David Cameron should accept David Davis is the real Tory leader

David Cameron has spent a lot of time in the last few weeks talking about how great the First Past the Post electoral system is. He will not countenance any change from this even though MPs can end up elected with often much less than 50% of the vote in their own constituency.

What I find fascinating about this is that if you follow his line of reasoning to its logical conclusion then David Cameron should not be leader of the Conservative party at all. Instead it should be David Davis.

Have a look at this page on Keele University's website where it tracked the voting during the 2005 Conservative leadership contest. You can see quite clearly that in the first round of voting, the following votes were cast:

If this had been a First Past the Post election then David Davis would have been elected leader. Of course that is not what happened and instead there were two more rounds of voting as Ken Clarke and Liam Fox were eliminated and then Cameron and Davis went through to the final round where Cameron got more than two thirds of the votes.

The Conservatives do not trust First Past the Post to elect their own leaders. Indeed if they had have done there would have been a very different result but they clearly do not think that it is fair and does not produce a result that represents the real feeling of the electorate. This is proven by their own results in each round from the 2005 leadership election.

So why do they think it is fair for this system to be foisted on the rest of us for elections for seats to Westminster?

UPDATE: I have had a number of people (including in the comments below) pointing out that the first two rounds were just the MPs which whittled the candidates down to two before they were put to the party as a whole. That is a fair point but it does still show that the Conservative Party has not chosen a FPTP system to elect their leader, instead they used an electoral college (presumably trying to reflect the views of the party at large) in the first two rounds followed by a run off from the party members proper. This is actually closer to how an Alternative Vote system would work with the different rounds to an extent reflecting MPs second and third preferences as they moved forward.

I still think it is a legitimate question to ask why this sort of principle can be applied to their leadership but not at election time for MPs.

MPs cannot be allowed to prevent electoral reform

I am a big fan of This Week. I always try and watch it and have generally been very impressed with Michael Portillo in the last few years. He seems to have his finger on the pulse of most political issues. That's why I listened with particular interest last night when the discussion was about electoral reform.

Portillo seems to be under the rather odd impression that anything except the First Past the Post system is crazy. He was arguing that the only reason the BNP got MEPs was because of the "crazy" PR system. Andrew Neil tried to press upon him that it might be the fact that almost a million people voted for them but he was having none of it.

I am very disappointed with how unwilling the political old guard are to engage with the idea that FPTP might not be fit for purpose. We are a much more pluralistic country now than we were 50 years ago and our electoral system just does not reflect that.

Another thing that really hit home with me was when both Portillo and Diane Abbott talked about the political reality of getting a referendum on electoral reform through the House of Commons. They are both clearly of the view that irrespective of whatever Gordon Brown or Alan Johnson might wish to happen, many Labour MPs and virtually all Tory MPs would be against such an idea, thus they would not even allow a referendum on it.

This has had me thinking even more deeply about this issue. I have heard people say what I am about to say before but the whole expenses debacle brings it home even more clearly.

MPs as a group cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of democracy or of the country when it comes to the system that is used to elect them. They have too much vested interest in the existing system. Whatever they might say, they have already proved themselves incapable of doing what is right for the country/taxpayers with the expenses debacle. They were in charge of their own system of claims and remuneration and it is now abundantly clear that it was stacked massively in favour of them being able to claim almost anything they liked to their own personal advantage. They came up with all sorts of arguments against changing the system for years and years, tried to cover up the truth of what was going on and the only reason things are now changing is because all the information got out into the public domain. Now all political leaders and virtually all MPs accept it has to change and they could not, after all be trusted.

Exactly the same situation applies to the electoral system for the House of Commons. the First Past the Post system is completely unfair. It allows governments to be formed with 55% of the seats on 35% of the vote. It disenfranchises millions of people across the country. In fact the only people who really count at election time are the 100,000 or so swing voters in the marginal constituencies. I am afraid that having listened to the arguments from the MPs who are opponents of electoral reform they are mostly spurious and designed to fit into neat soundbites that can be used to shoot down the arguments of reformers without properly engaging with the issues.

What is missing from the debate on electoral reform is the sort of huge spasm of revulsion that the expenses scandal has caused. That is why the parallels between the two situations need to be highlighted at every opportunity.

Why should we take MPs at their word that FPTP is the right system when it massively favours many of them and effectively gives them tenure for life? They are in complete control of the terms and conditions of their own employment. They have already proved that they cannot be trusted when it comes to deciding these sorts of terms.

The solution is for a citizens convention populated by ordinary people chosen in the same way as juries are chosen (but with more than 12 members) who are given the time and space to look at all the different systems and come to a conclusion about which is the best one to change to. This can then be put to the country in a referendum. I favour Single Transferable Vote but I am happy to go with whatever the convention chooses.

I repeat, we should not trust MPs as a group to do what is right for the country on this issue. They are only human and they have too much of a vested interest in the current system. the time has come for this to change.

How STV would re-enfranchise voters

With all the discussion there has been in the last few weeks about potential electoral reform, I have found myself discussing and debating the issues surrounding this in various media.

I was having a discussion with someone on Twitter about this last night. He is a Conservative supporter who lives in the Manchester Withington constituency. Currently his MP is Liberal Democrat John Leech and he is not happy about this. I tried to explain how STV would help to re-enfranchise him but 140 characters is not the STV advocate's friend so I have had a look at the numbers and will try and explain what I mean here.

Single Transferable Vote works with multi-member constituencies. In the case of Manchester Withington, here are the figures for the last General Election in 2005 when the seat was last contested:

General Election 2005: Manchester, Withington
Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	Liberal Democrat	John Leech	15,872	42.4	+20.4
	Labour	Keith Bradley	15,205	40.6	-14.3
	Conservative	Karen Bradley	3,919	10.5	-4.8
	Green	Brian Candeland	1,595	4.3	-0.1
	UK Independence	Robert Gutfreund-Walmsley	424	1.1	+1.1
	Independent	Ivan Benett	243	0.6	+0.6
	Independent	Yasmin Zalzala	153	0.4	+0.4
	Their Party	Richard Reed	47	0.1	+0.1
Majority			667	1.8
Turnout			37,458	55.3	+3.4
	Liberal Democrat gain from Labour		Swing	+17.3

So there were just shy of 4,000 votes for the Tories on a turnout of 37,458 meaning a vote share of about 10.5%. Under FPTP it looks very unlikely that my friend will find himself represented by a Tory after the next election. Indeed he was talking about perhaps voting tactically for Labour to get Mr Leech out (this was under a hypothetical AV system we were discussing which shows that AV does not stop tactical voting and which further disenfranchises people, anyway I digress).

I then had a look at this page on Wikipedia which shows the Greater Manchester constituencies and had a quick look at how an STV 5 member constituency could be created. I plumped for a merging of Manchester Withington, Wythenshawe and Sale East, Cheadle, Hazel Grove and Stockport. These are all contiguous and would make up a reasonable 5 member constituency I think.

I won't list all the data from these seats but the salient information (taken from the 2005 election results) for this exercise is:

The way that seats are calculated using STV is a little bit more involved than just a straight percentage read-across however if the 2005 election in these seats had been run as STV it is fair to assume that the Conservatives would have got about 25% of first preferences. We cannot know for sure due to second third and so on preferences but it is likely that the Tories would have got one MP under such a system (as 5 members would be elected here and 25% should give them one of those) whereas at the moment they have no MPs in any of these seats.

This would enfranchise my friend in Manchester Withington whose vote would have counted for something in the 2005 election.

Perhaps Conservatives should bear all of this in mind when they are discussing electoral reform in the future and not just dismiss it out of hand. "PR" covers many systems but STV is the fairest one that gives rough proportionality and still maintains good (some would say better than under FPTP) constituency links.

List of Speaker of the House of Commons Candidates

Iain Dale has a live blog of the proceedings for the election of the new Speaker here.


