No sign of any Tory slip either as a result of Davies/Spellman.
I think the public have more to worry about now.

Read your piece on Politics Home. Interesting stuff.

I wonder if Peter has seen the Telegraph and knows there is a Scottish by election coming up?

Glasgow East looks as safe Labour as safe for Labour can be these days.

Labour: 18,775 (60.7%), SNP: 5,268 (17%), Liberal Democrat: 3,665 (11.8%), Conservative: 2,135 (6.9%), Other: 1,096 (3.5%)

Majority: 13507 (43.7%)

Labours vote has fallen in recent years but it’s still more than everyone else put together. Even with Labour down from 40% to close to 30% and the SNP vote doubling from 18% to 36%. that would still give Labour on a third less at 12,500 and the SNP at 10,500, so even with the loss of a personal vote and a low turnout an SNP win would be a massive result.

Still that doesn’t mean we won’t go for it.

Peter.

I reckon we could see some serious anti-labour tactical voting there. It’s a toss up between Libdems and SNP who the voters will get behind.

Great ComRes POLL coming into line like all the others with YouGov - now we are seeing a steady trend emerging.

As for the Liberal vote - the true figure for that is borne out in the Boris Johnson constituency - jusy scraping through.

The Labour vote seems to have vanished there - well some of it went to the BNP & Greens ! Natural territory perhaps.

This does’nt look like a popular blog - perhaps some of my predictions are needed - plus it needs to get back onto the subject in hand .

This new POLL by ComRes just brings into line another POLLING company with YouGov - as for the Liberal discrepancy between them - it’s been borne out in the Boris Johnson Constituency that the Liberals who are the by-election champions have run out steam - so their true POLL is about 17%.

Labour i find hard to make a comment or prediction on after the by-election , they seem to have lost their votes to the BNP & Greens - mmmmm !

Anyone still doubting my prediction of a Labour Party break up before the next election ??

Well these extra polls leave the WMA as 46:26:17. I/MORI continues to flatter Labour they are 3% out on the Retrospectives. I still think the Labour vote will slip 3-9 points over the summer though. But at the moment it’s flat at 26-27% and has been since early May.

If politics quieten down, as they normally do over the summer, the Labour vote will actually increase to above 30%(but no more than 33%) by Sept/Oct. Still a healthy Tory lead of 10-15%.

This will happen because (hopefully) Gordon Brown will be out of the limelight (take him on a long holiday please Sarah), people may remember how dire things were during the last Tory government, and will also give credit to the positive achievements that have taken place to this country over the last 11 years (assuming there are no more government/civil service cock-ups in the meantime).

At the same time with the media (a naive hope perhaps) giving more of a spotlight to the Tories and their lack of policies, people will question what they would actually do if they were in power.

But this will only reduce Tory lead to 10-15%. You can only do so much by claiming support for past achievements and raising fears of a return of previous Tory governments. Labour has to articulate values (not so much policies) for the future. There is only one person in the government who is best placed for this but I doubt whether they have the guts to go for it. More on that another time perhaps.

Looks like Wendy has had enough, this from the BBC.

“Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander is expected to announce she will stand down, the BBC understands.

Ms Alexander has come under pressure after breaking donation rules and faces a one-day ban from parliament.

The Scottish Parliament’s standards committee ruled that she failed to declare donations to her leadership campaign on her register of interests.

Ms Alexander, who became leader last September, is preparing to make a statement at the party’s Scottish HQ.”

Peter.

Peter:
I’m surprised they didn’t slip a note to the Scotsman last night!

Polls are a-settling. Cannot understand why anything should change over the silly-season.

Interesting article about Scotland’s contribution to the UK in this week’s The Economist. Some of this has been trailed in Scotland already, I believe, but it is nice to see the fallacies of most commentators.

Off-topic, so please forgive: Bagehot (The Economist UK commentator) suggests that New-Labour were planning an election around this time, until the Cabinet found it’s Jonah capabilities. A June 2008 election: who’d a thunk that…? *)

Gareth - I think you’re being very optimistic about the polls over the Summer. The way I see it the polls will remain very much as they are - Labour mid 20’s - Tories mid 40’s for the forseeable future.

By the time of the next election the Tories will have been out of office for 13 years -that’s long enough for most people to forget how good or bad they were.
Just as 18 years out of power, in 1997, was long enough for most people to forget how dreadful Labour were in the 70’s.

Frankly I think even if the Tories were poor at the moment, which they’re not, they’d still win the next election such is the disillusionment with the current Government and its leader.

Gareth may have a point but Labour’s problem isn’t Gordon Brown - taking him on a long holiday might please folk like me but the electorate seem to have gone off Labour. A focus on the Conservatives in the media (assuming this happens) would run the risk - from a Labour perspective - of the lead getting bigger and David Cameron consolidating his position.

On the smaller parties the only one that seems to be doing well at present is the BNP - and even there the picture is mixed. For the Lib Dems there has yet to be any movement from the position prior to Ming’s assassination - Clegg remains surprisingly anonymous with Vince Cable now the only LD with a real public profile. The Greens - despite the huge propaganda efforts of the BBC supporting their political agenda - have failed to make any real advances outside the few places where they were already strong.

