None-of-the-above party gets 36%

The year ends with ConservativeHome's crude average of the most recent Communicate Research, ICM, Populus and YouGov surveys giving the Tories a modest 2.75% lead.  This poll of polls number incorporates today's YouGov survey for The Daily Telegraph.  YouGov gives the Tories a 4% lead (compared to 5% last month).  If you believe the value of Brown versus Cameron surveys (and ConservativeHome is sceptical), of those surveyed by YouGov: "45 per cent opt for the Conservatives under their actual leader, only 32 per cent for Labour under their putative leader."

Perhaps the most interesting component of the YouGov survey is the widespread unhappiness with all of the parties.  Anthony King:

"To an almost unprecedented extent, voters are evincing their dissatisfaction not merely with Labour and the Tories but with all three major parties. According to YouGov, one respondent in four, 27 per cent, would either abstain at an early election (11 per cent) or at the moment lacks any voting preference (16 per cent). Of those who do declare a voting intention, one in eight, 13 per cent, say they would back some party other than one of the big three.  Putting the same point another way, only 64 per cent of voters currently say they are disposed to vote for any of the three main parties. Fully 36 per cent — a huge proportion by post-war standards — seem disposed to turn their backs on the whole lot. Never before has the None-of-the-Above Party recruited so many adherents."

Comments

[Tory Loyalist]

Oh dear.

Looks like somebody just pooped the Winterval party of the Jeremy Cardhouse fan club.

[Richard]

If 36% of the population feel they aren't represented it would be interesting to know why. Maybe they support policies that none of the three main parties propose? Maybe they just don't care?

Moving to the "centre ground" carries the risk that you will alienate those with certain political beliefs. Indeed, some popular beliefs (restoration of the death penalty from the right, higher taxation on the wealthy from the left*) aren't upheld by any of the main parties.

*Like it or not there was a poll showing a majority supported the Lib Dems old 50% tax policy.

[Richard Carey]

Not quite as encouraging as the ICM poll the other day, obviously.

Interesting to note that in the "none of the main 3 parties" in the YouGov poll, it doesn't seem to be atributable to the rise of "others" - quite the reverse, they were on 13(-2) in the VI question. It does just seem to be falling turnout.

The "don't knows" don't seem to be all bad news either - it's a concern that we've not got the correct message thorugh to them yet, but you can console yourself (kind of) by thinking that no-one else has either. Affinity with Labour seems to continue to collapse. These guys are still up for grabs, and I think we do need to get broader messages over to them.

I'd have liked the poll-of-polls to be nearer to 40 points to close the year - I'm a believer in integrating up over multiple polls wherever possible. Tim, are you looking at using any of Graeme Archer's detailed suggestions for the methodology of the PoP that he made on the ICM thread?

Also I note that the "abstention" figure was only 11% - that would imply an 89% turnout of translated into actual ballots, and I can't remember one of those while I've been voting. Even if all the undecideds witheld their vote, that would be 73%. As I've not really worked this area through before, anyone have any thoughts on correlations between commitment in a poll this far out and actual electoral turnout?

The Brown-Cameron question polarises things in a favourable way for us - in 2005 a similar question worked entirely against us. I agree, though, that such hypotheticals are probably unreliable, but I don't see a reliable way to crystallise these results until Brown is actually PM.

We've still got alot of work to do to communicate our intentions to the non-voters and undecideds, that much is obvious - it looks like 2007 is going to be a very busy year for us regardless of whether Brown goes to the polls or not.

Oh, and Tory Loyalist - sorry to disappoint, but I'm still going to my party - I like the funny hats!

[voreas06]

To point out the obvious, The "None of the Above want to be enthused, they want to know that their vote will change their and their families lives for the better. They believe that the current centralised Westminster setup reeks of vested interest.

Clearly it is very difficult then for a major party to enthuse these people. There is no simple answer but the messages put out need to be radical to enhuse people.

First I believe their needs to be a real attempt to get the localism message across and really mean it in the same way Simon Jenkins does so less funding and control from the centre more at a local level, control of the NHS at a local or at most County level. With the increased responsibility at a local level, elections should happen more frequently. There should be focus on innovative solutions like home-working, free school buses etc to solve problems like congestion. There should be obvious solutions to the benefits bill as Jeff Randall suggests in the Telegraph today.
There needs to be a liberal outlook for the law abiding i.e no ID cards, no Children's register, no DNA database for unconvicted people, no largely useless CCTV cameras. There needs to be an effective approach to crime and the causes i.e whatever works: so broken windows policing, increased mental health provision, increased prisons. drug rehabilitation schemes. supporting charities that help to tackle the causes of crime.

There needs to be an honest debate on where we actually want to be with foreign policy. What really are the benefits/costs of being in Europe?, what really are the benefits/costs of the "special relationship" with the US?, Is there merit in instead beefing up the commonwealth? Where do we see UK(if there is still a union) in 50 years.

Only by giving people a much more direct say in what happens in their life, by not treating them like criminals or children are the "None of the Above" going to become voters again.

[Tory T]

Editor,

Graeme Archer, your regular and statistician, suggested an accurate way to have a poll of polls:

Take the CHANGE in Tory support since the election as recorded in each real pollster, Populus, You Gov and ICM. Average out this change and add it to the figures at the general election. Amazingly, to credit them with something useful for once, ukiphome seized on Graeme's suggestion and provided the figures.

