Do voters really, really want Labour out?

The existence of more than sixty LibDem MPs is amongst the biggest of barriers to a parliamentary majority for the Conservative Party.  The best way of unseating those LibDem MPs is, in ConservativeHome's opinion, a 'Vote Tory To Get Rid Of Labour' message.  We need to make it clear that LibDems MPs could end up propping up the Government of prisoner releases, loans-for-peerages and squandered billions.  The success of that pitch does depend upon there being a high level of determination to want Labour gone.  Yesterday's Guardian/ ICM poll with its '70% want change' finding suggested that most voters are ready to see Labour kicked out.  A Populus poll for this morning's Times, however, finds that most voters still think that New Labour has been a force for good.   Perhaps voters will not be so determined to defeat Labour MPs at any cost?

I provide all of this by way of context and introduction for Matthew Parris' article in today's Times.  Mr Parris, undoubtedly a jewel in the crown of British journalism, has some clear advice for Ming Campbell (who has just finished a good week in Brighton).  Mr Parris thinks that Sir Ming should talk up his party's role as the 'balance of power party'.  He thinks that the LibDems (perceived by most voters (wrongly) as moderates) should promise to civilise the next minority government - Labour or Tory.  Here is the message that Mr Parris has drafted for LibDem party workers as they go from door-to-door at the next General Election:

"Look, let’s be honest. You’re right. My party is probably not going to lead the next government. But if you read the papers you’ll know that it’s highly possible that no party will get an overall majority. If so then either the Tories or Labour will have to talk to us Liberal Democrats about how far we could support them as a minority government.

“Our aim will not be to wreck such a government, but to civilise it. That means locking out the extremists on either side. If Mr Cameron has to lead a minority government, think of the nuisance all those far-right-wingers in his party, who have never liked him, could try to cause. Look what they did to Mr Major. We Liberal Democrats can insist that Cameron govern as he campaigned: as a moderate.

“If Alan Johnson/Gordon Brown/John Reid has to lead a minority government, the old Left in the Labour Party and the trade unions will try to hold the Cabinet to ransom. We could support the sensible people in the Labour Party against the Neanderthals.

“Liberal Democrats can be Britain’s insurance policy against extremists of Left or Right. If you’re half-persuaded by David Cameron’s “compassionate Conservatism” and “green” conversion, but worried whether he can really practise what he has preached, we’ll make sure he does. If you used to believe new Labour’s promise, but have lost confidence they’ll stick to it next time, we’ll see they do.

“This doesn’t mean we’ve decided to enter a formal coalition, or that either side can expect our support. We’re prepared to support either or neither. It depends on them. You know where we stand — it’s in our manifesto — and that’s the way we’ll be using the influence a narrow result will give us.

“And the more of us there are in Parliament, the better. Think about it. We could hold the balance.”

What do you think?

Comments

[EML]

Interesting idea, but I don't think the Lib Dem leadership could ever countenance putting it forward in public.

As you say, it might be a tactic for the party workers out in the streets, whilst Sir Ming goes about pretending that he has the slightest chance of being prime minister (as he did at their conference).

And it might actually work. For those people disillusioned by Labour but not yet (or with no chance of being) enamoured with the New Tories, the Lib Dems could well increase their protest/non-of-the-above vote.

Which just goes to show that the success or otherwise of Cameron's moderate message might well mean the difference between a minority Labour government and a minority Conservative one (or even a majority Tory one, depending on how things go).

Cameron has to get the message across that we wouldn't rock the boat too much, by preserving economic stability and at least the outcome of the public services (even if the process can change), but that we have identified a handful of problems that Labour can't or won't deal with, such as crime, energy, education and housing.

[Neil Reddin]

"You know where we stand — it’s in our manifesto" - yeah, I can really imagine a Lib Dem ever referring to their manifesto on the doorstep!

Anyway, the Lib Dems will tend towards Labour, as their hearts are with the Left (OrangeBookers notwithstanding), but at the moment too many voters still regard them as centrist. We have to work on shattering that illusion.

[Martin Cole]

Matthew Parris has indeed written a typically intelligent analysis of the present situation.

The next general election is likely to be some three years ahead, however, and the dawning realisation of the impotence and incompetence of the two main parties will have had that much more time to sink home.

