Monthly Archives: April 2010

Standard’s Paul Waugh hypes up charity complaint

contribution by Stephen Newton

The Evening Standard’s Paul Waugh is hyping up a complaint to the Charity Commission from the Greg Hands, Conservative Party candidate for Hammersmith and Fulham, about the Tony Blair Africa Governance Initiative, a newly registered charity.

The nature of Hands’ complaint is not revealed, but Waugh is ever so excited to hear that Hands complaint is to be assessed.

How exciting… not.

Scratch the surface and it becomes clear that Greg Hands has received little more than a letter of acknowledgement.

Any complaint the commission receives is subject to an initial assessment no matter who made it or how serious or frivolous its content.

At this stage the Charity Commission has yet to decide whether or not to investigate, but it has passed Hands complaint on to the charity out of courtesy.

It is far too soon to tell whether there is any merit in the issues Hands raises and every chance Paul Waugh will be disappointed.

Perhaps Hands and Waugh are upset that Liam Fox’s Atlantic Bridge charity has felt obliged to formally end its commitment to the ‘special relationship as exemplified by the Reagan-Thatcher‘ partnership’ as it buckles under the strain of an all too real Charity Commission investigation.

(Although we’re sure that when its advisory board of William Hague, George Osborne, Chris Grayling, Micheal Gove et al meet up, their love of Maggie is undiminished.)

Fox’s think tank (which has not published a thought since registering as a charity in 2003) is best known for paying for $2,500 a night rooms for US senators like Jon Kyl who spent last summer attacking telling Americans that Britons hate the NHS and sponsoring celebrations of William Hague’s books.

The Charity Commission investigation of the Atlantic Bridge, and a parallel US investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, are ongoing.

Compass endorses tactical voting, including Libdems

Last week the left-wing campaign group Compass asked its members whether Compass should advocate tactical voting in the forthcoming general election.

For various reasons outlined here, I endorsed this decision.

Today the pressure group reveals that they have a “clear result”.

72% (467) of members backed the call for tactical voting with only 14% (93) against.

There were 14% (90) abstentions/spoilt papers.

Compass say it was the biggest return they have ever had on an internal ballot.

This means that Compass is now calling on every progressive voter to back the Labour candidate wherever Labour can win.

But if Labour stands no chance against the Tory candidate it makes sense that the best placed progressive candidate is backed by every progressive voter.

To help informs decisions the organisation has produced a key marginal seats information table, based on the 2005 general election results, to help choose the best placed progressive candidate is.
Click here to download it.

We project Conservatives to be 100 seats ahead of Labour

contribution by Nate Silver, Renard Sexton & Dan Berman

The Uniform Swing Calculator has its proponents, and it has the virtue of being fairly easy to calculate seats.

But, most recent elections in the UK have not been all that dramatic, with fairly minor shifts in the vote between Labour and Conservatives.

We’ve designed an alternative approach which, while also based on fairly simple assumptions, is potentially more robust.

With some new improvements to our UK General Election forecasting model, we project that this election bodes quite bad news for the Labour party.

We now show them holding on to only about 200 seats in the House of Commons, versus roughly 300 for the Conseratives and 120 for the Liberal Democrats.


As before, the basic premise of the model is to explicitly shift votes from one party to another — for instance, take a percentage of Labour’s votes and give them to Liberal Democrats — and then apply these vote shifts in a sophisticated way across the UK’s 650 constituencies.

The vote estimates included herein are not based on any hard-and-fast rules; rather, they are educated guesses based on an examination of cross-tabular results in recent several UK polls, with the stipulation that the overall vote share estimates must correspond to a rough average of recent polls.

Rather, the “value-add” of the model is in the way that it takes these vote share estimates and translates them into estimates in the number of seats that will be controlled by each party.

Several improvements have been made to the model since the original version that we posted on Sunday:

– It now allows voters to move into and out of the electorate, rather than simply from one party to another.
– It now has a more advanced process for assigning votes across individual constituencies, producing effects that to some degree resemble “tactical voting”.
– It now refines its results based on regional-level polling data — this is particularly important for Scotland.
– It now accounts for incumbent retirements.
– It now accounts for Scottish and Welsh regional/nationalist parties, in addition to those from Northern Ireland.

These will be described in more detail in subsequent posts.

Although we are proud of this product and believe that it will more likely than not it will me more accurate than simple uniform swing calculations (which show substantially more optimistic seat estimates for Labour), it is experimental and should be regarded as such.

———–
All three write for the US-based politics site FiveThirtyEight.com, where it was cross-posted from.

Renard Sexton has written more on this today on Guardian CIF. Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight’s international affairs columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com

Is this the best anti-Tory video of the election?

I saw this about a week ago and it has since then racked up over a quarter of a million views purely through word of mouth.

Surely it is the best attack video of the election? Labour should have had this as their Party Election Broadcast.

