Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Looks like the knives are out for Clegg
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Looks like the knives are out for Clegg
“The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, faces a showdown with Liberal Democrat MPs who are demanding that he consider his position as party leader in the wake of the disastrous European and local election results. A block of unnamed MPs are poised to demand his resignation, according to party sources, paving the way for the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, a possible “unity candidate”, to take over in a “coronation” before next year’s general election.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Con 28,286 (39.41%)
LD 20,426 (28.46%)
Green 9,082 (12.65%)
Lab 7,969 (11.10%)
UKIP 4,415 (6.15%)
Ind 1,599 (2.23%)
Changes since 2010 locals:
Con -2.27%
LD -11.73%
Green +6.91%
Lab +1.65%
UKIP +5.93%
Ind +0.08%
Swing, LD to Con: 4.73%
Farron 2/1 (various)
Cable 9/2 (Hills)
Davey 7/1 (various)
Lamb 14/1 (Betfair)
Alexander 16/1 (Betway, SJ)
Browne, Carmichael, Webb 20/1
Swinson 25/1
Hughes, Laws 28/1 (Betfair)
Mulholland, Leech 33/1
Moore 50/1
Wonder why Swinson is as short as 25/1 ? She has pretty much zilch chance of holding on to her seat.
And I cannot see the Lib Dems electing a Tory like Danny Alexander as leader. They need someone more to the left, to distance themselves from the disastrous coalition.
Before September? Now THAT would be tremendous fun.
Mr Farron was apparently put in charge of the LDs election campaign, to tie him in to any failure.
"Clegg’s team has, so far, taken sensible precautions against a leadership challenge. They put Tim Farron, the party president and the strongest left-wing candidate, in charge of the European election campaign. And Vince Cable, the minister most likely to be touted as Clegg’s replacement, will be in China as the results come in."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/politics/9207761/nick-cleggs-war/
EDIT
Ming Campbell?
Green +6.91%
That is a pattern we are seeing everywhere. It is becoming increasingly unlikely that the Lib Dems will finish above the Greens tonight. Eg. I was astonished to see how well the Greens did in Manchester.
A big boost for the Scottish Greens would be a great for the YES campaign. It would really give them energy and confidence as a key part of Yes Scotland, going into the September contest. The Greens have become an increasingly important ally in terms of key GOTV resources (mainly in the cities), but they are also a crucial element in the air war.
The only SLD MPs with safe seats are Charlie Kennedy and Alistair Carmichael.
Kennedy (your local IND candidate for Ross, Skye and Lochaber) is currently 85/1 at Betfair.
Carmichael, the SoS for Scotland, is very obviously already promoted way, way beyond his abilities. You'd be very "brave" (Sir Humphrey Appleby "brave") to put even a fiver on him at 20/1. Although I note that, according to Oddschecker, he is the 3rd most popular bet, after Huhne (100/1) and Farron (2/1).
Campbell is resigning as an MP at the general election. He has been totally invisible during the IndyRef campaign. I suspect that he has simply run out of energy and motivation.
I suppose that he could change his mind, but at age 73? And he looks more like 83. His current 66/1 price looks way too short.
The fact that the SLDs lost North East Fife to the SNP in 2011, on a 17 point SLD to SNP swing, hardly works in Campbell's favour. The SNP price of 5/1 to take the vacant Westminster seat looks like value.
Cable, a former Glasgow councillor, would certainly be a better Lib Dem leader during the IndyRef than almost every other candidate, bar Kennedy.
Cable was a fringe part of the early Donald Dewar / John Smith / Gordon Brown "Scottish Mafia". He knows some of the key BeTory Together players from donkey's years ago.
Cable would be comfortable during the IndyRef, whereas Clegg looks like an itching sore on the bum of the London establishment. Clegg is a bigger liability for the NO campaign than even Cameron and Osborne.
So obvious they're bound almost not to do it.
If I were a Tory, I would be praying for a Cable led LD.
Incidentally, Cable is tightening on Betfair as we speak.
Ed is:
On my side, understands concerns of people like me: -20
Looks & sounds a bit weird: +27
Underestimated, actually tough & capable: -18
Too left wing: -3
Decent with strong moral principles: +17
As PM would be out of his depth: +30
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/vyi24hfu2j/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-140523.pdf
And Labour:
Not to blame for last recession: 29
Partly to blame, but has learned from mistakes: 17
Partly to blame, not learned & might do it again: 44
It's 2015, a bewildered-looking Kennedy awakes, surrounded by empty bottles, hair covered in sick, floor littered with broken tuition fee pledges.
