Dave Hawk's UK Commentary Thread

[Democratic Hawk]

October 11, 2007

Yep, no one can deny Brown’s had a wretched week but in all fairness he never said he was definitely going to call an election, only to go back on that. Of course, Labour’s lead in the polls had certainly triggered much speculation of it in the wider media, which went into overdrive.

Nor did Darling announce the government was increasing the IHT threshold to £1m (that’s the Tory policy) nor did he say all non-domiciles would be subject to a flat levy of £25,000 (that’s the Tory policy). As for the ‘flight tax’, there something of a rare tri-partisan consensus seems to have, ultimately, emerged on that one (if I’m not mistaken I believe that’s a Lib Dem policy). I don’t like it whether it’s levied on the airlines or on passengers, we all know on whom the burden will fall.

Cameron despite the cocky bravado and cheap jibes, here and there, never wanted an election. It was mission accomplished to stall one, if anything. Not to mention a host of practical reasons against a November election. Indeed, cheap jibes is about all I’ve come to expect from Cameron. In other words, he gets no endorsement from me.

Indeed, the Tories can thank Osborne for the filip his IHT proposals gave the party. The way that was ’spun’ by Tory cheerleaders in the press, any one would have thought that each and every estate was subject to it as it stood and that each and every one of us stood to get some great thumping cash-in-hand tax cut, which, of course, couldn’t have been further from the truth. The vast majority of estates weren’t actually affected by it as it stood, which is why it should never have really resonated highly in the public consciousness but given the hype, is it any wonder? Labour should have focused on tearing Osborne’s proposals down.

Besides, it’s highly possible the chancellor was looking at making its own modest proposals re-IHT and non-domiciles. I’m pretty sure that the Pre-Budget Report and the Comprehensive Spending Review are not something that are rustled up in a matter of days, more weeks I would have thought. I gather Brown considered addressing the non-domicile issue as far back as 1995 when he was shadow chancellor and now it’s out to consultation as to assess it’s feasibility and practicality. I’ll be honest I have sore misgivings about going after non-domiciles in the first place and I voiced that within hours of Osborne’s announcement at conference.

The government could have set the threshold at the much more realistic £450,000 (£500,000 tops) pledging thereon after to increase it in line with average increases in property values, so as not to catch more people into the net with each passing year.

Moving on to Capital Gains Tax (CGT), I can understand the ‘fairness’ rationale in targetting private equity, given how they make their money, and I’m sure this resonates well within the Labour “big tent”, if not beyond in some quarters, but it doesn’t with me. I have misgivings about whether abolishing taper relief on CGT, as a whole, and setting it at a flat rate of 18% is for the best. Wouldn’t a distinct new tax set at 18% specifically for private equity not have been more feasible or is there a plethora of transnational ‘rules’ that would prohibited the government from doing that, while leaving ‘taper relief’ on CGT intact? I wouldn’t know. Tax law isn’t exactly my forte.

Labour should be doing whatever it can to keep the economy on track because only a strong economy can enable the government to, incrementally, achieve it’s more long term aims and objectives. Labour, to their credit, eschewed a more radical path a long time ago and is no longer slave to rigid socialist dogma. That is testament to its success. The duty of the government is create the conditions in which business can thrive but without undercutting basic employment rights. We know the impact from the “credit crunch” is going to dampen economic growth both home, which is why the chancellor rightly reduced his forecasts, and beyond our shores; indeed, the IMF has warned of this. Meanwhile, the OECD recently said that an interest rate cut may be needed to boost growth. Of course, UK plc can’t really expect that until the B of E is sure that inflation (something of a litmus when it comes to measuring economic stability) is well within target. That is why the government must hold firm on public sector pay, painful as that may be.

Still, the government, come the next election, will be judged on its record just as it was in 2001 and 2005. Brown got off to a good start but must tread very carefully considering what has been an appalling weak by any standard. He needs to set that civil tone that is lacking in British politics which should mark a clear line between himself and Cameron, who seems increasingly like he’s the long lost lovechild of ‘Mr Punch’ despite earlier pledges to dispense with yah-boo politics.

