Yet another Tory leadership contest!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If that Mori Poll was as acurate as its general election eve of poll, poll then it'd be somthing like...

Brown (Lab) 36% Cameron (Con) 36% Kennedy (LD) 17% Others 8%

This sort of thinking reminds me of the way in the election that the Tories claimed polls showing Labour up by (say) 4pts "actually" showed (say) a Tory lead of 2pts due to overestimation of Labour's lead in 2001 etc.
An old trick that never worked when it was new.

As an aside the 4pt swing from the LibDems to the Tories shown in that poll would result in the Tories gaining 13 seats from the LibDems. Quite a lot bearing in mind how few (relatively speaking) LibDem seats there are.

[afleitch]

I believe Labour's Soviet style coronation of Brown as heir apparent may come back to haunt them, especially if they pick Cameron. They can't go back to the old 'remember the miners, poll tax....WHEN (insert current Tory leaders name here) WAS IN POWER!' line and neither can the Lib Dems for that as it simply won't wash anymore, epsecially if the economy goes into meltdown.

[afleitch]

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-033.pdf

Good overview of exit polls and election miscellany

[afleitch]

My favourite piece of analasys- The Conservative were second place in voters aged 18-24 and as a party had stronger support in that age range than they did for those aged 25-44

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I believe Labour's Soviet style coronation of Brown as heir apparent

The only leadership election recently that even remotely resembled the way they did things in the U.S.S.R resulted in the M.P for a coastal Kent seat becoming leader of a certainly political party. But that's "different" obviously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this the David Cameron that was an advisor to Lamont around the time of Black Wednesday?

Note that I don't like that sort of campaigning and would rather that fact doesn't get used.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that Labour's next campaign will be based around that sort of thing. Indications are that we'll see something based around "values" will get used. Even so it's four years away at least.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which isn't likely

[afleitch]

David Cameron was an adviser to Lamont yes, but was more of an observer than a player in the final decision making if you look at the briefing he had. Secondly, Gordon Brown himself at that time was a strong ERM supporter too, to the extent of supporting the Conservative line in calling for its adoption. So he cant possibly use that charge against Cameron without it blowing back in his face.

[Ben.]

What was amazing IMO, was that after a few weeks of pretty tough coverage and with few people even knowing who he was other than a Tory, and perhaps what he looks like and the fact he’s “posh”… Cameron’s beating Brown amongst “swing voters” who’ve been polled by a clear margin, and remember Brown is very much a familiar “know quantity”, this is very good for Cameron – very good indeed.

The ICM poll for the Guardian had the numbers…

Cameron (Conservative) – 43%
Brown (Labour) – 38%

"Swing voters" being defined as voters who would consider voting Tory. Doesn't mean much; Labour are still leading in the main poll (not that means much either. See a previous post) and swing voters haven't decided an election since... 1970 I think.
  

I think its fair to say that in the forty or so “super marginals” now held by Labour all with majorities below 1-2,000, swing voters pretty much kept Labour in. Reliable exit polling showed that amongst the more prosperous voters Labour held firm while amongst poorer voters, it performed unspectacularly even seeing a slight swing to the Tories amongst the so called “white van types” (C2s). So I think you have to admit that Labour (with a vote share of just bellow 36%) got by thanks in large part to a strong performance amougst self described swing voters, despite at the same time failing to defend its left flanks against defections to the LibDems.          

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sample sizes far too small to draw any conclusions. I've had a look at the regional breakdowns of some polls done in the election; the numbers were just screwy (LibDems leading in the Midlands in more than one poll for example).

[/quote]

I agree the sample size is small, and to be fair I don’t put much store in it but the fact is that it undermines Davis’ newest commercial line as to why he should be elected, namely that he can perform far better in Northern and Urban Britain…not only do the Tories not really need to start contest old stomping grounds like Newcastle Central or Manchester Withington just yet in order to win, the evidence increasingly suggests that Cameron would have far broader appeal across the country than Davis and that includes in northern and urban Britian.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Early days yet. Cameron is still an unknown, Labour haven't had a go at his image yet and all that.

[/quote]

…I really don’t see how they can, if under Brown they go after Cameron for being, for want of a better phrase “too posh”, it could easily backfire with Labour being seen to be reverting to its type with coded class warfare, indeed such an attack would only underline the increasing suspicion (largely false IMO) of some voters that Brown is just an old style, intolerant, high tax, authoritarian Labourite.