Eurosceptics increasingly quote a figure of 80 per cent of legislation coming from Brussels. I have no idea if that is true but it feels about right and will become ever more so as directives such as that on child booster seats gradually grab the public's attention.

The single issue jibe against UKIP will seem less effective, especially if Gordon Brown appoints an independent management board for the NHS as reported this morning, thus removing one of the remaining yahboo policy areas and re-inforcing the irrelevance of the House of Commons. Not that I believe for a moment that UKIP under Nigel Farage will make an impact.

More worrying for the main parties would be a LibDem move to capitalise on the mainstream anti-EU sentiment in the country by proposing root and branch reform of the EU and all its institutions. It could comfortably adopt such a policy while avoiding any taint of non-europeanism due to its long support for the 'project'.

Ignoring the European issue as the Cameron team is presently doing, could leave the party completely high and dry on the likely main issue of the next general election.

Germany has made it clear that it intends to re-invigorate the EU Constitution question in its coming Presidency - it will also be a major factor in the French election campaign now underway.

We are now governed from Brussels and for the main opposition party to ignore that fact is absurd.

[Chad]

I really do not think we have hit this stage yet, and that Labour does have one more term left in it.

My money is on David Davis to become the next Tory PM in 2015.

[John Coles]

Sad to say, I think you're spot on Chad. But the prospect of David Davis leading lightens the distant horizon.

[StephanShakespeare]

I'm sure the great Parris is right, this would be the best strategy for the LibDems. We once did a poll which showed that, if the LibDems were perceived as the second party, and serious challengers for the number one position, then there would be a massive swing to them at an election. Interestingly, the biggest swing was from Labour, and in this (admittedly phoney) situation, LibDems would be first, followed by the Conservatives, followed by Labour.

This suggests to me that many many more people would seriously consider voting LibDem if they really believed it wasn't a wasted vote (which is why they achieve such massive swings in by-elections where they can convince the electorate they really could win). The trouble for the LibDems is they always have to pretend they are contenders for government, when everyone knows they are not.

The Parris solution gives a believable rationalisation for it not being a wasted vote - because it has the advantage of being obviously realistic.

They should copy his speech word-for-word.

[David Walker]

He will be too old by then Chad. The Tories need a new man of the right, Fox isn't right (don't make me explain it is just a feeling) so perhaps it will be Nick Herbert?

[Tapestry]

Lib Dems have no idea what Lib Dem policies are. That's their achilles heel. To beat Lib Dems in elections, the most effective method is to publicise not Conservative polices, but Lib Dem ones. It invariably destroys their support, and is a tactic that has not been used as much as it should have been.. It works.

Once Blair goes, Cameron will shine brighter than any other party leader. He is very popular - more popular than the Conservative Party. We need to ensure that we don't help our opponents by attacking Cameron too often on policy. He has not declared his hand in most cases, and should be given the benefit of the doubt. Even Heffer's going quiet at last. The penny's beginning to drop.

[CCHQ Spy]

Yet again, in a Hames v Parris clash of thinking, Parris is right. Let us hope that the DimLibs are dim enough to ignore his advice.

[christina speight]

Martin Cole 0936 - "We are now governed from Brussels and for the main opposition party to ignore that fact is absurd."

Agreed.

Anyone join the "TORIES FOR UKIP" movement where Conservatives remain as a coherent body but "lend" their votes to UKIP for one election? THAT might get a decent Conservative leader AND put the EU centre stage where it belongs.

AND - It isn't "Eurosceptics" who "increasingly quote a figure of 80 per cent of legislation coming from Brussels". The current EU presidency officially endorsed the figure.

[Monday Clubber]

A Populus poll for this morning's Times, however, finds that most voters still think that New Labour has been a force for good.

This proves what I have said all along; that we would be well advised to treat all "encouraging" poll data with a great deal of caution.

After all, if it is true that more people started to back Cameron because he is "like New Labour" (God help us!) then those are the very people who are most likely to jump back to NL at the first opportunity.

There's no place in this party for euphoria.

[Corey Dixon]

Labour has been governing in a coalition between the 'old left' and the blairites for a while now. And it has just often left good ideas of Blair (e.g. top up fees) watered down so they are nowhere near as effective as they should be!

If a Lib Dem has to form the coalition government, or support the miniority one - then perhaps for once we'd have a somewhat better system where reforms and not watered reforms are pushed through this country.

