Andy Cooke on the UNS - Part 2
March 7th, 2010
Uniform National Swing – the track record
I’ve put together a short series on UNS – what it is, what’s its track record, and what levels of distortion have occurred in recent elections. This is part two of three.
When did UNS break? It can’t simply be one of those myths that it’s fairly accurate – it must have been a useful forecasting tool once. I’m going to show tables for the 1987, 1992, 1997, 2001 and 2005 General Elections, with the UNS results from the real score, the average eve-of-election poll score, the Golden Rule poll and its opposite (a “Leaden Rule” – the poll that’s worst for the Conservatives). The UNS calculator is a simple 3-party one (SNP/Plaid scores held constant) and “eve-of-election” includes all polls from the last three days of the campaign.
| 1987 General Election | Con | Lab | LD | Majority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual Result | 376 | 229 | 18 | Con 101 |
| UNS from actual score | 381 | 230 | 23 | Con 111 |
Wow. Not bad. Not bad at all, given the limitations of the simplifications. In 1987, the UNS worked pretty well. So, from all accounts, did the polls (I couldn’t find the pre-election polls readily online, I’m afraid). Every forecaster was left happy – the polls were fairly accurate, the UNS tool worked well – what could possibly go wrong?
Then came the debacle of 1992, and things were never glad confident morning again for UNS. Or the polls.
| 1992 General Election | Con | Lab | LD | Majority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual Result | 335 | 271 | 20 | Con 21 |
| UNS from actual score | 361 | 253 | 13 | Con 71 |
| UNS from average of polls | 303 | 307 | 17 | Hung, Lab 19 short |
| UNS from “Golden Rule” | 313 | 297 | 17 | Hung, Con 13 short |
| UNS from “Leaden Rule” | 290 | 317 | 20 | Hung, Lab 9 short |
When the polling errors were removed, John Major should have only lost 15 seats from Margaret Thatcher’s 1987 landslide. He lost 41, his majority falling from a notional 71 (under UNS) to just 21. The simultaneous failure of the polls only added to the impression that flipping coins would be more accurate. The errors occurred in opposite directions, however, and the terrible performance of UNS was masked by the polling errors – had they occurred in the same direction UNS from the polls would have predicted a Conservative majority of 173 with Labour reduced to sub-Foot levels.
It’s notable that – on a straight UNS from 1987 – an equal score of 38/38/20 would have actually left the Tories as the largest party in a hung Parliament (they’d have been on 312 to Labour’s 298). The pro-Labour distortion with which we’re so familiar – so much so that it’s now an article of faith – did not exist prior to 1992.
In 1997, the polls failed once again (with the honourable exception of ICM). However, this was barely noticed at the time, for two reasons. One – the outcome was hardly in doubt. Two – the failure of the polls was countered largely by the failure of UNS.
| 1997 General Election | Con | Lab | LD | Majority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual Result | 165 | 419 | 46 | Lab 179 |
| UNS from actual score | 206 | 396 | 29 | Lab 133 |
| UNS from average of polls | 179 | 424 | 29 | Lab 189 |
| UNS from “Golden Rule” | 229 | 373 | 29 | Lab 87 |
| UNS from “Leaden Rule” | 144 | 456 | 33 | Lab 253 |
So whilst the polls were out and UNS were out, if you’d run UNS from the average of the polls, you’d have been not too far out. In reality, Blair should have had a majority 46 less than he did, and Major should only (!) have lost 137 seats from his notional 343, leaving him on about Michael Foot levels of representation – 41 seats stronger than the position in which the Conservative Party actually found itself.
In 2001, the polls and UNS again failed in opposite directions.
| 2001 General Election | Con | Lab | LD | Majority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual Result | 166 | 413 | 52 | Lab 167 |
| UNS from actual score | 181 | 403 | 47 | Lab 147 |
| UNS from average of polls | 160 | 423 | 47 | Lab 187 |
| UNS from “Golden Rule” | 183 | 406 | 41 | Lab 153 |
| UNS from “Leaden Rule” | 145 | 435 | 51 | Lab 211 |
Again, the polling average and UNS errors nearly cancelled out. Labour overstatement in the polls was matched by Labour comfortably exceeding UNS – losing only 6 seats when UNS had that figure nearly tripled. William Hague increased Conservative representation by only 1 seat, when he should have done precisely sixteen times as well. According to UNS.
However, in 2005, the polling error and UNS error were in the same direction. Labour were once again overstated, but this time, the Tories clawed back a little of their accumulated losses beyond UNS.
| 2005 General Election | Con | Lab | LD | Majority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual Result | 198 | 356 | 63 | Lab 66 |
| UNS from actual score | 185 | 372 | 60 | Lab 98 |
| UNS from average of polls | 177 | 378 | 62 | Lab 110 |
| UNS from “Golden Rule” | 185 | 372 | 60 | Lab 98 |
| UNS from “Leaden Rule” | 172 | 387 | 58 | Lab 128 |
Howard did better than he should have done – especially when looking at the average of the final polls. Blair should have retained a landslide.
So what have we learned? That UNS has been rather divergent from reality from 1992 onwards. If it so happens that the errors in UNS are opposed to the errors in the polls, then it’s not so noticeable. If, however, there’s an expected error in UNS in the same direction as an expected error in the polls, then it will go quite badly wrong. If we believe that (for example) the marginals will help the Conservatives (and hinder Labour) noticeably beyond UNS, tactical voting will unwind and the polls may well repeat the Labour overstatement – then the UNS-from-average-poll figure would really not be one on which I’d be willing to risk my hard-earned cash. I was looking at the archives the other day and – a week before polling day – noticed two adjacent threads. One noting the “Balance of Money” prediction of a Labour majority of 80. The other noting the UNS prediction of a Labour majority of 142 …
How would things have gone last time if UNS had been true all the way? Well, we’d have to assume 1992 boundaries throughout (which have been revised twice since, and both times to the benefit of the Tories), so this really is “just a bit of fun”:
1992: Con 361, Lab 253, LD 13. Conservative majority of 71
1997: Con 234, Lab 372, LD 20. Labour majority of 93
2001: Con 249, Lab 356, LD 21. Labour majority of 61
2005: Con 277, Lab 312, LD 37. Hung Parliament. Labour short by 14 seats
MessageSpace Advertising
Surely not.
1st
Tough luck sealo
386.359 - Good points, well made and I do agree with them all.
Lib dem members see themselves as left of centre, at least according to polls I have seen of the membership. However the membership is not representative of the voters. Rather like Tory members are more right wing than their vote and labour members more to the left.
For the party to simply side with Labour either tacitly or, as appears to be the case, more openly is little short of a massive tactical error.
We Lib Dems cannot have it both ways. In 1997 we gained alot of tactical voters in some seats but we also gained alot of former disillusioned Tory voters which allowed us to hoover up dozens of Tory seats.
At the last election we lost seats back to the Tories for the first time I can remember (outside of by-election gains). That should have sent out warning signals. We need to campaign hard against Labour and the Tories and strike out our own message.
In a place like Redditch we will be running a paper candidate and the resource will go into Worcestershire West and other seats in the area we can win. That is rignt. However to win Worcestershire West and to hold onto seats like Solihull we cannot just be there posing as Labour-lite. We will get our come-uppance.
Absolutely fascinating.
The big question: do you predict UNS and the polls will be wrong in the same or different directions this time, and why?
Probabilistic UNS would reduce the forecast error further.
The fundamental problem with UNS remains that there’s a significant number of seats in which Lab and C are not the top two parties. And the more of those seats there are, the more UNS breaks.
Who’s up for a war with Iceland?
Errr well what we can say without any doubt whatsoever is, errr we don’t know where we really, really are.
8. MC
Iceland would win.
8 - If you can find a spare army/navy?
8. We’d lose. The Icelanders were never going to pay back the UK, after Brown invoked anti terror laws against them. Who would?
This is really interesting. My hypothesis (for what it is worth) is that the polls and UNS got lucky in 1987. The real problem is the growth of the LibDems (and not just because they are an annoying, hypocritical irrelevance) who became a significant Parliamentary presence after 1983. The UNS is a two factor analysis. Once a significant third factor is introduced (or even a fourth factor in Scotland and Wales) it really doesn’t work because the impact of the third/fourth factors is unpredicatable on a simple swing. 1987 is the case which doesn’t fit this analysis which is why I am trying to excuse it as a fluke!
Remember “Tower Block of Commons”? Now the stories start to come out…
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/03/one-rule-for-one.html
@11:
We don’t need a spare army, we’ll just install a giant wave machine on Scotland.
LS
That’s also a fundamental problem with Rod’s byelection swingback model.
There have only been 4 byelections since 2005 in which the Conservatives and Labour were the top two parties in 2005 - Bromley, Sedgefield, Crewe and Norwich N.
Separating those out gives a much large swing than taking byelections as a whole.
7. crap. The highwater mark for the third party was 1983, when the SDP/Liberal alliance came second almost everywhere (a tad exaggeration, but I can’t be bothered to look up the exact figure). UNS on that occasion was accurate to I think one seat for all parties.
15. Can’t we just send them James Kelly?
Labour’s hypocrisy on the so-called Ashcroft marginals money.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2010/03/guess-what-the-unions-are-spending-more-in-the-marginals-than-the-conservatives.html
So an unelected, Labour supporting, organisation is bankrolling Labour in the marginal seats. Hardly a surprise. Labour is excellent at its media management and their classic misdirection on the Ashcroft issue points people away from what they are doing. Aided and abetted by The Grauniad and the Indie.
How would people feel if Barclays Bank, for instance, were actively campaigning locally for the Tories?
However they are now coming under the same sort of pressure the Tories have come under on their non-doms and the same sort of scrutiny. How will they bear up on it ?
11. I think Morris Dancer has a few things that could be used to bombard them from a distance!!
rod, is there any need for you to be so consistently obnoxious? You would get more respect from people if you showed a little yourself.
The other point that Andy has not addressed is why his model’s chosen input parameters postulate the Tories outperforming UNS by more than forty seats, when as the record shows the previous maximum was 23 for Labour in 1997.
Is there really a pro-Tory popular wave this year nearly twice as big as the one that swept Blair into office in 1997?
17 But the Alliance won very few seats for their support in the polls, and were certainly not second in most seats in 1979 - which is the period over which the swing is measured.
Since then the LDs have been building on local support and getting more seats to votes, it is that which will screw up the UNS. In 1983 they got only 23 seats and could almost be ignored, they needed 380,000 votes per seat. In 2005 they won 62 seats and now need less than 100,000 votes to win a seat - so their impact on individual seats has increased significantly.
@18:
James Kelly’s “why is everyone nasty to me?” whining as a weapon of mass destruction? Nice.
14 - I would like to hear Mark’s side before I rush to judge him.
24
16. another richard.
Precisely.
