LibDems up to 21% in new ICM poll

The Guardian has just released a new ICM poll.

It has the Conservatives on 37% (down 3%), Labour on 31% (down 4%) and the LibDems up to 21% (up 3%).

The Guardian's Will Woodward comments: "Despite having only an interim leader, the Liberal Democrats are up three points. The party's improved performance can be seen as a reflection of the extra media coverage it has received because of the ongoing leadership contest, and perhaps more importantly some telling interventions by the acting leader, Vince Cable, particularly over Northern Rock. The Lib Dems took two council seats from the Tories this week in byelections, in Forest Heath in Suffolk and Conwy, North Wales."

7.45pm: Graphic added below. The percentage changes above for the main parties refer to the last ICM poll for The Guardian.  The percentage changes in the graphic below refer to changes since the most recent ICM poll for any media organisation (in this case for The Sunday Express).  I do not know if ICM used different methodologies for The Guardian and Sunday Express.

Comments

[Cleo]

The Lib Dems are still able to dent any Conservative recovery and it is essential that the party has a positive message that reaches out to would be Lib Dems. Over emphasis on Europe and immigration will put these voters off.

[Votedave]

What on earth have the LibDems done to deserve this? It really does look like blind enthusiasm.

[CCHQ Spy]

It's only one poll but we do need to be mindful of the LibDems. As voters tire of Labour they have two options again now that Ming has been replaced.

[Votedave]

Now that I've calmed down a bit,

ICM says 21% (+6) , YouGov say 14% (+1). Which is closer to the truth?

Two things are consistent though - Labour are in the low thirties and have almost been reduced to their core vote, and support for minor parties has increased.

[Edison Smith]

Disappointing - if this poll is accurate, I'm sceptical - that we've dropped below 40%, but in a way it's a good thing: There can be no resting on laurels.

Our hold on 40% is currently fragile at best and non-existent at worst. We're hitting it often, but not with any security. We need to not only reach 40% everytime, but push on through into 42/43% territory (with Labour in the low 30s) if one is to feel for sure that there is a 'change of mood' in the country that is sustained, and profound.

[Patriot]

We cannot fail to win the next election if we stay focused. Labour are in melt down and the Lib Dems tax plans and absolute committment to greater integration into the EU will scupper them when it comes to the vote.

Education in the UK is in the tank with vast numbers of kids leaving schools unable to read or write. The HMRC security debacle has also highlighted the crisis in funding in that organisation. Robert Fox has just written that we are about to see defence cuts which will make the armed forces eyes water just at a time when senior officers are crying out for more funding and soldiers are dying from lack of equipment, and what has just hit Reuters?

"It's my ambition ... to train up the teachers, to get the schools built, to make sure that every child in the world has the chance to get to school," Gordon Brown told pupils at St. Peter's primary school in Uganda's capital, Kampala.

To back Brown's pledge, the government announced it would spend 106 million pounds over six years on education in Nigeria, where seven million children do not go to school.""

Just to be clear - I don't have an issue with this aid to Uganda per se, taken on its own I support it as a part of our overall aid funding to developing countries as long as the money doesn't vanish into corrupt local politics, but juxtaposed against the damage Brown is doing in the UK it does leave me speechless.

I am, however, reassured that Gordon Brown has an ambition to make sure that every child in the world has a chance to go to school.

[Northernhousewife]

I am with VoteDave on this. The poll may be right but - Lib dems on 14 or 21? They can't both be right. We shall see what the next slurry of polls say, but whatever we just have to press on regardless.

[Sam R]

The Lib Dems may not be worth looking at, but turn your back to them at your peril!
Remember the words of the late great Alan Clark ("In Power 1983-1992", p.284).

[Comstock]

"Two things are consistent though - Labour are in the low thirties and have almost been reduced to their core vote, and support for minor parties has increased."

In England at least I'm not convinced this increased support for minor parties is 'real'-i.e. would actually translate into votes come May 09.

I'm hopeful people who 'vote' for the Greens or Respect in opinion polls will come back to Labour when it really counts and similarly I reckon many of those who choose UKIP in a poll will vote for Cameron in the real thing.

It may be quite a different matter, of course, with Plaid and (especially) the SNP.

[Andrew Woodman]

Poll looks a little rogue to me, although I believe we have a ceiling of 40-42%. I'd look at the others before drawing any conclusions.

[Simon Chapman]

The Lib Dems might plummet when the (deeply unimpressive in the leadership campaign) Calamity Clegg replaces Vince Cable.

[Teesbridge]

"...slurry of polls..."

Brilliant! I've always wondered what the collective noun for these things might be.

[Simon R]

It's very hard as a politically aware person to put oneself in the mindset of a politically unaware and unafiliated person.

It baffles me that Cameron suffers so much stick for being a 'smarmy' toff, when Blair (for my money the smarmiest toff going) could get away with it just by dropping a few consonants when in the company of the proletariat. Who at the last election would have put Michael Howard down as less posh than Blair? I guess a combination of Tory and toff represents an image of the old ruling class that continues to put people's backs up.

I have to say that I don't think that a good poll for the Lib Dem's when they haven't even elected their new leader yet is really cause for jubilation on their part. They are not masters of their own destiny; their popularity fluctuates uncontrollably, and one imagines that when they elect one of the rather inadequate candidates they have on offer, they will make very little concrete headway. By contrast, Conservatives have sweated blood and tears for every voter we have managed to attract back to our 'nasty' party, tirelessly exposing Labour's lies and incompetence, even when the task looked impossible. I believe people who are planning to vote Conservative in the next election really will do it. Unlike the Lib Dems, we are not just another way of saying 'I don't know'.

[Philip]

While the Lib Dems might be benefiting from the extra publicity of their leadership election, this shows there is no ground for complacency and there’s still much work to do to win a good majority.

We could point out the Lib Dem instincts that are so against the instincts of most voters. Lib Dems are:
Soft on crime
EU-phile
In favour of let everyone in immigration (rather than fair immigration)
On drug abuse, legalise it, (most voters are against even the decriminalisation of the possession of cannabis)
Against encouraging marriage

A “Platform” article on this site on Tuesday by Peter Cuthbertson pointed to opinion poll findings demonstrating how at variance such policies are with the instincts of the majority of voters. Perhaps if we demonstrate that, in contrast, we have the serious policies this country needs and are the only party who can replace this Government, then the Lib Dems could be seen to be the irrelevance they actually are, whatever disproportionate attention the BBC always seems to give them, and whoever leads them.

[Traditional Tory]

The Lib Dems are still able to dent any Conservative recovery

For once - maybe the first time ever - I agree with Cleo.

This poll proves at least two things.

(1) Public opinio is so fickle and ill-considered that nothing can be taken for granted.

(2) The electorate do not love EITHER of the two main parties. Just as they have recently turned on Brown they may well again turn on Cameron in the future...

...especially after the personable Nick Clegg emerges as LD leader.

[Dave Bartlett]

"...The mystery is the significant drop in Conservative support, which has no obvious explanation.

There is a rule in market research called Twyman’s law: “anything surprising or interesting is probably wrong”. While not going that far, I would always advise that if you find a poll result that seems somewhat counter-intuitive, that seems to have no obvious explanation, treat it with caution until other polls support the findings." Anthony Wells, UK Polling Report

[Oberon Houston]

We need to be calm on this. Until the new leader is elected and has form, we cannot focus too much on the threat from the LibDems.

[Graeme Proud To Be A Statistician Archer]

What's that creaking noise? Oh yes, it's me, the broken record. You are going beyond the insanity of your "poll on polls" and are now making within-party, between-poll contrasts, to arrive at the nonsense figure of -6% for us. The process by which you've arrived at that figure is a statistical abomination. As huge a supporter of the humanities as I am, please, for the love of the probability calculus, will you *please* get someone who understands the basics of numerical data to help you with your opinion polling? It is doing my nut in!

[Chad Noble]

I rarely agree with Graeme, but on this issue, I agree, it is doing my head in too to see such an abuse of 'statistics'.

