Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson on what Carswell’s defection could mean for 2
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson on what Carswell’s defection could mean for 2015
The defection of one MP or another towards the end of a parliament is nothing particularly unusual. The decision of one to resign and re-contest his or her seat is. Were it not for the vote of even greater significance taking place in Scotland next month, the Clacton by-election could have been the seminal political moment of the parliament. Depending on the two results, it still might be.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Until we know who the Tory candidate will be, the Labour response and how many supporters have followed Carswell the betting is going to be in the dark. I think it is not going to be a walkover for Carswell, indeed he may have just walked the plank.
Does that make a difference?
Point of information: the Labour Party and the Liberal Party were also on the "losing" side in that 1979 referendum (despite Yes gaining more votes than No), and they did not "take a hammering at the next election".
In fact, the Scottish Labour vote rose 5.8 points (+3 MPs) at the 1979 GE and the Scottish Liberals' vote rose 0.7 points (n/c MPs). On the back of their referendum "failure" (sic).
So, how does that uncomfortable fact square David?
UKIP 1/4 (Coral, Hills, Shadsy)
Con 5/1 (Betfair)
Lab 37/1 (Betfair)
LD 349/1 (Betfair)
Any other party or candidate 149/1
It is PR that is keeping the Scottish Tories heads above water.
Of their 15 MSPs only 3 represent FPTP constituencies. The other 12 are list MSPs.
They even managed to lose 3 FPTP MSPs at the last Scottish GE in 2011.
Over 50% 4/5
50% or under 10/11
No 1/50 (PP)
Yes 20/1 (Shadsy)
Mrs T may be disliked now in Scotland, but there were good numbers of Tory MPs in Scotland until 1997.
If he argued that a No vote would boost the Scottish Greens at the expense of the SNP then he would have historical precedent on his side. But he doesn't (and it wouldn't).
Scotland stands to win even if secession vote fails
If the polls are right, supporters of independence for Scotland are heading for a disappointing defeat in next month's historic referendum on seceding from Britain.
But in many ways, they've already won.
... For the Conservatives, it was a stunning concession and an embarrassing about-face. Three years ago, their leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, warned that devolution, as the process of decentralization is known, had reached a "line in the sand" and could go no further.
Now, if anything, devolution has been accelerated.
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-scotland-autonomy-20140829-story.html#page=1
I love Ruth's "line in the sand". It is a modern classic.
There are only two problems with it. First, it could mean that no one ever has to reach out and talk (and even more important, listen) to a constituent of different political views. We might well all hunker down in our bunkers like little children terrified of the dark. (We see quite enough of that on here, at least, as it is.)
Second, and a consequence of the first, does it not actually increase the number of safe seats (at Party if not at candidate level)? Elections in which the machines work wholly to deliver their supporters, real or imaginary, to the polling booths, rather than making at least a token effort to persuade the uncommitted, don't strike me particularly favourably.
This is not to deny your basic point, that an MP elected on less than, say, 30% of the poll has an issue of legitimacy in a single-seat contest. But is PR the fix for that?
______________________
I don't think there is a direct link. The SNP took a hammering because of their reaction not the vote itself. The SNP's reaction was to Thatcher's delight to bring down Callaghan's government prematurely and as a consequence they spent the 1979 election and several subsequent ones trying to live down the label of "Tartan Tories".
The SNP's conduct in 1979 is relevant today because they might conceivably have the opportunity to bring down a Labour minority government post 2015. The SNP has bad memories of their post 1979 implosion and their fear of reviving the "Tartan Tories" label makes it more likely that Labour could govern as a minority government with the SNP not daring to pull the plug.
Noted with with thanks, Stuart.
Over 50% looks good to me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28992601
Can't remember when a politician was physically beaten in the street.
They have shown a distinct tendency In recent by-elections to not try too hard. Personally I think that's a dangerous strategy but I can see why they might go for it in Clacton.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28951171
Either way, UKIP aren't going to evaporate, go home, grow up, or any of the other Tory fantasies. They're here, they're serious, and they manage to appeal to a broad spectrum of the disaffected - their impact on each seat combined with the simultaneous mass shrinkage of yellow pox voters makes for interesting times.....
I mean, it's much easier to dislike the guy and everything he stands for if he isn't getting beaten up on the street.
So on May 15th all parties campaign, then the top two candidates go into a second round two weeks later (perhaps with a NOTA option as third choice!). It makes tactical voting more explicit, but retains the constituency link and ensures the winner has 50% support, even if grudgingly.
The two week break allows for fresh campaigning and also a pause for thought if one of the top two is controversial.
The public understand the system as participation in X factor etc voting shows!
