Labour in total meltdown – now at just 20% in the polls
The latest opinion polls show the Labour Party in an unprecedented state of collapse. A BPIX poll shows Labour on just 20%, with the Tories on 41% and the LibDems on 15%. The share for others is a staggering 23% of the vote. The ComRes poll for the Indy shows the Tories on 40%, Labour on 21% and the LibDems on 18% and the minor parties on 21%.
In even more catstrophic news for Labour, only 32% think that Alan Johnson would be a better Prime Minister than Brown, with 49% disagreeing. Staggering. Pick a name at random out tof the phonebook, and surely most people would think they’d bo a better job then Brown?
Are we witnessing not just the death of this repulsive, vile government, but the full scale eclipse of Labour as a meaningful political force? Here’s hoping.
UPDATE: The BPIX figures for the Mail on Sunday, on intention to vote in the Euro elections, are Conservative 30% Labour 17% UKP 17% LibDem 15%. By my maths, this puts non-UKIP “others” on 11%.
May 16th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
“Are we witnessing not just the death of this repulsive, vile government, but the full scale eclipse of Labour as a meaningful political force?”
No, Mark, this is just hyperbole (or absurdly misplaced optimism). Some people asked a similar question in 1931, some in 1983, and others at various points in Labour’s history.
The truth is, you cannot, in just a few short months, hope to obliterate more than a hundred years of history of a campaigning organisation that, for the best part of its existence, has fought for, and won the support of, the majority of ordinary working-class people throughout the country. The hundreds of thousands of socialists and trade unionists who have sustained Labour through the generations simply won’t be wiped off the map, whatever their current tribulations.
I predict the Labour Party will still be around and vying for power (if it doesn’t hold it) in 20 years’ time.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
As a Tory I welcome the Lib Dems overtaking Labour. Then we can return to the good old days of Conservatism vs Liberalism with socialism being a minor irritation.
May 17th, 2009 at 12:13 am
I think – on balance – that it’s unlikely that Labour will disppear as a major political force.
But I don’t think it’s impossible.
These lastest poll numbers are totally dreadful for them.
If a couple of years ago, you’d predicted LAbour being obliterated from the political landscape, you’d have been given a one-way ticket to the funny farm.
Now – even if it’s a longshot – it’s not an impossibility.
May 17th, 2009 at 12:15 am
@Paul
♫The times, they are a changin’♫
Once again, authoritarian socialism (even if wearing its ‘third way’ mask) is found wanting and have consistently proven that they are not the friend of ordinary working people at all.
It seems to me that the most thoughtful of the Labour grass roots are in fact, liberals.
The question is whether Lib Dems (and in particular, the Orange Bookers)can capitalize and marshal the masses of ‘ipso facto’ classical liberals into a coherent liberal movement.
If so, Labour is indeed history. In seeing the ‘other parties’ share, there is much work to be done… but within reach.
May 17th, 2009 at 12:19 am
@RichardJ
‘Then we can return to the good old days of Conservatism vs Liberalism with socialism being a minor irritation.’
Ideal!
May 17th, 2009 at 12:22 am
I think the end of labour is a bit of a long shot, most likely the end of new labour. This may mean an interesting shift in the political landscape if the lib dems overtake labour. I wouldn’t put it past UKIP to do the same if they can use the EU elections as a leg-up. I worry though, with UKIP in third representing the free market, that the old social democrats might take hold, along with the more big statists in the Tories. Still, we live and hope.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:46 am
There is nothing staggering about the Johnson poll result. I cant remember any specific examples but I bet the same would have been said for Major’s Conservatives towards the end; in fact, im pretty sure there were polls around saying the same thing.
The government has reached the end of its natural life span and nothing it does can convince people otherwise; that is the only real story. Saying the Labour Party will simply cease to be is also a bit faR-fetched to be honest though its not totally impossible.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:57 am
This poll is without precedent.