“The highwater mark for the third party was 1983, when the SDP/Liberal alliance came second almost everywhere (a tad exaggeration, but I can’t be bothered to look up the exact figure).”
Rod, I really think you need to look up the exact figure as I think that’s a gross exaggeration.
I would guess that the LibDems came second in about 50% of seats.
12. Would it be fair game for the British Government to begin confiscating assets held in the UK by the Icelandic government, including icelandic registered companies?
It is not good enough for Iceland to wash their hands of this.
Oh dear.
Officials travelling with Prime Minister Gordon Brown to visit UK forces in Afghanistan yesterday indicated that an announcement was expected within weeks of £100 million for 200 new vehicles which will offer better protection to troops.
But shadow defence secretary Liam Fox raised questions about the order, which he said was originally intended to deliver 400 vehicles.
”We have been waiting for years for replacements to the Snatch Land Rovers,” Dr Fox told BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show.
”There is one very curious element about this, because the public tender that was put out was for 400 vehicles to replace Snatch. The Prime Minister yesterday said it would be 200. What happened to the other 200?
”Tomorrow in Parliament, I will be tabling questions to find out whether this is yet another cut to the equipment on Treasury orders.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7391400/Tories-allege-that-Gordon-Brown-has-short-changed-the-army-over-new-vehicles.html
I see Tebbit is helping Farage today - that will force Dave to back Bercow, if he does another interview that is
“Is there really a pro-Tory popular wave this year nearly twice as big as the one that swept Blair into office in 1997?”
Take a look at the 2009 local election results.
The Conservatives did poorly on a national basis but got the votes where it mattered which gave them stunning and unexpected gains.
29. If the Government really wanted to play hard ball, then the threat of a veto of their membership of the European Union, and an organised attempt to kick them out of the EEA might bring them to their senses.
31.He won’t do another interview. Cameron is useless at them, he leads a useless corrupt party which has no chance of winning an election because they are
a) corrupt
b) useless
c) stupid
Ok so the tories aren’t worth talking about now tim, cast your beady eye onto Labour.
Missed the end of last thread, wasn’t sure if it was relevant to anything then but definitely ot now..
“Listen to Sayeeda Warsi, if you don’t agree with her, vote for someone else”
should be all the other Tories’ only line on immigration. Otherwise they’ll be called racists. I’m astonished by the number of people I meet who believe that about the Tory party already. It really isn’t worth giving Labour such an easy open goal.
Warsi should be allowed to say exactly whatever it is that she believes and as often and as publicly as possible; I think she’s brilliant and is probably at her best when she’s allowed to say what she wants.
They should run a poster campaign with her face and the caption “racist? stupid? or RIGHT? vote right. Vote Conservative”
tim, I expect Dave is waiting for a vacancy on the GMTV sofa. That sofa has become the benchmark for tough interviews as only the man of courage Brown appears to be brave enough to do them.
@29:
It will mean Britain will now veto Iceland joining the EU.
29 As I understand it, negotiations have continued and the current offer on the table is superior to the one that was actually voted on. So it is inconceivable that the Icelanders would have voted for an option that is worse than they could get. I would regard this vote as a request to Prime Minster Johanna to continue negotiations.
29 If we really want to play hardball, I would say that the correct form of action would be annexation, perhaps a joint Anglo-Dutch condominium.
35. Many of us party supporters believe that mass immigration has changed British society for the poorer. And that while some strains of immigration have been staggeringly successful bringing wealth and new ways of thinking to our economy and community, other strains have been utterly utterly devastating.
Our membership of the EU makes immigration from other member states non negotiable, and our universities depend heavily on international students, after that, the case for further migration is severely limited. Some form of migration mechanism is needed to allow multinational companies to move staff around and invest and do business in the city and wider economy.
What is vital is that an incoming Conservative government crack down hard on ‘family reunions’, essentially the pimping out of young girls born in Britain to older men in pakistan and bangladesh, with their British residency acting as a very valuable dowry.
The old Primary Purpose rule needs to be brought back in, though even more restrictive then before, and enforced with rigour.
29. Maybe the phrase “to iceland” should now replace “to welch” as the verb for not honouring a debt or bet?
23. OK. If you want to play that game, compare 1983-87. Still an excellent prediction.
No one denies the vote conversion ratio of the Libdems has improved, but it does not follow that in itself that is the cause of any breakdown in UNS between Lab and Con.
Re war with Iceland: I actually agree with them! Brown should not have bailed out the greedy savers in the first place. No-one would have had any sympathy with people buying shares in a dodgy company promising 6%+ returns in the current economic climate - why the hell should we have bailed out savers in the same boat, especially when the risks were being flagged to councils etc. at the time.
Savers chasing the best rates at the time of these crazy interest rates being offered have obviously not heard the expression “there’s no such thing as a free lunch”
Ed Balls targets school clubs in £500m cuts
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7052764.ece
FPT - DavidL - “Stuart, I have always thought the ineptitude of the Scottish media and their incestuous relationship with Labour was a very good argument against independence (!).”
Mmmm… thanks for that insight David. I must admit that that particular argument against Scottish independence is a new one on me!
Also very interesting to hear that you are a former member of the SDP, now voting Scottish Tory (in Dundee). Does that make you as rare as hens’ teeth?
We Scots like an underdog!
5, wibbler,
“The big question: do you predict UNS and the polls will be wrong in the same or different directions this time, and why?”,
Well, the polls have seemingly always (since 1992, anyway) erred in the direction of Labour overstatement, and the distortion on UNS towards Labour seems to be heading towards lightening up (2005 was a step back towards the Tories, and the evidence from marginals/tactical voting points towards it continuing), so it would appear that errors will be in the same direction again.
6 Rod
Probabilistic UNS would reduce the forecast error further.
Yes for 2005 (made the prediction better). No for 2001 (made the prediction worse). Not much in it for 1997 (4 seats worse for Labour). Probabilistic UNS merely addresses the fuzziness, not the distortion (the Curtice model in 2005, for example, incorporated much input from carefully selected marginals on exit polls).
44 - that’s the third time Balls has announced a different figure for the schools budget to be cut. He’s either breaking it into smaller figures for different things - so people don’t realise how big the cuts are going to be - or he’s just plucking numbers out of a hat.
Some hilariously shit excuses from 3 MPs - of all parties - as to why they simply must have first class travel on trains:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7386502/MPs-demand-right-to-travel-first-class.html
22, Rod:
The other point that Andy has not addressed is why his model’s chosen input parameters postulate the Tories outperforming UNS by more than forty seats, when as the record shows the previous maximum was 23 for Labour in 1997.
The previous overperformance for Labour was 23 seats - but the underperformance for the Tories in that election alone was more than forty seats. It’s the Conservative seat share that’s important for a Tory majority, and therefore if the factors against them at that time are removed, that’s forty-plus seats ripe for return.
‘Purcell: the end of the line’
‘Body of Purcell’s teenage friend to undergo post-mortem’
‘How PR advisers made a crisis out of a drama’
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/purcell-the-end-of-the-line-1.1011630
42 In 1987 the Alliance actually lost a seat net and ended up with 22. So they were not yet managing to concentrate votes in areas that would give them seats. From 1997 onwards the LDs did just that - 46 seats on a lower vote share than in 1992 when they had 20 seats. I would guess that it’s that number of third party seats, not votes, that is one of the factors disrupting UNS.
Hague update.
Kidnappers to claim that voice beaks UN Convention on torture and withdraw ransom demands.
Exchange rate falls to 0.01 Hezbollah prisoners per Hague.
A wonderful portrait of the Scottish Labour Mafia Party at work:
‘Rise and fall of a Labour star’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article7052533.ece
48. Of course MPs should get first class travel, why shouldnt they? They are only travelling to London as part of their job. For some MPs its quite a long journey home, why shouldnt they do it in comfort? Again for some MPs, depending on how much work they do, the journey to and from the constituency might be the only quiet down time they get. An excellent opportunity to catch up on things, that need done. When i was doing quite a bit of train journeys as a student, i found the journey an excellent time to do studying, no other distractions, but my ability to study was based on me being able to get a table seat as i travelled steerage.
I really dont mind, honestly, if they travel first class. It seems rather petty and mean spirited to hound them for it.
News of the World Exclusive:
‘Steven Purcell: Yes, I took drugs’
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/scottish/scottish_news/749606/Council-leader-got-cop-warning-as-his-behaviour-grew-more-erratic.html
“therefore if the factors against them at that time are removed…”
One major factor was the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically for the LibDems. Is that likely to be removed?
Clue: “I’m just a paper candidate who can’t win. It’s a two-horse race between the LibDems and the Tories. My priority is the prevention of the election of a Tory MP” - Labour candidate in Somerton & Frome, Politics Show, February 2010…
52 - What in the name of God are you burbling on about ?
55. He is still being treat with a reverence we wouldnt expect from the news of the world, as if senior police would arrange a meeting with him at Council HQ to discuss their concerns about his own personal drug habits.
The problem notme is that if the whole story came out then it would make what happens in Sicily seem like a sunday school picnic in comparison.
The tender process in Glasgow has been shall we say, rather unique in adjudicating what should be the required and expected outcomes.
An audit of the results would be fascinating.
57
Its tims latest OCD incident.
56. RodCrosby.
Weren’t you the one who said tactical voting only affected six seats?
61. No.
55 Why would the police meet with him to warn him that they had evidence of him committing a crime, and that he was laying himself open to blackmail? Surely ordinary citizens would expect to be arrested and charged? Or at least for investigations to continue into a more serious crime that the person was connected with, for example did he know drug dealers?
It has all gone suddenly quiet… must be some footie on telly or something.
43 JonC
“Savers chasing the best rates at the time of these crazy interest rates being offered have obviously not heard the expression “there’s no such thing as a free lunch””
The flaw in your argument is, that we got a free lunch. The bit I liked best was that Icesave were paying 6.5% on one year fixes, which was high at the time they were offered, and rates in general had fallen by the time of the bailout. Nevertheless HMG gave depositors the option of letting the account run to its full term at the same rate.
So, if you are a UK or Icelandic taxpayer - thank you for that.
John Lilburne, the link between police, business “leaders” and politics in Glasgow is no different to the relationships in Sydney and Melbourne in the 1990’s. Watch underbelly and then put it in a Scottish context. That will answer your question.
re Steven Purcell, he has bailed out to Australia, possibly for up to a year.
Does anybody know how he will fund this “sabbatical”. He used to earn 60k, I doubt that he has stashed enough away on that amount to enable him to buy/rent somewhere in Aus and fund his living expenses.
Unless of course he has been a canny councillor over the years and managed to save a lot of cash.
28 - Pedant alert.
I would suggest the Lib Dems came second in precisely no seats…
Up to a year, so he wil not be around for the 2011 Scottish election, let alone the 2010 GE. If in doubt run and hide.