ConHome's graps of figures even manages to make Gids non-dom levy offset seem watertight!

[Northernhousewife]

Teesbrigde 11:02 re: "slurry"
I think it is an old Yorkshire word meaning a deluge, but it is rarely used in a positive context - usually neutral or negative.
My grandmother used it alot, but then she used to call "transvestites", "transistors".
Imagine it said in a flat Yorkshire accent. Please add it to you vocabulary now in honour of my grandmother who raised my mother [another Tory] on a widow's pit pension and gives the lie to the idea all Tories are born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

[Oscar Miller]

I suspect there may have been a knock on effect for the Conservatives from black Tuesday (and the general pessimism of last week). The (wholly undeserved) fall in Conservative support also showed up in yesterday's Populus poll for the Times where Labour got hit hardest, but the Conservatives were also down on a range of issues. (Honest and principled down 8; competent and capable down six; united party down 1). I sense the electorate is losing confidence in both main parties - instead of raising their opinion of the Conservatives as Labour's fortunes decline. In other words Labour incompetence is actually dragging down Conservatives as well. The huge bonus in the run up to the bottled election was that the party conference did wonders for perceptions of the Conservatives. Black Tuesday has just made people feel cynical about government in general. That's my gut feeling anyway.

[Peter Harrison]

I agree with both Chad and Graeme regarding the reporting of the figures. The way the "poll of polls" is calculated is plain wrong.

Also, I see the Guardian have changed their report and now show the LibDems on 23%. I may be wrong but I think such a high rating lacks credibility.

This survey was carried out at the same time as the YouGov poll. Such wide variance between the two results indicates that one of these is a rogue poll. The only thing they agree on is Labour in the low 30s. We'll need a few more polls before we know which to believe. And, if the experience of Black Wednesday is repeated, it may be several months before the events of the last few days are fully reflected in the polls.

[Northernhousewife]

You may be right Oscar.
People may be saying they are depressed with politics and can't be bothered to vote. You Gov include everyone regardless of the likelihood of voting whilst ICM exclude all but those very likely to vote so it could be our new support is still very soft.
But on that basis how do the Lib Dems go up from 14 to 21 in 24 hours. It is well outside the margin of error.

As Dave Bartlet has already pointed out, UK Polling say this poll is counter intuitive and whilst they are not saying its wrong, they are not prepred to give it weight until there is more to back it up.

UK Polling say ICM have not published the full data yet and their website is currently showing conflicting info that can not all be right.

[Northernhousewife]

Sorry - correcting my last post. It is the Guardian that is inconsistent. The LDs are up 3 to 23 [that would be up 5!]

[Dale]

"The Lib Dems are still able to dent any Conservative recovery and it is essential that the party has a positive message that reaches out to would be Lib Dems. Over emphasis on Europe and immigration will put these voters off."

Oh good, the first sign of slightly good news for someone else and the doomsayer cleo is back. Where was she a couple of days ago when we were 9% ahead?

The Libdems are on only 21% at the height of their leadershop election. Can you imagine what the headlines would have been if gordon brown only took labour up a pathetic 3 points when he became leader of the labour party?

[Simon Denis]

Frankly, I do not trust these polls. There is no conceivable reason for this rise in Libdem support. They stand for nothing (except "Europe", which means they'll gain power only to take it permanently from the voters); they squabble acrimoniously in public; they follow all the currents of fashion and received opinion; they play dirty tricks as a matter of course; they haven't the guts to come down decisively in favour of the market or of socialism. In short, they are a contemptible gaggle of muddle headed, cowardly, approval hunting nobodies. In so far as they ever achieve popularity - beyond the usual noddies and weirdos - it is the result of cynicism and apathy among the electorate. They are a sort of collective wet fish with which to slap the faces of Cameron and Brown. Cameron does not deserve this at the present time. He has rightly nailed the incompetence of this government. My suspicion is that some nasty little lefties have massaged the polls with a view to derailing the progress of toryism. Do not heed this rogue poll, Mr C, and keep campaigning vigorously.

[Northernhousewife]

"Do not heed this rogue poll, Mr C, and keepcampaigning vigorously" ...
My guess is he, on recent form, he will be calmer about it than most of us.

[Simon R.]

I think the problem stems from us not being 'liked'. I know this is an almost meaningless term, but I don't think we've been thought of in a warm way since before Thatcher. Maggie (to her enormous credit) never troubled to be liked; she had a job to do. Conservatives were considered capable and Labour unelectable, and that was what mattered. When we lost our reputation for competence, and Labour dropped its unelectable policies, it meant people's full dislike of us could be given free reign, and has done ever since. This is possibly why the Lib Dem's shoot up the polls every time someone gives them some airtime, and we struggle to make progress even in the Government's worst week ever.

It also worries me that when we get into power, (again because Labour will be considered incompetent) and have to bring in tough policies to put right Labour's disastrous mishandling of virtually everything, we will once again be heartily disliked but tolerated as a necessity, and once again when we slip up and an opposition party presents a passable leader and a plausible manifesto, people will run back to them with delighted relief.

I suppose that's why David Cameron's charm offensive is so necessary, if sometimes irritating. It's not enough to be seen as the least worst option any more. We have to be regarded in a positive light once again -a two steps forward/one step back process that seems to take forever.

[libcon]

This poll may reflect Lib Dems returning to their party, i.e. back to the level of the 2005 election result under Kennedy. Many regarded Ming as hopeless and flirted with Dave. They will probably be happy to see either Clegg or Huhne lead their Party. Zac Goldsmith should be very worried.

[Northernhousewife]

All the talk in the media at the moment is
"Is this Labour's Black Wednesday?/ the polls now show the Tories back to levels pre-Black Wednesday?" etc...

IF this poll is right - maybe it is because people keep being reminded of.....

Just a thought.

[Patriot]

SimonR - I think the problem is we've fallen into the trap of thinking it's important to be liked when what's actually important is to be trusted and respected.

That level of trust and respect will come when the electorate perceives the party to be attacking the government for reasons of duty and honour, and not political advantage.

A good example was DC promising to restore pensions to the 250,000 British workers who lost theirs when their companies went under, but who Brown still ignores despite being ordered to step in by the ombudsman - there weren't many votes in it for DC, but he did it because it was the right thing to do.

Another example, if he chooses to engage as aggessively as he needs to, would be the emerging scandal of the armed forces underfunding.

Fighting the government to ensure that men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq who are dying for their country get the equipment and support they need* is not a political act, its a moral imperative. The electorate will respect that.

In politics being liked just happens to be a bonus, if you're lucky. Margaret Thatcher, I think, understood that. The difference may be a lesson we still need to learn.

*Robert Fox is writing that Brown is planning draconian defence CUTS and suggests that Des Browne is considering resigning as a result, following Lord Drayson who resigned a few weeks back, reportedly because of underfunding. Matthew Paris in the Times today also hints at senior level resignations.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/robert_fox/2007/11/what_a_carrier_on.html

[Passing Leftie]

The problem is that the Tories have been ineffective in criticising the government.

Braying for heads does nothing. Some idiot loses a disk full of data, and the Tory answer is to call for the Chancellor's head. Why wouldn't this have happened under the Tories? Most of use remember Michael Howards' rat-like squirming to avoid responsibility for the prison debacle, and the hypocrisy is rank. An emphasis on the overall level of basic adminstrative skills would be more effective.

The government has to be unpopular, unlucky and incompetent for the opposition to get in, but the opposition also have to be popular, innovative and charismatic. They are not.

"Wear nice neat uniforms, and tuck your shirts in just like we did at Eton" isn't going to win any votes except from your core.

[Patriot]

Passing Leftie. ""Some idiot loses a disk full of data""

The problem, passing leftie, is not that some idiot lost a disk. The problem is that the Chief Executive - Gordon Brown for the last 10 years, allowed an environment to develop where that could happen.

I agree with you that it's for those people in today's Conservative shadow front bench who aspire to form the next government to convince the electorate that they should be trusted and respected enough to replace the present goverment.