We aren’t going back to a two-party situation in polling but dislike of Labour plus Conservative consistency is squeezing everyone else (except the BNP).

Keith,

using the limited polling evidence we have, there’s no doubt who voters will swing behind in Glasgow East. As the SNP sweep all before them, the Lib Dems in Scotland are struggling to keep in double figures. Things have changes fundamentally since 2005 and Dunfermline is a lifetime away in political terms. Besides, demographically Glasgow East is not fertile territory for the Libs, and I guess local organisation is non-existent.

Even working on the May 07 figures, Glasgow East is a tall order for the SNP (and an impossibility for the Libs - 6% isn’t a platform for winning anything but £500 back). It depends if traditional Labour voters switch, or just stay at home. Andrew Neil (not someone whose opinion I normally respect) has just been on BBC News suggesting anything is possible following Labour’s Henley fiasco, and also alluding to another possible by-election in Scotland, for Westminster. He didn’t name a seat, but I suspect it might be Glenrothes, overlapping mostly with the SNP’s Central Fife seat. If not there, then I’ve no idea.

It’s official Wendy has resigned.

As to Glenrothes being a by election it’s possible but personally as the local MP is battling cancer i hope he recovers. there’s politics and then there is acting like vultures.

Local party managers of course have to step things up if there is the possibility of an MP not being able to continue and this is clearly a bad time for Labour to have a by election anywhere, but we should try to rise above that when it is a matter of some ones ill health.

This being a polling blog however on the basis of the 2005 result and current polls the SNP could potentially win this one, i just hope it isn’t called.

Labour: 19395 (51.9%), SNP: 8731 (23.4%), Liberal Democrat: 4728 (12.7%), Conservative: 2651 (7.1%), Other: 1861 (5%).

Majority: 10664 (28.5%).

Peter.

Peter,

you’re quite right to remind me that we are talking about people who are going though a very tough time. I was completely ignorant of the nature of John MacDougall’s illness, and of course I wish him a speedy recovery. Although Andrew Neil was referring to another MP stepping down, since I didn’t know how ill Mr MacDougall was or wasn’t, I shouldn’t have guessed. I’ve been too caught up in what has been an exciting day politically, and I should have kept my speculation to myself.

My apologies to everyone for any offence caused.

Steven

The Glasgow East tactical voting split will clearly show the dividing lines for the medium-term realignment so long as the SNP prove incapable of mounting a realistic challenge, but even then that will only raise their eventual high-water mark before political reality comes into play again.

My overriding feeling remains that there are some bitter internal battles being fought in this run-up to the next GE because we are at a turning point in the 30 year cycle.

The conservatives are not out of the woods yet as this silly season looks to extra-parliamentary affairs and it may well be the time when more scandal trickles out, but cannot be prevented from hitting the headlines again. This is a story which is bubbling under and seems certain to explode at the least opportune moment for them, so I doubt it will happen anytime before H&H returns DD unless he is exposed as a guilty party. Will Alan Duncan be the next one to dragged over the coals, or has the Spelman case not yet concluded?

I was very tempted to plump for the SNP winning in Glasgow East, but I didn’t know enough about the situation to say. Being as things seem to going quite well for the SNP administration - at least in comparison to the current UK government, an SNP win doesn’t sound so unlikely as it might say 12 months ago.

Cllr Peter Cairns spoke:

It’s official Wendy has resigned.

As a simple Englishman, is this her resignation as leader of the Labour Party in Edinburgh, or has she resigned her seat…? [Depression or smoke-and-mirrors?]

The BBC is not clear, at least to my eyes. Good luck to the SNP in Glass-gee ‘east, and where-ever Alex’s sister claims to represent!

Fluffy,

Wendy has stepped down from being the Labour Leader in he Scottish parliament. John MacDougall is the MP for Glasgow east who is battling cancer, and as jack McConnell MSP for Motherwell & Wishaw is soon off to be high commissioner for Malawi the Westminster foreign affairs committee has suggested that he stand down as an MSP in advance.

So two potential by elections one each for Westminster and Holyrood.

Peter.

Fluffy,

Wendy has stepped down from being the Labour Leader in he Scottish parliament. David Marshal stepping down due to ill health is the MP for Glasgow East.

John MacDougall who is battling cancer, is in glenrothes and as jack McConnell MSP for Motherwell & Wishaw is soon off to be high commissioner for Malawi the Westminster foreign affairs committee has suggested that he stand down as an MSP in advance.

So it’s one confirmed by election in glasgow and two potential by elections one each for Westminster and Holyrood.

Peter.

Keith:

“It’s a toss up between Libdems and SNP who the voters will get behind.”

No, it is quite clear that they will get behind BOTH and the effect will be dissipated.

There are many Labour voters who see the SNP as the enemy. That’s partly because so many SNP activists are ex-Labour and therefore seen to be disloyal. It would be disloyal to vote for them too. My guess is that many Old Labour voters will stay at home, resulting in a very low poll.