It also points to one simple point: that George Osborne remains the Conservatives’ most high profile public liability.

[H-T Paul Sagar for reminding me]

School tells students to leave their civil liberties at the entrance.

I believe that I’m about to make a bit of nuisance of myself for reasons that I’m happy to share with you even if it means disclosing a bit of personal information along the way.

I’ve got two kids, the oldest of which turns 18 in a couple of months. He currently attends the 6th form of a local state school, where he’s currently studying for 3 A Levels.

This morning, I received a letter from the school, produced jointly with the local Plods, that, after a bit of boiler plate waffle about the government’s Tackling Knives Action Plan and why knive are serious issue, dropped out the following bombshell:

West Midlands Police continue to support our educational establishments and we will be conducting random anti-knife searches at undisclosed times in partnership with [name of school]. I would like to stress that there are no reported issues regarding knives within the [school], but like us, the [school] feels that young people need to be aware of the potential dangers of carrying a knife.

In order to implement this incentive (sic) it is my duty to inform parents/guardian’s (sic) that during summer term West Midlands Police and [name of school] will be implementing random searches with students as a condition of entry into the building in accordance with current legislation.

Aside from noting the typically abysmal grammar – a grocers’ apostrophe and the desciption of random body searches as an ‘incentive’ rather than an ‘initiative’ – it seems the one of the major  dangers here is that of having your civil liberties infringed on the basis of a bullshit argument that fundamentally misrepresents the legal authority of the Police and, especially, the school and its Headteacher.

So far, I’ve shot a quick email off to the school asking them to clarify exactly which piece of legislation they’re attempting to rely on here, but only because I want to make them squirm before delivering the coup de grace. I’ve already done my research here and unless the local Plods are planning to designate the school under the infamous section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 – and trust me, you’ll be the first to know if they try that crap on – then the relevant legislation here is section 242 of the Apprencticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, which amends the Education Act 1996 as follows:

242 Power of members of staff to search pupils for prohibited items: England

(1) After section 550A of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) insert—

“Powers to search pupils

550ZA Power of members of staff to search pupils for prohibited items: England

(1) This section applies where a member of staff of a school in England—

(a) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a pupil at the school may have a prohibited item with him or her or in his or her possessions; and

(b) falls within section 550ZB(1).

For the sake of completeness Section 500ZB(1) simply delinaeates which members of staff have the legal power to carry out a search, which is either the Headteacher or someone acting on the Head’s authority all of which is fairly irrelevant. What does matter here are the words ‘has reasonable grounds for suspecting’, which clearly indicate that the powers granted to Headteachers by the extent do not extend to authorising random body searches on students.

That being the case, and unless something snuck through the wash-up to alter this situation, this new initiative is going to happen. Not only does it constitute a breach of civil liberties and, of course, HRA/ECHR but the Headteacher’s decision to implement random body searches is clearly ultra vires and vastly exceeds the legal powers granted to him in primary legislation.

As the name of the school, that I’ll withhold for the moment; I don’t want to completely blow a story that I can easily place with the local press and, to be scrupulously fair, I want to give the school a chance to back down of its own accord before deploying the heavy artillery

In the mean time, I’ll be advising my son not to submit to a body search and to pass the information that the school does not have the right to conduct random searches on to his friends and schoolmates…

…because that’s what I consider to be citizenship education.

What yesterday’s spin room said about politics

There’s no point writing about what I thought of the debate: there’s far too much partisan commentary elsewhere. And even then, it’s pretty much a waste of time. The print media have had just slightly more influence on the election as blogs have – i.e. very little.

The spin room, where the press were assembled, was slightly more interesting. We were working almost like school-kids, side by side on desks. The wifi connection was slow and clunky; the sandwiches tasteless.

The idea that journalists are impartial, even the ones in broadcast media, is really fairly nonsensical. As the debate wore on some whooped at one-liners, other sighed loudly when Clegg kept blaming ‘the same old politics’.

It was fairly quiet but there was a hum of journalists talking to each other trying to affirm their thoughts with each other. Was Cameron sweating? Did Brown have lots of make-up on? Didn’t he look a bit scary? What about Cameron’s fake-tache? (Ok that was just me…)

15 minutes before the debate even finished, Peter Mandelson enters the room. He just stands there, impassively at the back, watching the debate.

You can use different analogies, but basically they swarmed around him. And when I say swarmed… Mandelson hadn’t even uttered a word and yet within a few minutes a thick crowd of journalists had formed a circle around him.

Some were standing on desks, extending their long microphones towards him, others were just taking pictures. Mandelson stood there, impassively, staring straight ahead. We watched in awe as journalists fell over themselves to get close to him and catch his first words.

Meanwhile, Michael Gove was standing just yards away by himself. No one troubled him in the least (I talked to Gove afterwards, he was very affable, and I’ll post that interview later).