Here's a serious question for you passing leftie. There are now millions of normal hard working men and women in this country who've seen their taxes rise relentlessly year on year while the country's infrastructure drifts into decay. Education's in the tank, the NHS is on life support, immigration's out of control, soldiers are dying from lack of support and funding.

How can you and I stop this present government doing any more damage between now and the next election?

[Jim Carr]

I like this typical Guardian (they just can't help themselves) red herring:

"there remains a powerful anti-Tory majority among the electorate"

There was an even more powerful anti-Labour majority among the electorate at all three past elections.
Didn't stop the Blair gang gaining landslide victories.

[Bruce]

Did anyone else pick up on the comment made by Vincent Cable on Today this morning?

Asked whether he wishes he could be leader permanently and the current contest abandoned, he replied that he's enjoying filling in but will be equally happy when he returns to being shadow chancellor.

Surely this is a decision for the new leader? Unusual for shadow cabinet members to declare which post they'll be taking even before the leader is elected. It also removes a senior post for the winner to offer as consolation prize to the loser.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Shadow cabinet, Bruce? They don't have one -only we do (official)!

[Traditional Tory]

The problem, passing leftie, is not that some idiot lost a disk. The problem is that the Chief Executive - Gordon Brown for the last 10 years, allowed an environment to develop where that could happen

Do you seriously believe that if the Cam-Os gruesome twosome were 'running' the country it couldn't happen?

Get real.

[Edison Smith]

Vince Cable reminds me of Davros from the old Dr Whos.

[David Sergeant]

I will repeat something I keep saying. Mr and Mrs avarage voter believe Black Wednesday demonstrated that Tories could never run the economy. (That view could very plausably be countered but, and this seems the point, no Tory has tried.) Also they belive the Tories increased unemployment substantially and cut public services. (Both wrong.) Until the media myths of the 18 years are addressed voters will be doubtful and inclinded to drift off voting Tory for any excuse, e.g. the Lib/Dems election.

Also, I wonder if voters are a bit scared of the Tories being too successful for fear of the "Taliban" getting going. You know the Simon Heffer types who frighten everybody.

[Patriot]

@Traditional Tory November 24 at 16:04

""Do you seriously believe that if the Cam-Os gruesome twosome were 'running' the country it couldn't happen? Get real.""

Trad old friend, that's an interesting comment. Why do you think that?

[Oberon Houston]

There is something here that is really getting to me. We may not like Black Wednesday (esp. Cameron), but when are we going to tell Brown to shut up about it. Every time he opens his mouth, Black Wednesday is quoted directly or indirectly as the reference point for Labours achievments.

FACT 1.
BROWN SUPPORTED ENTRY

FACT 2.
BROWN INSISTED DEVALUATION WAS NOT THE CURE, PROVING HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS HAPPENING.

6th Sept 1991 - Sunday Express Quote:
"There are those, like Lady Thatcher, who say we should devalue, despite all the harsh consequences that ensue." Gordon Brown.

FACT 3.
BROWNS INTEREST RATES ARE NOW HIGHER THAN THOSE HE INHERITED

How long do we need to take this miss-information? The MoD debate is another example. Statistics are presented in a very misleading way to the press. Nobody bothers to challenge then and the Tories demonstrate culpable ignorance by staying silent too.

Labour: Defense spending has increased every year since they took power and is more than the Tories ever did in the mid-80s

This is blatant nonsense. In the mid 80s there was a recession, Thatcher had won the cold war with Regan, there was a peace dividend. Growth in our economy has far outstripped Labour Government defense budget increases and we are now fighting two foreign wars! Any increases that are awarded are rigged to protect jobs related to defense projects in constituencies like Dunfermline - Brown's. It's a disgrace. Give me the Shadow Defense brief and I'll rip into them -and I'll do it for free. Coulson - do everyone a good turn, email a brief on this to every MP, Hack, Researcher and Cleaner on your distribution list. Why do the public have to hear this tripe going out unchallenged every day?

We must put this Labour banner to the torch, or it will cost us the next election. Get this right and we will see the polls we want.

[Patriot]

David and Oberon. I spent an hour with a 90 year old recently. He doesn't like Cameron. Never has done. Doesn't like his manner and his style.

This isn't about politics, or stategy, or black Wednesday, or the HMRC, or defence spending. He doesn't follow the news much and in many ways he doesn't actually trust any politicians any more.

I talked about the same thoughts with him as I posted here earlier, that David Cameron has promised that within 3 months of winning an election he will restore the pensions of 250,000 men and women who lost their pensions when their companies went bust. Men and women Brown has been ordered to help by the Ombudsman but to date has refused to take any action.

We agreed that there weren't many votes in it for Cameron, so he must have been doing it because he thought it was the right thing to do. He liked that.

He still doesn't like Cameron. Thinks he's a "toff". But he agrees that he might have misjudged his character and might well vote Conservative if he gets the chance.

My neighbour is typical of many voters. They don't neccessarily understand all the issues. They instinctively don't trust either of the main parties any more. And they are suspicious of people who are well educated, relatively wealthy, smartly dressed and well spoken. Don't tell me they're mistaken and prejudiced and.....the fact is they are voters and, as they say in PR, "perception is reality".

So as I posted elsewhere today - I actually think it will be wrong to get into arguments about Black Wednesday - the world has moved on. Instead identify real causes and fight for them because to do so is morally correct, like those 250,000 pensioners, or the armed forces and the smoke and mirrors which are being used to hide the fact that the military are being hung out to dry - and show the electorate that Cameron and Osborne and the rest of the shadow cabinet have some depth and values they believe in.

In other words, earn the voters respect and trust.

[Edison Smith]

The Blair government 1997-2007 is a lot to blame for peoples low opinion of the political process.

Never was so much offered, and so little delivered, in a decade.

We'll never see a 'new dawn' like May 2nd 1997 ever again, with many people jubilant and fully engaged with the new government. Labour - all guff and no substance - let the swing voters down big time and now they're against both parties, especially as DC reminds some of a certain Tony B.

[Richard Holloway]

There's another reason for the main parties both being down so much, England losing the football. It's been shown to have an impact on voting for the party in power at the time that England are doing well, has anyone considered that it may also have an affect on all the parties if England are out?

[Mr Angry]

1) Who knows how reliable this poll really is, Graeme Archer for one casts serious doubt over the veracity of CH's poll of polls.

2) How can anyone honestly expect a drop in Labour's support to be mirrored by a climb in ours when our leadership has invested so much political capital in telling the electorate that we are very similar to NuLab really. Perhaps the "clear blue water" that does exist between the self deluding LibDems and the real world is in fact attractive to voters who do not want "more of the same but with a blue rosette please."

[Matt Wright]

I have some sympathy with some of what Patriot says. What I am going to say next will have traditional Tories in dismay as I have sensed at times when I've been out with some activists. When I canvass I don't wear a suit but dress as the public do. I rarely wear a rosette. I talk like they do -possibly I have an advantage there as I'm just an ordinary lad whose parents came from working class backgrounds. We have to realise that when people see someone coming to the door dressed smartly and with a rosette on, they immediatly switch off and become negative so you have little chance of connecting with them. I want to start by talking to people with open minds and on there level. My point? In a jutshell we need more working class Tories.

[Joe James Broughton]

Cable may have given them slightly better coverage, but I doubt this poll is correct.
When Clegg takes over, that will damage them.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Thanks, Joe, for being optimistic as ever (-:

I can't say that I'm bovvered about the choice of Lib Dem leader, their poll ratings and the Lib Dems in general...

[Northernhousewife]

UK Polling is reporting BPIX :
Con 40 [-1]
Lab 35 [-2]
LD figures are not out yet
Anthony Wells is saying a 1% drop is statistically insignificant and this poll shows that the Tories have stabilised at about 40 [in line with other polls] and that there has not been a massive drop in Labour support.

There are some other pointless but embarrassing results for Labour but perhaps the most interesting refering to our discussions about Black Wednesday is that Brown/Darling apparently have a poorer rating than Major/Lamont?????

