And could "TomK" be "SeanT?!" A ""Tim" would be good but please no "Ash" or "BenM!!"
Great thread Andy! Interesting to see how it develops!
The Fourth Lectern - A 2010 Election TL
- Thread starter AndyC
- Start date
And could "TomK" be "SeanT?!" A ""Tim" would be good but please no "Ash" or "BenM!!"
Great thread Andy! Interesting to see how it develops!
Didn't the Ash astroturfer appear after the election.
I think we should have a Gabble (and a JackW).
AndyC
Donor
Thanks for the comments, guys - much appreciated.
stodge - you may very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment
The Oncoming Storm - Yup; think about that poster's nome de plume.
The Red - beware extrapolating from a UNS - especially in this circumstance where a fourth party will be taking different elements from the cores of the other three (blazered ex-Colonels from the Tories, WWC from Labour and protest voters/none of the above from the Lib Dems). There will also be differential swings in different regions and in rural and urban seats, dependant on where the UKIP vote is coming from.
Also - it depends on when you're doing the UNS swing - UNS now gives rather different results from UNS from before the election (for example, the actual vote shares won should have produced a Tory seat share in the 280's rather than 300's. There will be an interview with a respected psephologist later in the Timeline who will cover this in depth - but even under 3 parties, take all projections as +/- 30 seats for the Big Two and +/- 10 seats for the Lib Dems at best (assuming perfect accuracy of the polls).
And I couldn't resist the name "The Congasm" for the UKIP surge ...
(Oh, and that MORI poll from March 22nd putting UKIP on 6%. Actually happened in OTL as well.)
stodge - you may very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment
The Oncoming Storm - Yup; think about that poster's nome de plume.
The Red - beware extrapolating from a UNS - especially in this circumstance where a fourth party will be taking different elements from the cores of the other three (blazered ex-Colonels from the Tories, WWC from Labour and protest voters/none of the above from the Lib Dems). There will also be differential swings in different regions and in rural and urban seats, dependant on where the UKIP vote is coming from.
Also - it depends on when you're doing the UNS swing - UNS now gives rather different results from UNS from before the election (for example, the actual vote shares won should have produced a Tory seat share in the 280's rather than 300's. There will be an interview with a respected psephologist later in the Timeline who will cover this in depth - but even under 3 parties, take all projections as +/- 30 seats for the Big Two and +/- 10 seats for the Lib Dems at best (assuming perfect accuracy of the polls).
And I couldn't resist the name "The Congasm" for the UKIP surge ...
(Oh, and that MORI poll from March 22nd putting UKIP on 6%. Actually happened in OTL as well.)
AndyC
Donor
From A Highly Unusual Election, by Greg Callus
Why did UKIP succeed in the first debate? Many thought that domestic policies would be the weak link for the party and they would fall flat on their faces out of the starting blocks. The initial analysts’ conclusions on Congdon’s success was that he had succeeded simply as an outsider, in spite of the subject of the debate. That the “establishment” parties, uniting against him, had given him the legitimacy of an iconoclast banned for preaching truth.
However, had this been the case, the UKIP surge could yet have fallen stillborn as the cold light of day played over their proposals as showcased on ITV. The actual reality is that the questions could hardly have been better chosen to emphasise the most populist of UKIP’s domestic proposals. Of the ninety minutes of the debate, a stopwatch shows that the subjects covered were:
- Introduction and opening statements by Party Leaders – 5 minutes
- Immigration - 13 minutes
- Burglary/Crime/Policing - 14 minutes
- Politicians’ Expenses – 18 minutes
- Education – 10 minutes
- Economy/Deficit – 15 minutes
- Defence – 10 minutes
- Wrap up/final statements – 5 minutes
The introductions provided the ideal launch pad for UKIP, as all three of the major Party leaders failed to resist the urge to take pot-shots at the minor Party, whilst Dr Congdon happily returned fire in all directions. His style of addressing the audience at home underlined his strategy. Immigration proved the perfect opening line for the right-wing party, highlighting the implausibility of major reductions being achieved in net immigration whilst the UK remained in the EU. UKIP’s policing proposals then appeared similar to the Conservatives, and Mr Cameron’s vehement disagreement with Dr Congdon badly damaged the Conservative Leader.