You are wrong about Major’s Conservatives, by the way. Neither they – not the Prime Minister – fell anything like this far.
I stand by the “staggering” claim.
Unlikely that Labour will be obliterated, but not impossible.
Virtually every serious political pundit reaches the same conclusion.
You still think pusing the Speaker out is “kicking the cat” by the way, Darrell? Laughable misreading of the zeitgeist.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:10 am
Mark,
With all due respect, Major’s Tories polled 18.5% in one poll as Anthony Wells mentiones this very day on UK Polling Report.
“Labour have ever recorded in an opinion poll, though they have not yet matched the absolute worst polls the Conservatives suffered during the darkest days of the Major government (in 1995 the Conservatives hit 18.5% in a Gallup poll.)”
May 17th, 2009 at 2:13 am
And incidentally this example tells us something that we can take for granted; that Labour will not poll 20% when it actually comes down to polling day. With a 100% degree of certainity we can say that their support will rally when the prospect of a poll becomes a reality.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Mark,
On the Speaker yes I do. Show me one person outside the Westminster bubble or the commetariat who gives two hoots what happens to the Speaker….
May 17th, 2009 at 2:16 am
And I said that is what it will look like….which is exactly what it will look like to Joe Public because newsflash *they dont care* who the Speaker is…..they do care about the drip-drip of expenses scandals and getting the system right…
May 17th, 2009 at 2:18 am
Utterly bizarre view on the Speaker. I suspect you’ll be in a tiny minority within the party on that one within days.
On Major – the poll was a one-off – they never got so low, consistently, and still falling with just a year to go before the elction.
Labour also suffers from being – in general overstated in polls.
In this febrile atmosphere, you certainly can’t say with 100% certainty that Labour will poll more than 20% of the vote. And you’d be an utter fool to do so. There’s only 50 weeks to go until polling day, and things are likely to get worse for Labour over that time period.
Anything’s possible really – a rally, a recovery, flatlining, a further fall.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Getting “the system right” is what removing the Speaker is about.
I wish some people would stop being so utterly naive about the “Westminster bubble”. Of course, it’s a beltway issue – that’s no reason not to lead on it (c.99% of Parliamentray activity is beltway stuff).
May 17th, 2009 at 2:23 am
No I think most of the party realise the complete and utter truth of what I am saying; that the public dont care who the Speaker is (if they know who he is at all); i’ve never said he should stay just that it shouldnt be our main focus. Nobody cares Mark; when Jennie Rigg was twittering earlier about people being angry where she works about expenses I bet *not one* mentioned the Speaker.
Just a year to go, assuming the government lasts that long which I have my doubts about, but this is a year which could see an economic spike upwards towards the end of it as the indicators are starting to look up, something that could rally the core vote as could scaremongering about an incoming Tory government. Labour wont poll 20% when it comes to polling day.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:27 am
No, the Speaker is supposed to lead reforms and has failed to do that which I fully recognise as I do the inept job he has done in general but it is not something that excites the general public nor is it something they see as essential to getting the system right.
Far more important things to be done like the publishing of expenses online which I and Alix Mortimer have been consistently calling for. Instead, you are focusing on a fringe issue which frankly will only interest the ‘Westminster bubble’ and the commetariat…
May 17th, 2009 at 2:30 am
The Speaker and his position will be a major political issue next week – whether he survives or not. I wouldn’t expect people to be discussing it on the doorstep yet. Leadership isn’t about looking at canvass returns, it’s working out what’s next.
Very few believe there will be much of a spike in the economy before the election.
Labour may possibly even come 4th in national vote share in the Euro elections. Completely amazing that this is even on the cards.
Labour might go up. Might stay the same. Might go down. Nothing is 100% certain. And no serious pundit would ever suggest it was.
