1. Was on holiday when it happened, so only known for a few days.
2. Expecting Wendygate to rumble on for a bit longer as we hove into election.
3. No good cartoons in the Herald in the intervening period.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Will Gordon Brown survive the year?
- Thread starter andyandy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gordon brown uk politics
1. Was on holiday when it happened, so only known for a few days.
2. Expecting Wendygate to rumble on for a bit longer as we hove into election.
3. No good cartoons in the Herald in the intervening period.
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
The timing of the announcement (or re-announcement; haven't we heard about this before?) seems crazy. To announce that you're going to make changes just a few days before a by-election in a constituency that contains so many people who will be adversely affected?
Still, at least it defuses claims that Labour is obsessed with controlling bad news. (Or if you prefer, that the Left hand doesn't know what the Right is doing
)
I don't think it is considered killing when you shoot a corpse....
That aside the media headlines certainly don't seem to be helpful for an up and coming by-election in an area like Glasgow East. However I don't think we can really say much in regards to the timing - obviously we can speculate that the timing was for any Machiavellian purpose we want but until we get a leak or some other information we havena a clue.
I think such an astonishing astounding leader (don't forget she was rated as 10 out of 10) shouldn't be allowed to be forgotten so quickly....
ETA: Just had a thought - given her record I do wonder if she might be thinking to go for the big one? I hear a lot of rumbling that they are not happy with the current leader so perhaps it's time for such an outstanding candidate to put herself forward - anyone know how her PTA selects its next chairperson?
Last edited:
Surprise, surprise, the Daily Record (aka the Labour Party Daily Newsletter and Scotland's best selling tabloid) seems unco' reluctant to consider the issue:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/
The Sun isn't much better:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/
I therefore wonder how many of the people of Glasgow East will be fully aware of a policy which would affect them so badly.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Well, it was all over the TV news last night. And as there can't be the same reasons for reluctance as there seem to be with the Marshall expenses story, I assume the SNP team won't be exactly reticent about it in the constituency.
Talk around here (work, I mean, not the SNP rooms!) is still of an expectation for Labour to win it in a close finish, but I really couldn't call it either way.
Labour now seem to be trying to spin it so that even a very narrow win for Curran can be claimed as the Great Victory. Brown may well take that as a vote of confidence and a mandate to stay. However, there have also been stories insisting that even if Labour lose the by-election, Brown will not go, or should not go, or whatever.
I wonder how much longer they can stall the Motherwell and Wishaw by-election? Or even Glenrothes, however much the MP there may want to soldier on in spite of genuinely poor health. I note that Labour are now saying that David Marshall's resignation was on account of two doctors' letters saying he wasn't fit to continue. Stress and depression. But having a lung removed due to advanced asbestosis is OK then? The dying MPs who have been delivered to the Commons in ambulances for close votes in the past were OK then?
Just speculating here, but if indeed Labour lose this week, then lose two more by-elections before the end of the year, how will Gordon's position be looking? If they lose Glasgow East, they're toast in the other two constituencies (though bear in mind the Motherwell and Wishaw by-election is for Holyrood, not Westminster).
Rolfe.
Talk around here (work, I mean, not the SNP rooms!) is still of an expectation for Labour to win it in a close finish, but I really couldn't call it either way.
Labour now seem to be trying to spin it so that even a very narrow win for Curran can be claimed as the Great Victory. Brown may well take that as a vote of confidence and a mandate to stay. However, there have also been stories insisting that even if Labour lose the by-election, Brown will not go, or should not go, or whatever.
I wonder how much longer they can stall the Motherwell and Wishaw by-election? Or even Glenrothes, however much the MP there may want to soldier on in spite of genuinely poor health. I note that Labour are now saying that David Marshall's resignation was on account of two doctors' letters saying he wasn't fit to continue. Stress and depression. But having a lung removed due to advanced asbestosis is OK then? The dying MPs who have been delivered to the Commons in ambulances for close votes in the past were OK then?
