Populus show no G20 bounce for Labour
Populus have a new poll in the Times tomorrow, the second since the G20. The topline figures are CON 43%(+1), LAB 30%(nc) LDEM 18%(-1). The poll was conducted between Friday and Sunday.
This is the second poll since the G20 conference but, unlike YouGov, shows no boost for Labour. In fact the Conservatives are up slightly, though clearly the 1 point change is not significant. Of course, polls vary and are subject to a margin of error, so perhaps other companies will produce better figures for Labour, but with only a small boost from YouGov and no boost at all from Populus, I think we can conclude that the G20 has not had a major effect.
In Peter Riddell’s commentary he ponders whether there was a small boost picked up by YouGov, which had already evaporated by the time Populus finished their poll. That’s just about plausible – both polls went into the field on Friday, but the vast majority of YouGov’s would have been concluded on Friday, while Populus were still interviewing on Sunday. Perhaps the G20 boost didn’t last once the coverage had finished and the media got back onto MP expenses claims.
On the subject of expenses, a substantial majority (69%) of people thought that most MPs were absusing their expenses to some extent. 20% thought many MPs did, but a majority did not, and only 8% thought it was just a few bad eggs. Polling on many subjects shows a contrast between people’s perception of public services at a national level and their own local area – polls typically find, for example, that people have better opinions of their local hospitals or schools than they do the NHS or education system as a whole. The same applies to MPs… but not by that much. 34% think their own MP is abusing the system, with 38% thinking their own MP does not. 28% didn’t know.
A week or so ago when YouGov asked if people would prefer keeping MPs expenses but tightening them up, or abolishing their expenses and giving them a higher salary instead I said that my guess was that “had the option been given to just stop giving MPs lots of their expenses it would be been a preferred option”. Populus did just that, and my guess was right: 19% thought the allowances should be scrapped and replaced with a higher salary, 22% would prefer the allowances to remain, but be more tightly regularly. 56% however would rather MPs second home allowance be scrapped without giving them any replacement.
Finally, on the G20 itself we saw the same pattern as YouGov and ICM reported – the great majority of people were supportive, but there was very little enthusiasm. 74% of people had some degree of confidence that the measures would help the economy, but that was made up of only 8% who had a great deal of confidence and 66% with a “little confidence”. Figures were marginally higher on confidence that it would help the global economy recover (11% and 68%).
As Gordon’s “trillions” were exposed as smoke and mirrors, so Gordon’s bounce was exposed as smoke and mirrors.
The Government has “earnt” a reputation for spinning, so – as soon as any spin becomes visible – any bounce it the spin bought disappears. In this case, Gordon’s taxpayer-funded world tour bought him a three-day bounce.
Ever since the G20, there have been a plethra of Ministers accused of making questionable expense claims throught the press. The G20 summit seems like history to most already!
Seems an awfully short bounce, even if what you say is true. I’d be honestly surprised if this poll wasn’t an outlier. Can any government really have an international success and some nice news coverage and achieve no bounce at all?
Realistically it was only 1 good news day and since then 2 significantly poorer days from a Governement point of view
WMA= 42:31:17 (which exactly agrees with Anthony’s estimate, calculated in a different way, and is unchanged from the last poll). How many times do we have to repeat that a 3% change in a single poll is NOT A BOUNCE it is WELL WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR.
To Quincel – no-one doubts that Brown is good at announcing big figures. They just don’t believe them – rightly in this case, and in most others.
This poll is exactly what I expected. I’m guessing ICM’s next poll will show a two point drop for Labour to 29%.
Can Labour MP’s remain generally silent for much longer? Surely the majority must be fearing for their seats especially in light of the lack (or very short lived) of the long awaited G20 bounce?
So-that was G20 then.
What’s next?
Ah yes….the Budget.
Colin,
Ah yes, the budget.
[edited... I think that's getting too partisan Paul - AW]
Since the Chancellor has now publicly conceded that the figures he forecast just four months ago are grossly over-optimistic – even though they were significantly worse than the forecast he had made only eight months before that – what credence should anyone put in whatever figures he does announce this month ?
Therein lies the problem the government now faces. It has been caught out by spin and misrepresentation (I might even go so far as using an unparliamentary term here ) so often, that it has lost credibility.
Brown may think that being chummy with Obama will help him, but he ought to take a look at what is happening in the USA, where their budget is sinking into a permanent structural deficit which would keep the US out of the Eurozone for decades.
The fiscal incompetence of the US Democrats will be only too apparent by the time the UK goes to the polls. Seeking to emulate that is hardly going to endear Brown to the UK electorate.
Nbeale is correct. Two post G20 polls, two very different Tory leads. Conclusion: too early to say which one is the rogue, though recent past might indicate the You Gov.
Still, a 10ish point lead doesn’t look too promising for Cameron, given the trend for leads to reduce as the election approaches, but especially the in-built bias of the electoral system which will assist Labour by around 5% judging by the swingometer. Combine this with the first “green shoots” of recovery expected later in the year (if Anthony’s economic outlook correlation applies then another boost for Brown), then an election in 2010 starts to look like a hung parliament or even a narrow Labour win.
