The Fourth Lectern - A 2010 Election TL

AndyC

Donor
From A Highly Unusual Election, by Greg Callus

The 2010 General Election in the United Kingdom ended with a result that, although in many ways not completely improbable, surprised nearly everybody after a roller-coaster ride of a campaign. Conservative candidates were dropped due to very unwise statements, the famous “Bigot-gate” episode occurred just before the third debate, even an Elvis Presley walk-on had its part to play, but the pivotal incident happened nearly a month before polling day.


It is widely acknowledged that the debates were crucial. Not just what happened in them – although that’s been widely commented on – but the very fact that they happened and, far more importantly, their composition.
Before the first debate, the standing in the opinion polls had been coming closer, and on the eve of the event itself, they stood as follows (poll of polls):


Conservatives: 38%
Labour: 32%
Liberal Democrats: 18%

No-one had any inkling of what was going to happen.
 

AndyC

Donor
From A Highly Unusual Election, by Greg Callus

The ruling that the debates would consist of “the leaders of parties standing in a majority of seats, who already have representation in the House of Commons” was widely agreed to have been phrased very carefully to ensure the exclusion of the BNP, despite the official argument that it restricted the floor to only those Party Leaders with a real (however miniscule) chance of winning a majority at the General Election. The SNP and Plaid Cymru were loudly annoyed and the BNP were up in arms about it.


Transcript of an unbroadcast interview with Mark Thompson, BBC Director-General

MT: Well, we were caught in a cleft stick. We had to find some way of ensuring that the Liberal Democrats were represented – a head-to-head between only Gordon Brown and David Cameron was unthinkable. This, unfortunately, opened us up to challenges, as it was obvious that the Liberal Democrats didn’t really have any chance at a majority. If we’d added in the SNP, we’d have had to add Plaid Cymru as well, and then George Galloway would be on the warpath … so our initial idea was to claim we were restricting it to only parties standing in sufficient constituencies that they could – mathematically – gain a majority.

Interviewer: But that’s not the formulation you published, is it?

MT: No. We were told that the Greens were confident they’d hit more than 325 candidates, UKIP already had them, and the BNP were looking like they’d manage it as well. We’d have closed the door on Alex Salmond simply to open it for Nick Griffin!

Interviewer: So … ?

MT: So we came up with the form of words that we in the BBC would use– and the other broadcasters would follow our lead in this [editor’s note: Mark Thompson appears to be glossing over a number of reportedly difficult conversations with the Sky News management over whether the BBC were being “too clever by half”]. None of the minor parties had representation in the Commons – yet – so we threw in the words “with existing House of Commons representation”. Nice and tidy, we thought.

Interviewer: You weren’t expecting Bob Spink to suddenly rejoin UKIP, were you?

MT: No – that came totally out of the blue. It was a surprise even to our political analysts – they thought Spink had burned his bridges with UKIP following the vote on the Damian Green affair, but UKIP were ruthless. They didn’t care much as long as they got the position in the debates. Look at what happened to poor Lord Pearson.

Interviewer: Unceremoniously “resigned” as Leader of UKIP due to being ineligible to be PM from the Lords.

MT: And the fact that he’d be destroyed in the debates. There wasn’t even time for speculation over whether Spink would be the nominated leader. Nigel Farage had already shot himself in the foot with his resignation to pursue John Bercow, so Tim Congdon was catapulted out of comparative obscurity to become a household name. We’d have to put up four lecterns after all.
 
Last edited:

AndyC

Donor
It was down to Stuart Wheeler - as a canny businessman he recognised the advertising opportunity. For Spink, the argument was "Do you want to be re-elected or not?" and the chance of a UKIP surge giving him more votes ended up being irresistible.

For UKIP, it was rather harder and there was almost a schism, but in the end, the Golden Rule won out (He who has the Gold makes the Rules). The winning argument was "we only need him on board for the debates - we can kick him out again after the election if necessary". Plus an extra few tens of thousands for more election literature and some more deposits.

They only needed everyone to play along for a couple of weeks until the first debate and relied on success being its own temptation afterwards - as long as they got the boost they were after.
 
I'm guessing that UKIP will steal some seats from all the parties and be able to give the Tories a majority but Cameron really doesn't want to go in a coalition with them but the grassroots and backbenchers do and a behind-the-scenes Tory war commences.
 

AndyC

Donor
Reuters, 15th April 2010.

"(Reuters) – Tim Congdon, a rank outsider to become Britain's next prime minister, upstaged the three main candidates in an unprecedented televised debate on Thursday, according to snap polls of viewers.
With a national election due on May 6, millions of voters are still undecided and the 90-minute live broadcast was a crucial opportunity for the candidates to make their mark in a campaign that has struggled to generate excitement.

Congdon, 58, was judged the clear winner of the clash with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, of the center-left Labour Party, David Cameron, of the center-right Conservatives and Chris Huhne, of the centrist Liberal Democrat Party.

FOUR MEN IN THE SPOTLIGHT

The TV debate was a rare chance for Huhne, 55, to stand on an equal footing with Brown, 59, and Cameron, 43, and it had been expected that the Liberal Democrat leader would make some ground, but that Cameron would triumph. Surprisingly, Cameron seemed “flat” and Huhne was unable to capitalise. Initially nervous, Congdon grew more fluent as he spoke and was the only one of the four to address the camera rather than the audience.

Opinion polls before the debate suggested the Conservatives are ahead, with Labour in second and the Liberal Democrats in third. But the Conservative lead is not big enough for them to be sure of an overall majority in parliament.

Sterling hit a one-week high against the euro on Thursday, helped by an opinion poll suggesting the Conservatives might win an overall majority, but the currency has been laboring under investors' fears of a hung parliament, and that poll now looks like a rogue.

Congdon, a former member of the Treasury Panel of Independent Forecasters (the so-called “wise men”) between 1992 and 1997 during the recovery from the last recession, had the economic credibility to argue with Brown, who was finance minister for 10 years before taking over from Tony Blair as prime minister in 2007, when the latter tried to portray himself as the best steward of the economy."


From: No longer singing the Blues, by Jenny Rodgers

Steve Hilton – Of course it was a total surprise. I still don’t know why David was so off-key. He’d done wonderfully during the practice sessions and during the thought showers when we gamed the possible outcomes. I do wonder whether it was because there were three rather than two opponents. A square rather than a triangle, you see. We never thought of setting that up. When you think about it, that has to make a huge difference. Of course Congdon got the “outsider” buzz, and somehow his links with the Selsdon Group and influence on the monetarist and Thatcherist debate in the Seventies and Eighties got seized on as a positive in the media. The Daily Mail were totally off-message for us, and the Telegraph went simply loopy. Huhne was all but anonymous, which surprised us.

Andy Coulson – The problem was that Dave always provided his best performances when his back was against the wall. I wouldn’t say that we took it for granted that he’d ace the debates – but in a way, we did. We put in the effort, practiced debates – George always did a great Gordon Brown, and Michael Gove could play the part of Chris Huhne down to a tee – but we were really thinking about the next step of the campaign. I was trying to get Dave to tone down the “Big Society” theme, George was considering what red meat he could throw to the C2’s, because our polling was showing these as a weak point … and then this happened.

The thing is – Congdon wasn’t really that good. Oh, he knew his stuff, especially on the economics front, and he came over as a kind of “safe hands” bank manager – but his performance was almost wooden in some parts. He came alive at the start and about a third of the way through, and produced a great finish, but apart from that – not so much. However, he was looking at the camera and the other three weren’t and the critical bit that came out in the analysis of the polling afterwards was that the three main leaders kept trying to dismiss him. Brown was trying to praise Huhne, Huhne was very much against the UKIP platform and Dave was very aware of the threat to his right wing. Then there was that ridiculous bit where Dave was arguing that his elected Police Chiefs were sensible but Congdon’s elected Police Chiefs were not –that was never going to look good.

So we had the disastrous image of the “establishment” parties closing ranks against the outsider, who seemed highly credible and sensible. Add that the three establishment leaders weren’t looking the viewer “in the eye” and the outsider was, and there’s the explanation for what happened.
 
Very interesting. Surely, though, no Nick Clegg means bigotgate is likely to be butterflied? Or, given the attitudes of Brown and friends, will this be a different complaint from a Labour voter than gets much the same response?

I have to say, I'm intrigued. Could a strong UKIP showing allow Labour to remain the largest party, by badly splitting the Conservative vote?
 

AndyC

Donor
Bigot-gate will be going ahead - I couldn't miss that out :) . There's still tension over migration, and Brown's personality is unchanged.
 
Opening...

A good start to what looks like an interesting TL. I can fully appreciate that Tim Congdon would shine on economic issues and of course on foreign policy. I'm less convinced UKIP's socially conservative agenda would have resonated so well on the first debate which was about domestic policy.

I'm less happy you've put in Huhne instead of Clegg - in a sense, you've created a second POD for the timeline which I try to avoid. Others on here do it differently and write more to themes and ideas - I've already tried to play it accurately with key individuals and events until the POD and then it's a question of analysing how the same individuals would deal with a different situation.

That small niggle aside, I'm subscribed.
 

AndyC

Donor
Hi Stodge.

Actually, your first point is the narrative cause of the second. Andy Coulson's analysis above is accurate - it wasn't how well the bear danced but that it danced at all. The content of what he said was less important than how he said it and how the others seemed to try to exclude him from their "cosy club". Of course the Mail, Telegraph and Sun would adore the domestic policies, but the details would not be too important to most of the voters.

That's why I - narratively - needed Nick Clegg to not be at the debate. His method of looking at the camera and being the "fresh face" would have spiked Congdon before he even got started, and more attention would have been focussed on the policies themselves. Indeed, as it turns out, this is the ideal location for the domestic debate for UKIP - the one where novelty and a flat performance by the other leaders will paper over the details for them. At least, that's my logic.