This is a typical Glasgow seat and if the SNP do manage to take it then its all over and those who oppose independence might as well just give up now. I don’t think it will be as clear-cut as that, but it is more likely by a big margin than 12 Cons or 0 LibDems.

Well much as I think the one day suspension of Wendy wasn’t merited, she did make a mistake but it wasn’t intentional, one good thing about it is that i really do think we will have some new Scotland only polls in the next few weeks so that will help to get the picture in to clearer perspective.

I’d think Labour would want the Glasgow East by election out of the way before their conference in the September. To be honest I don’t think we can win this one. With Labour on 60% of the vote it’s just a step to far.

Peter.

Any result - no matter what the outcome in Glasgow particuarly, will not make many headlines in the main & important part of the UK - Scotland does’nt show any trend that is seen nationally apart from the UK wide disintegration of the Labour Party.

Any growth in the SNP vote at this by-election is purely on the back of the Labour demise - they are one and the same ideology wise.

Then maybe Scotland can be seen as a contender for independence - but while it still votes in this manner - it will look foolish and no better than Kosovo!The next general election will see a swing at last for Scotland to a 21st century political agenda - when the Tories take the 12 seats as a starter as I reliably predict.

Perhaps we can now get back onto subject & away from a minor inconsequential part of the UK !!

My apologies for so many entries - it seemd to not accept certain political terms i was using

“there’s politics and then there is acting like vultures.”

The difference is barely discernible most of the time -I doubt whether Wendy Alexander sees it.

Could anyone here tell me what polling figures we would have to see, that may indicate Labour could finnish third behind the Lib-Dems in a future GE or is this near impossible I distantly remember the 83 election ( correct me if I am wrong) the Labour and SDP Liberal national vote was neck and neck at about 25%- 23% respectively, but Labour ended up with many more MP`s Than the Alliance
Would this still be the case today?
If the Tories were in Labours position would there be a similar outcome?

It would depend heavily on the distribution of votes. Frankly once Lab-Lib=20% we are in uncharted territory and the normal models won’t necessarily work. Of the 100 lib-dem “target seats” 41 are Labour held and 59 Conservative, but of course on present form swings from C to LD seem unlikely. Equally if the country (esp England & Wales) just decides it can’t STAND Labour (esp if led by Gordon Brown) there may be tactical anti-labour voting which could boost LDems when they are 2nd to Labour.

‘Any growth in the SNP vote at this by-election is purely on the back of the Labour demise - they are one and the same ideology wise.’

A simplistic analysis given one wants to be part of the Union and one doesn’t. A fairly major difference in ideology I would argue.

‘Then maybe Scotland can be seen as a contender for independence - but while it still votes in this manner - it will look foolish and no better than Kosovo!’

And so recognised as independent by the USA and the EU etc; I think most/many Scots would perhaps accept that as a great result, especially once you throw in 83% of what is currently UK oil…

(One should really only be an oracle in other people’s opinion; to self declare can be seen as bombastic…)

Nbeale
Thanks
Things are so similar to the seventies at the moment the only things that are missing at the moment are power cuts and as “The Oracle” mentioned a break up of the Labour Party, could he be right again I wonder?

Mike “the oracle” Richardson

I think the fact that everyone on this blog seems to ignore your tedious and repetitive offerings speaks volumes. The key matter facing increasingly worried Labour Mps over the summer is whether kicking out Gordon Brown would be the best way of avoiding a worse result in 2010 than Michael Foot had in 1983.

NBeale - don’t the recent by-elections show that core Labour supporters are equally liable to stay at home and switch in similar numbers to both LD and Con as LD voters are likely to turn blue?

Re David Bowtell (June 29 9.53pm)

Yes, spot on; that is the key issue at the moment (other than the huge suspense that we are all under wondering if Cameron will ever have the balls to make a definite policy commitment on anything. Talk about Brown being called a ditherer).

Will Labour MP’s discover a spine that they didn’t have last summer when a significant number must have known then that Brown didn’t have what it takes, but went with him anyway.

But the method of change to a new leader is almost as important as who the new person is. Who’s your money on?

PS Incidentally, any silly talk that a government changing it’s leader twice without having a GE would be unconstitutional is just that. We elect parties with their manifestos to power not presidents (thank God). Mind you, if some people are so keen to be given the decision about who the PM is, maybe they should question how our our head of state is decided (not just hereditary but nearly always male). If we really need a head of state (a good question in itself) maybe it’s time we had at least some say who ours was.

Gareth - We elect parties with their manifestos to power not presidents (thank God).

Yes we do, and it would be good if parties actually carried out the manifesto promises that they were elected on.

The Glasgow east By election will be the 24th of July. So that gives us 18 days to mount a campaign.

Interesting information for those of you not from Glasgow, the traditional Glasgow fair holiday still popular with many working class people is the last two weeks in July.

So have Labour chosen this date to coincide with the holiday to keep the turnout down or is it just coincidence?

Peter.