54 - You don’t like spending money on immigrants but want to spend it on first class rail for MPs?
You are related to the Winterton’s and I claim my £5
Arrghh apostrophe
67 don(the other one) He’ll also need plane fare to pop back and forth to New Zealand as:
“Your visa permits you to enter Australia as often as you wish within 12 months from the date the visa is granted and you may stay in Australia for up to three months each time you enter Australia.”
The Glasgow stuff seems poisonous. If all the rumours are true the place is even more of a mess than even the most anti-Jock person could make up.
Reading the Mail on Sunday’s commentary, the BPIX figures are really weird. Overall, the Conservatives lead by 2%, but by 7% in seats that went Labour by 0-10% in 2005.
59. Why does the Labour Party allow this kind of thing to go on? If CCHQ got a sniff of anything like this, the whole lot would be out on their ear.
72, thanks for the additional info. Perhaps he was getting 6%+ in an Icelandic bank.
74 indeed Sean, the Tories would 100% be the largest party if they had a 7% lead in the top 75 targets v Labour and a 1% lead in the top 110 - somewhere around 290 seats total I’d say with Labour on about 270 and the Lib Dems 40
75. One would hope so….I’m sure Dame Shirley Porter would agree….
HT score at Reading was 2-0 to Reading. Villa were 16/1 or 18/1 at HT with Betfair. I was just about to back Villa when we scored our first, so missed the bet.
Now Reading 2 Villa 3.
70. We need elected representatives, we dont need immigrants. You, quite frankly have no idea what you are talking about. Any business that expects it’s senior management to travel will offer first class rail travel as a rule.
The people’s Republic of Glasgow and democracy have been mutually exclusive for a long time.
I agree staying in Oz as a tourist for a year at 37 does not happen. You have to advise the reason for coming and where you intend to stay. And with whom. It cannot be a working visa.
I went through it, I know.
Unless what you offer is deemed skilled and of high value in which case you apply for another kind of visa. Engineering, medicine, that sort of thing.
Three dead after falling from Glasgow flats:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Glasgow-Three-Dead-After-Falling-From-Springburn-Block-Of-Flats/Article/201003115568950?f=rss
Being an admin bloke with suicidal tendencies and a drug problem will not get you to the top of the queue.
But heading Glasgow council might mean significant financial benefits outside one’s salary. Or not of course if he happens to be honest with his constituents.
Somebody will have to be a contact address, perhaps Helen Liddell could influence things as the pollie contact in Canberra?
Funnily enough it was claimed the Bolger killers were supposed to come to Oz to “escape” and the Oz government made a commitment that they had not done so, even on the sly.
We know at least one stayed in England, for the wrong reasons.
For the uninitiated, can someone give a brief overview of what is happening in Scotland with regards the Labour-SNP battle? The gist of what I think I’m hearing is that the SNP has fallen back considerably since the locals last year, but what is likely to happen going into the electon? Are former Labour voters returning to the fold as per England? Could the SNP make a strong pitch in the last few weeks?
79 - Have Villa in accumulator today so phew. Amazing start to the half.
79. stjohn. I was able to back both Reading and The Mighty Villa at 7/2
84.The SNP are saying they have a realistic ambition of 20 seats, with that long promised referendum in the offing nationalism must be rampant up there, or not.
78. Yes, the difference is quite stark. As soon as anything dodgy started going on (remember, it is now utterly routine for government schemes to gerrymander areas), she was removed from office *before* the scandal was uncovered. She was no longer involved in any local government by the time the district auditor ruled that what she had done was unlawful and surcharged her.
District auditors are no longer able to surcharge since the LGA 2000.
Afternoon all and with apologies to Andy whose excellent article I will read in a minute,
Breaking News:
3 people dead reportedly after falling from a high rise bock of flats in Glasgow North-east.
Did someone tell them Gordon Brown was on his way to canvas them personally for wee Willie what his name’s re-election campaign?
A great deal of noise on Politics Scotland about hung parliaments and Nick Clegg gave a fairly mediocre performance in interview with Glen Campbell
Great game - and far from over. Reading are getting corner after corner.
87. Something has to offset Perth and North Perthshire, I guess…
marbles, SNP had 17% in last GE, Hoping for 25 to 30. If labour implode and the truth comes out in Glasgow they might drop down close to parity with the SNP, but 35% plus gets Labour the majority of the seats as per usual. Tories about 18 and libs down to about 15%, but both only competing properly in a quarter of the seats, everywhere else they are deposit fodder. Country split betwen west of Scotland and everywhere else, with different battles between parties. Border area has Tory-Lib battles, North and East has SNP against Lib or Tory battles. Metro areas have residual labour support which is dropping, but opposition vote often split 2 or 3 ways..
guidofawkes
Labour have received £10,596,751 in non-dom donations since 2001. How unpatriotic is that?
87. Marble, you were indeed fortunate. Chris q100’s encyclopedia knowledge of Scottish politics isn’t always on tap to provide such speedy responses to your queries.
I don’t know if it’s gone unnoticed here, but the last three (and in particular the last two) YouGov subsamples have seen a bit of a purple patch for the SNP. Today’s puts them on 31%, and the Tories on 14%.
Phew!!
90. It is now…
21. Don, key, that is the pot calling the kettle black. You should practice what you preach, you are pretty obnoxious yourself.
Scott P, That is a story you will not see in the Mirror, Guardian or Times….
James, It does not matter if they are 13% or 31%, the size they are in Scotland and the lack of weighting in any case makes them almost irrelevant.
98. redcliffe. You are probably correct, but there is a slim chance that Hattie’s shrieking and Mandy’s hypocritical pontificating reached such a level of frenzy that journalists are starting to question it. I wonder if Ashcroft’s lawyers have been in touch about her Marr appearance yet?
Interesting stuff. it’ll be fun on the might when we realise whether your model Andy is going to give better results or Rod’s more UNS variant. I hope both of you have got your excuses already ready to roll.
93. Re : patriotism. When Cameron said “do it for Britain”, was it a slip of the tongue and he meant “do it for Belize”?
92 Any odds on the 2 By election winners against Labour Rennie and Mason holding on.
Scott P. Lawyers would need to come up with facts and I think like Purcell the legal threats are all bluster as the truth is hard to unravel and for some it is best that the bodies are buried.
54. Notme, you may think it is OK, but as a taxpayer i do not want my money wasted by these troughers. Most private companies now insist on 2nd class/economy for staff, no way that MP’s should be using 1st class. If they want to let them use some of their substantial salary to upgrade.
101. Election night on here is going to be swamped with people from one side or another shouting NAnaNAna na.
If my prognostications prove correct, I will have a selection of choice posts bookmarked to taunt the vanquished.
If I’m wrong, I will probably never post here again…
99. Well, I’ve said in the past that I don’t entirely agree with that. A single subsample tells you absolutely nothing, but looking at the pattern of several over time can give you a vague idea of what’s going on. There have now been three good subsamples in a row for the SNP - may just be a coincidence, we’ll see.
102
I would advise that you don’t audition for the comedy club.
Labour to win Glasgow East by quite a lot. 4 or 5k. Mason is popular but guaranteed benefit payments and pushing the anti Glasgow pitch against the SNP will work for some returning labour voters.
Rennie is more complicated as not merely a 2 party fight but I expect him to lose as well.
102
Is that you, Oscar ?
107
Nonsense. Each subsample is as inaccurate as the last one.
104. redcliffe. Well, as I understand it, Hattie this morning claimed that he had agreed to be “domiciled”, and had reneged on that agreement. Unless she can produce a document with the word domiciled on it, he can claim that she has misrepresented the facts. You’re probably right though.
105. All but the most junior civil servants and local government officers travel first class also.
What really is the shocker here, which the journalists are to lazy to chase, will be the price that the fees office will be paying for the tickets. I would be willing to make a wager, that the fees office would pay more for a second class ticket then you and i would pay for a first.
108. In general I’d agree with you, but if it’s the PB comedy club we’re talking about you and I know I’m in with a fighting chance. I did of course make the schoolboy error of forgetting to preface my remarks with either “AGW AGW AGW lol” or “one-eyed Scottish idiot”.
The learning process goes on.
James, when the next one has the SNP at say 18% again behind the Tories which got the Times salivating previously, you will come back to my way of thinking re the sub samples.
98 redcliffe62 Well, its in the Labourgraph, who wisely don’t print her claim about ‘domicile’:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7392411/Labour-accused-of-rank-hypocrisy-over-Lord-Ashcroft-attacks.html
Perhaps the tide is turning….now if only William….
107. “Nonsense. Each subsample is as inaccurate as the last one.”
MTF, I’ve just said that looking at one subsample in isolation is meaningless. But the pattern of several over a period of time can tell you something - if the numbers were being plucked out of the air, the Lib Dems would regularly be in the lead, and Labour in fourth place. That does not happen.
113. Notme, exactly , they are cavalier wit hour cash, they make no attempt whatsoever to get value for money. It is scandalous.
112 Scott P - Correct - Hattie did make that claim (for which there is no documentary evidence) - but the press are unlikely to print it as its untrue….
Scott, being right and being legally right are two different things.
If Ashcroft had anything in writing that backs his case he would perhaps have considered using it in the Sunday papers? Paperwork seems to be at a premium for everyone…..
115. Redcliffe - actually, I won’t. I’ve been saying the same thing consistently for a while now, through good times and bad. When people here jump on poor subsamples for the SNP and good ones for the Tories, I do of course point out that they wouldn’t be taking them remotely seriously if the figures were reversed, and I think we’ve just seen a small demonstration of that.
116. Carlotta
Fascinating snippet from that article
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, appeared to suggest that the peer’s decision to disclose his tax status was motivated by David Cameron, the party leader, who learned that he was a non-dom only last month.
Mr Fox said: “David has always taken the view that taxation status, which is what that particular problem was, is a personal matter.
“But let me put it this way – David Cameron found out less than a month ago and it is now in the public domain.
Following on from our discussion last night, where the argument was “same old tories” because Cameron had not delivered the transparency he had trumpeted. Does this change that?
It might also be added that the national exit polls for the TV media, revealed at 10 pm on election night, have been very accurate since 1997 - and they use marginal seats only to make their seat calculation. This is because it has long been accepted that it is the marginal siuation that is decisive.
I do still agree that the party advancing (in this case the Consevatives) should do somewhat better in marginal seats than UNS suggests.
However I do also continue to say that polls in marginal seats should be treated with great caution at the moment, because respondents will not be thinking they are in a marginal but giving a ‘national’ vote. Tactical voting and incumbency/candidate factors will not yet be in play with many respondents. If you think these will have any effect this should still be added.
I do not think we can say for sure that the polling evidence states with certainty that the Tories will do much better in the marginals.
In previous elections I would say that this could be an illusion which may well be dispelled when the candidates’ names are before the voters, and the tactical situation will have its effect.