"Jesus, what the... Never going on a bender like that again."
"This was a party political broadcast by the Liberal Democrats."
That analysis runs counter to the fairy stories we are regularly peddled here at PB about the LD incumbency effect.
And in the cold light of day, the LDs played the first year or so of the Coalition appallingly and got far too close to the Tories, but without them it would have been a whole lot worse for the poor, the vulnerable and the unemployed. That's not the best recommendation, I know, but it is one nevertheless.
Is Racist - net (change vs week ago)
UKIP: +7 (+6)
Farage: -5 (+18)
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net):
Con: +1 (+63)
Lab: +25 (+61)
LD: +50 (+75)
UKIP: -55 (+16)
That analysis runs counter to the fairy stories we are regularly peddled here at PB about the LD incumbency effect.
I think you'll find punters weren't voting on their LibDem MP's incumbency in the local/euro elections. That comes near year.
Apart from that gaping whole in your thinking that was a searing analysis.
Con 20,719 (40.97%)
Lab 16,947 (33.51%)
Green 6,845 (13.54%)
LD 3,200 (6.33%)
UKIP 1,981 (3.92%)
Ind 877 (1.73%)
Changes since 2010 locals:
Con -1.70%
Lab +7.23%
Green +3.00%
LD -12.87%
UKIP +3.18%
Ind +1.28%
Swing, Con to Lab: 4.47%
And I'm not sure if there are any serious contenders left after that.
Offtopic: In the Huh? category.
The Green Party Leader in Wales, Pippa Bartolotti, and their lead Euro Election candidate for the election today, had her own wikipedia page deleted a week before the election at her own request.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pippa_Bartolotti
"Now I will destroy the Tory party': In a crowing interview, Nigel Farage reveals he will quit politics... once he's got the UK out of the EU"
From reading it, what he means is that he will destroy the tory party as we know it, essentially destroy the "wets" who now run it in exactly the same way as the Reform party did for the Canadian conservative party which was forced to merge with the Reform party after losing most of its seats. We saw it happen in Canada, we saw it happen in NI will it happen here - I really hope so.
Personally I think this all goes back to the fall of Thatcher. While she is considered to be right wing and anti worker the worst of this was done by the wets post Thatcher. Thatcher would have never countenanced the closure of the Nottinghamshire Coal field or rail privatisation for example.
I see David Davis has a hand in the 2016 referendum pledge. Rather unnecessary and stupid, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
Conservatives wibbling about whether to have a vote in 2016 or 2017 is a needless argument about a minor point, and a useless distraction when they should be united.
From the council elections:
C 30, L 31, LD 11, UKIP 18 gives
C 262, L 321, LD 37, UKIP 0 for the GE 2015.
We are not used to 4 party politics but does UKIP' entry bring the winning post down that much.
Ironically, in statistical terms, Labour having reduced majorities in Rotherham , Sunderland etc. does make their "distribution" of votes more efficient. I am not saying they would want it, but , curiously, at least, for 2015 it would not cost too many seats.
UKIP still damaging Conservatives twice as much as Labour !
"Now I will destroy the Tory party': In a crowing interview, Nigel Farage reveals he will quit politics... once he's got the UK out of the EU"
From reading it, what he means is that he will destroy the tory party as we know it, essentially destroy the "wets" who now run it in exactly the same way as the Reform party did for the Canadian Conservative party. We saw it happen in Canada, we saw it happen in NI where the DUP have utterly replaced the UUP, will it happen here? - I really hope so.
Personally I think this all goes back to the fall of firt heath, then Thatcher. While she is considered to be right wing and anti worker by the left, she more than any leader in my lifetime stood up for the skilled working class and lowr middle class, who the wets dont give a da*mn about as they have clearly shown with their contempt since 2010.
The worst things in "Thatcherism" were done by the wets post Thatcher. Thatcher would have never countenanced the closure of the Nottinghamshire Coal field or rail privatisation for example. I have always considered that the beginning of the end for Major's government was not the ERM fiasco but Hestletine announcing the descruction of 50 of our best coal mines at much the same time which caused absolute outrage.
Many of us who voted tory up to 1992 (first election I was old enough to vote in was 1987) warily gave the tories a second chance in 2010, as if for no other reason it was in the national interest to get rid of Brown.
