This is the phrase The Economist uses in a leader to describe the way in which the media construct the misfortunes of the government into a seemingly coherent narrative. After a while such a narrative becomes self-sustaining.
Of course, one very real defeat that the Government may face is in Crewe and Nantwich where the first local poll suggests a swing to the Conservatives of around 10 per cent, giving them a majority of 1,000. What may well happen is that there will be relatively little increase in the Conservative vote, but Labour voters may stay at home. Quite a lot also depends on whether any of the 16 per cent of voters plumping for the Liberal Democrats switch to the Conservatives.
Peter Riddell points out in The Times that by-elections are much rarer than they used to be. Since 2005, there have been an average of only just two a year, following a mere 1.5 annually over the previous four years. Between the mid 1960s and the mid 1980s the average was eight.
Gwynneth Dunwoody was rare in dying in harness. Now that they have good pensions, and face increased demands from their constituents, MPs usually stand down before the state retirement age.
Monday, 12 May 2008
Friday, 9 May 2008
YouGov reports 26 per cent lead for Conservatives
The latest YouGov poll is putting the Conservatives on 49 per cent with a 26 per cent lead over Labour:
Lead
This would imply a clear Conservative victory at Crewe and Nantwich and Dave himself has said that a failure to win would be a 'bad' result. Labour is trying to portray the Conservative candidate as a 'Tory toff' from a Cheshire commuter village. Whilst having people going round dressed up in top hats and tails is mildly amusing, I am doubtful whether it will shift any votes.
We have to remember that a general election is now probably two years away and a lot could happen in the meantime. No doubt there will be a revival of speculation about Gordon Brown's leadership, but 70 Labour MPs would be required to mount a challenge against him.
When I was in Canada recently, I was interested to read that a political leader was allowed one attempt to get elected. Brown hasn't even had that. At one time, leaders were given several chances - Attlee led his party in four elections, twice to victory and twice to defeat. Heath contested four and won one. Wilson contested five and won four. Mrs Thatcher was, of course, never defeated at the polls.
Lead
This would imply a clear Conservative victory at Crewe and Nantwich and Dave himself has said that a failure to win would be a 'bad' result. Labour is trying to portray the Conservative candidate as a 'Tory toff' from a Cheshire commuter village. Whilst having people going round dressed up in top hats and tails is mildly amusing, I am doubtful whether it will shift any votes.
We have to remember that a general election is now probably two years away and a lot could happen in the meantime. No doubt there will be a revival of speculation about Gordon Brown's leadership, but 70 Labour MPs would be required to mount a challenge against him.
When I was in Canada recently, I was interested to read that a political leader was allowed one attempt to get elected. Brown hasn't even had that. At one time, leaders were given several chances - Attlee led his party in four elections, twice to victory and twice to defeat. Heath contested four and won one. Wilson contested five and won four. Mrs Thatcher was, of course, never defeated at the polls.
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Crewe and Nantwich
Despite the recruitment of Tamsin Dunwoody as the Labour candidate (already being portrayed as a Brown clone), the Conservatives must be odds on favourites to win the Crewe and Nantwich by-election. The Conservatives are pouring substantial resources into the fight and Dave Cameron was seen on television last night rather awkwardly evading a voter's question about whether he would restore the 10p tax band if he was in charge.
Of course, he couldn't without wiping out the standard rate tax cut, even though in my view that was a mistake in the first place. This issue continues to fester away for Labour with the proposed 'compensation' necessarily being portrayed as inadequate given that there is no money left in the coffers to pay for it.
The word from the Conservatives is that losing this seat would be a 'killer blow' for Brown. This strikes me as a bit odd given that in the Wilson and Callaghan governments the Government losing a by-election in mid-term contests was a routine event, even rock hard Labour seats such as Ashfield succumbing to Mrs Thatcher's onslaught (much to the surprise of the Conservative victor who subsequently slipped into obscurity). Most of these seats werwe won back at the subsequent general election, although Liberal Democrat victors are generally better at holding on to their conquests.
But supposing Brown went, would that help the Conservatives? Surely better for them for him to remain in office as a perceived weak and ineffective leader of a divided party? Public rhetoric aside, no doubt they have worked that out for themselves. But it might encourage union leaders, petrol protesters and the like to have a go at the Government.
Like any Government that has been in office for a long time, the Government is starting to look exhausted. It is running out of ideas and any new initiatives are open to the charge 'why haven't you done that before now?' The Conservatives propose to unveil one policy at a time in a kind of strip tease, but at some point people are going to ask for a clearer idea of what Dave is going to do when he is in charge.
Of course, he couldn't without wiping out the standard rate tax cut, even though in my view that was a mistake in the first place. This issue continues to fester away for Labour with the proposed 'compensation' necessarily being portrayed as inadequate given that there is no money left in the coffers to pay for it.