You are bang on the money with your list of relevant points and I would answer in turn....
1. Odds of 1/4 [80% probability] - look about right to me. It's no shoo-in but Carswell a worthy favorite in a two-horse race.
2. Shambles? - UKIP have a bad track record in this respect. I don't think Mr Lord is much of an obstacle, especially if handled well, but that's no certainty with UKIP and if they stumble over other potential problems (and their opponents will be trying very hard to create them) they may lose credibility.
3 What of Labour? - I suspect they will soft pedal. It's a dangerous policy, imo, but they've done this kind of thing before and you can at least see the logic for Clacton.
4. Carswell and UKIP activisits - There is already some anecdotal evidence that he carries a lot of personal support with him from the Party and that activists will rally to him. You'd think he would have checked this out before going, so the anecdotes are probably right.
5 Clacton: UKIP-friendly? - If you tried to design a suitable target for UKIP, you'd probably come up with Clacton.
6. The Risks - They're massive, for both UKIP and the Tories, for exactly the reasons you give. Expect a hard and dirty fight, and a high turnout. (I have taken the 4/5 >50% with PP.)
7. Debates - Indeed, these become more problematic if UKIP win Clacton.
8. FPTP - Isn't this now fixed for the foreseeable future after the referendum?
My money's on Carswell but it could be close. All to play for!
1979: 916
1983: 801
1987: 713
1992: 750
1997: 493
2001: 361
2005: 369
2010: 412
The collapse in Conservative support in Scotland happened after Thatcher's departure, whatever the Nats say about how much she is hated. So much easier to blame one English woman for a structural decline in heavy industry....more competitive shipyards in Korea and Japan had nothing to do with it....
If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date?
FOLLOWING A ‘NO’ VOTE
Answer: The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent.
That’s not to say that the French system doesn’t have points in its favour. And I don’t think the referendum killed all discussion of electoral reform; it killed the AV system, but that’s all.
Any more than a defeat for Yes in Scotland will put to bed all thoughts of independence for “ever”. Unless of course it’s 80-20, which is unlikely.
As far as UKIP’s organisation is concerned, I expect it’ll be patchy, even in a seat like Clacton with several UKIP gains at the last County elections. Having said that, of course, we’ve already seen here the possibility of activists coming in from outside.
However, the SNP are not idiots and would behave in a sensible manner when it is in their interests - see notably their MPs' refusal to vote on English-only matters.
It also depends very much on the shape of the Labour Party in Scotland after the referendum. Either way (and especially after May 2015) it could be hit very hard. I would be very surprised to see Tory levels of MP numbers so soon, but Scotland could become a much less important element of Labour internal party politics than it is even now with Mr Miliband in charge. In those circs it will become easier for Mr M to do business with the SNP, at least relatively.
Another difference from 1979 is that the SNP are running Scotland pretty efficiently (vide the numbers of people voting for them to do that who aren't, or weren't, pro-indy) and will continue to do so into 2016. In other words, they benefit very nicly from the bastion Labour built for themselves against hostile Westminster Governments.
Excellent article Mr Herdson, cheers. – My only quibble would be wrt inclusion in future PM debates; surely a by-election win for UKip would leave them in the same position as the Green party who have no hope of taking part?
Weren't you expressing a hope that the newly enfranchised non-voters would continue being politically involved the other day? That's what I'm referring to.
If what governments said was the only writ in town, 'nationalism' would be currently stone dead, deceased, an ex -ism.
PS: Think it started with Monica and he posted just to get at myself as he really is a sad sack.
The debates need to be relevant to voters across the country. Parties which are likely to lose their deposit in many seats don't deserve a place there almost by definition (what other purpose does the deposit have?), unless they can counter-balance that with the argument that they are relevant because their Westminster representatives could be significant in the government-forming process after the election. The Greens fail on both points.
In any case, in Ms V's selected excerpt, the SG said only that 1. there were no arrangements for another referendum, and 2. it was an opportunity that came once in a generation - they didn't say when the generation ended, October 2014 or whenever. Not a shade of a fib anywhere. Especially given the possibility that Westminster would try and suppress a second referendum, just as they did with the first. (I wonder what Wendy Alexander is feeling right now??)
The main effect of the Timms attack was to make MPs a bit warier of seeing constituents alone for a few weeks, in case of copycats. After that we all shrugged and just hoped for the best.
1. UKIP vs Labour tends to be in very safe (complacent) seats where frankly some challenge to the eternal Labour rule is needed
2. WWC UKIP voters have a chance of coming away (note that I'm not saying back to Labour - I suspect many didn't vote before) with more scrutiny on kipper policies on things like the NHS and welfare state where their policies haven't been scrutinised. Whereas kipper policies vs the Tories have been thoroughly aired and their voters don't trust or believe Cameron.