I heard Osborne on radio 4 setting the expectation for economic recovery in Q4 this year. A sign, I think, that the Tories are concerned over the impact this will have on their election prospects.
I would be curious to see the following question:
‘MPs were once not paid a salary. Are you for or against a return to a system where MPs are not paid a salary’
I believe- ironically enough – that the system implemented as a result of pressire from the people (to eneable more poor people to sit in Parliament) might now have fallen out of favour wih the masses.
Statto – I wouldn’t be too concerned if there are some signs of recovery if I was a Tory. Most polls seem to have Cameron preferred as PM post-recession – and the leads the Conservatives were putting up last summer happened when the economy wasn’t at the forefront of people’s minds. On anything other than Chancellor, the Tory shadow is preferred to the Labour incumbent.
The problem for Brown is that although the G20 provided very good news coverage for a single day the policies that were agreed upon are very intangible for most of the electorate. With unemployment expected to rise month on month for at least a year an extra trillion for the IMF will seem ineffective and distant.
If the economy were to come out of recession in the last quarter of this year then it may (and I put emphasis on the word may) alleviate Brown’s predicament. But the problem for him is getting there!
The budget is shaping up to be a bad event for the government. Darling will have to admit that he got his estimates totally wrong (which will cause another round of headlines on the national debt), another substantial fiscal stimulus has effectively been vetoed, and more future tax increases will probably have to be announced. So if the budget is derided by the press, followed by bad results at the local elections, then I think Brown will really struggle to hold on to his position.
@Anthony – sorry to mention Anthony, but how long will you keep my other post in moderation? Appreciate there were bits that “may” have been partisan, but a simple edit would have sufficed?
[...] 30, the Tories up one to 43 and the Lib Dems down one to 18. This is, obviously, only one poll but, as Anthony Wells notes, it combined with the mild three point bounce in the YouGov poll it does suggest the G20 was not a [...]
Eeh heck, even I was expecting a slightly longer Labour bounce than a One Poll Wonder. On the other hand, the ICM does reinforce what other recent polls seem to suggest – namely, that the Tory vote has stabilised in the low 40s and any fluctuations are likely to be between Labour and the Lib Dems.
Unless the next few polls show otherwise, we may be looking at the end of Brown’s capacity to bounce at all. The public has given him several chances as PM and he’s failed dismally to build on them. It’s looking as if there’s no way back for him now.
On a different topic, will we be getting any polls about Obama’s recent visits? I’m especially interested in public responses to his advocacy of Turkish membership of the EU.
Statto: the trend is for Labour leads to reduce when an election comes up. As the FT says: Brown’s “reputation for fiscal rectitude is as battered as a deep-fried Mars Bar” and the full fury of the recession, and voters’ reaction, hasn’t hit yet. TheTories won’t be stuck in the low 40s for long I suspect, and Labour will be back around 25%.
I think we can conclude that the G20 has not had a major effect.
————
On the basis of one poll?
In fact another one or two polls would be needed to show that.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but you have certainly jumped the gun with that particular conclusion.
“In fact another one or two polls would be needed to show that. ”
Why?
Whatever effects were generated by the G20 meeting itself & Brown’s conduct of it are now history. They have received Press comment and I don’t understand how their effect can become apparent in the future .
What visible effects on the UK economy-or indeed the global economy do you anticipate flowing from G20 over the period of the next “one or two polls” ?
@Colin – I think David is right in stopping us from asserting that there is no G20 bounce however likely the none bounce is.
There could be several reasons for this poll: –
1, It’s at the statistical extremes and is out of line with other polls(we will have to wait to find out)
2, There was a cancelling effect of ministers expenses and all the G20 has done is keep the boat afloat rather than plug the holes
3, no one gives a hoot about the G20 and the expenses scandal has not quite hit home yet. Most people think it applies to all parties in some measure anyway. Although the Gov are most at risk as Ministers should be above this sort of stuff.
@Keir if you think the expense scandals will affect peoples decision on how to vote over the handling the economy I think it’s wisful thinking and a great illustration of the mind set of the Cons and their loyal supporters! As you say the Cons are just as guilt as anyone else but the right-wing media aren’t focusing on the antics of Hague, Fox and May – easy to comment from the sidelines in hindsight – Cameron’s favourite!
[Snipped partisan ad hominem - responding to silly partisan comments with more silly partisan comments doesn't help - AW]
” It’s … out of line with other polls”
I don’t quite see that Keir.
On Anthony’s chart isn’t it the last YouGov Poll which is out of line with other recent Polls?
Labour on 34% has only occurred once in the last 25 Polls-since 8th January.
The reason Brown and Labour never really have to get too worried is that they known that they only have to reduce the Conservative lead to about 7% to pretty much guarantee that the Tories won’t be able to win an overall majority and therefore they’ll be a hung parliament in which they may somehow be able to cling to power in some kind of deal with the other parties.
So although they’re 11% behind on the latest average, they only need a 2% swing in their favour between now and the election to stop the Tories winning.
Of course, one could say their goal should be to win a majority of their own, but I think even the most optimistic of Labour supporters must have pretty much given up on that idea given they only need to lose about 25 seats to lose their majority.