Brown needs to act on his inner convictions as to what he considers to be in the nation’s best interests and stick with it. And more importantly, get back to implementing the 2005 manifesto in so far as any constraints allow. The nature of things often means government’s are restricted as to the extent they can accomplish their aims and objectives. Remember, he CAN do, Cameron can’t.

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

FTSE 100 2008 year high: 6479.40 2008 year low: 5414.40

January 2008 High 6479.40 Low 5578.20

Feburary 2008 High 6014.80 Low 5707.70

March 2008 High 5853.50 Low 5414.40

April 2008 High 6091.40 Low 5831.60

May 2008 High  6376.50 Low 6053.50

[afleitch]

With all due respect, this is a bit like reading the Daily Mirror but with better staff I could fo a guest colum, called John Littlerichard or something

[Democratic Hawk]

With all due respect, this is a bit like reading the Daily Mirror but with better staff I could fo a guest colum, called John Littlerichard or something

Rest assured I'll be shooting from the hip, speaking my mind without fear or favour, even if that means kicking Labour ass . Much of what I say will, of course, be a matter of opinion; yes that great thing each and every one of us is entitled to have

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

October 14, 2007

Poll Round-up

There were four polls published this week [all changes on previous poll]

Populus, The Times, completed October 6, 2007:

LAB 40% (+1); CON 38% (+2); LDEM 15% (-3)

Ipsos-MORI, The Sun, completed October 10, 2007:

LAB 38% (-3); CON 41% (+7); LDEM 11% (-5) [LAB 42% (-3); CON 36% (+5); LDEM 12% (-3) in 'all voters naming party]

ICM, Sunday Telegraph, completed October 11, 2007:

LAB 36% (-2); CON 43% (+5) ; LDEM 14% (-2)

BPIX, Mail on Sunday, completed October 13, 2007:

LAB 37% (-1); CON 41% (+2); LDEM 11% (-1)

Well this weeks polls have sign momentum clearly move towards Cameron and the Conservative Party; with Labour's support being, thus far, somewhat resilient all things considered after a difficulting two weeks

Details of a CrosbyTextor 'Battleground Poll' of the 112 target seats the Conservatives need to win to form an overall majority at the next general election were also released, which can be found here:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/1055

This poll was, partly, conducted before the Conservative Party Conference and partly after

Comment

After a difficult two weeks for Brown and Labour, the bottom line is that the party MUST close rank behind Brown since there is no doubt that the going has got tough. The last thing the party to descend into ‘factions’ tearing itself apart like mad dogs.

Cameron’s problem post-Blair and pre-Blackpool was that he was being undermined by ‘malcontents’ from within along with significant disillusioned among Tory voters; while a ‘rejunevated’ Labour Party rallied around Brown, who came to enjoy something of a ‘honeymoon’, however, short-lived. But Blackpool changed all that. Cameron came out of very well with a party, largely, perceived as being right behind him.

Brown has clearly lost the momentum and it’s now down to Brown to pull the ‘rabbit out of the hat’ someway, somehow. I suspect Labour voters are feeling downcast right now with Brown, while Tories, by comparison, are pretty much enthused with Cameron, and this is being reflected in the polls, but it won’t necessarily stay that way.

Voters were prepared to give Cameron a chance, then they were willing to give Brown a chance, but things have turned rather dramatically sour for Brown, rightly or wrongly, for several reasons, with Cameron and the Conservatives resurgent.

One thing is for certain, however, Gordon Brown can no longer rely on Conservative internal disaffection for David Cameron giving him a helping hand any more. Brown needs to restore confidence and trust, which isn’t going to be easy.

Remember Labour CAN do, the Conservatives CAN’T. Labour must pursue a path of it’s own that is going to resonate highly well with the electorate and more ‘new’ taxes won’t. Labour MUST make the most of it’s remaining time in office to turn things around. That means no more cock-ups and no more needless internal strife - the kind of which bedevilled Blair’s last two years in office.