The real poll of poll averages, which eliminates bias instead of adding to it as CH does by only recording the changes, has Labour on 30% and Tories on 37.5% I think.

But perhaps this statistically accurate poll of polls is too favourable to the party since it faithfully records Lab Tory percentage change averages, by the real pollsters, since the 05 election.

Our real "poll of polls" advantage is around 7%.

[Richard Carey]

Only by giving people a much more direct say in what happens in their life, by not treating them like criminals or children are the "None of the Above" going to become voters again.

I agree with much of this, voreas. I do think there is a lot to be said for the Direct Democracy/new localism agenda. We've seen one or two glimpses of this in broad brush terms in the past, perhaps we do need to weave it a little deeper into policy.

[Tory T]

I checked and the "true poll of polls" has Lab 30.2%, Tory 37.5%, and LibDem 21.3%.

[Michael McGowan]

This is hardly a surprise. In essence nothing has changed since the last general election, despite all the shouting and screaming. Irwin Stelzer summed it up well earlier this month: "Britain faces a situation in which taxes are high, and likely to rise, stealthily or otherwise, retroactively or otherwise; the tax structure is becoming increasingly complex; the relative growth of the public sector is driving down average productivity, which bodes ill for future living standards; the expanded public sector and welfare dependency creates a constituency for the continuation of these trends; and all political parties are agreed that this state of affairs is acceptable".

[Richard Carey]

But perhaps this statistically accurate poll of polls is too favourable to the party

I think that's a little unfair on the Ed, TT - but as I said above I do think (although I'm no stats guru myself) that Graeme's suggestions are worth exploring if they help to produce a more representative PoP.

Lab 30.2%, Tory 37.5%, and LibDem 21.3%.

Interesting that this seems to reduce the don't know and won't vote combined to 11% only - any suggestions on why that might be?

The numbers are more encouraging but putting them into into electoral calculus (yes, I know, UNS etc) puts us on 309, 17 seats short of an outright majority but the only net gainer from 2005.

Lots of work done, lots still to do!

[Jack Stone]

Nothing as changed since the last general election. I thought Labour came out of that election on top or am I mistaken.
Of course the Editor dosen`t give credance to the fact that the latest two polls give the party leads of 4 and 7% and that the party is much as thirteen per cent in the lead with Gordon Brown as leader because like many on this site he is only interested in talking the party down.
This party is on the road to victory with David Cameron. It would be on the road to defeat with the Editor and his friends in Cornerstone leading the party!

[George Hinton]

Bit of a turn-round from the ICM/Guardian poll earlier.
I'm waiting for the spin to explain this.

[Richard Carey]

I'm waiting for the spin to explain this.

There has to be spin to explain it, George? Try this then...

Like the ICM one before it, it's just another poll. Not quite as encouraging, I grant you, and some of the discussion of both polling methodology and potential political disengagement above is interesting.

There will be polls and polls and polls between here and any GE, and a little bit of sanity and consistency in how the ConHome community responds to them individually I think would help immensely.

I seem to remember having a very similar conversation over 2 years ago with a memof of the parliamentary party regarding the reactions of some of his colleagues to individual pieces of polling, too.

[Tory T]

Richard, there is no valid reason to include an unweighted poll like CR. None at all.

Our poll lead is 7.2%. I just do not know why there is such a feeling that we are doing poorly when both polls and by-election results show just the opposite.

On PB.com it is reported we took control of Basingstoke council, winning a safe Labour seat comfortably in a by-election.

What I worry about is "election rewind" and some voters going back to Lab in a campaign. Not our present healthy leads!

[Richard Carey]

*Sorry, typo: memof = "member" in post above! Oops!

[Tam Large]

How can anyone be surprised the None-Of-The-Above party is in the ascendant?

Not only do the Big-Three parties now espouse the same social democrat/pc/spin doctrine, and the Conservative Party is no longer an opposition to this sort of madness; but why vote anyway, when over 70% (and rising) of our laws are made by the EU and our votes make no difference in those issues, no matter who is "in power" in Westminster.

[Richard Carey]

I just do not know why there is such a feeling that we are doing poorly when both polls and by-election results show just the opposite.

I don't think we're doing poorly, TT - I just want to se us keep on learning, keep on improving and keep on getting our messages across to do better!

Excellent news about taking control in Basingstoke, by the way!

You're right in that we need to look carefully at our campaign messages for an election. I seem to remember seeing some evidence recently that the campaigns of the main parties in 2005 actually damaged all of their standings. Positive, forward-looking, locally focussed long-term campaigns have to be the aim.

[Matt Davis]

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the Editor by repeating myself once again (although not as often as that one trick pony Jack Stone does)these polls really don't prove anything much either way. Over the years the polls have been spectacularly inaccurate, witness the 1992 GE where they predicted a Kinnock win for example, and whichever method one uses to aggregate or average them simply compounds the errors within the original polling.The only piece of really interesting information in the whole thing is the rise of apathy and none of the above feelings amongst voters. I of course would wish to believe that that is because there is now so little to choose between the three najor parties, at least in terms of the things that the voters say they care about. But then if you, as I do, adopt the sceptical view of polling then even the none of the above figure can't be relied upon since it may be concealing anything from a secret but shameful intent to vote BNP or Respect to a genuine disenchantment with the entire self serving political class.

