The Known Unknowns
There was some speculation in the last couple of days about whether the Queen’s Speech will shift the political terrain. We won’t know until the next round of polls arrive, but I would be very surprised if they were the beginning of any significant change for the reasons Danny Finkelstein set out this morning: the Queen’s speech and the government’s legislative plans for the coming months will have completely passed by the vast majority of the electorate.
As the months go by we keep seeing things that might have potentially changed the situation slipping past without any obvious change in the big picture: one was the party conference season, then the Conservative response to the ratification of Lisbon. I’m doubting the Queen’s Speech will be the one either. Looking at what’s left before the campaign itself, I think there are only about four “known unknowns” left in the months ahead that might be noticed by enough people to make a significant change to the political terrain (though of course, there could be any number of unknown unknowns that we can’t predict).
1) The budget
Not many events in the political calendar really get noticed by by the wider public. The exceptions are probably the conference season (most people don’t watch the actual conferences of course, but some of the saturation coverages gets through), and the budget, which people pay attention to it because it directly affects their wallet. Certainly before elections governments use them to curry public favour with good news stories and tax cuts, but they are not an automatic positive if they are perceived as dishonest, unfair or incompetent, nor if the government is forced to hike taxes or deliver bad news. In the present situtation, Alistair Darling is likely to have very limited room for manoeuvre: he won’t have money for tax cuts, and if he does scrape something together it risks backfiring when questions about repairing the public finances are asked. Still, there is potential here, especially if Darling can deliver some good news. This brings us to…
2) The end of the recession
Economic optimism has already returned. There are several different trackers following people’s expectations on the economy, they have all come back strongly since 2008 and early 2009, with some in positive territory. However, it does not seem to have produced any meaningful recovery for Labour. However, I’m still not ready to conclude for certain that it’s not going to have an effect – if an improved economy is going to improve Labour’s position in the polls, I think the trigger may be when the recession formally comes to an end, when the good news will no doubt be plastered across the media and the government will be primed to capitalise. That was expected in the last lot of quarterly economic figures, but never arrived. With the rest of Europe emerging from recession it must be very likely that the next lot of figures will show the formal end of the recession.
3) The last chance for a Labour change of leadership
The endless media speculation of whether Brown will stay or go is gradually drawing to a close, we will get to a point where it is so close to an election that Labour really cannot change their leader. We’ve long since passed the point when there could be a formal challenge, we may be past the point where an open rebellion by MPs to oust Brown is feasible. It’s probably still just about possible that a cabinet delegation go to Brown at the start of January and quietly tell him that he no longer has the necessary support to continue and should stand down for the sake of the party. It is looking increasingly unlikely, but if it does happen it obviously has the potential to change everything.
4) The leaders’ debates
They’ve never happened before, and if they happen this time we can be fairly certain they will get huge attention and viewing figures. With the attention they receive they certainly have the potential to change things around. However, realistically the chances of them helping Labour must be very low. When it comes down to it polls constantly show that people like David Cameron and dislike Gordon Brown – increased focus on the choice between the two men will likely help the Conservatives. David Cameron is seen as charismatic, he is an interesting speaker with emotional intelligence and ability to connect with the public. These are not, to put it kindly, Gordon Brown’s strengths. One thing in Gordon Brown’s favour is expectations – polls show that people overwhelmingly expect David Cameron to win any debate, so the pressure will be on him to deliver, and Gordon Brown won’t have to do much to surpass expectations.
I think the one with the most potential to change things is a change of Labour leadership, but I think it is now very unlikely. I would be surprised if the budget made much difference, and the debates (if they happen) are more likely to help the Conservatives. From my four known unknowns I think the one with the most chance of changing things is when the end of the recession is announced. Who knows what effect any unknown unknowns might have, but the number of opportunities for Labour to turn things around are rapidly dwindling.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Now Anthony, you’re not saying election campaigns make no difference are you
My own view is we will see Labour attempt to focus on the dangers of a Conservative government – just how much and how quickly they are going to cut to reduce the deficit, threatening a double dip recession, another million unemployed, services slashed, etc. I seem to recall a drop in Conservative support in the immediate aftermath of the pensions policy announcement, and would expect maters like this to be highlighted as much as possible.
I still expect a hung parliament, Cons the largest party.
As I type they are debating the queens speech on Newsnight Scotland (or newsnicht as its nicknamed up here).
If this is the level of debate the Queens Speech will have all the impact of spitting on a whale….
Secondly I think the way in which over the last decade or so the government(s) have leaked news has undermined the importance of things like the budget. In an age of 24 news the impact of specific key events tends to get diluted.
Peter.
Could MP (and Lords) expenses still have a role? If the current Telegraph story is accurate.
I don’t think the election campaign’s going to make much difference in Dartford this time.
I would still be surprised if the leadership debate takes place. There’s just too much chance of completely losing the confidence of voters if something goes wrong.
The famous phrase “it’s the economy, stupid” was coined in ‘92 when Bush41 (George H W) took on Clinton. The US economy was (well on the way) out of recession. The electorate remembered the pain, and, anyway, (un)employment lags. Bush41 lost.
A recovery don’t butter no parsnips. A boom? Well …..
Too late.
I think the election campaign will impact the voter because it will be bruising & personal-probably dirty too.
This will be initiated by Brown.
What the impact is remains to be seen.
Not sure how likely it is, but I do feel Labour are saving something up to throw at the Tories before the election. I’m not sure what it is, but I recall an interview with none other than Max Clifford where he said things would be divulged in an election campaign. I would guess that could have quite an impact.
Does anyone know if there was any polling done regarding dealing with the economic crisis – specifically that David Cameron was an economic advisor to the Chancellor during the last serious recession?
One more known unknown perhaps – to be resolved tomorrow evening – is the prospect of a Tony Blair EU Presidency . Yes, Blair has waxed and waned as a front runner, but it would be fascinating to see how his appointment might play out in the UK. I think it might rattle the Tories and boost Brown.
Brown could also gain by starting the withdrawal from Afghanistan and bringing some troops home perhaps in May just before the election.
Gary
Gary,
Given the hounding Brown got for visiting Afghanistan during the Tory conference, If the public thought he was playing politics with troops on the ground to win and election the Tories could end with close to a 200 majority.
he is already on dodgy ground calling an Afghan conference only weeks before an election will be called.
Peter.
I agree with Statto that we must remember that how election campaigns are fought can make a difference to the end result. But as you might imagine I can’t see it favouring Labour.
To be sure Brown has been around long enough to have learnt some political tricks and has advisors who coach him more. But there is one trick they surely can’t trick away, namely, the magic word ‘CHANGE’. Mandelson sought to conjure up Labour as the party of change during their conference. But it was a laughably rediculous performance, “If I can come back (from a dodgy mortgage loan) then you can come back.”
The reason why Labour are not doing worse in the polls is because the Tories are not enough of a change for more people, particularly after the expenses scanal.
This is where the Lib Dems and other parties have a great advantage. We have seen other parties press home this advantage while the Lib Dems have not. But during the election campaign they will have a great opportunity to do this.
When the election comes the majority of people in 80% of seats will vote for the party best positioned to beat Labour. I know that if I were in a seat where the Tories were best positioned to beat Labour I would grudgingly do so. I would need to take several baths before I felt clean again but I would still do it. A lot of other former Labour voters expect might simply stay at home.
Another possible method for a change of Labour leadership is Brown resigning on grounds of ill-health (bad eye). This may seem very unlikely and uncharacteristic, but it was a rumour going around a few weeks ago.
I should like to express myself mathematically more accurately by saying that the VAST majority of people in about 80% of seats will vote against Labour in sufficient numbers to deny them the seats.
I just don’t think that, despite the intention voting figures, the general assessment of Labour has changed significantly since the time of the Euro election – Labour obviously has not changed significantly since that time. I know that people can be fickle and indecisive but surely there are enough not stupid people in this country who when they put their minds to it must agree with this.
Didn’t seem that Brown got much joy out of the Queens Speech. I’ve never heard a PM called ’surreal’ before – not even Harold Wilson managed that.
The unknowns are known.
@Colin – “I think the election campaign will impact the voter because it will be bruising & personal-probably dirty too.
This will be initiated by Brown”
How quaint a view you have about Cameron’s Conservatives. It’s as if Andy Coulson never happened. One of the reasons I have a very level of contempt for Cameron is his two faced attitude to the tone of political debate (didn’t he want to end punch and judy politics? Now he can’t string more than two sentences together without a soundbite). Between Coulson, Ashcroft and grubby deals with Murdoch, the Tories have hit the same level as McBride – they just haven’t been caught with their trousers down yet.
Can Brown not put off the local elections until june to give Lab the maximum time for economic recovery without bad local results ?.I seem to remember this happened in 92 or 97.
Alec-I recommend you read the reaction of some senior Labour Peers & MPs to the “Dividing Lines” Queen’s Speech.
One of the reasons I dislike listening to people like Alec rant on is the way they simply cannot conduct any sort of discussion without making snide remarks about the character of politicans they don’t happen to agree with.