[Northernhousewife]

Mrs T has had something of a political rehailitation. Time for John Major to have one!? Gosh we have been in opposition a long time.
I saw a comment on a blog a few days ago to the effect that a guy was starting to look back fondly on the Major era and he didn't think that would ever happen. one or two posters agreed.

[Joe James Broughton]

The LD figure isn't known yet - but could be around 15.

Some people will know that I want to see the destruction of the Lib Dems - no less, but objectively, Clegg is a bad choice for them. Petulant, incoherent, and vacuous.

The Tories need to continue the path of fleshing out an alternative government. This will be a two party fight, in an open election, so the anti government vote will come to us.

[Northernhousewife]

Note to Joe RE Nick Clegg - and VERY red in the face - all the time! Yet good for TV?

Note to self - must read posts and check for spelling/typos before posting. Am a one woman indictment of comprehensive education

[Joe James Broughton]

BTW, There's someone called Gloy Plopwell who occasionally posts on UK Polling Report, and elsewhere, making absurdly optimistic projections for the Lib Dems (even by their standards).
Haven't seen any of their posts for a while though...perhaps they're in the toilet.

Yes, Clegg is just ridiculously talked up.

[Edison Smith]

Richard Holloway - Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell always felt that Major would have called an Autumn election if England had won Euro 96.

[Traditional Tory]

""Do you seriously believe that if the Cam-Os gruesome twosome were 'running' the country it couldn't happen? Get real.""

Trad old friend, that's an interesting comment. Why do you think that?

Because you know as well as I do that ministers are powerless to prevent the kind of low-level stupidity which in this case resulted in the loss of confidential data.

It would be far more interesting if you were to explain by what supernatural agency Cameron and Osborne would have prevented this disaster had they won the election-that-never-was.

[Traditional Tory]

Matt Wright - When I canvass I don't wear a suit but dress as the public do. I rarely wear a rosette.

In the rapidly-receding days when I still canvassed for the party, I generally wore jeans and shirtsleeves/pullover, depending on the rime of year. I don'trecall it causing any problems.

I talk like they do -possibly I have an advantage there as I'm just an ordinary lad whose parents came from working class backgrounds.

Isn't that a rather patronising attitude? I suppose I talk as if I attended a public school - as I did - and I don't recall that causing any problems either. Nor did I choose to wear a rosette, except when it was requested by the candidate.

I want to start by talking to people with open minds and on there level. My point? In a jutshell we need more working class Tories

I a jutshell(sic) I have never doubted that may somewhat more 'Alf Garnett' inclined views were a sight more popular with working class Tories than the quasi-Marxist ramblings of today's hug-a-hoodie brigade, of which I have long judged Matt Wright to be a card-carrying member.

What we actually need are more working-class patriots.

[Patriot]

Trad, good morning. The executive board of any company have a responsibility for a number of things you and I might call "hygiene." Things like fiscal responsibility, ensuring that employees are treated according to the law, and not least of those "hygiene" things is security.

There's nothing supernatural about competent security protocols and systems. In the vast majority of responsible commercial organisations the number of people who can actually download a key database, (as opposed to access it, which is also controlled) is very limited and strictly controlled. The IT systems themselves prevent adhoc downloads by people who just happen to have access to the data. Any attempt to download this sort of data would result in the system automatically shutting out the employee and alerting the system managers. So if the scenario which Darling and Brown first presented to parliament, that some lowly clerk ignored some dusty hard copy security manual somewhere, were true, then the security on the system wasn't fit for purpose.

However we now know that story wasn't true don't we? What actually happened was a discussion took place at a senior level within the organisation, and the clerk was authorised to download the data.

All of the actions which happened, including the subsequent non-encryption and sending via TNT, are indicative of a systemic failure of all of the security standards which any mature and responsible commercial company will recognise.

This security "hygiene" emphatically IS the responsibility of the main board, the senior executives, and the buck truly does stop at the CEO.

This government have been ignoring advice like this for years. We are now learning that the fact that security was not fit for purpose was documented to Brown on a number of occasions, but he chose to ignore it. The infomation commissioner was refused persistent requests to carry out spot checks on data security, right up until the HMRC disaster, when he has belatedly allowed them.

If this sorry tale had emerged about Lloyds or Barclays the CEO would have fallen on his sword - Because it IS their resposibility to make sure that the security exists and that the checks and balances are in place to monitor that compliance.

Don't let anyone tell you that the government were "unlucky" that it happened on their watch, and ten years is too long to blame this systemic absence of a culture of security on the previous incumbents.

If that seems like a rant Trad I'm sorry - there's a whole lot more to data security but here isn't the place. Others have posted around the web in much more detail. But to your original point, this really was preventable, and yes, the responsibility really does lay with the CEO. Even if you don't accept that, the fact that Brown ignored the warnings and limited the access of the data commissioner should be enough to make your hackles rise.

Peace.

[Passing Leftie]

How can you and I stop this present government doing any more damage between now and the next election?

Don't blame the government for every random event or cock-up which is outside their control. Praise them when they do the right thing, criticise them when they don't.

[Patriot]

Passing Leftie. I don't blame the government for every random event which is outside their control. I do blame them for failing to control things for which they should take responsibility, but don't. I do blame them for the biggest concentration of inept mismanagement I have ever seen condensed into ten years in government for as long as I can remember.

Look, Passing Leftie, many, many years ago I grew up in a household where my parents had little more than the clothes they wore. My father belonged to a Trade Union, worked in a factory, and cycled 8 miles to work and then back at the end of a long day. summer and winter, until he was well into his fifties, when he managed to save enough to buy himself a very old car.

I learned as a kid that the Labour party and the trade unions existed to look after people like my parents. If they didn't, no one else was going to.

I had a huge respect and admiration for both the Labour party and the unions back then. I still respect what they stood for, but the Labour party I think I knew back then changed, when?, back in the sixties and seventies? Tax and spend became a mantra, and the unions all but destroyed this country's industrial base with endless strikes.

Today's Labour party seems to have no other goals apart from staying in power, destroying the Conservative party, and an almost religious zeal to prevent any working man or women from doing just a little bit better, from "getting on", putting a bit by, giving their kids a decent education, and saving for a rainy day.

This in itself would be bad, but it would be tolerable, just, if they exhibited a minimum of competence in their handling of the responsibilities they were given when they were elected. But I don't see it. In '97 we had the best private pension provision in Europe. Now we have the worst. Much of our gold reserves were sold at the lowest price for decades, before or since, in a way which drove the price of the sale even lower (despite advice to do otherwise). External debt now stands at over $10 Trillion instead of $3.6 trillion in '97. NHS, HMRC, Education, Defence, failing to restore the pensions of the 250,000 who lost theirs despite being ordered to by the ombudsman (and this by a Labour Party?), the list seems endless, and this is developing into a rant so I'm going to stop.

The unions I thought I knew as a kid would not have still put up with and continued to fund this shambles. If this were a Conservative government the unions would be marching throught the streets of London in protest.

Trust me, for me this isn't about politics. If this were a Conservative government and they'd done the same things for the last ten years I'd be just as committed to seeing them out of power. I'd also be just as convinced that they represented a threat to the lives of hard working people like my parents who thankfully are still alive and deserve better, and to this country and everything I grew up thinking it stood for.

[Bruce]

Don't underestimate the Lib Dems. Vince Cable has been doing pretty well as interim leader - winning much praise for his analyses of the various crises from Andrew Neill I notice, amongst others... He's also an old friend of Brown from way back.

Despite all the criticisms of Darling's performance as Chancellor at the moment it's notable that there has been no agreed name to replace him... at least within Labour.

Brown is apparently strongly considering asking Cable to be Chancellor, as part of a formal Lib-Lab deal. Could be interesting.

[Patriot]

""Brown is apparently strongly considering asking Cable to be Chancellor, as part of a formal Lib-Lab deal. Could be interesting.""

