Will Gordon Brown survive the year?

[coakes]

Well, as far as the poll goes, I voted Yes.

As I currently understand it, the process required by the party's rules, involving the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), the NEC and the 'grassroots' including the unions, is somewhat drawn out and relatively complicated, such that the 'putsch' situation faced by Thatcher is not comparable, thus even if Brown were faced with an outright leadership challenge right now, the process itself is likely to drag on into 2009. Of course, this brings into the equation the question of how Brown acquired the leadership of the PLP following Blair's effective resignation, but I'm not qualified to offer a judgement, aside from noting that Major did at least win a leadership election before assuming the post of Prime Minister.

FWIW, I'm a 'Small C' Conservative (that is, broadly libertarian) but suspect that Cameron offers nothing but more of the same.

Given the wider question of should the PLP ditch Brown, the answer has to be Yes; he lost control not only of events (dear boy) but even those events of his own making. Yet the PLP has no credible alternative to offer. The PLP has had it in the same sense as the Conservatives following Major's General Election defeat and the Labour party's defeat in '79. The biggest problem facing all of the three parties is determining the battleground for, at least, the elections following 2010 and 2015, which, I suspect, is where Davies has, at the very least, started digging the first trench.

 

[Rolfe]

I've just placed a bet on Labour winning in Glasgow East...... their odds have come down quite a bit in the last few days

from 13/8 to 6/5 to 4/6

Whilst the SNP have drifted to 11/10

I think it will be close, but I think that Labour were overpriced to begin with due to national sentiment rather than the specifics of the local constituency.

We shall see, come on Labour!

There's some rumour going round that a Labour mole put £1,000 on Labour to win to make the odds look better. Probably rubbish. Mind you, it did occur to me to put some money on Labour myself, so that irrespective of the outcome of the by-election, I'll have something to smile about. I wonder how many SNP supporters doing that it would take to skew the odds?

I'm actually suprised to see William hill offering 8/13 on Labour to win, and what a despicable way to displace odds from the SNP who in my view will take the seat regardless of any changing of betting for the sad, pathetic Margaret Curran who goes on like a f***ing broken record.

[....]

William Hill have got the odds wrong. The SNP are 8/5 favourites to take the seat from Labour. In fact other betting shops including Ladbrokes, and Coral have the SNP on course to win with odds of 7/3, and 9/4 respectively.

Most people seem to think Labour will hang on by a whisker, and that this will be hyped as a Great Victory. Mind you, I remember Monklands in 1994. John Smith, the Leader of the Opposition, admired and revered by all (allegedly), had just snuffed it of a heart attack at 50. Labour were then in opposition to a hugely unpopular Conservative government led by John Major. Labour ran a despicably underhand campaign in the constituency (sectarian campaigning aimed as securing the Catholic vote). And the SNP came within the proverbial whisker.

I wouldn't care to call this one.

Rolfe.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

David Lammy wrote an article this week about how Brown could become Britain's Obama. Fight back against negative polls to sweep his party to victory.

Lammy missed the reality that Brown is as much Obama as my three month old apple core behind the fridge is.

 

[Sunstealer]

It doesn't really matter what he's having for dinner, it was a tosserish thing to say that was bound to stick in people's throats, if you'll pardon the expression. The fact that he was speaking directly after having had both trotters in the trough just makes him a hypocritical tosser.

I threw away a pork chop yesterday purely out of spite. That'll larn 'im.

Yep and now he's going on about motoring taxes being good for the populace and how we should all drive electric cars. The man's hypocrisy knows no bounds. If he were a leader he'd start with himself and his government not only on cars but waste generally eg: wasting peoples hard earned taxes.

Poor old Brown must first learn to not dig with a JCB when he's in a hole then he must learn to stop digging. He's highly despised, but I doubt the Labour Party have the time or someone either stupid or bold enough to mount a challenge. NL are sunk, I can't see them ever gaining credibility before 2010 no matter who leader.

 

[richardm]

Apparently he's just likened himself to Heathcliff, from Wuthering Heights. Yes, the bitter, vindictive grave-robber prone to brooding interspersed with fits of rage and violence has likened himself to a character from Emily Bronte's novel.

I can't wait for the next PMQs, I'm hoping there will be a prize offered for the best Kate Bush impression from the Tory benches.

 

[andyandy]

Apparently he's just likened himself to Heathcliff, from Wuthering Heights. Yes, the bitter, vindictive grave-robber prone to brooding interspersed with fits of rage and violence has likened himself to a character from Emily Bronte's novel.

I can't wait for the next PMQs, I'm hoping there will be a prize offered for the best Kate Bush impression from the Tory benches.