The basic reality is that it is election results, including our bete noire Parliamentary By Elections, that are the only true guide to the electoral behaviour of the voters and even then, as they say on financial services adverts; past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

[Tory Loyalist]

Oh, and Tory Loyalist - sorry to disappoint, but I'm still going to my party - I like the funny hats!
__________________________________________________________________

I can believe that Richard. Try wearing the Cameron/Cardhouse approved plastic cowpat. The one he wears when peddling his pushbike in front of the obligatory gas-guzzler.

It might help keep your brains inside your skull if another reveller pushes you off the tube platform while you're blundering around trying to find your way home.

[Mark WIliams]

Is this bad news? If voters are not stating their voting intentions, that means they are in the process of changing their views. Remembering that the Conservatives didn't win the last General Election, I don't see how that is necessarily unhelpful.

[malcolm]

Please Jack make a new year resolution to learn to spell the word 'has' properly.It (H)as, as (H)as been pointed to you many times an (H) at the front of the word.
As regards the recent poll I'm quite suprised that polling organisations have not polled their 'none of the above' respondents more deeply and asked them why they have chosen not to use their vote.After all the smaller parties are not gaining according to this poll but have lost 2% of their share of the vote.

[Richard Carey]

Is this bad news? If voters are not stating their voting intentions, that means they are in the process of changing their views.

Agreed, Mark - undecideds aren't a problem, they're an opportunity. We just have to work harder to persuade them!

I can believe that Richard. Try wearing the Cameron/Cardhouse approved plastic cowpat. The one he wears when peddling his pushbike

You don't approve of cycle helmets, TL? Perhaps having seen the shape of one after an accident you would change your mind.

Never mind, with a line in witticisms like that, I'm sure you're not short of Christmas party invites!

[Michael McGowan]

Jack Stone could have taught Mussolini a thing or two about believing his own propaganda....although the Sage of Southend would have had problems spelling "propaganda".

[Tory Loyalist]

You don't approve of cycle helmets, TL? Perhaps having seen the shape of one after an accident you would change your mind.

Never mind, with a line in witticisms like that, I'm sure you're not short of Christmas party invites!
_______________________________________________________________

Quite happy with my BMW, Richard. If God has intended man to ride on two wheels he'd have created him with a built-in Cameron cowpat-shaped skull.

Yes, as always I have the usual round of invites. However, unlike some, I always remove my funny hat before leaving the party.

[TomTom]

This party is on the road to victory with David Cameron. It would be on the road to defeat with the Editor and his friends in Cornerstone leading the party!

Posted by: Jack Stone | December 22, 2006 at 11:14

I do hope Spelling improves under the next government !

[BorisforPM]

That the "none of the aboves" now tend to vote for no-one rather than support their traditional party, the Liberal Democrats, shows just how far the latter have fallen under Ming the Virtueless.

I thikn that the Conservatives stand to gain from this disaffected group if we pitch our policies carefully. I realise that many have been frustrated by DC's having withheld his policy cards in favour of a simple tone-change. But I'm convinced that that was probably necessary, if only to create the climate in which we'll be given a fair hearing on the policies we do release.

So the "none of the aboves" are rich for the picking. Let's hope DC and crew don't let us down...

A lovely Christmas to you all!

[Cardinal Pirelli]

At least Mr Stone is always polite, unlike the vituperative arrogance from certain other posters.

Tory Disloyalist/Wallenstein cannot stomach the fact that in a year Cameron has reversed a labour lead into a conservative one and that voters like Cameron much more than his friend Gordon Brown.

" If you believe the value of Brown versus Cameron surveys (and ConservativeHome is sceptical), "

Cameron is liked much more than Brown, period. Why try and shove that under the carpet? Brown is a disaster waiting to happen and, short of keeping it quiet so that labour fall into the trap, we should be proclaiming that from the rooftops.

[Tory Loyalist]

Please Jack make a new year resolution to learn to spell the word 'has' properly.It (H)as, as (H)as been pointed to you many times an (H) at the front of the word
____________________________________________________________________

If "Jack Stone" started using English he wouldn't be "Jack Stone".

Isn't Southend where all the East End boys go after they retire from selling loverly bunches of "banana's"?

"Jack" must be the only non-BNP voter to take the White Flight trek from one armpit of the universe to the other.

Years ago there used to be an ancient Alf Garnett style Essex Tory named Ted Attwell. Anybody remember him?

Attwell used to worship Margaret Thatcher with the same slavish sycophancy "Jack" reserves for Jeremy Cardhouse.

I can't help thinking he's done a Portillo style right-left switch and reinvented himself with a new identity.

[Richard Carey]

Cameron is liked much more than Brown, period. Why try and shove that under the carpet?

I agree. Even if it is superficial at present, the fact that Cameron has generally polled better than the Party as a whole (or at least that is my feeling, I shall have to go and find some hard polling evidence to link to in order to substantiate that sometime) means that we should not hide away our best electoral asset.

Also would be interesting to know how many of the switchers to Conservative when faced with the forced change of government question in the poll were Libems - I'm guessing a high proportion, just through simple arithmetic. Labour's core vote seems to be staying with Brown, but my impression was that much of the soft LD vote was coming our way in that question. Has to be a good thing.