We have listened month in month out to his diatribes about George Osbourne or David Cameron, his hopelessly inaccurate forecasts on the economy and heaven knows what else. Alec reminds me of the loud mothed guy on the barstool who interrupts you when you come in to order a drink and who proceeds to give all in earshot his unasked view on current affairs despite the fact that nobody wants to hear them.
Private Eye used to run a series called ” Great Bores of Our Time’. Maybe they should add another character to their hall of fame.
My own view is that there will be no major single event that dramatically changes the polls over a short period. Just a slow narrowing over time, but best case for Labour I think is to narrow it to 6-8%. (I can’t see Labour polling more than 32-33% best case. But that zone is particularly interesting as the Conservatives need to be achieving 42% or so to ensure victory.
Of course, as the polls stand, Cameron is on for a comfortable victory with a 12-14% lead. And if we are still sitting at this kind of level when the election is called, then I think Cameron has it in the bag. Around 9-10% and the campaign will still play a part.
I think that events can no longer benefit the Labour Party. What people are missing, is the press, especially television. People watch,listen to, read the papers. Witness the Queen’s Speach, it was largely trailed as rubbish and the flack afterwards was devestating. People have made up their minds, unless the press changes, a landslide will be a understatement.
@GLEN OTTO
I agree with you Glen. I always give Cameron credit for getting the Tory name mentioned on the BBC without the beeb employee spitting in disgust at the same time. This is a priceless achievement from the Tory point of view. The hang um and flog um brigade of Norfolk should not forget it.
@MICHAEL
I suspect some dirt or alleged dirt regarding Lord Ashcroft is in the offing. The Guardian mentioned something yesterday and I think the Indy mentions something today.
Frankly, I think its reached a point whereby Brown is so damaged that Tory problems would have to be BIG to have an impact on the outcome of the GE.
@Nick Keene
Dont go on the Guardian CIF site then Nick. The denial and bile spilled on there beggers belief.
King Harold – bad comment drives out good.
If you have a forum/blog where lots of comments are crackpot rants and sensible people get ripped apart, the sensible people stop commenting and you end up with a place that it is entirely crackpot rants and trolls. c.f. Comment is Free and Guido’s comment threads, and hence the reason why I’m a bit anal about it sometimes .
@ Statto
I think you will find that Conservatives can probably scrape a majorty with a 5-6% lead (4.5 point swing) as the swing is thought to be greater in the marginals and less so in the safe seats.
Putting this in perspective, Tynemouth, the seat the Tories need to win to get a majority of 1 requires around a 6 point swing.
Just out of interest why is the above comment “Awaiting Moderation”?
Has anyone heard why the MORI poll done at the weekend hasn’t been published yet? Rather strange to wait so long after the fieldwork.
May have been a poll for a private client – or the voting intention question could have been for cross break purposes on a question that wasn’t time sensitive.
Things do seem pretty hopeless for Labour. The Known Unknowns (wonderful term!) don’t seem drastic enough in the right ways to effect a reversal of Labour’s fortunes. A change of leader might win the party a few points but none of the candidates fielded as potential replacements for Brown (Miilliband, Johnson etc) seem popular or substantial enough to effect a big enough boost to the party. Competent, clever ministers perhaps but leaders?
An end to the recession – nice headlines for a few days but ultimately just words until the effects start being felt by large numbers of people, which seems unlikely within a 6 month window. Besides, there is a widely held view that we’d merely be recovering from an illness brought on by Brown anyway (not saying this is entirely the case but many people think it is). Plus there’s still the little matter of that monstrous debt.
The budget – I don’t think there’s anything Labour can do with it that will be sufficient to change voters’ minds.
Leaders’ debates – as Anthony says, these are likely to favour Brown. Even if Brown exceeds our very low expectations, that’s hardly a triumph and he’d have to sustain it without putting his great clunking fist in his mouth. His track record on this doesn’t bode well.
My view is that only a huge Tory disaster of some sort could turn voters around now. I’m sure Lord Mandelson is hard at work on that one …
@Andrew
I would be extremely surprised if 6% lead were enough for a Con majority.
The Politics Home marginals poll, conducted 11-21 Sep predicted a Con majority of 70 seats. The general polling at the time was around 40/27/18, a con maj of 58 on uniform swing. So it might help pull in 6 extra seats at this level of support.
A much large effect was the Lib Dems holding on to far more of their seats than the polls predicted. As many of these are Con targets, this effect help counter the other.
@ Statto
I am basing my analysis on the Tynemouth seat which needs a swing of just over 6 points. This would just give a majority to the Tories.
Based on a uniform swing this would require a lead of 9 points in the national opinion polls so on that basis you are right.
It all depends on how this swing be distributed on the night.
@Statto
Ipsos Mori out on Sunday in the Observer.
Anthony Wells
I was questioned for the MORI poll. Questions about swine flu and attitudes to the English NHS response. No voting intention question.
@Andrew Myers
From what I have learned on this site from my betters, the Tory lead in some regions is dramatic, south east as you might expect, and als the midlands equally strong. Further, it was claimed that in the north the big 2 were level pegging.
This must work out well for the Tories overall ?
@King Harold
You’ll find regional breakdowns in the full report here:
http://page.politicshome.com/documents/2009ElectoralIndex.pdf
The swings are dramatic in some regions, but point to only a slightly better position for the Tories than a uniform swing.
Indeed for me the tactical voting and personal vote was the most interesting section, suggesting the Lib Dems get up to a 10% boost in areas where the battle is with the Cons, hence why they are predicted to keep most of their seats despite a drop of around 5% in national polls.
oldnat – are you sure that was MORI? NOP did a poll on swine flu for the BBC, presumably about the same time.
Anthony Wells
I was sure till you asked! I might have been distracted by the very attractive voice of the Irish lady asking the questions
Oldnat,
is that one of the dangers of telephone polling, you’ll say anything to someone who sounds nice….
Peter.
Peter
I’m certainly much more likely to give up my time to talk to her!
Not many opportunities at my age. 
The parallels between Brown and the John Major of 1997 are amazing. Every single piece of news we see is somehow bad news for Brown. I really can’t see that changing and see no hope whatsoever for the Labour party in the coming election.
Of course Gordon Brown is no doubt hoping against hope that the parallel is between himself and the John Major of 1992 which in some ways (not PM by public vote) is closer. I seriously doubt that Cameron will be chancing his arm strolling on Brighton beach though so to my mind 1997 it is.
Statto:
With respect you’re getting confused between the Conservative lead and the swing to the Conservatives. The swing the Tories need is about 6%. That would be equal to a Conservative lead of 9%. The two are separate.
Only events on the night can tell us, but my view is that Andrew Myers is right.
The Conservatives performance in the marginal seats is even better than their national showing. The predicted swing in many of the marginals, particularly in the Midlands is enormous.
The last time i looked in depth at this it was predicted that although Labour were Neck and Neck in the North West, the Tories would take 17 seats in this region.
I believe a 6% lead would deliver a very small working majority for the Conservatives. Saying they need a 10-12% lead is stretching the truth. Sounds a bit like an article for The Mirror.
I still think that Mrs. Thatcher passing away before May would have a significant influence on the floating voter, a series of programmes on Thatcher’s Britain and then the funeral could very well focus the mind anti Tory vote and link Cameron with the party of Thatcher in a way that he has avoided thus far.
Interesting that Jon K has identified Mrs Thatcher’s death as a possible “game changer”. It’s something I have heard a few times in other comments pages.
My view is that her death would not likely change much. Yes, it might encourage a few more wavering Labour supporters to get to the booths, but I would have thought most of them would do so in safe Labour constituencies.
I can’t imagine that her death would scupper the Tories in the marginal seats (Midlands, Essex, Kent) that she herself was so successful at winning over 3 general elections.
What does everyone else think?
@Andy
I’m not confusing leads and swings. I was contesting Andrew’s assertion that a 6% lead would be enough to win outright (because of a bigger swing to Con in the marginals). The evidence suggests the marginals effect is fairly small for the Conservatives (though small may be important when things are close). Apologies if that wasn’t clear.
@Danny Boy
Sorry to repeat myself, but the Politics Home marginals poll took all these big regional swings into account, and came up with a majority of 70 (cf. 58 on a uniform swing). That doesn’t look like making 6% lead enough to me.
Of course, as an earlier post says, it depends where the swings happen on the night.
Statto,
Danny Boy’s point is that it doesn’t make a 10-12 point lead requisite either. On UNS a 9 point lead will do. And surely you must accept that the Conservatives are likely to do slightly better in marginals, even if you don’t think it will make a difference worth 3 points on their lead.
My guess is that a lead of 7 points would probably be sufficient, but I don’t think a 7 point lead on 5th May would leave the Conservatives feeling comfortable.
Matt,
I would go one further in saying that Jon K is writing more in hope than genuine understanding of the likely impact of Lady Thatcher dying.
In my view, such an event is unlikely to have any significant impact on current voting intentions. In terms of media coverage, it is wishful thinking to assume that this will remind people of wicked nasty Tories and make them turn away from Cameron.