Following the expenses scandal, though, incumbency may even become a negative … and we don’t know how Lib Dems in Lab-C seats will break this time.
117
20 inaccurate subsamples =20 inaccurate subsamples. Divining anything from them is inadvisable IMHO
Ok PB Tories, your party is now in a position where it’s leader and deputy leader are too scared to give interviews as they are struggling to dovetail their Ashcroft stories.
you must be very proud.
Malolmg, had another beer after the football?
I gave you some sound advice, you failed to take it and ended up making yourself look a complete dick.
So here is the advice again. Don’t drink and post, it rarely ends well as you so graphically proved.
120 redcliffe62 The documents are in the public domain.
Ashcroft is in the clear, as long as he’s paid ‘tens of millions of pounds a year in UK tax’ (commitment from William Hague to Tony Blair).
If he hasn’t….it all gets a bit messy.
‘Domicile’ was never explicitly discussed in the correspondence…and Ashcroft made no explicit commitments on it.
118. The best way to get an idea of the kind of price they pay, go to the trainline.com look for the most expensive ticket, and then add 25%, you may think i am jesting.
I would reckon that the fees office would pay about £400+ for a first class return ticket between Edinburgh and London / Glasgow and London, and probably would pay about £300+ for a second class ticket.
121 - Something that Rod Crosby or Andy Cooke could valuably do is to give us some statistical guidance as to how to use sub-samples. They are clearly of limited value. However, the point that you make - that they are not entirely random - is a good one. With the YouGov tracker coming out daily, presumably sub-samples can be aggregated in a way that is unweighted but which gives us some kind of a feel for what is going on in one area or another. It would be useful to know how far we can push this and how cautious we should be.
113. “All but the most junior civil servants and local government officers travel first class also.”
I’m a reasonably senior local government officer. I travel second class, so does my boss, and so, most of the time, does his boss.
124. “20 inaccurate subsamples =20 inaccurate subsamples.”
Not so. There are two basic problems with subsamples, not one - lack of weighting and small sample size. Looking at several over a period of time may not eliminate the former problem, but it certainly eliminates the latter.
Maggie fan, I agree and on this occasion I am not agreeing with James. When variation is 15% plus then it is silly to give it credence in any way.
122. Scott P One would like to think so, and that it was completely unrelated to the upcoming FOI release, but if it was, why did it happen now, not months ago? Fox presented (in my view) a troubling case in the best possible light. Pity about that FOI thing tho…
132. Redcliffe, you only need to look at what the subsamples were showing in the late summer of 2008 to see what I mean. Individual ones may have been producing exotic results, but the general pattern was bearing out what we knew from other evidence - the SNP was in the lead.
Carlotta, 127# I meant documents containing the word domiciled, or long term resident. These still seem to be hard to find.
130. You travel second class on council business, and you are senior? How senior? Are you part of the management team?
129. They could be put through the Kalman filter, which at least would drastically reduce the variation due to sampling error…
It’s still quite a tedious job though, even when you’ve semi-automated it, as I have managed to do for the national polls.
In any case, as demonstrated a while ago, regional patterns are likely to have minimal impact on the overall result.
Reasonable guesstimates of the regional patterns would likely be just as accurate as trying to calculate them from the sub-samples.
So at a push James an aggregate of sub samples may tell us the order of parties from 1 to 4 in Scotland. I can live with that, njust not the contents being anything more than a poor guesstimate.
But 2 guys from Inverness, 2 from Aberdeen and 2 from Dundee amongst many others do not an accurate survey make.
A further question about YouGov. If they weight by “party identification” and try and get set percentages over time then how do they cope with the following hypothesis?
People who “identify” with a party are unlikely to switch their vote to opponents but are more likely to waver in their certainty to vote, and/or be more or less likely to answer “don’t know” when asked. Since YouGov polls require active participation it is more likely that “identifiers” will participate if they are prepared to say that they will support their favoured party. (why fill in a poll just to say you don’t know how you will vote?)
The consequence is that as Labour support declines, fewer “identifiers” will respond to the polls, but Labour support will go up! Because the declining number of “identifiers” (who will be Labour’s strongest supporters) will always be increased to meet the weighting requirements.
125. Oh dear, tim. Still hungover?
“leader … too scared to give interviews”
If you had done some research, you would know that Cameron has a major interview scheduled this week…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7034373.ece
136 No, not massively senior, but senior enough to be outside the “all but the most junior” bracket which is the one you originally posited as the only one in which officers travelled second class. In the spirit of “pay banding” declarations, I’m on over 40k but under 50k.
The people I have meetings with pretty much all seem to travel second class as well as far as I can tell. Increasingly they are also expected to book a specific train in advance to get the discounted fare.
141. This must be a very innovative council then. Are you expected to be working on your train journeys?
141 - Don’t be silly jdc. Don’t you know we’re all on the gravy train, and any claims to the contrary must be lies?
re 130 and indeed the NHS via my hospital Trust will not reimburse for anything other than second class travel.
me, the department I work for have a private company to handle all train, flight bookings.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that a private company is incapable of obtaining cheap fares and is willing to pay 25% more than the highest fare quoted on a website?
If so you really do have a very poor view of the private sector.
Andy another excellent article and I repeat my request from last Sunday. Rod Crosby please write and submit to Mike an updated and straightforward piece on your expectations and calculations including swingback so we can give these proper consideration instead of just dismissing you as an irritating little toad.
Andy the only comment I would disagree with. The last 2 boundary changes in Scotland have both worked for Labour and against the Tory party, in each case a former Tory constituency being “swamped” by a large Labour voting area being added.
Re SNP chances, when I first predicted Scottish seats for PB in June 2008, I thought the following potential SNP gains:
Inverness
Gordon
Aberdeen North
Aberdeen South
Dundee West
Ochil and South Perthshire
Edinburgh East
Glasgow East
Glenrothes
Glasgow North
Kilmarnock
Livingston
some 12 seats in all which added to the 6 they held would have taken them to 18.
All the experts in Scotland and most political commentators including Prof John Curtice (Scotland on Sunday comment on polls 28/02/2010) believe that at the GE in Scotland, Labour will come out on top though probably a fair bit down from the 39% achieved in 2005. The SNP and Tories will vie for 2nd place with most thinking the SNP will succeed, probably in the mid to high 20s% and the Tories in the mid to low 20s. They all including John Curtice do not see the LibDems recovering from their almost constant low teens polling to achieve the 2nd place and 23% achieved in 2005.
Labour are therefore vulnerable to both Tories and SNP in some seats
SNP could be vulnerable to Tories in both PErth and Angus according to John Curtice.
Big question is whether even though LibDem vote appears to be collapsing, will it do so outside their existing 12 seats enabling them to hold on or could they be picked off in several seats as they were in 2007 when the SNP took 2 seats and the Tories 1 seat from the LibDems.
I now think the SNP will win Dundee West for sure. John Mason should hold the by-election gain of Glasgow East. I also think they should take Livingston (Jim Devine of expenses scandal’s seat) and have a good chance in both Aberdeen North and Edinburgh East.
Cathy Jamieson the high profile MSP standing for Labour in Kilmarnock makes that a much tougher battle.
A recovery to 20+% for the Tories may deprive them of Ochil and South Perthshire and could see the SNP vote increase slightly in either or both of Perth and Angus and they could still lose to the Tories if former Tory voters return, especially from hand sitting or LibDem voting.
Danny Alexander should now be safe in Inverness as John Finnie is the wrong candidate for the SNP.
The young Tory candidate in Gordon could deprive the SNP of votes in Gordon leaving Malcolm Bruce safe this time.
Frank Doran is not popular in Aberdeen North and the SNP holds the Holyrood seat.
I suspect Anne Begg will hold Aberdeen South because both she and the LibDems will lose votes to the Tories and SNP making it a 1983 Inverness type result (all 4 candidates within 1500 votes).
Edinburgh East will really be a dry run for the Holyrood seat where Labour has selected a “big beast” to try and unseat Kenny MacAskill the SNP justice minister at Holyrood next year. It was an AWS which the locals didnt like but Labour seems to have selected in Sheila Gilmour a fairly decent candidate.
Finally I cannot see Glenrothes changing this time, postal votes and lost registers besides.
135 redcliffe62 Here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/02/ashcroft-tax-correspondence
‘Permanent Resident’ is mentioned, but ‘domiciled’ is not. The issue is that ‘permanent resident’ strongly suggests ‘domiciled’ - which is why, I expect, Ashcroft got it changed to ‘long term’ in the final agreement, which is neutral wrt domicile.
142 That mostly depends on whether the journeys themselves are within working hours. Nobody is going to reprimand me if I don’t work on them, but I’ll usually at least check into my office e-mail and deal with anything urgent, and if I’m on the way to a meeting make sure I am fully prepared for it.
I don’t know any Councils (I’m not saying there are none, I’m saying I haven’t come across one recently) which currently reimburse first class travel for anyone below Director level - indeed I don’t think very many do it for Councillors either these days.
147 - So what’s the issue? Doesn’t that just serve to emphasise even more that no commitment was made? Surely all that is relevant is the “final agreement”?
146. Good grief, Easterross, you’re more optimistic for the SNP than I am! For what it’s worth, I think you’ve got it completely the wrong way round - I think the SNP will hold off the Tories in Angus and Perth & North Perthshire (although both could be tight) but they’ll struggle to win some of the tougher Labour ones. I’m optimistic about Dundee West and perhaps Aberdeen North, though.
147. CarlottaVance.
Is it not true to say that “permanent resident” is an immigration status, whereas “domicile” is a tax status?
By the way, how much tax did you pay last year?
All these important people going places on trains. Good job the workers are chained to their desks.
fr, so the myth of the gravy train shattered, you move onto something else to moan about, nothing changes.
Carlotta, Perhaps he needs to state the “long term” aspect more than he has.
And if it was chnaged so that 3 labour people in similar positions were accommodated then those people now need to be named, as it would have been a decision the labour government was privy to.
I haven’t had a good moan for ages.
122.
““But let me put it this way – David Cameron found out less than a month ago and it is now in the public domain.”
So what was Cameron doing in that month? Deciding on whether or not to make it public? Deciding when best to make it public?
If I were Fox, I would not be drawing attention to the amount of time Caneron kept quiet about it.
A month is a long time in politics.
150.How many seats should I pencil in for the SNP? Will it be that longed for majority of scottish seats at Westminster which would signal that the Scots no longer wish to be dependent on England?
Yesterday, Mr Salmond said a realistic aim is 20 seats, what’s your best guess?
129. You are taking the proverbial right?
151. LondonStatto,
No one has got me a peerage promising that I will pay ‘tens of millions a year in UK Tax’, so the question does not arise, any more than it does for you.
Has Ashcroft paid ‘tens of millions a year in UK Tax?’ It will come out sooner or later….hint…sooner better…
No, ‘permanent resident’ is not an immigration term.