[Richard Carey]

Isn't Southend where all the East End boys go after they retire from selling loverly bunches of "banana's"?

Watch as TL immediately sets us back ten years with the Southend vote...

[Simon Coote]

Hells bells, seems like i was right to be worried about turnout and the great mass of 'plague on both (or all) your houses' voters. Speaking to voters, the problem is that government is seen as doing foxtrot alpha for the 'ordinary person'- apart from collecting taxes- and giving the cash to 'anybody else'! The government are seen as 'managers' and by eck- we have enough of those imbeciles at work. The people want government to be responsive ( ie) solving problems like housing, health and education), but only see a lack of will to do any of the above- or they only succeed in making a righ horlicks of anything they do. In other words - people have seen through politics and politicians and don't like what they see. Cameron has his work cut out.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Mr Carey - another point is that, as awful as he has been, Blair still has a Svengali-like hold over much of the electorate. As soon as he goes then Brown has nothing of that charisma and none of the ability to make people believe him. Recent strategy has been to neutralise Brown and this has paid off grandly. Labour cannot get rid of him without blood being spilled or they must keep him knowing that he's not well liked.

As such, the Brown/Cameron question is crucial.

[TomTom]

At least Mr Stone is always polite, unlike the vituperative arrogance from certain other posters.

Yes but Spelling is still something we should demand when we spend over £1 billion/week on "Education"

[James Sproule]

*Like it or not there was a poll showing a majority supported the Lib Dems old 50% tax policy.

This may be true, but I remember that my old work did a survey on compulsory savings for pensions. This too was supported by the majority, and when asked what level should this compulsory savings should kick in, they all chose about £5000 above their own earnings. So much for support.

On a related matter, because a policy is not popular does not mean we should not be supporting it, of course. As an economist I am convinced that our economy is not going to grow as rapidly as it could because we are over taxed and that taxation employs an army of bureaucrats. I don’t think this is widely appreciated, but that doesn’t stop it from being true.

[Tory Loyalist]

Richard I have nothing whatsoever against East End boys who sell "banana's"

As a traditional Tory I consider them to be salt of the earth, children of the people &c.,&c.,&c.

A touch of the classic reactionary de haut en bas from you methinks

[Cardinal Pirelli]

TomTom - I agree, but manners are just as important. There's enough thuggishness around as it is.

[Londoner]

So no interesting posts on this thread then...

[Richard Carey]

There's enough thuggishness around as it is.

Is that just generally, or have you been spending too much time on here?!

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Mr Carey - there's actually a serious point there. I think that, much more than policy, people have turned against politicians for the way that they behave. Lying, evasive and (in the commons) behaving like a bunch of fools. How on earth are we supposed to look up to people like that?

[Mark Fulford]

Yes but Spelling is still something we should demand when we spend over £1 billion/week on "Education"

TomTom, I'm not sure you're in a position to criticise. Weren't you once "Rick" and didn't we once have a little chat about "our's"? I'm wondering if the TPA ever got their £20.

[Richard Carey]

Mr Carey - there's actually a serious point there. I think that, much more than policy, people have turned against politicians for the way that they behave.

Sorry, Cardinal, for a flippant remark (and please call me Richard!) - you did indeed raise a serious issue, and deserved a fuller response.

DC in his frst PMQ's,said "and there's part of the problem, the Chief Whip shouting like a child!" I think that was a good line, and a sentiment we need to try a little harder to live up to, otherwise it tars us all with the same brush.

I've stood on the doorstep many times and had it shouted at me that "you're all the same, you're all in it for yourselves!"

I'm really not sure how that works when my political involvement costs me money, and if I'm door-knocking or delivering on a Saturday afternoon instead of putting my feet up with a beer in front of the football, it does rankle a little inside, believe it or not!

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Thanks Richard (sorry for my idiosyncratics use of surnames, old habits etc....).

I'm also sure that private affairs are not really the problem, just the way that political matters are dealt with. Loans and peerages matter far more than a politician having an affair or some such.

[TomTom]

Posted by: Mark Fulford | December 22, 2006 at 13:08

No Mark Fulford I don't think you can excuse repeated poor spelling and whatever propositions you have made with people on this site for £20 are not really of interest to me

[Andy Stidwill]

On a slightly different topic, it's interesting how the Scottish Tories seem intent on committing political suicide.

Over the last decade, Allan Stewart, Michael Hurst, and now Lord Fraser have all been involved in rather petty controversies which have successfully kept the party on about 10% in the opinion polls. It'll be interesting to see whether they fall even further, into single figures maybe.

[Ted]

TomTom - As someone who regularly mistypes the occasional word can we stop picking on spelling - it's playing the man rather than the issue.
Mea culpa though on Christine and her defence of 'Grammer' rather than Grammar in contect of schools.

[Ted]

Red faced - context not contect

[Jack Stone]

Several rather silly comments by the right-wing idiots as normal.
Here in Southend we have an excellent Conservative council and three excellent Conservative Members of Parliament so we certainly are not all East End refugess down here.
Hope some of our excellent MP`s will play a part in David Camerons Government after the next election. I am sure all three would serve him well.