Mandelson then started spinning before the final speeches had even started. The scrum was overwhelming. He was the only game in town.

Afterwards of course the journalists fanned out to talk to others. But it’s true what they say about Mandelson: he is not only an effective performer but he has a presence. More than that, he has a presence and an aura that no one in the Conservative high-command (or even Labour, let alone Libdem) can match. They have to stand on the sidelines and watch, and await their turn.

I’ve long said that Brown was bad for the Labour Party because he was a terrible communicator. But really – all of the three people running for Prime Minister are. They don’t have the presence or the effortless charm that you see President Obama exuding (even on television). One minute he’s sharing jokes with guys in a burger bar and the next he’s giving a speech on foreign policy. He doesn’t look out of place in either setting.

Gordon Brown’s supporters keep saying he is substance, not style. I’m not sure I like the substance (especially the immigration rhetoric) but I think it’s also true that such bad style actually hurts the Labour Party. If Mandelson were PM next week he’d have them eating out of his hand like Tony Blair did for years. But Brown actually drives away voters who feel positive towards the Labour Party (around 33% of the public) because they just dislike him. That is a polling reality.

Bigotgate may not have ruined Labour’s standing in the polls, but the gaffe makes it crystal clear that Brown’s communication skills are a liability.

Once the election is over, the party needs a hard look at deciding which intellectual direction it will go. But it also needs to ensure the person chosen party leader can also communicate well with the public.

—–
[PS. Some will say Blair was a good communicator too and look where that got us (Iraq) etc etc. I know that. But good communication skills can also be used to push for progressive policies (like explaining why immigration can be a force for good, which Brown clearly cannot do). It is simply an essential attribute]

Polls: #bigotgate made no difference to Labour

The YouGov polls tonight show:
Conservative 34%, Labour 27%, Liberal Democrat 28%, Others 11%.

Labour’s figures have not fallen today.

The YouGov briefing goes on to say:

Unsurprisingly, Gordon Brown’s well-publicised gaffe of calling a Rochdale grandmother ‘bigoted’ while inadvertently still having a Sky News microphone turned on has continued to dominate the TellYouGov leaderboard today.

At the time of writing, it would appear that Brown’s comment has made little difference to voting intention. But with the third and final leaders’ debate airing on BBC One tonight, and the debates’ influence on public opinion having proved pivotal thus far, we will wait and see if our instant post-debate polling will reveal any change in public opinion towards the Labour leader and his counterparts. (Labour is currently on -59 for sentiment, the Conservatives on -4, but the Liberal Democrats continue to record a positive score of 33.)

And will voting intentions change as a result?

Anthony Wells of YouGov doesn’t think so:

The imporant bit though (especially given we are a week away from an election), is whether it changes votes. 9% said it made them less likely to vote Labour, 3% more likely to vote Labour – the rest no difference. My regular readers will know I am not a fan of questions like this – people use them to signify approval or disapproval regardless of whether it will actually change their vote. Lo and behold – that 9% of people who say it will make them less likely to vote Labour, is made up of Conservative and Lib Dem supporters. Most of those who say it will make them more likely to vote Labour, are voting Labour anyway.

Ignoring the huge elephant in the room

Well, if our own deficit is the Elephant in the Room, what is a nearby E300bn economy heading to bankruptcy? Will future post-election commentators wonder what on earth the Guardian was doing running so many different columns on bigotgate while the next economic crisis burst upon our shores? (to be fair to the Guardian, they also have live blogging on Greece).

I hope it comes up in tonight’s debate. Because the Liberal Democrat position on deficit cutting is, macroeconomically, the most sensible. This letter to the FT today summarises the issues beautifully (from Prof Eatwell):

to what extent will deficit reduction result in the government “chasing its tail” as expenditure cuts result in falling tax revenues as a consequence of lower GDP and employment? Second, what is the true cost of the various measures, ie, the discounted value of the stream of GDP forgone? Third, how does this true cost compare to alternative fiscal strategies (reducing the deficit more slowly or more quickly)?

My spreadsheet attempted to illustrate his first point. Try chasing some tail by downloading it.

How serious is the Greek situation? Mohamed El-Erian of PIMCO points out how it threatens the private-sector:

The already material risks of disorderly bank deposit outflows and capital flights are increasing. The bottom line is simple yet consequential: the Greek debt crisis has morphed into something that is potentially more sinister for Europe and the global economy. What started out as a public finance issue is quickly turning into a banking problem too; and, what started out as a Greek issue has become a full-blown crisis for Europe

Is today’s news of a fall in credit demand from businesses and housebuyers signs that Europe is turning down, decisively? It is just a straw in the wind, but if you thought that a second phase of the financial crisis might be triggered by sovereign default hitting into banking balance sheets, would you be borrowing to invest or buy a house? The Economist’s Ryan Avent is more phegmatic, and seems to rely on “Germans coming to their senses’. Do you readers think this works?