Just speculating here, but if indeed Labour lose this week, then lose two more by-elections before the end of the year, how will Gordon's position be looking? If they lose Glasgow East, they're toast in the other two constituencies (though bear in mind the Motherwell and Wishaw by-election is for Holyrood, not Westminster).
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Getting this thread back on topic, what is the general feeling regarding Brown's chances of remaining PM as of this morning? The Times is quoting a (named) Labour MP as calling for him to quit.
One of the commentators last night said something I've been mulling over. If Brown is indeed replaced, whether or not the replacement actually wins a contested election within the party, this would be the third PM from Labour in not much more than a year, and the second with no mandate from the general public. While I'm not sure about the mechanics of it, many informed commentators are saying that they can't get away with replacing their leader a second time without going to the country.
Now, if Labour MPs know that, this must influence their thoughts on the matter. Those not in absolutely rock-solid safe seats would surely be very much averse to an early general election. That being so, is this likely to deter them from calling for Brown's head on a platter?
The only downside of this victory for the SNP was said to be the possibility that it would precipitate Brown's departure, which might in fact signal the beginning of a recovery for Labour. Even if that didn't stretch as far as winning another general election, it could be enough to put a crimp in the SNP's advance. However, the way some of the mood music is playing, this downside may not in fact be going to transpire.
I voted "bloodless coup" above, mainly because there wasn't an option for an increase in knife crime on the ballot paper. However, the "cold dead hands" option has charms of its own.
Rolfe.
One of the commentators last night said something I've been mulling over. If Brown is indeed replaced, whether or not the replacement actually wins a contested election within the party, this would be the third PM from Labour in not much more than a year, and the second with no mandate from the general public. While I'm not sure about the mechanics of it, many informed commentators are saying that they can't get away with replacing their leader a second time without going to the country.
Now, if Labour MPs know that, this must influence their thoughts on the matter. Those not in absolutely rock-solid safe seats would surely be very much averse to an early general election. That being so, is this likely to deter them from calling for Brown's head on a platter?
The only downside of this victory for the SNP was said to be the possibility that it would precipitate Brown's departure, which might in fact signal the beginning of a recovery for Labour. Even if that didn't stretch as far as winning another general election, it could be enough to put a crimp in the SNP's advance. However, the way some of the mood music is playing, this downside may not in fact be going to transpire.
I voted "bloodless coup" above, mainly because there wasn't an option for an increase in knife crime on the ballot paper. However, the "cold dead hands" option has charms of its own.
Rolfe.
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
I've wanted David Miliband as party leader for quite some time, but he cannot be the good Prime Minister I feel he can be if he takes over without a mandate from the British people. Brown's biggest mistake was not calling an election in 2007 and securing a mandate for himself. It is no surprise his poll ratings fell after.
To be honest, and I say this as a Labour voter, I believe Brown should call an election and allow the party its licks. Losing in September will prevent the potential obliteration of the party come 2010. It can reform as Labour without the 'New' under someone politically affable such as Straw. Then, when things get a bit better, hold a leadership election like the extremely successful one the Tories held back in late 2005, and hopefully Miliband will emerge as leader.
To be honest, and I say this as a Labour voter, I believe Brown should call an election and allow the party its licks. Losing in September will prevent the potential obliteration of the party come 2010. It can reform as Labour without the 'New' under someone politically affable such as Straw. Then, when things get a bit better, hold a leadership election like the extremely successful one the Tories held back in late 2005, and hopefully Miliband will emerge as leader.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Uh, I'll try again. The weekend papers were full of speculation either way, and news about various people (including Neil Kinnock) being approached to tell GB that his number was up.
Any thoughts?
Rolfe.
Any thoughts?
Rolfe.
Infammy, Infammy, they've all got it Infammy....
...I though yesterday's Herald pieces were very well put together, and the comments re: men in grey/gray suits very perceptive. Given a certain member of the Lords already raised his head (friend of a friend, small world, eh?) before Glasgow then it shouldn't be hard to get someone else - and Kinnock seems a good choice - to suggest GB falls on his sword.