[Tory Loyalist]

TomTom - As someone who regularly mistypes the occasional word can we stop picking on spelling - it's playing the man rather than the issue.
___________________________________________________________________

No it's not. There's no excuse for repeated misspellings on what is supposed to be a literate site for educated people, particularly when these howlers are so obviously deliberately contrived.

"Jack", informing us that there are 3 Tory MPs in Southend (I assume this is correct - sounds at least one too many to me) does not qualify as "inside information" on the association of which you claim to be a member.

I do remember a first-rate chap called Bendall who was an estate agent before became a MP but I assume he is long out of it.

What can you tell us about him Jack?

[George Hinton]

What is disappointing with this poll is, that notwithstanding the scandals that have hit NuLab and the continuing problems with Afghan and Iraq, David and the party are not making the in-roads that one would expect to see.
NuLab in the Telegraph/YouGov poll are seen as highly corrupt and mendacious by over 60% of all polled and over 70% of conservative voters, that is telling, but, not translated into this poll as intent for a GE.
The question has to be asked as to why?
Call me old fashioned, but i believe it is the duty of an opposition to oppose, everything. To come up with propositions that appeal to the other side of the political equation, whilst remaining true to the core faith.
David is,i believe, by seeking the middle ground, alienating some of our support, which is draining away to UKIP and other radical parties, such as BNP...vide the Telegraph article today.
The middle ground is becoming very crowded, and not offering much choice to an increasingly bemused and befuddled electorate who feel that there is no choice.
That thought must be dispelled, radical and new policies must be unveiled for consumption and discussion, returns to old values and standards offered up and the mendacity, corruption, empty rhetoric and bankrupt nature of NuLab must be exposed and commented upon daily. not just at PMQ's.
Past commentary has made the point that the conservatives will need to win a far greater swing at a GE than we are seeing now, to gain a majority and form a government, as a result of the gerrymandering of constituency boundaries by NuLab. That job may be made easier with Brown as leader, but we must not rely on that.
David needs to do better and to widen the gap from the centre and offer some appeal to the voter, to be above the mundane and anodyne, to offer some bite and freshness into the stale old NuLab political sandwich.
CARPE DIEM.

[Ted]

George

The middle ground is crowded because thats where you win or lose elections. UKIP, BNP & Respect aren't our prime opposition Labour & the Lib Dems are. We don't have to adopt their policies or prejudices but we do need to have policies which address their real (as against prejudiced/racist or imaginary ones) concerns.
The scarey thing for me on corrupt & mendacious was Labour supporters - it wasn't that 35% of Labour Voters didn't think Blair & Co were in the wrong on cash for peerages but 40% thought they were guilty and still supported them!

[Tory Loyalist]

The worst thing about the Party under Cameron is not its leftism and Political Correctness, appalling as those are, but its total intellectual bankruptcy.

Compare today's ideological desert with the position under Thatcher when the party was fizzing with exciting ideas and exciting people.

No wonder the party now attracts the very worst sort of careerist while repelling anybody who has an even remotely intellectual interest in politics.

[TomTom]

Hope some of our excellent MP`s will play

This is getting to be stupid - Jack Stone is ineducable

http://www.eatsshootsandleaves.com/

http://www.tesco.com/books/product.aspx?R=1861976771

Go and spend £3.94 at Tesco and learn to use apostrophes

What pray does "MP's" mean - what is the missing letter signified by the apostrophe ?

[Tory Loyalist]

The middle ground is crowded because thats where you win or lose elections.
__________________________________________________________________

I suppose if you repeat this tosh often enough you may come to believe it.

Under Thatcher I and many other seriously right-wing people were riding high in the party and loving it. People like you were regated to the sidelines, hating the way Thatcher won again and again.

Now that the tables are turned I don't blame you for savouring your moment of triumph, but puh-leeze spare us the bullshit.

[TomTom]

three excellent Conservative Members of Parliament

Southend West - David Amess

Southend East & Rochford James Duddridge

Looks like arithmetic and spelling - so two of the 3 Rs look in need of attention

[malcolm]

Interesting Cardinal that you thought Tory Loyalist and Wallenstein were the same person, recently I had the same thought or perhaps he is 'Monday Clubber' of Christina Speight fame?

[Tory T]

Tory Loyalist

"No it's not. There's no excuse for repeated misspellings on what is supposed to be a literate site for educated people, particularly when these howlers are so obviously deliberately contrived."

Please play the ball and not the man. You were already asked to do that.

[Tory Loyalist]

I don't know Duddridge but I have been on good terms with Amess ever since he was MP for Billericay or was it Basildon (?) years ago. I'd forgotten he was Southend now.

We ended up staying at the same hotel at Bournemouth in October and "Jack" may be distressed to learn that David was delighted to see me.

Amess is hardly a "Jack Stone" type of Tory I would have thought, but then we're rapidly learning that Jack doesn't know his Southend from his rear end.

[Tory Loyalist]

Interesting Cardinal that you thought Tory Loyalist and Wallenstein were the same person, recently I had the same thought or perhaps he is 'Monday Clubber' of Christina Speight fame?
_________________________________________________________________

Is that so Malcolm? Well I was once briefly a member of the Monday Club but so were many others, including a few who wouldn't now care to admit it.

I'm intrigued that you think I may be sockpuppeting these IDs you mention. Which threads are they posting on?