[Cllr Graham Smith]

There is no doubt in my mind that Douglas Hogg was right when he said "voters may have fallen out of love with Mr Blair, but they have not yet sufficiently fallen in love with us."

Mr Parris is an astute political commentator. He recognises people's distrust of the Two-Party system and is right to hit on the idea of promoting the "moderating" influence of a third alternative. Indeed, I suspect we shall see huge numbers of third party and independent candidates elected at next May's local government elections.

[verulamgal]

It's nonsense to suggest that David Davis would be too old to lead the party to victory in 2015. By then he would be about 65/66...about the same age as Churchill when he first became PM.

Thank God there were not such agesit attitudes in 1940!

[Yet Another Anon]

The existence of more than sixty LibDem MPs is amongst the biggest of barriers to a parliamentary majority for the Conservative Party.
The Liberal Democrats are a barrier to both parties, a lot of those seats were taken off Labour - most of the changes in 2001 were Liberal Democrat gains off Labour and they made further gains off Labour in 2005.

[James Strachan]

The Lib Dims may talk about being a moderating influence but are actually moving in policy to the left of the Labour Party. We should draw attention to this - particularly the assault on wealth set out in their new taxation proposals.

LD's are very good at reflecting what people want to hear. We need to point out the policies they prefer not to talk about.

[Alison Anne Smith]

"Negative voting" to get Labour out. Who cares as long as it gets us in.

[Monday Clubber]

We should draw attention to this - particularly the assault on wealth set out in their new taxation proposals.

Indeed.

And we will fail miserably if we end up rowing over the exciting and radical tax-cutting proposals apparently advanced by Lord Forsyth.

It's time to move boldly and once again "Set the People Free"

[Yet Another Anon]

As to whether Labour retains it's majority, this is more down to how many people support Labour than how many oppose, Conservative support although recovering remains weak and adding the fact that Labour hasn't been piling up votes in the same way as the Conservatives and Labour recovering it's support among Muslims and among many who had taken for granted a Labour victory then a majority could be against a Labour government and Labour could even increase it's majority, I still think Labour and the Conservatives will both increase their total and percentage vote over the next 2 General Elections with the Liberal Democrats percentage vote falling back and probably their total vote too, tactical voting will slow the effect on their seats though - Menzies Campbell's one hope of averting this is if he can hold on to most of the former Labour support they have attracted since 1997 and if David Cameron ends up falling between two stools as people with liberal tendencies perhaps end up following worries that he is just portraying himself as such in the hope of getting Liberal Democrat votes, while at the same time he has burned his bridges to a more Orthodox Conservativism and put off core Conservative voters in which case the Liberal Democrats would have hopes of further advances.

[George Hinton]

Matthew Parris is having a laugh.
Does he seiously think that the Lib-Dems can and hold the balance of power in a new Parliament. They are a joke with no credible policy, no experience of government and no hope of gaining a significant number of seats.
If heavens forbid they do hold the balance, then call another election, effect a coup, anything other than have those fools interfering and meddling in Parliamentary affairs

[John]

The Populus poll underlines something I've felt for some time. There is not that get 'em out at all costs' feeling around, that there was in '97. We are in 'phoney war' situation, people are manouvering around, but not sure where the action is or what to do next. Next spring will be the critical time, will there be a break through from the Tories, will Labour put up a stonewall defence, will the Libdems carry out a bold flanking movement.
P.S. There's a Tory seat in Wiltshire that I'd pencil in as a Libdem gain at the next GE.

[Paul Kennedy]

12:51, that is unless the local association take the required action as a matter of some urgency.

[Paul Kennedy]

Ah but George 12:45, the lust for power, any form of power, does strange things to people's judgements. If the nightmare scenario that is being suggested comes about, our Conservative leadership should pledge not to hold discussions with any other parties under any circumstances, if necessary even forming a minority Government and seeing how it went and throwing down the gauntlet to other parties to force a G/E.

[Jack Stone]

Miss Speight at it again urging people to vote for one of the party`s opponents.
You may not be a traitor to the country but as voting for UKIP makes a single currency, European constitution and greater European itergration a whole lot more likely so that is debateable but you certainly a traitor to the Conservative Party.

