o/t - new analysis of political coverage of the indy referendum in Scottish TV reportage, both BBC and STV (first link includes link to original report).
Bad news for the Tories who probably needed a first-time incumbency boost to hold the seat, which is next door to Broxtowe.
If Labour wins it back (or if the Tories hold with a woman candidate) will it be the first constituency to ever elect 4 different women in a row? Andrea will know if it's a record!
Edgbaston has had a female MP since 1953 but that has only involved three people: Dame Edith Pitt, Dame Jill Knight, Gisela Stuart. Deirdre Alden would have been the fourth in a row if she'd won in 2010.
I don't see any alternative either. But it is a reversion to the 1924-1955 period, in which the party was desperately trying to hang on to a diminishing number of strongholds.
Yes: politics is a series of (literal) swings.
The liberals post WW1 ceased to be relevant, as the combination of electoral reform and the rise of the Labour Party left only a narrow niche for what they had historically represented: urban professionals.
Their demise, and the polarisation of British politics, meant that one could choose between "The Interests of the Establishment" (i.e. the Conservatives), and "The Interests of the Working Classes" (i.e. Labour).
But we now have much less tribal politics than we used to. Very few people these days say "I am an xxx, just as my father and his father before, were."
I could see myself voting for any one of the Conservatives, the LibDems, Labour or UKIP. There are individuals and strands of thoughts within all those parties that I admire and like.
My attitude, which I suspect is by no means unusual, is a dramatic change in the structure of British politics. And I think it's one that will end with the end of First Past the Post, and a radical realignment of British politics. I think it's quite likely the Liberals we know today will find themselves cleaved in two. (And I think the same is probably true of the Conservatives and Labour too.) Even UKIP will need to change from none of the above, the rest of them are all the same, but we're different and decide what kind of party they want to be.
Mr. 1000, Belgium's only good for chocolates and F1.
And as a handy route to invade France, obviously.
And beer, don't forget the beer. Belgium brews lots of it and some is really very, very good. Also chips with mayonnaise, a Belgian invention and a great contribution to Western civilisation and the general happiness of mankind.
I see that OGH has cunningly smothered all talk of the Rennard suspension, with the news of an active by-election to a parliamentary seat. So i'll now reprint my post of 3:33pm this afternoon, as I think it important.
I think that's not so much 'cunning smothering' but a recognition that this site is principally about betting on political outcomes.
I see that OGH has cunningly smothered all talk of the Rennard suspension, with the news of an active by-election to a parliamentary seat. So i'll now reprint my post of 3:33pm this afternoon, as I think it important.
I think that's not so much 'cunning smothering' but a recognition that this site is principally about betting on political outcomes.
Mike's done his money with Paddy Power on this one at any rate, UKIP could well do well at the next GE, but this seat ain't the ticket.
FPT - On topic, I'm not sure Cameron has learnt yet (or will ever learn) how to handle seemingly contrary evidence.
On the one hand, he reads (and is told) that he's much more popular than his party and enjoys very strong levels of support from Conservative voters. At one point, it was nigh on 100%. On the other hand, his leadership has been characterised by the haemorrhaging of party members, activists and he is none too popular with plenty of his backbenchers either.
The simple conclusion is to say it's one or t'other and, naturally, you'd think the Cameroons would plump for the voters, thank you very much.
But the problem is that it's not that simple. A leader will always make enemies, and almost always progressively less popular as time goes by, but a good and perceptive leader would recognise that these choices are not mutually exclusive. The polite, patient and respective engagement of the party and its supporters - building support for each initiative, making the case and, most importantly, time for them - does not need to come at the cost of relative popularity amongst the voters at large.
It's called leadership, and good leaders don't dictate. They inspire and excite the building of a broad coalition to follow them.
Cameron's approval rating is very strong among people who say they will currently vote Conservative.
Much less so amongst Conservative voters from 2010.
I guess that would be expected. Of course, popularity with the voters is a big part of the leaders job, but it's not the only part. Members, activists and donors are crucial in both helping to get the message across, and to put in the hard graft needed, to win seats nationwide.
I see that OGH has cunningly smothered all talk of the Rennard suspension, with the news of an active by-election to a parliamentary seat. So i'll now reprint my post of 3:33pm this afternoon, as I think it important.
I think that's not so much 'cunning smothering' but a recognition that this site is principally about betting on political outcomes.
Blimey! that first sentence was supposed to be joke. Talk about BIG BROTHER!
I see that OGH has cunningly smothered all talk of the Rennard suspension, with the news of an active by-election to a parliamentary seat. So i'll now reprint my post of 3:33pm this afternoon, as I think it important.
I think that's not so much 'cunning smothering' but a recognition that this site is principally about betting on political outcomes.
Blimey! that first sentence was supposed to be joke. Talk about BIG BROTHER!
I appreciate your viewpoint JJ, and we may have to agree to disagree. I feel that some of your responses there are a little dismissive of (what I feel are) genuine concerns. They are also partly my experiences. It sort of underlines my point: I'm not sure the leadership is really listening, or willing to listen.
I grant you there are a few die-hards. However, these are nowhere near as numerous as commonly perceived. I do not believe it was necessary to lose almost 50% of party members inside 8 years, during a period when both Labour and Liberal Democrats have experienced far smaller declines. These have included longstanding party chairman, councillors and association organisers as well activists with decades of service. There are now fewer Conservative party members *overall* than voted for Cameron in 2005. I should know, I was one of them.
My view is that it is the responsibility of the leader to lead the party, not blame the troops. That is what he was voted into do, and what he is paid to do. No other organisation would seek to blame its staff for a failure in its change strategy. I think its a bit rich to demand absolute loyalty from all members, and their money and time whenever needed, but to arrogantly dismiss and insult them as part of a strategy to *change* the party. I just think that's crazy. Why would anyone stay a member of an organisation run like that?
On the EU point, this is not down to obsession (aside from a few cases) - rather it's because plenty of MPs, and supporters, doubt Cameron's sincerity on it and don't trust him to deliver.
Frankly, I think they're right to be worried.
Fairy nuff - we'll have to disagree. But Europe is just a small part of what the party and Cameron has to do: things like the economy, the NHS, benefits and education were all desperately in need of reform. These are all concerns for members (I guess) and the public as well. Yet we hear much less hate about these from the malcontents.
You say people don't trust him to deliver on Europe: surely it's obsessive to put that one issue above all the other work the coalition's doing?
What would be your ideal Conservative Party going into 2015? What would it look like? What would it's core policies and messages be?
So my final note: this government's a coalition, and it's got a heck of a lot more to deal with than Europe.
They only just missed second place last time, and UKIP can help them by peeling some votes off Con.
Stingy.
The LDs will only do well in seats where they are in with a good chance of winning and where they throw the kitchen sink at it. This applies to local elections as much as Westminster by-elections or even GE2015
Fighing for second places is something for UKIP.
The LDs will come 4th or 5th and it doesn't matter an iota. This is first past the post.
I quite agree, which is why I don't think they have any chance of finishing second.
That said, the Lib Dem strategy is one that means they can never win an election, and indeed are getting further away from it as future target seats slip further away.
Hmm you're probably right, I think my 50p is gone at any rate. The value must surely be with CON in 2nd place though right now I think ?
Quincel declined from a Lib Dem Lost deposit bet too...
The value probably is in the Tories to come 2nd at 3/1, though to be honest I don't know why I didn't take UKIP at 10/11 given it was almost certainly going to be a good trading bet. Sadly, Shadsy or his employers have had my account limited to minimal stakes anyway.
I suspect the LDs will end somewhere between 5-10%, personally. But it's a hard one to call. Can't remember if I declined to bet they would lose their deposit or wouldn't though.