Bruce, the interesting thing about that is that it would totally implicate the LibDems with Labour in any further scandal which may emerge, and if the wheels come off the economy over the next two years.

Any possible LibDem revival would be neutralised as it sank along with Labour.

It could actually be the best thing that could happen for us.

[Traditional Tory]

If that seems like a rant Trad I'm sorry - there's a whole lot more to data security but here isn't the place

Having been a Civil Servant under both Labour and Conservative governments. I beg to differ. Decisions about procedure are made by senior staff who remain in post from one administration to the next.

However, as a point of honour I think Darling should have followed the example of the departmental head and resigned.

Apart from anything else it would have given Brown the excuse to replace him with a more effective Chancellor.

[Yet Another Anon]

I'm hopeful people who 'vote' for the Greens or Respect in opinion polls will come back to Labour when it really counts
Respect has imploded and fragmented, there are now 2 Respect groupings - the original one effectively has been takenover by the Socialist Workers Party, the latter is the reformed one including George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob and others who agreed with them which fell out with the Socialist Workers Party.

Communists and Trotskeyites are probably more divided now than ever with dozens of different parties, all claiming to be on the verge of a great breakthrough.

The Green Party on the other hand doesn't seem to be in any great difficulty except in Scotland. The Green Party and UKIP remain the next biggest parties to the main 3 and both have a chance of picking up seats. Of course there are also local parties such as KHHC and the Independent in Blaneau Gwent, which continue to hold seats that Labour had held with massive majorities.

I still think the Liberal Democrats are going to slip back, the Conservatives will get their best General Election result since 1992, leaving them with a far stronger electoral base and a rather stronger parliamentary position, but that Labour will still regain much of the support it has lost since the late 1990s and will end up with a majority of between 60 and 120.

I don't think David Cameron will ever be PM, but that his successor will in about 10-16 years time and by then the position will be to pull the UK out of the EU and restore Capital Punishment, and strict forms of social discipline and a proper respect for the military. Labour will then fall back into opposition and internal fighting for decades to come.

[Patriot]

Trad. "Decisions about procedure are made by senior staff who remain in post from one administration to the next."

The executive board - Brown and the cabinet - have a responsibility to see that those decisions are appropriate, and if they are that they are correctly implemented.

Brown presided over the department of which HMRC is a key component for 10 years, 10 years Trad.

Brown was advised that security was inadequate. He ignored the advice. He refused the information commissioner access to audit the security.

The blame rests firmly on Brown's shoulders.

[Bruce]

Any possible LibDem revival would be neutralised as it sank along with Labour

Well, possibly - but it would also remove a perceptive critic of the government's economic record, as well as installing an experienced economist as Chancellor, which should be good for the whole country... True, difficult to see what would be in it for the LibDems, but for Cable personally (since his party don't want him for leader), and for Labour, there may be more attractions.

[Yet Another Anon]

Despite all the criticisms of Darling's performance as Chancellor at the moment it's notable that there has been no agreed name to replace him... at least within Labour.

Brown is apparently strongly considering asking Cable to be Chancellor, as part of a formal Lib-Lab deal. Could be interesting.
If Alistair Darling goes it probably means another reshuffle, rather I don't think Gordon Brown wants another reshuffle and wants the structure of government to settle down a bit.

As for Vincent Cable or Menzies Campbell being Chancellor of the Exchequer under Gordon Brown, I can't see a formal pact in circumstances in which Labour has a majority of over 60, there isn't anything like WWI or WWII on and Labour and the Liberal Democrats have such fundamental disagreements over National Identity Scheme, anti-terrorism measures and fiscal policy.

The members of both main parties and many backbenchers and councillors would reject such a deal outright in such circumstances, indeed many would reject it anyway even if it mean't no one could form a government.

It's still just over 1.5 years until the next General Election, longer if Gordon Brown decides to leave it.

In 1980-81, 1985-86 and 1989-90 the "polls" had the Conservatives as deeply unpopular and media talk was of the government crashing to defeat - In 2004 supposedly a hung parliament was certain, even where earlier governments have lost they mostly regain considerable support when it comes to the election itself.

When the next government comes no doubt for much of the parliament there will also be talk about the government heading for defeat, and if they lasted 100 years then probably every parliament would still have such "media speculation".

[Bruce]

If Alistair Darling goes it probably means another reshuffle, rather I don't think Gordon Brown wants another reshuffle and wants the structure of government to settle down a bit

Well, the point of airlifting in Cable as Chancellor would ensure no need for a wider reshuffle - Darling would simply return to the backbenches, no doubt shortly to chair a select committee.

It's still just over 1.5 years until the next General Election, longer if Gordon Brown decides to leave it.

The pressure is growing for fixed term parliaments. As part of a deal with Cable/LDs, Brown could agree to change the system to fix parliaments to four year terms (with built in exceptions for votes of no confidence, loss of majority etc.)

If Brown was being cunning, he could then announce that, as he doesn't want the Prime Minister to have the right to choose the date of the election any longer, the current parliament will be allowed to run its full term - i.e. to summer 2010.

The result: (1) Brown gets to look radical and courageous. (2) He knows he'll probably lose, but he maximises his time in power so he can be sure he WON'T be the shorting serving PM in recent years. (3) Even if he does lose, he'll have bound his successor (Cameron) to an election in 2014 which he can't move to suit his own electoral calculations.

[Yet Another Anon]

Well, the point of airlifting in Cable as Chancellor would ensure no need for a wider reshuffle
Except that there would then be a major wrangle in government over policies on National ID card scheme, anti-terrorism measures, taxation and structure of welfare which now are wider between those 2 parties than they have been at any time since 1987.

Masses of Labour supporters would refuse to turn out and vote Labour, and masses of Liberal Democrats would refuse to turn out and vote Liberal Democrat - party activists of the 2 parties fiercely hate each other.

The pressure is growing for fixed term parliaments.
Pressure is growing for a change in the way that parliament is dissolved, either to transfer the responsibility to MPs as a whole or some other body, but to take it out of the Royal Prerogative.

Fixed Term Parliaments have severe problems though, if there is the likliehood of there being difficulties with holding a General Election at the end of a parliament then holding it slightly earlier can get around these issues.

Supposing members of a party are expelled and sit on opposition benches - techincally a government may not have a majority in the House of Commons then, this happened for example during the passing of the Maastricht Treaty - some of those rebelling sat as an opposition group and for parliamentary committees and allowances they were treated as a separate grouping. I can see the possibility of a perverse situation in which a government whips it's own MPs to vote against the government on a confidence motion in order to bring forward an election - such strange loopholes have been used before to get around rules, the best systems are to allow recall elections and to require approval from other bodies before an election could be called. Local and Devolved Government could collectively constitute some kind of Constitutional Council, if there is a Second Chamber still that could have some kind of power of approval.

It has to be made difficult to call a General Election early, but also it has to be made so that bodies external of the House of Commons can force one in certain circumstances, although with difficulty.

It also might be felt that in some circumstances that an early election was neccessary to resolve a number of policy matters that arose or because there was general public desire for an election at that time. It really is not desirable to block all possibility of an early election at all, for example in a situation where a government has lost a confidence motion - what happens then? Is there an election or not, if no government can be formed do things just go on without a government until the following election - a fixed term parliament could only work if there was some kind of powerful President elected or the Monarch was allowed to govern if no government could be formed, or if there was a system guranteeing an overall majority for the party with the most votes, otherwise there would be chaos when things went wrong.

The Liberal Democrats want fixed term parliaments because they hope that even with 20-70 seats, with another party being not much short of enough seats to form a majority that the Liberal Democrat Party could still be left as an essential decider of who formed a government, and able to get the larger party to tear up their manifesto and pretty much have an equal coalition.

[Bruce]

Masses of Labour supporters would refuse to turn out and vote Labour, and masses of Liberal Democrats would refuse to turn out and vote Liberal Democrat - party activists of the 2 parties fiercely hate each other

Not as much as they both hate the Tories, I suspect...