We certainly seem to be heading towards a shift in power and turnover of MPs of 1997 proportions – possibly even greater.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:30 am
And just to rebutt about what you said about that poll being a one off I will once again quote Anthony Wells with emphasis;
Labour have ever recorded in an opinion poll, *though they have not yet matched the absolute worst polls the Conservatives suffered during the darkest days of the Major government*
May 17th, 2009 at 2:34 am
Wells, in my view, is moot. Major nearly fell in 1995. he had two years to go. He fended off a formal challenge. Polls consistently over-estimated Labour (and may still do so today)
You also need to learn the difference between political narrative and policy, Darrell. So many of your posts fail to really hit home because of your inability to do so.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:37 am
Mark,
It may well be but that wont make people care more, they simply dont and simply wont because they do not follow the minute details of the ins and outs of politics. I bet it will hardly ever and most likely never come up on doorsteps.
No, I really do not find these things amazing; some pretty amazingly bad results came out for the Tories in the 95 ish period came through and here is you acting like its our first trip to the circus, gawking at how allegedly amazing these things are.
I will gurantee you now that Labour will not get 20% of the national vote share; mid 20′s id say at a very wild guess. Labour, like the Conservatives, have a core vote and a certain number of seats where they could stick a red rosette on a monkey and it would get elected.
On the last sentance I tend to agree though but to insist that this is somehow some kind of epoch defining moment on the basis of even several polls in the fairly volitile times we live in is overstating a case.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:40 am
Mark,
I think the Speaker issue is an example of us choosing the wrong narrative. But since you are so keen to talk about policy lets have some concrete answers;
Do you support a call for Nick Clegg to make online publishing of expenses mandatory?
Do you support a call for a binding code of conduct for Liberal Democrat MPs?
May 17th, 2009 at 2:47 am
Darrell,
You really can be a bore.
These are the lowest poll ratings EVER recorded for the Labour Party. In the midst of a perfect storm of a scandal and nationwide elections in 3 weeks time.
I’ll have a quid on Labour getting less than 20% of the vote, if you’re willing to offer odds of, say, 15,000-1. Sound fair?
Whatever gave you the idea I’m keen to talk about policy. I’m not. LibDems spend too much time doing so.
But, FWIW, I think we should adopt the Kelly recommendations and draft proposals for anyone taking the whip which would go beyond their likely content. All good stuff.
Anyway, bed beckons.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:54 am
Mark,
And you wouldnt want to let facts get in the way of good spin or good headlines now would you; something that looks funky and fresh but has no relation to the real world whatsoever. Amazing for somebody to say that who has made the main focus of his blog an issue which the public couldnt care less about ie, to topple the Speaker or not.
Your on for the quid. You are too easily lead by the mood of the moment or whatever esoteric campaign happens to take your interest ie, the Speaker. Labour will not poll that badly when it comes to crunch time and me saying that is only a reflection of the broader picture, rather than chasing the latest glamorous headline.
No we should all seek the glitz and glamour and showbusiness instead; i mean, come on, please hardly serious politics now is it.
So, no concrete answer on the publication of expenses then?
May 17th, 2009 at 3:05 am
Let`s stop trying to predict the future and start planning on how Lib Dems can positively deal with the current crisis and hopefully emerge as a stronger political force.
It seems that the issue of `flipping` along with claiming expenses for non existent mortgages is the main issue in the scandal.
A few years ago, in my foolish Conservative youth, I worked for a Tory MP as his researcher. He was not independently wealthy, and like most MP`s then, rented an apartment in Dolphin Square. At the time most MP`s seemed to rent there as their London base.
Why don`t the Lib Dems suggest Parliament buys this building, or one like it, and then offer each MP a `grace and favour` apartment for the duration of their time as an MP. As a result you could get rid of the second homes allowance and just reimburse MP`s for their travel expenses (standard fare, not first class – if they want to travel 1st class let them subsidise the additional cost themselves.)
There may be a very good reason why this isn`t practical, but I`d welcome your thoughts.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:09 am
Keith,
I am happy to do that. Several Liberal Democrat MP’s including Ming Campbell (on Question Time) and Greg Mulholland (Leeds NW) have called for exactly such a system and for the record it is a suggestion I fully support. It’s a good idea and it keeps these assets, ie, the property in the taxpayers hands so there can be no prospect of flipping and profit being gained from manipulation of the property market.
May 17th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Darrell,
You can be an idiot.
Have a look at today’s papers. You might not consider the removal of the Speaker an esoteric issue, “with no relation to the real world whatsoever” or one which the “public couldn’t care less about”. Also the BPIX poll on public attitudes to Martin’s position. Likely to be one of the biggest political issues of next week.
I agree it unlikely that Labour will poll less than 20% in the General Election, but am delighted to have a quid on it at 15,000-1. I think the prevailing bookies odds are effectively 100-1, so I have a pretty good bargain.
We should definitely “chase” (whatever that means) – or preferbaly make – the latest headlines. The party has never been great at that frankly.
I support the online publication of expenses (already LibDem Parliamentary protocol – but trickily hasn’t been univerally adopted by our MPs). I also support a “call” for a “binding code of conduct”, but that rather begs the question of what it should include.
May 17th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Mark,
My frustration about the Speaker issue is this; namely in a week that Cameron has talked about numerous changes to his partys internal regime (and hasnt mentioned the Speaker once) you somehow seem to think this should be Clegg’s main priority when I look at what Cameron has been saying and say to myself well he is addressing the real issues.
Funny how I looked in the Yorkshire Evening Post this week and saw nobody mention the Speaker. It is an fringe issue compared to what we should have been talking about this week (and havent been) and that is why I have such a bee in my bonnett over this issue.
May 17th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Darrell, can I have £1 sterling at 15,000-1, too?
Incidentally, this reminds me of a bet I made with a Times journalist. I gave him 5,000-1 that Arsenal would finish above sperz, maximum stake £1 (in 2006!). A foolishly impulsive moment, I confess, but I did win – and he still hasn’t paid up.
Back to the issue, though – I can see Darrell’s point, that many people don’t know or care about the dogma of the House. Yet even quite dull political technicalities can become simplified and come to represent broader issues that public opinion is very clear on. “The Speaker was protecting MPs” is a basic and widespread enough for it to be relevant.
Maybe there are some details in these latest polls that will solve this question. For example, how many people said “don’t know” or didn’t answer convincingly in response to the “Should the Speaker go?” question?
May 17th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Cameron did mention the Speaker fleetingly in his (overly) praised press conference – pledging his support.
Didn’t say this should be Clegg’s “main priority” (whatever that means)- just that he should do it. Am delighted he has done so. I sometimes unfairly udnerestimate Nick’s capacity to be bold.
This is massive news.
The Sunday Times front page headline: “SPEAKER WAGED A REIGN OF TERROR OVER EXPENSES – MPs PREPARE VOTE OF CONFIDENCE”
The Mail on Sunday has a whole string of pieces on the issue.
This is currently the top political story on the broadcast media today – with Nick leading the bulletins.
I can’t comment on the Yorkshire Post’s coverage of last week – as I’m not a regular reader.
I’m always very sceptical about granidose claims made about a need to address “the real issues”. Who wants to address the “unreal issues”?
If anyone is watching the news channels at the moment or have read today’s papers, then they would find it utterly bizarre – delusional, frankly – to describe the Speaker’s position as a “fringe issue”.
I also anticipate Nick will get very substantial coverage for this in the national press tomorrow.
Great move by Nick, with the added tactical benefit that it puts the Tories in a major quandary.
May 17th, 2009 at 11:41 am
I don’t know the details of the BPIX poll, Julian, beyond w the link I posted. I was surprised that as many as 2/3 of people expressed an opinion. And my hunch would be that with the very high profile coverage this issue will get in the next few days, the 1/3 who are presently udnecided may start to jump one way or another.
May 17th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Julian,
You are of course quite welcome to have a quid although my repayment rates will be one-to-one i’m afraid
The BPIX poll is neither here nor there because put simply I dont trust BPIX as being in any way reliable, they are not members of the Polling Council etc.