3.UKIP taking votes off the Tories lets in Labour in unlikely places like Witney. UKiP taking votes off Labour in places like Rotherham doesn't let in the Tories.
As a left leaning Labourite I welcome UKIP incursions into our heartlands because we ignored and abused these voters under Blair. The threat has made us reexamine what we're about which has to be good for us. Where's the UKIP benefit for the Tories....?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=0&oq=how+long+is+a+ge&client=chrome-mobile&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&q=how+long+is+a+generation&norc=1&zx=1409384972082
Unfortunately, neither they, nor the Unions, responded quickly enough to the emerging threats from the Far East and the rest is history.
Managers and workers in Finland & Germany behaved differently, with a different outcome.
Thatcher doesn't come into it, however comforting it is to have a bogey woman to blame your own failings on.......
Nevertheless, Nick, should you be successful in your bid to retake Broxtowe next May, you may like to note that my services as a bodyguard remain available.
Very modest rates.
Obviously, to not further confuse you, @saddened ought to have replied directly to @dr_spyn
You do seem the only one baffled by this; if you didn't have a rampant persecution complex ("Think it started with Monica and he posted just to get at myself (sic)") and thought a little before posting, you may have avoided looking such a prick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDi1OXJn4Vw&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop
Hmm, the 25 years can be taken as ending in 2015, given how long we've been deprived of an indyref. Some people have been waitng for even longer. Perhaps more precisely you could argue that the real pressure was building up in the early 1990s - else Mr Blair wouldn't have given us devolution in 1997 (though, of course, that was partly a Labour bonndoggle to allow leftie policies in Scotland vs rightie policies in the English SE suburbs of DM readers, so as not to lose their core vote in Scotland). And that brings us up to 2015-7 or so, which is spot on for indyref #2 should it be needed. (Serious reply, not in the least intended to be offensive.)
I'd also disagree with your analysis about the 1979 election, where (not for the first time), you're only viewing politics through the Pro/Anti devolution/independence prism. There are and were other, more significant, divisions that mattered. For that matter, Labour was itself divided in the campaign and the 40% rule was introduced by a Labour MP, so to describe an SNP-Lab swing as a movement within a bloc is pushing it a bit. No such blocs existed by the time of the General Election, when Labour had withdrawn support for devolution, and to the extent that they had done so earlier, Labour wasn't firmly in either camp.
7:19 - anti-English racist insult
7:41 - scuffle when guy tries to photograph him
7:44 - aggressive physical threat
8:31 - eggs Jim Murphy
8:34 - slopes off down side alley
I'm sure he'll be found. Very, very unpleasant.
Edit to add. I note you have taken generation to definitively be 25 years, not the 20-25 given in the link, otherwise you would have been unable to dance on your pin head.
Can I ask you something? What are you hoping to achieve by posting personal insults and abuse toward anyone who disagrees with you?
(1) Are you trying to convince them of your arguments? Or...
(2) Are you hoping to make it so unpleasant they decide it's not worth it, shut up and stop posting?
I'm not sure you're right that a candidate would never need to reach out. Some may try that and to harvest a specific constituency but that's a brittle strategy that makes him or her more-or-less that constituency's prisoner. In any case, I doubt it would be worse than FPTP in that respect.
In terms of increasing safe seats at a national level, no probably not. Under FPTP, there are probably around 350-400 safe seats: more than half the parliament. The inertia of FPTP has prevented any radical restructuring of the party system, though it's evolved over four or five decades to the point now where it's not working effectively. PR should make the parties more responsive to public opinion because it's far easier for new ones that tap into ignored seams of public opinion to make their presence felt (and consequently, for established parties that ignore them to wither).
If Douglas Carswell successfully regains Clacton in the forthcoming by-election, he will be an elected UKIP MP, something Nigel Farage has thus far spectacularly failed to become. Will there not be pressure within UKIP to replace Farage with Carswell?
If Douglas Carswell, an arguably highly popular constituency MP fails to regain Clacton, wont the UKIP bubble be well and truly burst?
Few MPs have ever won the same seat for different parties. My former MP did so 3 times. Lord MacLennan originally won Caithness and Sutherland as a Labour candidate. He then successfully retained it in 1983 as the SDP Alliance MP before winning it again as the LibDem MP, passing it on to Lord Thurso in 2001.
I really do not like the way the IndyRef is finishing. I wonder if there is any polling due tonight on it? Going to and returning from Inverness yesterday, there were YES posters everywhere including at strategic points like above the A9 Kessock Bridge at North Kessock. I spotted one huge No Thanks poster on the outside wall of a Global Energy factory unit in the Longman running parallel to the A9 so I guess the Macgregor family (who also own Ross County) are in the NO camp.