The question on politicians’ expenses that followed could have been a live grenade for UKIP, as their MEPs have hardly shone in this domain, but the attempts by the major party leaders to steer the debate in the direction of European Parliament expenses to shine the spotlight on the UKIP misfeasance came across as clumsy and transparent. Congdon’s repeated insistence that Westminster was where politics needed to be cleared up was inarguable and he undoubtedly benefited due to the anti-politician buzz.
The on-screen “worm” showed that during the debate section on Education, Congdon fell back into the pack and even lagged at times, but the shift to the Economy and the deficit revitalised him. After his tour-de-force demolition of the Prime Minister, the final question on Defence provided the perfect finale – UKIP’s proposals for large increases in Defence spending ringing the populist bell. With a credible economic spokesman insisting on their affordability, audience applause could not be denied, despite the rules of the debate.
In a later interview, Alistair Stewart insisted that the questions and their order was strictly audience-provided and that if time had not run out, the next questions were on healthcare and social care, which would arguably have proved a more difficult area for Congdon to sell UKIP’s policies. The inescapable conclusion is simply that the perfect storm occurred for Tim Congdon between 8:30 and 10:00pm on Thursday 15th April 2010.
The question on the lips of most political commentators, of course, was how well he'd do in the second debate, as the lecterns were set up in Bristol. Received opinion was that this would be a strong area for the Eurosceptic party.
Why did UKIP succeed in the first debate? Many thought that domestic policies would be the weak link for the party and they would fall flat on their faces out of the starting blocks. The initial analysts’ conclusions on Congdon’s success was that he had succeeded simply as an outsider, in spite of the subject of the debate. That the “establishment” parties, uniting against him, had given him the legitimacy of an iconoclast banned for preaching truth.
However, had this been the case, the UKIP surge could yet have fallen stillborn as the cold light of day played over their proposals as showcased on ITV. The actual reality is that the questions could hardly have been better chosen to emphasise the most populist of UKIP’s domestic proposals. Of the ninety minutes of the debate, a stopwatch shows that the subjects covered were:
- Introduction and opening statements by Party Leaders – 5 minutes
- Immigration - 13 minutes
- Burglary/Crime/Policing - 14 minutes
- Politicians’ Expenses – 18 minutes
- Education – 10 minutes
- Economy/Deficit – 15 minutes
- Defence – 10 minutes
- Wrap up/final statements – 5 minutes
The introductions provided the ideal launch pad for UKIP, as all three of the major Party leaders failed to resist the urge to take pot-shots at the minor Party, whilst Dr Congdon happily returned fire in all directions. His style of addressing the audience at home underlined his strategy. Immigration proved the perfect opening line for the right-wing party, highlighting the implausibility of major reductions being achieved in net immigration whilst the UK remained in the EU. UKIP’s policing proposals then appeared similar to the Conservatives, and Mr Cameron’s vehement disagreement with Dr Congdon badly damaged the Conservative Leader.
The question on politicians’ expenses that followed could have been a live grenade for UKIP, as their MEPs have hardly shone in this domain, but the attempts by the major party leaders to steer the debate in the direction of European Parliament expenses to shine the spotlight on the UKIP misfeasance came across as clumsy and transparent. Congdon’s repeated insistence that Westminster was where politics needed to be cleared up was inarguable and he undoubtedly benefited due to the anti-politician buzz.
The on-screen “worm” showed that during the debate section on Education, Congdon fell back into the pack and even lagged at times, but the shift to the Economy and the deficit revitalised him. After his tour-de-force demolition of the Prime Minister, the final question on Defence provided the perfect finale – UKIP’s proposals for large increases in Defence spending ringing the populist bell. With a credible economic spokesman insisting on their affordability, audience applause could not be denied, despite the rules of the debate.