[Patsy Sergeant]

So Mr. Parris is trying to convince us that 'his' party would be successful in 'standing up' to a minority government so that they could 'civilize' that government? True Mr. Kennedy was quite good at making fairly vicious statements about the Tories, when he was leader, but perhaps someone would like to enlighten me about the time/s when LD's have stood up effectively to the present government.

If anybody in the LIBDEM's thinks they can 'face' this government down about spinning figures, or wasting taxpayers money, or just plain dishonesty then it would be interesting to meet them and learn how, since no-one from journalists onwards has managed to make them accountable yet, it is only when e-mails are leaked or intercepted, or papers 'leaked' that we learn of the dishonesty!

[Yet Another Anon]

You may not be a traitor to the country but as voting for UKIP makes a single currency, European constitution and greater European itergration a whole lot more likely so that is debateable but you certainly a traitor to the Conservative Party.
The Single Currency is off the agenda at the moment, neither Gordon Brown nor David Cameron want a Single Currency and nor do most of the members of both parties, within both main parties there are supporters of a Single Currency, Kenneth Clarke for example may not think the moment is right but he is one of a number in the 2 main parties who support it in principle - Tony Blair supports it, it has to be said that if a Single Currency could be introduced by any of the 3 main parties and that UKIP is the largest national party firmly opposed to a Single Currency - if David Cameron or Gordon Brown in power were to switch to supporting a Single Currency they would merely be at the end of a long list of Conservative and Labour leaders who had gone against what they had previously said with regard to the EEC\EU.

[John Coles]

I'm sure, Christina, that you are not at all phased by yet another personal attack by Jack Stone: it's impossible to take his ungrammatical outbursts seriously.

[Yet Another Anon]

My money is on David Davis to become the next Tory PM in 2015.
Most likely the Conservatives will advance at the next General Election in June 2009 probably ending up with roughly 35% of the vote and maybe 10 Million votes and maybe 225 seats or so and Labour retaining it's majority with the Liberal Democrats slipping back, David Cameron will say that the Conservatives are getting there and stay on for another term after which the Liberal Democrats will slip back further but Labour will remain in government, David Cameron will stand down as leader probably in Summer 2014 after the General Election and most likely be replaced by a younger leader - Priti Patel perhaps, after decades of liberalism I think that this will have slipped off the agenda and probably demands to leave the EU and end Big Government will have grown, Gordon Brown will stand down as Labour leader after the 2017 Local Elections meaning a new Labour leader in time for that years party conference (probably by then Chancellor of the Exchequer Ed Balls), Menzies Campbell will have been replaced by Lembit Opik or someone of the same generation, Labour will narrowly win the 2019 General Election and then start to fall apart with demands for a return to more radical "Old Labour" policies and in 2024 the Conservatives will return to power hopefully restoring Capital Punishment, withdrawing the UK from the Convention on Human Rights and the EU and narrowing what is considered the role of the state and ending Big Government with the state's role limited to providing and monitoring the public infrastructure, defending the country from internal and external enemies and organising research & development and the opposition will fragment.

[christina speight]

Jack Stone - " you certainly a traitor to the Conservative Party."

No I'm not! The party is no longer Conservative. but I am. The party has been stolen by a SELF-CONFESSED "Liberal conservative"
(John Coles - Jack Stone is incomprehensible at the best of times and his latest was not the best!)

And - Alison Ann Smith - "Who cares as long as it gets us in". That's a terrible thing to say. Parties should be supported and judged on what they will do FOR our country. With Cameron it is "What will he do TO our country and our party?"

[Editor]

Christina and Jack - please address the subject of the thread and not each other.

[Yet Another Anon]

More worrying for the main parties would be a LibDem move to capitalise on the mainstream anti-EU sentiment in the country by proposing root and branch reform of the EU and all its institutions.
The Liberal Democrats capitalising on anti-EU sentiment seems implausible in the extreme, they might try to but them actually pulling such a thing off is about as likely as the Respect Party capitalising on disquiet about overburdonsome labour market regulation from Central Government.

Certainly there are people hostile to the EU who back the Liberal Democrats, but they have no serious expectation of the party actually managing to do anything about the EU, they just have given up on the other parties too or have some arguments with other aspects of their agenda.

[Martin Cole]

Yet Another Anon @14:24

"The Liberal Democrats capitalising on anti-EU sentiment seems implausible in the extreme.."

I would have said that on taxes too but they are all ready stealing Conservative clothes by appearing as the 'tax cutting party' for the lower paid - ie the twenty year old graduates with the energy to campaign!!

There has to be one of the parties addressing the EU issue, why leave it to the LibDems however implausible that might appear to the those of us over forty!!!!

A lower standard rate and an apparent anti-EU bureaucracy stance, the LibDems could be unstoppable even if WE know they believe the opposite.

[Wallenstein]

The ad hominem ravings of "Jack Stone" can be totally ignored. It's noticable how other Cameroons are increasingly distancing themselves from this off-the-wall figure.

I'm not the only one who has noticed how "Jack" fires out insults and soundbites but never engages in debate. There's a curious lack of sponenteity about his posts that suggests he's an outsider with enough general knowledge about the party to get by on the surface while at the same time having to be very careful not to get taken out of his depth.

I have increasingly come to believe that "Jack" is an agent provocateur from another party of the left or far right desperately trying to make the Cameron clique look vindictive and desperate.

Moving from one extreme to the other it's a pleasure to read several measured and intelligent appraisals of the current situation.

Yes, the Tories have improved their ratings and, yes, the improved visual impact of the new leader has possibly had a marginal effect on that improvement.

No, they won't win the next election and that will be the time for Cameron to follow the wise example of his predecessors and stand down. We can all then join in and thank him for his well-meant efforts.

The time will then be ripe for the election of a thoroughly grown-up, talented leader and my money is on David Davis.

[Yet Another Anon]

A lower standard rate and an apparent anti-EU bureaucracy stance, the LibDems could be unstoppable even if WE know they believe the opposite.
They could gain a lot of support amongst those already favourable to the EU, but really it is too well known how well disposed the Liberal Democrats as a party are to the EU, in fact Nick Harvey who for some time was their one slightly sceptical voice was only opposed to membership of the Single Currency and did not even consider leaving the EU, for the sake of advancement of his position within the party he too has gone over to favouring the Single Currency - the public perception of them correctly sees them as being EU Fundamentalists and would not take them seriously on such on an issue, with regard to public spending there has always been a division in the Liberal Democrat party between those who go along with high public spending and those who favour reducing state involvement in the economy although Menzies Campbell having emphasised the importance of redistribution has perhaps limited the scope of the Liberal Democrats to claim to trully be a party of Small Government, of course the same could be said of David Cameron as well.

[Alison Anne Smith]

"And - Alison Ann Smith - "Who cares as long as it gets us in". That's a terrible thing to say. Parties should be supported and judged on what they will do FOR our country. With Cameron it is "What will he do TO our country and our party?"

Has Christina ever fought an election. If we don't get enough seats (whether it be on a Local Council or in Parliament) to win a majority, we can not do anthing. As far as I'm concerned the Tory Party will do the best for this country but only if we win.

[tapestry]

A Populus poll for this morning's Times, however, finds that most voters still think that New Labour has been a force for good.(Monday Clubber)

All part of the Murdoch campaign to rehabilitate Gordon Brown (and Labour) after his disasterous failed coup attempt. What's been offered by Gordon Brown to secure Murdoch's unstinting support, is not known. Unless Brown is going to finally honour Blair's offer to move to PR.

The EU would see that as the end of Britain's independent existence, and would instruct Murdoch to secure Brown's leadership for that.

Gordon Brown's popularity rating is now at minus 32 and falling. labour MP's are starting to see the light. Gordon Brown as PM would spell the end for most of them, whther under FPTP or under PR.

Brown's getting desperate to push Blair out before a more popular figure emerges - John Reid is one strong possibility. Every trick in the book is being used to try to lever Blair out early - Police investigations into cash for peerages, being the main current method. The danger is that Blair will be seen as a martyr again, if people cotton on to the idea that this is all part of Brown's game (backed by Prescott).

Britain's existence hangs in the balance on the Labour succession, while Gordon utters his usual false 'we're all Britsh' rhetoric.

If he was able to tell us what his programme was, I'm sure he would, but Gordon's only able to try to secure the Top Job by stealth - just like all his taxes. If people knew what he was really intending to do, he'd be pet food alreday.