Non-British nationals are given ‘Indefinite Leave to Remain’ - ‘Permanent resident’ may be a colloquial term, but not a legal one.
Ashcroft was already a UK Citizen, (born here - his ‘domicile of origin’) so could take up residence when, and for how ever long he wished.
What he didn’t do was give up his ‘Domicile of Choice’ (Belize), curious given the HoL Scrutiny Ctte originally asked for an ‘irrevocable’ move. But he ‘clarified’ that.
156.It is when you are posting.
157. Eight
156 Maybe he was persuading Ashton to publicise it?
As there is nothing wrong with non-doms donating money to political parties, or indeed working for them, maybe it was felt that the best way of coping with a fake row about something of no consequence, was to ignore it?
158 - So if the “final agreement” was altered to clearly remove any suggestion that he would change his domicility, why was the peerage not rejected?
149. The issue is, ‘Has he paid tens of millions a year in UK Tax’, as Hague wrote he would. With friends like William…..
160.EIGHT! All these posts from SNP supporters for 8 seats!!!!!!! Good luck in that referendum!
157. The six seats they won in 2005, plus Ochil & South Perthshire, and Dundee West. There are a few other possibles from Labour, and perhaps the Lib Dems if their vote completely collapses.
As you’ll have seen, there are very split views about what’s likely to happen in the by-election gain of Glasgow East.
158. CarlottaVance: the question does not arise, any more than it does for you.
It doesn’t arise for me because I’m not asking for someone’s private tax affairs to be revealed publically (except to make this point).
You are, so you should be happy to reveal your own. Otherwise you’re just another lefty hypocrite.
But take another swig anyway.
162. So if the “final agreement” was altered to clearly remove any suggestion that he would change his domicility, why was the peerage not rejected?
by alex March 7th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
The suggestion raised yesterday was that at least 3 other peers wanted non-dom status, so they couldn’t refuse 1 on that basis.
125. Tim, can you tell me the last time your leader was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman and appeared on Question Time?
160 – Rod, just to clarify – you believe the SNP will gain eight seat or end up with eight net seats?
164. Chris, given your famed disinterest in “local politics” you can be forgiven for not knowing this, but how the SNP fare at Westminister elections doesn’t have a great deal of read-through into support for the SNP at Holyrood, let alone support for independence itself. But, as it happens, even eight seats would represent the SNP’s second-best ever performance at a GE - only October ‘74 was better.
158 Plenty of people have a foot in two countries, I imagine Lord Paul and Lakshmi Mittal spend considerable time in India each year. And rich people of course can afford to spend time in more than one country because they can afford to buy multiple properties.
Ashcroft may have been born in the UK but spent considerable time in the Carribean as a child, I really don’t see why spending some time in Belize every year is a problem, any more than you would tell Lord Paul he wasn’t allowed to go to India.
162. Listening to Sir Hayden Phillips on R4 yesterday - I think it simply did not occur to them - what they were concerned about was ‘residence’ - ‘tax’ did not come into it….except in Hague’s letter to the PM…..I suspect ‘domicile’ will be of much more concern now….
169. Net eight seats (+/-1 seat margin)
The 1987 exit poll was wrong of course. It’s figures were:
C - 338
Lab - 261
Alliance - 26
Con majority - 26
20, I quite like Iceland. However, the enormo-haddock are keen for Cod War II.
174. I don’t think it was a proper exit poll, though, was it?
166 LondonStatto: “It doesn’t arise for me because I’m not asking for someone’s private tax affairs to be revealed publically”
Hague made the promise - take it up with him.
Re travelling on business in the public sector.
I used to work for a government agency. There was an agreement a good many years ago, between staff/unions/management, that those “entitled” to 1st class travel would not make use of their “entitlement” unless there were very exceptional circumstances to justify doing so.
177. CarlottaVance: Hague made the promise - take it up with him.
I, like the vast majority of the electorate, couldn’t care less: you ask him.
Take another swig.
170.Someone actually suggested that Salmond deserved a place in the Prime Minister debates coming up. I don’t think it was you to be fair, but if even ardent supporters such as yourself believe that your party will only claim 8 seats out of 59, perhaps independance isn’t that important to the vast majority of Scots after all!
What’s interesting about the 1992 election is the way that it many of those 40 odd seats the Tories lost to Labour their percentage was up in quite a few and their actual vote was up in a lot of them (although turnout was only up nationally by 2.4% which isn’t a huge amount).
For example, in the first seat the Tories lost to Labour on the night, Pendle, the Tory vote increased from 21,009 to 21,384. Next they lost Nuneaton where the Tory vote increased from 24,630 to 25,526. In seats like Warrington South and Thurrock the Tory percentage increased but they still lost as LD voters went over to Labour tactically.
Just goes to show that Major was rather unlucky to have such a small majority in 1992.
Oh gawd, Ashcroft. Sheesh!
While you are all wittering on, I have wrote a poem in praise of Spring and pretty girls. It’s on my blog.
ON topic, I still predict Labour Most Seats. And yet, there are signs of stirring in the Tory undergrowth: a bustle in the hedgegrow, a Spring clean for the May Queen (David Cameron). Let us pray that it is so.
Good news:
Switzerland overwhelmingly votes against move to give animals right to be represented in court.
157. Also bear in mind that the SNP reported just £26,000-odd of cash donations in Q4 2009.
174. Actually, the irony of that 1987 poll is that it predicted the 1992 result with an astonishing degree of accuracy!
182.Doing your hokey-cokey again?
Tories good, tories bad, Euro-federalist, Euro-Sceptic, Cameron good, Cameron bad.
So it’s sunday, today is a tories improving, euro sceptic day?
Yet another interesting fact about the 1992 election is that the Tory vote only fell by 0.3% nationally, from 42.2% to 41.9%. Now, if you look at the regions, the Tory vote is either steady or rising slightly in most of them. The only region the Tory vote fell to any extent was the South West.
So it looks like the South West region was responsible for the Tories’ share of the vote dropping slightly. If it hadn’t done so, Major would have actually the same or a slightly higher share of the vote than Thatcher did in 1987.
This might have been part of a trend, because in 1987 the Tories also did very badly in the south-western half of the south west region so-to-speak, ie. south west of Bristol, in Devon and Cornwall.
From stressed MP’s in Glasgow who never came clean to Council staff now following the same pattern.
Glasgow politics, based on nepotism and cronyism, has remained standing for over 50 years and chips off the edge will do little to change it.
We should ask the new labour guy in charge why labour i.e. Purcell vetoed a debate on organised crime last year. And will they agree to on enow as amatter of urgency. Perhaps Purcell would have had to explain his own position, something he now seems keen to fly 11,000 mlles to avoid so perhaps he has history.
Real stress is a serious issue; political stress is when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Or somewhere else far less pleasant.
176 IIRC it was. I think ITN also did an exit poll, which predicted a lead of 80 for the Conservatives.
182 Maybe Mike should establish a thread where those who find Lord Ashcroft interesting can discuss him till their hearts’ content.
Canvassing Abbotts Langley today, I encountered a man who argued (seriously I think) that Gordon Brown ought to be executed.
If a month is a long time Hague had a decade where he couldn’t be arsed asking Ashcroft and an indeterminate period where he didn’t tell Cameron.
Cameron had four years.
now they are scrambling to get their stories straight.
What a pair of buffoons
Politician in promise over which they don’t have the power to deliver on shocker!
Re Glasgow East. The SNP have never held a by-election gain against Labour, and their previous victories were all by larger margins than achieved at Glasgow East…
179…..I think the press might….and the ‘its a private matter’ is looking a bit worn round the edges….
190.What a pair of buffoons
Cameron & Hague both leading figures, about to become Prime Minister & Foreign Secretary, what do you do?
182. Chillaxa-rama, dude.
I hold two contradictory positions at once. AS THINGS STAND I predict Labour Most Seats; however I also believe, unsurprisingly, in the Knox Paradox, that the British voters will back away from a hung parliament or Five More Years of Gordon, once the reality of this GHASTLY possibility kicks in.
There is some slender evidence this may be happening already.
So, whatever happens, I will be both right, and wrong. Hooray!
193.I think everyone understands your point of view on Ashcroft, any more incisive opinions, on British politics, the weather or anything, anything else?
176/189: the interesting thing is that on the 1992 election programme, David Dimbleby sought to extol the virtues of the exit poll on that occasion by reference to the fact that the 1987 poll wasn’t a proper exit poll, just an opinion poll.
But if you look at the 1987 election coverage, it certainly isn’t just a national poll extrapolated to the whole country, because they were able to predict (correctly) that the Tories would lose a lot more seats to Labour in Scotland than in the rest of the country.
So it might have been more like a poll, but with regional differences accounted for.
Chris, re salmond and debates you still appear to fail to grasp Ofcom rules on equality of time on the debates when shown outside England. As we discussed it with 15 people on this site for 3 hours previously I can only assume you have a memory problem.
Being a major party, the largest or 2nd largest in Scotland, they are entitled to equal time in broadcasts shown in Scotland.
Who he or angus robertson debates against does not matter. It is equality of time.
Not hard to understand really. Lose the anglocentricity and realise that it is a union, not an amalgamation or absorbtion and as such other views outside those of the 85% south of Carlisle need to be considered.
194. CarlottaVance: I think the press might
Yes, like you the Grauniad and Times are addicted. Take another swig.
Rod Crosby, thanks for your comments on sub-samples. Interestingly, we are thinking about very similar numbers of SNP seats. If anything, I am more pessimistic than you for their chances. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see them with no more than they came in with.
180. “Someone actually suggested that Salmond deserved a place in the Prime Minister debates coming up. I don’t think it was you to be fair”
No need to be ‘fair’ to me, Chris, I’ve argued exactly that point at considerable length! Exhibit A -
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2009/10/question-of-simple-fairness.html
Frankly, what astonishes me is that any rational person could feel that the SNP leader should be excluded from leaders’ debates shown in Scotland.
I’m perhaps not quite so astonished that you feel that way, Chris.
150 James one thing is for certain the Scottish election night this time should be interesting unlike the last 2.
When I first posted on Scotland I thought it would be Labour -14, LibDems -4, SNP +12 and Tories +6.
Looking at the Tories now, we know because Scotland on Sunday identified them that there are 11 Tory targets including the 1 seat we hold
D,C and T.
They are
Dumfries and Galloway (Labour)
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (LibDem)
Renfrewshire East (Lab)
Edinburgh South (Lab)
Edinburgh SW (Lab)
Stirling (Lab)
Argyll (LibDem)
Aberdeenshire West (LibDem)
Perth and North Perthshire (SNP)
Angus (SNP)
I think we will win 1 of Perth or Angus but not both.
I think we will have a clean sweep of the South of Scotland holding DCT and adding Dumfries and Galloway and Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.