In a later interview, Alistair Stewart insisted that the questions and their order was strictly audience-provided and that if time had not run out, the next questions were on healthcare and social care, which would arguably have proved a more difficult area for Congdon to sell UKIP’s policies. The inescapable conclusion is simply that the perfect storm occurred for Tim Congdon between 8:30 and 10:00pm on Thursday 15th April 2010.
The question on the lips of most political commentators, of course, was how well he'd do in the second debate, as the lecterns were set up in Bristol. Received opinion was that this would be a strong area for the Eurosceptic party.
Last edited:
AndyC
Donor
As an aside
(It's almost scary how history seems to be conspiring to help make all this plausible - that is the actual order of questions from the first debate IOTL - I simply upscaled the times dedicated to each subject by four-thirds to account for the extra protagonists, so healthcare and social care dropped off of the end. Almost perfect UKIP-fodder, as it turned out)
(It's almost scary how history seems to be conspiring to help make all this plausible - that is the actual order of questions from the first debate IOTL - I simply upscaled the times dedicated to each subject by four-thirds to account for the extra protagonists, so healthcare and social care dropped off of the end. Almost perfect UKIP-fodder, as it turned out)
Might that right wing defect to UKIP if the minor party gains seats at Westminster?
AndyC
Donor
An interview with Lembit Opik, shortly after the General Election
Interviewer: Turning to the debates, you were overheard making a comment about Fate having chosen the wrong leader for the Lib Dems?
Opik: Well, yes, but it wasn’t meant very seriously.
Interviewer: Then how was it meant? And we’re not talking about the famous “Curse of Lembit”, are we?
Opik: I just said that if that last batch of votes had been delayed during the leadership election – you know that the final postal votes came in just before the close of ballots and with the Christmas post the way it is, they could easily have been delayed?
Interviewer: -chuckles- Definitely.
Opik: Well, the final thousand or so ballots were overwhelmingly towards Chris. Without them, Nick would have won by a hair’s breadth. As it was, Chris’s majority was only 77 votes.
Interviewer: So what difference would that have made?
Opik: Well, I don’t mean any criticism of Chris, of course, but Nick was the younger man, more on the Orange Book wing of the Party and – basically – would have come across as a bit more like David Cameron. I mean - the image that Cameron wanted to present - fresh faced, young, a 'new broom', sensible, in touch, but sound on the financial side. So when Congdon took the attack to Cameron from the right and the Tories fell behind in the polls, we could have been in a better position to pick off frustrated Tories from the left.
Interviewer: I’m sorry, Mr Opik, but that theory seems, well, way out in space …
Opik: -glares-
Interviewer: Turning to the debates, you were overheard making a comment about Fate having chosen the wrong leader for the Lib Dems?
Opik: Well, yes, but it wasn’t meant very seriously.
Interviewer: Then how was it meant? And we’re not talking about the famous “Curse of Lembit”, are we?
Opik: I just said that if that last batch of votes had been delayed during the leadership election – you know that the final postal votes came in just before the close of ballots and with the Christmas post the way it is, they could easily have been delayed?
Interviewer: -chuckles- Definitely.
Opik: Well, the final thousand or so ballots were overwhelmingly towards Chris. Without them, Nick would have won by a hair’s breadth. As it was, Chris’s majority was only 77 votes.
Interviewer: So what difference would that have made?
Opik: Well, I don’t mean any criticism of Chris, of course, but Nick was the younger man, more on the Orange Book wing of the Party and – basically – would have come across as a bit more like David Cameron. I mean - the image that Cameron wanted to present - fresh faced, young, a 'new broom', sensible, in touch, but sound on the financial side. So when Congdon took the attack to Cameron from the right and the Tories fell behind in the polls, we could have been in a better position to pick off frustrated Tories from the left.