But really, the phrase "nowt as blind" springs to mind. Next he'll be claiming "10 out of 10!".
...I though yesterday's Herald pieces were very well put together, and the comments re: men in grey/gray suits very perceptive. Given a certain member of the Lords already raised his head (friend of a friend, small world, eh?) before Glasgow then it shouldn't be hard to get someone else - and Kinnock seems a good choice - to suggest GB falls on his sword.
But really, the phrase "nowt as blind" springs to mind. Next he'll be claiming "10 out of 10!".
Of course is the idea that somehow the current Labour doldrums are causally linked to Gordon Brown being the leader is somewhat suspect.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I actually bought SoS as well yesterday, and they had an article about a "suicide election" very very similar to Undesired Walrus's scenario above.
Funnily enough, while the Sunday Herald was going on and on in the "Brown must go" vein, today's Herald is taking the line that Brown should stay. Some editorial conflicts there, methinks.
Finally, wasn't it "grey men in suits"?
Rolfe.
Funnily enough, while the Sunday Herald was going on and on in the "Brown must go" vein, today's Herald is taking the line that Brown should stay. Some editorial conflicts there, methinks.
Finally, wasn't it "grey men in suits"?
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Well, there is a school of thought that says Blair saw what was coming and cunningly jumped ship at the right moment to land Brown right in it.
He's not coping very well, though, is he?
Rolfe.
brettDbass
Kurious
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,385
I hope you didn't lose too much money on that bet, Andy?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!
It was extremely close, as well...
Rolfe
Adult human female
Rolfe
Adult human female
Look, some days it seems as if there's nothing else on TV or the newspapers but tales of cabinet plots and Brown's imminent demise.
Still nobody wanting to change their vote?
Rolfe.
Still nobody wanting to change their vote?
Rolfe.
I do wonder whether Gordon is thinking "So this is what it was like for Blair." Somehow I don't think he does.
Rolfe
Adult human female
From the Times, today.
David Miliband quits foreign trip to spark new rumours of challenge to Brown
Rolfe.
David Miliband quits foreign trip to spark new rumours of challenge to Brown
Rolfe.
andyandy
anthropomorphic ape
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,377
I hope you didn't lose too much money on that bet, Andy?
It was extremely close, as well...
....... I shan't be betting on politics again
Rolfe mentioned the differing polling techniques between the traditional phone-based companies and YouGov the Internet-based company, it might be time for people to start switching methodology. Either there was a very late swing to the SNP, or the traditional polling companies got it very wrong.
Meanwhile, I wish I had placed a bet instead on Gordon Brown not surviving the year. With the David Millibandwagon on a roll, it looks like Gordon chose a bad time to take a holiday.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I voted for his not surviving, in this thread. Just sayin'....
In fact the problem with the opinion poll that we got a good look at wasn't the poll itself, which as far as I remember brought the SNP in about 4% behind Labour - well within the possibility of a late swing producing the eventual result, and in fact probably within the confidence limits in respect of the actual vote.
The problem was with the weighting statistics which were subsequently applied to the raw figures, which transformed a Labour lead of only 4% to a lead of 15%. At the same time they looked at a very low LibDem score, decided that must be wrong and "weghted" it up a lot. The LibDems actually lost their deposit.
The actual raw data from the questioning weren't all that far out from the eventual result. The problem was the the papers headlined the weighted figures, and the raw data were buried in a pdf that wasn't even put online until several days later.
As far as I could see, there were two main sources of error in the weighting. The first was that half of all respondents who were undecided or refused to answer, were allocated in accordance with the 2005 voting split. The polling organisation themselves accepted that this tended to favour the incumbent party. In my view it's a completely invalid assumption to make when a very large swing is underway, particularly as the group you're talking about, the undecideds and refuse-to-answers, are probably the very people who are on the verge of moving away from the incumbent party.