Most of my friends have already cast their postal votes. Mine hasn't arrived yet!
I want to pick up on a point made by Nick Palmer yesterday evening: "For example, I'd dislike living under Sharia law, but I don't mind someone peacefully disagreeing and thinking it'd be great. "
I see no good reason why we should let people who are in favour of sharia law into this country because someone who thinks that it would be great is going to find it very hard to accept some of our fundamental values e.g. equality for women or for gays or freedom of religion because sharia law is so clearly against these things. It is one reason why Canadian Muslim women were so vociferously against a Canadian government proposal a few years ago to impose sharia law on Muslims in their country. They understood - as NP appears not to - why it was such a bad idea, for them, and made clear that they had emigrated to Canada to get away from this culture not have it imposed on them by dunderheaded liberals.
Why invite people in who think in a way that is fundamentally contrary and hostile to our basic values? What on earth does NP think this will do for social cohesion and our sense of community?
That is the fundamental problem with Labour's approach to this: they don't seem to understand that if you invite in bad ideas, they will spread, they will corrode our public space, they will crowd out better ideas, they will be taught to youngsters in our schools. Labour and the Tories and the Lib Dems have not only let in bad ideas but then told the rest of us that we must respect those ideas and that all ideas are equally valid and that while women are equal it's OK if some of your neighbours don't treat women equally because, hey, they are doing it peacefully. But they're not, are they - as we've now found out.
We have a choice as to whom we let in from outside the EU and we should exercise that choice to invite those who want to fit in with us and who share ideas and values which are compatible with our and not hostile to them. This is not rocket science.
It must be a good 5-10 years away, though. A couple of lame duck governments will be needed before the established parties are goaded into action.
*only Malclog from PB, along with the Nats on the street in that video
You are easily upset and seem to have some kind of inferiority complex to assume it was an insult , suggest you grow up or grow a pair.
Within the last 24 hours those who have remotely disagreed with him have been described as, stupid, drama queens, big Jessies, sad sacks, flouncers, idiots, sad crap, halfwits, buffoons, turnips, jokers, juvenile, sad losers, bitter, heads up arse, cretinous, liars, cowardly unionists, pathetic, drivelling, twisted, empty domed, saddos, no backbone, sad twerps, oafs, bollocks, biased morons, sad Tories, pathetic, clueless, and snivelling curs.
All of this from a man who clearly sees himself as intelligent.
Can anybody spot the contradiction?
'A secondary inferiority feeling relates to an adult's experience of being unable to reach a subconscious, fictional final goal of subjective security and success to compensate for the inferiority feelings. The perceived distance from that goal would lead to a negative/depressed feeling that could then prompt the recall of the original inferiority feeling; this composite of inferiority feelings could be experienced as overwhelming. The goal invented to relieve the original, primary feeling of inferiority which actually causes the secondary feeling of inferiority is the "catch-22" of this dilemma.[clarification needed] This vicious cycle is common in neurotic lifestyles.'
Remind you of any particular group of people?
As for the Greens, last time they only contested half the seats which given their level of support where they did stand rules them out IMO (and, more relevantly, that of the authorities).
Some real nasty British Nationalists of the nasty kind posting on here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11063874/Rotherham-sex-abuse-The-utter-brutality-is-what-shocked-me-most.html
"“Plain language has always been my goal,” she says. “You must tell people exactly what has happened. It is important not to fudge the issues or protect people from the worst aspects. And it is important for the victims that their dreadful experiences should be acknowledged in a public way. I feel sorry for the good and decent people of Rotherham in all this. I don’t know what you can do about that. I am sorry for the effect on the town’s reputation – but it is important to speak the truth.”
Her hope is that Rotherham council will work with its ethnic groups in a different way to tackle the “hidden problem” of sexual exploitation in the future. Instead of relying on so-called community leaders to represent the Pakistani-heritage community, she suggests, it would be more profitable to work with the Muslim women. “It is an issue that affects the women. We need to be much more open and direct. The imams and elected members ended up being a barrier rather than a conduit.”
What sickens me now is there appears to be no follow-up. Even now the authorities are frozen by political correctness.
There are at least 250 Pakistani rapists walking the streets of Rotherham, peopl who we surely have ample evidence to indict and send down to long jail sentences.
Where are the arrests? where are the investigations?
Secondly, the post goes to the heart of the debate on free speech... Should holding and expressing an opinion, in itself, be grounds for punishment or discrimination, particularly a religious opinion the holding of which is 'protected' under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights..