Comments on: Mr Brown Goes to the Palace

By: Adrian

Adrian — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:06:54 +0000

You might be interested in this reply from Andrew Gelman: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2010/04/confusion_over.html

By: Julia Atkins

Julia Atkins — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 21:31:04 +0000

What is interesting though is that the Labour hierarchy seems to have decided that the battle is lost and are not unhappy letting Cameron and gang
deal with the economic crisis. The real struggle is going on behind the scenes between Blair and Brown proxies for the Leadership. David Miliband versus Ed Balls. Both are staunch neo-liberals, defenders of the Thatcher consensus and the Atlantic alliance, but you’d never guess that from the heat being generated in the corridors. Balls is being backed by most of the unions with Unite in the vanguard. Will all the new candidates they’ve sponsored in ‘safe’ Labour seats follow their advice and vote Balls or will the ‘limousines for hire’ group in the Lords promise them untold wealth if they vote for Miliband, once Patricia Hewitt’s protege.The desperation was revealed when Lord Mandelson pushed through Tristram Hunt’s candidature in a safe Labour seat. The Constituency Party secretaryis standing as an indy against Hunt. All this infighting could become academic if enough Labour voters stay at home and punish their Party by letting it bleed. And now back to Lanchester who is about to make a few early predictions based on a Countryside Alliance opinion poll, sponsored by a pesticide firm.

By: Camus123

Camus123 — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:06:38 +0000

The big question is a different one, surely. If Labour come out with a ten seat majority versus the Conservatives, as you seem to be implying, how long will Brown last and what sort of a government will you get?

By: A.J.P. Crown

A.J.P. Crown — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:38:32 +0000

Well, I was deliberately only counting second presidential terms in order to try and make an equivalent to an incumbent British administration (I don’t think using any helpful definition of the term you can count Gore as an incumbent in 2000, for example). Also, depending on which 30 years you choose to include, the UK incumbent also lost in ’79. Between 1979 and 2009, I make it a 2-2 draw.

As you say, there’s no proof that choosing the election date will help you win, because there are too many other variables; in my opinion, the advantage is mainly held by political journalists who are stuck for a topic.

By: John Lanchester

John Lanchester — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:17:54 +0000

I don’t think this is susceptible of proof, since there are so many variables. Also, I suspect we may be defining incumbency differently. But over the thirty years, the governing party in the US lost in 1980, 1992, 2000, and 2008, whereas in the UK, they only lost in 1997.