[Yet Another Anon]

Police investigations into cash for peerages, being the main current method.
How exactly could Gordon Brown launch a police enquiry into cash for peerages, how exactly would this benefit him as it rubs off on the Labour Party as a whole and if John Reid really was being maneouvred to stop Gordon Brown then surely as Home Secretary he would actually be in the strongest position to actually have any such control\influence on the police - however he very much has distanced himself from talk of standing either for the Leadership or Deputy Leadership and indeed pretty much endorsed Gordon Brown, so far the only cabinet minister openly opposing Gordon Brown is John Hutton - Hilary Benn, Peter Hain, David Miliband, Jack Straw all openly backing Gordon Brown and John Reid implying that it is inevitable, if you add in others who have all along been openly backing Gordon Brown that doesn't leave many - if anything things are narrowing down to it being Gordon Brown against either Charles Clarke or John Hutton, maybe Frank Field, if he can get enough signatures - John McDonnell; the deputy Leadership Election appears to be the one that is wide open with Alan Johnson, Harriet Harman, Peter Hain, maybe Frank Field, Patricia Hewitt perhaps all being in the running.

[Monday Clubber]

Alison Anne Smith - "Has Christina ever fought an election."

I think you'll find she's been fighting elections for the Tories since Winston was our leader.

Before we can be a credible government we need to show that we are a credible opposition. There's nothing dishonourable in that.

However, at present, we are failing in our duty to oppose the New Labout government.

[Alison Anne Smith]

"Before we can be a credible government we need to show that we are a credible opposition. There's nothing dishonourable in that."

Comments like this remind me of people who say it did the club good to get relegated. Politics like football is about winning nothing can be gained by losing the game.

[Jack Stone]

I don`t see how anyone can start talking about who is going to be the next leader when the present one asn`t even be in office for a year yet. If the party keeps changing leaders it wlll become a laughing stock not an alternative government.
David Davis will be 65 at the time of the next election. Seventy at the election after that. If you think he would make the party look like a dynamic forward looking forward party at that age you are really living on another planet.
It as been obvious since 1997 that the party had to hange radically to return to power. It had to convince voters that its a party for tommorrow not a party always lookin backwards for policies and inspiration. David Cameron is making us look a more modern, younger party that is trying to put together policies that suit todays Britain not the nineteen eighties and nineties. We are on the right truck and we only need to keep faith and we will win.

[John Moss]

New Labour has been a force for good, but not for the reasons stated.

Can you imagine that if John Mjaor had won in 1997 and we had embarked on a programme of radical reform in health and education, bringing in private sector providers, privatising LEAs and using private sector money to build new hospitals and schools. Not to mention University tuition fees.

No you can't, not because we could not ever have won in 1997, but because no CONSERVATIVE government could ever have opened those doors. Labour have done and now they won't close however hard the unions and the mad left push at them.

This is a tremendous opportunity for Conservatives to push the radical reforms that Labour have fudged and to do them properly. It is evident from much research that the people like our ideas, they just don't like us. This is no reason to stop pushing the ideas alongside a strategy to make them like us again.

If we present ourselves as the party which can deliver the real reform required, with intelligent arguement and a friendly face, we contrast Labour who don't really mean it and the Lib-Dems who don't want it. That is where Parris's strategy for the Lib-Dems fails. We can paint them just as much as roadblocks to reform as Brown.

"Civilise" the next government by coalition with the Lib-Dems? Hamstrung by it more like.

[Wallenstein]

Alison Ann Smith - "Who cares as long as it gets us in".

When a minority of Tories show such breathtaking cynicism is it any wonder that the party is so widely disliked and despised?

What honest and decent politicians do, Ms Smith, is to advocate the policies in which they actually believe, and then persuade the electorate to back them.

What they do not do is to trawl the gutter for the policies of others, before conducting a cynical anti-democratic masquerade motivated purely by a lust for power.

"Who cares as long as it gets us in"

Isn't that what German Conservatives like Schleicher and von Papen said when they made what they erroneously supposed would be a temporary alliance with Hitler and the Nazis?

[Wallenstein]

Actually in General v. Schleicher's case the Nazi alliance proved to be all too temporary.

It would be very interesting to speculate what part of the political spectum the Cameroons would have occupied in 1930s Germany.

When one considers their dominant characteristics of cynicism, power-lust, inconstancy and utter ruthlesness, the answer is not difficult to envisage.

[Yet Another Anon]

David Davis will be 65 at the time of the next election
If it's the same day as the European Elections which seems probable he will be 60, probably 65 at the General Election after next in 2014.

