Comments on: Do the mid-conference season polls mean anything?

By: Nick Keene

Nick Keene — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 07:48:43 +0000

Well maybe Mike but Cameron eschewed ” Brown bashing’ yesterday and it seems to have resonated with the pundts and newspapers at least-public reaction will only become clear in a day or two.
Remember one thing ‘facts are sacred but opinions are free’. Nick

By: Mike "the oracle" Richardson

Mike "the oracle" Richardson — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:49:28 +0000

I have to disagree with some contributors above saying that the Tories should stop “Brown Bashing” and blaming him and Labour for our finacial problems.

Brown has been in charge of our finaces for 11 years – it is he that allowed this to spiral out of control and now has no money to help us out of it – the more the Tories say it , the more the people will agree with it.

Even the disruption of the Tory conference this week with world events – will not stop the POLLS going back up for the Tories in the next 7 to 10 days.

If like me, the rest of the UK have just got their energy price rise bills this week – that won’t help Brown’s cause !

By: colin

colin — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:46:23 +0000

Well said Nick.

In USA, share ownership is much more widespread than in UK.

The plunge in DOW yesterday will have hit ordinary people much much more than their perception of the taxpayer cost inherent in the bailout.

I think that will help swing support behind the revised Bill.

I agree with you that the vote was all about local, Main Street politics-something that still has meaning in USA, unlike this country.

By: thomas

thomas — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:45:12 +0000

Nick, I don’t think scepticism is misplaced, but outright cynicism is usually a projection of one’s own prejudices – perhaps we should enquire some more about SNP practises.

Frankly I doubt stock optioning by elected representatives in the US could be gotten away with as trades are traceable. I agree it is far more likely that they are being influenced by the prospect of looming elections where large proportions of the house have their public voters to consider.

What’s interesting about this is that another failure to pass the amended bill could lead to the splits in the parties deepening to the extent that the nay-sayers are able rally around this common policy plank across party lines. It is possible (though I haven’t looked at it in detail) that the strongest opponents to the bail-out are the more independent-minded (as they are more likely to be standing in potential swing seats where the independent vote is decisive).

So is the US on the verge of turning into a three-party system?

This would definitely be of interest on this side of the Atlantic because I can’t see how the party lines would be redefined along lines other than we have in this country (I recall The Economist published a survey of the values of registered voters showing that US independents were closely aligned with the LDs).

If political alignment starts crossing borders then because we are all facing similar issues I predict our voting habits will start to coalign more closely too.

By: Nick Keene

Nick Keene — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:32:18 +0000

That is very cynical Councillor. Actually the Senate votes tonight-probably on an amended bill- so I presume you were talking about the House who voted on Monday.
Congressmen and women had a very difficult call to make. Many of those who voted ‘no’-invariably in marginal seats- did so because of fierce opposition to the bill from their constituents and with reelection only a month away that to some extent was understandable .
I suspect that only a few brave souls in Wall Street are working the markets right now-the rest of the activity is just institutional panic. Congressmen are as scared as the rest. It’s their seats they are worried about -not making money.