The word from the Conservatives is that losing this seat would be a 'killer blow' for Brown. This strikes me as a bit odd given that in the Wilson and Callaghan governments the Government losing a by-election in mid-term contests was a routine event, even rock hard Labour seats such as Ashfield succumbing to Mrs Thatcher's onslaught (much to the surprise of the Conservative victor who subsequently slipped into obscurity). Most of these seats werwe won back at the subsequent general election, although Liberal Democrat victors are generally better at holding on to their conquests.
But supposing Brown went, would that help the Conservatives? Surely better for them for him to remain in office as a perceived weak and ineffective leader of a divided party? Public rhetoric aside, no doubt they have worked that out for themselves. But it might encourage union leaders, petrol protesters and the like to have a go at the Government.
Like any Government that has been in office for a long time, the Government is starting to look exhausted. It is running out of ideas and any new initiatives are open to the charge 'why haven't you done that before now?' The Conservatives propose to unveil one policy at a time in a kind of strip tease, but at some point people are going to ask for a clearer idea of what Dave is going to do when he is in charge.
North of the border
Aberdeen: Yesterday the Financial Times had a small item buried away on an inside page announcing that Wendy Alexander, the Scottish Labour leader, had decided to call the SNP's bluff and demand that they go ahead with their referendum on independence now rather than wait until 2010. When I got to Scotland, the item received major attention on the Scottish news. It seemed that the move had split Scottish Labour MPs and that Alexander had gone ahead without the approval of Gordon Brown, no doubt hoping to force the issue.
Apparently, Alexander is considering bringing forward her own bill if the SNP does not act. No doubt this will cause some embarrassment for the SNP given that polls consistently fail to show a majority for the independence option. However, at the moment a commission is considering the transfer of further devolved powers to Holyrood and it should really be allowed to complete its work before any decisions about the future are taken.
Having written on the comparisons between Scotland and Quebec in the past, it seems to me that the role of Scotland in the UK may follow a similar path in the sense that further concessions on devolution will be granted, but the issue of separation will never quite go away. In Canada, which has a proper federal structure, the equalisation formula between provinces continues to be a source of tension between provinces, just as the Barnett Formula raises suspicions in England that Scotland is getting a good deal at the expense of the English taxpayer (although Scotland has plenty of counter arguments to deploy).
Apparently, Alexander is considering bringing forward her own bill if the SNP does not act. No doubt this will cause some embarrassment for the SNP given that polls consistently fail to show a majority for the independence option. However, at the moment a commission is considering the transfer of further devolved powers to Holyrood and it should really be allowed to complete its work before any decisions about the future are taken.
Having written on the comparisons between Scotland and Quebec in the past, it seems to me that the role of Scotland in the UK may follow a similar path in the sense that further concessions on devolution will be granted, but the issue of separation will never quite go away. In Canada, which has a proper federal structure, the equalisation formula between provinces continues to be a source of tension between provinces, just as the Barnett Formula raises suspicions in England that Scotland is getting a good deal at the expense of the English taxpayer (although Scotland has plenty of counter arguments to deploy).
Saturday, 3 May 2008
The dangers of reading off
There is a need to be cautious about reading off from this week's election results to the conclusion that Dave Cameron is good as installed in Downing Street. The results are clearly bad for New Labour, but choosing a government is somewhat different from voting in a mid-term set of local elections. As Peter Kellner of YouGov has pointed out, there is a lot of negativity towards Labour, but still limitations in positive feelings about the Conservatives.
The danger for Labour is that they will start to fall out with each other. There is no serious support for replacing Gordon Brown and no clear alternative available. He could, however, allow more prominence to other members of his team. The economy may yet recover between now and a poll which could be delayed until 2010.
Of course, there is a wider challenge with globalisation. A report from Statistics Canada this week has shown that the long-term trend here has for the rich to get richer, the poor to get poorer and those on median incomes to 'flat line' at best. That is not, I would suggest, a distinctively Canadian phenomenon.
The risk for the Conservatives is that they could think the election is already won. However, Dave Cameron is too politically smart to think that. As they look more like an alternative government, it may also be that some more awkward questions will be asked about their policies.
The danger for Labour is that they will start to fall out with each other. There is no serious support for replacing Gordon Brown and no clear alternative available. He could, however, allow more prominence to other members of his team. The economy may yet recover between now and a poll which could be delayed until 2010.
Of course, there is a wider challenge with globalisation. A report from Statistics Canada this week has shown that the long-term trend here has for the rich to get richer, the poor to get poorer and those on median incomes to 'flat line' at best. That is not, I would suggest, a distinctively Canadian phenomenon.
The risk for the Conservatives is that they could think the election is already won. However, Dave Cameron is too politically smart to think that. As they look more like an alternative government, it may also be that some more awkward questions will be asked about their policies.