I think we will take Renfrewshire East our formerly safest seat in Scotland, especially since Labour has now abandoned it for Holyrood next year even though they technically hold it.
In Edinburgh, we will oust Alistair Darling, possibly after a couple of recounts. In Edinburgh South our chances increased with Nigel Griffiths retiring but Neil Hudson needs to persuade voters that he and not Fred Mackintosh can beat Labour or ironically Labour could hold on.
Similarly in Argyll and Stirling we need the voters to decide it is us and not the SNP who can defeat the incumbent LibDem and Labour MPs respectively or both could hold on.
Finally in Aberdeenshire we will win if the good citizens decide they are fed up with the antics of the LibDem groups on both Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City councils.
202 - Because he’s not standing in the election?
194 Then again, they might decide not to bore their readers rigid.
Interesting comment on the handling of Icelandic banks by Darling on Times site:
Around £4.5 billion has been paid to Icelandic bank depositors by Alastair Darling against the written advice of the Treasury’s Permanent Secretary who insisted on a written directive from his boss.
This includes £2.35 billion compensation that the Government paid out to depositors on behalf of the Iceland Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund (DIGF), £1.4 billion paid out by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme for deposits above €20,887 and below £50,000, and £800 million paid out at Darling’s insistence in respect of deposits above £50,000 that were not guaranteed at all.
Worse, this money was repaid regardless of whether the depositer had a British address.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7052914.ece
57 - “52 - What in the name of God are you burbling on about ?”
Be easy onthe timbot, he has been posting since 5 am (unless he pulled an all nighter on the last thread???) so he is probably not on top of his game today.
Still, he is nearly at 18,000 posts, should reach 20K by the election and about 25,000,000 by the time Gordo faces a challenging interview
Since Salmond is not standing there is zero case for him, personally, to be involved in any debates.
Reminder that you can watch these shows on YouTube:
1979 election show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exWDguPklGg&
1992 election show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z08foh7ExcE&
1987 election show (only 2 parts so far):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTPxE8oC0bI&
antifrank, If the SNP poll say 28% which is my guess and they had 17% last time then they will obviously end up with more than before. I think nine but as many as eleven on a good day.
A total collapse of the liberals and the tories gainging afew per cent from them which seems to be likely outside their heartlands will however make the results change.
With a negative press supporting Brown and fear tactics as usual then labour will get their 35% this time, less than 39% as last time but enough to hold on to and win the vast majority of seats.
“I encountered a man who argued (seriously I think) that Gordon Brown ought to be executed.”
Tell him that in a democracy he will have to settle for a hung parliament…
193. “Re Glasgow East. The SNP have never held a by-election gain against Labour, and their previous victories were all by larger margins than achieved at Glasgow East…”
Rod, there are two powerful counter-examples to that. In 1973, the SNP won Govan very narrowly at the by-election, and only lost it to Labour very narrowly in the February ‘74 GE (the swingback to Labour was very small). Whereas in the ‘73 Dundee East by-election, there was a huge swing to the SNP, even though they narrowly failed to take the seat. With a personal vote built up, Gordon Wilson then built on that swing to take the seat from Labour in February ‘74.
In truth, this is only the fifth by-election gain the SNP have made from Labour in their entire history, so the very small number of past precedents should be treated with caution in any case. Certainly Motherwell in 1945 tells us precisely nothing!
202. James Kelly: Frankly, what astonishes me is that any rational person could feel that the SNP leader should be excluded from leaders’ debates shown in Scotland.
Too easy. Salmond isn’t a candidate at the election, therefore SNP representation should be provided by a candidate of the party’s choice.
No-one (as far as I’m aware) is arguing that the SNP be excluded from all debates shown in Scotland.
208. “Since Salmond is not standing there is zero case for him, personally, to be involved in any debates.”
Then I take it you would have no objection to Angus Robertson. The issue of Alex Salmond not standing at the election was always a huge diversion from the central issue.
204. antifrank/208. alex.
It was “too easy”
205. My guess is that Cashcroft is a circulation killer. Even the lefties I know are bored and bemused by it. The “scandal” is quintessentially Villageous.
203 - I’ll believe the Tories having a good election night in Scotland when I see it quite frankly.
Alex,
Was it not a LEADER’S debate, after all that was the reason the SNP was not being included?
Angus Robertson as leader in the house would be fine as well.
Who a party wishes to put forward is surely their choice. And after all most of the people making decisions with labour in london seem to be unelected!
53. Stuart - I think it’s optimistic to think that this could have much of an effect on Labour’s election chances in Glasgow, let alone Scotland. It has mostly been presented as being solely about Purcell, not the wider party. The Sunday Times apparently pulled at the last minute a feature on Labour’s network of connections with organised crime in the city.
213. “No-one (as far as I’m aware) is arguing that the SNP be excluded from all debates shown in Scotland.”
And at no point did I claim that they were. Your position, as I understand it, is that one of the leading parties of Scotland should be completely excluded from roughly half (perhaps more than half) of the debates shown in Scotland, in which the other three parties will be given the Brucie Unionist Bonus of a completely free run.
re 209 And JS did you catch the February 74 one? It never seemed to make it onto iPlayer for some reason.
215. “It was “too easy”
“
Far too easy for myself and Redcliffe to deal with that particular red herring, you mean? I’m inclined to agree…
From Guido
“….Gordon visited a key ally two Thursday’s ago that within a week, one of Scotland’s up and coming politicos would have attempted suicide, a police investigation would link the same man, Glasgow’s most senior politician, to major organised drug crime and an 18-year-old Labour activist would be end up dead outside the city’s Council Chambers. As ever Gordon is pulling a Macavity on this one…”
When’s Gordon going to do an intervies?
193 Rod of course you are correct and history suggests the SNP should not hold Glasgow East but it is a straight fight again between the 2 main contestants from the by-election.
John Mason, now sitting MP was the most popular councillor in Glasgow
Margaret Curran, not stupid but absolutely the worst type of West of Scotland Labour parrot fashion repeater of Brown mantra and not the most attractive of personalities. She sneers at people and in my opinion takes the voters of Glasgow Baillieston for granted. Failed to beat Frank MacAveety for the new Holyrood seat created out of Baillieston and “my” old constituency Shettleston. I thought at the time of the by-election he would hold this time with a larger majority of around 1400 and then lose it in 2014/2015 back to Labour.
214 - I don’t think the debates should happen, so i don’t need an opinion on that. I will be exercising my democratic right not to watch them.
205. Quite possibly - but the Tories should have been much more robust in taking the fight to the enemy, rather than ‘lalala I can’t hear you’ing
Fox on Marr today (six days on) was the first competent performance I’ve seen.
Not quite in the same league as Marr’s evisceration of Harman…but the handling of this has been lamentable.
‘Why is Lord Mandelson talking about this when British Workers today (fill in bad news here - ideally involving a Labour non-dom)’
220. James Kelly.
Were it up to me, I’d be tempted to exclude Clegg as well, were it not for two things:
(1) his agreement to participate was necessary to force Brown to agree; and
(2) with a HP a possibility he must be seen to commit on what he’d do if it happened.
My point with respect to broadcast in Scotland has always been that the only way to prevent the debates being seen in Scotland is for them not to happen. That’s not a good enough solution.
221 - yes, and I recorded it as well. I’ll put it on YouTube sometime, although not straight away since most people on here probably saw it.
I don’t think that’s the sort of thing they put on iPlayer unfortunately.
210.11 seats on a good day does not get an invite to the debates! In fact, given the SNP have so few seats, I’m surprised that the broadcasters give them so much coverage. Scottish Newsnight & regional programmes, ok, but Question Time/Any Questions definately not.
Once you get your independance you’ll be able to have nightly debates on how you are going to finance yourselves.
214 - It was a huge diversion largely brought up by SNP supporters.
I have no objection to Angus Robertson being included in a Scotland-only debate. Since the SNP are standing in fewer than 10% of the seats in the UK, there is no case for Angus Robertson being included in UK wide debates.
The only remaining question therefore is whether there should be UK wide debates. To which the answer is of course yes: the public should get as good a chance as possible to see what the main party leaders look like. It’s rough luck on the SNP, but no rougher than on the Greens, the BNP or UKIP.
Should there be three debates? I would argue not - one would be enough, I’d have thought. But given the choice between none and three, I’d choose three.
227. “My point with respect to broadcast in Scotland has always been that the only way to prevent the debates being seen in Scotland is for them not to happen.”
Why? They could easily be shown in England only - in fact, the first one (from what I can gather) will deal with domestic English matters only, so even leaving aside the SNP’s exclusion, it’ totally illogical for it be screened in Scotland. However it sounds like the SNP and Plaid Cymru are now seeking special programmes to compensate for their lack of representation in the debates (ie. programmes featuring them alone, not just the Scottish/Welsh debates that can’t possibly correct the imbalance created by their exclusion from the main ones). I think given where we are now, that’s the correct tack. If even that is denied them, I suspect this could yet go to court.
142: you’re working for a council and you get less than £50K?! Are you a dinner lady? There’s something in the paper today about the no. of people on 100K plus in various councils and it’s obscene.
As for 1st class for MPs - they could use the same policy my company uses for business class flights - 5 hour minimum duration required!
212. I am of course aware of that (although they did lose Govan, didn’t they!) and was not intending to draw any firm conclusion about Glasgow E (I’m too far away to do that).
However, the track record does not look encouraging…
230.I agree with you antifrank, except on your last point about the number of debates. In an ideal world I would allow Clegg to appear in 1 of the 3 debates, so that the public can judge which way he’s likely to jump in a hung parliament. The remaining 2 debates, one on home affairs, one on foreign affairs, the 2 potential Prime Minister’s head to head.
230. “I have no objection to Angus Robertson being included in a Scotland-only debate. Since the SNP are standing in fewer than 10% of the seats in the UK, there is no case for Angus Robertson being included in UK wide debates.”
In the words of Canon Kenyon Wright, interesting, but appears to misunderstand the question. The issue is how the broadcasters ensure fair coverage for all four main parties within Scotland. If the main debates are shown in Scotland without representation for the SNP, that creates an imbalance that Scottish deabtes featuring all four parties cannot possibly correct. The broadcasters have managed to play fair in previous elections, by showing a leaders’ special with the SNP leader alone to balance out those shown with the other three parties’ leaders. They should play equally fair this time - and if for some reason they don’t, I suspect the courts will be asked to ensure they do.
233. “However, the track record does not look encouraging…”
We’re looking at a track record of just three examples here, Rod (I take it you would exclude Motherwell as the SNP were a fringe party in those days) of which one is actually moderately encouraging. Not a lot to go on.