Far more likely effects are to remind people:
a – it is more than 20 years since Mrs T left downing Street;
b – it is more than 30 years since she was first elected;
c – she was a very successful PM;
d – she took over from a Labour government which had left the country in a mess
Younger voters who have based their impression of Mrs T on post 1990 BBC coverage may suddenly find themselves reappraising their prejudices.
There is also likely to be some sympathy effect from older people who voted for Maggie in the 80s but switched to Blair after 1994.
Such voters stirred to “return” to the Conservative fold are likely to far outweigh any traffic in the other direction.
@Nick Keene – “One of the reasons I dislike listening to people like Alec rant on is the way they simply cannot conduct any sort of discussion without making snide remarks about the character of politicans they don’t happen to agree with.” Apart from being untrue in the case of the vast majority of my posts, I’m assuming you applied the same feelings to Colin’s original post I responded to regarding his comments about Brown?
In terms of poll impacts, I can’t see Thatcher’s death having any great impact one way or the other, but I think it’s also a little unseemly to discuss how an ex PMs death might affect the polls while they are still living. I think AW’s analysis is probably right, although the budget could be an opportunity to spring some surprises. There isn’t new money to spend, but there are plenty of redistributive measures such as NI and pension relief that could be used to effectively offer a tax neutral tax cut to a large swathe of middle/low earners should Darling want to be radical as a last throw of the dice.
Jon K – party of Thatcher is nothing on party of Blair and Brown.
re “The end of the recession”
There is something very odd going on in UK.
The Experian report to market contains some striking comments about UK banks:-
“Don Robert, chief executive of Experian, said clients 9 banks) in the US and on the continent are recovering but those in the UK remain “more challenged than in any other market”. “The most troubling part is that I’m not convinced defaults have yet peaked,” he added. “None of the UK banks are even thinking about growth. They are playing a very defensive game.
That contrasts with the US, he said, where “the ‘open for business’ signs are out in a cautious way”, and Europe, which is “showing signs of life”. ”
The inference is that UK banks have had-& continue to have much weaker Balance Sheets than thelr counterparts in US/EU.
Given that many of these UK banks are now supported by massive state funding, that suggests that the UK economy is still waiting for the UK banking sector to recapitalise , before any of these funds start feeding into credit & consumption.
Our Banks must have got into a truly horrendous state & this must be adversly influencing the shape of our trajectory out of recession .
@ Mark
Interesting points about 1992 and 1997.
I have myself feared a 1992 scenario however if you look back at the opinion polls in the run up to that election (available on this site) you will note that it was a much closer contest with the parties flirting either side of level pegging for most of the 6 months. The Tories were even ahead for a while in early 92. There wasn’t a long term 14 point Labour lead back then. So I’m a little surprised why Kinnock was getting so excited!
In 1997 I don’t think John Major was dispised as much as Brown is today – although I am probably a little biased I do think that Brown’s contempt for the electorate and arrogant assertion that the PM’s job is his god-given right is a contrast to John Major who was seen as down-to-earth and innoffensive. However, and it is a big however I just don’t get the feeling that David Cameron is anywhere as near as Tony Blair was back then. So I would be very surprised if we saw a 179 seat Tory majority this time. Also the LDs are stronger now than in 97.
My guess from here is that we could see the polls widen in the Tories’ favour but as likely they will narrow a little maybe into the 6-12 point range averaging at around 10 which will cause much media talk of hung parliaments etc. I’m also guessing that the public will not be taken in by the inevitable muck throwing and smearing that the Mandelson spin factory will produce and that on the night we will see a robust but not spectacular Tory majority. I was thinking 53 seats but my gut feel now is for a slightly higer 68.
This situation I speculate will be closer to 1979 than 1992 or 1997.
Oops somehow missed out “as popular as” in the Cameron/Blair sentence above.
I think oil prices could be the final undoing of Brown.They,re rising and remember the last time they did that Labour slumped.
@Andrew
I agree – this is no 1992 (a much wider gap today, even allowing for the bias in the system), but no 1997 either (Labour were far ahead throughout almost all of the 92-97 parliament, and unlike Cameron, Blair really had “sealed the deal”). It’s somewhere in-between – which is what makes it so interesting
@D Bliss – I know I suggested Labour fortunes were inverse related to the price of petrol a while back, but it was meant to be tongue in cheek!
D Bliss – you may have hit on something. During the fuel protests in 2000 Tony Blair suffered his only period of being behind in the polls during his first parliament. I genuinely do think the price of petrol makes a difference – it affects everybody (including non-motorists as it affects food prices), and everybody knows most of it is tax, so even when its rise is not tax related, it makes the government unpopular.
Also, let us not forget there will be a VAT increase on 1 January, affectting just about every area of people’s lives – including a fairly significant effect on petrol prices, which will jump by about 3p/litre overnight.
Is it a VAT increase when it returns to what it ought to be? And who really notices when it goes up the 2 1/2% on normal goods–I always thought it was a pointless shift.
And the public recognises the need to raise taxes, so I don’t think anyone will alter votes on this. 200 in a boom time has nothing to do with now recession time…
2000 – sorry !
One of unknowns has just become known:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6609018/MPs-expenses-David-Curry-quits-as-standards-chief-over-new-Telegraph-disclosures.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Looks like expenses has some way to run yet…
How did he slip through Cameron’s thorough review of all Tory expenses???
I don’t mean people will directly think “Oh, VAT has gone up – bad – don’t vote Labour”. The point I was making is that the VAT rise will make a discernable difference to the price certain items – most notably petrol. This could very easily have a detrimental impact on government polling figures – or at least firm up existing anti-Labour feeling.
I wonder what, if any, will be the effect of Harriet Harperson being prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, and for using a mobile phone whilst driving.
I would like to pose a question apropos the %age needed by the cons to win outright.
My view has been and is that the cons will perform better in the marginals (even more than the politics home poll) due to a heightened awareness and hence zeal to get rid of the Government, tactical voting, party machine and activist focus etc.
As such I have felt for some time that 6% would secure a small majority and 7-8% a satisfactory working majority – beyond that decent, good and land-slide…
My only reservation is that I believe the improved performance in marginals is exponential and reduces as the lead gets smaller.
For the gap to be reduced to 6% there would have to be a significant change in general sentiment toward the Government and/or the cons. As such tactical voting, activist morale, etc will be different..
FWIW I’m in the ‘79 camp a decent working majority but no land-slide. Only difference opposition seats more divided as LDs and Nats doing better.Labour would take 38-32-20 now, or should do.
@Neil
According to Sky, fuel’s next move is down in price:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Crude-Oil-Price-Falls-Below-60-Dollars-Per-Barrel-Offering-Hope-Of-Lower-Petrol-Prices-For-Motorists/Article/200907215335398?lpos=Business_First_Buisness_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15335398_Crude_Oil_Price_Falls_Below_60_Dollars_Per_Barrel_Offering_Hope_Of_Lower_Petrol_Prices_For_Motorists
@Andrew Myers – I would agree with your view of Brown vs Major in the public estimation. The problem Major had was less personal contempt but a much greater sense of party disunity – there had been open civil war within Tory ranks for years, much worse than Labour’s experience now (which says something). It was a cumulative build up of disgust at the party, with the sense that the leader wasn’t up to it, rather then being someone to despise. In a way this might make Labour’s job in opposition easier, as the decontamination process could be made more straightforward by a leadership change.
@D Bliss – I suspect oil prices will not be the undoing of Brown – he’ll likely be gone before we see the full set of fireworks. Rather it will be the undoing of all of us. In the last global downturn in 2000 – 2001 oil hit $20. This was a full blown recession and huge financial shock yet oil is trading at $80 or so. There simply isn’t enough oil out there, and even the oil industry now appears to accept we’ve past ‘peak oil’ some time in 2008. Start worrying, whoever wins in 2010.
The reason Cameron cannot secure a 150+ seat majority is Tony Blair. This country placed every hope it had on red in 1997 and it came up black.
The fresh faced centrist leader (even if we like him) will from now on be treated with caution.
As for Brown, he remains a sitting duck. And i feel a few commentors on these pages seriously under-estimate his unpopularity. To every voter i speak to (and i live in a seat which tends to be won by the party who forms government) he is a figure of embarassment. A dithering buffoon. He appeals no more to voters in crucial marginal seats than Margaret Thatcher would to Central Glasgow, and i just don’t see it changing.
A Tory majority of 60 or so seems likely, but i wouldn’t rule out a figure a little higher.
Alec
” – they just haven’t been caught with their trousers down yet”.
What with all the comments on this thread being due to Conservative Swingers, and the reputation of past Conservative governments there would seem to be plenty of opportunity for that but the voters arn’t going to take sex scandals as seriously as they did in the days of John Profumo.
Jon
Plans for a state funeral for Margaret Thatcher agreed by a Labour government were made public during the Glasgow East bye-election.
That event will be no game changer to the disadvantage of Scottish Conservatives so far as this election is concerned as they are down to their core vote already, but realists among them will breathe a sigh of relief that they can at last move on and begin to rebuild the party in Scotland.