Best line from George Osborne:

( paraphrase to Alistair Darling) " can you confirm that we will see another U-turn from this government on the car tax policy, or will you have to call on Heathcliff from Dithering Heights?"

From William Hague another gem:

"it's a bit rich to be lectured on food wastage from a Prime Minister clearly past his sell by date"

 

[Architect]

Sheesh, you go on holiday for a fortnight and look at all the fun you miss........must sign up for international roaming internet access next year (promptly followed by threats of divorce, probably)

 

[andyandy]

This was reported on July 15

THE news that the SNP has overtaken Labour in voting intentions for a Westminster general election will send shivers down Labour's spine as the party prepares to defend the Glasgow East seat.
The YouGov poll published yesterday gives the Nationalists a clear four point lead and the only crumb of comfort for Labour is that the majority of those polled are still firmly against the idea of Scotland gaining independence.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Glasgow-East-byelection-39Poll-will.4282841.jp

But this was reported on July 13

The ICM survey for the Sunday Telegraph puts the party on 47 per cent of the vote with its nearest challenger, the Scottish National Party (SNP), on 33 per cent.

Liberal Democrats are on nine per cent and the Conservatives on seven per cent.

The poll, the first conducted within the rock-solid Labour seat, is a big boost for Gordon Brown.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-in-Glasgow-East-by-election,-poll-shows.html

It's strange that two polls within about three days each other have given such remarkably different results. I can only presume that they were asking different things, or there has been a monumental swing towards the SNP over the last couple of days......

 

[Darat]

Don't want to derail this thread so I'll just suggest you do a search for yougov polls and controversy; the more established polling organisation are a tad unhappy with YouGov's methodology (especially since YouGov got it 'more' right for the recent London Mayoral election). Quick link to start you: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20082851314571

 

[andyandy]

Don't want to derail this thread so I'll just suggest you do a search for yougov polls and controversy; the more established polling organisation are a tad unhappy with YouGov's methodology (especially since YouGov got it 'more' right for the recent London Mayoral election). Quick link to start you: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20082851314571

From the article.......

Ipsos-MORI canvasses a representative sample of the electorate by phone at random. It does not check respondents' previous political preferences.

YouGov is an online pollster. It draws its sample from large panel of respondents, all of whom have a political profile.

There are also differences in the final sample.

Ipsos-MORI uses those who say they are certain to vote but the percentage who have expressed this intention to them is dramatically higher than the turn out in the two previous London Mayoral Elections.

Very interesting, I didn't realise that YouGov used the Internet rather than the traditional phone poll methods...... I suppose that as Internet profiling becomes more accurate, and as Internet access becomes more widespread, that this will replace phone polling. It will be interesting to see how their current model fares in this election.

 

[Rolfe]

Sorry, I'm wilting here. I just got back from the constituency and find I've walked a hole in my favourite trainers. The things I do for my country! The regulars are now swapping weight-loss stories (campaigning is great exercise, especially in a constituency with a lot of tenement flats, though I have to say that by the end of my stretch of Tollcross Road it was "my kingdom for a lift"). Maybe I went a little too far telling Alex Salmond he could still do with shedding a few pounds - he didn't look altogether thrilled.

It really is too close to call. "We could lose by 3,000 votes, we could win by 3,000 votes", said an old hand. No doubt if it's the former, Labour will be trumpeting triumph and vindication, but frankly they should trot home in this constituency, where their vote is both hereditary and an item of quasi-religious faith. This, however, is not on the cards. They are in for a swing that will put a very nasty crimp in their smile, however the choose to spin it.

This was reported on July 15

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Glasgow-East-byelection-39Poll-will.4282841.jp

But this was reported on July 13

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-in-Glasgow-East-by-election,-poll-shows.html

It's strange that two polls within about three days each other have given such remarkably different results. I can only presume that they were asking different things, or there has been a monumental swing towards the SNP over the last couple of days......

Actually, there's no discrepancy there. The first poll refers to Scotland-wide voting intentions at a Westminster general election. The second is a poll of the Glasgow East constituency as regards voting intentions for the by-election. As that constituency is generations-deep hard-line Labour, it would be very surprising if it were in line with a country-wide poll.

I wouldn't trust any YouGov poll in Glasgow East, as I suspect too high a proportion of the constituents do not have internet access at home.

The Telegraph opinion poll is really very interesting. I nearly started a thread on it under "Mathematics", but I didn't have time. Please refer to the full report, available here.

In fact the raw data had the SNP at 41% and Labour at 43%. Total sample size was just over 500 but they only got an answer out of 303 voters. So, big margins of error. However, they then started a massive weighting exercise, which I strongly suspect to be invalid. I would genuinely welcome the opinions of others on this, especially people with statistical expertise.