Dumping Gordon won’t work - it’s Labour that is poisoned not the grumpy one. As I see it the polls aren’t punishing the Leader but the Party - for being divided, for chopping and changing, for presiding over a surge in inflation, for too high taxes, for the debacle of Iraq, for failing to equip our armed forces properly, for the target driven public sector culture, for the rising number of strikes, for the PC, nannying of Harman et al, for singling out motorists for attack, for overseeing the closing of thousands of pubs, for too much immigration, for rising violent crimeespecially with guns and knives, for unruly school children, for dirty hospitals… Folk just want to give Labour a kicking.

Gareth and Simon Cooke

Couldn’t agree with you more, Gareth, that Cameron has got to come clean on substantive policy and then we’ll see whether people believe him or come to view him as ‘Chameleon Cameron’ which I think is what he is.

I think you are wrong, Simon; Major had about 20 months in the run up to the 1992 election and economically things were much worse than they are now (3 million unemployed!!)yet he came over as likeable, seemed to manage things well and won the election. Ever since he started dithering-and especially with the election that never was- Brown has been perceived as weak and indecisive and not the sort of leader people trust when times are hard. They may not be saying it in public but lots of senior (and not so senior) Labour figures are giving up on Brown and come the autumn a deputation from the men and women in sombre attire will probably be calling round to number 10.

Let’s not put our politics before facts. 1992 was not 1982, so can we be honest with unemployment figures. [The ruse, much employed by the current Government, of hiding the true figures by shifting people onto sickness allowances had already been copied from the Dutch model.]

The current downturn (note the reluctance to not say recession) will be persistent (as Ireland is already experiencing). The largest restraining factors will be falling nominal house prices and lower tax-returns. Something will have to give in the public expenditures if the public debt is to meet Government and European commitments. This will extend the malaise.

Don’t compare Brown with Major: the latter is seen as a statesman! Major had to keep a severely divide party together as the economy recovered in the mid-nineties. Brown’s problems are not party-unity but the lack of quality within the administration.

Peter Cairns,
Thanks for your analysis. I have been made aware by the likes of Easterross, ChrisD, and Stuart Dickenson at PoliticalBetting.com. Adding your voice to the debate would be welcome.

I do hope that the SNP can win at Glasgow East. However, for Scottish Tories, it could be the tipping-point. If Brown is brought down by the election then I cannot see a Scotsman gaining a senior government role for a generation.

This could push Scotland into independence (and good riddance) and the prospect of a painful economic readjustment. Oil is unlikely to be the panacea to alleviate the disparities within Scotland’s Non-Oil Economy (as you have already intimated in an earlier post).

David,
No need for a committee to push Brown. The rumour-mill says that Sarah is already trying to get Gordon to go quietly!

David Bowtell - You can’t blame Cameron for not revealing his policies 2 years before an election.

Recent history has shown that whenever the Tories do reveal some policies they are invariably stolen by Labour. This has happened on more than occasion not just on IHT.

Cameron doesn’t need to do anything fancy at the moment such is the despisement of the current Government. I’m sure the Tories have a full raft of plans and policies already written but they’ll only declare them at their time of choosing which will be in the run up to a GE campaign.

I think I read somewhere that Labour usually improves its polling position in the summer months.

Perhaps success for Andy Murray at Wimbledon will give a little bounce too?

Fluffy - your “reluctance not to say recession” is noted - I wonder if you realise what you actually said there when you strip out the double-negative! Thatcher changed the method of counting unemployed 12 times - always led to a reduced figure.

It’s a shame Labour didn’t revert to more accurate counting and stick to it in 1997, but you can’t really describe the shift from JSA to IB as a Labour invention.Or a Dutch one.

Of course you could argue that Thatcher’s army of sickness benefit claimants were genuinely sick, many taking anti-depressants as a result of becoming part of the mass unemployment strategy of the eighties and seeing their towns closed down.

Unemployment remains a disease for which neither side has a working solution, but at least mass unemployment is no longer seen as a price worth paying, or a part of any ideological strategy.

John tt - my impression is that the government often improves its position over the summer, just because it’s a break from politics with no new bad news.

Thanks Anthony - I look forward to the abolition of the other seasons in the Queen’s speech!

re john tt July 1st 7.59am

John - I’d clutch at anything to believe that we are not going back to the awful years of a Tory government but even I have to admit that;
“Perhaps success for Andy Murray at Wimbledon will give a little bounce too?”
is a bit of straw clutching too far!

On the unemployment point; this is at least one area Labour can speak. Not just that we have more jobs than ever before in this country but emphasize the related successes:

Minimum wage - Labour propose, Tories opposed

2 weeks Paternity leave - under the Tories no leave at all

Maternity leave is now a full year - under the Tories what was it? 6 months, and fewer months with actual maternity pay

Free nursery care for 3 and 4 year olds.

At long last, part-time & temp workers are getting basic rights.

And another point often overlooked; women have the right to discuss flexible working hours with their employer.

Not only did we not get any of these under Tory governments, we didn’t even have an acknowledgement that this agenda existed let alone had any importance. And then they claim that they are the party of the family. Funny that.

Gareth - My only objection to any of that is the wriggle room it gives to the opposition regarding the methods of counting the unemployed/incapacitated.