[Rachel Joyce]

This is the era of the indendent candidate, the single issue politician doing well, and the turnout for mainstream parties declining.
The answer is more localism, and voters knowing exactly what their politicians stand for. Voters need to know what real concrete changes are likely to happen if they vote for someone (which would encouraged better and more open public debate).
This is why local campaigners who happened to be Conservatives bucked the trend in the 2005 elections last year (eg Grant Shapps), and why public services need to be localised

[Richard Carey]

What pray does "MP's" mean - what is the missing letter signified by the apostrophe?

I know this is getting so far O/T as to be near farce, but as I remember, Fowler's English Usage (I don't have it to hand) does state that the apostrophe is used in the plural of an acronym or abbreviation. It also atates that it is convention (nothing more) in recent times to drop the apostrophe when the acronym in question is in common usage (giving the examples MP, CD etc).

The whole debate could of course just be a great example of why we get nothing done sometimes...

[Richard Carey]

This is why local campaigners who happened to be Conservatives bucked the trend in the 2005 elections last year (eg Grant Shapps)

Agree with that from personal experience, Rachel. Does lead you to wonder if all Conservatives don't happen to be local campaigners, though, and if not why not?

[Jack Stone]

Tory Loyalist and TomTom are nothing more than two silly right-wingers who because they have lost the arguments and there views are no longer listened to resort to personal abuse.
Davis Amess may be a right-winger but I have a lot of time for him because he is a good constituncy MP and is always loyal to whoever is leader of the party unlike you two idiots.
You both want to spend more of your energies attacking our opponents than attackiing fellow Conservatives that`s if you can be described as such.

[Tory Loyalist]

Tory Loyalist and TomTom are nothing more than two silly right-wingers
__________________________________________________________________

So we may be.

Now would you care to explain how a supposed resident of Southend claims to be represented by "three excellent Conservative Members of Parliament" when there are in fact only two?

[TomTom]

The apostrophe has three uses:

1) to form possessives of nouns
2) to show the omission of letters
3) to indicate certain plurals of lowercase letters.

Apostrophes are NOT used for possessive pronouns or for noun plurals, including acronyms.

[TomTom]

Tory Loyalist and TomTom are nothing more than two silly right-wingers who because they have lost the arguments and there views are no longer listened to resort to personal abuse.

Oh so that's what illiterates call it when called to account is it ? It is good we have a Labour Govt focussing on Education, Education, Education !

[Richard Carey]

Apostrophes are NOT used for possessive pronouns or for noun plurals, including acronyms.

Okay, here we go...

It is of course possible but highly unlikely I may have remembered incorrectly from Fowler's (I will check one day), but I've no need of the full lecture (including CAPITALS) from the likes of you, thank you very much. We may have to agree to differ in the meantime.

All of which is of course really improving our poll standing (serious people aren't reading this, are they?).

[Cardinal Pirelli]

TomTom - Focusing and focussing is an interesting case. The latter (which you used) has crept in in recent times. Using the 'stress' criteria however it should be focused (stress on the first syllable) unlike refer (stress on the second syllable, to become referred).

These are the rules (Univ. Press, Oxford)

-----------------

Words of more than one syllable

Those that end with one consonant preceded by one
vowel double the consonant on adding -ed, -ing, or
-er if the last syllable is stressed (but not if the
consonant is w, x, or y)

But words of this class not stressed on the last
syllable do not double the last consonant on adding
-ed, -ing, -er, or -y unless the consonant is l:

In words ending in -l the last consonant is gen-
erally doubled whether stressed on the last syllable
or not:

Exceptions are in- and outputting; worshipped, -ing, -er; and
words ending with l.

Paralleling is an exception to the rule relating to the doubling
of l.
----------------

So, focused it is.

[Richard Carey]

So, can we all just put this one to bed and agree that we're all pleased if we didn't have to learn English as a second language?!

[Tory Loyalist]

Well I have a copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd ed., 1997) and concerning such manifestations as "MP's" it states:

Though once commonly used in the plural of abbreviations and numerals (QC's, the 1960's), the apostrophe is now best omitted in such circumstances: MAs, MPs, the 1980s, the three Rs, in twos and threes. Except that it is normally used in contexts where its omission might possibly lead to confusion, e.g. dot your i's and cross your t's; there are three i's in inimical; the class of '61(= 1961).

So that particular howler possibly rates only 3 or 4 on a scale of 1-10.

Not something that can be claimed of such solecisms as "as" for "has" or "there" for "their".

Somewhere I have a copy of Fowler's original work dating back to 1910 or thereabouts. If I can find it I will see what it says on the same subject.

[Richard Carey]

Thanks for the clarification on this particular tangent, TL. I do remember specifically looking this up a couple of years ago when I'd tried "MEPs" and "MEP's" in an article I was writing and neither usage really pleased my eye!

[TomTom]

The latter (which you used) has crept in in recent times. Using the 'stress' criteria however it should be focused (stress on the first syllable) unlike refer (stress on the second syllable, to become referred).

These are the rules (Univ. Press, Oxford)

Well that suits me just fine Pirelli Calendar - I actually prefer "focused"

[Tory T]

"Analysis of nine comparable by-elections in December suggests a projected 14.6% nationwide Tory lead over Labour.

A calculation based on four wards where all three parties fought both times gives a projected line-up of: C 43.4%, Lab 28.1%, Lib Dem 21.5%."