What I am driving at Mark is something that actually one of your correspondents, Angela, drove at when she said she was ‘dissappointed’ by Clegg this week; that there were other more important things Clegg should have been calling for this week like publication of expenses etc. Here Cameron has clearly had the whip-hand over Clegg and has actually shown some leadership. Compared to these issues it is a fringe issue. How can Clegg lecture the House when he has failed to put his own party in order?
As to the news storys it will flash and flame for one day purely and simply because the vote is tomorrow as I understand it and thats it gone; we are left with the much more pressing issue of what reforms to make…
May 17th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Darrell, word to the wise.
When you’re in a hole, stop digging.
You miscalled this one badly.
May 17th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Mark,
Then why has Julian H just said he can ‘see my point’ why did Bernard Salmon say on my blog that ‘I agree this isn’t of great significance to most people.’ Why have David Camerons approval ratings for this issue topped the 50% mark? Why wont you ackowledge the simple point that there are more important issues Clegg should have addressed this week and hasnt?
May 17th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
You seem to have this slightly warped view, Darrell, that because somebody blogs something, this is all they care about.
Just because I’ve been arguing on this blog that we should call on Martin to go, doesn’t mean I think this is the only important issue in life.
Yes, Clegg should have acted faster last week. I argued this on Radio 5 on Wednesday. My suggestion was that having already allowed Cameron to seize the initiative (which we didn’t need to, really), this was a great way to seize it back.
Am delighted he has done so.
May 17th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
For my part…. I am DELIGHTED with Nick Cleggs statement today concerning Martin. THis is not A FRINGE issue. No its not enough – but its a great soundbite for Sunday.
And his intervention in this issue is very important and very timely. He has gone where no other leader has dared. That is pretty damn big.
He must now keep it up – Yes he must be deal with outstanding (and possibly upcoming) Lib Dem MPs and LORDS who have question marks over their heads etc
There is the opportunity – NEED – to step back in tomorrow with announcements about his own Party… to be radical about parliamentary changes – and not just expenses (yes i include fewer MPS and a change to the voting system, a better House of Lords etc..)
BUT i salute the start. And be in no doubt of its importance.
May 17th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Mark & Angela,
I will save time and reply to both at once. Yes I agree Cameron has sezied the initiative with his reforms which Clegg could have announced last week not tomorrow. I tend to think that people would blog about what is at the top of their list; hence ive blogged about publishing expenses etc because I see that as the most important step to take. I dont think the Speaker issue should have been top of our list; I think it’s putting the cart before the horse somewhat.
What we are really discussing is priorities because neither side is, for example, arguing the Speaker should stay. I feel our top priority should have been what Cameron made his, to reform his party and get his own house in order. This is why Cameron did ‘seize the inititive’ as you rightly said he did and why Clegg won’t seize it back unless their is follow through.
Angela, you are rightly talking about Clegg *needing* to do something tomorrow he *should have done last week* and thats why I havent considered the Speaker issue a top priority…it is thinking it is that has allowed Cameron to march off in front and seize the inititive….
May 17th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Dealing with his own MPs and Lords and the nonsense “Escher painting” of committees within the Lib Dem Party that doubtless tie his hands/slow him down/leave him precariously exposed….may prove to be a damn site more difficult than creating historical precedent in crticising the Speaker of the House !
Still …no excuse not to do it …
May 17th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
We are arguing about more than priorities here.
Some of the arguments you make here:
http://momentsofc.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-lib-dems-should-avoid-this-honey.html
Really do take this biscuit.
Do you still think that – following Nick’s remarks on Marr – “Instead of looking like a leader, Clegg will look desperately out of touch with the country” ???????
May 17th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Angela,
I dont think i share your view on gutting the inner party committees down to nothing; that is not the priority in this situation because people dont see the problem as being the inner committee life of the Liberal Democrats; more the expenses issue and how Parliament works and how our MPs work.
Mark,
What that the Conservative publications are happy for Clegg to lead on this issue because Cameron has already and is already establishing his leadership credentials on the issues that matter to people? Something being a big news story, which the Speaker issue maybe for a couple of days, does not equate to it being the most important issue.
Cameron has consistently talked about
a) How he is going to clean-up his group of MP’s (much more important than the Speaker issue)
b) And actually tentatively proposed some constitutional reform (not that I agree with scrapping the communications allowance).
When has Clegg specifically addressed a, an issue which, in the eye of the storm has been and is more important than the Speaker issue?
May 17th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Hell, you’ve got me, Darrell.
The whole Speaker thing is, as you say, a “fringe issue”.
I can tell this, you see, because it’s only being covered in “fringe” media outlets like the Sunday Times, the Mail on Sunday and the BBC.
As you anticipated, Nick isn’t looking like a leader at all having walked straight into this “honey coated trap”. He looks “desperately out of touch with the public” just as you warned.
And you rightly argue that a beleif in supporting “a move to depose [Martin] is somehow going to reflect positively on us or be seen as us ‘cleaning-up’ is frankly naive in the extreme.”
Yep, the TV coverage Nick is getting at the top of every news bulletin today is truly dire. Well done for forecasting this. If only Nick had listened to you.
And with political instincts as honed as yours, we’d be fools not to pay heed to your “gut feeling…that if Mr Martin is deposed he will actually garner some public sympathy as people popularly perceive it as MP’s ‘kicking the cat’”….
You’re right, of course, so what do you suggest we do to ensure that Michael Martin doesn’t emerge as some sort of popular public hero in the next few days?
May 17th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Darrell – My Apologies. What I actually MEANT to say was…
Dealing with his own MPs and Lords whilst being hamstrung by the internal party structure that looks like an “Escher painting” and that tie his hands/slow him down/leave him precariously exposed at every turn may prove to be a damn site more difficult than creating historical precedent in crticising the Speaker of the House !
I DO think internal Party reform/streamlining/more responsibility tied to accountability etc is absolutely necessary – but I think that can wait a few weeks……
First things first .
May 17th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Mark,
Well it says it all doesnt it? Chasing after what Angela rightly called a ‘Sunday soundbite’ which gives an indication she can at least put it in the context of broader issues.
Its laughable that you think one day at the height of the news agenda is an earth shattering achievement when Cameron has had several days at the top already because of his initiatives.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Darrell,
I’m finding each response to you harder and harder. It feels increasing like the moral and intellectual equivalent of kicking a cat.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Angela,
This is where me and you differ because I think it is something that should have been done last week and as it hasnt should certainly should be this week. This is why I have consistently praised David Cameron (whose political instincts have been pretty good this week) because he realised straight off the bat this was the singular most important issue to tackle right here and right now.
In terms of actually publishing expenses online it actually makes sound political sense to do as soon as possible rather than wait until everybody has been picked off by the Daily Telegraph. It puts us on the front-footing.
As to reform of internal party structures so there is more accountablity yes that can wait but they are not the same issues now are they. And as to what you would propose on that I would judge it in the concrete.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Mark,
Lol!!:) Actually since you are here what do you think to Keith’s suggestion about HOC dorms? A sensible policy no?
May 17th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I quite like the basic idea of HofC providing accommodation – in the same sort of way they provide office space.
But, I think there are some big issues:
1. Privacy. I don’t want to help MPs cover stuff up, but there are some privacy concerns if you have, say, 200 MPs in the same converted hotel.
2. Security. For the same reasons.
3. Hair-shirtedness. Yes, we need to sort this expenses stuff out big time. No, we don’t want MPs to have to spend three nights a week in a YMCA.
4. Public acceptance of financial outlay. Will the public accept Parliament shelling out tens of millions of quid to buy up a number of four star hotels?