Never again. I would put up with a Labour win, even if the Leader was Brown or even Mandelson or Foot, as a worthwhile price for voting UKIP at the next election and destroying the tories for once and all. Just as with any investment, sometimes you have to suffer or go without in the short term to get a long term aim.
Really ?
Apart from that gaping whole in your thinking that was a searing analysis.
But it is true at a council level. The Lib Dems lost more than two-fifths of the seats they were defending. Unlike their anonymous MEPs, their councillors were frequently hard-working individuals who'd have been well known enough in their wards to have a personal vote - that's how Lib Dems tend to get elected and stay there. If it wasn't working at ward levels, why should we expect the same thing to apply at constituency level?
Cable also has two other big negatives as a potential leader. Firstly, he was more tied up with the tuition fee vote than anyone else; secondly, his own constituency is far from secure if the local elections are anything to go by.
In their wildest dreams they never expected that outcome.
However in many seats the same voters will face the same dilemma.
They would not trust Clegg as in their eyes , he is in the coalition for his own personal gain, nothing to do with the best interests of the country mantra, so a new leader would have a chance to be heard.
Many of the LD voters in SW London are actually Labour supporters. But currently they would move over to the Greens as a protest rather than Labour because they know Labour does not show that they are serious about these seats. In Kingston & Surbiton, Labour has advanced from 12% to 17%. We only seriously contested Norbiton [ results due today ].
But the price may get better in the next few days, and I'm greedy. So I'll wait before placing that bet.
Con 12,396 (38.92%)
UKIP 10,003 (31.41%)
Lab 3,986 (12.51%)
LD 3,398 (10.67%)
Ind 1,734 (5.44%)
Green 333 (1.05%)
Changes since 2010 locals:
Con -8.73%
UKIP +22.73%
Lab +2.42%
LD -21.61%
Ind +4.90%
Green +0.54%
As most LD seats have Con as main opposition, and as the Conservatives were always going to have a better mandate than Labour based on votes if there were a hung parliament, that was a contradiction the Lib Dems had always averted their eyes from because they knew there was no adequate answer other than change what had been - until now - a very successful campaigning strategy.
UKIP still damaging Conservatives twice as much as Labour !
I was making this point yesterday. In some of the Labour heartlands (by no means all) UKIP is only on the first stage of the journey: that is becoming the focal point for the already-established non-Labour vote. There are a few exceptions - such as Rotherham (though there are local issues at play there) - but mainly this is the case. For 2015 that will not hurt Labour very much. It may in 2020 or whenever the GE after the next one is held.
Two caveats, though:
1. UKIP will be announcing a wider set of polices over the next year or so. They have a very careful line to draw between seeking to appeal to socially conservative Old Labour voters and retaining their discontented Tory vote. - especially at the party's leadership is economically and fiscally as dry as a tinderbox.
2. A proper challenge in its heartlands may concentrate Labour minds. And may - just may - impress upon the party the importance of reconnection. The first thing the leadership could do is look at the rotten state of so many entrenched Labour councils in the North. The difference in, say, education performance between Labour councils in London and elsewhere is stark and disgraceful.
Frankly, if Labour does not pay heed to 2 and UKIP manages to walk that line in 1, then Labour will deserve everything it gets.
Interestingly there seems to have been a lot of direct switching from LD to UKIP indicating that many of the LD voters were "not tory" and voting for the most plausible alternative, which bodes ill for the LDs in a swathe of southern seats.
Because the picture at council level varies considerably and historically we know that LibDem MP's are less prone to UNS than other parties. Not immune but they enjoy a level of insulation that often protects them from the vagaries of FPTP and nation swing.
There speaks a typical Tory with a disdainful attitude. The fact remains that those same voters still have the same weapon [ vote ] in their hands.
If Clegg is around, many would vote Labour or the Greens even though they would know that it was a wasted vote in their constituencies.
Look no further than Kingston & Surbiton. With the Tories losing 231 seats nationally, they still managed to win LD councils.
"It suited us to lie low when the LD's were taking care of the Tories"
It suited Labour in may areas in North Yorkshire for example , Harrogate and York Outer ( Ryedale) were always true blue until 97 then went yellow, but they went blue again in 2010.
So even more so now that option is not available.
Labour would need to be more competitive on the ground, to spread its resources from the City of York to the suburbs of greater York.
It has no chance in Harrogate, it would need to fall asleep there.