From the Associated Press

http://www.24dash.com/news/2/14644/index.htm

[Tory Loyalist]

You'll have to do better than that.

You cannot "project" parliamentary by-elections in this way, let alone council by-elections which may be affected by all manner of local matters about which we know nothing.

Perhaps you'd like to try your hand at "projecting" recent BNP gains? Should see Mr Griffin in No 10 before the end of the decade.

I won't be putting any money on it though.

[Jack Stone]

Tory T of course Tory Loyalist will not accept anything showing the party is in good shape and heading back to power. He isn`t on our side he is on the side of our opponents. He doesn`t want to see the party back in Downing Street after the next election he wants to see Gordon Brown in residence.

[Tory Loyalist]

Actually Jack I want to see Hague or Davis in No 10.

No I don't want to see Jeremy Cardhouse in residence but I'm not losing any sleep over the prospect.

It ain't going to happen.

[Goldie]

The numbers have been consistent for months, and the numbers show that the Tories will falter once again.

If the Conservative Party want to form the next goverment, they should have been miles ahead at this stage.

In other words: we're looking at a fourth term for Labour.

[matt wright]

Tory Loyalist wrote the following "It might help keep your brains inside your skull if another reveller pushes you off the tube platform while you're blundering around trying to find your way home".

This is one of a number of increasingly nasty personal comments towards anyone who doesn't share TLs views,

Matt

[Tory Loyalist]

Actually I was making a mildly sarcastic tongue-in-cheek comment about the hazards faced by Christmas partygoers - which have included myself - on their way home from central London.

I don't believe Richard took offence but you seem a bit oversensitive Matt. Maybe some of my Camerosceptic comments are getting under your skin.

Maybe you'd also like to take issue with some of your own friends, for example Jack Stone who is in the habit of referring to right wingers who "pollute" this site and was recently rebuked by the Editor for some extremely offensive remarks he made about UKIP.

[Mark Fulford]

TomTom, your lesson on apostrophes has had me in stitches. I’m sure you’d rather forget Rick (of “our’s” fame), but your bleary-eyed July 07, 2006, 06:30 post was very revealing. Remind me, who else used Sandmann@newmail...? Damned cookies!

[malcolm]

Tory Loyalist, I've no idea which blogs Wallenstein and Monday Clubber frequent now.They've disappeared from view since being banned from this blog.
However if you're really not one of these two characters posting under another pseudonym I'd try and look them up if I were you.I'm sure you'd like them.They had exactly the same rather ignorant and unthinking view of the world as you.

[Ted]

malcolm - glad to see someone else sees the same pattern, thought I was just getting to suspicious. The behaviour is tmore carefully managed though the constructed personality shows very similar patters and references. Decided not to respond in hope whoever it is would get bored eventually - disruption only works if we let it.

[Tory Loyalist]

Well Malcolm I'm frankly disappointed by your comments, as we frequently agree on many matters eg Jack Stone.

I don't recall these other posters to whom you refer but if they were banned (as I assume) for obscene abuse that's emphatically not my bag.

If you are really so naive as to doubt that I have been a party member for 35 years I suggest you ask Sean Fear who has known me for many years. Sorry to disappoint but he won't tell you who I am.

You seem to have a problem with my honest opinions. Frankly I find that rather sad.

[Opinicus]

As I have said elsewhere I regard Yougov as the preeminent pollsters at present with a proven record. This poll confirms my contention that the polls are flat lining with no significant change since at least June despite this government imploding. The country simply despairs of politics.

Unless DC starts producing some well thought out popular/ist alternative policies that can energise the jaded electorate we will have a hung parliament by October 07 and PR by April 08

[TomTom]

Master Fulford you are a persistent fool but yet a fool...........if you are so naive on the Net as to invite spammers to use your real Email address.........perhaps I shall borrow yours henceforth.

[Jack Stone]

You want to see Hauge or Davis as PM. Well I am afraid that certainly is not going to happen. Hauge is one of those politicans who will make a great Cabinet Minister but not a leader and as for Davis they will be pushing him around in a wheelchair by the time David Cameron retires from being Prime Minister after he takes up residence in Downing Street after the next election.

[John Irvine]

Who's Hauge, for God's sake? Is this clown Jack Stone suffering from dyslexia?

As I am several years older than David Davis I think his ageist comments about wheelchairs are appalling

[Richard Lee]

Conservatives should take time and see what UKIP are saying about fighting Conservatives:

http://www.ukiphome.com/comments.asp?sid=735

“We should be working now, in every possible seat where our votes could result in a defeat for a Conservative candidate.

This will help Labour and the LibDems this one time”

and

“If we do this, then for one more Labour term, there will be the real chance of a Tory split”

and on the Epping Forest Borough Council by election Grange Hill ward 14 December 2006:

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/about15916-0-asc-70.html

“…By winning this seat the Tories gained control of the Council which they were denied by our standing in another ward in May,when the long term incumbent and Eastern Regional Assembly member for Theydon Bois ward was ousted by 23 votes.UKIP took 136 votes having never stood there before.Had we had the notice of the Grange Hill by election in time we WOULD have stood and I’m confident that we would have denied the Tories success.”

Conservatives gained overall control of Basingstoke Council on Thursday. Appears UKIP are already plotting to split the Conservative vote and help Labour or Liberal Democrat to win.