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

October 19, 2007

There were six by-elections held October 18, 2007:

Basingstoke and Deane Borough - Whitchurch: Lib Dem 858, C 709, Lab 58. (May 2007 - Lib Dem 1163, C 828). Lib Dem hold. Swing 3.8% Lib Dem to C. Lib Dem Hold

Congleton Borough - Sandbach West: C 445, Lib Dem 382, Lab 160. (May 2007 - Lib Dem 629, C 625, Lab 251). C hold. Swing 3.3% Lib Dem to C. Con Hold

Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough - Rossmore: Lab 504, C 325, English Democrats Party 60, Lib Dem 38. (May 2007 - Lab 845, C 601). Lab hold. Swing 1.2% C to Lab. Lab Hold

South Derbyshire District - Church Gresley: Lab 639, BNP 516, C 304. (May 2007 - Two seats Lab 798, 770, C 397, 389). Lab hold. Swing 5.1% Lab to C. Lab Hold

Wellingborough Borough - Croyland: C 698, Lab 448, Ind 125, Green 55. (May 2007 - Three seats C 960, 915, 873, Lab 643, 599, 562). C hold. Swing 1% C to Lab. Con Hold

Wigan Borough - Wigan Central: C 1013, Lab 827, Community Action Party 262. (May 2007 - C 1406, Lab 1050. Swing 1.1% C to Lab.  Con Hold

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

October 26, 2007

There were nine by-elections held October 25, 2007:

Labour loses two seats in by-elections

http://www.24dash.com/localgovernment/28939.htm

Bridgnorth District - Broseley West: Ind unopposed. (May 2007 - Ind 631, Lab 613, C 255). Ind hold.

Cumbria County - Penrith: Lib Dem 800, C 380, Ind 123, Green 34. (May 2005 - Lib Dem 1129, C 765, Lab 467, No description 141). Lib Dem hold. Swing 8.4% C to Lib Dem.

Great Yarmouth Borough - Nelson: Lab 329, Ind 257, Lib Dem 96, Ind 49, Green 43 . (May 2007 - Lab 553, C 356, National Front 298, Green 97). Lab hold.

Harlow District - Little Parndon and Hare Street:  Lab 794, C 598, Lib Dem 117 . (May 2007 - Lab 881, C 700, Lib Dem 211). Lab hold. Swing 1.4% C to Lab.

Harlow District - Toddbrook: C 728, Lab 713, Respect 102, Lib Dem 67. (May 2007 - Lab 795, C 770, Respect 250, Lib Dem 122). C gain from Lab. Swing 1% Lab to C.

According to Wells, Labour has a 2005 notional majority of 0.9% in Harlow [Lab 41.6%; Con 40.7%; LD 12.8%; Others 4.9%]. It is the Conservatives' 6th target seat

North Devon District - Witheridge: C 448, Lib Dem 318. (May 2007 -  C 511, Lib Dem  360). C hold. Swing 0.2% C to Lib Dem.

Penwith District - Gwinear, Gwithian and Hayle East: C 493, Ind 192, Lab 170 . (May 2006 -   C 629, Lib Dem 555). C hold.

Sefton Borough - Manor : C 922, Lib Dem 769, Lab 419, BNP 94, Ukip 71. (May 2007 -   C 1652, Lab 1082, Lib Dem 701). C gain from Lab. Swing 10.5% C to Lib Dem.

This result leaves Labour with no councillors in the new Sefton Central constituency where it was calculated to have been more than 12% ahead of Tories at the last General Election but in third place in this year's main council contests.

According to Wells, Labour has a 2005 notional majority of 13.3% in Sefton Central [Lab 46.2%; Con 32.9%; LD 18.2%; Others 2.8%]. It is the Conservatives 127th target seat

Wrexham County Borough - Stansty: Lab 370, Lib Dem 271, C 50, Plaid Cymru 45. (June 2004 -Lib Dem 365, Lab 134, Forward Wales 123). Lab gain from Lib Dem. Swing 25.3% Lib Dem to Lab.