One issue with W&SE is that it's unclear whether the coalition parties will fight very hard. Since it isn't fertile UKIP territory if they both dispatch lots of activists then they could hold their ground well, but if they don't bother since they are unlikely to win then the LDs could drop to >5% due to Labour and the Tories similarly (though probably not as badly) to UKIP, Labour and Non-Voting (actually, that last one is a major LD problem up there too). I've heard mumblings about the LDs sitting this one out, so I'd be tempted by something near evens on them just collapsing. My gut (to be honest about it, it's not much more than an instinctive guess) is that Tory voters in Trafford and South Manchester have stuck with them through lots and will continue to do so.
They only just missed second place last time, and UKIP can help them by peeling some votes off Con.
Stingy.
The LDs will only do well in seats where they are in with a good chance of winning and where they throw the kitchen sink at it. This applies to local elections as much as Westminster by-elections or even GE2015
Fighing for second places is something for UKIP.
The LDs will come 4th or 5th and it doesn't matter an iota. This is first past the post.
I quite agree, which is why I don't think they have any chance of finishing second.
That said, the Lib Dem strategy is one that means they can never win an election, and indeed are getting further away from it as future target seats slip further away.
Hmm you're probably right, I think my 50p is gone at any rate. The value must surely be with CON in 2nd place though right now I think ?
Quincel declined from a Lib Dem Lost deposit bet too...
The value probably is in the Tories to come 2nd at 3/1, though to be honest I don't know why I didn't take UKIP at 10/11 given it was almost certainly going to be a good trading bet. Sadly, Shadsy or his employers have had my account limited to minimal stakes anyway.
I suspect the LDs will end somewhere between 5-10%, personally. But it's a hard one to call. Can't remember if I declined to bet they would lose their deposit or wouldn't though.
One issue with W&SE is that it's unclear whether the coalition parties will fight very hard. Since it isn't fertile UKIP territory if they both dispatch lots of activists then they could hold their ground well, but if they don't bother since they are unlikely to win then the LDs could drop to >5% due to Labour and the Tories similarly (though probably not as badly) to UKIP, Labour and Non-Voting (actually, that last one is a major LD problem up there too). I've heard mumblings about the LDs sitting this one out, so I'd be tempted by something near evens on them just collapsing. My gut (to be honest about it, it's not much more than an instinctive guess) is that Tory voters in Trafford and South Manchester have stuck with them through lots and will continue to do so.
Lib Dem vote % has a high standard deviation and an uncertain mean I think...
@rcs1000 - well put. I've always thought of politics from c.1924 to c.1974 to have been the interests of labour (Labour) vs. those of property (Conservative).
I admit I am struggling to see how the two parties will maintain their hegemony in the long-term.
SWIFT has this afternoon released its latest GDP Index.
The final nowcast for UK Q4 2013 GDP has come in at 0.4% for the quarter, with their annual growth forecast at 2.4%.
The annual figure of 2.4% is identical to the revised IMF forecast being much trumpeted by Sky News today, but the quarterly figures (the headline rate) is well below market and forecaster expectations of 0.7%.
The 0.4% figure is broadly consistent with SWIFT's previous two nowcasts (0.3% and 0.5%) but their indexing methodology allows for recent ONS metrics to play a greater role in determining the final of three nowcasts. We have seen big changes before between Nowcast 2 & 3, particularly for Q2 2013. This hasn't happened this time and their final nowcast has to be seen as a disappointment.
SWIFT Index - November 2012 to December 2013 GDP Growth estimated Outcomes from OECD (Expenditure Approach) QoQ = Quarter on Previous Quarter; YoY = Quarter on Same Quarter Previous Year
I don't see any alternative either. But it is a reversion to the 1924-1955 period, in which the party was desperately trying to hang on to a diminishing number of strongholds.
Yes: politics is a series of (literal) swings.
The liberals post WW1 ceased to be relevant, as the combination of electoral reform and the rise of the Labour Party left only a narrow niche for what they had historically represented: urban professionals.
Their demise, and the polarisation of British politics, meant that one could choose between "The Interests of the Establishment" (i.e. the Conservatives), and "The Interests of the Working Classes" (i.e. Labour).
But we now have much less tribal politics than we used to. Very few people these days say "I am an xxx, just as my father and his father before, were."
I could see myself voting for any one of the Conservatives, the LibDems, Labour or UKIP. There are individuals and strands of thoughts within all those parties that I admire and like.
My attitude, which I suspect is by no means unusual, is a dramatic change in the structure of British politics. And I think it's one that will end with the end of First Past the Post, and a radical realignment of British politics. I think it's quite likely the Liberals we know today will find themselves cleaved in two. (And I think the same is probably true of the Conservatives and Labour too.) Even UKIP will need to change from none of the above, the rest of them are all the same, but we're different and decide what kind of party they want to be.
Hmm, some bits I agree with, others I really don't. I may spend a while writing up a response.
@rcs1000 - well put. I've always thought of politics from c.1924 to c.1974 to have been the interests of labour (Labour) vs. those of property (Conservative).
I admit I am struggling to see how the two parties will maintain their hegemony in the long-term.
The only thing that props them up is fear of the other. When I attempt to persuade Conservative friends to swear allegiance to the Dark Lord, I rarely get the response that I'm wrong. Merely that voting UKIP would let Miliband in. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the Left who have no time for Labour, but vote for them to keep the Conservatives out.
Really, though, neither party can keep going out with such hollowed-out constituency organisations, and so little loyalty among the general public. Either, we'll see a 1922-24 blowout, or PR will be brought in.
Disciplinary procedures "7.4 Before the procedure can be initiated, the following matters shall be reduced to writing either by the complainant or, where the Party body is acting of its own motion, by an appropriate member of that body:
(i) the grounds for commencing the procedure (which must be one or more of those set out in the Constitution of the Liberal Democrats in England at Articles 2.6), (ii) details of why the ground(s) cited is or are made out, (iii) a summary of the facts giving rise to the complaint, (iv) details of persons who can substantiate the complaint, (v) details of the remedy that is sought (which must be either membership revocation or any of the sanctions prescribed below). "
"Constitution 2.6 Membership may be revoked in accordance with the procedure laid out in the Membership Rules by the Liberal Democrats in England or a Regional Party or Local Party (or, where appropriate, a Specified Associated Organisation which acted as the enrolling body) on one or more of the following grounds: ... (b) conduct which has brought, or is likely to bring, the Party into disrepute;"
"Disciplinary procedures ... (iii) The investigator shall then evaluate the strength of the evidence in support of the complaint, (iv) Within four weeks of their appointment, the investigator shall send a report to the Chair of the Party body pursuing the Disciplinary Procedure. (v) That report shall either comprise a charge or list of charges against the individual concerned, together with a list of persons who can substantiate them and a copy of all of the written statements gathered during the course of the investigation, or it shall indicate that, in the view of the investigator, there is insufficient evidence to proceed. (vi) Where the investigator reports that that there is sufficient evidence to proceed, s/he shall be responsible for presenting the complaint at any subsequent Disciplinary Meeting and for ensuring the attendance of all witnesses who can substantiate it. Except as provided for in this paragraph and in 7.9 [acting as Prosecutor in the event of a hearing], the investigator shall play no further part in the procedure."
Webster's statement "I was appointed under Rule 7.6 of the English Party’s membership rules to investigate and determine whether or not it was appropriate to charge Lord Rennard with acting in a way that had brought the party into disrepute. The charge, if proved, might warrant his expulsion from the Liberal Democrats or other sanction under the Party’s rules."