Nor will it work to the advantage of Labour, since any Left-leaning legislation they can claim credit for has perhaps unfairly, been overshadowed by Conservative policies which they have adopted, and because they have authorised it.
Without it, I don’t expect the SNP to win more than half their target 20 seats, but if the TV retrospective of the Thatcher years is extensive enough then my guess is that it is worth two or perhaps three further seats to the SNP.
@ D Bliss
A good fuel strike in early April with the country coming close to collapse and Brown bimbling around having little idea what to do would surely be a very early Christmas present for Mr Cameron!
I too think the VAT increase will make the government even more unpopular. Raising taxes in the middle of a recession! Isn’t that what they accused the Tories of wanting to do?
I actually agree with Jack on this one, as the reduction was always intended to be temporary, but think of when the 10% tax rate was abolished. This had been pre-announced at least 6 months beforehand, yet still caused uproar when it happened (unfairly in my view).
I also agree with Paul H-J. If any comparison of the modern Tories with Mrs Thatcher is made; while it will enrage the hard left who wouldn’t vote Tory anyway, it might remind people that she successfully dug us out of the hole we were left in by the last Labour government and won 3 elections, however much she was hated by a minority.
Danny Boy
“He appeals no more to voters in crucial marginal seats than Margaret Thatcher would to Central Glasgow”
While I agree that being “Heir to Blair” is a big disadvantage that’s beyond my capacity to imagine it.
Some of the posts above are really interesting.
May I pose a question. What do you think would be the effect on the GE if Brown had to step down at Xmas and we had a new PM in the NY?
Thanks Al
@ AL J – “May I pose a question. What do you think would be the effect on the GE if Brown had to step down at Xmas and we had a new PM in the NY?”
But who would it be? Personally I can’t think of a single likely candidate in the Labour government who has sufficient popularity, ability and gravitas to make a significant difference. The chief credential of the best on offer seems to be simply that they are “not Gordon Brown” and I don’t think that’s enough to change Labour’s fortunes around. It might save the party a few seats but I doubt it would be anywhere near sufficient to challenge Tory dominance.
Danny Boy
Tony Blair received 43.2% in 1997, and so it is quite possible that David C will match this. Labour may even match the Tory 30.7%.
If this occurs it will not be such a landslide as occurred in 1997 because of the boundaries.
If Milliband took over now I’d think he’d turn a near landslide to being just a serious defeat, not least being that he is much smoother and media savvy than Brown. It would then provide him with a much stronger number base for 5 years time. If he waits and the possible landslide occurs it may take 2 elections to win.
Pete B
‘I also agree with Paul H-J. If any comparison of the modern Tories with Mrs Thatcher is made; while it will enrage the hard left who wouldn’t vote Tory anyway, it might remind people that she successfully dug us out of the hole we were left in by the last Labour government and won 3 elections, however much she was hated by a minority.’
Mind you finally her own party threw her out; just like Blair. Sorry, far too many people are now young enough to say ‘who’?; Thatcher is now past history for most of the electorate and the preceding Labour Govt is even more so.
The battles of the past are irrelevant; parties reshape over time. The right-wing New Labour is certainly nothing like old Labour–equally the current Tories would recoil (I hope) from Thatcher’s slash and burn policies (shall we go back to schools with leaking roofs and school meals with no nutritional values, for example…?)
With regard to rising oil prices:
http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/news
This will be significant if the rise in price also coincides with the VAT rate going back up.
Why don’t the polls reflect the fact that democracy has been eroded in the UK over the last 18 months? Does 25% or so of the population really not care that we have an unelected PM / deputy PM and we have been forced to accept the Lisbon treaty which has had ludicrous results? Do so many Brits not care?
Anthony,
Have you news of any polls coming out this weekend ?
Thanks
Wayne. Ipsos-Mori in the Observer apparently. Fieldwork last weekend,so rather out-of-date, probably couldn’t sell it – IM do not have many regulars.
Can anyone tell us why VIPA is attracting no attention whatever, even from Mike Smithson? Has it already been discredited? Surprised the Conservatives have not latched on to it. Too good to be true perhaps -”mustn’t be complacent”.
RC
Yes. and a good many LibDems (and middle-of the road Tories) don’t care either, and don’t see the “ludicrous results” that you see.
Even worse for UKIP’s polling position would be if/when we find out the effects of excluding our workers from the rights to m/paternity leave, the right to refuse to work all the hours requested by employers, and all those other pesky beaurocratic bars to wealth-creation
A totally unscientific comment from an old codger. I have voted in every election since 1959. The run-up to this election feels more like 1979 than any other, the desire to change the Government is widespread – but there is unease at what might follow. So I expect Cameron to win, not with a landslide but with a good working majority: 40 to 50. Incidentally, I have argued, down the local mainly, that 1997 was an aberration; the only GE that was, in reality, a pure Presidential election.
I believe the Tories need a 9% lead for an overall majority – and 8% to form a minority Tory Government.
To become the largest party in a Hung Parliament I suspect a Tory lead of 5-6% is required.
One known unknown not mentioned by AW was whether Blair would become Presdient of the EU, and would this effect Con / UKIP support.
Well, while Blair’s hopes had clearly faded a couple of weeks back, we do now know not just that he is not the EU President, but also that that post has gone to a low-profile Belgian. More interestingly, the wife of one of YouGov’s resident commentators is now the EU Foreign Secretary.
I suspect that having Herman van Rompuy as President will have brought a sigh of relief to Cameron. While there may be some grumbles about the UK being “ruled” by a Belgian, it could have been a lot worse. Net effect is that any slippage to UKIP will be minor, and maybe even temporary. The chances are that not just the name but also the existence of the “EU President” will have been forgotten by May.
Lady Ashton on the other hand is a rum choice. Was this a consolation prize ? Was it supposed to be Milliband, but that got blocked by Brown on the grounds he can’t afford another by-election in England ? Or did Milliband pass up the post in the hope of becoming leader of the opposition next year ?
Let us not forget that Lady Ashton only comes into the frame by virtue of having been substituted onto the Commission when Brown parachuted Mandy back into the cabinet.
There is a real prospect that Brown’s “success” in having a Brit in this senior role will backfire on Labour as yet another example of Brown’s cavalier disregard for constitutional and democratic niceties.
@Paul HJ
Paul, I agree that this episode brings a bit of relief for Cameron and probable trouble for Brown. Once again he flys in the face of his critics, and an unelected woman no one has ever heard of
joins the gravy train. Where his reputation for political nous came from God only knows.
I can’t see any of the EU “Lisbon” appointments registering with the average voter at all.
The three appointees are all unknowns-even the British one.
For people interested in EU matters, the outcome of the whole charade might emphasise the determination of the all powerful Franco-German axis not to see their pervading influence inhibited by the holders of these new posts.
And with a raving Federalist as President, Eurosceptics will merely shake their heads knowingly.
It won’t effect the UK GE one jot though.
In the Times today, Sam Lister gives an interesting analysis of Brown’s latest rabbit out of a hat-the QS Social Care proposals.
He concludes that it’s flaws, and the concerted & widespread disagreement with it in Lords, Commons , Charities & care providers could ” not only sink the Bill, but could yet help sink a government ”
So-another Known Unknown?
And today also the intriguing revelations emanating from the hacking at the Hadley Climate Research Unit-if genuine-suggest some quite disturbing , partial & unscientific behaviour from “climate change scientists”.
That could have serious global political ramifications if the story runs.
Rumsfeld’s Unknown Unknowns should never be discounted.
RC,
” we have an unelected PM / deputy PM and we have been forced to accept the Lisbon treaty which has had ludicrous results? ”
I think you’ll find that we don’t actually elect PM’s in this country.
We elect 650 or so individuals who then form a government along party lines. The post then goes to the leader of the party that forms the government.
If you want a US style president that is fine, but don’t pretend that Brown becoming PM mid term, like Major did, is anything other than how the system has always worked.
As to Lisbon as with Maastricht, the elected government of the day negotiated and ratified the treaty just like any other and that again is how our system has always worked.
Again you might not like the result and prefer a different system but that isn’t the same as us being forced into anything.
Peter.
@ Cllr. Peter – “I think you’ll find that we don’t actually elect PM’s in this country.”
True, but it’s a flaw in our system given that leaders clearly ARE important both to the public and in terms of the extra powers a PM has. So while Brown’s undemocratic elevation to the premiership without even so much as a leadership contest is certainly legal at present, it doesn’t therefore follow that we shouldn’t object to it. Those of us who dislike how the situation was handled should object very loudly indeed, with the aim of getting the rules changed so that it can’t happen again. At the very least, a proper leadership contest should be compulsory.
James,
I have to agree with Peter on this one.
Brown may not be popular, but there is nothing flawed about his appointment as PM. Indeed, one could argue that he enjoys more democratic legitimacy than either John Major pre 1992 or Callaghan ever did since it was generally assumed in 2005 that he would take over when Blair “retired”, the main question being when not if.
That Brown has not been a great PM is quite separate from the manner of his arrival.