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

October 28, 2007

Poll Round-up

There were two polls published this week [all changes on previous poll]:

Ipsos-MORI, The Observer, completed October 23, 2007:
 
LAB 41% (+3) ; CON 40% (-1) ; LDEM 13% (+2) [LAB 43% (+1); CON 35% (-1); LDEM 13% (+1) - 'all voters naming a party']

Applying a uniform national swing, on the Electoral Calculus, this would give Labour 350 seats; the Conservatives 259; the Lib Dems 14 giving Labour an overall majority of 50

YouGov, Daily Telegraph, completed October 24, 2007:

LAB 38% (n/c) ; CON 41% (n/c) ; LDEM 11% (n/c)

Applying a uniform national swing, on the Electoral Calculus, this would give Labour 323 seats; the Conservatives 289; the Lib Dems 11 with Labour 3 short of an overall majority

Comment

Ipsos-MORI, too, sees a substantial movement to the Conservatives since their previous poll in The Observer with Labour (n/c), the Conservatives +6 and the Lib Dems -3; however, a more recent Ipsos-MORI poll in The Sun had the Conservatives leading Labour by 3%. YouGov shows a substantial movement towards to the Conservatives since their previous poll in the Daily Telegraph with Labour -5, the Conservatives +9 and the Lib Dems -4; however, it represents no change whatsoever on that of the Sunday Times .

Both polls show a sharp decline in Gordon Brown's personal ratings; with David Cameron's, rapidly, improving; while the Ipsos-MORI data, as usual , infers that the biggest challenge Labour faces, assuming nothing changes, come a general election is getting its vote out given it continues to lead the Conservatives, relatively, comfortably, but not as comfortably as it did during the height of the 'Brown Bounce', among all voters naming a party. Any general election result on these figures would give Labour a commaning overall majority of 128

Any poll which has Labour ahead after a torrid few weeks must surely come of something of a relief to the party; but we’ll need to see more polls to see whether the landscape has “settled” now that silly season is over

I await the next few polls with much eagerness; but most especially ICM, since their latest poll, two weeks ago in the Sunday Telegraph , gave the Conservatives their strongest lead over Labour (+7) since Brown took over from Blair. It will be interesting to see if there is any movement away from the Conservatives, whether to Labour or the Liberal Democrats

Note : Baxter of Electoral Calculus has today updated his forecasting model to a Strong Transitional Model , which builds on the basic transition model, but with extra features to incorporate incumbency and local party strength. This model has been particularly designed to cope with weakened parties, such as the Lib Dems in autumn 2007.

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Why I'm not a Conservative

“Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope.”

Yes, those were the very words Margaret Thatcher said upon becoming Prime Minister back in 1979; yet for all this "Labour isn't working" election campaign mantra on the part of the Conservative Party, I recall things getting a lot worse before they even started to get better. Aside from the recent postal dispute, I can't even name a major industrial dispute since Labour were returned to office in 1997 on par with anything like the industrial strife of the 1970s and 1980s

I often wonder to what extent the consequences of the expansion of market forces undermined the social institutions, such as the family and the community, both of which are vital to social cohesion. I suspect in no small part this is where the seeds of Cameron's so-called "broken" society were sown; though one cannot rule out the cultural liberalism of the swinging 60s have, ultimately, played in this too. Of course, society is, undoubtedly, ruptured in parts; that is all too plain to see, but "broken" is pushing it

Well, should the Tories get back in and, true to past form, the economy flounders, I dread to think the wider societal consequences. Who in the right mind would roll the die on their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes at the next general election? People, undoubtedly, complain about taxes but what else can you expect given the cash-starved public services and crumbling infrastructure all round that Labour inherited.

Yes, I accept the Labour government of 1974-79 was pretty dreadful what with having to go to the IMF and then the 'Winter of Discontent' which is why Labour, today, has put economic stability   at the very heart of its raison d'etre. And there is a strong collective determination on the part of Labour not to go back to that. I'm not sure whether I can trust the Conservatives not to take us back to the 1980s however

Although it proved not to be without its flaws, at the very least, the innately benevolent, Keynesian new liberal-social democratic consensus saw that welfare never went beyond it's true intent that is of being 'cradle to the grave' safety-net; yet for all its innately malevolent anti-welfarist instincts, neo-liberal reforms ushered in an era of mass welfare dependency and socio-economic trauma not seen in the UK since 'Great Depression'.  Alas, however, since the 1980s, welfare dependency has become a way of life . For some reason, high unemployment was the price that had to be paid for low inflation. Morally reprehensible if anything ever was.