So Webster's job under the rules was to answer a simple Yes/No. Was it appropriate to proceed with the charges/grounds laid out in the complaint?, that is was Rennard likely to be convicted of "conduct which has brought, or is likely to bring, the Party into disrepute."
The answer was No.
But then he goes on to say. "But I think he's probably done XYZ and should apologize." That is completely outside of the rules...
@rcs1000 - well put. I've always thought of politics from c.1924 to c.1974 to have been the interests of labour (Labour) vs. those of property (Conservative).
I admit I am struggling to see how the two parties will maintain their hegemony in the long-term.
The only thing that props them up is fear of the other. When I attempt to persuade Conservative friends to swear allegiance to the Dark Lord, I rarely get the response that I'm wrong. Merely that voting UKIP would let Miliband in. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the Left who have no time for Labour, but vote for them to keep the Conservatives out.
Really, though, neither party can keep going out with such hollowed-out constituency organisations, and so little loyalty among the general public. Either, we'll see a 1922-24 blowout, or PR will be brought in.
I think all political activists should be forced to change party every decade or so, whether they like it or not. This would help people understand others' points of view.
SWIFT Index - November 2012 to December 2013 GDP Growth estimated Outcomes from OECD (Expenditure Approach) QoQ = Quarter on Previous Quarter; YoY = Quarter on Same Quarter Previous Year
The liberals post WW1 ceased to be relevant, as the combination of electoral reform and the rise of the Labour Party left only a narrow niche for what they had historically represented: urban professionals.
But we now have much less tribal politics than we used to. Very few people these days say "I am an xxx, just as my father and his father before, were."
I could see myself voting for any one of the Conservatives, the LibDems, Labour or UKIP. There are individuals and strands of thoughts within all those parties that I admire and like.
My attitude, which I suspect is by no means unusual, is a dramatic change in the structure of British politics. And I think it's one that will end with the end of First Past the Post, and a radical realignment of British politics. I think it's quite likely the Liberals we know today will find themselves cleaved in two. (And I think the same is probably true of the Conservatives and Labour too.) Even UKIP will need to change from none of the above, the rest of them are all the same, but we're different and decide what kind of party they want to be.
Let's see.
On the first level I'd correct you by saying you should specify that you mean in electoral results. In terms of political philosophy they continued to be very relevant, Lloyd George's books of various colours in the late 20s, Keynes's economic philosophy (he was a Liberal, although his work was much less entwined with the party), and the Beveridge report would be examples of how even without electoral success Liberals were still influential in politics.
In terms of election results you're first of all missing out the Celtic fringe (Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, etc) that sustained strong Liberal party representation for decades. Equally you miss out chunks of the rural poor. Through most of its early years the Labour party was heavily based around the trade unions and hence its growth was very urban based and didn't reach out into the countryside.
You're vastly underrating the importance of the Liberal party's organisational failure through the period. Caused by the Lloyd George-Asquith split and perpetuated by their factions until the late 20s the division of activists, candidates, public disunity and money (see the lack of candidates stood in 1924 due to LG withholding funds under his control).
It was this, rather than a determinist view of an inevitably rising Labour party that caused their downfall.
As for the decline of what's often termed movement politics (i.e. that people used sign up to broad movements and are now more attracted by single issue campaigns) and the strength of identity politics has diminished, that's pretty definitively true.
I suspect though that your prediction of mass splitting of parties is over-dramatic, at least for the foreseeable future.
Best of all were the PETA members that Cath Elliott encountered in Norfolk when she took her dogs for a walk in the country. They strew the area with broken glass to prevent a hunt riding through it, with the result that her dogs cut their paws open.
SWIFT Index - November 2012 to December 2013 GDP Growth estimated Outcomes from OECD (Expenditure Approach) QoQ = Quarter on Previous Quarter; YoY = Quarter on Same Quarter Previous Year
SWIFT Index - November 2012 to December 2013 GDP Growth estimated Outcomes from OECD (Expenditure Approach) QoQ = Quarter on Previous Quarter; YoY = Quarter on Same Quarter Previous Year
No yellow box for the final SWIFTIndex for all OECD countries but comparisons for Q4 2013 growth are QoQ = 0.6% (vs. UK 0.4%) and YoY = 2.1% (vs. UK 2.4%).
Here are the updated SWIFTIndex forecasts/nowcasts for the EU (28 countries).
A picture of slow improvement but still some way behind the UK.
I would be interested in seeing the internals. My guess is that Ireland will be doing great, while Spain and Portugal will be doing incrementally better. Germany and Austria are doing OK.
Italy is picking itself up (just) off the floor. Greece will likely still be a basket case.
The Netherlands will likely be awful, as will France.
@JJ - it's a very good question. For reasons of time and space, it's not one we might be able to explore in detail now. However, I'm not sure policies are the biggest problem. It's the brand: the relevance of the Conservatives to today's problems:
(1) People still aren't sure what the Conservatives are all about, or whether they have their hearts in the right place. A good few recognised they were trying to change to something a bit different pre-2010 (see 'big society', 'the great ignored', 'vote-blue/go-green') but weren't really sure which, so, they defaulted back to their previous position of.. (2) They only care about the rich and are out-of-touch with the hard realities of life (and couldn't care less) but are good at taking 'hard' decisions on the economy, immigration and welfare
Cameron's biggest error was recognising the need to change, but not taking a real hard look at 'why'. This is because he wasn't really sure himself; his real ambition was just to be prime minister. This meant the 'what' and 'how' was also muddled and he couldn't lead his 1st lieutenants properly, e.g. Hilton/Coulton/Osborne. The focus seemed to be to attract soft Lib-Dems and Labour supporters with a Guardian-lite strategy designed to improve the image and 'niceness' of the party, thus neutering the above and allowing the party to be heard. However, because it wasn't coherent or sincere it didn't really work.
The Conservatives need to:
(1) Make their case from 1st principles: the leader needs to explain why the values of Conservativism are a positive, relevant inspirational choice for today's problems (see Boris for closest attempt) and why they are 'on the side' of the ordinary person - this needs to reference a future vision of Britain (10-20-30 years hence) (2) It needs to show how it will makes everyone's lives *better*. Good answers are needed to affordable housing, costly education, limited well-paid employment opportunities, congested transport and overall cohesiveness of society. The environment and identity politics were not the right ones to target. (3) Policies on immigration and europe need to be presented positively (helping 3rd world and trading more freely in a future global world) and talk about giving ordinary people new rights rather than taking them away (e.g. labour market deregulation) (4) Recruit candidates much more widely (from all professions and walks of life) and support their PPCs much better financially - at the moment it can cost 10-40k to fight a seat (5) Communicate, listen, communicate, listen.. with the public and their supporters - build up as broad a movement as possible on the above
Finally, there needs to be a clear flow through (1) to (5). The middle class should not feel ashamed to vote Conservative, nor should the working class feel they are aliens. It's a difficult entrenched problem; however, in the next 18 months I feel Cameron could make a start if he wanted to.
@Avery - Don't the aggregates of the PMI indexes suggest that 4Q growth will be greater than 0.4%?
Has SWIFT proven to be more accurate?
John
The SWIFTIndex is fairly new. It started to produce aggregate OECD forecasts in spring 2012 and extended the range to five metrics (OECD, EU28, US, UK, DE) only at the beginning of 2013.
It first caught attention when it predicted the UK's surprise 0.7% growth in Q2 2013 against almost other external forecasts. Since then, in the UK, it has been within 0.1% of the first ONS figure in each of its final 'nowcasts'. Not a large number of forecasts but a sound start.
So I would take note of its 0.4% final nowcast for Q4 2013, even if I believe, in line with most 'official' forecasters, that it will be closer to 0.7%.
