Tits up tories could finish third in the Eastleigh by-election
Jonksy
Conservatives could finish third in the Eastleigh by-election
David Cameron is struggling to secure even second place in Thursday’s Eastleigh by-election after Nick Clegg declared on Wednesday night that the Liberal Democrats were “on the cusp of a great victory”.
Senior Conservatives conceded that they could be pushed into third place by Ukip, despite the Prime Minister having pledged to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.
Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, warned on Wednesday night that a “vote for Ukip is effectively a vote for the Lib Dems” because it would split Tory support.
A Lib Dem win would be a major blow for Mr Cameron because the by-election is being held as Mr Clegg’s party faces a sexual harassment scandal and follows the resignation of the previous Lib Dem MP, Chris Huhne, after he admitted perverting the course of justice.
The Conservatives would be unlikely to win the next general election without winning seats such as Eastleigh.
Both the Tories and the Lib Dems said that turnout would prove crucial today, with strategists unsure over whether the allegations surrounding Lord Rennard would deter Mr Clegg’s supporters from voting at the last minute. Senior Conservatives were preparing for a defeat that would heap pressure on Mr Cameron’s leadership and George Osborne’s position as Chancellor.
David Davis, a former Conservative minister and leadership candidate, warned that it would be “uncomfortable” and possibly even a “crisis” for the Prime Minister if Ukip polled strongly. One senior Conservative source said that winning the seat “has always been a big ask”.
“I suspect it will be quite tight at the top as Ukip is making a late surge. They are picking up the anti-politics vote from all parties in a big way and could even win,” the source said. “It’s mid-term and it would be pretty exceptional for us to break through in a by-election when in government — the last time it happened was during the Falklands war.”
Another Conservative source added: “Since the beginning of the campaign, the Lib Dems have always been on course to win this — the number of councillors they have in Eastleigh means they have much better resources on the ground.
“We now only have a 30 per cent chance of winning. But we have two and a half years to turn this around and this is not a general election. This has been fought on local issues, but 2015 will be about the national picture.”
Mr Clegg, the Lib Dem leader and Deputy Prime Minister, appeared confident that his party would hold the seat vacated by Huhne, who resigned after pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice.
At a gathering of party activists on Wednesday night, Mr Clegg claimed that his party “can and will win” the contest.
If the Lib Dems lose, Mr Clegg is likely to face the most serious crisis in his leadership, with potential challengers already criticising the handling of the Lord Rennard scandal.
One senior Liberal Democrat source said: “The sexual harassment allegations are beginning to have an impact. We would have won easily without the Rennard stuff but now we are really having to work to get the vote out.
“If we lose this it is not about Clegg or the national party, it is a verdict on Huhne and Rennard.”
Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, on Wednesday claimed his party was gaining votes from the Lib Dems, Labour, the Tories and former non-voters in equal measures.
Ukip’s support in Eastleigh has grown from 4 per cent at the last election, to 13 per cent in early polls, to 21 per cent in recent days. This shows that Ukip is causing a “seismic” shift in British politics, Mr Farage said.
Recent opinion polls suggested that the Lib Dems were on course to receive 33
per cent of the vote, with the Tories 28 per cent and Ukip 21 per cent.
Labour was thought to be trailing at around 12 per cent. There have been
signs that Eastleigh residents could be suffering “election fatigue” after
being pestered by a fortnight of door knocks and phone calls, which could
affect turnout.
tinman
Cameron and Osborne have shown beyond doubt to the voters they just
haven't a clue. Cameron has now sucked up to just about every
minority group there is and still the Tories are losing voters.
On 28 Feb, 06:49, Jonksy <jon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Conservatives could finish third in the Eastleigh by-election David
> Cameron is struggling to secure even second place in Thursday’s Eastleigh
> by-election after Nick Clegg declared on Wednesday night that the Liberal
> Democrats were “on the cusp of a great victory”.
> [image: Conservatives could finish third in the Eastleigh by-election]
> behalf of Maria Hutchings Photo: AFP/GETTY*
> [image: Rowena Mason]<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/rowena-mason/>
>
> By Rowena Mason <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/rowena-mason/>, and
>
> 9:14PM GMT 27 Feb 2013
>
GBur3
This really is the end of the tory party as we know it. The next election will be a crushing victory for the left as what remains of the right squabbles among themselves.
Trueblue
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:15:59 PM UTC, GBur3 wrote:
Still being savaged on the right flank i see, despite their hollow and idiotic promises on the EU.This really is the end of the tory party as we know it. The next election will be a crushing victory for the left as what remains of the right squabbles among themselves.
ROTFLMHO
GBur3
An average lead of 5 percent? Lies. I regularly look at results from all major polling companies. The average lead stands at about 10 to 12 points - enough for a three figure majority in the GE.
GBur3
The tories are rapidly losing support as their ageing members and voters, quite literally, die out. Those that remain are attracted to more ideological alternatives like UKIP. In the general election, they would need an eleven point lead just to guarantee a majority. To deliver a 1980s style thumping to labour, they would need something approaching a twenty point lead. Not happening mate. We can't stand the sight of the smug, silver spooned tossers - that's why they're 12 points behind in the polls.
Wake up and smell the shit.
Trueblue
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:58:08 PM UTC, GBur3 wrote:
Labour were never contenders in this constituency pete - a regional curiosity that is not reflected in the grand scheme of things nationally.
Trueblue
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:14:26 PM UTC, GBur3 wrote:
You're like the iraqi information minister pete - proclaiming victory while the tanks roll in.
GBur3
Trueblue
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:42:15 PM UTC, GBur3 wrote:
"Comical Ali" was his nickname i believe.
GBur3
jaria
Trueblue
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:47:35 PM UTC, GBur3 wrote:
The blue bits are sparsely populated save for a few tory turnips, pete.
GBur3
GBur3
Trueblue
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:58:30 PM UTC, GBur3 wrote:
Is it all blue pete, really? Are you sure? I was convinced isaw some red in London...
GBur3
They'll twist in the wind for the next two years and then be defeated.
GBur3
Trueblue
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:38:37 PM UTC, GBur3 wrote:
What would happen to the profits of the 'subsidisers' if it weren't for the labour and skills of the 'subsidised' pete?
GBur3
Your views are simply out of date.
Affa
On Thursday, 28 February 2013 23:52:03 UTC, GBur3 wrote:
Pete, the 'subsidies' aren't just welfare payments. It's the state ran education system, the NHS, the police and fire brigade. If the government stopped paying for these things, returning the confiscated wealth largely to the very wealthy, we would cease to live in a civilised society.
We would be living in a decaying society.
I've several times told these non-believers that the Welfare State was a Conservative idea, backed by corporate business, and
as importantly the State.
Concerns over poor health and life expectency arose in the military where more troops were lost to illness than to fighting.
Business were losing man hours to common diseases that had a cure.
Education was often provided and or subsidised by local busineses, and the church.
Housing was often tied to the job.
The Welfare State happened because it served commerce and the nation itself to do so.
Trueblue
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:52:03 PM UTC, GBur3 wrote:
Pete, the 'subsidies' aren't just welfare payments. It's the state ran education system,
GBur3
We have redistribution of wealth because without it civilised society could not stand. The market does not work in the way you would like to believe it does. It does not shower the deserving with rewards and stamp out laziness and sloth - quite the opposite. That is why it has to regulated and compensated for in its many failings with government activity.
GBur3
ewill
>>
Very few blue bits in Wales
GBur3
Oh well, that's that - another nail in the tories' coffin.
Trueblue
On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:21:26 AM UTC, GBur3 wrote:
It's a good job you didn't educate me pete,
jaria
Affa
On Friday, 1 March 2013 00:27:38 UTC, GBur3 wrote:
The welfare state certainly fits in perfectly with the consumerist, productive, modern society. I
Business provided and paid for housing, education, and health care.
It passed the burden onto the State, and agreed to fund it.