Careless Talk etc.
http://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2010/03/05/45241-breaking-news-political-adviser-quits-over-taped-call/
235 - No, that is your issue: it is not the only issue. There are other issues, such as informing the public as much as possible about the likely alternatives for Prime Minister. I am willing to acknowledge the drawback you identify, but the big positive that debates will offer the public outweighs that drawback.
Some form of compromise will be found with the SNP, but the SNP would be reckless indeed if they tried to stick a penny on this railway track to see if they could derail the train.
I can’t believe GB have lost to Lithuania in the Davis Cup.
Does John Lloyd actually get paid to be this bad at his job?
236. The “moderately encouraging” one was where the Labour candidate was an Englishman, was it not?
“you’re working for a council and you get less than £50K?! Are you a dinner lady? There’s something in the paper today about the no. of people on 100K plus in various councils and it’s obscene.”
232. I know (the 50k figure beloved of the TPA mind you is usually high because of the pay rises headteachers have got in the last decade). In an era when a 2nd year post-qualification lawyer can expect to be on over £60k in some firms, and when not long ago people who are frankly children waltzed into six-figure salaries in the city, it’s not terribly surprising that people at the top of organisations with a billion pound turnover expect something faintly generous.
231. James Kelly: They could easily be shown in England only
Sorry, but that’s a technical impossibility.
Whilst BBC1 and ITV1 have regions, Sky News does not (as far as I’m aware); all BBC1 and ITV1 regions are available on Sky across the UK and (as far as I’m aware) there’s no way to geographically restrict broadcast; and, even if those problems are overcome, border areas can receive transmissions from both sides.
226 CarlottaVance
You are like a little puppy with her first bone.
The Prime Minister is solely responsible for recommending the ennoblement of new workings peer to the Queen. The PM seeks advice from the Honours Scrutiny Committee before making recommendations.
Leaders of Opposition parties are entitled to make recommendations for Working Peers to the Prime Minister. Such recommendations are submitted to the Honours Scrutiny Committee and the committee’s advice is then passed onto the Prime Minister.
In the matter of Lord Ashcroft’s ennoblement, there has been no suggestion by the media or the Labour Party that due process was not followed.
Should you not therefore be directing your concerns at Mr Anthony Blair, the Prime Minister who recommended to the Queen that Mr Michael Ashcroft be made a Working Peer? After all it is he and he alone who was responsible for the recommendation and for the conduct and advice provided by his Honours Scrutiny Committee.
223. I don’t get that–is the implication that Brown was involved in a coke dealing ring? Because otherwise his greatest crime was SITTING NEXT TO SOMEONE with a cocaine addiction.
This is tryhard stuff. Come back when it turns out that Brown tried to murder Purcell with dodgy coke after the young man threated to expose photographs of their public sex sessions.
diane. if tim can post where’s Dave crap, I can publish where’s Gordo crap. In fact the main reason for posting it is to highlight how crap tim’s posting is in regards to Ashcroft. Good to see you noticed.
244. The reference is to Brown pulling a Macavity act, which is what he (and pretty much all of Labour) have done with the Purcell story. They are nowhere to be found. According to the NOTW, Labour (and it’s implied Brown) knew about Purcell’s state of mind for years and allowed him to continue running Glasgow.
238. “No, that is your issue: it is not the only issue. There are other issues, such as informing the public as much as possible about the likely alternatives for Prime Minister.”
I would suggest those are ‘your’ other issues, none of which have much to do with the broadcasters’ responsibilities in a parliamentary election. We are electing a parliament - the monarch then appoints a PM who can command the majority of the house. That in theory can be the leader of a majority party, of a party in a slight minority, or of a tiny minority party at the head of a complex coalition. It doesn’t have to even be a party leader at all (witness Lloyd George and Churchill). They’re chancing their arm with this ‘Prime Ministerial Debates’ wheeze, but it won’t stand up to the remotest serious scrutiny - it certainly has no constitutional basis whatever.
Incidentally, you are also referring only to ‘your’ likely alternatives for PM.
“Some form of compromise will be found with the SNP, but the SNP would be reckless indeed if they tried to stick a penny on this railway track to see if they could derail the train.”
In actual fact, the SNP have shown patience beyond belief on this issue. Even having been completely frozen out of the discussions, they’re still willing to enter into negotiations to find a compromise. If the last resort of legal action has to be taken, the responsibility will lie elsewhere.
242. OK, I’ll concede you have a point about Sky - I was thinking mainly of ITV and the BBC. Sky therefore have an even greater responsibility to make arrangements to include the SNP in the debates.
247. James Kelly: it won’t stand up to the remotest serious scrutiny - it certainly has no constitutional basis whatever.
At school, I was taught that “the constitution is what happens”.
What happens in the real world is that most voters vote for parties and party leaders, not local candidates.
231. JK “totally illogical for it be screened in Scotland.”
Well, here we are again.
Totally illogical for the voters of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath to see their MP in a debate?
Please, please, take that to a judge.
248. James Kelly: I was thinking mainly of ITV and the BBC.
And about border regions?
244. I think he was more referring to the Jonah curse that follows Brown around, it probably isnt true, but it is amusing for the rest of us…
for the lazy yet curious?
http://order-order.com/2010/03/07/gordons-scottish-snowstorm/
Any recent snaps of Brown with Purcell?
243 Seth O. Logue….and is Mister Anthony Blair not entitles to rely on the commitment by Mister William Hague that an enobled Lord Ashcroft will pay ‘tens of millions a year in tax in the UK’ (Letter dated 23rd May 1999)?
Perhaps he has, in which case, no story. But until we know….
237. I thought it was unlawful to record a conversation you were not party to.
157. Chris, I think 12 is a reasonable number.
re 228 Andy I’ve seen one on iPlayer at the end of last year.
250. “Please, please, take that to a judge.”
The SNP don’t have to. If they are forced to go before a judge, they’ll be posing a far more pertinent question.
258. James Kelly.
I doubt anyone will force them before a judge.
carlotta
It is looking as though Hagues assurances on Ashcroft were as worthless as his assurances on Lord Archer,an of probity at the same time.
Perhaps his delay in telling Cameron will enlighten Dave as to the quAlities of this second rate politician.
259. “I doubt anyone will force them before a judge.”
If that’s true, then I look forward to the broadcasters showing greater flexibility on this issue rather speedily.
Tim, you are obviously scared witless by Hague. Seek help.
261. James Kelly.
Or what?
Who might force the SNP before a judge?
260
Oh god.
Just. Shut. The. F*ck. Up.
You must have made that exact same observation maybe 390,000 times.
This is not just childish, boring, and insulting to anyone else using the site, it is totally and utterly pointless. Stop.
263. “Who might force the SNP before a judge?”
The broadcasters, by refusing to negotiate seriously on the issue. If you were expecting me to talk about a gun-wielding maniac frogmarching the SNP to the doors of the High Court in Edinburgh, well all I can say is ooooh, you are a wag, LS.
My father used to tell me about Union meetings where the communists/socialists used boredom as a tactic to drive the moderates away. Every time he’d come home with a migraine. He reckoned he was obliged to stick it out, because only once the normal people had given up in disgust would the important items be brought to the vote.
Very interesting to see the high boredom threshold coming into its own in the internet age.
Just watching the 92 programme referred to above. Mrs T telling Charles Wheeler when coming out of her house that there was no point in waiting there as she was going on a tour of the counts and wouldn’t be back until 4am. Can anyone imagine Brown acting in such a polite manner whatever you think of her politics.
266. I’m sure that’s true. Brown used the same tactic at Chilcot, just boring people into submission.
Hopefully he won’t be able to do this in the debates.
As for tim, OGH rightly takes a dim view of this repetitive posting bollocks.
On thread
Dont think UNS did at all badly in 2005.Actual seats v predicted by UNS on actual shares was Con +13(+7% variance ),Lib +3(+5% varaince ) lab -16(-5% varaince).
If Andy Cookes method does as well as that for 2010I,I will be surprised!
FA Cup Semi Final Draw:
Villa v Chelsea
Spurs or Fulham v Portsmouth
Aaargghh!
247/249
I agree with James kelly entirely on this point. We do not elect parties we elect individual local representatives. The fact that few people seem to be aware of this is only because it is the interest of the parties to keep them ignorant. If Brown can get back in and secure a majority of any sort in Parliament then it doesn’t matter one jot how many votes his party nominammy secured. In fact they won’t have got a single vote and nor will any other party. The votes will all have been for the local representatives.
This is why people have no right to be upset if a member crosses the floor. If they were stupid enough to vote for him purely on the basis of the colour of his rosette then frankly they deserve no better.
If you don’t like that constitutional fact then I suggest you help campaign to make sure people are better informed about what they are actually voting for.
Alternatively vote for a change in the way we are governed. But expect to fund lots of us opposing you.
270 mmmm We just have to beat Spurs then….
267 Some of us do not like thinking about election night 92- I have watched part 49,where Kinnock concedes with grace,and it starkly reminds me of how I felt at c.5.30am on Friday 10th April 1992
270
Villa-Portsmouth final would be great.
265. James Kelly: The broadcasters
The broadcasters are going to sue the SNP?
272 Good luck-at this moment in time,after 13 years of absence from national govt,I hate Spurs far more than the Tories
274 As you’re a fellow Hammer,cheer up-we still have Wolves,Stoke,Sunderland and Man City at home- c.36 points will be the stay-up mark-c’mon you Irons!
271. Richard Tyndall: We do not elect parties we elect individual local representatives.
“The constitution is what happens”.
You might have had more of a point before PPERA enshrined political parties in law as an essential part of the electoral process.
275
You are right ThenConstitution is what happens. And what happens is that you vote for a local representative and if the day after he decides to change parties then there is not one thing you or the parties can do about it.
269. On thread, and including the Scottish theme, but revisiting a post I made a few weeks ago.
Applying the actual 2003-2007 swings on a UNS basis to the 2003 result gives a Holyrood 2007 FPTP result of:
Lab 37 SNP 22 LD 12 Con 2
The actual 2007 FPTP result was:
Lab 37 SNP 21 LD 11 Con 4.
So UNS was a reasonable predictor for the net result, but actually hopeless in predicting individual seat results - no fewer than 15 seats had a winner different to that predicted by UNS.
254 CarlottaVance
It was Mr. Blair’s sole decision and he is solely responsible for that decision. As Prime Minister, he was entitled to rely on the advice of whomever he might choose. As it is customary for the Prime Minister to rely on the advice of the Honours Scrutiny Committee, I am all but certain that the committee’s opinion was his primary source of advice.
It is clear that the correspondence published by The Guardian (and others) is incomplete. Where is the letter from Tony Blair as Prime Minister to William Hague as Leader of the Opposition stating that Michael Ashcroft had been recommended for a peerage and announcing the date that his elevation would be made public? More pertinently, where is the report or minute of the Honours Scrutiny Committee to the Prime Minister, stating that the committee no longer objects to Michael Ashcroft being made a Working Peer?