If SWIFT gets Q4 right against prevailing winds then it will gain even greater credibility as it matures.
It would be interesting to see what Robert S. is predicting.
I will be extremely surprised and disappointed if Q4 is as low as 0.4%. My major worry was that consumption might have gone down but the sales figures last week verged on the spectacular.
The PMIs have been positive, if not quite as positive as they were a couple of months ago. Really anything less than 0.8% will be a concern as we come into the new year.
@JJ - it's a very good question. For reasons of time and space, it's not one we might be able to explore in detail now. However, I'm not sure policies are the biggest problem. It's the brand: the relevance of the Conservatives to today's problems:
(1) People still aren't sure what the Conservatives are all about, or whether they have their hearts in the right place. A good few recognised they were trying to change to something a bit different pre-2010 (see 'big society', 'the great ignored', 'vote-blue/go-green') but weren't really sure which, so, they defaulted back to their previous position of.. (2) They only care about the rich and are out-of-touch with the hard realities of life (and couldn't care less) but are good at taking 'hard' decisions on the economy, immigration and welfare
(snip good stuff)
Thanks; those points are all very good ideas, and I agree with most of it, if not the paragraphs above them. ;-)
I would also note that even if they try the above, many in the media and in politics will brainlessly shout it down. "Same old Tories", "Nasty Tories" and similar brain-dead and unintelligent calls. Everything above will have to be handled in a media-savvy way. And that's exactly what Cameron tried, and is where the real problems occur.
Sadly, nowadays politics is more about marketing than ideas.
@Avery - Don't the aggregates of the PMI indexes suggest that 4Q growth will be greater than 0.4%?
Has SWIFT proven to be more accurate?
On PMIs, because they are a mix of quantitative and qualitative metrics from surveys of market participants, they tend to overestimate in upturns and underestimate in downturns, the reason being that confidence tends to be informed by and lag the hard output figures.
Still the PMIs were pointing to an acceleration of growth until the last two months and the downturns in the indices were not substantial. Given that forecasters were talking as high as 0.9% - 1.0% Q4 2013 GDP growth through November a downward correction to 0.7% seems very plausible.
Down to 0.4% looks too high a correction but we only have a week to wait to see who is right.
@Avery - Don't the aggregates of the PMI indexes suggest that 4Q growth will be greater than 0.4%?
Has SWIFT proven to be more accurate?
On PMIs, because they are a mix of quantitative and qualitative metrics from surveys of market participants, they tend to overestimate in upturns and underestimate in downturns, the reason being that confidence tends to be informed by and lag the hard output figures.
Still the PMIs were pointing to an acceleration of growth until the last two months and the downturns in the indices were not substantial. Given that forecasters were talking as high as 0.9% - 1.0% Q4 2013 GDP growth through November a downward correction to 0.7% seems very plausible.
Down to 0.4% looks too high a correction but we only have a week to wait to see who is right.
Thanks...aren't the figures due this Friday?
0.4% would also be disappointing politically; 0.7% basically OK, anything higher a bonus.
What kind of size are you interested in? I understand you want to keep it fairly light, so £18 on Over 45.5% for Labour? I'm also tempted by under on UKIP, £18 on that too?
I believe that Conservative attempts to change parliamentary boundaries in their favour and change the voting registration to deny many people the vote could have resulted in permanent Conservative government for this country.
"This is because he wasn't really sure himself; his real ambition was just to be prime minister."
I fear you may be correct with that thought, Mr. Royale. It certainly explains all the other problems you correctly identify.
Mind you Cameron is not alone in wanting power but not knowing what he wanted to do with it. Brown was the same and Blair too.
Isn't that the same for most politicians? You cannot do much without being elected to power, and they can decide fully what to do when they get that power?
For one thing, from what I've read, Blair had *more* of an idea of what he wanted to do when he finally got power than Thatcher did in 1979.
@rcs1000 - well put. I've always thought of politics from c.1924 to c.1974 to have been the interests of labour (Labour) vs. those of property (Conservative).
I admit I am struggling to see how the two parties will maintain their hegemony in the long-term.
The only thing that props them up is fear of the other. When I attempt to persuade Conservative friends to swear allegiance to the Dark Lord, I rarely get the response that I'm wrong. Merely that voting UKIP would let Miliband in. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the Left who have no time for Labour, but vote for them to keep the Conservatives out.
Really, though, neither party can keep going out with such hollowed-out constituency organisations, and so little loyalty among the general public. Either, we'll see a 1922-24 blowout, or PR will be brought in.
Hmm, not sure about the latter part. Certainly there are lots of people who vote Labour to keep the Tories out, as you say. But membership isn't decaying at the moment and hasn't been for a couple of years - locally it's drifting upwards, and I imagine nationally it's nudging 200K again. There are two detectable types - the classic socialists, who are often no longer quite sure what form socialism should taker but would like to focus on that, and the classic social democrats, who basically want Guardian/Scandinavian social democracy. We don't have the vitriolic arguments that we used to have (and the Tories apparently still have), since everyone can see that there are problems with both models so the "Just follow the plan!" ideologues are rare. But a degree of uncertainty is in some ways a strength, as it survives contact with reality.
If you had read the 2010 manifesto you would have found out what Cameron wanted to do.
Indeed, and what is remarkable is that, despite the restrictions of coalition, he has done, or is well down the path of doing, most of it. He has also done exactly what he said he would do when he was pitching to become leader.
I really cannot understand why anyone thinks otherwise. Cameron is a very straightforward politician, simple to understand, very much in the Conservative tradition of leaders like Macmillan, who does what he says and has delivered on a large amount of what he said he'd deliver on. The only real gripe which makes sense is the left's complaint about breaking his commitment not to impose top-down reform on the NHS.
"This is because he wasn't really sure himself; his real ambition was just to be prime minister."
I fear you may be correct with that thought, Mr. Royale. It certainly explains all the other problems you correctly identify.
Mind you Cameron is not alone in wanting power but not knowing what he wanted to do with it. Brown was the same and Blair too.
But, Mr Llama, this is a criticism that can be levelled at almost every Prime Minister.
You can argue that it does not apply to PMs called to office in a national crisis where there is a single over-riding aim, like Churchill in 1940, but few would describe Winston as a self-effacing wall-flower lacking personal political ambition before being thrust reluctantly into office!
I guess it may not also apply to those PMs who are unelected successors of long term leaders: e.g. Home, Callaghan and Major. Brown is not quite in this category as he considered himself to be the rightful PM from the time Smith's death created the vacancy of Labour leader.
Another truth that we tend to overlook is that the best PMs develop and modify their 'vision' as they progess in office. The Thatcher of 1979 was by no means as sharply chiselled as the three time election winning Thatcher of the late 1980s.
In some ways Cameron is a crisis PM. Elected after a global economic crash for which the previous government was blamed and forced by electoral outcome into a Coalition, it is not surprising that his main style of leadership has been managerial - more chairman than chief executive.
There are many who would argue that Cameron's style was and is appropriate for the circumstances in which he was elected to office. And he is after all achieving what he was elected to do: manage an economic recovery.
The time for the Conservatives to set out a differentiating vision will come as the task of economic recovery is completed. And that won't be happening until at least 2020. It is unlikely Cameron will want to - or be allowed by his party to - lead the Tories forward into the 2020s. So the key is to look for a replacement leader meeting your requirements to take office say around 2017-18. Boris?
Or if Cameron loses in 2015, then we more likely than not will be back to a 2010 crisis in 2020 with yet another Labour legacy to clear up.
Do you really think Farage would be doing a better job?
What kind of size are you interested in? I understand you want to keep it fairly light, so £18 on Over 45.5% for Labour? I'm also tempted by under on UKIP, £18 on that too?
Just friendly bets, £18 is fine on those two.. did you want more?
In 2009, I was the subject of a smear campaign in relation to House of Lords allowances. The timing of this campaign was clearly chosen as it was in the middle of major election campaigns, for which I was then responsible.
But the lifestyle involved did great damage to my health.
Neither have "takes responsibility for own actions" written all over them.....
@politicshome: Lord Rennard confirms he is taking legal advice about civil action against the Lib Dems. Read full statement here http://t.co/g2RZb58WNo
What kind of size are you interested in? I understand you want to keep it fairly light, so £18 on Over 45.5% for Labour? I'm also tempted by under on UKIP, £18 on that too?
Just friendly bets, £18 is fine on those two.. did you want more?
£18@5/6 Labour >45.5 £18@5/6 UKIP <26.5</p>
Nah, I'm not certain enough to go in beyond that (even these I'm a bit shaky on, but it wouldn't be gambling if we were always sure). £18 each is good, thanks.
"For one thing, from what I've read, Blair had *more* of an idea of what he wanted to do when he finally got power than Thatcher did in 1979."
It might be Mr. J., but I am not so sure. Certainly one needs power to do anything much at all, but without a clear idea of where one wants to lead people one can never be an effective leader. This is, I think, the Cameron problem identified in his excellent post by Mr Royale below and to which I was responding.
Did Blair know what he wanted to achieve with power? I am not sure he did; certainly his own remarks subsequent to his retirement from politics suggests the opposite. Thatcher, when she came to office, did, I think, have a very firm idea of where she wanted to take the Country, though not necessarily as firm a grip on which policies needed to implemented to do the job. I don't know, politics was very different in 1979 than it was in 1997 and in another world compared to today.
Leadership on the other hand don't change and, in the words of my first sergeant, Cameron couldn't lead a squad of ducklings across a fire-bucket.
@Avery - Don't the aggregates of the PMI indexes suggest that 4Q growth will be greater than 0.4%?
Has SWIFT proven to be more accurate?
On PMIs, because they are a mix of quantitative and qualitative metrics from surveys of market participants, they tend to overestimate in upturns and underestimate in downturns, the reason being that confidence tends to be informed by and lag the hard output figures.
Still the PMIs were pointing to an acceleration of growth until the last two months and the downturns in the indices were not substantial. Given that forecasters were talking as high as 0.9% - 1.0% Q4 2013 GDP growth through November a downward correction to 0.7% seems very plausible.
Down to 0.4% looks too high a correction but we only have a week to wait to see who is right.
Thanks...aren't the figures due this Friday?
0.4% would also be disappointing politically; 0.7% basically OK, anything higher a bonus.
ONS figures due on Tuesday 28 January.
Agree on political assessment. Would be more surprised to see higher than 0.7% than lower though.
What kind of size are you interested in? I understand you want to keep it fairly light, so £18 on Over 45.5% for Labour? I'm also tempted by under on UKIP, £18 on that too?
Just friendly bets, £18 is fine on those two.. did you want more?
£18@5/6 Labour >45.5 £18@5/6 UKIP <26.5</p>
Nah, I'm not certain enough to go in beyond that (even these I'm a bit shaky on, but it wouldn't be gambling if we were always sure). £18 each is good, thanks.
"Do you really think Farage would be doing a better job?"
Would Farage be a better national leader than Cameron? Yes, I think he probably would - he can lead, you see. If we had a presidential system I think Farage would wipe the floor with the likes of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. But we don't, do we? So in the system that we have Farage has as much chance of becoming PM as my cat.
"Do you really think Farage would be doing a better job?"
Would Farage be a better national leader than Cameron? Yes, I think he probably would - he can lead, you see. If we had a presidential system I think Farage would wipe the floor with the likes of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. But we don't, do we? So in the system that we have Farage has as much chance of becoming PM as my cat.
What's your cat's policy on EU fisheries policy? I could be convinced to change my vote if he/she has a plan to get more tuna on my plate and in his/her bowl.
"Do you really think Farage would be doing a better job?"
Would Farage be a better national leader than Cameron? Yes, I think he probably would - he can lead, you see. If we had a presidential system I think Farage would wipe the floor with the likes of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. But we don't, do we? So in the system that we have Farage has as much chance of becoming PM as my cat.
Seriously? What outstanding piece of leadership would you point to, to back that up, because frankly I'm struggling.
"Do you really think Farage would be doing a better job?"
Would Farage be a better national leader than Cameron? Yes, I think he probably would - he can lead, you see. If we had a presidential system I think Farage would wipe the floor with the likes of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. But we don't, do we? So in the system that we have Farage has as much chance of becoming PM as my cat.
What's your cat's policy on EU fisheries policy? I could be convinced to change my vote if he/she has a plan to get more tuna on my plate and in his/her bowl.
Mr. Quincel,
Samson's views as regards fisheries is that the current EU policy is a wasteful nonsense. He hates the idea of dumping fish back into the sea having killed them unnecessarily. He is also a very patriotic cat and would like to sea Spanish and Danish "sea-hoovers" banned from UK coastal waters. As regards Tuna, whilst he once flirted with the idea that rod-caught tuna was OK, provided it is served in spring water, he now has grave doubts. All that said, he is very keen on catch to eat - especially of next door's gold fish.
"As someone who faithfully served Dr Paisley for many decades I will make one final sacrifice by not responding and causing any further damage to his legacy beyond that which he has done himself."
"Do you really think Farage would be doing a better job?"
Would Farage be a better national leader than Cameron? Yes, I think he probably would - he can lead, you see. If we had a presidential system I think Farage would wipe the floor with the likes of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. But we don't, do we? So in the system that we have Farage has as much chance of becoming PM as my cat.
What's your cat's policy on EU fisheries policy? I could be convinced to change my vote if he/she has a plan to get more tuna on my plate and in his/her bowl.
Mr. Quincel,
Samson's views as regards fisheries is that the current EU policy is a wasteful nonsense. He hates the idea of dumping fish back into the sea having killed them unnecessarily. He is also a very patriotic cat and would like to sea Spanish and Danish "sea-hoovers" banned from UK coastal waters. As regards Tuna, whilst he once flirted with the idea that rod-caught tuna was OK, provided it is served in spring water, he now has grave doubts. All that said, he is very keen on catch to eat - especially of next door's gold fish.
Active policy at home and elsewhere, I'm impressed by the broad ambitions.
"For one thing, from what I've read, Blair had *more* of an idea of what he wanted to do when he finally got power than Thatcher did in 1979."
It might be Mr. J., but I am not so sure. Certainly one needs power to do anything much at all, but without a clear idea of where one wants to lead people one can never be an effective leader. This is, I think, the Cameron problem identified in his excellent post by Mr Royale below and to which I was responding.
Did Blair know what he wanted to achieve with power? I am not sure he did; certainly his own remarks subsequent to his retirement from politics suggests the opposite. Thatcher, when she came to office, did, I think, have a very firm idea of where she wanted to take the Country, though not necessarily as firm a grip on which policies needed to implemented to do the job. I don't know, politics was very different in 1979 than it was in 1997 and in another world compared to today.
Leadership on the other hand don't change and, in the words of my first sergeant, Cameron couldn't lead a squad of ducklings across a fire-bucket.
I normally have a great deal of time for your posts, but that's just chickensh*t. Cameron's leading a coalition, and doing so rather well. A poor leader simply wouldn't be able to keep such opposing forces together. Brown didn't even manage it in his own party.
"Ex-cabinet minister Chris Huhne was dragged through a plate glass window and punched in the eye by his ex-wife" says Judge/Barrister friend of Vicky Price in Court
"Do you really think Farage would be doing a better job?"
Would Farage be a better national leader than Cameron? Yes, I think he probably would - he can lead, you see. If we had a presidential system I think Farage would wipe the floor with the likes of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. But we don't, do we? So in the system that we have Farage has as much chance of becoming PM as my cat.
Seriously? What outstanding piece of leadership would you point to, to back that up, because frankly I'm struggling.
So you would entertain that the rise of UKIP had anything to do with its leadership? Taking a party high enough in the polls for even OGH to start acknowledging it didn't require leadership?
He can lead. You might not like what he says or stands for but he can lead.
@rcs1000 - well put. I've always thought of politics from c.1924 to c.1974 to have been the interests of labour (Labour) vs. those of property (Conservative).
I admit I am struggling to see how the two parties will maintain their hegemony in the long-term.
The only thing that props them up is fear of the other. When I attempt to persuade Conservative friends to swear allegiance to the Dark Lord, I rarely get the response that I'm wrong. Merely that voting UKIP would let Miliband in. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the Left who have no time for Labour, but vote for them to keep the Conservatives out.
Really, though, neither party can keep going out with such hollowed-out constituency organisations, and so little loyalty among the general public. Either, we'll see a 1922-24 blowout, or PR will be brought in.
Would either prevent further hollowing out of overall party membership? The problem is wider than that of the existing parties.
@politicshome: Lord Rennard confirms he is taking legal advice about civil action against the Lib Dems. Read full statement here http://t.co/g2RZb58WNo
So if he manages to win a large amount of money from the Lib Dems, he'll be allowed back into the party - or would causing that cost be cause for a further suspension?!
Evening all. Can someone please explain why on earth the party which is obsessed with constitutions allowed its own rule book to require the criminal standard of proof in relation to what is clearly a civil matter i.e. breaking the rules of the club. The LibDems only have themselves to blame for the Rennard mess.
@politicshome: Lord Rennard confirms he is taking legal advice about civil action against the Lib Dems. Read full statement here http://t.co/g2RZb58WNo
So if he manages to win a large amount of money from the Lib Dems, he'll be allowed back into the party - or would causing that cost be cause for a further suspension?!
Damages would be nominal, probably. Legal costs could be significant, however. They'll capitulate before it gets that far.
And no, it would be no grounds for further disciplinary action. They'd lose again. See Tantussi v Molli [1886] et al...
@politicshome: Lord Rennard confirms he is taking legal advice about civil action against the Lib Dems. Read full statement here http://t.co/g2RZb58WNo
So if he manages to win a large amount of money from the Lib Dems, he'll be allowed back into the party - or would causing that cost be cause for a further suspension?!
Why are you assuming that he is after any sum of money let alone a large one ?
"Do you really think Farage would be doing a better job?"
Would Farage be a better national leader than Cameron? Yes, I think he probably would - he can lead, you see. If we had a presidential system I think Farage would wipe the floor with the likes of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. But we don't, do we? So in the system that we have Farage has as much chance of becoming PM as my cat.
Seriously? What outstanding piece of leadership would you point to, to back that up, because frankly I'm struggling.
So you would entertain that the rise of UKIP had anything to do with its leadership? Taking a party high enough in the polls for even OGH to start acknowledging it didn't require leadership?
He can lead. You might not like what he says or stands for but he can lead.
So That's two of us who can't think of any examples, fair enough.
Rosetta the European space probe headed for a comet has woken up. Its first signal is reputed to be "are Gordon Brown and Danny Blanchflower still ruining the British economy?"
What is Lord Rennard now trying to achieve? Because his aims certainly do not seem to include the wellbeing of the Liberal Democrats.
Regardless of how he may feel about his treatment, he needs to recognise the damage that he is doing to the party for which he worked for so long. On the assumption that he is still a wellwisher of the party, he would do better to leave quietly.
"Do you really think Farage would be doing a better job?"
Would Farage be a better national leader than Cameron? Yes, I think he probably would - he can lead, you see. If we had a presidential system I think Farage would wipe the floor with the likes of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. But we don't, do we? So in the system that we have Farage has as much chance of becoming PM as my cat.
Seriously? What outstanding piece of leadership would you point to, to back that up, because frankly I'm struggling.
So you would entertain that the rise of UKIP had anything to do with its leadership? Taking a party high enough in the polls for even OGH to start acknowledging it didn't require leadership?
He can lead. You might not like what he says or stands for but he can lead.
Mr Llama
You are right about Farage's ability to lead, particularly a protest party.
But the skills required to lead a protest, like those of an entrepreneur starting a business, are not those required to manage a country, or large enterprise.
Some rare individuals can and do make the transition, but I would rather not take the risk of Farage becoming PM. He has already demonstrated questionable man-management skills or more spetacularly poor woman-management skills. Party administration is chaotic and policy development a one man band that plays the tune of the day at whim.
@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Lord Rennard consulting lawyers to sue the @LibDems and @nick_clegg for withdrawing his whip today. #ultrashambles
Blimey – hard to guess where this turn of events will lead. Mr indispensable strategy guy could bring the whole house of cards down. – slightly embarrassing..!
Comments
Who ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Edgbaston_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
The liberals post WW1 ceased to be relevant, as the combination of electoral reform and the rise of the Labour Party left only a narrow niche for what they had historically represented: urban professionals.
Their demise, and the polarisation of British politics, meant that one could choose between "The Interests of the Establishment" (i.e. the Conservatives), and "The Interests of the Working Classes" (i.e. Labour).
But we now have much less tribal politics than we used to. Very few people these days say "I am an xxx, just as my father and his father before, were."
I could see myself voting for any one of the Conservatives, the LibDems, Labour or UKIP. There are individuals and strands of thoughts within all those parties that I admire and like.
My attitude, which I suspect is by no means unusual, is a dramatic change in the structure of British politics. And I think it's one that will end with the end of First Past the Post, and a radical realignment of British politics. I think it's quite likely the Liberals we know today will find themselves cleaved in two. (And I think the same is probably true of the Conservatives and Labour too.) Even UKIP will need to change from none of the above, the rest of them are all the same, but we're different and decide what kind of party they want to be.
Gordon Rayner @gordonrayner 32s
Vicky Pryce punched Chris Huhne several times when he left her for Carine Trimingham, court hears
You say people don't trust him to deliver on Europe: surely it's obsessive to put that one issue above all the other work the coalition's doing?
What would be your ideal Conservative Party going into 2015? What would it look like? What would it's core policies and messages be?
So my final note: this government's a coalition, and it's got a heck of a lot more to deal with than Europe.
I suspect the LDs will end somewhere between 5-10%, personally. But it's a hard one to call. Can't remember if I declined to bet they would lose their deposit or wouldn't though.
One issue with W&SE is that it's unclear whether the coalition parties will fight very hard. Since it isn't fertile UKIP territory if they both dispatch lots of activists then they could hold their ground well, but if they don't bother since they are unlikely to win then the LDs could drop to >5% due to Labour and the Tories similarly (though probably not as badly) to UKIP, Labour and Non-Voting (actually, that last one is a major LD problem up there too). I've heard mumblings about the LDs sitting this one out, so I'd be tempted by something near evens on them just collapsing. My gut (to be honest about it, it's not much more than an instinctive guess) is that Tory voters in Trafford and South Manchester have stuck with them through lots and will continue to do so.
Tricky to tell where it will be.
I admit I am struggling to see how the two parties will maintain their hegemony in the long-term.
SWIFT has this afternoon released its latest GDP Index.
The final nowcast for UK Q4 2013 GDP has come in at 0.4% for the quarter, with their annual growth forecast at 2.4%.
The annual figure of 2.4% is identical to the revised IMF forecast being much trumpeted by Sky News today, but the quarterly figures (the headline rate) is well below market and forecaster expectations of 0.7%.
The 0.4% figure is broadly consistent with SWIFT's previous two nowcasts (0.3% and 0.5%) but their indexing methodology allows for recent ONS metrics to play a greater role in determining the final of three nowcasts. We have seen big changes before between Nowcast 2 & 3, particularly for Q2 2013. This hasn't happened this time and their final nowcast has to be seen as a disappointment.
Here is the yellow box:
Hitchens on Holmes
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/01/can-sherlock-holmes-survive-in-this-feverish-age.html
Hmm, some bits I agree with, others I really don't. I may spend a while writing up a response.
Really, though, neither party can keep going out with such hollowed-out constituency organisations, and so little loyalty among the general public. Either, we'll see a 1922-24 blowout, or PR will be brought in.
Lab 45.5
UKIP 26.5
Con 12.5
LD 9.5
Roll up!
I really think you need to read it all again.
Disciplinary procedures
"7.4 Before the procedure can be initiated, the following matters shall be reduced to writing either by the complainant or, where the Party body is acting of its own motion, by an appropriate member of that body:
(i) the grounds for commencing the procedure (which must be one or more of those set out
in the Constitution of the Liberal Democrats in England at Articles 2.6),
(ii) details of why the ground(s) cited is or are made out,
(iii) a summary of the facts giving rise to the complaint,
(iv) details of persons who can substantiate the complaint,
(v) details of the remedy that is sought (which must be either membership revocation or any
of the sanctions prescribed below).
"
"Constitution
2.6 Membership may be revoked in accordance with the procedure laid out in the
Membership Rules by the Liberal Democrats in England or a Regional Party or Local
Party (or, where appropriate, a Specified Associated Organisation which acted as the
enrolling body) on one or more of the following grounds:
...
(b) conduct which has brought, or is likely to bring, the Party into disrepute;"
"Disciplinary procedures
...
(iii) The investigator shall then evaluate the strength of the evidence in support of the
complaint,
(iv) Within four weeks of their appointment, the investigator shall send a report to the Chair
of the Party body pursuing the Disciplinary Procedure.
(v) That report shall either comprise a charge or list of charges against the individual
concerned, together with a list of persons who can substantiate them and a copy of all of
the written statements gathered during the course of the investigation, or it shall indicate
that, in the view of the investigator, there is insufficient evidence to proceed.
(vi) Where the investigator reports that that there is sufficient evidence to proceed, s/he shall be responsible for presenting the complaint at any subsequent Disciplinary Meeting and
for ensuring the attendance of all witnesses who can substantiate it. Except as provided
for in this paragraph and in 7.9 [acting as Prosecutor in the event of a hearing], the investigator shall play no further part in the procedure."
"I was appointed under Rule 7.6 of the English Party’s membership rules to investigate and determine whether or not it was appropriate to charge Lord Rennard with acting in a way that had brought the party into disrepute. The charge, if proved, might warrant his expulsion from the Liberal Democrats or other sanction under the Party’s rules."
So Webster's job under the rules was to answer a simple Yes/No. Was it appropriate to proceed with the charges/grounds laid out in the complaint?, that is was Rennard likely to be convicted of "conduct which has brought, or is likely to bring, the Party into disrepute."
The answer was No.
But then he goes on to say. "But I think he's probably done XYZ and should apologize." That is completely outside of the rules...
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/01/an-empty-government.html
http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2014-01-20/nigel-farage-hit-over-head-with-placard-by-angry-protesters/
Here are the updated SWIFTIndex forecasts/nowcasts for the EU (28 countries).
A picture of slow improvement but still some way behind the UK.
Quarter 4 2013 Growth nowcast, 0.2% (QoQ) and 0.8% (YoY) compared with 0.4% and 2.4% for the UK.
Don't hurt foxes - just humans. Jeezo.
On the first level I'd correct you by saying you should specify that you mean in electoral results. In terms of political philosophy they continued to be very relevant, Lloyd George's books of various colours in the late 20s, Keynes's economic philosophy (he was a Liberal, although his work was much less entwined with the party), and the Beveridge report would be examples of how even without electoral success Liberals were still influential in politics.
In terms of election results you're first of all missing out the Celtic fringe (Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, etc) that sustained strong Liberal party representation for decades. Equally you miss out chunks of the rural poor. Through most of its early years the Labour party was heavily based around the trade unions and hence its growth was very urban based and didn't reach out into the countryside.
You're vastly underrating the importance of the Liberal party's organisational failure through the period. Caused by the Lloyd George-Asquith split and perpetuated by their factions until the late 20s the division of activists, candidates, public disunity and money (see the lack of candidates stood in 1924 due to LG withholding funds under his control).
It was this, rather than a determinist view of an inevitably rising Labour party that caused their downfall.
As for the decline of what's often termed movement politics (i.e. that people used sign up to broad movements and are now more attracted by single issue campaigns) and the strength of identity politics has diminished, that's pretty definitively true.
I suspect though that your prediction of mass splitting of parties is over-dramatic, at least for the foreseeable future.
Closer to the UK but still someway behind, especially on the annual figure.
Q4 2013 QoQ = 0.3% (UK = 0.4%) and YoY = 1.4% (UK = 2.4%).
Finally the US.
A better nowcast for Q4 2013 than the UK, QoQ = 0.7% (vs. UK = 0.4%), with YoY = 2.7% (vs. 2.4%). No yellow box for the final SWIFTIndex for all OECD countries but comparisons for Q4 2013 growth are QoQ = 0.6% (vs. UK 0.4%) and YoY = 2.1% (vs. UK 2.4%).
Has SWIFT proven to be more accurate?
Italy is picking itself up (just) off the floor. Greece will likely still be a basket case.
The Netherlands will likely be awful, as will France.
(1) People still aren't sure what the Conservatives are all about, or whether they have their hearts in the right place. A good few recognised they were trying to change to something a bit different pre-2010 (see 'big society', 'the great ignored', 'vote-blue/go-green') but weren't really sure which, so, they defaulted back to their previous position of..
(2) They only care about the rich and are out-of-touch with the hard realities of life (and couldn't care less) but are good at taking 'hard' decisions on the economy, immigration and welfare
Cameron's biggest error was recognising the need to change, but not taking a real hard look at 'why'. This is because he wasn't really sure himself; his real ambition was just to be prime minister. This meant the 'what' and 'how' was also muddled and he couldn't lead his 1st lieutenants properly, e.g. Hilton/Coulton/Osborne. The focus seemed to be to attract soft Lib-Dems and Labour supporters with a Guardian-lite strategy designed to improve the image and 'niceness' of the party, thus neutering the above and allowing the party to be heard. However, because it wasn't coherent or sincere it didn't really work.
The Conservatives need to:
(1) Make their case from 1st principles: the leader needs to explain why the values of Conservativism are a positive, relevant inspirational choice for today's problems (see Boris for closest attempt) and why they are 'on the side' of the ordinary person - this needs to reference a future vision of Britain (10-20-30 years hence)
(2) It needs to show how it will makes everyone's lives *better*. Good answers are needed to affordable housing, costly education, limited well-paid employment opportunities, congested transport and overall cohesiveness of society. The environment and identity politics were not the right ones to target.