Well, should the Tories get back in and, true to past form, the economy flounders, I dread to think the wider societal consequences. Who in the right mind would roll the die on their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes at the next general election? People, undoubtedly, complain about taxes but what else can you expect given the cash-starved public services and crumbling infrastructure all round that Labour inherited?

Yes, I accept the Labour government of 1974-79 was pretty dreadful what with having to go to the IMF and then the 'Winter of Discontent' which is why Labour, today, has put economic stability at the very heart of its raison d'etre. And there is a strong collective determination on the part of Labour never to go back to how it was

I guess now you know why a left-leaning Christian Democrat, like myself, as Colin Wixted so accurately described me, with a profound social conscience and passionate belief in social justice is not a Conservative. Yes, the Tories talk about 'social justice' now, rather audaciously if you want my opinion, when you consider the neo-liberals had nothing but contempt for it dismissing it as merely a euphenism for socialism. Social justice is what holds society together and a strong, but more importantly, stable, economy will, ultimately, prove to be the best way of ensuring it

Indeed, it will take a future Conservative government for me to even begin to see the party in a more favourable light. Would a Prime Minister Cameron prove to be a  genuine 'moderniser' or will he whore-out to his party's reactionary rightwing whackadoos the moment the going gets tough? Would a Prime Minister Cameron enhance or marginalise the UK in wider European and international affairs? To raise but two questions

Nevertheless, Labour must get its arse into gear sharp before it truly finds itself out for count. But believe me if certain things are bad now, my money is them getting worse should the Conservatives be returned to power just as it did in 1979. History has convinced me of that much. I don't, of course, for one minute think Labour are going to be in government in perpetuity but every cloud has a silver lining because nor will the Conservative Party be after them

FORWARD NOT BACK . This country can ill-afford to take a chance or the roll the die come the next general election

Dave

[Hash]

I read on the RESPECT website last night about some local by-election where Respect-Lunacy Coalition did quite well. Any info on that?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Respect hasn't polled well in any local by-election for months now. They did poll 6% in one in Harlow last week. Maybe they mean that?

[Democratic Hawk]

But why I'm a tad disillusioned with Labour ...

This government seems to be moving from one calamity to another and needs to get its backside into gear quick sharp. It will be highly vulnerable, rightly or wrongly, on immigration, tax and the EU Treaty. Not to mention Cameron playing the EVoEL card, which is yet to filter through into the polls, and he seems to be pushing all the ‘right’ buttons, as of the moment

However, in all fairness to the government, it did want devolution for the English Regions. Great things never exactly came of that as we know, which is a shame since had it then I dare say the English might have benefitted like the Scots and the Welsh, seemingly, have from devolution. That would have depended on the priorities of the regional administrations, however

In 1997, Labour had a golden opportunity to enact a huge swathe of lasting constitutional reform but what happens? It’s done bit by bit in a piecemeal fashion so much so much so that it now resembles a grotesque patchwork quilt of things. Devolution, to varying degrees, in Scotland, Wales and London but not in the English Regions; two-tier local government here, unitaries there (though this was inherited) with more unitaries on the way in some places but not others; elected Mayors in a few places here and there; and, as of now, still an entirely unelected House of Lords

Among other things ...

Dave

[Hash]

Respect hasn't polled well in any local by-election for months now. They did poll 6% in one in Harlow last week. Maybe they mean that?

Yes, that's it. I personally don't see what's spectacular with 6%, but I guess they're lunatics. It was a Con gain right?

[Democratic Hawk]

Respect hasn't polled well in any local by-election for months now. They did poll 6% in one in Harlow last week. Maybe they mean that?

Yes, that's it. I personally don't see what's spectacular with 6%, but I guess they're lunatics. It was a Con gain right?

Yes, it was a Con gain on a, far from spectacular, 1% swing from Labour. Add the two Harlow wards together, however, and there was a 0.2% swing to Labour and, allowing for differential turnout, not bad news at all

Dave

[Cubby]

I saw David Cameron on CSPAN the other night.  He seems groovy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I want the Tories to win the next election, because if Labour stays in power too long, there's a risk of a 1983/1987 type blowout when the Tories finally do come to power (like Labour in '97).