Two features stand out. One is that apparently half of the people who refused to reveal their voting intention or said they were undecided were arbitrarily allocated to the party they voted for last time. They admit this tends to skew the result in favour of the incumbent party. It seems questionable practice to me, especially where such a large swing is clearly taking place. I mean, aren't the people who refuse to answer or say they are undecided, most likely to be those considering moving away from their previous voting preference? This piece of weighting added a fair bit to the Labour score, I think.

The second feature is slightly more subtle. They look at the answers they are getting to the question "how did you vote last time?", and they compare this with the actual result last time. If the two sets of figures are at variance, they assume their sample must be skewed towards one party's supporters, and adjust the results to compensate. If I'm reading the document correctly, in this poll they got a lot more people saying they had voted SNP last time than the actual SNP percentage in that election. So they assumed that they had contacted too many SNP fans, and adjusted the SNP score down to compensate.

However, there is one little wrinkle they appear not to have thought of. The last general election was in 2005, and yes, they do say "2005" in the question. However, that election wasn't very high profile in Scotland and I think a lot of people have forgotten it. You see, in 2007 there was an election to Holyrood which was much more high-profile in the country, and which resulted in the SNP taking power. At that election the SNP did very much better in Glasgow East than they did at the 2005 Westminster election. So, my suspicion is that in fact their sample wasn't that skewed at all, and instead what confounded the system was a fair proportion of people answering that question by saying who they voted for in 2007. Thus making the weighting adjustment based on these answers invalid.

The bookies are doing something strange, too. They have made Labour favourite, but people trying to put money onthe SNP are reporting that they are severely restricting the size of bets they will take on the SNP. One activist reported being told he could only bet £50 on the SNP while they would take £600 on Labour. (When he kicked up a bit of a fuss, he was allowed a £200 bet, after a phone call to head office, but no more.) I don't understand bookmaking enough to figure out the logic to this - I'd have imagined they'd take all they could get on any of the runners, if they'd got the odds right. However, by restricting bets on the second favourite they are possibly preventing that "horse" from becoming favourite. No doubt there is some logic to this which works out to the bookies' advantage, but it's a bit beyond me.

Anyway, I'm whacked. I need my beauty sleep. I seem to be having my arm twisted to go over once or twice more before polling day. If I do, I'm going to hold out for houses, not tenements!

Rolfe.

 

[Macoy]

Incidentally, don't forget the free Tolpuddle martyrs festival this weekend:

http://www.tuc.org.uk/the_tuc/index.cfm?mins=414&minors=75

 

[Sunstealer]

The sad thing is that Glasgow East constituents are not going to see a benefit to their living standards under Labour or the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) - I'll reserve judgement on the SNP and quite frankly if they do take the seat let them make a difference for the good. No one really gives a toss otherwise. Those that do vote will witness the same old nonsense as before.

I've seen it first hand, in 1992-95, those areas the media are talking about, they were as **** then as they are now. However, there was some hope, I met a dedicated guy who was from a similar area (Easterhouse) who'd been through all the **** and become an Operation Rayleigh bod. He stayed at my parents home in the deep south whilst attending a conference in Oxford. His connection was my old man (through Operation Rayleigh) and there were many unbelievable stories he told us. Having lived in Glasgow for a time I still found it difficult to understand why the situation was so dire. I've witnessed it myself and I couldn't belief how, ****** lucky I was. It's bollocks; how can anyone in that area vote for the status quo I'm not sure. In what should be Labour's heartland we see exactly what Labour (old or new) should be preventing, but they don't. It's time for change.

 

[Architect]

I live in an area of Scotland which was resolutely Labour heartland, and still returns a Labour MP - our dear old Minister for Defence, as it happens. Anyway, at the last election the SNP were voted in, predominantly on the back of tactical voting by everyone elses. It would appear that the SNP are so concerned about it being a temporary swing that they're going out their way to launch economic regeneration initiatives not just in the "their" areas, but in the Labour heartland.

It's quite interesting to watch, indeed I've been appointed a consultant for some of the construction aspects (no, no tower blocks before anyone asks) and I do wonder if it's something we'd see elsewhere in Scotland.

 

[Darat]

I think you will do, after all the SNP has one and only one long term goal - to make Scotland "independent" and they'll do anything (legal) to try and achieve that goal. Which of course they are quite entitled to do so but (these days) I personally find such an ideologically based motivation worrying.

 

[Architect]

Of course you could argue that any new political party coming into power on a swing/tactical voting/close margin will seek to do the same thing - but to be honest, they don't for any prolonged period of time, but rather just before the votes!

 

[richardm]

I think you will do, after all the SNP has one and only one long term goal - to make Scotland "independent" and they'll do anything (legal) to try and achieve that goal. Which of course they are quite entitled to do so but (these days) I personally find such an ideologically based motivation worrying.