It’s difficult to find truly comparable statistics.

I’m sure sporting success can give a boost to an incumbent Govt, but if you mean I’m hoping Murray actually wins Wimbledon, OK ,I’m clutching all right.

Fluffy - you missed my point. “reluctance to not say recession” is the same as “eagerness to say recession”. I don’t follow your explanation of “tight”, but if the front pages can run with “RECESSION!” at any point in the next year, then it wouldn’t make much difference, as the build up has been so long and people feel the financial effects whether growth is pus or minus a couple of tenths of a percent.

If the Dutch scam pre-dates the Thatcher scams, I accept your point - I can’t be bothered to mug up on any sort of reading list provided by daft bloggers of any hue, and I don’t exclude yours! Suffice to say, it was not a Labour invention.

I meant Plus of course.

John tt,

“I meant Plus of course”

Note to Dr Freud, please explain a Labour supporters view on the UK economic situation, re:

“people feel the financial effects whether growth is pus or minus”

Sorry mate, could not resist.

[O/T: Firefox 3.0 appears to have a drag-n-drop text-copy facility (used for the above quote). First time I have noticed it in a browser, but I might be wrong...!]

Fluffy, I aim to please! (Though Freud might just as easily think I had my fellow bloggers in my subconscious).

The sporting bounce from a Murray win might well be a boost for the incumbent Government in Scotland of course - not such good news for Brown.

TWENTY TWO MONTHS AND COUNTING…………….

That’s how long it is to go to the first Thursday in May 2010 when I believe the next General Election will be held.Turkeys don’t vote for an early Christmas.
I don’t think any Prime Minister willingly gives up office save on grounds of poor health and as Parliament will break up as the election result comes through from Glasgow East then there will be no fevered plotting going on at Westminster and by the time of the party conferences it will be too late to get rid of Brown and bed down a successor.
As for David Cameron why on earth should he make any hostages to fortune by producing detailed policies when things are going so well? As it is presumed by one and all that there will be no election until 2010 then the pressure on him to be more explicit can be kept at arms length for sometime yet.
Finally if there is a seriously deranged Lib Dem supporter out there who seriously thinks his party has a chance in the Glasgow East contest then they really should be sectioned. It’s a two horse race.

Nick - (assuming the polls don’t turn around) What if Brown went in Jan 2010 “for health reasons”?

Three months of leadership election, followed by a General Election. If the Labour Party (including Brown) thinks HE’s the liability rather than the Party, they might just risk that.

Gareth 7.59.A very perceptive post - unfortunately, the conclusions from it are wrong. It is easy to formulate popular policies, without giving a thought to the consequences for the economy. GB did this throughout his 10 years as Chancellor, which is one reason why his Premiership is such a disaster.Affordability was never an issue with him- just tax or borrow.

Glenn: It’s v difficult to make statistically meaningful conclusion from by-elections. They are, almost by definition, one-offs.

Anthony: You’re right historically (of course) but in the dog days of the Major Government (their worst WMA was 24:58:14 in Jan 95) the economy was improving, whereas the UK economy is likely to deteriorate quite sharply over the summer.

john tt

Brown going in Jan 2010 for ‘health’ reasons? If there was a possibility that his departure could result in turning defeat into victory then the ‘men in grey suits’ might be tempted to seek to persuade Brown to quit on those grounds. But changing leaders just before an election would be a high risk move not just for the party but for the new leader. If Labour still lost and lost heavily this could destabilise the new leader right from the start of his tenure. Much better for he or she to hit the ground running after the election with a clean sheet and no ‘loser’ tag.

A word to partisans-of which yes I am one-there is no point in conducting a dialogue of the deaf with people whose own opinions are not likely to change no matter what you say.Everyone is aware-probably tediously aware of my political views-but I do try even I don’t always succeed -to listen to what my opposite number is saying and to bear in mind that the party I support is far-are you listening ” Oracle” -far from always being right.
If I were for example to say to Gareth that Labour were right to bring in the minimum wage but that I felt that they did not take sufficient account of the implications of extended maternity leave and flexible working for small businesses he might not agree with me but I fancy he would adopt a concilitory style in his response instead of berating the Tories as just ‘awful’ which comment merely puts peoples backs up.
We have to achieve a higher level of debate here.

“why on earth should he make any hostages to fortune by producing detailed policies ”

I think the pressure on him to do so will come as much from his own side as from his opponents. Calls to be more radical, less complacent, to give a real vision for the future etc.

I hope so - I’d much rather this country elected people because of their policies rather than because of who they’re not, and what they look/sound like on the telly.

David Cameron writes in today’s Times, in reply to a Times Leader criticising the Tories for not “setting out their vision for Britain”.

It seems to me to be an effective response-but then I know that I can read it all on the Conservative website, so it’s no surprise.I see no complacency whatsoever.

There is no lack of strategy so far as I am concerned-but then like all Conservative supporters I suppose I knew already what it would look & feel like.And for me it has been interesting to observe the development phase & the learning curve.

The “no policies” cry , so often refers to tactics rather than strategy-the “how” rather than the “why”.