Over time that burden has been reduced on business and increased on society itself.
Now the argument persists that business cannot be burdened with costs arrising from societies needs.
Since 2010 Corporation tax has been reduced in every year ....... and is calculated to fall in the remaining years of the coalition.
It has not had the result desired of attracting investment, improving GDP, and raising MORE revenue.
There was also a reduction in NI contributions from business - same again, no promised result.
Business is reducing its contribution towards welfare and increasing its profit margins.
The Welfare State was born of a need to improve education, provide health care (and prevention od disease), and
provide housing .......... the NEED was to improve economic performance and be competitive.
GBur3
AWM
UKIP 11,571
Tories 10,559
jaria
GBur3
jaria
Labour were not slow to change it into their favour but quite content to leave it there for thirteen years. It should of course be carried out under an independent commission who may have a formula which would satisfy us all but as I say when it influences who is the gvt that is serious
jaria
Back to reality out of some 486 by elections the sitting gvt has won four by elections people interested in politics will know the difference between a by election and a general election. The by election is used for a protest vote the general one is which party do you want in government
Jonksy
Trueblue
On Friday, 1 March 2013 08:53:03 UTC, Jonksy wrote:
Ifs Funny how the tories are never concerned about a level playing field over funding though isn't it?
Jonksy
Trueblue
On Friday, 1 March 2013 09:41:00 UTC, Jonksy wrote:
What when you have got the likes of the tory arseholes deionising the BNP etc..?
jaria
Jonksy
Jonksy
A deal on party funding could enrage Tory backbenchers all over again
Are the Tories about to do a deal with the Liberal Democrats over political party funding?
Benedict Brogan intriguingly suggests that David Cameron might offer a post-Lords reform olive branch to Nick Clegg — the state funding of political parties. In return, the Lib Dems would have to support a future vote on boundary change:
His side won’t like it, but it will be presented as Mr Clegg’s price for securing a review that gives the Tories more seats. And some Tories, including Mr Cameron, may be secretly delighted to reduce their reliance on donors who are never slow to voice their frustrations when things go wrong. With party memberships plummeting and grassroots cash support drying up, state funding is the gleam in the eye of most politicians.
State funding of political parties has been floating around since the expenses scandal. The coalition agreement stated that the partners would pursue ‘reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics’. This resulted in the Committee for Standards in Public Life’s November 2011 report, which recommended an extra £23 million in state funding, a £10,000 cap on individual donations and an ‘opt-in’ clause for trade unions. But none of the parties have made any firm commitments on this.
There are, however, two major obstacles for the Prime Minister to face if he attempts such a deal. The first is the public. Politicians are held in fairly low regard by voters, so begging them for money to fund their dealings would do little to enhance their reputation. The last YouGov poll on party funding (from March) found nearly 60 per cent oppose state funding. This included 64 per cent of Conservative voters. But only 32 per cent of Lib Dem voters said they would support state funding proposals.
The second issue is Cameron’s party. Tory backbenchers would see this as yet another concession to Nick Clegg. I spoke to Douglas Carswell, who believes it would be ‘absolutely disgraceful’ for Cameron to be ‘toying with the idea of state-subsidised politics’. In particular, he finds suggestions of a deal ‘bizarre and revolting’, given Cameron’s ‘new politics’ promise in May 2009.
Besides the ideological opposition to the state funding their activities, Tories are uncomfortable with the idea because they would stand to lose the most as the richest party. It would also line the coffers of minority parties, (i.e. the Lib Dems), who they are in no rush to assist.
For their part, Lib Dems are briefing that this would be an unacceptable trade, which is ironic given this was the same accusation the Tories made over Lords reform. Clegg would also lose face with his party if he did eventually turn around to support boundaries when he was unequivocal last week in threatening a ‘penalty’ for the Lords reform revolt.
Cameron is more open to the deal than his party because it reduces his reliance on the already decimated grassroots. But his MPs will feel that they could do without another dent to their reputation and standing as a party, especially when they are trailing in the polls.