As regards the policy disputes you mention, they are all to say the least controversial with Labour grassroots - if LibDem influence persuaded the government to drop ID cards and 28 days, most Labour supporters I know would be delighted, and it would no doubt help to cement any electoral pact between the parties.

It really is not desirable to block all possibility of an early election at all, for example in a situation where a government has lost a confidence motion

Of course, no-one would argue with any of these points - there would have to be established rules as to what happens in that event. A successful no confidence motion could still trigger an interim election - there's no reason why the rules could not allow for the four year cycle to start again with a new date from that point.

It's overstating the case to say that there would be chaos if things went wrong - what are the circumstances in which we would be left without a government? If the Prime Minister has to resign, for example, or dies, under our current system there would still be a delay before an election can be held and the party in government still has to take its time to choose a new leader. What is the difference if the parliament were to be sitting for fixed terms?

What is often forgotten is that the Queen does not HAVE to ask the leader of the majority party to form a government - only a person she believes can command a majority in the House - which of course usually IS the leader of the largest party. Thus Churchill became PM in May 1940 while Chamberlain remained leader of the Conservative party until he died in November, and Lloyd George became PM in 1916 while Asquith remained official Liberal leader until well after the war.

So, if Gordon Brown were to be removed from the current scene and Harriet Harman to become Labour leader by default, that does not mean she would automatically be asked to become Prime Minister. The Queen may be advised, I suspect correctly, that Jack Straw would be more likely to command the confidence of Labour members (and probably opposition members too, if it came to it).

[Yet Another Anon]

if LibDem influence persuaded the government to drop ID cards and 28 days, most Labour supporters I know would be delighted, and it would no doubt help to cement any electoral pact between the parties.
I think the government might drop the ID Scheme, but I cannot see them dropping the National Database, then there are differences over reform of Inheritance Tax and what levels Income Tax should be at. The government clearly is not going to reverse what it has got so far in the way of anti-terrorist legislation and is seeking to extend it. The idea of a Local Income Tax to replace Council Tax.

There could be some agreement on welfare, but especially given that the parties are committed to positions that are not compatible, the main factor is going to be that Labour still has a comfortable majority and so are not going to put themselves through such an upheaval. Circumstances are such that Labour can continue as a government without any kind of deal, so they can't claim to activists that it is neccessary to keep the Conservatives out, and the parliamentary position of Labour is not such that they can avoid some kind of huge split as a result, if the aim was to form some kind of new SDP out of the Liberal Democrats and Labour leaving a tiny Liberal Democrat rump and a small continuing Labour Party consisting mainly of former Labour backbenchers then he might consider this.

Any attempt to form such a coalition at the moment would be viewed generally as a bid to form a new party.

[Traditional Tory]

Not as much as they both hate the Tories, I suspect...

Exactly. Over the past ten years or more that I have become first semi-detached, and now pretty well totally detached from the party, it has been a shock to the system to find how deeply unattractive the 'Tory Tribe' appears from without.

It has nothing to do with being 'nasty', a good deal to do with the self-righteousness of a self-styled elect, and a very great deal to do with the fact that the party has become an 'Anorak tendency' with nil social appeal to the rest of humanity.

Brown may yet bungle himself into losing the next general election, but never, never for one moment suppose that it is because anybody - other than the Tories themselves - loves the Tories.

[Yet Another Anon]

If the Prime Minister has to resign, for example, or dies, under our current system there would still be a delay before an election can be held and the party in government still has to take its time to choose a new leader.
You are confusing party leadership with government leadership. The monarch can pick whoever they think has the best chance of forming a majority, she doesn't have to tell anyone on what basis she decides this, generally though it is expected that she would consult MPs and Privy Councillors, especially ministers in the existing government.

A political party could decide that their party leader was not neccessarily the person who they would wish to be PM, this is a matter for them not related directly to picking a PM. The Queen could appoint an interim PM which might or might not be from one of the parties already in government.

Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have Deputy Leaders who become leader in the event of the leader ceasing as leader for whatever reason, if Gordon Brown were to die, under Labour's constitution Harriet Harman would immediately succeed him as leader and under circumstances of the time it could be agreed that she should become PM. George Brown and Margaret Beckett were both for short times Leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition.

Supposing the country was preparing for war, the war was expected right at the end of the term - then if the election was not held slightly early it might not be held at all for many years after the end of the term. If the end of the term was expected to coincide with severe weather.

The number of possible reasons for there being a General Election before full term are numerous - international conferences for example, is it really desirable for an election to be called when there are major meetings scheduled perhaps? It might have to happen, but it is best avoided.

what are the circumstances in which we would be left without a government?
There is the problem though of having the rules sufficiently strict in order to stop governments from being able to manipulate a situation to meet a legal requirement regarding majorities, while on the other hand not being possibly left with a situation in which no the House of Commons is unable to agree on anything because there is perpetual stalemate.

The Queen may be advised, I suspect correctly, that Jack Straw would be more likely to command the confidence of Labour members (and probably opposition members too, if it came to it).
I'm not sure that Jack Straw has any more confidence among Labour backbenchers or opposition members than Harriet Harman.

[John]

Is there ANY chance of David Cameron calling for a vote of no confidence. If he did, he wouold very soon be in no.10

[Traditional Tory]

Is there ANY chance of David Cameron calling for a vote of no confidence. If he did, he wouold very soon be in no.10

Clearly he needs you as his chief adviser, John.

Any chance of telling us just how you see this amazing chain of events unfolding.

Short of arranging - Alan B'stard style - for the assassination of enough Labour MPs to wipe out Brown's majority, I have some problems with this cunning plan.

[Yet Another Anon]

Is there ANY chance of David Cameron calling for a vote of no confidence. If he did, he wouold very soon be in no.10
No, what would happen is that every Labour MP would be whipped into voting with the government, many including in the Conservative Party would say (rightly) that it was the same idiotic mistake Neil Kinnock made in 1990 but no doubt all Conservatives would vote against the government.

As for MPs from other parties, the SDLP would almost certainly vote with the government, the DUP might as well or abstain. How Plaid Cymru and the SNP might vote is anyones guess and the Liberal Democrats would either vote against the government or abstain. George Galloway probably wouldn't be there, I suspect KHHC and the Independent Socialist MP simply wouldn't vote. Sylvia Hermon might vote with the Conservatives, Gerry Adams and his gang of course have never taken up their seats at Westminster.

Labour could easily end up with a majority of 100 on a confidence motion.

[Bruce]

Yet another Anon, I am not confusing party leadership with the premiership, I am perfectly well aware of the difference, as you will see if you read the whole of my post at 13.03.

If you think Jack Straw would be regarded as a worse prospect for Prime Minister than Harriet Harman, by Labour MPs OR Conservative ones (he's generally respected across the House) then you're rather out of touch. Of course most Conservatives would prefer Cameron to either of them, but that's not the scenario being discussed.

As for the other arguments you suggest against fixed term parliaments - international summits, bad weather (?!?) - surely you're not serious? Most other major democracies seem to manage OK...

John - you clearly don't understand how Parliament works. Cameron calling a confidence vote would do nothing to advance his progress to No.10, merely unite Labour around their leader.

[Patriot]

I was just listening to Vince cable on Sky talking about Brown's incompetence - it was hard to see how he could have those views and still accept the role of Chancellor under Brown. But of course this is politics.

I would have thought though that Cable would view this as a hospital pass, a veritable poisoned chalice. Much better, surely, for Cable to be able to stand on the sidelines criticising as the whole house of cards which is Brown's reputation for "prudence" comes crashing down and is shown to be nothing but smoke and mirrors, rather than be caught actually holding the reins when it happens.

But even as I write that I can see that it's just the sort of tranparently obvious tactic that Brown would dream up to try and neutralise Cable and the LibDems.

And I credit Cable with more intelligence than to fall for it.

[Yet Another Anon]

If you think Jack Straw would be regarded as a worse prospect for Prime Minister than Harriet Harman, by Labour MPs OR Conservative ones (he's generally respected across the House) then you're rather out of touch.
That is assuming that it was expected that Conservative MPs would back the government ot abstain in such circumstances.