For those who want to see all the nuts & bolts laid out like a National Mecanno Set I suppose this must be frustrating.But for those-like me-who are tired of a leader with his face down concentrating on the nuts & bolts with which he builds structures which are not designed effectively, some statements of “design” principle are very welcome.

It seems to me that on issues like Health, Education, Welfare/Work,Social Justice, Crime & Punishment,Immigration there is enough on the record from Cameron & his team for anyone to read & decide upon.You may not like them-but that’s another matter.

I would like to see more statements of intent on Economic & EU affairs-but these two are in such a state of flux right now & I don’t blame Cameron for just letting the failures of the current regimes responsible, sink in to the voters’ consciousness.

If Cameron & his team are such complacent, empty vessels,why have the voters not turned to the Lib Dems rather than the Conservatives? I don’t believe that the voting public are so stupid as to turn to the Cons in complete blind ignorance. They have seen something they trust & like.

Just on Glasgow East-what an interesting prospect!

A heartland of Labour support-appalling unemployment & low life expectancy-and everything that goes with them.The “Road to Easterhouse” on which IDS walked to the Centre for Social Justice.

Who will these people vote for-and why?

If they vote Tory, it’ll be because they buy the idea that their problems are to be solved by individuals among them, not the Government. That’s it. Encouragement of voluntary sector and individuals to provide the solutions re education, welfare etc. Allowing very wealthy people to keep more of their own money in the belief they will spend it “better” than the Treasury.

Personally, I think they’ll vote Labour because they believe the opposite, or the SNP because they appreciate them.

the LibDems have a problem - they are nowhere near the threshold of support that would identify them as a real alternative.

Sharing the proceeds of growth, lowering taxes when it is prudent to do so. Doesn’t make any sense to me - surely they’ve been saying the Govt should have put money aside in the last ten years, not sharing it with the taxpayers in the form of cuts.

“don’t blame Cameron for just letting the failures of the current regimes responsible”

I don’t blame him either - for the obvious reasons and also because he’d have to address the fact that free-market capitalism was (and is) the main instrument of failure, at the same time as trying to push “individual freedom” policies.

As a matter of interest what is “the opposite” of
“Encouragement of voluntary sector and individuals”

“Sharing the proceeds of growth, lowering taxes when it is prudent to do so. Doesn’t make any sense to me - surely they’ve been saying the Govt should have put money aside in the last ten years, not sharing it with the taxpayers in the form of cuts.”

What doesn’t make sense about lowering taxes when it is prudent?

I think the point about “putting money aside” is precisely so that , in the event of a severe downturn like the one highlighted by Stuart Rose yesterday & being experienced by the public increasingly, fiscal stimulus can be provided by Government-and afforded.

I realise that there is another view on this-notably from BoE’s Governer-that reducing personal debt and taking some pain on living standards is both inevitable & desirable.
But the point is the Government doesn’t have any funds for fiscal stimuli-even if it wanted them-which it did, but borrowed even more to provide.

The balance between Public Spending, State Debt Reduction & Low Taxes is not a question of either/or-it is a question of …Balance.

Of course political philosophy & belief comes into it-the role of the state, the role of the individual etc-but that’s as it should be & as politics should be debated.

“that free-market capitalism was (and is) the main instrument of failure,”

This is a very interesting point of view.

The Financial Services sector has been cavalier with the provision of Mortgage & Credit Card facilities.

Low interest rates & low inflation have encouraged the UK population to use these facilities.As a result House prices increased dramatically-fuelling even more “asset backed” debt.

When this house of cards collapsed-who was responsible?-

Answer- Wholly. Mostly, A Little, Not at all
for each of these:-
The Lenders
The Borrowers
The Government.

It would be an interesting Opinion Poll question.

“Personally, I think they’ll vote Labour”

Do you!:-

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/the-week/810976/glasgow-east-is-browns-dirty-little-secret-a-hideous-costly-social-experiment-gone-wrong.thtml

If I were them I wouldn’t vote at all-what’s the point?-Westminster does nothing for them-they’re in a foreign country which no one wants to know about.

In answer to your first question the “opposite” is simplythat they will believe the Govt is more likely to help them than the individuals among them. You make the point yourself at the end of that first post.

It doesn’t make sense to offer prudent tax cuts at the same time as “sharing the proceeds of growth”. You can’t do both at the same time.

Daft bonkers lending practices in the US, followed by the naive purchase of ZZZ products rated as AAA. A failure to regulate the free market. Not particularly interesting, just plain fact, though more uncomfortable for a free-marketeer to deal with.

The oil market - a free market, encouraging large scale gambling on the price going up. The cost of producing a barrel at a reasonable profit is around $75 - the traders are betting on being able to drive the price to $300. That’s individuals behaving within the relatively free rules of the free market. Are these the very people Cameron is think of empowering to open schools?

Your advocacy of credit controls doesn’t sit easily with your free-market instincts.

that’s a bit too selective from my whole sentence.

You say :
“The balance between Public Spending, State Debt Reduction & Low Taxes is not a question ”

How do you like it?