A Greece restructuring is all but inevitable, but the cost associated with making Greek creditors whole is very small relative to the potential losses associated with continued chaos. … Right now the politics of a bigger German bail-out of southern Europe look deadly, but so did the politics of massive bail-outs of Wall Street financial institutions.

I think he ignores too easily how far we had to go down Crisis Lane to achieve those bailouts. Making Greek Creditors Whole? Are you sure? Moral hazard, justice, anyone? That would be toxic – not just for Germans.

But the most interesting analyses, for me, comes from Professor Nick Rowe, whose commentary here brings us back to what the Eurozone is really all about – money:

Only the European Central Bank has enough money to fix the Eurozone problem; because it can print it … (BUT) Who has the authority to say that the ECB may risk its seigniorage revenue on buying Greek or other countries’ sovereign junk, when that revenue belongs to all Eurozone governments? Nobody. The Eurozone is not a real country. There is no central fiscal authority behind the ECB. That decision would have to be reached by a political consensus of all Eurozone countries, and I don’t see that happening.

He then describes what may happen in terms that fans of Professor Scott Sumner will recognise – bank insolvency leading to a crisis of escalating money demand:

Eurozone commercial banks hold Eurozone government bonds as assets. With the drop in those bonds’ values, many commercial banks (inside and outside the Eurozone) will become insolvent. There will be (and already are) runs on those banks, as depositors seek to transfer their deposits to safer banks, if any can be found, or withdraw currency, if they can’t. The first year textbook says this fall in bank deposits will cause a fall in the money supply, and that this fall in the money supply will cause a recession.

But the central bank is prevented, politically, from doing what it needs to: expand the money supply by buying up those government bonds. His final prediction is intruiging – that sovereign states, having a shortage of Euros, will start printing their own currencies to pay their workers. New drachma anyone? (Paul Krugman, imagining similar endgames, is now under the table).

How does this play for the UK? Well, our links of contagion are probably less. As Stephanie points out, we are a safe haven compared to Greece. Check out the What’s In the Vaults Table: it’s French banks who might be in trouble here. For once, our bankers didn’t get stuck in. And our economy beats to different rhythms: check out the bullishness about private sector hiring from the CIPD today.

But every party is relying on ‘rebalancing’ – more exports, basically – and how can that happen if Europe is in a panic? I hope Clegg makes the point powerfully: unlike our Conservative opponents, we don’t believe that cutting back, in all circumstances and at all times, makes the economy stronger. And (this is a long-shot) – we need to be more vigorous with the money-medicine if we do teeter into a Double Dip. Like a wise man once said.

Gillian Duffy: welcome to the core vote, Mr Brown

Gillian Duffy does not come across  as one of life’s natural decaf skinny latte drinkers. Welcome to the core vote, Mr Brown.

The nation could hardly help noticing your visible distaste at exposure to opinions at variance with your own. You certainly are not used to that sort of thing from the Parliamentary Labour Party or the hand-picked audiences at invite-only election rallies. It really is most  unfair to expect you to have to put up with such unbecoming insubordination.

Continue reading

Labour still ahead of Tories in marginal seats

The latest IpsosMori polling from marginal seats has very grim reading for the Tories.

Con 35% (+3), Lab 38% (+2), Lib Dem 21% (-2)

Here’s the Ipsos-Mori verdict:

Voting intentions (among those absolutely certain to vote) in these key constituencies are Conservative 35%, Labour 38%, Liberal Democrat 21%, Others 6%. This represents a swing of 5.5% to the Conservatives since 2005. As in the previous three waves, this would result in a hung Parliament with the Conservatives as the biggest party. Certainty of voting in these constituencies has increased steadily over the last month, and a total of 71% of adults now say that they are absolutely certain to vote.

The increase in support for the Liberal Democrats in last week’s poll has been maintained, with 21% of voters saying they intend to vote Lib Dem (compared to 11% in the first two waves), even though almost all these constituencies are ones that the Liberal Democrats cannot realistically hope to win.

However, a week before polling day, almost half of the public say that they may change their mind before May 6th (46%). Conservative voters are more likely to have definitely decided (65%) than Labour and Lib Dem voters (51% and 42%).

Both Labour and Conservative supporters who say they may change their mind would be twice as likely to switch to the Liberal Democrats as to the other major party. Of Liberal Democrats who might change their minds, more think it would be to vote Labour (52%) than Conservative (33%), potentially strengthening Labour’s lead here.

In other words, even if sentiments shift, they are more likely to shift towards the Libdems than Conservatives or Labour.

Most of the polling was done before Bigot-gate, but it’s unlikely the polls will shift that decisively for the Tories. We are still very much in Hung Parliament territory.