@ Keir – there’s a 4th reason, which I think is the most likely one – that the public has given Brown several chances, has found him wanting on each occasion, and will bounce in his direction no more. There’s a point at which that “bouncing” percentile just doesn’t have any bounce left in it. We may now have reached that point, at which Brown just isn’t going to go more than one or two points over thirty from now on no matter what he does.
Thus far no sign of a bounce, just a bit of wobbling around. If there is a bounce, it’s probably swamped by normal polling error and randomness.
Anyway, why would a bunch of politicians talking to each other and getting their photos taken be popular, even relevant? They do these sort of things all the time, without much change in the polls.
David – two polls, there’s a small boost from YouGov, and no boost from Populus, so I think it’s fair to say there isn’t a big boost.
Anthony, do we get given information about the order in which questions are asked by pollsters? I would imagine that a question about something positive for the government – perhaps the impact of the G20 – would encourage a positive response for Labour for a follow-up question on voting intention, and the oppositie for a toxic issue (expenses?). Or is the voting intention question always asked first to avoid bias – in which case some of the other answers would be somewhat tainted perhaps?
@Chris – please re read what I said in option 3 – always helops to get to the bottom of someones post before the name calling
@Colin – Sorry Colin I was not saying I disagreed with you only that proof is shown over a period of polls and we cannot rule out the thought that this poll may be rogue (although I as you doubt that)
@James – I hadn’t thought of that one. Chris what do you think about that (Not that I expect you to have read this far into my post)
and finally @Chris – do you think ministers should set a higher benchmark than other MP’s and Lords?
(PS Chris if you did get this far down well done you deserve an A Star for your work – but then standards have been dropping inschools for a while now so you probably already have some)
No David; we can predict that there has been no signifcant G20 bounce, and if there was one its diminished already.
Given that every poll has the 3% margin of error, and the previous poll showed a labour increase of less than 3%, i’d find it hard to even call that a bounce; just a margin of error hickup.
I expect labour to fall below the 30% mark even on YouGov polling shortly.
The main reason for no alteration could also be that the electorate then got bombarded with Jade Goody’s death all the weekend, this meant that they could not hold two ideas concurrently in their heads. So, goodbye G20…
A week is a long time in politics, to state the blindingly obvious ( especially as the G20 did not suddenly undo all the unemployed and fear of being unemployed which is rightly far more important to the electorate. For another cliche- the hip-pocket nerve wins many elections, and when voters are worried about whether they will have hip-pocket…). G20 was merely boring wall to wall news for most people, with no impact on daily life…
James,
You may well be right. It is after all in the nature of a bouncing object to rise less high before each fall until it rises no more.
Put another way:
BBOoIINNNGGG, BOING, boing, bb….
The first Brown Bounce, in Summer 2007, revived Labour from being about 5% behind in early June to about 7% ahead in mid July and peaked at 13% in September, before disappearing in October. Swing achieved – approx 9%, duration: 3 months.
The second Brown Bounce, at the height of the financial crisis last autumn, started gently, with polls bobbing around during October, but really took hold after the PBR, with the Con lead dropping from over 10% to a low of 1%. Average Con lead in December was around 4.5%, but by January we were back in double figures on the second poll. Swing achieved – approx 3.5 %, duration: 6 weeks.
The G20 Bounce, which may – or may not – be shown to continue in the next polls, has so far seen one poll show a Con lead of 7% compared to an average of 12% n the previous half dozen polls – a swing of no more than 2.5%, and which may have not lasted 3 days.
Moreover, given that it is only the Lab share which has risen in the YouGov poll, and the Con share has not budged from the 40-44% band it has been in since the start of the year, it is statistically more likely that the YouGov lead of 7% is a “rogue” and that the Populus lead of 13% is in line with the trend.
Time will tell, but there won’t be a bounce from the budget, then the ballot boxes will be calling.
Paul H.J
Couldnt have put it better myself
Leslie – the voting intention questions are *always* asked first, to make sure other questions don’t bias them.
The order of the questions in the tables is, on the whole, the same as the order they were asked.
I cannot believe anyone thinks Labour will win the next election unless something major happens
The Tories will win
Also opinion polls nearly always overestimate Labour’s strength when it comes to real polls
I also seem to recall polls in marginals show bigger swings against Labour – possibly because opposition parties focus on them and possibly because people will vote tactically against Labour
Labour are probably thinking that if they can remain at 30% at the moment, they can push that up to around 33% by the start of the election campaign, and then up to 36% by election day which was what they got in 2005.
@Andy – Since when di labour become the raving looney party? sorry I think I missed that one
The Labour grass roots (although initially very fond of GB) will not want to be cast into the wilderness at the next election. Harriet is still positioning herself for the premiership so we may still see a battle yet.
@Keir – Yes I read your painful post and can see why you were suprised it was read – utter drivel!
@ Chris – is that a chip on your shoulder or are you just pleased to see us?
@Chris – It wasn’t that I was surprised that you read the content, I was only surprised that you were able to read them
@AW – apologies, but he started it sir!