[Democratic Hawk]

November 2, 2007

There was only one by-election held November 1st, 2007:

Ashfield District - Sutton-in-Ashfield West: Lib Dem 873, Lab 560, BNP 321, Ind 275, C 257, Green 72. (May 2007 - Three seats Ind 1359, Ind 1119, Ind 1006, Ind 845, Lab 748, 747, 644, C 619). Lib Dem gain from Ind. Swing 4.5% C to Lab.

I'm told that a Liberal Democrat councillor in Haringey LBC has defected to Labour

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

I saw David Cameron on CSPAN the other night.  He seems groovy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I want the Tories to win the next election, because if Labour stays in power too long, there's a risk of a 1983/1987 type blowout when the Tories finally do come to power (like Labour in '97).

Do you know I've kind of done some lateral thinking on this one myself? Perhaps, it might be in the national interest and that of the Labour Party were Cameron to eek in with the narrowest of majorities. Cameron has always struck me as a being a bit of a wimp, who'd readily capitulate to his party's right-wing once the going gets tough. In government, we'd sharp see whether Cameron is a genuine 'moderniser' or a phoney. Perhaps, I'm just a bit of a cynic, but years of feeling socio-economically insecure, under the Tories, has made me that way

Gordon Brown's in seeking to undermine the Conservative Party has done David Cameron a huge favour. It has served to 'unite' the Conservative Party under his leadership following a successful party conference. Labour set the tone at their conference, the Tories knew they had to fall in line if they were to stall that Autumn election they were dreading. For Cameron, despite the conceited bravado, it was mission accomplished

Brown, meanwhile, should get on with governing. My tolerance levels are being sorely tested by Labour right now. I expect Labour to be the best. Being the best of a bad bunch just won't do

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

November 4, 2007

Poll Round-up

There were three polls published this week [all changes on previous poll]:

Ipsos-MORI, The Observer, completed October 23, 2007:
 
LAB 35% (-6) ; CON 40% (n/c) ; LDEM 13% (n/c) [LAB 38% (-5); CON 36% (+1); LDEM 14% (+1) - 'all voters naming a party']

Applying a uniform national swing, on the Electoral Calculus, this would give the Conservatives 303 seats; Labour 302; the Lib Dems 16 with the Conservatives 23 short of an overall majority

ComRes, The Independent, completed October 28, 2007:

LAB 33% (-4); CON 41% (+7); LDEM 16% (+1)

Applying a uniform national swing, on the Electoral Calculus, this would give the Conservatives 326 seats; Labour 269 ; the Lib Dems 11 giving the Conservatives an overall majority of 2

ICM, The Guardian, completed October 28, 2007:

LAB 35% (-1); CON 40% (-3); LDEM 18% (+4)

Applying a uniform national swing, on the Electoral Calculus, this would give Labour 297 seats; the Conservatives 287; the Lib Dems 37 with Labour 29 short of an overall majority

Comment

Compared with the previous Ipsos-MORI poll in The Observer , Labour will be disheartened to see its support slip by 6%; however, this poll was conducted as the immigration storm broke and the party must surely be hopping that this is about as bad as it gets. Yet, remarkably, it does not seem to be the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats who have benefitted from the Labour slump; nevertheless, with the Tories holding firm at 40%, this poll can only come as good news for them. Labour, meanwhile, has slumped to 38% on 'all voters naming a party' and any general election result on these figures would see Labour returned with a comfortable working majority of 58

The ICM poll, meanwhile, shows the Liberal Democrats, still in the full throttle of a leadership race between Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne, gaining support on both the Conservatives and Labour since the previous poll in the Sunday Telegraph .

The ComRes poll will be particularly disheartening for Labour given that the Conservative would likely be returned with an overall majority; with the caveat being that it was conducted before last weeks media storm which broke around 'confusion' on the part of the government re-immigration statistics. ComRes is a poll which seems to favour the Conservatives, in a way with YouGov and Ipsos-MORI, seemingly, favour Labour and the question remains will this latest poll be as bad as it gets for Labour?