Interviewer: I’m sorry, Mr Opik, but that theory seems, well, way out in space …
Opik: -glares-
AndyC
Donor
From A Highly Unusual Election, by Greg Callus
The second debate was widely held to be nearly a four-way tie, much to the surprise of a number of analysts, who’d expected that Foreign Affairs would be a more fertile ground for the anti-EU party. Tim Congdon fought his ground well, but Chris Huhne rose to the challenge and argued his case strongly. Gordon Brown also improved considerably and David Cameron was at last on sparkling form. The immediate polls after the debate were completely split on the winner, most giving it to Huhne by a very short head from Cameron. However, both Congdon and Brown were agreed to have pushed them very close.
Congdon lost ground by Huhne managing to portray him as a leap in the dark. Congdon’s assertion that UKIP could take the UK out of the EU without a referendum – using the argument that if UKIP were in power, they’d have a democratic mandate for such action – gave Huhne the chance to look more reasonable by proposing an in/out referendum on EU membership if the Lib Dems came into power. Although Congdon swiftly rowed back and agreed that a referendum was the sensible way forward, some damage had been done. Brown lost no time in linking UKIP to “nutters” in the EU Parliament, but blunted his own attack by widening the scope to the Conservatives own links with alleged extremists.
UKIP regained some lost territory with their support for higher spending on Defence and definitely came out on top in that section of the debate, but when climate change, nuclear power and – slightly bizarrely – the Pope’s visit to the UK came under discussion, started to look rather rattled.
The restoration of faith in politics didn’t provide as fertile a ground for UKIP as it had the previous week – in fact only Huhne came out of this section ahead. Pensioner issues and carers were a score-draw all round before the conversation finally lurched to Congdon’s strongest point – the economy. But it was probably too little, too late.
Politicalbetting.com, 22nd April 2010
The Second Debate – opening thread.
All eyes are looking to Bristol this evening for the second Leaders’ Debate. In order to ease demands on the servers, a second thread will open at 9:10pm. Please switch at this time.
482 Comments to “The Second Debate – opening thread”
…
84. Good opening statements from all four.
JamesW
85. Congdon intro best again. Huhne second and Cameron and Brown equal last. WTF was Cammo doing banging on about the Big Society?
TomK
86. I wonder if Brown’s ears will get steadily pinker again?
gbpaul
…
188. Oops – cockup by Congdon there. Huhne jumps on it and offers a referendum. Has he shot UKIP’s fox?
TomK
…
236. Go on Brown, go the whole hog and say Latvian Waffen SS.
Slickbladder
…
334. Ooh. Brown has had his porridge. But Congdon coming back hard (oo-er) on Defence.
The Howling Hawks.
…
477. The Pope? Seriously? WTF?
TomK
…
The second debate was widely held to be nearly a four-way tie, much to the surprise of a number of analysts, who’d expected that Foreign Affairs would be a more fertile ground for the anti-EU party. Tim Congdon fought his ground well, but Chris Huhne rose to the challenge and argued his case strongly. Gordon Brown also improved considerably and David Cameron was at last on sparkling form. The immediate polls after the debate were completely split on the winner, most giving it to Huhne by a very short head from Cameron. However, both Congdon and Brown were agreed to have pushed them very close.
Congdon lost ground by Huhne managing to portray him as a leap in the dark. Congdon’s assertion that UKIP could take the UK out of the EU without a referendum – using the argument that if UKIP were in power, they’d have a democratic mandate for such action – gave Huhne the chance to look more reasonable by proposing an in/out referendum on EU membership if the Lib Dems came into power. Although Congdon swiftly rowed back and agreed that a referendum was the sensible way forward, some damage had been done. Brown lost no time in linking UKIP to “nutters” in the EU Parliament, but blunted his own attack by widening the scope to the Conservatives own links with alleged extremists.
UKIP regained some lost territory with their support for higher spending on Defence and definitely came out on top in that section of the debate, but when climate change, nuclear power and – slightly bizarrely – the Pope’s visit to the UK came under discussion, started to look rather rattled.
The restoration of faith in politics didn’t provide as fertile a ground for UKIP as it had the previous week – in fact only Huhne came out of this section ahead. Pensioner issues and carers were a score-draw all round before the conversation finally lurched to Congdon’s strongest point – the economy. But it was probably too little, too late.
Politicalbetting.com, 22nd April 2010
The Second Debate – opening thread.