This worried me a lot when the SNP came to power, and I was pleased that it was such a marginal victory. I don't like nationalist sentiment.

However I have to say that so far they are doing a good job. I also have to add that the key phrase there is "so far" - it's early days yet. A lot of the things they are doing are costing money, and it will be interesting to see in the years to come how they're going to pay for it.

 

[Rolfe]

Sigh. So it's OK for a country to be independent, and it's maybe even OK to want to retain your country's independence, but it's not OK to want your country to become independent? (But then, if you achieve that despite universal revulsion over your pernicious "nationalist sentiment", then it's all OK again?)

Well, that's not what I came on to post. The interest in this by-election, as pointed out in the OP, is all to do with its effect on Brown's authority. Some commentators are saying that even a narrow win for Labour would represent such a swing that he'd be under pressure regardless. However, I note the majority for the "cold, dead hands" option in the poll!

It could in fact be to the advantage of those who favour a change of government at the next general election to see him hold on. Is anyone else going to do a worse job? However, I suspect it's too late anyway. The electorate appear to be in the mood for change, very similar to the couple of years leading up to 1997.

Regarding the betting thing, someone posted on the Herald to try to clarify the situation. Some of what was said earlier may have been Chinese Whispers.

hi folks. just to clear up confusion re the odds on the by-election.i have worked for ladbrokes, william hills and corals so can put you right on the matter.
the odds at the moment with ladbrokes are: 4/9 labour and 13/8 snp.
in general terms this represents a position for snp that is entirely winnable. these prices are actually quite closely matched.
the reason you can only get a 200 pounds bet on snp is due to the fact that politics and particularly by-elections are VERY hard to predict and the bookmakers are not in the habit of throwing away their money! therefore the bookies limit individuals to a maximum bet. incidentally, you can only get a maximum bet of 225 pounds on labour to win with ladbrokes. the difference in the two figures due to the differential in the prices quoted.
some bookies are and some are not betting on this market--if you want a full list and want to keep up to date as the odds change you should go to www.oddschecker.com and go to politics then glasgow by-election. hope this answers some questions from those unaware of how it works.

I'm still not sure it clarifies it for me - surely it is to the benefit of the bookies to take as much money as possible on a book, and if they have too much on one contender they simply shorten the odds until nobody is buying? I could see this not applying where there was one very probable winner, but in the present case where is appears to be a fairly even match, don't they just tweak the odds so that they win whatever the outcome? What's the point of restricting the size of bets?

Rolfe.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Sigh. So it's OK for a country to be independent, and it's maybe even OK to want to retain your country's independence, but it's not OK to want your country to be independent?

Well, that's not what I came on to post. The interest in this by-election, as pointed out in the OP, is all to do with its effect on Brown's authority. Some commentators are saying that even a narrow win for Labour would represent such a swing that he'd be under pressure regardless. However, I note the majority for the "cold, dead hands" option in the poll!

It could in fact be to the advantage of those who favour a change of government at the next general election to see him hold on. Is anyone going to do a worse job? However, I suspect it's too late anyway. The electorate appear to be in the mood for change, very similar to the couple of years leading up to 1997.

Regarding the betting thing, someone posted on the Herald to try to clarify the situation. Some of what was said earlier may have been Chinese Whispers.




I'm still not sure it clarifies it for me - surely it is to the benefit of the bookies to take as much money as possible on a book, and if they have too much on one contender they simply shorten the odds until nobody is buying? I could see this not applying where there was one very probable winner, but in the present case where is appears to be a fairly even match, don't they just tweak the odds so that they won whatever the outcome?

Rolfe.

I think the flaw in your reasoning is that you assume a sufficiently large market exists for this to happen. My guess is that the total amount bet on by-elections is far, far smaller than is the case with most events that bookies deal with and therefore one large bet can make it very difficult for them to balance the book.

If I was running a book, I would want to try and ensure that I made money no matter the outcome of the event. If I take a large bet one way, I need to attract money to the alternative outcome to ensure this is the case. In a highly active, liquid market that is relatively easy and I have a pretty good idea what price I can do that at. In a small, inactive market I may not be able to do so and have no real clarity as to what price I will need to offer to attract that money. Therefore I limit the size of position I am willing to take.

Bookmakers are in the gambling business, but they are not in business to gamble.

 

[Darat]

Sigh. So it's OK for a country to be independent, and it's maybe even OK to want to retain your country's independence, but it's not OK to want your country to become independent? (But then, if you achieve that despite universal revulsion over your pernicious "nationalist sentiment", then it's all OK again?)

...snip...

Since this snideness is aimed at me I thought I'd comment on it. What a complete and utter strawman of everything I have ever posted regarding the ending of the UK.