There seems no ‘passion’ for either of the two major parties as there was for Thatcher in 1983 and for Blair in 1997. The expenses saga may well affect the way some will vote. Why should Brown claim for his Sky subscription and why should millionaire Cameron claim almost £24000 per year for his mortgage repayment? The Conways, Smiths, Wintertons and Balls also come to mind. The effect will be
spread across all parties. It is revealing that so many seek the maximum allowable rather than what is necessarily spent – and therefore justifiable. The disillusionment with politicians will surely affect the turnout in the coming elections and thereby the result.Where is there a leader of integrity, honesty, selflessness and probity?
@John C – There’s a very popular book (I believe it’s a best seller) about a guy like that. Seems they don’t come around very often.
@ John C – I think you’re right about a widespread lack of passion for the major parties. I suspect that a combination of the EU and globalisation in general has left a lot of people feeling that political parties make very little difference because the forces shaping the world are perceived as so vast and powerful in comparison.
@ John C
Millionairre Cameron? Just grow up mate.
As for MPs expenses; I fear Brown may be playing this wrong- given that as D.C is being populist and demanding an amm-leader meeting to resolve the problem, and Brown is meakly talking of committee enquiries etc.
Perhaps, as Brown was doing the G20 stuff and D.C hammered about MPs expenses this explains (or at least helps to) why Brown has had viritually no irrefutable bounce?
What some people here are forgetting is that come the GE all issues will be thrown to the fore especislly the national dept and who/how is it going to be paid off. Onece it is obvious that it will be the electorate then labour is in BIG troouble as it was their borrowing that increased debt and therefore tax increases and cuts in public spending. All are agreed that that is what is needed and all blame will be put on labour. Polling about 28% maybe 30% maximum is all that they can hope for. Tories 43-45% will be more than enough for a majority as the biggest swings will be in marginal areas like the west midlands therefore gaining maximum seats. So I’m afraid all those with wishful thinking of a labour victory let alone a hung parliament are as deluded as brown is with his premiership
What is interesting looking at the average of the polls at the moment is that we are either within the margin of error of a hung parliament at the bottom end of expectations or a Conservative landslide at the top.
For those who think that a Conservative victory at the next election is a dead certainty may I point you to recent local by-election results which has shown that as well as Conservative gains from both Labour and the Liberal Democrats there have also been Conservative losses to both of these parties too.
Polling day is probably still 13 months away and anything can happen in that time. A major factor that could influence the final result, as well as the state of the economy, is MPs expenses and it will be interesting to see the impact the publication of all MPs receipts of all parties and none going back over the last few years has on the opinion polls when they are published this July.
All to play for I think.
@Richard – current betting has labour at 4/1 and tories at 1/7 – I still don’t see what’s to play for sorry.
If anyone on here had to put all of their available capital on either party, which would it be.
@ Richard – there was some discussion of by-elections as predictors of general elections a while ago. I recall Anthony (I think) pointing out that they aren’t good indicators of GE results because there are so many variables in play in a one-off by-election which are more significant than the equivalents in a general election.
You’re right that a Conservative victory isn’t a “dead certainty” – but it would be a good bet, nonetheless.
@Dean MacKinnon-Thomson – re “Millionairre Cameron” – a simple trick, associating perceived negative words with a politician. I have never heard a Tory doing this during Gordon Brown’s recession.
Re. Tory lead required for an election win. The current gap simply isn’t big enough – if they are not in the high 40’s and a good 15-20 points ahead in the middle of the worst recession since the 30’s, they simply will not win.
Result of next election based on polls; no idea. Result of next election based on unemployment figures compardr with the previous few months? That’s the real indicator…
Governments win / lose elections; oppositions are basically irrelevant. (No-one voted for Blair; he kept his nose clean and the Conservatives imploded…)
‘I would be curious to see the following question:
‘MPs were once not paid a salary. Are you for or against a return to a system where MPs are not paid a salary’
I believe- ironically enough – that the system implemented as a result of pressire from the people (to eneable more poor people to sit in Parliament) might now have fallen out of favour wih the masses.’
Ludicrous comment. So are you seriously arguing that only independently wealthy people can be MPs?
Long live the Communist revolution… ( We are talking 1905 politics aren’t we?)
Jack – no, he’s guessing that the public might oppose MPs being paid a salary, he didn’t say that he did.
I find it fascinating- and annoying- the amount of ludicrous right wing comments that actually turn up on this site; a few years ago all we did was look at the logic and implications behind polls.
It is somewhat depressing that the change has happened (sorry AW) and reduced this site to a more normal- and boring- argy bargy about politics rather than the old technical analysis site.
Ivan the Terrible / Oracle / whoever the bore was about Ayn Rand etc have actually made this site much more boring as they indulge in their wish fulfilment, rather than logical analysis.
Sorry to whinge AW, just in the moods for a reflection based on my need to respond as shown by my previous comment…
Oh, okay then, but the supposition is nearly as bad as the relaity
I thought you’d have noticed the absence of the Oracle and Atlas Shrugged…
This is not my most likely forecast, but it is within a range to be considered.
GB shares %
C 45.1
Lab 31.6
LD 15.0
Oth 8.3
Poll 65.7%
@Jack,
Wondering about the public’s attitude to a particular problem can’t be a right-wing comment as far as I can see.