This is of immense significance because it indicates that the UKIP councillors have aquitted themselves well, something critically important for the period leading up to the 2015 election given the number of councillors elected.
1. She trusted cabinet full of men who despised and hated her - never trust Tory grandee types.
2. She couldn't fathom people hating the poll tax policy - in this she was almost socialist in her wanting the population to share the tax burden equally.
The reason is simple: we are now dividing by 4, instead of 3.
So, if 35-40% got you the seat before, now it is more like 30-35%.
Blogpost on where Farage will stand;
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/
For the Lib Dems to perform even as well as uniform national swing would imply on current polling, their poll ratings are going to need to improve.
The lunacy of rail privatisation is still haunting us. Both major parties have refused to correct this huge error which has made our railways worse than what I experienced in both India and Sri Lanka (ironic that the British set up the railways here - maybe we should ask the Indians to come over and sort out our fourth world railways?)
BTW Mrs Dale on Marr now ....
One, the Liberal Democrats efforts of several decades is being ripped apart in every election. How they broke out of being a marginal irrelevance was in building local and regional power bases and then pushing those onwards into Euro and Westminster seats. Since the General Election the LibDems have consistently seen a large chunk of their councillors removed each round of local elections. That means that in 4 years they have gone from having a local base where they run the council to having no councillors at all. That's devastating for the party's prospects and will take another long period to rebuild.
Two its not Clegg who gets to decide if he resigns, its the party. His approach appears oblivious to the destruction outside Westminster and whilst the rumblings in the party have been there in previous years this time they are louder. Even if the parliamentary party manages to retain 40 or so seats next year they will lose hundreds more councillors and disappear as a party across more chunks of the country. THAT is the calamity the membership have in mind, not losing Ed Davey.
As a Labour party activist I hope they dump him and quickly. Hate the LibDems or hate them, under the farce that is FPTP we do need them. Perhaps we can have a big realignment after the election. The Tories can ditch the Cameroon faction and do a reverse merger into UKIP, Blairites get the boot from Labour, Orange Bookers from the LibDems. Have a proper Tory party again, Ed's rebuilt Labour party loses progress lunatics, the LibDems pick up where they left off under Kennedy, and we have a new centre right party with Blair as honorary President, Cameron and leader and Clegg his deputy.
A Panelbase poll for The Sunday Times found that 34% believe Scotland would have to go through the same accession process as new member states, while 11% think Scottish membership would be fast-tracked but not in time for 2016. A further 9% believe Scotland would leave the EU and not rejoin, while 21% are unsure.
The findings are a blow for the Yes campaign, which has suggested membership of the EU would be rapid and avoid disruption to the economy.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1414813.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_05_24
Shame, and after the SNP went to all that trouble to doctor the Holyrood report:
Sharp practice at Holyrood: how the SNP uses committees to push the case for independence
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benrileysmith/100273086/sharp-practice-at-holyrood-how-the-snp-uses-committees-to-push-the-case-for-independence/
http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/local-news/update-men-from-dewsbury-and-heckmondwike-jailed-for-human-trafficking-1-6615353
because the media - especially the BBC - won't tell them.
At times analysing their performance and projecting is a nightmare. What we do know is that the LibDems will provide us with a world of entertainment with surprises along the way.
In the event I fell short by about 5% for the locals, there being only 161 seats. If I extrapolate from that to the Euros UKIP would get 32.68%.
Perhaps you're on the right because you just can't understand the left...
Lib Dem MPs are less prone to UNS but then that should also be true for their councillors, for the same reason. The evidence from this week actually backs that up (winning two and a half times as many seats as UKIP, on only two-thirds UKIP's vote share), but there's only so many votes you can lose before it starts to affect seats, and the Lib Dems are well over that line at the moment.
The simple fact is that 8% of the national vote is more-or-less incompatible with retaining a good share of their current seats. There simply aren't enough votes to go around.
As an example, suppose turnout is the same in 2015 as 2010 (it doesn't actually matter but helps for illustrative purposes). That would imply a fall from 6.8m votes to about 2.35m. That could be made up with the following spread:
400 @ 2% = 366k votes
40 @ 4% = 73k votes
30 @ 6% = 82k votes
20 @ 8% = 73k votes
20 @ 10% = 91k votes
20 @ 12% = 110k votes
20 @ 16% = 146k votes
20 @ 20% = 183k votes
20 @ 25% = 228k votes
20 @ 30% = 274k votes
20 @ 35% = 320k votes
20 @ 40% = 366k votes
So even allowing for the Lib Dems losing their deposit in more than two-thirds of GB seats, they'd be doing well to return 30 MPs out of those figures. True, they could bulk out the top end a bit further if they lost even more in the middle but even in this example, there are only a hundred seats between 10% and 25%, and these are the ones currently in the LD's top quartile. Why would they lose votes so catastrophically there but not in seats slightly better - after all, they've probably got quite a decent campaign team in their upper-middle seats, not far short of those in those constituencies they currently hold.
