Tory Leadership Election - Round 2

By 5:30pm this evening the Tories may have elected a new leader. But for that to happen it would require Davis or Fox (whoever finishes second) to pull out before the membership vote which would hand the victory to Cameron. I can see Davis withdrawing (as he did four years ago) if he suffers badly enough in today's ballot. But then again if he suffers too badly he will be in third place and out of the running anyway. If Fox improves on his impressive first round result and makes it into second place he will be less likely to withdraw early. Cameron has won the second ballot before it even takes place. He could end up with more than half of the available votes. His support will be greatly increased by the vast majority of the 38 former-Clarke supporters and further increased by Davis supporters who have lost all hope of their candidate winning and thus move their support to him. I doubt Cameron will take too many votes from Fox though. Fox has a realistc chance of finishing second this afternoon by taking a significant amount of votes from Davis. It certainly won't be too surprising if whoever finishes second does withdraw though, because as it currently stands, they would have no chance in the membership vote, unless something was to come along and knock a wheel or three off the Cameron campaign wagon in the coming weeks.

The Telegraph this morning published the results of a YouGov poll of party members which shows that Cameron is effectively unbeatable.

Cameron 59%
Fox 18%
Davis 15%

I was pretty close in predicting the votes in the first round. Lets how close i can get with this one. This round is harder to forecast as the potential for tactical voting is much greater. There's also the likelihood that many previous supporters of Davis and Fox may decide to vote for Cameron simply to increase the chance of it hastening the end of the election because they know he has all but won it. That's what i think will happen to some extent. If the election does end six weeks early, those who don't support Cameron won't be too amused, but i can't see Cameron supporters minding too much.

My prediction for the second round of voting.
Cameron: 108
Davis: 45
Fox: 45

After winning the 1st round prediction competition on PoliticalBetting.com I put in my 2nd round prediction yesterday which is a bit different to the one above (DC:96 - DD:51 - LF:51)


Result Update: The 198 votes were shared as follows...
Cameron: 90
Davis: 57
Fox: 51

I sense some tactical voting was involved to save Davis from third place.

Close

I was almost completely accurate in predicting Tuesday's Tory leadership vote. These were the actual results.
*my predictions in brackets.
Davis 62 (62)
Cameron 56 (56)
Fox 42 (40)
Clarke 38 (38)
I got them all right except for being two votes below Fox's total.
I wish I had given him those non-existent abstentions now.

Hmmm...maybe I should pick some lottery numbers this weekend.

Tory Leadership Election - Round 1

At last, the day has come. The first round of voting in the Tory leadership election takes place today with the result being announced at some time around 5:20pm.

Will the tory members get it right this time and elect someone who has half a chance of winning the next election? (or at least put Labour under pressure for the next four years). It will partly depend on what choice the MPs give them. The most likely scenario is a Cameron v Davis final. The general consensus is, that whoever Cameron is up against he will emerge as the winner. But what if a little bit of tactical voting goes on in rounds one or two? Is it possible that Cameron could be voted out this week and we'll be left with a Davis v Clarke final, or even worse a Davis v Fox final. After what happened to hot favourite Michael Portillo in 2001 nothing can be taken for granted. In the leadership election of 2001 Portillo had led the field by 10 and 8 votes in the first two rounds only to lose out on the reaching the membership vote when he finished one vote behind IDS in round three.
It's most likely Cameron will be elected leader in early December. I don't see the same happening to him as happened to Portillo. Some believe that Portillo was the victim of tactical voting, which isn't unlikely as the voting was very close. I think Cameron has strong enough support to avoid being prematurely ejected from the election in the same way. He has managed to keep the momentum going since his conference speech even though he has had "the question" weighing down on his shoulders for the past week. It's interesting to see that the issue regarding "the question" has had no obvious negative effect on his campaign. Five years ago it would have had a noticable detrimental effect.

His refusal to answer the question about drugs could well have had the opposite effect and brought his campaign to a halt and ended any hopes he had of becoming leader. It seemed that common sense thing to do would have been to answer the question as early on as possible to get it out of the way to prevent it hindering a crucial stage of the election campaign. I don't personally believe it would have done him any harm to have done that. But doing that would have almost certainly given the story a shorter shelf life and the amount of media exposure that Cameron had last week wouldn't have come about without it. Could the refusal to answer actually have been a brilliant piece of campaign strategy by the Cameron team to make sure their candidate would remain in the media spotlight all last week knowing his profile would be significantly raised among the general public with the story being prominently broadcast on every television, radio and newspaper for the duration of the story's life. The fact that very few people actually knew who he was had it's effect on the opinion polls. Clarke did well in the polling of the general public simply because he was the most well known Tory in the leadership line-up. Clarke is popular, there's no doubt about that, but I wonder how popular he will be after a year or two as leader. I feel he'd run out of steam if he should be unexpectedly elected leader. He would be a novelty for a while but for longer term success Cameron has to be the one chosen from the four candidates. As for Davis, he is summed up perfectly in the following...