It was 1911 when MPs were first paid a salary by central government. Prior to that I believe that most Labour MPs were funded directly by the Trade Unions, whilst most Liberal and Tories were of independent means.
In some ways, though it could be seen as entrenching the class war (not that it seems to have abated much in the last 100 years), it could be seen as a better system than the one we have now. If MPs have nothing to gain from their ‘employment’ they might be able to take a more balanced view of the country’s actual needs.
Pete B,
Not paying MPs sounds superficially attractive, but it would be very bad for democracy.
If we expect MPs to put in the hours, then we need to ensure that they are in a position to do so. The duties and responsibilities of an MP are both onerous and arduous, while the hours are even more anti-social than most senior professionals and business executives. We cannot expect capable people to put themselves forward if it also involves a substanial cut in their financial position.
The real issue here is not how much MPs are paid, but that, in order to avoid a “high” base salary, a system of allowances and expenses has been put in that is evidently open to exploitation.
I posted the other day on another thread a suggested solution regarding expenses. This would create both transparency and equity. It is likely that the counter-part to a change in the expenses system is that the base salary for an MP would need to be increased. I know that some argue that they should be paid in line with average earnings, but that is unfair since they do not have an “average” job. I would suggest a figure in the region of £75k. It may sound high to the man in the street, but it is in line with what many professionals earn.
More importantly, I do think that we should increase the age bar for MPs, at least 30, preferebly 35 or 40. That would ensure that all MPs have amassed some real experience of life and work outside politics. They would also have lived through at least one whole economic cycle in their working lives before standing for Parliament.
The problem with not paying MPs a wage is simple: it prevents working class people from becoming representatives of their constituencies; we’d have a political class for real then…
Statto,
Please do not conflate two unrelated issues into how large a lead the Tories need to have today in order to win the election next year.
As the polls currently stand, the Tories would win an overall majority at the election on a uniform national swing. Ergo, the current gap is big enough, even if a larger gap would give greater confidence.
Quite how large (or small) a majority they gain as the polls stand today will depend on the local variations from UNS. That could mean next to no majority, or it could mean a landslide. The regional / local factors that influence those possible variations are what the Constituency section of this site was intended to discuss. General national factors,such as events, policies or turnout, are what we try to cover in this part of the site as / when polls are published.
Whether the present political situation ought to mean a lead of x or y, and whether that lead needs to be z in order to deliver a lead sufficient to ensure a victory in so many months time, is really only a matter of opinion and conjecture. Party A could be behind today, yet still emerge with a lead on polling day, or Party B could be 20 points ahead and still lose. But changes in fortune will normally be driven by discernible facts / events., and if Party C has maintained a consistent lead, even when events may have suggested that that lead should fade, it would indicate that, barring accidents, the lead is likely to persist.
The past is not a certain guide to the future but it does give us clues. One can discern trends and correlations, in particular with the state of the economy, but there is no mechanistic causal link. One thing that we can say is that the Conservatives have held a lead (albeit slender at times) in every opinion poll bar 2 published in the past 18 montths.Another is that the Conservative share of the vote has been at 40% or more in every poll so far this year, that it was above that level in the vast majoprity of polls last year, and never dropped below 37%. Taken together, these things suggest that a Conservative majority is a very likely outcome at the next election.
A common fallacy when looking at the past is that “governments always close the gap as the election approaches”. That has been discussed extensively on this site, but the historic evidence actually points to an improvement in the relative position of the Conservative party, not the Government.
Interesting ICM/Guardian gloom poll out today, showing that Britain is the most pessimistic of the 25 nations polled on the economy and chances of a quick recovery.
Britons give the British govt only 3.4 out of 10 for ability to manage the crisis – only the Japanese rated their own govt lower.
More on The Guardian website, in the ‘Politics’ section.
There’s a piece in the papers today about Darlings impending “austerity” Budget.
It got me thinking about the “Honest Darling” thing again.
I cannot for the life of me see a basis on which GB can mount a persuasive & credible platform for persuading the electorate to re-elect him.-unless the recession disappears in a puff of smoke by next spring.
But supposing Labour switch to a programme of austerity-, public spending cuts-tax rises even- reducing debt-all the things that GB has avoided like the plague?
What would Cameron’s response be?-”We don’t need to be this austere?” would be countered by “they don’t understand the problem”.
“We need to be more austere” would lead to “Cameron slashes public services”.
We know that GB is first & foremost a driven politician-very unlike Blair.
I cannot believe that he will walk into the next GE without some strategy for winning it.
“The duties and responsibilities of an MP are both onerous and arduous, while the hours are even more anti-social than most senior professionals and business executives”
Is that so?!
I think “most” senior professionals and business executives-and certainly their wives & children-would have a different view.
As for the hours-these are the sitting times for the Main Chamber:-
Monday: 2.30pm-10.30pm
Tuesday: 2.30pm-10.30pm
Wednesday: 11.30am-7.30pm
Thursday: 10.30am-6.30pm
Friday: 9.30am-3pm
Most senior executives & managers in the real world would love to work those hours.
It was these very hours which the wretched Eric Pickles claimed were so difficult & justification for his claiming ACA rather than getting on public transport the few miles from his home to HoC.