[Tapestry]

YAA - How exactly could Gordon Brown launch a police enquiry into cash for peerages, how exactly would this benefit him ...

My understanding is that Prescott chairs the quangocracy that controls the Police Force. Brown benefits if the threat of a cash for peerages scandal helps to push Blair out. As with the Watson coup attempt, Bronw is not bothered by damage to the party if he can secure his goal if getting rid of Blair.

Reid is definitely a player still. See this week's Spectator - Matthew D'Ancona - 'Reid is not ruling himself out'. Reid would not push the cash for peerages scandal. He wants Blair to play it long.

[Yet Another Anon]

Brown benefits if the threat of a cash for peerages scandal helps to push Blair out.
Gordon Brown hardly benefits by discrediting the Labour Party and frightening away it's benefactors and creditors, as for John Reid he definitely was ruling himself out, not only that but the investigation into cash for honours was launched after an SNP MP made an allegation to the police - as for John Prescott, I don't get the impression that he and Gordon Brown really are on speaking terms - they hardly ever even mention each other.

[christina speight]

Editor -Since you are there CAN I PLEASE HAVE AN ANSWER TO THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE Poll of Polls (see front page commens)

Then "The subject of the thread"is "
Do voters really, really want Labour out?"

What I wrote last before your comment was not addressed to Jack Stone - it was replying to what he wrote. The syntax shows it wasn't replying TO him. I did reply to another poster who put winning above principles - - very germane to this thread

Alison - "Has Christina ever fought an election." Ye Gods- YES!! and as official party election agent twice too. Your remark was totally unprincipled.

[Tapestry]

YAA - as for John Prescott, I don't get the impression that he and Gordon Brown really are on speaking terms - they hardly ever even mention each other.

Your facts are all correct. My suppositions could be wrong. But they could be right. Gordon Brown tells us nothing of what his programme is to be, which is odd if you think about it.

Lance Price said that nothing moved in Downing St without the agreement of three men, Gordon Brown, John Prescott and Rupert Murdoch. The whole Blair/Brown relationship has been used as a news blanket to allow you to think that that's the only one that exists and has any importance.

The position of Prescott has been presented as an old labour buffoon. Don't kid yourself about that. In fact he's quietly accumulated so much power that he can carry on with as many womewn as he likes, be seen to visit people who could benefit by his decisions, (I could go on) but he's untouchable. I blogged about his role before ...

Here is Labour's list of Prezza's jobs. Two Jags, two jabs, two shags (at least) and 20 jobs. Superman is indispensible as we suspected.

Prescott’s list of jobs provided by Labour Government -

Oversight and co-ordination of Government policy across the full range of domestic policy areas, including:

Chairmanship of nine Cabinet Committees:

Domestic Affairs
Public Health
Housing and Planning
Inspection
Post Office Network
Ageing Policy
Local and Regional Government
Local Government Strategy and Performance
Animal Rights Activists

Active role as the Prime Minister's Deputy on seven Cabinet Committees

Anti-Social Behaviour
Asylum and Migration
Energy and the Environment
National Health Service reform
Public Service Reform
Schools Policy
Serious Organised Crime and Drugs

The DPM has also been asked by the Prime Minister to:
Work on improving the effectiveness of policy development across Government

[Yet Another Anon]

Gordon Brown tells us nothing of what his programme is to be
He initiated more of the government's policies than anyone else with the possible exception of Tony Blair so in a sense he's standing on his record, he's started broadening what he's been saying to include Defence and Foreign Policy but he doesn't want to be seen to be jumping the gun, if he wanted to bring down Tony Blair early he could do it in a matter of days but far from it he's been reaffirming mostly what the government's been doing.

So far as nothing happening without the say so of John Prescott or Gordon Brown, certainly the committment by Tony Blair to change how the State Pension was uprated years back now so that it would be RPIX or 2.5% whichever was higher, that was very much a reaction by Tony Blair at the time and not actually agreed with or checked by anyone - Tony Blair was suddenly worried at the thought of being abandoned by the Pensioner vote and decided to rush out the committment, although a rare exception - otherwise pretty much everything else gets verified by Gordon Brown before the government commits to it - John Prescott was just thrown some bits so he could be a sort of mini PM to keep him happy, he's not a man who has much of a grasp for figures though, there will be certain things that Rupert Murdoch cares about - mainly broad sweeps of policy, Rupert Murdoch primarily is interested in profits and anything that doesn't affect News International he couldn't care less about.