I now answer your specific question. No, Mr Blair is not “entitled to rely on the commitment by Mister William Hague that an enobled Lord Ashcroft will pay ‘tens of millions a year in tax in the UK’”, if by “entitled” you mean Mr Blair can transfer responsibility for his decision to Mr Hague. The Prime Minister can take note of all or any advice or undertakings he receives, whether reliable or otherwise.
At the risk of endless repetition, the Prime Minister is solely responsible for the decision to recommend to the Queen that a peerage be granted. This is the reason that the Honours Scrutiny Committee considers nominations and provides the Prime Minister with advice.
Are you suggesting that Tony Blair ignored the advice of the Honours Committee and did a side deal with William Hague?
279. Richard Tyndall: And what happens is that you vote for a local representative
No, what happens is that most votes vote for a party or a party leader, not for a local representative.
279. Richard Tyndall: And what happens is that you vote for a local representative
No, what happens is that most voters vote for a party or a party leader, not for a local representative.
O/T tim, I know you’ve been out partying but did you by any chance listen to AQ this weekend?
“Patrick West Ham fan who seems to have about 1000 posting handles”
As you know, Spurs love West Ham so your remarks are well out of order.This is the end of a beautiful friendship.
I love Spurs and I am deeply hurt by your comments.
Never mind, I can cheer myself up with the fact that Gordon Brown will be leaving Downing Street for the last time soon!
There is so much concentration now on the marginals (and with the Lib Dems and many others challenging in seats) UNS is now just a lazy journalism option.
Incidentally, how ’senior’ is the Conservative’s ’senior lobbyist’
http://christook.wordpress.com/
283 - but the parties still run ‘national’ campaigns
Perhaps Labour ought to clarify whether Mandelson has ever been a non-dom, ie in his EU role
282/283
So in that case an MP cannot cross the floor? I am afraid that as I have told you before on this matter you are both legally and constuitutionally wrong.
265. The broadcasters will have deeper pockets than the SNP if it comes to litigation (see my post 185), unless they put it on expenses.
Woo hoo. I love it when a four-fold comes in.
Next big event, Roger’s Oscars tips rundown this evening.
288. Flashback
Why on earth is Peter Mandelson, imminently to be ennobled as Lord Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool, to continue to receive £234,000 in pay as an EU commissioner when he left the job voluntarily and will be paid more than £100,000 for rejoining the Cabinet?
…
Lord Mandelson is merely availing himself of the EU’s largesse. Their rules mean he is eligible for £78,000 in “transitionary payments” annually for the next three years to ensure that the salary he receives as a Cabinet minister is the same as the £182,500 he would have received as Trade Commissioner. It is subject to preferential tax rates devised for EU officials.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/philipjohnston/5441477/Why_should_Peter_Mandelson_get_an_EU_pay_off/
Any news on the budget date ?
285 O.K,I over-stepped the mark-it is only some bratty,chavvy,nasty Spurs fans that make me wild! So apologies to a club that over the years has seen Glenn Hoddle,Jimmy Greaves and many more grace its turf.
Re Gordon Brown-if there was a very ‘hung’ parliament ie Labour 290 seats,Tories 285 seats,I wonder what leverage the Lib Dems could extract to make their propping a minority Labour govt dependant upon Brown’s resignation as leader?
289. Richard Tyndall: I am afraid that as I have told you before on this matter you are both legally and constuitutionally wrong.
But you’re talking about the theory; I’m talking about the practice.
“Peter Mandelson joined the fray over Lord Ashcroft’s tax status today but a Conservative MP has rung to point out that between 2005 and 2008, when he was an EU Commissioner, Lord Mandelson would have been exempt from UK tax, and would only have had to pay a special EU levy of around four per cent of his income,” explains Crick.
“In which case, isn’t it Lord Mandelson’s ‘patriotic duty’ to make up the difference, and pay HM Revenue what he would have had to pay on his income had he been living in the UK? By my reckoning that would amount to a six-figure sum.”
http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/2010/03/mandelson-and-the-nondom-dilemma.html
I see Steven Purcell has gone from being “Glasgow’s Carcetti” to being “Glasgow’s Clay Davis” in two weeks since meeting Gordo
I wonder if Oz is far enough..
I don’t get it Tim, are you objecting to Ashcroft welshing (poor Wales, what have they done wrong?) on an agreement? What was it Hague said to Herpes-son, People in gla……..
281 Seth “Are you suggesting that Tony Blair ignored the advice of the Honours Committee and did a side deal with William Hague?”
No, I am suggesting that both the Honours Scrutiny Committee and Tony Blair relied on the advice and promises of William Hague.
In the light of what we (don’t) know, do you consider that wise?
OT Has anyone come across Starsports and Starspreads at all and have any thoughts?
286, 287: “Chris Took is the Liberal Democrat’s Parliamentary Candidate for Ashford, Kent and has been selected to stand in the next general election, expected in June 2010.”
A June election is a 19/1 shot on Betfair. Are you pinning your political reputation on it?
299. Carlotta
“I am suggesting that both the Honours Scrutiny Committee and Tony Blair relied on the advice and promises of William Hague.”
Really? I thought the atory was that Ashcroft had reached a deal with the honours committee independently of his discussion with Hague, which is why there appears to be a discrepancy. I would expect Tony Blair to then accept the recommendation of the committee, rather than Hague.
Gawd this Ashcroft stuff is boring..
190 ” I encountered a man who argued (seriously I think) that Gordon Brown ought to be executed.”
If it was up to me i’d hang Blair, Mandelson, Campbell, McDoom and all the ZNL defence ministers for the Iraqistan stuff. I’d hang the gang of four a second time for the immigration.
Sadly probably still a minority view but i live in hope.
303 - it’s going to be put into the Geneva Convention next week as an illegitimate form of torture
295
“But you’re talking about the theory; I’m talking about the practice.”
And in practice what you are saying is wrong because MPs can and do change parties.
guidofawkes
Labour donors dodged paying tax of £7,064,500.60 on their known donations to the Labour Party alone.
Maybe BenM can translate that into schoolsnhospitals for us?
303 - And gone the days when people are needlessly Ashcrofted by the daily press
286/287 Everyone hopeful of enjoying a parliamentary career has to fight several no-hope seats as a paper candidate. So good luck.
Does anyone have a working link to the 2008 supermarginals poll? I tried the link and whilst I can still access the 2009 one, the 2008 one seems to have gone!
Anyone know how UNS performed in 1983 and 1979?
Also, are we due to get any polls tonight?
307 - and that, dear friends, is what you call a bitten arse.
Evening All
My word what a quick thread this has been to scan through!
If I take out all the posts about Ashcroft, Hague and arguments about television regions - that leaves about 20 worth reading
New thread
312. Plato. Too bad there’s a new thread up !
299 CarlottaVance
No, I am suggesting that both the Honours Scrutiny Committee and Tony Blair relied on the advice and promises of William Hague.
There is no provision in law or custom for Peerages to be granted on a conditional basis. So the Prime Minister has to make a yes or no decision on whether to recommend the Queen grants the peerage. In the case of Lord Ashcroft, Tony Blair made a ‘yes’ decision.
The conditions only applied to whether the Honours Scrutiny Committee would recommnend to the Prime Minister that a ‘yes’ decision was made. It was therefore up to the committee to satisfy itself that any conditions or undertakings attached to their recommendation were met or likely to be met. The committee had to assess whether representations given on Lord Ashcroft were credible and bona fide. They do not enter into contractual obligations with enforceable conditions: they make a balanced assessment based on the evidence before them.
Say I was asked to write a letter of support for our very own SeanT to be made Baron Thomas of Primrose Hill and Knox of Hardlife. My letter would be selective and praise his unquestionable literary and polemical skills. It would point to his published achievements and may make a prediction that he will go on to write the definitive 21st century literary novel.
The committee may decide to call upon other persons to give conflicting evidence or predictions. It would then make a decision on whether there was a known reason why Mr Thomas should not be elevated. If there was no adverse advice and the Prime Minister recommended the Queen make SeanT a peer, should I be held liable for Mr Thomas’s subsequent literary output or general conduct?
No, of course not. It is up to the Honours Scrutiny Committee and Prime Minister to follow due process and diligence in giving the advice and making the decisions for which they are responsible.
Here you are all you Reds get on now @ 4/1 if you fancy your chances.
From William Hill
Most Seats At Next UK General Election - ( General Election Specials )Selection Odds
Conservative Party 1/7
Labour Party 4/1
Liberal Democrat Party 80/1
——————————————————————————–
Prices for seats
How Many Seats Will The Conservatives Win At The Next General Election? - 31 Mar 10 ( General Election Specials )Selection Odds
0 - 199 seats 25/1
200 - 249 seats 14/1
250 - 299 seats 5/1
300 - 324 seats 4/1
325 - 349 seats 9/4
350 - 374 seats 4/1
375 - 399 seats 6/1
400 - 424 seats 16/1
425 - 449 seats 22/1
450 seats or more 25/1
——————————————————————————–
Labour
How Many Seats Will Labour Win At The Next General Election? -( General Election Specials )Selection Odds
0 - 149 seats 11/1
150 - 199 seats 9/4
200 - 224 seats 3/1
225 - 249 seats 7/2
250 - 274 seats 6/1
275 - 299 seats 7/1
300 - 324 seats 12/1
325 - 349 seats 22/1
350 - 399 seats 28/1
400 seats or more 66/1
Most Seats At Next UK General Election ( General Election Specials )Selection Odds
Conservative Party 1/7
Labour Party 4/1
Liberal Democrat Party 80/1
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/EN/betting/g/9035/General-Election-Specials.html
You know, I can see all the leftie wailing and whingeing over Ashcroft (and everything else they wail and whinge about as being so unfair to them…) being the one thing that sends me back to the Tory fold, if anything could.
Whenever I come on here for political insight and gossip, I have to wade through endless bile from tim and Gabble and their chums, like wading through slurry in a farmyard to reach the footpath on the other side, a bit unpleasant and taking the edge off a pleasant walk - which is what the farmer wants of course.
And then today, at mum & dad’s, I had a quick skim through the Sunday Mirror to find pretty much the same in there - goodness knows what the average Mirror reader makes of a double page spread on “Cashcroft - Tories in Turmoil” and a piece on Gordon Prentice, Pendle MP, whingeing and wailing about the fact the Tories can afford to put leaflets through letterboxes in his constituency because of Ashcroft, the man “who wants to buy Pendle for the Tories”, for f’s sake.
Get a grip Gordon - it’s called campaigning, haven’t you been able to use your communication allowance for the past 18 years to do exactly the same, plus the union funding you get, paid from the pockets of your constituents whether they support you or not?
The more of this crap I read, the less the piss-poor Tory campaign and inept tactics seem to matter.
Keep it up lefties - you might be doing the Tory cause more good than you ever thought possible…