A more sophisticated attack could perhaps work, but I don’t see how, simple fact is that to most people Cameron is very much like Blair was in 1997 an affable, almost unpartisan figure who embodies what many people aspire to be… there are plenty of aspirant people in British suburbia who backed Labour enthusiastically in 97 and 2001 and then less so in 2005 for whom Cameron is a very appeal proposition.

So in short he’s a hard figure to attack, maybe they’ll try and link him to Black Wednesday but that hardly worked with Howard in May and trying to link Cameron is even more of a stretch, the class issue would backfire big time and would probably be vetoed by either Brown or Blair for that reason… Labour might well have to dispense with the election winning slogan of “well at least we’re not the Tories” against Cameron because it just won’t work… Brown’s jibe at the Party conference fell flat and that was in front of hall of hardened Labour stalwarts, who generally are very favourable disposed towards the Chancellor.      
    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

IIRC they need a swing of about 9pts (might be a bit less but you get the idea) to win an overall majority of 1.

[/quote]



I seem to remember that after May’s election to swing required is more like 7%, such a swing is less than returned Labour to power in 1997… added to which such a model does not take into account the role of any LD to Tory swing which with Cameron as leader could be quite sizable (4-6% would be the right sort of range imo). I agree it would be tough, but I also would argue that after over a decade in power, a likely economic slow down, general voter fatigue and the contrast between Cameron and Brown (as best we can guess) makes a Tory victory possible… though four years is an eternity in politics.      

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That comparision is made of just about every new kid on the block in every country around.

[/quote]



…I know but I can see real rather than imagine comparisons between the experienced, eminently qualified but distant Brown and the less well qualified but more affable and optimistic Cameron. It is a factor that certainly played in 97 with the tired Mayor vs the energetic and likeable Blair.    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suppose you could make a case for '64 (Wilson swinging several key marginals in Liverpool) but other than that... no. Things just don't work like that here.

[/quote]

...from my experience, presentation matters a great deal in the UK, due to the nature of the political system its very different from the intensely personalised presidential or even congressional and local politics of the US, but in the 1959,64,66,83,92, 97 and 2001 the personalities and presentation of the different parties played a huge role in the eventual outcome of the elections.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When he actually comes up with some policies, maybe

[/quote]



…he’s come up with some good, pretty sound stuff on health and education, dumping the “patient’s passport” idea for one, and to be fair its hardly the time when detailed policy gets thrashed out, it is a leadership election after all …in 94 Blair was very careful not to frighten the horses too much.

However a big difference with Labour prior to 97, and the Tories now is that policy wise they do not need to change a great deal to be electable it far more about image for the Tory Party than it ever was for Labour who’s great problem use to be policy… thanks to Kinnock and Mandelson presentation had pretty much been sorted by the late eighties, excluding a few hick-ups… as the economist said the other week, the Tories need to be rehabilitated and liked again and while some policy shifts are necessary its nothing like the reform Labour was in need of before it returned to power, its far more of a brand rather than product issue for the Tories… and there is a great deal of evidence to support that.        

[Ben.]

epsecially if the economy goes into meltdown.

Which isn't likely

Has slow down though, and added to this people are feeling the pinch from Brown’s high taxes… there isn’t going to be a huge crash or a melt down but a significant slow down is very likely and that will not help Brown at all.

[afleitch]

Fantastic analysis Ben. Brown is only an asset if the economy remains an asset- if not, he (undeservedly) takes the blame and the brunt of the backlash, especially as the first wave of baby boomers retire in the runup to 2010. Labour pension climbown is not going to play well in the eyes of those in the professional sector who work outside the government. If house prices tumble too, they will become far more volatile voters.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

David Cameron was an adviser to Lamont yes, but was more of an observer than a player in the final decision making if you look at the briefing he had. Secondly, Gordon Brown himself at that time was a strong ERM supporter too, to the extent of supporting the Conservative line in calling for its adoption. So he cant possibly use that charge against Cameron without it blowing back in his face.

Maybe so, but accuracy or fairness have nothing to do with negative ads. I'm tempted to blame Churchill's "gestapo" speech in 1945 but it had been going on for donkey's years (the Red Scare election in 1924 is obviously the best example).
I don't think that negative ads are an especially good idea in the long run as they lower turnout and in the short term I'm not sure either. But ever since Naaaaaaaaaasti and Naaaaaaaaaaaasti turned up in the late '70's the dominant line of thought has been that it's better to cynically lower turnout that come out with some real policies.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Has slow down though,

Growth has been slower, yes. Employment statistics are still pretty good.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Taxes aren't high at the moment. People feeling the pinch of them probably weren't likely to vote Labour anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A slow down has already happend. Guessing what the economic conditions will be like in 4 years time is hard; it's hard enough to predict four months into the future.
Trends are all over the place right now. We're in a period of "lies, damn lies and statistics" at the moment, sad to say.