There's one more - very minor - PoD coming up (a change of dates for something that occurred in the run-up to the election, but the same event), but it was just perfect for the narrative. The effects are far more useful in this timeline than in our own - it's almost as if the event slipped between timelines and didn't latch on to our own in exactly the right place.
 

AndyC

Donor
The Times, 16th April 2010

Dr Congdon performed admirably in the debate last night but has to do more to convince The Times that UKIP is more than a one-trick pony. His comment that between £20 and £40 of a basket of groceries was due to the Common Agricultural Policy will have hit home with cash-strapped voters, many of whom will not take the time to check whether or not this statement is true. Mr Brown’s attempt to derail the debate onto economic matters was a blunder and made the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Leaders look irrelevant. Mr Congdon and Mr Brown took chunks out of each other, but Mr Congdon’s damning indictment of the Labour Government’s strategy of running a deficit during “an unsustainable boom fuelled by deliberate debt and financial pyramid schemes made possible by your [Mr Brown’s] dereliction of duty” will probably have more of an immediate impact than the estimate that we could achieve an immediate greater reduction in public spending than the Conservative’s in-year proposals without any cuts at all – simply by withdrawing from the EU. The latter, however, will have more of a slow-burner effect.


The Sunday Telegraph, 18th April 2010

Can UKIP break through? Our latest poll shows a massive surge for the Eurosceptic “sound money” party of the Centre Right, with most of the damage occurring to the previously dominant Tories. Labour and the Conservatives are level on 30% each, with the Lib Dems on 18% and UKIP coming up close behind on 15%.
Our analysts say that this won’t give UKIP many seats, if any, but could seriously damage David Cameron’s drive to become Prime Minister and leave the country deadlocked in a Hung Parliament – with Chris Huhne potentially holding the balance of power. However, if UKIP pulled sufficient support from both main parties to draw level on 25%, a further boost could see Professor Congdon’s party sweep the board.


Express on Sunday, 18th April 2010

Politics in Britain has been caught in a spiral of decay for far too long. Until last Thursday, we couldn’t see any way out of this swamp, but Professor Tim Congdon provided the alternative view that this country has needed. A vote for UKIP will help to sweep away the pointless red tape that has strangled Britain and show that we are, at last, back in business. The biggest hurdle to a UKIP Government is the belief that they cannot win. Boffins have calculated that if just a quarter of the country vote UKIP, we can have this Government.
 
The Conservative nightmares have become reality, UKIP have broken through! :D

I'm guessing this would be the end of Cameron, at least if things stay this way, he'll have gone down in the share of vote and probably gained less seats than Howard.
 
Last edited:

AndyC

Donor
Politicalbetting.com, 19th April 2010

Labour move into the lead with YouGov, UKIP up to 20%
Code:
  [FONT=Courier New]YouGov daily poll – Sun    19th April    18th April
  [/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=red]Labour[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                           29           29
  [/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#1f497d]Conservatives[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                    26           28
  [/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#5f497a]UKIP[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                             20           17    
  [/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#ffc000]Lib Dems[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                         18           19[/FONT]
Lib Dems pushed to fourth place by UKIP

The UKIP surge appears to have survived the weekend and shows no sign of abating. Has there really been a step-change in opinion barely two-and-a-half weeks before polling day?

UPDATED – MORI confirms the UKIP trend, but with the Blue Team ahead

Code:
  [FONT=Courier New]Ipsos-Mori                   19th April    22nd March
  [/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#1f497d]Conservatives[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                    29           35
  [/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=red]Labour[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                           27           30
  [/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#5f497a]UKIP[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                             20           6    
  [/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#ffc000]Lib Dems[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                         16           21[/FONT]
Should we have seen it coming? Looking back at the March MORI poll, we see that UKIP were already off of the ground on 6%.

SECOND UPDATE – ICM have a dead heat, with Lib Dems a comfortable third

Code:
   [FONT=Courier New]ICM                          19th April    15th April
  [/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#1f497d]Conservatives[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                    31           34
  [/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=red]Labour[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                           31           30
  [/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#ffc000]Lib Dems[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                         18           24[/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#5f497a]
  UKIP[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                             13           4    
 [/FONT]
577 Comments to “Labour move into the lead on YouGov, UKIP up to 20%”

1. Heh. The Congasm continues.
TomK

2. Mike, are you aware of the Mori? Sandal-wearers sliding further
The Howling Hawks

 
Very interesting, I think it would take a bit more that 25% ratings for the Kippers to get in power, but 25% would get some elected and add to the gaiety of the commons.
 
Four-Party Politics..

Good to see pb getting a mention though I presume any similarity between "The Howling Hawks" and "The Screaming Eagles" is purely coincidental.

The problem UKIP have is that there is barely room in the British political system for three parties let alone four. The breakaway Owenite SDP couldn't manage it and neither did Mosley's New Party so 15% for UKIP will mean a lot of votes but no more than one or two seats.

Oddly enough, the fragmentation of the third party votes between the LDs, UKIP and others allows the Conservatives and Labour to prosper even on a combined vote share of 60% or less.
 
Top