Friday, 2 May 2008
The gas tax issue
Montreal, Quebec: Watching some of the coverage of the US presidential election from just across the border, one of the big issues this year has been a federal gas tax holiday. Hillary Clinton wants a tax holiday and proposes to pay for it with a windfall tax on big oil which strikes me as a classic piece of populist opportunism. McCain is in favour but wouldn't charge big oil. Barack Obama is against - after all it would only save the average family $30.
I was trying to work out with an American colleague last night the difference between motor fuel prices in the US and the UK, but we reckoned that UK consumers are paying more than twice as much. US consumers are nevertheless howling with pain. In the UK there has been another protest by hauliers and there seems to be a popular view that the tax should be cut.
What the proponents of a tax cut never say is which other taxes should be raised or which areas of public expenditure should be cut. If you cut fuel taxes you have to do either or a mixture of both. You can't responsibly borrow any more to cover the loss of revenue.
It was interesting to note the President of Shell saying the other day that easily recoverable oil production in the world will peak in 10 to 20 years. In other words, the cost (including in some cases the environmental cost) of recovering oil will rise. Given that many countries in the world subsidise the consumption of oil by industry and consumers, demand is not going to fall. So it is difficult to see how an increase in hydrocarbon prices can be avoided in the medium term.
Given that, some sort of adjustment has to start to be made. Of course, demand for motor fuel is very price inelastic. Even so, a cut in tax would not discourage consumption and given the long-run picture it doesn't seem to be a very smart move.
I was trying to work out with an American colleague last night the difference between motor fuel prices in the US and the UK, but we reckoned that UK consumers are paying more than twice as much. US consumers are nevertheless howling with pain. In the UK there has been another protest by hauliers and there seems to be a popular view that the tax should be cut.
What the proponents of a tax cut never say is which other taxes should be raised or which areas of public expenditure should be cut. If you cut fuel taxes you have to do either or a mixture of both. You can't responsibly borrow any more to cover the loss of revenue.
It was interesting to note the President of Shell saying the other day that easily recoverable oil production in the world will peak in 10 to 20 years. In other words, the cost (including in some cases the environmental cost) of recovering oil will rise. Given that many countries in the world subsidise the consumption of oil by industry and consumers, demand is not going to fall. So it is difficult to see how an increase in hydrocarbon prices can be avoided in the medium term.
Given that, some sort of adjustment has to start to be made. Of course, demand for motor fuel is very price inelastic. Even so, a cut in tax would not discourage consumption and given the long-run picture it doesn't seem to be a very smart move.
Thursday, 1 May 2008
Boris and Ken: a Canadian view
Montreal, Quebec: Extracts from the Globe and Mail:
One is a hard-drinking socialist who has five children by three different women. Another is a some-times quiz-show host who once called black children 'pickanninnies' and admitted that he tried cocaine, but squeezed instead of snorted. The third is an openly gay former top policeman.
No, they're not contestants on the latest reality TV show - they're the leading contestants to become mayor of London. A campaign that is supposed to be about key issues ... has often seemed more like an open-mike night at a comedy club.
The piece ends my quoting one of my fave political scientists Philip Cowley from Nottingham: 'You've got two maverick politicians ... They both have great strengths, but they're both deeply flawed as well.'
My guess is that Boris will win. In academic work one is not supposed to take anecdotal evidence seriously as one risks committing an individiualistic fallacy, but sometimes a vox pop can give you a useful intuition. One London voter commented that he would vote for Boris because it would be more fun.
Whether it will be an easy ride for the Conservatives we shall have to wait and see. We are told that men (and some women) in suits will actually run the city. But Boris will still be the symbolic leader of one of the great cities of the world - and he once said that voting Tory 'will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW.' Will he be able to keep his mouth shut?
Equally I can understand why Londoners are fed up with Ken. It doesn't speak well of the calibre of political leadership in modern politics.
One is a hard-drinking socialist who has five children by three different women. Another is a some-times quiz-show host who once called black children 'pickanninnies' and admitted that he tried cocaine, but squeezed instead of snorted. The third is an openly gay former top policeman.
No, they're not contestants on the latest reality TV show - they're the leading contestants to become mayor of London. A campaign that is supposed to be about key issues ... has often seemed more like an open-mike night at a comedy club.
The piece ends my quoting one of my fave political scientists Philip Cowley from Nottingham: 'You've got two maverick politicians ... They both have great strengths, but they're both deeply flawed as well.'
My guess is that Boris will win. In academic work one is not supposed to take anecdotal evidence seriously as one risks committing an individiualistic fallacy, but sometimes a vox pop can give you a useful intuition. One London voter commented that he would vote for Boris because it would be more fun.
Whether it will be an easy ride for the Conservatives we shall have to wait and see. We are told that men (and some women) in suits will actually run the city. But Boris will still be the symbolic leader of one of the great cities of the world - and he once said that voting Tory 'will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW.' Will he be able to keep his mouth shut?
Equally I can understand why Londoners are fed up with Ken. It doesn't speak well of the calibre of political leadership in modern politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)