"IDS with hair"
If the MPs don't give the members the choice of voting Cameron then they will effectively be handing Gordon Brown the keys to number 10 four years before the election even takes place.

The current odds are
Cameron 4/9 - Davis 11/4 - Fox 8/1 - Clarke 14/1.


Fox should do better than many forecasts suggest as he takes on board some of those covertly fleeing from Davis' rapdily sinking ship.

Liam Fox: "The George Bush of UK politics" (well, thats what they claim.. but they are usually Lib-Dem supporters)


I was impressed at how well Cameron dealt with "the question" question on last Thursday's Question Time, and the audience appeared to be warm towards the tory former Etonian throughout the whole programme, despite QT coming from Stanley, County Durham (which can hardly be considered to be a tory heartland). Rather than the drugs issue hindering his campaign it appears to have actually helped it which is illustrated clearly in the ever-tightening odds on a Cameron victory. In the aftermath of the QT I've become increasingly confident that Cameron will win the leadership vote (as long as he isn't knifed in the back by tactical voting)

Cameron managed to get through the weekend without any of the Sunday papers publishing evidence which could have killed his leadership hopes. He did seem very confident prior to the weekend that nothing was going to trip him up despite the fact that at least two sunday papers were supposedly digging deep to find something incriminating. Maybe he had absolute confidence that there was nothing to be found.

Cameron is the only one of the candidates who will be able lead the tories to an election victory in four years time (with plenty of hard work and a little luck)

Save the Conservative party (from itself)

Vote Cameron!

Here's my prediction for the first round.
Davis 62
Cameron 56
Fox 40
Clarke 38




Bye Bye Ken.

"Super-diversity" and the BBC

I find it odd that this article on the BBC is actually declared as being an "opinion". There seems to be less "opinion" in that article than in most other non-opinion articles on the BBC.

It certainly doesn't compare to this piece by Matt Wells published a couple of weeks ago. Astoundingly that article was published originally without "viewpoint" included in the title. I don't think its original absence was an error. It was more likely to have been deliberate. Only when people started to question such opinionated bilge did they add it to cover themselves. The BBC seems to be increasingly showing its true colours recently. They can't report on anything to do with Bush, or America in general without their biases showing through.

Those at the BBC ought to remember they are supposed to remain impartial.

We don't pay their license tax so that they can shove their one-sided political beliefs down our throats.

Tory leadership election

If you fancy a flutter on the upcoming Tory leadership election these are the latest odds from William Hill.

D Davis
8/13
K Clarke
2/1
D Cameron
6/1
L Fox
14/1
M Rifkind
20/1

It is very possible that any of the top three could win. Those three have their good and bad points. What would be perfect is a mix of all three.

As I've not been taking as much notice of politics and news for a while I think now might be a good time to read up on what's happening. I may even find out what David Cameron stands for before the votes are cast. I personally think the odds on Clarke winning aren't very generous. Shop around! (as they say) I'm sure I glimpsed some bookmaker elsewhere yesterday that was offering 4/1 on him winning, or maybe i just imagined it.

Paddy Power has it as an even closer contest

David Davis
4 - 7
Ken Clarke
2 - 1
David Cameron
4 - 1
Liam Fox
12 - 1
William Hague
16 - 1

If it wasn't for the BBC...

I would be so culturally unaware.

I got my fix of other cultures today (and now i feel good about myself) by clicking a link to an article which was about a new muslim faith centre being opened today somewhere in Britain (probably Cardiff) and Cat Stevens has the honour of opening it. His name isn't Cat anymore of course, it's Yusuf. Yusuf Islam. Every article you read about him has to contain the obligatory "previously known as..." or "formerly known as..." or to a lesser extent, "the artist formerly known as...". He's never going to get away from his past life.

I learned today that Cat, i mean, Yusuf, no I do mean Cat, became a muslim in 1977. Cat is one of the good guys - a moderate muslim. Lets forget the little problem of his [alleged]* funding of middle eastern terrorist groups.

Look, he's a moderate! ok? He is a fine figurehead for moderate muslims. Along with all those other moderates the media refers to who support the killing of innocent jews. Centre director

Sophie Gilliat-Ray said Cardiff was an ideal location for the venture because the city was home to one of the oldest Muslim communities in Britain. "Few people know that the first mosque in the UK was established in Cardiff in 1860," she said.