(3) Policies on immigration and europe need to be presented positively (helping 3rd world and trading more freely in a future global world) and talk about giving ordinary people new rights rather than taking them away (e.g. labour market deregulation)
(4) Recruit candidates much more widely (from all professions and walks of life) and support their PPCs much better financially - at the moment it can cost 10-40k to fight a seat
(5) Communicate, listen, communicate, listen.. with the public and their supporters - build up as broad a movement as possible on the above
Finally, there needs to be a clear flow through (1) to (5). The middle class should not feel ashamed to vote Conservative, nor should the working class feel they are aliens. It's a difficult entrenched problem; however, in the next 18 months I feel Cameron could make a start if he wanted to.
http://news.sky.com/story/1198000/liberal-democrats-suspend-lord-rennard
Recommended? On what authority? Under what rule? On what unspecified timescale? Why was a prosecutor trying to act as a judge?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25814537
POCHWAS
The SWIFTIndex is fairly new. It started to produce aggregate OECD forecasts in spring 2012 and extended the range to five metrics (OECD, EU28, US, UK, DE) only at the beginning of 2013.
It first caught attention when it predicted the UK's surprise 0.7% growth in Q2 2013 against almost other external forecasts. Since then, in the UK, it has been within 0.1% of the first ONS figure in each of its final 'nowcasts'. Not a large number of forecasts but a sound start.
So I would take note of its 0.4% final nowcast for Q4 2013, even if I believe, in line with most 'official' forecasters, that it will be closer to 0.7%.
If SWIFT gets Q4 right against prevailing winds then it will gain even greater credibility as it matures.
It would be interesting to see what Robert S. is predicting.
Jeez...
The PMIs have been positive, if not quite as positive as they were a couple of months ago. Really anything less than 0.8% will be a concern as we come into the new year.
I would also note that even if they try the above, many in the media and in politics will brainlessly shout it down. "Same old Tories", "Nasty Tories" and similar brain-dead and unintelligent calls. Everything above will have to be handled in a media-savvy way. And that's exactly what Cameron tried, and is where the real problems occur.
Sadly, nowadays politics is more about marketing than ideas.
I fear you may be correct with that thought, Mr. Royale. It certainly explains all the other problems you correctly identify.
Mind you Cameron is not alone in wanting power but not knowing what he wanted to do with it. Brown was the same and Blair too.
Still the PMIs were pointing to an acceleration of growth until the last two months and the downturns in the indices were not substantial. Given that forecasters were talking as high as 0.9% - 1.0% Q4 2013 GDP growth through November a downward correction to 0.7% seems very plausible.
Down to 0.4% looks too high a correction but we only have a week to wait to see who is right.
0.4% would also be disappointing politically; 0.7% basically OK, anything higher a bonus.
I believe that Conservative attempts to change parliamentary boundaries in their favour and change the voting registration to deny many people the vote could have resulted in permanent Conservative government for this country.
Nick Clegg - 11/4 chance he will no longer be party leader at next elex in wake of @lordrennard saga say William Hill
For one thing, from what I've read, Blair had *more* of an idea of what he wanted to do when he finally got power than Thatcher did in 1979.
I really cannot understand why anyone thinks otherwise. Cameron is a very straightforward politician, simple to understand, very much in the Conservative tradition of leaders like Macmillan, who does what he says and has delivered on a large amount of what he said he'd deliver on. The only real gripe which makes sense is the left's complaint about breaking his commitment not to impose top-down reform on the NHS.
You can argue that it does not apply to PMs called to office in a national crisis where there is a single over-riding aim, like Churchill in 1940, but few would describe Winston as a self-effacing wall-flower lacking personal political ambition before being thrust reluctantly into office!
I guess it may not also apply to those PMs who are unelected successors of long term leaders: e.g. Home, Callaghan and Major. Brown is not quite in this category as he considered himself to be the rightful PM from the time Smith's death created the vacancy of Labour leader.
Another truth that we tend to overlook is that the best PMs develop and modify their 'vision' as they progess in office. The Thatcher of 1979 was by no means as sharply chiselled as the three time election winning Thatcher of the late 1980s.
In some ways Cameron is a crisis PM. Elected after a global economic crash for which the previous government was blamed and forced by electoral outcome into a Coalition, it is not surprising that his main style of leadership has been managerial - more chairman than chief executive.
There are many who would argue that Cameron's style was and is appropriate for the circumstances in which he was elected to office. And he is after all achieving what he was elected to do: manage an economic recovery.
The time for the Conservatives to set out a differentiating vision will come as the task of economic recovery is completed. And that won't be happening until at least 2020. It is unlikely Cameron will want to - or be allowed by his party to - lead the Tories forward into the 2020s. So the key is to look for a replacement leader meeting your requirements to take office say around 2017-18. Boris?
Or if Cameron loses in 2015, then we more likely than not will be back to a 2010 crisis in 2020 with yet another Labour legacy to clear up.
Do you really think Farage would be doing a better job?
£18@5/6 Labour >45.5
£18@5/6 UKIP <26.5
In 2009, I was the subject of a smear campaign in relation to House of Lords allowances. The timing of this campaign was clearly chosen as it was in the middle of major election campaigns, for which I was then responsible.
But the lifestyle involved did great damage to my health.
Neither have "takes responsibility for own actions" written all over them.....
It might be Mr. J., but I am not so sure. Certainly one needs power to do anything much at all, but without a clear idea of where one wants to lead people one can never be an effective leader. This is, I think, the Cameron problem identified in his excellent post by Mr Royale below and to which I was responding.
Did Blair know what he wanted to achieve with power? I am not sure he did; certainly his own remarks subsequent to his retirement from politics suggests the opposite. Thatcher, when she came to office, did, I think, have a very firm idea of where she wanted to take the Country, though not necessarily as firm a grip on which policies needed to implemented to do the job. I don't know, politics was very different in 1979 than it was in 1997 and in another world compared to today.
Leadership on the other hand don't change and, in the words of my first sergeant, Cameron couldn't lead a squad of ducklings across a fire-bucket.
Agree on political assessment. Would be more surprised to see higher than 0.7% than lower though.
No, no, no, NO! The poll did not say most popular, it said most liked. BIG difference. Grr, this kind of thing makes me so mad..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-25812271
Would Farage be a better national leader than Cameron? Yes, I think he probably would - he can lead, you see. If we had a presidential system I think Farage would wipe the floor with the likes of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. But we don't, do we? So in the system that we have Farage has as much chance of becoming PM as my cat.
Samson's views as regards fisheries is that the current EU policy is a wasteful nonsense. He hates the idea of dumping fish back into the sea having killed them unnecessarily. He is also a very patriotic cat and would like to sea Spanish and Danish "sea-hoovers" banned from UK coastal waters. As regards Tuna, whilst he once flirted with the idea that rod-caught tuna was OK, provided it is served in spring water, he now has grave doubts. All that said, he is very keen on catch to eat - especially of next door's gold fish.
"As someone who faithfully served Dr Paisley for many decades I will make one final sacrifice by not responding and causing any further damage to his legacy beyond that which he has done himself."
Er... right! Way to not respond!
He can lead. You might not like what he says or stands for but he can lead.
And no, it would be no grounds for further disciplinary action. They'd lose again. See Tantussi v Molli [1886] et al...
Regardless of how he may feel about his treatment, he needs to recognise the damage that he is doing to the party for which he worked for so long. On the assumption that he is still a wellwisher of the party, he would do better to leave quietly.
You are right about Farage's ability to lead, particularly a protest party.
But the skills required to lead a protest, like those of an entrepreneur starting a business, are not those required to manage a country, or large enterprise.
Some rare individuals can and do make the transition, but I would rather not take the risk of Farage becoming PM. He has already demonstrated questionable man-management skills or more spetacularly poor woman-management skills. Party administration is chaotic and policy development a one man band that plays the tune of the day at whim.
I would rather take a risk on your cat.