[malcolm]

Your posts are getting ever more ludicrous Wallenstein. I suggest if you want to look at that part of the Conservative party which is not liked by the general public and is utterly unelectable you have a long look in the mirror.

[houndtang]

I think Conservativehome could be used as the next Labour party political broadcast.

[matt wright]

The problem with the prognosis in this thread is that in practice the Lib Dems are weak and don't really stand for anything. The only sure way to get rid of Labour is to vote Tory not let Labour in by voting Lib Dem,

Matt

[James Maskell]

While I desperately want Labour out, I do worry about what will replace it. Having a look at the Conservative Party's website and peeking at the Key Challenges news ticker, it comes up with the incredible headline "Children hit hard by Family breakdown". I do worry about the intellectual support of the New Tories with headlines like this. Its not brain surgery to be aware that this is the case. If the Social Justice Policy Forum wants to know first hand, its certainly welcome to have a look round Thanet, which will prove the point. The fact is Cameron may want to delay policy for a while because Labour might nick those policies, but there are people on the streets struggling to feed their families who need help now, not in three years time. They are being screwed on a daily basis by the State and having to suck it up because they have no means to get out of it by themselves.

This is why I worry. From the heady heights of CCHQ to the streets is an awful way down, a distance Im not sure the Conservative Party leadership appreciate. This Party should be foaming at the mouth with its anger at how good people have been screwed by the State. This being Mr Nice Guy act is pathetic. Get Angry. Theres plenty of inspiration in the last 9 years.

[liberalone]

A few thoughts if I may:

1) I cannot see any party campaigning for a hung Parliament, it's just not feasible, just look at the mess the Lib Dems got into in the run-up to the '92 Election, where questions to Ashdown's press conferences were dominated by the hacks asking him what he would do if Kinnock won with a minority Govt;

2) For those who think that the Lib Dems are not capable of campaigning for reform of the EU, just look at what Ashdown was saying last week http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5360562.stm

3) The poll quoted by Stephan Shakespeare only confirms what many other polls have shown, once the electorate no longer feel that voting for the Lib Dems is wasted, insofar as they feel the Lib Dems might win in that constituency, then they are much more likely to consider voting for them – the Lib Dems then have the chance to become 'victims of their own success' and make more gains.

[christina speight]

James - How I agree with you. There's no fire in the belly of the party's leadership. Matt wants to "get rid of Labour". But what is there to replace it with? More of the same. I personally won't lift a finger if at the end of the day we get Libcon spin instead of Labour spin and no changes to the failing NHS, no abolition of ID cards, no facing-up to the EU, and the same high taxation.

It wouldn't just be the party that would go down the plughole with Cameron - it would be our country.

[Monday Clubber]

We constantly hear the refrain from those who back the Notting Hill Set approach that all the Tories need to do is to "change" in order to win.

If it were as easy as that, no doubt all the other parties would be doing exactly the same.

And what is this "change" that is advocated? As far as I can make out it consists of trashing most of what the party has achieved over the past quarter century or so, and promoting an "image" (no more than that) which closely approximates to Blairism, with a liberal dose of Political Correctness thrown in for good measure.

So who is changing? Well it certainly isn't the Cameroons, because they have been advocating this fatuous approach for several years. They are consistent in that, if nothing else.

As for the rest of the party there is no evidence whatsoever that members are changing their views. I doubt whether any more than a tiny fraction of the membership is even aware that anybody actually wants them to change. The pitiful vote in the B2L referendum bears this out.

A left-wing TV comedian recently went right to the nub of the problem when he summed up the average grassroots Tory lady's view of Cameron in one sentence.

"He's such a nice boy. I'm sure he's in favour of capital punishment."

And the Glasgow Herald's view of the Scottish Tories undoubtedly applies equally, if perhaps less red-bloodedly, to their English colleagues.

"There’s no way they are going to start going around sympathising with single mothers, gays and greens. They want to get back to the old virtues of tax cuts, family values and law and order."

So the sad news about the big Tory "change" is; there is no change.

How long before our opponents latch on to the sheer hollowness of the big bass drum that is being so loudly beaten by the Notting Hill Set?