I have never subscribed to the “unelected PM” theory. Indeed, I believe that this only really gained credence when Brown appeared to favour an early election then bottled it. Had he never toyed so dangerously with the idea in the summer of 2007, I doubt we would be hearing much about the lack of any leadership election, since that is essentially an internal Labour matter.
Indeed. The PM’s ability to use the Royal Prerogative means that he actually has more power in some areas than many Heads of State who usually have to consult their parliaments on such matters as declaring war (though I believe the rule on that particular prerogative may have changed recently).
@Colin – “And today also the intriguing revelations emanating from the hacking at the Hadley Climate Research Unit-if genuine-suggest some quite disturbing , partial & unscientific behaviour from “climate change scientists”.
That could have serious global political ramifications if the story runs. ”
I would be very surprised if this story amounted to anything more serious than an attempt by extremely well funded climate change skeptics to cause trouble. I could be wrong, but I know many individual scientists working in the climatology field, and they are all aghast at the data they are finding and all of them fervently hope they are wrong. This story suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific research works and has all the hallmarks of a pre Copenhagen smear against a highly respected research institution. It’s interesting that it was first posted via a Russian server – home of some of the biggest gas reserves and greatest internet crooks, but maybe that’s me being a touch too quick to jump to conclusions.
Interesting. While these could all provide a boost for the government, with the exception of the end of the recession, they could just as easily affect Labour in a negative way. Changing leader would be an enormous risk, especially if they didn’t get it absolutely right. On top of that, I suspect we’re a bit too close to an election now for electors not to feel that a move at this late stage would be anything other than entirely cynical. It could backfire.
Even the end of the recession could go wrong. If Brown hangs on until the last minute before calling an election, there is a chance that the next quarter’s figures would show the economy dipping back into negative territory again, and that would not play well. If the recession ends, might we be more likely to see an early election?
@ Paul – you’re wrong. If you recall, in the run-up to the general election for Labour’s third term, Blair unequivocally stated that he would serve a full third term in office. I won’t put a link in this comment because it takes an eternity to be approved but if you Google “Blair vows to serve full third term” it will take you to a Times article and various others reporting this.
It’s funny how people have forgotten this little detail – I’ve encountered the same amnesia a number of times. But the fact is that Labour was re-elected to a third term in office under those terms, certainly not on the assumption that Brown would take over midterm.
James Ludlow
You are technically correct – though did anyone believe it?
The standard response that I remember was the Scots phrase “Aye, right” (I don’t think anyone else uses the double positive negative – but I’m open to correction).
@ OldNat – it doesn’t really matter how many “believed” it. That was the platform on which Labour went into and won a general election for a third term – a clearly stated promise that certainly did not say Brown would be arriving on a No.9 bus at midterm.
JAMES LUDLOW,
“a clearly stated promise that certainly did not say Brown would be arriving on a No.9 bus at midterm”
If we had elections or referendum every time a Party did something it hadn’t promised or broke a promise it had made…. they would be weekly…..
Peter.
James,
As noted by OldNat, yes, that was the public position, but most people understood that Brown would follow Blair. As I commented, the question was not “if” but “when” Brown would become PM.
One could argue that the public expected Blair to last more than two years, but equally, had he fallen under the proverbial bus or resigned for some reason other than that he could no longer stand Brown’s plotting, no one would have been surprised that Brown took the helm.
Where the “unelected” tag became more powerful was that Brown ruthlessly suppressed any challenge even though it was clear that he would have won anyway, and then followed it up by shelving his election plans when private polling indicated that a victory, while likely, could not be assumed. It is Brown’s aversion to risk the outcome of a vote which has tarred Brown, not any subornment of protocol.
BBC East has a story of oil tankers moored off Southwold waiting for oil prices to go up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3714218.stm
David Davis was ahead of the game, although he did consider Brown to be a “socialist”, which, it transpires, was wholly wrong.
@ Paul – it doesn’t matter what you think most people “expected”. The official Labour Party position was quite clear – that Blair would serve a full third term. This fact makes a nonsense of your claim that Brown somehow had more of a mandate than Major (who at least won a leadership contest).
Any way you choose to cut it, the situation is that no one (not even Labour MPs or members) outside Brown’s own constituency has ever had a chance to vote for or against the man and yet here he is, holding the highest electoral office in the country. I appreciate that this is legal but that doesn’t make it meaningfully democratic.
I had the sorry experience of trying to explain all this to a highly politicised, pro-democracy Nigerian chap a few months ago. He wasn’t at all impressed and my efforts to make it sound like a reasonable democratic circumstance (and I did try – I was feeling a bit defensive about dear old Blighty) met with incredulity.
If I see him again, I think I’ll just pass him on to you
But I do agree with you that Brown’s evasions both a leadership contest and then a general election – both of which he’d probably have won – transformed an otherwise acceptable process into something that looked like a bloodless, constitutional coup. But now this has happened, the loopholes that made it possible should be tightened. I can’t think of any good reason why a proper leadership contest should not be obligatory except in a time of national emergency.
@ Cllr Peter – a premiership seems just a tad more significant than reneging the usual manifesto spiel. And I don’t recall saying that we should have had a referendum on Brown (fun though it would be to have one right now).
James Ludlow
Worth bearing in mind that many of us have been criticising the idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty (the origin of your PM problem and supported by all the UK parties) for a very long time.
You guys are Johnny-come-latelys.
Brown was nominated by 85% of MPs so no Election was necessary under the LP rules.
As such he was Elected as he was the only candidate.
Clarke, Byers et al were too risk averse to suffering the embarassment of failing to get enough nominations or if they scraped them getting trounced.
JAMES LUDLOW,
“a premiership seems just a tad more significant than reneging the usual manifesto spiel.”
Only if you believe that the leader should decide everything and all the rest should just be yes people who do as they are told.
I for one like cabinet government and the more talent and debate within it the better.
Peter.
Danny Finkelstein’s article was a particularly good one.
I am currently attending a course for the long-term unemployed (most of who do not have the financial capital I do, it’s a real eye opener), a number of whose delegates come from Labour marginals, including one Labour ought to aspire to keep even if the most marginal seats are beyond hope next year. Danny Finkelstein is right. There is no discussion about politics. Certainly nobody noticed the Queens’s Speech. One exception to the political apathy, a reference to discrimination against the English (everybody there is “white”).
One thing Labour could therefore do to minimise their losses. No more All Women Shortlists before the next election. And come to that no “positive discrimination” by the Tories. I say this simply as a psephological observation.
With respect to the economy. “Quantitative easing” has consisted of money going to the banks, and in turn into investments. The stock market has gone up 25% since the crisis a year ago. And it yo-yos so that “insiders” (did anybody else listen to the recent Radio 4 programme about automatic dealing by computers by which shares are bought and sold again in tiny fractions of a second? – it was horrifying) make money at the expense of small and traditional investors. On the other hand, unemployment has gone up and there has been little investment to diversify the UK from its dependence on London, and particularly Edinburgh, banks and finance (the two clearing banks are the two with Edinburgh roots. I don’t think, though, that the bailout totally represents favouritism by the Edinburgh MP Chancellor, the sums are too large for cynical calculations like enabling he Scottish Parliament to have enough money to pay students’ fees). Initiatives to support manufacturing industry have been at best token. Few people have had a pay rise, interest rates for ordinary investors are negligible and pensions schemes are still being closed.
In short, economic recovery is not reaching ordinary people. So it won’t help Labour. Except that people in Scotland clearly benefit from better policies, funded by Westminster Labour if agreed by Edinburgh, than people in England and Wales. It is no surprise that the clear swing against Labour in England and Wales does not extend to Scotland.
Labour cannot do anything through a budget. They haven’t the money. They are already incurring huge debts to postpone financial pain until after the election.
Finally, people have at last tumbled to the difficulties Brown has because of his long-standing visual problems. It is an incorrigible statement, but from my Psychology education I have thought for years that Brown has had problems from this, both physically and very possibly emotionally. And, unfairly for Brown, I suspect one problem is that his eyesight interferes with his non-verbal communication, including television presentation. In a way, Blunkett’s presentation problems being blind (but remember the difficulties he used to have controlling his eye movements – I don’t know what he has done about this, but he has done something) were less of a political handicap because we all realise them. We do criticise Brown’s presentation, of course, but I suspect we largely fail to realise why. All this is sad and unfair to Brown, but it does help explain why one suspects that Cameron will, has some huge gaffe, “win” televised debates. Of course Brown is so far behind that he needs to hope that Cameron will slip up.
It would be fascinating to be a “fly on the wall” when any debates between Brown and Cameron are organised to know what stipulations the campaign managers place as to where Brown in particular is positioned and what camera shots will be used. With one good and one blind eye, the angles used will be particularly critical for Brown, and could make a big difference to subsequent voting.
Finally, I suspect Thatcher’s death, and I hope it doesn’t happen before May, would be a political standoff. it might encourage some people to vote Conservative, but on the other hand plenty of people remember the unemployment and economic gloom of the 1980s, and Thatcher’s death might concentrate their minds on Tory past enough to return them to Labour (or at least a minor party). Incidentally, what would happen about Mark Thatcher in relation to the funeral, given that he is at present keeping out of the United Kingdom?
@ Peter,
If we had elections or referendum every time a Party did something it hadn’t promised or broke a promise it had made…. they would be weekly…..
That is a very suprising attitude, essentially saying that politicians can lie as par for the course just to get elected.
The current government had no mandate to sign the EU constitution without referendum, nor build up an almost unfundable £200bn deficit for no better reason than to try and get elected again. No mandate for the scorched earth policy they are operating that my generation (I’m 28) and the next generation will have to pay for their whole lives. No; they have their own wealth and pensions and will be perfectly okay.
Clearly we need a constitution where mandate must be followed or a politician has to face a challenge and re-election.
‘Clearly we need a constitution where mandate must be followed or a politician has to face a challenge and re-election.’
A constitution would be nice in any form. Mind you, the only one that offers us any hope against the police state both parties want is that offered by the EU.
‘The current government had no mandate to sign the EU constitution without referendum’ Farcical comment–does a party have to mention things in its mandate for everything which will happen in its future term of power? NO.
Parties are also elected to lead. Who cares about Lisbon? Only petty right wing tories / UKIP / BNP members–is there a difference between these groups? Well, no– they all think in a world of global capitalism / global terrorism / global environment issues / global justice issues etc that solely national government is the answer. Oh grow up–the empire is dead. There is a place for National / regional and international laws.
Brown being “unelected” is a non-issue constitutionally, but I don’t think its entirely reasonable to compare it to Major’s succession from Thatcher. Major was a loyal footsoldier to Thatch, and was in no way agitating for her removal. He took his opportunity when it arose; with dignity and character (but perhaps without charisma).
Brown always wanted to replace Blair. He agitated constantly, undermined and obstructed his old “friend” and then seized the throne with more gusto than MacBeth. He was perfectly constitutionally entitled to do that. It doesn’t mean that the electorate have to like it.
Mike R,
“The current government had no mandate to sign the EU constitution without referendum, nor build up an almost unfundable £200bn deficit for no better reason than to try and get elected again. No mandate for the scorched earth policy they are operating that my generation (I’m 28) and the next generation will have to pay for their whole lives. ”
Actually I think you’ll find they do.
What they legally signed within their powers is not the original EU constitution and even if it was as the democratically elected government having debated it in parliament with due regard o the law they were perfectly entitled too.
You may not like that and you might dislike politicians who ignore or even reverse what was in their election manifestos, but governments aren’t bound by party policy or election manifestos.
There is nothing to say that a government that decides to drop or amend a party policy can’t do so. If the public don’t like it they get to vote them out at the next election.
As to miss managing the economy or playing politics with the economy, well all governments do it.
Unless you are proposing some kind of electoeconomic golden rule where the government has to call a general election if the deficit rises above 50% I am afraid all you can do is rant about it.
I don’t particularly like this government or Browns economic performance but I don’t see it as a basis for rewriting the constitution.
Peter.
Peter.
Peter:
Do you need reminding of what happened in 1920/30’s Germany? Although most voters of the relevant elections will have now passed on, I doubt many would have been in favour of the events that followed the elections of the time. Would an equivalent of this argument really wash…
“What they legally signed within their powers is not the original EU constitution and even if it was as the democratically elected government having debated it in parliament with due regard o the law they were perfectly entitled too.” I changed no words, as it may have seemed offensive. I simply want to make a point about ‘legality’ of elected officials and what they can do.
Before immediately jumping on this comment, I do vote ‘Tory’, however many of my views are quite liberal – “help those who require it and let everyone else live free, with respect for others” would (roughly) sum my view up.
Jack,
“Only petty right wing tories / UKIP / BNP members–is there a difference between these groups?”
Seriously; grow up.
Mike R
I’m not sure what you want to happen with the uncodified UK constitution. As it stands, the UK Parliament can do whatever it likes (by rescinding any previous legislation that pretends to constrict it).
That situation would allow a Nazi style government to take legal control (which obviously neither of us would want to allow).
What are you proposing?
Old Nat,
I’m afraid I am ignorant in ‘how’, though perhaps an elected upper house, done correctly, might be the answer. I would want strong government ‘within boundaries’. A constitution that is put to the vote and can only be changed by a majority in referendum??
I just can’t, and would never, accept “they were elected, so whatever they do is okay” as ethical. That was the reason for my ‘rant’. Democracy is to valuable to lose.
Mike R
I can understand that the constitution has never been an issue in English politics before – all of your parties believe that sovereignty lies in Parliament as opposed to the people. I agree that democracy is too important to lose, but in many respects the UK doesn’t have it.
I understand the rant – what I don’t understand is how you (not you personally!) haven’t challenged the politicians usurpation of your rights before!
The constitution matters! It’s what protects the citizens from the politicians.
Fascinating thread (presumably AW has given up policing this one) although nothing to do with polls.
@Oldnat – “As it stands, the UK Parliament can do whatever it likes..” I think you will find it can’t – the European legal system would overule illegal acts of Parliament. This is a central complaint of anti EU campaigners, but although it might mean we have to accept interference in areas we don’t like, it also gives us a strong measure of protection, and not just within our own borders. With 27 nations now covered, it would be much harder for Facism or similarly nasty ideologies to take hold in Europe. Pro or anti EU, we have to accept that in historical terms this is a real achievement, and along with the longest unbroken period of peace in European history and the complete end of the historic UK/French and French/German emnities is something we should all be grateful for.
Another interesting angle on the constitutional debate is the role of direct action. No constitutional settlement can give 100% guaranteed protection against governments determined to subvert legality. The UK has a long and proud tradition of resistance – historically we have been some of the best demonstrators and rioters in the world. There comes a point when you have to leave constitutional niceties behind and hit the streets. The trouble is, that point, and the issues behind it, are different for different people, which is why we have constitutions…..
@Cllr Peter – “Only if you believe that the leader should decide everything and all the rest should just be yes people who do as they are told.”
What an odd comment. It’s not a matter of what one “believes”. The fact is that the premier has powers over and above those of other MPS, including ministers (who he of course can appoint or sack as he sees fit, thereby shaping the entire government and exerting considerable power over it). This reality doesn’t magically disappear if one refuses to “believe” in it.
Just a recap on the political fallout should Baroness Thatcher
depart this mortal coil before the GE. I think if she thought her passing would produce one additional Labour vote, she just would’nt go. When David Cameron is inside number 10, she will “simply fly away”.
On a different tack, judging by the photograph of Cameron and Brown taken at the Queens speech, Brown is looking pretty damned ill himself.
MIKE R,
“Do you need reminding of what happened in 1920/30’s Germany? ”
Are you really suggesting that 80 years on we should bring in legislation on the succession of PM’s because of what happened in another country in another century.
I suspect if you selectively trawl through history you can find a case to challenge the legitimacy of pretty much any political system.
Oh look Hitler got elected, we must put an end to those dangerous democratic mandates……
As to your comments to oldnat, what about a single chamber elected by PR, it works well up here.
Its odd that as a Tory you don’t like how Brown got his job and how he is using his power and want change to deal with it, but the potential solution;
An elected House of Lords,
a PR parliament,
and the EU challenging a UK government
are all things the Tories aren’t that keen on.
Maybe you should nudge left a bit and join the LibDems.
JAMES LUDLOW,
“The fact is that the premier has powers over and above those of other MPS.”
If that was really true Maggie would have gone on and on…
She could just have fired them all and got a dozen new stooges.
But of course in the real world a PM can only rule with the support of their cabinet and only then if they and that cabinet have the support of the Party.
Beyond that i think you could also argue that at another level the government and the Labour party have become limited in what they can attempt or achieve as they have lost the confidence of the people.
As their popularity has declined so has their authority and they are now in government but not in power.
In that respect I think it is to an extent about what we “believe”.
In part this general discussion has been about rules to curtail the powers of a PM or government but for me the real limits are less about the letter of the law and more about the heart.
Ultimately what determines things in system like ours is as much what the public and the body politic think of an action as to the actual legalities of it.
The 10p income tax change was perfectly legal but politically untenable, as was Thatcher’s position after she won the leadership contest and made her famous doorstep speech to continue.
Peter.
The formal end to the recession will -barring some dramatic changes next week to the figures from the last quarter- almost certainly occur in mid January. Not even Alec would dispute that.
What impact will they have if the opposition parties and the media hammer home the fact that the UK was the last major economy to register growth? Not much I suspect. Only when the feelgood factor starts to return will antipathy towards the government begin to slacken off.
Surely only getting rid of Brown will significantly improve Labour’s prospects. To my mind this needs to be done by Christmas and is still possible if 2 or 3 cabinet big guns get their act together behind a leading player but where is Brutus? Who will wield the knife?
Frederic Stansfields post displays a similar experience to my own when listening to the non chattering class’es. The common thread is immigration,(against) often from British born people of African stock as well as whites.
The general tone re our recent leaders is as follows;
Thatcher, tough bitch very strong for Britain.
Major, nice but weak.
Blair, a spiv but very clever, you knew he would not get outsmarted.
Brown, hopeless lump.
It is hardly scientific, but it is why I tend to believe the forecasts which denegrate Labours chances at the polls.
With regards to the end of the recession being one of the known unknowns, i can’t see it making much difference.
The vast majority of the electorate do not take the same level of interest in politics as the people who write on these pages and many of them take simplistic views on issues such as national and global financial slow-downs.
A very large number of them see this government at least partly responsible for the recession. So expecting them to listen to Gordon Brown’s insistence that Labour are the party best placed to steer us out of the recession is a bit like asking the person who robbed your house to come back and fit your security locks.
Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty and a friend of Ashton, said: “Cathy was vice-chair of CND. She was subject to intrusive surveillance by MI5 during the 1970s”.
Combined with Brown’s decision to take the foreign minister role rather than a potentially more important economic policy role (at least for the UK).
Wonder what impact this is going to have on the polls?
@ Cllr Peter – I wonder if we live on the same planet. Did you perhaps miss how New Labour altered the processes by which it selects its leaders, with the result that today it’s substantially more difficult for the Labour Party to oust a leader than it is for the Tories? Google is your friend here – look it up. This situation also needs to be looked at – there seems no good reason why basic party structures and processes shouldn’t be subject to the same sets of rules.
The premier has more powers than ordinary MPs and ministers. This is simply a fact. It’s not my opinion. Those powers include appointments to the Cabinet and dismissals from the Cabinet. These are simply facts. They are not opinions. A PM – like Thatcher – can be ousted, certainly, but only where they lose so much support that it is beyond the limits of their extra powers to overcome it.
JAMES LUDLOW,
” New Labour altered the processes by which it selects its leaders, with the result that today it’s substantially more difficult for the Labour Party to oust a leader than it is for the Tories?”
How a party chooses its leaders is an internal matter. If the public have a big enough issue with it they won’t vote for them.
Your alternative seems to be that the next party in Government legislating on how other parties be allowed to choose their leaders.
I’d love to see the posts we would get here if Brown had included legislation on how to pick the Tory leader in his Queens speech.
” A PM – like Thatcher – can be ousted, certainly, but only where they lose so much support that it is beyond the limits of their extra powers to overcome it.”
Thats my point ,even if not formalised the system places limits on what a PM can do, so the issue of Browns poor performance and him becoming PM just isn’t a big issue.
You need to seprate his performance from his position.
If Brown had turned out to be a good PM no one would give a monkeys how he got there, except maybe die hard tories who wanted to throw any mud they could find.
I seem to remember a certain Winston Churchill becoming PM in 1940 without an election, maybe that should never have been allowed.
As i’ve said before i don’t support Labour and I don’t rate Brown, but neither makes me thing we should be altering the constitution because of them.
Peter.
CLLR CAIRNS
I dont remember WLS Churchill becoming PM in May 1940. However, I am aware that it happened and happened as you say without an election. Further, he was not at that time even leader of the Conservative Party.
@ Cllr Peter – you seem very resistant to any revisions being made to our political system. Rather odd for a representative of a party dedicated to Scottish independence.
There are various ways in which such changes might be made, and while they would need to be instigated by the government of the day, they can be placed in the hands of a review body of some sort. The Electoral Commission, perhaps. And they don’t necessarily have to address how leaders are replaced when a party is not in government. It is, specifically, a change of PM that presents a particular issue. Clearly as the constitution currently exists, it leaves a gaping loophole that has allowed the Labour government to observe the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law.
btw, Brown’s “poor performance” is very much the issue. It’s precisely his unsuitedness for his job combined with his stubborn insistence on hanging on until the last moment which demonstrates why the current system can be very problematic. I really do not see why the public should have to endure two years of terrible governance by a man they did not elect to his office just so for want of some tightening up of the rules. It’s too late to alter the reality of Brown’s premiership but it might save us from some comparable future numpty governance.
By then, of course, Scotland will be independent and this will be none of your business
JAMES LUDLOW,
My resistance to revising the political system is that I don’t see a good enough reason for it.
For me the crux of this argument seems to be;
We don’t like Brown or the way he became PM so the system should be changed.
But as I’ve pointed out if he was a good PM no one would bother.
I see nothing problematic with the system as it stands even if it sometimes results in a twit getting the top job.
Indeed if you look over the last two decades successive attempts by both Labour and Tory party’s to alter the Leadership election rules, when they didn’t like the last result, have hardly lead to great results.
I can’t say any reason to think that Browns performance over the last year would be any better than now if he had won a leadership contest in May and thena snap election in June.
If your problem is with Brown its next May you should be talking about and the existing system is what will decide it.
Peter.
@ KingHarald – “I dont remember WLS Churchill becoming PM in May 1940. However, I am aware that it happened and happened as you say without an election. Further, he was not at that time even leader of the Conservative Party.”
Oh indeed. And let’s hope it doesn’t happen against unless we are once more at war with Germany.
And it’s 2009 now, for heaven’s sake. What next? A precedent from the 16th Century?
@James Ludlow
I mentioned this Churchillian fact since Cllr Cairns raised the matter of Churchills rise to power. I did not intend it to be a suggestion for future PM selection. However, I was taken to task yesterday on another site for mentioning Polands role in WW2.
” Its 2006 now for heavens sake” said the poster, along with derogatory remarks about Britain and Dads Army. I will tell you what I told him, I believe history teaches us a great deal and I will continue to study it and quote it.
@James Ludlow
Sorry about the typo its 2009.
@ Peter – it’s highly unlikely that Brown would have been significantly better had he a mandate (though he may have been less defensive and more confident). But we the unsupportive public would not feel quite so strongly that this duffer had been foisted upon us without so much as a by-your-leave.
As other’s have said above (I think?), fixed term parliaments would also be a good idea.
So that’s at least two changes to the existing system I’d like to see. Just call me “Radical James”.
Peter Cairns
I wouldn’t myself describe Brown as a “twit”, but isn’t it often said that the electorate gets the government it deserves?
King Harold’s summary of opinion of the non-chattering classes (Sun readers?) is worrying:
Thatcher, tough bitch very strong for Britain.
Major, nice but weak.
Blair, a spiv but very clever, you knew he would not get outsmarted.
Brown, hopeless lump.
Notice that what is constant is not right/left or even pro/anti- foreigner (whether EU or non-white) but the desire for a Strong Leader. These are The Authoritarians, and they are in the majority in society as a whole and account for the behaviour of in at least the largest parties and those of the far left and right.
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
Hitler would be admired if he wern’t a foreigner.
Yes, Harold, you should be very sorry. Go stand in a corner!
History does have a lot to teach us, I agree. But I don’t think the expediencies of a wartime Britain being pounded by the Luftwaffe in 1940 offer a very good parallel for Britain 2009. But you never know, things could change.
@ James:-
“By then, of course, Scotland will be independent and this will be none of your business”
As to the former-make it soon Lord.
As to the latter- I fear it won’t stop their blethers & girns.
@COLIN
AMEN to the Lord making it soon.
@ James Ludlow
Its just the sort of bloody nonsense they might quote to wheel Lord Rumba into office as PM. Especially in a crisis, and I dont mean Merkel entering the Sudetenland with 12 panzer divisions. It could be Brown having a major heart attack or whatever. They are capable of anything to cling on.
@JOHN B DICK
Yes, mostly Sun, some Mirror, some Mail. You are right, there is a lot of strength through joy about this.
Thatcher as the Iron Lady, Blair as the world leader strideing the globe. This is champion. Major getting a bad time from underlings he is unable to control. Brown, biting his nails, unsure what to do next, a new u turn every day. This is pathetic.
It takes quite a short time for these images to become folklore.
Frederick Stansfield
“It is no surprise that the clear swing against Labour in England and Wales does not extend to Scotland.”
There is a clear swing against Labour in Scotland, but it is to the LibDems and SNP rather than the Cons. There is also a swing from the LibDems to the SNP because the two parties are competing with their rural policies in rural areas where Labour are irrelevant and the Conservatives marginalised.
Labour in the West have a core vote which is a higher proportion of their total vote than is the case in England. That is also true of the Conservatives throughout Scottland because the rest have died, not as with Labour because it is a family/class/local/religious tradition.
There will, despite that, be only a few seats change hands even if the SNP win a majority of the popular vote as they may well do. That’s because FPTP will protect Scottish Labour MP’s in the West. They would be wrong to take much comfort from that, for what may happen is that the SNP will move from third place into a position where they are the challengers in very many marginal seats.
That would mean that a very small further increase in SNP support would result in FPTP working in their favour and the SNP rather than Labour being over represented.
If the incoming Conservative PM thinks it would be advantageous to his party to have the the next election early election while Labour are demoralised, broke, and fighting among themselves then that could be in three years or even less.
Supposing he does so “to get a working majority” and the Conservatives make modest further gains in England while most Labour MP’s from Scotland are defeated by the SNP, what would be the outcome? Would it be welcome to the English Conservatives on this site?
The Conservative government would mistake a landslide win for popular support for their credo, and introduce unpopular, impractical doctrinaire policies. Labour would implode and lose its financial support as it no longer seemed a party either of government or the working man so the Trade Unions might find something else to do with their money and the LibDems as the second party would prepare for government (again) and be disappointed at least for a while.
If however the SNP had a substantial majority of Scottish MP’s, on a bare majority of the popular vote, that would revive their pre-devolution objective of secession from Westminster and reconvening elsewhere.
I understand that some committed Unionists in Scotland have seen the danger and suggested that even though they be lifetime Conservative supporters they would better defend the Union by voting Labour. I don’t think they need to do that this time, especially in Glasgow, but maybe next time they would.
English Conservatives who do not question the superiority of FPTP might like to think about that.
“The Conservative government would mistake a landslide win for popular support for their credo, and introduce unpopular, impractical doctrinaire policies”
I just love this sort of stuff!!
” most Labour MP’s from Scotland are defeated by the SNP, what would be the outcome? Would it be welcome to the English Conservatives on this site?”
Yes absolutely-one down & one to go ( one way or another)
If you want historical parallels, here are a few.
I don’t remember Churchill becoming PM the first time but I do remember people during the war saying of Mussolini that “at least he made the trains run on time.” A strong leader.
Merkel won’t need Panzer divisions. You have seen the newsreels of the German Army marching into Austria?
There are two ways to take over another country, you can invade it or you can buy it. Did you see the film of the security van taking the new DM’s to the DDR banks? The anthem was wrong. I should have been Deutchmark uber alles.
When Scotland becomes independant and r-UK leaves the EU, Scotland will prosper with its renewable industry, quality non GM food production and plentiful water, space and respect for Education and free health care. We’ll have to rebuild Hadrian’s wall of course to keep the immigrants out.
Cut off from their markets, with a failed economy and currency, a disasterous American adventure, huge differentials in income and social collapse the English will have to accept that their corrupt parliament is finished. With EU financial support, Scotland will annex England by bribing their leading politicians to quit (we’ll call it “The Equivalent” as compensation for loss of office).
There won’t be any tanks from Germany, but there might be from Wales if the Welsh regiments fancied getting their tanks into Downing St to facilitate the changover.
John B Dick
Do Welsh tanks have leeks?
(while we wait for the Observer MORI poll).
It’s amazing how threads can mutate. Now we’re somehow in Robert Harris’s ‘Fatherland’ territory.
@ John – all that goose-stepping in the Scottish Highlands will be rather tough on the men in kilts. Perhaps The Proclaimers will come to the rescue with a high-pitched acapella rendition of “Donald, Where’s Yer Troosers?”
JOHN B DICK,
“There is a clear swing against Labour in Scotland, but it is to the LibDems and SNP”.
Sorry?
The LibDems share of the vote has regularly been around half of their 2005 share in Scotland. If thats a swing to the Libdems I’d like to see a slump…. can you get a negative vote.
In Glasgow NE they got less than half the BNP vote. That means they are less popular than the Nazi’s……
Peter.
If Scotland is such a Nirvana, why do its occupants eat, beat and drink themselves to death to such a greater extent than the rest of the UK (and indeed Europe)?
Is this purely a result of despondency brought on by centuries of English imperialism? And if so, would independence revolutionise the habits of the Scots electorate?
Colin,
“I just love this sort of stuff!!”
To true, there is a thin line between making a point and writing a Tom Clancey Novel…. The is a difference between recalling how strong governments have gone to far when they face a weak opposition and predicting it will happen.
I think most politicians are aware that a huge majority can sometimes make a party over confident.
I have said here before one of the biggest mistakes any party can make is to believe that those who voted for it are its supporters.
If Cameron gets a huge majority it will be because as many people want rid of this Labour government as want his Tory one and he would do well to remember that.
Peter.
@ Peter – “If Cameron gets a huge majority it will be because as many people want rid of this Labour government as want his Tory one and he would do well to remember that.”
Surely that’s always the same for any major party. A good part of their vote share is invariably people whose enthusiasm is limited to the sentiment “at least they’re not that other lot”. Only the small parties can really claim a high proportion of very keen voters – usually the nutjob contingent from across the political spectrum.
Choosing who to vote for is a compromise for many people, IMO. It’s a matter of “I like Party X’s tax proposals but Party Y has a better policy on Europe …” or whatever. Ultimately, we usually just weigh things up and vote for the Lesser of Two Weevils.
@ Peter Cairns
“If Cameron gets a huge majority it will be because as many people want rid of this Labour government as want his Tory one and he would do well to remember that.”
MORI must have heard your concerns Peter:-
37/31/17 ……………..!
Alec-your moment has come.
Peter
You wouldn’t disagree that what has happened in the past can happen in the future and you agree that a Conservative party with a large majority is at risk of over-confidence. Even being aware of a danger does not mean that you will necessarily avoid it.
I agree that the Conservatives are not winning so much as Labour are losing. No election since the war has been “won”. The different situation in Scotland has no other explanation. It isn’t a sudden enthusiasm for independence. That’s why you know that people who vote for your party aren’t only its supporters isn’t it?
I say that as one who expects to vote for your party’s candidates and for independence too when I get the chance.
If B usually follows A, what do you normally expect when A happens? Sometimes it doesn’t of course. Time will tell.
We have had over confident governments from both parties with strong leaders marginalising cabinet and in the case of TB and Clause 4, a PM going out of his way to pick a fight with his party’s most loyal supporters to show that he could take “tough decisions” and demonstrate that he was a strong leader.
Nobody doubts that Labour is losing votes. Many former supporters will refrain from voting. Few in Scotland will go directly to the Conservatives and not simply because there is an extra choice. The few who might do so could change due to a single, possibly local, issue of exceptional importance to the voter.
In many constituencies, the SNP are behind the LibDems. Do you suppose ALL the ex-Labour voters are turning towards the SNP?
Will they want to do that in Argyll, or would they support the incumbent LibDem in case the Conservative got in? We will never know, for there are can’t be many soft Labour votes left in this constituency, and the flow of votes from LibDem to SNP and the Conservatives will be much greater. The outcome will depend on how this breaks and not on Ex-Labour voters.
There will be constituencies too where local considerations of no relevance to the Westminster will Trump national trends.
The idea that the least unpopular party will win has a lot of truth in it. This is what leads them all to try to grab what they think is the ‘middle-ground’, so that they will offend the least number of people. Unfortunately they seem to gauge where that ground lies by listening to the BBC and the rest of the chattering classes rather than real people.
The result is that though there are big popular majorities for leaving the EU, Independence for Scotland, return of the death penalty, ban on immigration etc etc, none of the main parties represent these views. It is left to fringe parties to do that.
Pete B,
“This is what leads them all to try to grab what they think is the ‘middle-ground’, so that they will offend the least number of people.”
I think that is a miss reading of what triangulation is all about. The middle ground is defined as the point where your support starts and the your principle opponents support begins.
The focus is to find those policies where you can win over voters on the margins by appealing to their support without alienating your own.
So new Labour u turned on right to by and disarmament because middle Englands Tory voters supported them and then emphasised Education and Health as areas to focus on because middle england couldn’t afford to go private so they would support bettter state provision.
Its not rocket science, both Labour and Tory have done it and it works. A key to success is understanding the demograhics who will vote where and for what, and how salient different issues were to them.
If you look at ICMs figutes for the late 90’s, the two biggest concerns of Middle England were schools and the NHS and er all know what Blair fought on, the two issues that the soft Tory vote in the marginals was most concerned about.
Thats why Europe and immigration never get to the top of the pile.
For the Tories most of the people who have a problem with it are Tory voters so pandering to your own support won’t get you many votes.
The problem occurs when you get a UKIP which because of that one issue takes away some of your support.
That effect is more pronounced when you are weak and people don’t think you can win, but next year there will be far more eurosceptics voting for a Tory government to replace Labour than for UKIP over Lisbon.
In away the rise of the BNP is traditional Labour areas is the same. Even if the BNP do well they won’t win any seats and the can’t effect the outcome of an election so they and immigration can be ignored.
Even if the BNP do have an effect in a seat it wonn’t be to weaken the vote to let the Tories inbecause in a Tory/Labour marginals there will be other more significant issues.
I think it was Richthoven who said;
” Rove your airspace, find the enemy, shoot him down and anything else is rubbish”
Only two parties can win a Uk election and to win they need to win over their opponents supportes in the key marginals or protect their vote in them.
If you know what these people care about and what their concerns are and press the right butttons you can win.
If in winning you have ignored a lot of other issues important to a lot of people, even a majority, you have still won.
Peter.
Peter,
My compliments. A very succinct analysis of how to win Westminster elections.
I am sure it holds equally true in Scotland, save that the electoral landscape is more complicated.
For the SNP, I am sure that the primary focus is and will remain the Holyrood elections, where the dance is quite definitely a quadrille and not a waltz as at Westminster. In the Westminster ballroom, the most that the SNP can hope for is to tread on toes and trip up the leading couple to the point where they expel you from the dance floor – giving you what you want.
Paul