Doesn't have much relevance at the moment unless the current Labour leadership were considering forming a National Government. There has been a lot of talk of coalitions ever since 1974 and not much actual sign of them happening.

bad weather (?!?)
This country seems unable to cope with a spot of ice, a few inches of snow, a bit of a breeze, or a dry spell in Summer. This has been the case for decades now.

What other major democracies manage OK? Most countries with Fixed Term Parliaments have directly elected Presidents or PMs and fully devolved Federal systems, France for example.

[Northernhousewife]

Just to get back to polling for a moment. Go and have a look at Anthony Wells comments about the Guardian and Sunday Telegraph polls which show less bad news for Labour than was expected or shown in the You Gov/Populus polls.
They both used the SAME set of field work and therefore we have not had two bad for Labour and two not so bad, but 2 bad, one not so....

[Patriot]

""Lord Chancellor Jack Straw has admitted concern about the transparency of donations to the Labour party after a property developer admitted channelling the money through friends to keep his identity secret.

Although Labour has already launched its own internal inquiry into £400,000 received from Ray Ruddick and Janet Kidd, Mr Straw called for watchdogs at the Electoral Commission to look into the donations .

The Mail on Sunday today reported that Mr Ruddick was a "jobbing builder" living in a former council house in Newcastle who initially denied any knowledge of the massive gifts received by Labour under his name and said he "couldn't stand" politicians.

He later told the paper's reporters that he and Mrs Kidd, a secretary who lives in a relatively modest house in Gateshead, had indeed each given £80,000 to Labour on the same day in July this year.""

(Seems perfectly reasonable to me, we all get these memory lapses. I lost my car keys for a whole two hours the other day.)

""According to the Electoral Commission, Mr Ruddick has donated £196,850 to Labour and Mrs Kidd £185,000 since 2003.""

I trust David Cameron will be asking for confirmation that Mr Ruddick paid income tax on the gross earnings which were necessary to enable him to donate this amount of money to the Labour party.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NS3YZFPLJ4GQVQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nlabour125.xml

[Votedave]

Take a look at the BBC news website folks. Their top headline is Jack Straw saying the recent disc crisis is "no Black Wednesday".

I wonder what their motivation is for doing that?...

[Bruce]

This country seems unable to cope with a spot of ice, a few inches of snow, a bit of a breeze, or a dry spell in Summer. This has been the case for decades now.

I don't see the relevance of this - why is this more of a problem if the election date is fixed in advance? Under the current system, no Prime Minister calling an election can predict the weather four weeks ahead.

If there was a problem with the election with a fixed date system, the same thing would happen as happens now - the current government stays on in a caretaker capacity until the situation is resolved.

Equally, losing a confidence vote doesn't leave the country rudderless - when Callaghan lost the confidence vote in the Commons in March 1979 he still remained Prime Minister and his government was still in office, running the country, until May 4th.

[Oscar Miller]

wonder what their motivation is for doing that?...

Posted by: Votedave | November 25, 2007 at 17:15

And I notice they supply a handy video to watch Straw's interview with Marr, but entirely omit any reference at all to David Davis's interview on the same show where he absolutely skewered the government. And I wonder why that is?

[Bruce]

I wonder what their motivation is for doing that?...

Er, possibly because he said that in a BBC interview this morning?

These regular accusations of BBC bias are tiresome. I'm sure Darling and Brown don't feel the BBC is particularly friendly at the moment.

A straightforward presentation of facts will always seem biased to those who hold a strong opposing view.

[Yet Another Anon]

Equally, losing a confidence vote doesn't leave the country rudderless - when Callaghan lost the confidence vote in the Commons in March 1979 he still remained Prime Minister and his government was still in office, running the country, until May 4th.
And supposing a government manipulated things so that they lost a confidence motion in order to trigger an election.

It's so much simpler having people deciding whether a request for an early election either by the government or some other grouping should be granted than for it to be done on the basis of a fixed set of circumstances, under a Fixed Term system no doubt judges would be ruling on exemptions, and who appoints the judges?

As for predicting weather ahead, the Hadley Centre can give indications about general tendencies in weather patterns months ahead, approximate but there are circumstances within a month of which they can have a pretty good idea of what is most likely to happen then.

[David Sergeant]

- I actually think it will be wrong to get into arguments about Black Wednesday - the world has moved on. .

In other words, earn the voters respect and trust.

Posted by: Patriot | November 24, 2007 at 18:11

Where have you been Patriot for 10 years. Labour's main political presentation has been to claim what the Tories will do. They have won three GEs on it. As has been observed they are still at it, even to-day they are trying to look better by comparing their position with Black Wednesday. Every time Blair was on the ropes he compared himself favourably with some mythical Tory situation during the 18 years, and now Brown is doing it.

As the Conservative party we won't earn trust or respect by staying quiet about our government when it is forever being thrust forward by Labour and the media. We not only look incompetent, we look cowardly and British voters particularly dislike that.

[Oscar Miller]

I actually think it will be wrong to get into arguments about Black Wednesday - the world has moved on.
Posted by: Patriot | November 24, 2007 at 18:11

Except the world has not moved on - Nulab and the BBC have made sure of that. And as memories get hazier, they've been able to spin it more and more as an unqualified disaster for the Tories with nobody picking up and lambasting all the lies and spin. Oberon Houston is absolutely right. I don't know why Conservatives have allowed this to fester for so many years, but now Black Wednesday is so regularly invoked (Brown gives it a mention every PMQs - adding, of course, that DC was a 'special adviser' to Lamont) it is time to fightback and correct the historical record.

[Bruce]

And supposing a government manipulated things so that they lost a confidence motion in order to trigger an election

Aside from the fact that it would be clearly seen as manipulation - and pointed out as such by the media and the opposition - why on earth would any government wish to do that?

Governments which lose confidence votes in parliament don't generally win the election which follows. In fact I can't recall the last time a government was forced into an election by a vote of no confidence and went on to win (no doubt someone can furnish me with some long ago exception, but the 20th century precedents - 1979, 1924 - aren't good).

Anyway, why would the public re-elect a government whose own backbenchers had expressed no confidence in? No sensible Prime Minister would expect that to happen.

Labour's main political presentation has been to claim what the Tories will do. They have won three GEs on it. As has been observed they are still at it. Every time Blair was on the ropes he compared himself favourably with some mythical Tory situation during the 18 years

Yes - and I clearly remember John Major on his soapbox in 1992 raising the spectre of the Winter of Discontent, three elections and 13 years later. Nothing much changes, eh?

[Votedave]

"Er, possibly because he said that in a BBC interview this morning?
These regular accusations of BBC bias are tiresome. I'm sure Darling and Brown don't feel the BBC is particularly friendly at the moment."

Bruce, I'm afraid that is the impression the BBC give. No top headlines of what David Cameron, George Osborne and David Davis have had to say about it.
Is there really nothing more newsworthy than this today?

[Bruce]

Bruce, I'm afraid that is the impression the BBC give.

Last time I looked, the second and third headlines were "Concern over secret Labour donor" and "Darling's role "nearly untenable".

You can't seriously accuse the BBC of being Brown's cheerleaders, any more than they are Cameron's.

[David Sergeant]

"Yes - and I clearly remember John Major on his soapbox in 1992 raising the spectre of the Winter of Discontent, three elections and 13 years later. Nothing much changes, eh?"

Posted by: Bruce | November 25, 2007 at 17:46

Major was up against Old Labour and, therefore it was on the ball. The Winter of Discontent was a Labour problem largely caused by Labour. Black Wednesday was caused by German financial chaos and going into the ERM in the first place which Labour, the BBC and everybody else supported. Also, pulling out of the ERM when there were many other less dramatic options being put to Major and Lamont created a lasting economic resurgence which, so help me, Gordon Brown has been claiming credit for.

[Bruce]

Major was up against Old Labour and, therefore it was on the ball.