Wow, that's a long time ago. Maybe only "few" people know that fact because it isn't really relevant to the lives of the average briton in 2005.

Singer Islam opens faith centre

I think i'll go and impress people with my cardiff mosque knowledge now to show how culturally aware i am.

*I inserted [alleged] last. You can never be too careful.

I still haven't written the article promised in the last post. Be patient!

Tensions in Basra

Apparently two British soldiers were arrested yesterday in Basra for allegedly shooting at policemen (maybe they had good reason) and ended up in the hands of Shia militants. (Although, there does seem to be slightly differing accounts about what exactly happened, but isn't there always)

Dramatic stuff
All hell broke loose as tanks, armoured vehicles, and helicopters descended upon the police station where they had been held. But the soliders were no longer being held there (according to the Times and the BBC) and had been handed over to Shia militia. No doubt those at the police station quickly decided it was in their best interests to co-operate with people who had just come crashing through the walls in their tanks (it was an accident says the MOD and the mass escape of prisoners wasn't part of the plan) and they generously gave them information which led to the rescue operation being successfully completed at a nearby house just a few hours after the soliders had been seized.

Whilst all this was going on an angry mob saw an opportunity to express themselves by throwing petrol bombs at the armoured vehicles, with their occupants having to make a swift exit. (as is clearly evident in the above picture) and the video footage.

The Telegraph
Troops free SAS men from jail

I am always amused by the BBC and its habit of not publishing little facts that other news sources do. Nowhere on the page of the BBC article do they mention that the soldiers were special forces. The nearest they get to this is in a caption under a picture of the soliders whilst in captivity where it says "British officials would not say if the two men were working undercover"
A good clue might be in the fact that the MOD requested the media to conceal their identities.

We might be in an age where news arrives on our screens within minutes (or as it's happpening) but there are still times that you can find crucial little facts published, dare i say, in the Sun, many hours, or even days before the BBC touches them. The SAS example maybe minor in the grand scheme of things, but many more obvious examples are commonplace. The BBC isn't always so backward with delivering details, though, which brings me on neatly to my next post.

Not so neatly as i'd like, as i haven't written it yet.

Success!

I have somehow managed to add links! It's quite an achievement due to the fact this template doesn't have them pre-inserted. The longer i've been using the net and computers the more technologically incompetent i've become. I hate technology and technology hates me.

Am i back?

I do believe i am.

Blair's plane struck by lightning

So... Lightning does strike twice. First time being when he flew to Washington two years ago.

"BBC producer Will Walden said many of the journalists were asleep when the incident happened over London at about 1400 BST."

Is that what journalists usually do at two o'clock in the afternoon in the middle of a general election campaign? Haven't they got articles that need to be written and tight deadlines to be met? People generally sleep at night, and, as campaigning in the middle of the night is likely to be rather scarce wouldn't that be a good time to sleep?

One journalist was talking privately to Mr Blair and when she suggested the lightning strike could have been a missile, the Labour leader just shrugged his shoulders and "didn't bat an eyelid".

Sounds like Blair was asleep too.

Breaking news

There's been a defection from labour to the Lib Dems today.

It's Brian Sedgemore! What a shock. Can you believe it... i can't. Who would have thought that good ol' redder than red Brian would ever leave the bosom of the Labour party.

Hmmm... but wait a minute. Who the hell is Brian Sedgemore? I've never heard of him, and i don't think anyone else has either. Even the deputy Prime minister (that's John Prescott if you'd forgotten.. i regularly forget that Prescott even exists) claims he's never heard of him (slight exaggeration there, John?)

This is a non-story. No one will remember who Brian Sedgemore is in a week's time. They didn't know who he was last week and they won't know who he is next week.

I don't know which constituency he represented for 27 years. It's irrelevant anyway when you learn that he isn't even standing at this election. Do the lib dems believe that his defection will bring their party more votes? They can't seriously think that.

The headline on this story should be...
"Some former labour old codger emerges from the woodwork of the backbenches and tells us to vote for the nice Mr. Kennedy and not the nasty lying Tory Blair"

It's a non-story. If he had been a candidate at this election then it would have carried more weight, but he knows he has got nothing to lose. Most importantly... his seat.

Brian whatshisname asks Charlie Kennedy "who am i?" while Charlie looks on with a blank expression on his face.

No hair today... political career gone tomorrow

Oh no... It's back. I thought it had receded, but the importance of politicians' hair upon their electoral success has been brought to my attention again.

Bald truth about attracting voters

Apparently bald/balding politicians are at a major disadvantage. So my tongue-in-cheek remarks in the past about women voting for the party leader with the best hair-do may well contain some truth. Not that that little theory was my own creation, the mainstream media helpfully tipped me off a couple of elections ago. As the Blair/New Labour image machine sparked into life in the mid-90s it brought with it an increased focus on image rather than the substance of party policies.