Dimbleby’s brilliant put down of “like a job you mean?” was followed by Pickles being roundly jeered by the QT audience.
Less MPs if they want more salary.
No “Allowances”
Expenses to be repaid only if necessary in carrying out their duties.
Expenses only paid after checking by an external agancy.
Get these people into the real world-or they will never understand how to legislate for it.
“The current gap simply isn’t big enough – if they are not in the high 40’s and a good 15-20 points ahead in the middle of the worst recession since the 30’s, they simply will not win”
I’m going to keep saying this until someone notices; the 20+ lead which the Conservatives had at one point was in the summer of 2008, well before recession was even being talked about and certainly before the scale of the recession became apparent.
If you remember, it was the onset of the economic crisis which caused the Conservative lead to fall! Indeed some political correspondents might say that if it hadn’t have been for the economic crisis Gordon Brown would have been challenged for the leadership.
The point is that given the Conservatives enjoyed their biggest poll leads BEFORE the recession, and given that the polls indicate that the Conservatives are the preferred Party to run the economy after the crisis (as well as health, education, home affairs etc.) by what logic would you claim they need to be x points ahead during the crisis to win the next election?
Jack,
You put ME in the same sentance as ‘the Oracle’ !?
I am rather mild in comparison and the fact that you can’t see that implies to me that you may be mistaking simple disagreement for “ludicrous right wing” comment everywhere.
People don’t all think the same Jack. That’s one of the reasons Communism hasn’t worked too well. It obviously saddens you but it’s true you know.
Colin,
Teachers have it so easy. 9-3 day, long holidays…
Ask any teacher if that represents a true picture of their working life.
Equally, it is fatuous to claim that MPs working hours are defined solely by the hours the chamber sits.
Yes, many senior executives work long hours and often have to travel. But then, few senior executives have a base salary of about £60k with no bonus scheme, and their travel expenses are met by their employer.
Populism has never been a sound basis for policy. I would much prefer our MPs to do what is right.
@ Colin – the problem for Brown is that if he introduces austerity measures, most people will see this as the public now paying the price for his heavy borrowing and economic shortsightedness and curious “generosity” with our money towards causes that people may not regard as priorities in the throes of recession (unpopular wars, overseas aid, bank bail-outs etc). Austerity measures would mean that Brown was both seen as a major cause of the problem and as the man responsible for administering a particularly painful and uncertain remedy. This would be very unlikely to improve his poll ratings.
The Conservatives, on the other hand, have the luxury (for a while, anyway) of being able to say “we didn’t cause this problem but unfortunately we are going to have to introduce these austerity measures in order to clean up Labour’s mess”. It’s a rather better argument, for obvious reasons.
I’m sure Brown (and certainly Mandelson) has a strategy for the next general election. But whether it’s an effective strategy is a different matter. Brown frequently seems to misjudge the public mood – one reason why he came across better as second-in-command (when Blair took care of that side of things) than he does as commander. Mandelson also seems to have lost his touch somewhat if the Post Office sell-off debacle is anything to go by. So I’m sure they have a strategy – I just doubt that it will prove to be a winning one.
JOHN:
“I’m going to keep saying this until someone notices; the 20+ lead which the Conservatives had at one point was in the summer of 2008, well before recession was even being talked about and certainly before the scale of the recession became apparent”
I totally agree the lead will probably increase from 15-20 points if their are signs of a recovery!
However I doubt whether we will see a recovery and employment falling before May 2010. I think their will be a Labour trouncing in the June Euro and Local Elections and Brown will be go! I could only see a short term Labour revival if they changed Leader. I think we are only weeks away from going to the IMF anyway then its game over!
“the Conservatives are the preferred Party to run the economy after the crisis (as well as health, education, home affairs etc.) by what logic would you claim they need to be x points ahead during the crisis to win the next election?”
The logic is in the numbers – if they were by far the most trusted on the economy, NHS, etc, then the 20 pt gap would still be there.
I think there’s still a memory of the lack of state (or EU)subsidy or loans when the crunch came before. People might well realise that taxes have to go up and spending down, but I think the numbers suggest there isn’t an overwhelming majority in favour of, for instance, cancelling agreed pay rises.
“Populism has never been a sound basis for policy. I would much prefer our MPs to do what is right.”
It is not a question of “populism”
It is a question of controlling the greed & avarice which the introduction (by Labour) of the ACA has exposed in our representatives.
If they can’t control themselves, someone else will have to.
They don’t know what is “right”-listen to the Home Secretary on her self-justifying tv studio tour yesterday & watch the clip of Pickles at QT.
They tell you all you kneed to know about our MPs
James-yes I agree with your logic.
But I think ( fear!) that Brown has some surprises for us yet.
I may be wrong-I read speculation of a return to Tory Toffs as an attack mode. And this certainly has echos in Jaqui Smith’s bleat about not “already” having a second home. I hope they try it because I think it’s a loser & a sign that they can’t think of anything positive to say.
But I remain fearfull of Brown the Politician.
A year is a long time in politics.
Colin,
Yes, I agree that a (large) number of MPs have provided high profile examples of abuse. Yes, the current system is wrong and it needs to be reformed. But over-reaction in response to a media outcry can be damaging too. May I refer you to my earlier comment on another thread setting out my proposed solution (which would do away with the need for most allowances).