I'm afraid that argument doesn't stand up. Major was not up against Denis Healey or Jim Callaghan, he was up against Neil Kinnock who by that stage had spent several years modernising Labour.

And Neil Kinnock had not been Healey's adviser during the winter of discontent either.

The fact is that politicians on both sides will always exploit their opponents' last big blunder for as long as it remains in the popular memory - and/or until they mess up in a big way themselves.

[David Sergeant]

" Major was not up against Denis Healey or Jim Callaghan, he was up against Neil Kinnock."

Bruce, Kinnock was still Old Labour and everybody accepted it. Please stop digging when you are in a hole.

However, that shouldn't stop Tories defending their government in any circumstance particualerly when it is endlessly used by Labour who have painted it as something far worse than it was. Jack Straw has just demonstrated its importance.

[Oberon Houston]

...and Jack Straw is again telling everyone that Northern Rock is "No Black Wednesday, that this was an internal pressure, not an
external one."

The BBC gladly broadcast this nonsense. Black Wednesday was a CROSS PARTY disaster. Cross party because Brown supported it. Northern Rock on the other hand IS NOT external. The decision to put £25Bn in Northern Rock however is a Brown decision - and this is where the current situation is not like Black Wednesday - just like Brown back then once more he is the last one to recognise a lost cause.

"There are those, like Lady Thatcher, who would turn their back on the ERM and devalue - with all the harsh consequences that would ensue." Gordon Brown

Why are we allowing this nonsense to go unchallenged Mr Coulson? Earn some of your wage and find a way to convince Cameron to agree a strategy to counter this, because failing to do so is constant reassurance to voters that the Tories are rubbish.

For 2 years I have said on this site that attacking Brown is the key to success for us. I am now saying that attacking Browns attacks of us are the key.

[Bruce]

Bruce, Kinnock was still Old Labour and everybody accepted it.

Rubbish. The terms Old and New Labour hadn't even been coined in 1992. Kinnock by 1992 had taken the Labour party through a similar process of change to that undertaken by Hague, IDS, Howard and Cameron over the last few years, and Blair subsequently finished the job. Cameron, like Blair in 1994, still has work to do.

However, that shouldn't stop Tories defending their government in any circumstance

I've no problem with any party defending their record - all governments have achievements as well as disasters to their name, even Callaghan's, and Major's. My point was simply that harping on about long-ago crises to score political points is not a tactic unique to Labour (or even New Labour), the Tories were just as bad when the boot was on the other foot.

[Vernon]

Oberon says "Black Wednesday was a CROSS PARTY disaster. Cross party because Brown supported it. Northern Rock on the other hand IS NOT external. The decision to put £25Bn in Northern Rock however is a Brown decision"

Yes - but a decision backed, at least initially, by Osborne and Cameron surely? So where's the difference?

[Yet Another Anon]

Aside from the fact that it would be clearly seen as manipulation - and pointed out as such by the media and the opposition - why on earth would any government wish to do that?
Maybe because they wanted an early General Election, the fact is that most people are annoyed if they feel a General Election has been called unneccessarily early anyway, as people would have been if there had been a General Election this Autumn.

The only times an early General Election has worked was twice, both times when called by Harold Wilson with Edward Heath Leader of the Opposition.

Most parliaments run to 4 years and generally the public is happy with this, sometimes they are 5 years risking the accusation of clinging onto power.

Everyone knows that pre-election budgets mostly are bribing the electorate with their own money, in the main they are unaffordable and have to be paid for after elections.

If a government openly manipulated the situation to trigger an early General Election then the public view of it would be exactly the same as if under the current system the government had held an early election.

Governments actually lose confidence motions very rarely - I think 1979 was the only time since WWII, governments tend to lose confidence motions because either they started in a minority or because they have lost a number of seats through defections or by elections.

Supposing there was a situation in which no party had a majority, the House of Commons were able to agree on very little, but opposition parties were in difficulties and thought that a General Election would see the government win a large majority and be able to impliment it's programme, MPs of those parties would be tempted in a confidence motion to vote for a government to prevent there being an election in the hope that their position might recover.

[Yet Another Anon]

but the 20th century precedents - 1979, 1924 - aren't good
In 1924, the Labour government only had 191 seats, their vote held up in the 1924 General Election, the Conservatives however strengthened as well.

If you want an analogy, imagine that somehow with 198 seats, Michael Howard had become PM in 2005; Labour the largest party but divided and not willing to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and Labour and Liberal Democrat both allowing the Conservatives to govern in the hope of discrediting them and bringing them down when it suited them. This was what the Liberals and Conservatives did with Labour, Labour was reliant on opposition support for every single measure it put before the House of Commons and could be brought down quickly if the opposition desired it.

In such circumstances changes in distribution of votes for other parties mean't that even if Labour held or increased their vote they could still end up back in opposition.

In 1979 the Labour vote actually held up quite strongly, it hardly changed between February 1974 and 1979, what changed was the size of the Conservative vote who recovered a lot of people who had become sick of Edward Heath and also a number of ex-Liberals. People switched directly to Conservative from Labour, but a similar number went over to Labour as well.

But in 1979 they lost in a situation in which they had already been heavily losing by-elections and the signs were that they recovered a significant amount of support after the end of The Winter of Discontent.

[Patriot]

Over the weekend I posted about a conversation I had with a very senior citizen who had an instinctive distrust of David Cameron because he spoke well, dressed smartly and was financially secure. Because, in his words, he was a "toff". It's an image that Labour's PR machine work hard to promote.

Although others have debated it here, the answer is not that we need more people who dress down and speak with estuary accents. The problem is in the distrust. The lesson we need to learn is that these folk find it hard to believe that today's politicians are motivated by core values, and instinctively suspect that anything they say and do is shallow, or done for political gain rather than through inner conviction. In some cases, who amongst us would argue that they are wrong? This distrust is also one of the reasons that increasing numbers of voters are staying at home at election time.

How many times have you heard "they're all the same" on the doorstep? Or "to tell you the truth I don't trust any of them"? Or "they're all out to feather their own nests"?

People with this doubt aren't looking for David to dress differently and lose his accent. They DO need more hard evidence that their distrust is wrong. The example I gave, of David's commitment to restore the pensions of the 250,000, is just such evidence. On the face of it there is little political gain; in relative terms not too many votes are to be had from such a promise, but a promise was nonetheless made because it needs to be done and is the right thing to do. It is a moral act, not a political one.

Labour's Britain today doesn't lack such moral challenges. The recent announcement that Remploy is closing factories which for many years have provided employment to disabled workers is just such a cause waiting to be addressed. Another example: information from the Commission for Social Care Inspection indicates that meals on wheels are to be stopped for tens of thousands across the country, as 73 per cent of local authorities in England are forced to tighten their "criteria for need" to save money.

Like the lost pensions, both examples cry out for a Conservative commitment to restore them within three months of being elected. Not because the "focus groups" or "PR advisers" say there are votes in it, but because any right thinking person knows it’s the "right" thing to do. The present despicable treatment of our armed forces men and women is being covered at length on other threads, but the same holds true.

Of course the Conservative Party needs to address the big issues of the day. But they also need to give a substantial part of the electorate the evidence they need that today's Conservatives are about moral conviction; about doing things because they are the moral, honourable, just, ethical, right, thing to do. Not just because it's politics.

[Traditional Tory]

an instinctive distrust of David Cameron because he spoke well, dressed smartly and was financially secure. Because, in his words, he was a "toff". It's an image that Labour's PR machine work hard to promote.

Why should Labour have to promote it, when it happens to be true?

Cameron has only ever had one period of employment vaguely resembling a normal job, and Jeff Randall and others have interesting views about the competence he displayed.

I did not come from a 'working class' background, but my parents were certainly not privileged. Today I live comfortably, thanks to the hard work and ingenuity of myself and my wife. For some others it was all too easy.

No, I do not think the country should be run by silver-spoon Trustafarians and my opinion is shared by many others. Wait and see how the cookie crumbles when the Lib Dems get their act together.