The Conservatives, meanwhile, have had a bit of a immigration 'storm' of their own, with it's parliamentary candidate, Nigel Hastilow, in the target West Midlands seat of Halesowen and Rowley Regis, apparently, giving a supportive opinion on Enoch Powell's infamous 'Rivers of Blood Speech'. Following, his summons to explain himself to party chair Caroline Spelman, he has stood aside saying that he was "very sorry that any remarks of mine have undermined the progress" of David Cameron. Hastilow's comments were criticised by senior Tories David Davis and George Osborne

Clearly, immigration is a hot-button issue that Labour MUST get to grips with given this weeks Roman farce on the figures. Immigration is, regularly, cited as the single most important issue for voters and an issue where the Conservatives are comfortably ahead of Labour. There is a possible silver lining for Labour, however. Throughout much of the 1980s, unemployment was cited as the single most important issue and one on which Labour was comfortably ahead of the Tories (not surpising given the Thatcher government's miserable record for much of this period) yet it never translated into general election success

Personal reflections as regards immigration will elaborated on at a later date

Dave

Note : My polling reports will essentially focus on the latest poll from any specific pollster with its immediate predecessor, irrespective of the newpaper, TV channel, etc it was commissioned by

[Јas]

Ipsos-MORI, The Observer, completed October 23, 2007:
 
LAB 35% (-6) ; CON 40% (n/c) ; LDEM 13% (n/c) [LAB 38% (-5); CON 36% (+1); LDEM 14% (+1) - 'all voters naming a party']

Applying a uniform national swing, on the Electoral Calculus, this would give the Conservatives 303 seats; Labour 302; the Lib Dems 16 with the Conservatives 23 short of an overall majority

Now this would be a fascinating election result.
Would any sort of viable government formation be possible?

[Hash]

Electoral Calculus doesn't strike me as very good, I'm sure in such a case the LDs would have more than 16 seats.

[Verily]

Ipsos-MORI, The Observer, completed October 23, 2007:
 
LAB 35% (-6) ; CON 40% (n/c) ; LDEM 13% (n/c) [LAB 38% (-5); CON 36% (+1); LDEM 14% (+1) - 'all voters naming a party']

Applying a uniform national swing, on the Electoral Calculus, this would give the Conservatives 303 seats; Labour 302; the Lib Dems 16 with the Conservatives 23 short of an overall majority

Now this would be a fascinating election result.
Would any sort of viable government formation be possible?

Con-DUP-UUP with tacit Lib Dem, SNP and Plaid support, maybe (and possibly Health Concern, if Taylor would survive)? I can't see Labour winning over both the DUP and the SDLP at the same time, otherwise that coalition might be possible.

[Јas]

Ipsos-MORI, The Observer, completed October 23, 2007:
 
LAB 35% (-6) ; CON 40% (n/c) ; LDEM 13% (n/c) [LAB 38% (-5); CON 36% (+1); LDEM 14% (+1) - 'all voters naming a party']

Applying a uniform national swing, on the Electoral Calculus, this would give the Conservatives 303 seats; Labour 302; the Lib Dems 16 with the Conservatives 23 short of an overall majority

Now this would be a fascinating election result.
Would any sort of viable government formation be possible?

Con-DUP-UUP with tacit Lib Dem, SNP and Plaid support, maybe (and possibly Health Concern, if Taylor would survive)? I can't see Labour winning over both the DUP and the SDLP at the same time, otherwise that coalition might be possible.

Actually, on reflection, I presume the above numbers don't presume SF's abstentionism which would obviously lower the number required for a genuine majority to 321 (?) assuming they simply held their current 5 seats. Which should make things a bit easier.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The DUP wouldn't enter into a coalition as to do so would be to greatly reduce their bargaining power. Note that unlike the UUP they have no real tribal identification with the Tory party.
As far as the SDLP goes, in purely Westminster terms they're Labour M.P's in all important respects.