I too fear Brown. Not so much because he might somehow win the next election for Labour (though that idea scares me to death), but in terms of the damage he will do to our country in his attempts.
As for tactics, the Tory Toffs line was also on display in Ed Ball’s self-justification response to Michael Gove in this morning’s DT.
I had the rare pleasure of watching a bit of day-time tv yesterday morning… what’s truly frightening can be found amongst the electorate that populates the schedules then!
Brown has done a lot of good over the years, and I suggest he’s quite capable of reminding the electorate of his achievements (cue raging by fearful Tories!)
John tt
Yes of course he is capable of so doing-indeed unless he intends to fight the GE on a purely anti-Conservative platform it is mandatory that he does so.
The big question is -will the electorate agree with his list of achievements-or that they are all beneficial achievements.I think he may hedge his bets-but I don’t know how.
Can’t wait personally.
Paul HJ-I don’t agree that “over-reaction” is being exhibited.
As for the media-that is how the public are informed in a free society.
The public are perfectly capable of filtering out what they consider to be important-and as recent Polls indicate clearly-they think this issue is important.
Yes I read your suggestions-some of which I agree with.
So far as I am concerned your a) pertains now however.
I don’t agree with building a block of flats for them-and certainly not then allowing them to opt out.
We don’t need yet another ivory tower -just let them rent a flat and reclaim the cost-up to a reasonable limit.
The whole circus of Expenses Rules for MPs shows how detached they are from the real world and/or how intent they are on retaining the maximum ability to milk the taxpayer “within the rules”.
It is very very simple-any reasonably sized company could lend them a set of rules on expenses incurred wholely & exclusively in the pursuit of ones job.
Hire a firm of accountants to police & audit it-could be sorted instantly if they really wanted to sort it.
“The logic is in the numbers – if they were by far the most trusted on the economy, NHS, etc, then the 20 pt gap would still be there”
No that’s the point. The 20 point lead isn’t there because up until now there is one policy area which the government is ahead on; economic policy during the crisis. That and also because the electorate is naturally less receptive to a message of change during a recession.
“But supposing Labour switch to a programme of austerity-, public spending cuts-tax rises even- reducing debt-all the things that GB has avoided like the plague?”
He’s running a huge political risk if he does. For months he’s attempted to label the Conservatives as being in favour public spending cuts, as a ‘do nothing’ party and defended the UK debt position. Not to mention his constant attack that Cameron flip-flops on all the big issues. He would be effectively saying that Cameron was righ all along.
I can’t see what he’d gain from going against everything he’s stood for. He would be ripped apart by the press and the Tories.
john tt-Do you think that this little gem from Gprdon’s Radio 2 phone in today might be on his list for reminding people ? :-
“What happened around the world was something I’ve been warning of for years.”
John:-
“He’s running a huge political risk if he does”
So how is GB going to convince the Markets & the Electorate that Public Borrowing will be reduced, without saying that taxes will go up and/or Public Spending will grow less than the economy grows?
Colin – Brown was continaully drowned out by the free-market capitalists – now there’s a bunch who’ve caused some damage!
The best the Tories can come up with (after 18 months racking their brains for something) is that their hypothetical controls on money supply would have prevented the greedy b’s from nicking all our money. The only reason Thatcher’s trickle-down economics failed her was that the greedy free-market c’s didn’t spend their cash on charitable works,like she wanted them to, they spent it on lavish lifestyles instead, and placed the rest offshore.
Trickle-away economics is on its way out now, thank heavens, but if Brown had eveer suggested the f-m c’s llisten to Redwood-isms, he’d have been howled down from all sides, and been a lot lower in the polls than now.
” there is one policy area which the government is ahead on; economic policy during the crisis. ” You say I’ve missed the point, but go on to agree with it. It wouldn’t matter if they Labour were behind by a few points on the trust to run the economy question. The numbers show a lot narrower gap than there would be if a Tory victory were a certainty. And the bookies would have closed the book and paid out by now.
“So how is GB going to convince the Markets & the Electorate that Public Borrowing will be reduced, without saying that taxes will go up and/or Public Spending will grow less than the economy grows?”
Sorry I’m lost. In your original post you asked the question of would Brown change his strategy to arguing for public spending [i]cuts[/i] and switch his priority from spending on public services to curtailing debt. I argued that such a monumental volte face would be ridiculed by all and would be seen as a victory for the Tories.
I’m not sure what you are getting at with the question I have quoted above. The Treasury has already announced some future tax increases and implied that public spending will be slowed. The question you posed was would Gordon Brown go even further and effectively immitate the Conservative position.
“You say I’ve missed the point, but go on to agree with it. It wouldn’t matter if they Labour were behind by a few points on the trust to run the economy question. The numbers show a lot narrower gap than there would be if a Tory victory were a certainty. And the bookies would have closed the book and paid out by now”
Right lets sort this out:
1) Are you arguing that given we are in a recession the Conservatives need to be further ahead in order to win the next general election?