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=16603

"As UKIP could split the vote and lose the Tories this seat and its overall majority, and shock Cons, it is strategically important"

I think these comments show what UKIPs game really is. Not to campaign to get Britain to withdraw from the EU.

Oh no - their aim is to defeat Conservative candidates and get Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates to win. Their long term aim is to split the Conservative party in half as they believe these Conservatives will flock to UKIP. What a pathetic waste of space and a waste of good votes. They are betraying everybody who votes for them.

[John Irvine]

Don't you suppose the Conservative Party is already split in half between those who fawn over Cameron and those who are honest and independent enough to oppose him?

There's a lot to be said for UKIP but I agree with others. Now is the time to stand and fight and never let the traitors take over the party.

[Mark Fulford]

Master Fulford you are a persistent fool but yet a fool

TomTom Rick. Your pomposity is only exceeded by your evasiveness. You’ve been rumbled fair and square, but it’s Christmas so let’s Ho Ho! and move on with a smile...

[Richard Lee]

But what is UKIP?

A political party campaigniong to get Britian out of the EU.

Or a Conservative pressure group whose sole aim is to split the Conservative vote and help Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates to win?

Publicly they act like a political party but behind the scenes they act like a political pressure group.

[TomTom]

Mark Fulford do whatever you like but I am not interested in your games...........run along and play........but don't involve me in your childish fantasies

[John Irvine]

"But what is UKIP?
A political party campaigniong to get Britian out of the EU."

So what's the Tory Party?

Under Cameron it looks like a party campaigning to keep Britain in the EUSSR.

Kick the traitors out of the party and the patriots will return

[Daniel VA]

Nice to see the festive spirit alive and well on this thread!

One can only assume somebody left a sprig of holly in Tory Disloyalist's gruel or defaced his autographed portrait of Simon Heffer yesterday, judging by the ill-tempered, humourless bile pouring forth once more.

As for TomTom/Rick Sandmann/Dr. Samuel Johnson, or whatever your nom de plume is, perhaps you should lighten up a little and resign yourself to the fact (as most of us have) that Jack Stone's deliberate spelling, grammar (not grammer, Christina!) and punctuation mistakes are as much a part of the fabric of this site as your tangential contributions courtesy of Professor Wikipedia?

[John Moss]

Vivian Bendall lost his seat, Ilford North, in 1997. He failed to re-take it by about 2,300 votes in 2001 - I ran the committee room in Barkingside ward - then retired.

Lee Scott took the seat from Linda Pearham in 2005.

[Yet Another Anon]

Labour support is holding up still at a national level and Conservative support is advancing a bit perhaps - I don't think these opinion polls given the history of opinion polls failing to take some factor into account, really actually mean much especially just over 1.5 years into a third term, equally Local results and national results are frequently widely at variance, even when held on the same day there are appreciable differences and by elections at all levels frequently involve a protest element.

Generally the Liberal Democrats seem to be losing most of what they had built up, they still cannot make the breakthrough and in terms of support are still below the heady days the Alliance had in the 1980's.

[Jack Stone]

So the right-wingers are getting like Stalin, Hitler etc now with the definition of all those who disagree with them as traitors and all those who agree with them as patriots.
I am a Liberal Conservative and I love this country and I don`t want to see it ruined by another New Labour term.
Exactly what will happen if TomTom, Tory so called Loyalist and the rest of them get there way.

[Tory Loyalist]

You don't like UKIP much do you Jack?

That being the case I'm sure you'd love to tell us what has been going on in Southend UKIP this month. Actually I'm surprised you haven't told us already.

That's Southend Essex. The one with two Tory MPs, as opposed to Southend Cloud-cuckoo-land with its three fantastic MPs.

So let's hear it.

[ToMTom]

Exactly what will happen if TomTom, Tory so called Loyalist and the rest of them get there way.

Yes Gordon was only saying to me yesterday in the corridor......"It's that Jack Stone from Southend who poses our greatest threat. If his ideas catch on we'll have to let the Tories ruin the country "

[Jack Stone]

I know nothing about the Southend UKIP at all. I would imagine its so small that it holds its meetings in the local telephone box.
I don`t hate them I just think they are completly meaningless. They are just a small collection of individuals obsessive about a single issue that will never see the thing they campaign for come true.
People on this site pay a lot of attention to them because a lot agree and sympathise with them but thankfully in the wider world this is not the case and I am sure that in a few years they will join those many here today gone tomorrow parties of the right consigned to the dustbin of history where they belong.

[Tory Loyalist]

I know nothing about the Southend UKIP at all. I would imagine its so small that it holds its meetings in the local telephone box.
________________________________________________________________

Very possibly Jack, particularly after the rows and resignations in the local UKIP branch which were plastered all over the 'Southend Times' this week.

Seems that you are remarkably unclued up on local news.

The source of my information is the UKIP discussion board where, surprise! surprise! we also find a long-serving pro-UKIP contributor who is incapable of distinguishing "their" from "there"

How curious...

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=16596&start=0/

[Tory T]

"There" for "their" and "you're" for "your" and "it's" for "its" are all common errors since the start of the internet.

For goodness' sake, man, it's Christmas Eve. Have some mulled wine and a mince pie and see if you can't find a drop of the milk of human kindness somewhere.