‘The second reason is the Tories are dying as brand in the North of England just as they did in Scotland.The third reason Cameron can’t win a majority is he can’t get the blue-collar vote. Thatcher got it, Reagan got it, John Major got it. But these two guys (Cameron and Osborne) who allegedly don’t know the price of a pint of milk, don’t connect with the blue collar.’
(Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2638377/Now-I-destroy-Tory-party-In-crowing-interview-Nigel-Farage-reveals-quit-politics-hes-got-UK-EU.html#ixzz32iIlXOeO )
For all that we laugh at the evisceration of the LibDems, the Tories are in similar trouble outside the south and countryside. They don't get it, don't want to get it, but the economic warfare thrown at ordinary people coupled with hectoring them that Actually their lack of cash is an illusion actually because they really are better off actually because we have economic growth actually means that they are more disconnected than ever. And Farage has identified this, targeted this, and has frankly nailed this.
UKIP are the party of the aspiring middle class, not the Conservatives.
And just as Thatcher once did, that message cuts through the floor and appeals to working classes too. Frankly I think Labour are once again speaking to this group again having binned New Labour but its going to take time, but for the Tories its hopeless here. Tip Hammond as their next leader, not sneering, not an inner circle Cameroon, has made various comments that at least recognises there is no recovery for most people.
The poll tax with the principle that everyone pays rectified this (those on benefits paid 20% which was given to them in additional benefits but they had to go through the process of paying)
The outrage was caused by the fact that those in mansions paid the same as those in one bedroom flats. When the wets got power they kept this by having the maximum council tax band kick in at a very low level meaning the uber rich paid peanuts still compared with what they paid in rent.
I suspect the disconnection of poll tax from ability to pay was something Thatcher would hasve had to do to keep the rich wets happy and she was most keen on the principle of if you vote you pay.
What we need is two local taxes, a flat rate local services tax paid by everyone over 18 and a land value tax of approx 1% of the value of the land owned (with landlords not tenants paying) levied on all land including agricultural land which would ensure that the local services tax was not excessive. This would also cure the country of its enthusiasm for rising house (ie land) prices.
I would also abolish the uniform business rates and replace them with locally levied business rates at the same time restoring the vote to business owners and also giving it to their employees.
UKIP is a force, no doubt; but most people do not vote for the party. We'd all do well to remember that. They are the third or fourth party in England. Important, significant, noteworthy, but by no means the voice of the majority - or anything close to it.
(For the record, I am on those odds.)
Not that the politics of the heart are to be despised per se. Perhaps it's better to herd all the narrow-minded closed-hearted characters into UKIP where we can at least see who they are.
Don't you like new polls.....anymore?
Sometimes I wonder how many of the pints in his pictures (often nearly full, I notice) are in fact bought by photo-journalists eager for a “typical” snap.
Knee jerk reactions are rarely wise in the longer term. Dumping Clegg now would be unwise, though I think he should be replaced in an orderly manner in the Autumn, so as to have a fresh face for next Springs campaign, and to signal a break from coalition.
That analysis runs counter to the fairy stories we are regularly peddled here at PB about the LD incumbency effect.
That is a useful insight. As antifrank says, in parts the LDs seem to have reached a tipping point where incumbency does not work.
The pint in hand is the same affectation as Harold Wilson's pipe. (he preferred cigars when not being photographed). At least he pulls it of with aplomb, unlike Cameron.
As to London property prices (and I write as a tenant) I doubt there is any administrative solution - don't markets correct themselves? I'm always being told they do... by people who have never heard of Ricardo and who think there are only two factors of production...
That said, it is one thing inflicting horrific sexual abuse on vulnerable kids in secret, it is another putting dozens of people in overcrowded housing. That would be very visible. So, if it is happening on the scale Mr Jones claims it is, and it is being covered up by the media with the BBC playing the lead role, that does not explain why people are not seeing it with their own eyes.
Sensible comment on the referendum