2) If you answered yes to the above question how do you equate the fact that the lead was much greater before the recession to your view? Do you not think this implies that there is a relationship between the level of Labour’s support and the recession? In other words the lead is at the level it is because of the recession as opposed to in spite of it.
3) Where did this certainty question come from? I don’t think the election is a certainty. However I don’t agree with the analysis: ‘we are in a recession, therefore the opposition should be x points ahead in order to win the next election’.
John –
1) No.
I don’t see an overwhelming link between the recession per se and voting intention. “The devil you know” can work to a certain extent, but it’s a small part of it, in my view.
I reckon Brown went down in the polls as a direct result of saying he’d hold an election, and then backed out, plus the 10p tax fiasco, and the fact that he’s a miserable “media performer” (or at least could do with listening to a decent coach)
He didn’t go down in the polls because people expected a recovery, only to recover some ground as a result of plummetting confidence.
Maybe the 30-40 point leads that Labour had prior to 97 were unreliable, maybe the 10-12 point lead now held will sustain, but you asked where the logic was.
It’s simply that the gap is too small. People prefer, in much larger numbers than should be comfortable for Cameron, they prefer what Labour is doing to what Cameron/Osborne are saying they’d do.
It wasn’t so much the fact of a recession that gives Brown a boost, as the stark choices that are thrown up by it. Borrow and spend, then pay back later, or “cut until the bleeding stops” (which is what people remember as having happened before).
Do you agree with the expression “we are mid-term, with only a year to go , therefore the opposition should be x points ahead”?
John tt @ “Brown was continaully drowned out by the free-market capitalists ”
Oh really, is that so? :-
“I want us to do even more to encourage the risk takers” (Gordon Brown, Mansion House speech, 17 June 2004)
“Last year we set out radical proposals for changing the way we regulate: minimising the administrative burdens of regulation;and ensuring that the realities of regulation, as you experience them on the ground, are transformed — by moving away from the
old blanket approach, of 100 per cent form-filling and 100 per cent inspection that is inefficient and wasteful of your time, to a new approach based on risk… And I believe, too, we should consider how we can continue to extend our risk-based approach, applying the concept of risk not just to the enforcement of regulation, but also to the design and indeed to the decision as to whether to regulate at all… And we will
take the fight on deregulation to Europe.” ( Gordon Brown Speech to the CBI, 5 June 2006)
“And I want to work with you so that over time we apply the concept of risk not just to the enforcement of regulation, butalso to the design and indeed to the decision as to whether to regulate at all.” ( Gordon Brown Speech to the CBI, 15 May 2007)
and for good measure:-
“The FSA’s risk-based regulatory approach is praised around the world and regularly cited as a key strength for the UK…Some observers have urged us to go further and proposed disclosure in hedge fund portfolio positions to regulators in some sort of
register. Like Callum McCarthy, I strongly believe this would be counterproductive. ( Ed Balls Speech to the FSA regulation conference, 23 April 2007)
“If the City is doing well, we are all doing well. When it prospers, we all prosper”
(Ed Balls Guardian, 3 November 2006)
If you add to those speeches a context that pre-supposes the rocket scientists were right and the credit agencies truthful, they all are consistent with Brown’s desire for a global system.
Unfortunately, he believed people who either lied or didn’t understand risk. (so did everyone else)
The last quote is absolutely correct!
Furthermore, I don’t exclude his own advisers from the “free-market capitalists”. He went along with them
@John TT then I would have to say that Gordon Brown is naive beyond measure – what’s that I hear you shout “People Don’t Lie!” – and corruption doesn’t exist. Come on, even I credit Brown with more intelligence than that.
The fact is he screwed up. He (and I would have done the same) rode the runaway train thinking he would be able to stop it when he wanted to…..well he couldn’t
This was not a man in charge who was let down by liars and bad advisors, this was a man who took arogance to a new level and who sees power as the end game.
At the end of the day Gordon Brown was the biggest “Free Market Capitalist of them all” and now he is the worlds most powerful petulant school boy behind mugabe
“on the G20 itself we saw the same pattern as YouGov and ICM reported – the great majority of people were supportive, but there was very little enthusiasm.”
…I wonder, did they think to ask those polled “Do you know what the G20 meeting is all about” with a choice of 5: “not at all; not much; a bit; a fair bit; completely”?
It’s a bit like polling the passengers of plane that’s falling out the sky on whether they think the second-order state space model inside the autopilot chip has been augmented satisfactorially…
Same with expenses… asked whether they are prepared to pay top quids to get the most talented people from all walks of life, they’re going to get a contrasting response from asking whether they think the trough’s wide enough for the besuited snouts of the current crop, when 56% would rather have lower monthly rent or mortgage bill; and 69% are feeling a bit skinter than they were anticipating they would this time last year.
“The same applies to MPs… but not by that much. 34% think their own MP is abusing the system, with 38% thinking their own MP does not. 28% didn’t know.”
…which correlates more or less with those who voted for; against; and abstained in your average constituency, doesn’t it?
Surely the only meaningful conclusions you can draw from this poll are that Most people don’t really understand what the G20 is all about; and because they don’t understand it, it doesn’t affect how they’ll vote; and most people are unhappy about their own finances, and don’t take kindly to the perceived preference for blinkered self-catering projected by some MPs.