Thatcher still hasn’t been forgiven in Glasgow - there’s every reason for them to vote. Thanks for the link - it reminds us of us what Thatcherism did to us.

“How do you like it?”

I don’t understand the question

“Thatcherism”

Ah yes-the Janus Mask so usefull to New Labour-Source of all evil & the ills of today as well as yesterday….and the “Conviction Politician” like what Gordon is.

Being taken out of context is not very pleasant, that’s all.

Thatcherism not an area for debate any longer? I think the issues are alive and kicking.

Here’s a polling question :

“You’ve been helped to buy your first home by your partents (who’ve just inherited £2m tax free). They decide to give you the £2500 they’ve just saved (stamp duty abolition below £250k). Would you :

a Spend some time doing voluntary work
b Buy some gear for the new flat
c Invest it?

I know what the results would be in Cameron’s ideal world, but I don’t believe it’d be the same in the real world.

There is an interesting point raised about how the interests of individual members of the public, group concerns (including companies) and those of the government are not coaligned.

Is there any party which doesn’t set one against the other for the purposes of gaining political power?

I’m just not convinced that current conservative popularity reflects and positive enthusiasm for their product and anyone who follows the news will see that they are incapable of winning any argument on the basis of intellect, reason or empirical fact. So the gains they make at the ballot box need to be considered conditional on continuing failure of the other parties. They remain the safe ‘default’ position.

One must wonder at Labour’s fortunes this deep into government and ask whether they are a completely spent force, or if there is a way back for them in opposition, when - not if - they are relieved of their overbearing leader and removed from office.

In this context I reserve judgement on the LibDems because they are as yet unproven at the highest level and Nick Clegg appears an all-round improvement on their previous leaders.

Thomas:-

“anyone who follows the news will see that they are incapable of winning any argument on the basis of intellect, reason or empirical fact”

I follow “the news”.
I don’t “see” that.
Could you explain how “the news” demonstrates what you claim please.

To echo Colin-what the heck are you talking about Thomas?
Could you please provide threee recent examples to amplify your very odd statement.

john:-

“Are these the very people Cameron is think of empowering to open schools”

I don’t think so john-the policy says-”charities, churches and philanthropists” .

It doesn’t specifically say they must also be oil speculators but I suppose some of them might be on the law of averages-particularly the churches.

The example ( perhaps the only one to cite!) Gove & Cameron always give is Elmgreen School :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1570067/Case-study-The-Elmgreen-School.html

Their website doesn’t give the impression that it’s for oil speculator’s chidren-there can’t be too many of those in Lambeth can there?

http://www.elmgreenschool.com/

As I understand it the model for this type of school provision independent of, but funded by the State, is Sweden-not my idea of a free-market devil take the hindermost sort of country.

Three cases which highlight conservative failure: Northern Rock, 42 days, party funding.

Pretty minor ones which haven’t recieved much coverage, I’ll admit, so I understand why they’d easily be overlooked.

Come to think of it can either of you, or anyone else, name any subject (I won’t ask for three, as that would be too much) which the Conservatives can claim to hold the moral or intellectual high ground on.

Er - no they can’t, since the site isn’t for partisan political arguments.

Apologies Anthony, am I reading the comments incorrectly?

My point was to ask whether the basis of current Conservative poll support is along the lines of a question recently summarised by Fraser Nelson as a choice facing Cameron “between a pedestrian government that wins by default or a radical government that wins by acclaim”.

On each of the three topics I was challenged to provide as example for my point the evidence supports the former position, so I think it is valid to wonder at the continuing implications for future polls (I could go into detail, but I think that would be unnecessary and inappropriate, as you remind us).

I think it is entirely fair and in-keeping with this sites policy to ask for counter-evidence which demonstrates the connection between the state of debate and public support for the partisan positions. Whether that would amount to a restatement of those arguments is a matter of perspective which I suspect depends on who is on the receiving end of the weight of argument.

As it is I think the recent slight shift in poll popularity reflects the state I described above, namely that Labour are still failing, falling back and yet to hit rock bottom, while the LibDems are starting to reassert themselves as Clegg establishes himself (at least to YouGov panelists). I find it hard to recognise any ‘acclaim’ for the Conservatives beyond a softening of former opposition towards them, which can only be explained by increasing hardening of opposition towards Labour.

If we asked ’so who do we vote for now?’ my best guess is that turnout is heading for another fall.

To back that up the DKs/Others have risen from 7/8% to 10/11% just over the course of this Parliament. This is a remarkable and unprecedented phenomenon.

I’d be interested to listen to plausible alternative reasonings.

Colin - as I’m sure you know, I was hinting that the “philanthropists” you mention might not actually be as thick on the ground as you think. The mentality of the dealer, rather than the actual offspring.

Sweden’s system allows a “for profit” basis (I think), which I don’t think Cameron is proposing.