Btw, I wouldn't take any polls too seriously at the moment. Mostly because polls outside election (or pre-election) time about pretty worthless (this counting double, at the very least, during the winter), but also because there are real reasons to be suspicious of the accuracy of the polls after the absurd, and totally unrealistic, changes in them during the autumn.
I think that it's safe to say that, right now, Tory support is up from 2005, Labour support is level-ish while LibDem support is down. Beyond that very basic outline, who knows? Not the polling firms, that's for sure. Well, not the ones that work for newspapers anyway.

[Democratic Hawk]

On Devolution

Con-DUP-UUP with tacit Lib Dem, SNP and Plaid support, maybe (and possibly Health Concern, if Taylor would survive)? I can't see Labour winning over both the DUP and the SDLP at the same time, otherwise that coalition might be possible.

I'd like to think no Unionist party would go into coalition with the Conservatives, the party of 'Little England' or rather the party of Southern and Eastern England given that they seem to be on a fast track towards playing fast and loose with the Union only because the Scots don't return many Conservative MPs. Would it end? With the Scots or would the Welsh and Northern Irish MPs be next when it comes to EVoEL? Should only London MPs have a vote on Crossrail?

I oppose EVoEL since it would create two classes of MP. I'm not for apartheid in the House of Commons, Scots pay taxes too. I'm equally opposed to  an English Parliament too, which I fear would represent the interests of some Regions to the detriment of others

Nevertheless, I'm a staunch advocate of devolution, which is why I'd have very much liked devolution for the English Regions, as well as for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

Many English, of course, do whine on about the Scots getting this, the Welsh getting that but, in all fairness, Labour wanted devolution, albeit limited, for the English Regions with elected Regional Assemblies but after the North East which had an pretty established campaign for a Regional Assembly, rejected it in 2004, which was a bit late in the day, if you want my honest opinion, there was hardly any point moving ahead with proposed referendums scheduled for the North West and Yorks and the Humber Regions let alone taking it further afield

I voted for it, as a step in the right direction, but would have preferred a more radical, meaningful devolution of powers than was on offer; others favoured it but voted against because they didn't want it to be a mere 'talking shop'; while others just opposed it. Some people probably voted against it because they opposed the war in Iraq . Irrelevant, but, nevertheless, an issue in 2004

Perhaps had the English shown more enthuisiasm and had the good sense to see the benefits that regional devolution would bring then they wouldn't be complaining. I've no sympathy. That, seemingly, is going to result in the Tories appealing to base 'Little England' sentiments

The English Regions should have got Regional Assemblies, with one, primary, single-tier of local government beneath them whether they wanted them or not and reaped the benefits . And not 'talking shops' either, but a sweeping, wide-ranging, devolution of powers. It would have then being for the regional administrations to determine its own domestic priorities. You'd have government of the Regions, for the Regions, by the Regions. There'd be none of this government in the interests of some Regions to the detriment of others. Scotland has, justly, never forgiven the Tories for making them the 'guinea pigs' for that iniquitous poll tax. And I'd like Labour to come up a better alternative to Council Tax too. That, IRRC, was only intended to a temporary set-up for local government finance

Then, come the election, if voters didn't like their regional administration's policies then they could always vote them out
 
In fact, constitutional reform, as I've stated in an earlier rant, is the one area since coming to power in 1997, where Labour HAS disappointed me

Dave

[Cubby]

They had the Opening of Parliament on C-SPAN yesterday. Its not a channel I normally watch, but Leno and Colbert were in repeats due to the writer's strike.

I liked all the tradition and ceremony. Slamming doors in people's faces is generally rude, but the commentator (First name Huw, works for the BBC) says that they slam the door to proclaim the supremacy of the House of Commons, which I suppose makes it acceptable. They kept calling this one guy "the black rod", which was strange until they explained who he was.

Huw had 1 MP from each party with him as a commentator. Michael Gove seemed okay for a Tory. He kept arguing with Ed Miliband, so Nick Clegg didn't have much time to talk, but he seemed okay too. My problem with British politics is that I like all 3 main parties.

I didn't know Jack Straw was in the House of Lords. Why did they keep referring to it as "The House of Peers"? Apparently, walking backwards is tough to do.

It was weird to hear Queen Elizabeth talking about global warming, terrorism and other modern stuff. She's the Queen, she shouldn't have to be involved in policy details.