[minionofmidas]

I believe Labour's Soviet style coronation of Brown as heir apparent

The only leadership election recently that even remotely resembled the way they did things in the U.S.S.R resulted in the M.P for a coastal Kent seat becoming leader of a certainly political party. But that's "different" obviously.

Actually that would have put even the Soviet Union to shame.
Actually that would have looked so horribly in most European countries that the Tories could have written off the second place (in pop.vote) there and then.
But Brits are used to leaders being fairly unvoted on (in most countries party leaders are voted on every year...affording political journalists a great chance to point out that xy got only 89% this year, down from 96% previous year [no challenger in either race] and that this is really a fat slap around the face. )

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think its fair to say that in the forty or so “super marginals” now held by Labour all with majorities below 1-2,000, swing voters pretty much kept Labour in.

Absolutely not. Good GOTV work by the Unions and some personal votes (especially in Stroud, South Dorset and Sittingbourne & Sheppey) did that... from what I saw swing voters largely swung against Labour.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No such thing in the U.K

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which in real life we certainly didn't. There was a huge collapse in Labour support from AB types; completely unheralded by the polls but very noticable from the 2004 Euro and Local elections.
That .pdf afleitch linked to has a little table of the top 10 constituencies for AB types; huge Labour falls in all of them (exception being Richmond [Surrey] were Labour is a fringe party anyway)... another example is just one borough in London (Enfield). Labour unexpectedly loses Southgate (full of AB types), and hangs onto "more marginal" North (evenly split between blue collar and white collar voters).
I can provide plenty more examples (including county council results if you want to go down to that level of detail) if you want.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope; we just won the turnout war     

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aaaah... good. I was gettin' worried about you

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...this is because Davis has no appeal anywhere  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

O/c if Labour's strategy is to play the class card more agressively in future (in combination with a return to the old [pre-'80's] trick of stressing morals) that wouldn't be a problem

You must be logged in to read this quote.

9pts is a direct swing against Labour in every consituency. Crude but interesting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which was a freakishly large swing

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. There's a distinct possibility of both Labour and the Tories increasing there vote in the next election. Wait and see though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe, but the same is true of the last election in Australia. And we all know how that turned out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By 1997 even Michael Foot could have beaten Major    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but not as large a role as is commonly assumed. The main thing is organisation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The remark was in jest
Seriously though, if he doesn't come up with something soon, Davis will be able to (unfairly) have him branded an airhead. But so far Davis has been pretty inept and that line of attack probably won't occur to him

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Labour didn't need any policy shifts for '97 either (except for one; crime). "New Labour" was basically a marketing thing. I've never been a fan. Didn't like "Old" Labour" (ie; early '80's Labour) either.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually that would have put even the Soviet Union to shame.

Haha!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seriously?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Democratic Hawk]

epsecially if the economy goes into meltdown.

Which isn't likely

Has slow down though, and added to this people are feeling the pinch from Brown’s high taxes

I'm pretty sure that lower inflation and lower interest rates, as a whole since 1997, more than offset any tax increases. New Labour does not tax punitively. And if tax cuts are all the Tories have to offer, then big deal

Dave

[Ben.]

epsecially if the economy goes into meltdown.

Which isn't likely

Has slow down though, and added to this people are feeling the pinch from Brown’s high taxes

I'm pretty sure that lower inflation and lower interest rates, as a whole since 1997, more than offset any tax increases. New Labour does not tax punitively. And if tax cuts are all the Tories have to offer, then big deal

Dave

I think the main thing the Tories will offer under Cameron, is effectively what Labour promises back in 97 namely better Schools and Hospitals through effective reform of the public services after that you have a continuation of a hawkish Atlantist Foreign Policy, a more overtly sceptical approach to the EU (nothing radical though) and the “aim” of cutting taxes – with an especial emphasis on tax cuts to help the least well off in place of programs like the tax credit system.

So I think its fair to say that the Tories will be offering more than Tax-cuts, though if Davis by some miracle becomes Tory Leader then that pretty much will be all they offer… Davis seems more and more like IDS with hair. Added to all of this Cameron seems to carry with him something of the freshness and optimism that Blair once epitomised, and “that kinda stuff plays great in the sticks” (witness 1997 or even 1966)     

[Democratic Hawk]

On a personal level, I like Cameron but as far as party politics go, I'm rooting for Davis - I'm not having the party of Thatcher laying claim to the centre ground

Dave

[Ben.]

On a personal level, I like Cameron but as far as party politics go, I'm rooting for Davis - I'm not having the party of Thatcher laying claim to the centre ground

Dave

Sadly for Labour, Cameron's probably going to get 65-70% against Davis. Meaning the Tories may well start to make progress, personally as much as I admire and respect Brown I'd prefer Cameron as PM... but that's just me and I don’t have a vote anyway

Wow, a fashionable, moderate, optimistic Tory Party now seems a real possibility who would have said that back when Davis looked a dead-cert? Long way to go and all that, but its looking likely… on top of this the betting markets are getting nervous over the prospects of a Labour forth term.     

[Democratic Hawk]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1603965,00.html

The first significant policy difference of the leadership race between Cameron and Davis has emerged ............ and it's on the issue of tax cuts

In a speech on tax, Mr Davis promised to cut taxes for "the average family" by £1,200 a year, or 8p in the pound. But his rival Mr Cameron responded by saying it was neither "the right approach" nor "sensible to outline such proposals four years before an election".

Dave

[Ben.]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1603965,00.html

The first significant policy difference of the leadership race between Cameron and Davis has emerged ............ and it's on the issue of tax cuts

In a speech on tax, Mr Davis promised to cut taxes for "the average family" by £1,200 a year, or 8p in the pound. But his rival Mr Cameron responded by saying it was neither "the right approach" nor "sensible to outline such proposals four years before an election".

Dave

From what I understand Davis is basically offering just what the Tories offered at the last election in terms of tax-cuts, the only difference is that the money set aside for borrowing goes into further tax cuts instead… I suppose they need to continue their Titanic Deckchair rearrangement at Fort Davis though  

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Things had been getting pretty quiet until Davis came out with his little plan (other than the pair of them getting booed at the national television awards).
Anyone got any idea how it'll play?

[Ben.]

Things had been getting pretty quiet until Davis came out with his little plan (other than the pair of them getting booed at the national television awards).
Anyone got any idea how it'll play?

Saw a recording of the CH4 news from today, Cameron was surrounded by lots Party workers and activists in some sea side iddle (life’s departure lounge for Powelites I guess), Davis was wondering rather hopelessly around some oak panelled business centre with a small group (and I mean small!) of people holding a giant cheque... its still looking very bad for Davis.

Conway’s little outburst at Cameron daring to appeal to the media was rather funny, next he’ll fain outrage over Cameron attempting to win over voters  

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Saw a recording of the CH4 news from today, Cameron was surrounded by lots Party workers and activists in some sea side iddle (life’s departure lounge for Powelites I guess), Davis was wondering rather hopelessly around some oak panelled business centre with a small group (and I mean small!) of people holding a giant cheque... its still looking very bad for Davis.

If Cameron is cutting into the key "dying Powellite" faction, Davis is surely doomed

And so could be around half of the LibDem parliamentary party if Cameron lives up to his billing

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can still remember when he lost his seat in '97!
As a serious point I *could* understand his complaint if Davis hadn't done exactly the same thing when he were front runner (IMO he was even worse for it)...

[Ben.]

Saw a recording of the CH4 news from today, Cameron was surrounded by lots Party workers and activists in some sea side iddle (life’s departure lounge for Powelites I guess), Davis was wondering rather hopelessly around some oak panelled business centre with a small group (and I mean small!) of people holding a giant cheque... its still looking very bad for Davis.

If Cameron is cutting into the key "dying Powellite" faction, Davis is surely doomed

And so could be around half of the LibDem parliamentary party if Cameron lives up to his billing

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can still remember when he lost his seat in '97!
As a serious point I *could* understand his complaint if Davis hadn't done exactly the same thing when he were front runner (IMO he was even worse for it)...

I seem to remember that Smith Sq (or where ever their new HQ is) was privately predicting that Cameron could get 70%+ against Davis!

Didn’t Conway lose to Paul Marsden of all people back in 97? I still think that Conway would be well advised to cool it, what ever maybe said, some of the more thuggish characters backing Davis could make good whips… the only question would be their loyalty, but then again it could be a case of “better in the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in”    

[Peter]

I think that Derek Conway would be well advised to throw himself in a ditch, but thats probably just me.