September 04
2004
Tory improvement?
» Posted on September 4, 2004 03:41 PM » Category: UK politics

Never say I'm not prepared to post information which possibly contradicts my own views. Take this, from Political Betting (a tremendous site, btw, which is well worth a daily read):

It’s not been picked up by the pundits or the betting markets but ALL four of the main opinion polls have shown Tory gains in August.

YouGov (Aug 27)
34%(+1) L34%(nc!) LD21% (-2%)

ICM (Aug15)
C33%(+3) L36%(+1) LD22%(-3)

MORI (Aug 16)
C32%(+1) L36%(+4) LD21%(-3)

Populus (Aug 1)
C32%(+3) L32%(-1) LD24% (nc)

With the UKIP effect continuing to unwind there is the potenial for further improvements but all this is being ignored by the betting markets.

It doesn't mean that I'm wrong to think that Michael Howard is incompetent and unfit to be PM, or that I'm wrong to think that, as such, a Labour victory is almost certain. But it's certainly interesting.


MessageSpace
Comments

Michael Howard is dumb enough to attack his most powerful natural ally (George W. Bush and the Republican Party) just to score brownie points with the Liberal Democrats electors. I don't see another Tory leader invited into White House until they get their own house in order.

Stated by: BigFire on September 4, 2004 5:08 PM


rubbish. Since when are the conservatisms the same in any real sense? A British conservative surely would opposes a Republic and uphold the idea of an Established church. The thing is, of course, for the most powerful conservatism in the most powerful English speaking State to see it's conservatism as "normal" and other conservatisms as abnormal. Just read Mark Steyn this week.

It was Mr Bush who erred here. As a foreign leader of a different State he asked Her Magisty's opposition to not attack the Prime Minister. Churchill would have told him where exactly to stick that.

Stated by: eoin on September 4, 2004 7:10 PM

Hi, Eoin!

"Just read Mark Steyn this week."

Where?

Bob

Stated by: Bob Doney on September 5, 2004 11:41 AM

The spat over Howard's rebuff from the White House sadly illustrates the US Government's limited understanding of UK domestic politics; and how British voters are increasingly cynical about the "special relationship".

Doesn't the Bush Administration understand that, but for Tory backing, Blair would have been defeated over Iraq and that much of the sparring between Blair and Howard has been all about domestic politics? Doesn't the US Embassy also understand that Howard has to perform a delicate balancing act within his own party. Many Tory MPs on both the left and right of the Party are anti-Bush and/or pro-Palestinian and/or plain isolationist. And this is after all the most pro-American of the three British parties. Howard has never had a blank cheque from his backbenchers over Iraq.

Successive Administrations equally seem to think that the "special relationship" consists of the UK offering the US unswerving loyalty .....even though the US has given regular support to Irish terrorists and did not exactly rush to the UK's aid over the Falklands. The problem for the US is that many voters in the UK, on both left and right, have wised up to this. They also know that, whetever superficial adulation Churchill and Thatcher received in Washington, Roosevelt and Reagan were quite ready to shaft them when it suited them. The US may be that last great and (on the whole) benevolent superpower but it needs to develop a better understanding of its friends.

Stated by: Michael McGowan on September 8, 2004 11:05 AM
Stated by: art on April 13, 2006 9:11 PM
Post a comment

    


    •