All eyes are looking to Bristol this evening for the second Leaders’ Debate. In order to ease demands on the servers, a second thread will open at 9:10pm. Please switch at this time.
482 Comments to “The Second Debate – opening thread”
…
84. Good opening statements from all four.
JamesW
85. Congdon intro best again. Huhne second and Cameron and Brown equal last. WTF was Cammo doing banging on about the Big Society?
TomK
86. I wonder if Brown’s ears will get steadily pinker again?
gbpaul
…
188. Oops – cockup by Congdon there. Huhne jumps on it and offers a referendum. Has he shot UKIP’s fox?
TomK
…
236. Go on Brown, go the whole hog and say Latvian Waffen SS.
Slickbladder
…
334. Ooh. Brown has had his porridge. But Congdon coming back hard (oo-er) on Defence.
The Howling Hawks.
…
477. The Pope? Seriously? WTF?
TomK
…
AndyC
Donor
Reuters, 23rd April 2010
"(Reuters) - The main candidates to lead Britain after a May 6 election sought on Thursday to fend off a surprise challenge from a smaller party in a lively TV debate, but there was no undisputed winner.
Frontrunners David Cameron and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, together with third party leader Chris Huhne were under pressure to halt the rise of the United Kingdom Independence Party leader Tim Congdon after he outshone them in an earlier debate.
"An awful lot of fire was turned on Congdon, and I think they got him on the ropes, but not on the canvas," Tim Johns, politics professor at Liverpool University, told Reuters.
Thursday's clash, on issues from Afghanistan to Europe and pensions to the Pope, was the second of a series of three planned for the campaign -- the first time in British history that the main party leaders have taken part in TV debates.
Two snap polls after Thursday's contest gave conflicting results, though both suggested that the performances were more balanced than a week ago when Congdon was the clear winner.
..."
"(Reuters) - The main candidates to lead Britain after a May 6 election sought on Thursday to fend off a surprise challenge from a smaller party in a lively TV debate, but there was no undisputed winner.
Frontrunners David Cameron and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, together with third party leader Chris Huhne were under pressure to halt the rise of the United Kingdom Independence Party leader Tim Congdon after he outshone them in an earlier debate.
"An awful lot of fire was turned on Congdon, and I think they got him on the ropes, but not on the canvas," Tim Johns, politics professor at Liverpool University, told Reuters.
Thursday's clash, on issues from Afghanistan to Europe and pensions to the Pope, was the second of a series of three planned for the campaign -- the first time in British history that the main party leaders have taken part in TV debates.
Two snap polls after Thursday's contest gave conflicting results, though both suggested that the performances were more balanced than a week ago when Congdon was the clear winner.
..."
Comments..
Yes, this is progressing nicely and the other POD (Huhne instead of Clegg) is explained away reasonably enough though Huhne would have had to give Clegg one of the top portfolios (Home or Foreign) in his team.
The third debate was the one in which Cameron arguably did best in OTL but as it's economic policy, Congdon will be in his element. Don't forget the free-for-all questions at the end of the third debate.
I am really enjoying this, Andy, and looking forward to future updates.
Yes, this is progressing nicely and the other POD (Huhne instead of Clegg) is explained away reasonably enough though Huhne would have had to give Clegg one of the top portfolios (Home or Foreign) in his team.
The third debate was the one in which Cameron arguably did best in OTL but as it's economic policy, Congdon will be in his element. Don't forget the free-for-all questions at the end of the third debate.
I am really enjoying this, Andy, and looking forward to future updates.
AndyC
Donor
From Opinion Polling of the 2010 General Election
The polls varied hugely, due to the well-known UKIP Effect. The question that vexed psephologists was: “From where did the UKIP surge come?” The conventional wisdom – that it was mainly disaffected Tories – seemed superficially borne out by the damage done to the Conservative vote, which, at one stage, looked like it was heading for fourth place. This didn’t, however, explain the haemorrhaging of vote share from the Liberal Democrats or the impact on the Labour Party.