I would be interested to see the polls after Cameron’s ideals are fleshed out with actual policies. Trying to win “by acclaim”, daring to put real costed policies to the public, trying to demonstrate that the co-alignment of different groups that Thomas referred to is actually achievable, and giving a head-count of all the philanthropists he’s managed to get to contribute.

thomas
I realise that like Mike Richardson you have great difficulty in distinquishing the facts from your opinions.Therapy might start with the realisation that other people hold equally valid opinions to yours ,that ALL parties have an intellectual contribution to make and that if you LISTENED to your opponent once in a while you might actually learn something for a change.
Tossing out three examples of where you disagree with a party’s policy without any explanation gets you nowhere. There is a clear case against the imposition of 42 days detention just as there is an argument in favour.All you have succeeded in doing is to diminish the merit of your position by claimimg that your stance is in effect the only one of worth. Such arrogance is perhaps best displayed on another site and not here on Anthony’s.

Two points.

Firstly I think from a polling perspective it is valid to ask what is causing the rise in Tory support, genuine support for Cameron or disenchantment with Labour.

Given that there are strong swings away from Labour north and south of the border but to two different parties with little ideologically in come I think the disenchantment argument has more basis than Mikes, ” Britain’s Waking Up” line.

On the “Swedish” proposals I think what Cameron and indeed Brown and Clegg are offering in terms of more autonomy from local schools is popular but flawed.

It is largely based on appealing to people who feel that the state system is cumbersome and under achieves who tend to be middle income people who both the Tories and Labour need to win over.

That appeals to motivated parents, the type of people who would move school to get their child in the right school or support grammar schools.

However most of these people already go to good quality schools and it’s difficult to see how more autonomy could greatly improve them. Conversely the schools with the real problems will hardly be attractive to those wanting to set up new schools and the parents there may well not have the motivation to turn a school around or to engage.

In short those who it appeals to don’t need it and those who need it don’t find it appealing. this is compounded by the electoral demographics. Those who get the most want more and all three parties want their votes while those who get least either don’t vote or won’t switch so aren’t of real interest to the three main parties.

To all intents and purposes the education debate is driven by the electoral needs of the parties not the educational needs of our children.

In Scotland the agenda is different as there is far stronger support for the Local authority to run schools, effectively no selection and a much tighter policy on placements, with priority given to children within a catchment area over those from outside.

At the Scottish elections labour did have proposals to move more cash from Education departments to schools but on examination they were for things like school meals and transport.

The problem was that although on paper the school budget would rise and therefore parents would like it it practice you would move from a small specialist staff organising school buses for all an authorities schools to it being part of the job of every secretary in every school.

It’s hard not to think that such a change would lead to more expensive poorly co-ordinated provision of transport, as the people doing it wouldn’t have the experience, background knowledge of the issues or be able to check their price against others unless they checked it with the very centralised unit they were meant to replace.

In effect in order to move more cash to the front line the proposal would have actually meant wasting money. Whether it be transport, meals, utility bills and standards a centralised body providing support to individual schools is all but essential and more efficient than each school trying to do it themselves.

Sometimes the quality isn’t good enough in some cases as the central services are reorganised or cut back the service to the front line can deteriorate leading schools who don’t feel they are getting enough support to believe that it’s not worth it or they could do better themselves, in effect creating a self fulfilling prophecy.

We should run our central support as efficiently as possible and try to improve every school so that every community has a good school even if that means putting less resources in to our “best” schools and more in to the failing ones, without branding their staff as losers.

It often feels that we denigrate the schools who have the hardest job in areas where their are huge problems while praising those who have it easy in the leafy suburbs.

it’s a bit like condemning the troops who can’t budge the entrenched Germans while showering those who routed the exhausted Italians with medals.

Peter.

Part of the problem is, I beleive, the way the news is presented. Take 42 days - the arguments presented on both sides are no more than “this is destroying civil liberties” vs “you are in favour of terrorism” (OK, I’m exaggerating the second one a bit). In the broadsheet press there is some reporting of detailed arguments about why this is so, examples for and against particular issues, and possibly alternative approaches, and there are also well-argued opinion columns. In the tabloid press and on the TV news (with the occasional exception of Channel 4 News and Newsnight) there is none of this. Political argument is presented as no more than them vs us, good vs bad. So even where the opposition parties have detailed well-thought out proposals, they’re not goin to get aired. In addition, although the BBC for example is supposed to be politically neutral, in practice they let Government stories lead, so the Government is able to set the agenda by simply having press conferences, announcements etc. To be less “passively” neutral the BBC should allow opposition parties to set the agenda from time to time - approximately 40% for the Tories and 20% for the LDs given their share of the vote.

Also, the BBC (and other TV news) gets stuck in with opinion now, rather than the past ultra-neutral tactic of simply reporting facts, and asking (tough)questions (without offering in-house punditry).

This means (from a centre perspective) that they try to give everyone a good kicking from all sides, and then try to be pleasant to everyone from all sides, in the hope they’ll achieve “active” neutrality and make good telly.

I think Nick is over-reacting a tad (though I agree with his general point and am certainly persuadable on many things).

The “failures” of Cameron , 1. to announce his idea of solving NR last Autumn, 2. to retain Davis by assuring him the next Tory Govt would scrap the 42 days, and 3.to come to an equitable deal on party funding are matters