Some might think i'm being sexist. If so, then i blame the BBC et al for bringing this image thing up at every election. I honestly don't believe that male voters' (in general) have their opinions swayed a great deal by how a politcian looks. You only have to look at the evidence from past elections to see that that belief holds water (and plenty of it).

It was Blair that increased the number of women voting for his party. Obviously Neil Kinnock just didn't appeal to them. (Thatcher's hair was clarly something Kinnock just couldn't compete with)

I mean, just look at the evidence.

Poor guy, he never had a chance did he.

What was Labour thinking of. They let a bald man lead their party to 3 consecutive general election defeats and even when he almost got Labour into govt they threw it away at the last minute with the victory celebration (otherwise known as the Sheffield rally, the night before the polls opened). Looking back it's hard to figure out why Kinnock was leader for so long. Was there no one else seen as being a suitable leader? (a bit like a latter day tory party). At least with the tories you know they will elect a new leader after every defeat. So that's something to look forward to.

Hair apparent (sorry I couldn't resist it)
If hair really is so important then I suggest Michael Howard resigns immediately and...

Step forth Mr. Boris Johnson... your country needs you!

It's ok Boris, Mr. Howard probably won't stand down yet.. at least not for a few days.

The blatant bias of the BBC

The news that BBC employees provided microphones for hecklers during a speech last Wednesday by Tory leader Michael Howard is absolutely scandalous! Heads should roll, and not just of those immediately involved. This incident goes to show how virulent the culture of left-wing bias is in the corporation which is supposed to be politically impartial, but time and time again evidence shows that this obviously isn't the case.

Two of the slogans the hecklers were shouting were....

"Michael Howard is a liar"

"You can only trust Tony Blair"

Yeah, maybe they're right. That's the kind of guy that Blair is. Trustworthy.

(don't mention the dossier)

The conservatives have made a complaint. A letter of complaint to the BBC. They should be making this into a much bigger issue. The letter should be just the beginning.

They claim the BBC equipped three hecklers at the meeting in Horwich near Bolton last Wednesday with microphones to “generate a false news story...and embarrass or ridicule the leader of the Conservative Party”.

Tories Accuse BBC of Bias after Hecklers Target Howard

The tories haven't got a chance of electoral victory when they're not only fighting Labour, but also the BBC. It's about time the BBC balanced the political leanings of it's employees a little more evenly. It's well known that a large percentage of BBC staff are on the left of politics, and those in the minority who are more conservative generally keep their heads down.

It's not always easy to figure out what is bias and what isn't. It's hard to prove that a specific article is biased. In my opinion the BBC is as biased as they think they can get away with. Subtle propaganda is probably the most effective, as it can be drip fed to the masses much of the time.

The BBC does report the heckling story on the election page but it's only a text link.
Tory anger over BBC heckler show

The scandal is more important than that. It should be the top story.

Some good news

The latest crime figures are down! That's something worth celebrating. Although violent crime is up yet again. Hardly a surprise there. (cancel the champagne)

You may be more likely to be shot, stabbed, brutally beaten and left for dead, but look on the bright side, your car radio is less likely to be stolen.

Apparently Labour prefers the British crime survey figures. Now i wonder why that is? I think there's a clue in the graphic at the bottom of the BBC article.

Violent crime 'on the rise'

A couple of "minor disturbances"

When an electoral candidate receives death threats from some of the very people he believes he's representing you know things are getting serious.

But when its George Galloway having a fatwa put on his head by extremist muslims, its hard not to find some amusement.

It's obvious they have no respect for your party, George.

'Islamists' hit Galloway meeting

It comes immediately in the wake of the disturbance at the MCB manifesto launch. It's starting to become a regular occurence. No doubt more will happen before election day.

At the rate things are going somebody is going to get hurt!

Poll Tracker tracked down

No need to worry, the tracker is still working away here.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Now, unless I've developed some kind of selective vision disorder the BBC appears to have removed the rather handy poll tracker from their Election 2005 pages. Or at least the link to it is missing. It was there at the weekend. I had been finding useful and made many visits, the last being two or three days ago when I was confronted by the shocking ICM poll which gave Labour a 10 point lead. A cup of hot sweet tea and a lie down in a darkened room was required. That explains why I haven't been back until now.

The election is all but over. The politically battered and bruised Blair will somehow manage to win a third term and the Tories are still pretty much lost in the wilderness. It was always very likely Blair would win, but my hope was that the Tories would make serious inroads into the Labour majority. The signs at the moment suggest whatever the majority is cut by it won't be cut by the amount that either I or the Tories were expecting.