasonable discussion, that’s all.
Can someone say something?
263 Nick, I always thought he was Alf Resco (presumably named after Alf Garnett). Whether he’s a spoof or not, who knows? Still merits strong opposition!
Come to think of it, Ave it, you never tell us who the Tory candidates winning in Ulan Bator or Neptune East or wherever, are? Is Alf Resco one of yours anywhere?
Thinking about it, perhaps Alf is the Tory candidate for Plymouth Argyle (sorry Home Park North West). Do let on! Can’t see him winning in 2010 though.
287-Thanks Tim for saying something! =)
[278] Is something happening re Lib Dem Leadership election???
Con gain everything
288 I was very worried you were getting lonely! Do you think Ave it has gone to his bed dreaming of winning Glasgow Gorbals (hush hush, it was abolished years ago)!
289: Someone’s noticed it’s happening?
289 I didn’t understand the post at 278 - what odds are meant by 1.46?
290 Glad to see you’re still awake, Ave it.
Tim13, 1.46 means that if you bet £10 if you win you will get back £14.60.
We have now gone metric and hopefully will be going into the Euro soon.
291-”I was very worried you were getting lonely!”
Thanks Tim, I think Ave it has gone to his bed now, he must be “there” when the LD result is announced!!!
Guardian: Northern Rock sale to a consortium of UK banks proposed: “The banks which agreed to participate in any break-up plan would be expected to exact a price for their support. They would demand reassurance that they would not suffer financial loss as a result”
Doesn’t sound very good - I predict the taxpayer is going to get stuffed.
294 Thanks, Icarus. Yes, I would be very dubious betting at prices like that - as in decimalisation I might be ripped off!!
Seriously, the implication being, presumably, that Clegg is no longer favourite?
295 Me - I must make sure of that, too!
No Clegg is still favourite. If you bet £10 on Huhne and he won you would get £50 back (5.0 is the current price - down from 5.7 an hour ago)
2397-LOLOLOLOLOLOL etc etc(as he says!!!)
299- Actually it’s 297(but that was obvious, wasn’t it?)
“Brown dithers as Cameron lays claim to his core values”
Polly Toynbee
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2229153,00.html
298 Right, got it - I think - now. That doesn’t seem to me huge movement indicative of anything getting out. Just that the winning post is nearing and some more bets are going on.
“Thatcher would have backed the EU treaty”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/18/do1801.xml
Yep. The Tories oppose the EU whilst in opposition but have supported it, and signed up to all the treaties when in government.
303-She probably would do different if she was PM:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL2970459120070929
303-So I agree with you Icarus…
Re 296, Icarus, “Doesn’t sound very good - I predict the taxpayer is going to get stuffed.”
Well they voted Labour which gets you stuffed as a tax payer…
The Brown bounce was a media fabrication that never existed, as I was saying at the time.
302. In Thatcher’s time, and Major’s, many hoped the EU would be a ‘good thing’ including many powerful Americans such as Henry Kissinger, who said it would be easier for the US if Europe had just one phone number and not 26 - and Rupert Murdoch at that time was trying to acquire media rights across Europe.
The Americans have now seen the light about the EU (at last) - and Murdoch has clearly swapped sides after Blair’s departure, and is a key opponent of the EU Constitutional Treaty. With Michael Heseltine publicly advocating retaining our contribution to the EU, it is clear that there are very few Conservative EU supporters left - maybe the diehard Ken Clarke!
In these circumstances which are very different to the ones Thatcher faced in the 1980’s, I don’t think she would back the treaty today. She always thought that signing the Treaties was her biggest mistake. But when she tried to recant and move the other way, she was assassinated by the pro-EU faction which then was too strong.
The BBC is still stuck in a 1980’s pro-EU time warp, but most new political growth is highly sceptic if not europolemic. Thatcher was 25 years ahead of her time on Europe. The rest are catching up now.
Interesting take on this from Mr Finkelstein in today’s Times.
“People have turned against the Government not because it lost a couple of discs, but because people wanted change, felt Mr Brown might bring change and now feel that he won’t. It is the long-standing disaffection with new Labour he is really suffering from.
What does this analysis tell us about the coverage of politics? That we are too inclined to ignore long-term trends because we are busy covering immediate incidents. That we are carried away with the idea that people change, merely because change makes a good story. That we often record the noise rather than the signal.”
http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article3070727.ece