The second was that a lot of the weighting was done using data collected when the respondents were asked which party they voted for at the last general election. It was assumed that this question would almost always be answered truthfully. The answers seemed to indicate that the survey had identified a lot more SNP fans (and a lot fewer LibDem fans) than random chance would have predicted. Results were therefore "weighted" to compensate. However, no consideration seems to have been given to the possibility that in this case, many voters might have been confused and actually responded by saying which party they had voted for in the last Holyrood election, which was more recent and more memorable. And which produced a far higher vote for the SNP.
Presumably these weighting methods have proved valid in other situations. My point is that there were particular effects at work in this by-election which should have suggestted to anyone who was actually thinking about it that the assumptions might well be invalid on this occasion.
Does it matter? Maybe. When that poll was first published, my immediate reaction was to wonder whether it was actually worthwhile for me to drive further 100-mile round trips to help with the campaigning, if we were really on a hiding to nothing. I only decided to keep at it after looking at the raw data for myself, discussing the flaws online, and coming to the conclusion that the poll was probably wrong.
If I'd only had the newspaper reports to go on, I might not have changed my mind. And maybe a significant number of other activists might have made the same decision. The eventual majority was quite slim, and it's very probable that having a lot of activists on the ground in the last few days made all the difference between a narrow win and a narrow defeat. I myself managed to get three voters who had forgotten all about it or not made the effort, to go out and vote a couple of hours before the polls closed. If adverse publicity makes activists lose heart in the last week of campaigning, I think it can be a real influence.
Rolfe.
In fact the problem with the opinion poll that we got a good look at wasn't the poll itself, which as far as I remember brought the SNP in about 4% behind Labour - well within the possibility of a late swing producing the eventual result, and in fact probably within the confidence limits in respect of the actual vote.
The problem was with the weighting statistics which were subsequently applied to the raw figures, which transformed a Labour lead of only 4% to a lead of 15%. At the same time they looked at a very low LibDem score, decided that must be wrong and "weghted" it up a lot. The LibDems actually lost their deposit.
The actual raw data from the questioning weren't all that far out from the eventual result. The problem was the the papers headlined the weighted figures, and the raw data were buried in a pdf that wasn't even put online until several days later.
As far as I could see, there were two main sources of error in the weighting. The first was that half of all respondents who were undecided or refused to answer, were allocated in accordance with the 2005 voting split. The polling organisation themselves accepted that this tended to favour the incumbent party. In my view it's a completely invalid assumption to make when a very large swing is underway, particularly as the group you're talking about, the undecideds and refuse-to-answers, are probably the very people who are on the verge of moving away from the incumbent party.
The second was that a lot of the weighting was done using data collected when the respondents were asked which party they voted for at the last general election. It was assumed that this question would almost always be answered truthfully. The answers seemed to indicate that the survey had identified a lot more SNP fans (and a lot fewer LibDem fans) than random chance would have predicted. Results were therefore "weighted" to compensate. However, no consideration seems to have been given to the possibility that in this case, many voters might have been confused and actually responded by saying which party they had voted for in the last Holyrood election, which was more recent and more memorable. And which produced a far higher vote for the SNP.
Presumably these weighting methods have proved valid in other situations. My point is that there were particular effects at work in this by-election which should have suggestted to anyone who was actually thinking about it that the assumptions might well be invalid on this occasion.
Does it matter? Maybe. When that poll was first published, my immediate reaction was to wonder whether it was actually worthwhile for me to drive further 100-mile round trips to help with the campaigning, if we were really on a hiding to nothing. I only decided to keep at it after looking at the raw data for myself, discussing the flaws online, and coming to the conclusion that the poll was probably wrong.
If I'd only had the newspaper reports to go on, I might not have changed my mind. And maybe a significant number of other activists might have made the same decision. The eventual majority was quite slim, and it's very probable that having a lot of activists on the ground in the last few days made all the difference between a narrow win and a narrow defeat. I myself managed to get three voters who had forgotten all about it or not made the effort, to go out and vote a couple of hours before the polls closed. If adverse publicity makes activists lose heart in the last week of campaigning, I think it can be a real influence.
Rolfe.