5. Tolerance of different family arrangements. If we want our MPs to be a wide(r) and more diverse representation of society, then we need to keep open the option of a range of accommodation. Doesn’t mean the taxpayer should pick up the bill if you want to live in a mansion in Chelsea with your wife and four kids – as opposed to in a one bedroom flat in Lambeth on your own – but does probably mean you can claim an offset.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Mark,
Here is something we can agree on because I quite like it too. In fact, I am in favour of it; my use of the word ‘dorms’ which was slightly misleading and maybe a little prejeudicial came from a comment Greg got on Facebook. You make some valid points but on privacy I would say that yes it is a concern but students seem to manage living in shared accomodation all right so MP’s should be able to manage it. I would imagine it wouldnt have a big impact there as I am sure the HOC is just as gossipy as any other work place.
Security would surely be easier if all of it had to be focused in one place though? On hair-shirtedness I think it is simply that not only would such a move be prohibitive of property speculation; if they were furnished at taxpayers expenses to a reasonable level it would curb the desire to spend £200 on cushions and then claim it on expenses.
On the point about the public acceptance I can see your point again (I actually think there is a persuasive case to raise the basic salary but its something MP’s wont do because they are too cowed by public opinion). However, the question does then become should we be cowed from doing what is neccessary just because the public might not like it? My anecdotal experience of looking at the feedback Greg got though is that this is a measure that could meet with public approval (since his feedback has been 100% positive when the press notice was posted).
I think point 5 is the most telling point but I presume it could be worked around.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
You make some valid points but on privacy I would say that yes it is a concern but students seem to manage living in shared accomodation all right so MP’s should be able to manage it.
Students don’t make the tabloids if they sleep with their secretaries.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Julian,
Lol
very true they dont even have secretaries in the first place. I think to be brutally honest enough people have been found out on this score with the second home system in place in any case for it to not actually be a major enough concern to derail my support for the idea.
I live in shared accomodation 7 out of 7 days a week and although yes there is a slight impingement of privacy (people knock on my door and my room is my private place) I still think a basic standard of privacy can be maintained.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
The privacy issue is pretty intense for MPs. It’s not about people simply knocking on your door.
Students in halls aren’t subject to the same scrutiny.
It would be practically impossible – for example – for an MP to be an “in the closet” homosexual. Rumour and gossip would spread like wildfire about the most minor matters as well.
Tabloid newspapers would stake out the property 24/7. Titbits of information from the staff working at the hotel/dorm would be very valuable indeed.
May 17th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Mark,
I appreciate that. Having said all that MP’s already employ staff and cleaners and the such like. Yes, the staff for this residency would have to be highly vetted but it simply isnt an issue that could not be solved with proper vetting in place.
As to the tabloids camping out…well they do that already just at MP’s second homes when they have a whiff of a story. To intimate that they would be under 24/7 seige is overstating the case I think.
May 17th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Darrell,
Far be it for me to suggest I have a little more experience of the tabloid press than you…but…
1. They don’t camp out at an MP’s house when they have a “whiff” of a story. Needs to be far more than a whiff.
2. The tabolids would definitely station somewhere there 24/7…u have dozens…maybe hundreds of possible stories just on spec. Not sure if this counts as being “under 24/7 seige”. But it does raise privacy issues.
3. Vetting would be difficult. Not necessarily impossible, but very difficult. I mean what are you looking for? Any suggestion on a CV that you sell stories to the Screws? Individual employees generally have (or build) a better relationship of trust and are – anyway – the responsibility of each MP rather than of, say, the Marriot hotel.
Some upsides of an “MPs’ hotel” but also some upside to a standard overnight fee of, say, £150 that you can spend where you want.
May 17th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Mark,
Well since I have named two of our MP’s who dont have a problem with it then why should you? Seems they have nothing to hide or nothing to lose from this proposal.
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:41 am
This made me smile and hopefully after your last post it will do the same for you:
If you’re not having fun, then you’re not doing it right.