The week between the second and third Leaders’ debates saw statistical dead heats between four parties, a totally unprecedented state of affairs. At this point analysts claimed that the election would be impossible to model.
The responses of the polls to events such as the debates was unpredictable at best. Despite Cameron’s strong showing in the second debate, support continued to leak from the Conservatives just as much as it did from Labour, whose leader had finished last in both debates (as measured by most post-debate polls). Chris Huhne’s strong performance in the second debate, on the contrary, seemed to have been reflected in the polls. The seemingly inevitable Lib Dem squeeze reversed.
[FONT="]The detailed cross-tab analysis made available by the polls before the election showed that a sizeable chunk of Liberal Democrat and Labour voters had moved across to the Conservatives, but with some leakage to UKIP. Unfortunately for David Cameron, this was more than countered by a huge outflow towards UKIP – what Ford, Goodwin and Cutts later referred to as the “strategic UKIP voters”, who normally only voted UKIP in European elections and returned to the Conservatives in General Elections. This time, however, it looked very much as though they were sticking with their protest vote. The BNP had apparently sustained noticeable damage - the component of their support that consisted of "the ultimate protest vote" had found somewhere else to go. However, that particular conclusion was statistically very weak, due to the low numbers of responses involved.
This wasn't to say that the Lib Dems and Labour were immune to the UKIP effect - they also sustained significant damage, but it was far more regionally variable.
[/FONT]
The polls varied hugely, due to the well-known UKIP Effect. The question that vexed psephologists was: “From where did the UKIP surge come?” The conventional wisdom – that it was mainly disaffected Tories – seemed superficially borne out by the damage done to the Conservative vote, which, at one stage, looked like it was heading for fourth place. This didn’t, however, explain the haemorrhaging of vote share from the Liberal Democrats or the impact on the Labour Party.
The week between the second and third Leaders’ debates saw statistical dead heats between four parties, a totally unprecedented state of affairs. At this point analysts claimed that the election would be impossible to model.
The responses of the polls to events such as the debates was unpredictable at best. Despite Cameron’s strong showing in the second debate, support continued to leak from the Conservatives just as much as it did from Labour, whose leader had finished last in both debates (as measured by most post-debate polls). Chris Huhne’s strong performance in the second debate, on the contrary, seemed to have been reflected in the polls. The seemingly inevitable Lib Dem squeeze reversed.
[FONT="]The detailed cross-tab analysis made available by the polls before the election showed that a sizeable chunk of Liberal Democrat and Labour voters had moved across to the Conservatives, but with some leakage to UKIP. Unfortunately for David Cameron, this was more than countered by a huge outflow towards UKIP – what Ford, Goodwin and Cutts later referred to as the “strategic UKIP voters”, who normally only voted UKIP in European elections and returned to the Conservatives in General Elections. This time, however, it looked very much as though they were sticking with their protest vote. The BNP had apparently sustained noticeable damage - the component of their support that consisted of "the ultimate protest vote" had found somewhere else to go. However, that particular conclusion was statistically very weak, due to the low numbers of responses involved.
This wasn't to say that the Lib Dems and Labour were immune to the UKIP effect - they also sustained significant damage, but it was far more regionally variable.
[/FONT]
Very scary stuff, but you can see how it would've happened. I'm a tactical UKIP voter myself, and had it not been for my friendship with the local Conservative candidate, I could well see myself voting for them in this scenario...
I agree, as you said in your last update, the Conservatives won't be the only sufferers from this but they will suffer disproportionately.
I agree while the Tories still could be the biggest party I imagine that David Cameron is going to be worried since if UKIP has enough seats then the right wing of the party may pressure him into going coalition with them or would be even more angry if Cameron really pushes for a Cons/LibDem coalition.
I've just done some computations around 23/23/23/23 and similar number and it's crazy territory. "Balls" is at the end of the tipping point where seats just start falling but that's mainly unidirectional. Equally balanced figures between 4 parties is where decimal points of poll ratings make a difference. If the uKippers are stealing BNP votes, that's going to make them quite powerful in Essex.