+++ UPDATE: 22/06/2009 09:30: Douglas Carswell MP announces for Richard Shepherd for Speaker of the House of Commons +++

I seem to be getting a lot of traffic from people looking for a list of the candidates for Speaker of the House of Commons which takes place on Monday 22nd June so I thought I would be helpful and keep a list of them updated here as well as some further information and links to what other bloggers are saying about the race:

LIST OF DECLARED CANDIDATES:

Margaret Beckett
John Bercow
Sir Patrick CormackSir Alan Haselhurst
Sir George Young
Parmjit Dhanda
Sir Alan Beith
Sir Michael LordAnn Widdecombe
Richard Shepherd

Frank Field ruled himself out a few days before the contest.

Also, there is a page on Wikipedia which keeps track of the contest here. There is a BBC News list of the runners and riders here.

21/06/2006 - 16:00

There are some interesting posts about the race from the Political Betting blog here:

Bercow now becomes an evens firm favourite

The Speakership: Tracking the horse race

The Speaker race: the prices get tighter

Is the battle now down to Young and Beckett?

Iain Dale seems to think Alan Haselhurst could come through the middle. He also has a Youtube clip of Sir Alan in action here. He is a scary man!

21/06/2006 - 23:40

Guido reports that Labour whips are now getting MPs behind Margaret Beckett. This surely makes her almost unbeatable now?

22/06/2009 - 09:30

John Ward gives his views on the election.

22/06/2009 - 09:35

Mike Smithson of Political Betting says that Margaret Beckett is the favourite but asks if a late entrant (they only need to declare by 10:30am today) could act as a spoiler for these odds:

UPDATE: 22/06/2009 - 09:40

The Talking Clock thinks that the new Speaker will be tainted before they even start.

And Stephen Glenn urges MPs not to let Margaret Beckett sit in the Speaker's chair.

UPDATE: 22/06/2009 - 12:50
I am against Margaret Beckett (as are a lot of other Lib Dem bloggers) and for Richard Shepherd.

UPDATE: Just so you know, I am keeping the content of this page updated as we get closer to the election on Monday 22nd June hence it might change.

Finally, it's a bit academic now but here were my thoughts and why it should have been Frank Field (although I did not think it would be!).

BBC Question Time Live Chat - 11th June 2009

It's BBC Question Time day again (are you as excited as me?) and the Live Chat on this blog will start at 10:30pm.

The panel will include newly appointed Secretary of State for Wales Peter Hain, Conservative shadow communities secretary Caroline Spelman, Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne, joint secretary general of Unite Derek Simpson, and director of Global Vision Ruth Lea.

You can also follow people's comments on Twitter via the #bbcqt hashtag (you can also follow me here on Twitter by the way - I did manage to multi-task it last week!).

Liberal Democrat Voice also always have an open thread for BBC Question Time which is usually posted just before the start of the programme.

Chat is now finished. We will be back same time next week but in the meantime you can review how this week's one went below:

Liam Byrne was unintelligible on Today this morning

I listened to the 8:10am interview with Liam Byrne and Phillip Hammond this morning on the Radio 4 Today programme and I could hardly understand a word of what Liam Byrne was saying.

He kept talking about "tough choices" and "difficult decisions" but as far as I could tell he didn't answer a single one of John Humphries questions, he just blethered on about Tory cuts whilst failing to acknowledge that Labour will on their own figures have to cut too.

It is absolutely pathetic. Do politicians who do this, really think they are fooling anyone? They just come across as evasive and in Byrne's case today unintelligible. I follow politics very closely and have a fair grasp of the economic issues involved but I did not understand what Byrne was on about by the end of the interview.

I almost get tired of saying this but if politicians want to understand why people feel so disengaged from politics, they should listen to Byrne from this morning and try to put themselves in the shoes of an ordinary voter.

I could barely hear Nick Clegg yesterday at PMQs

The House of Commons behaves disgracefully sometimes.

I usually watch PMQs on the TV but I had to listen to it on the radio yesterday. It was a bit difficult sometimes to make out what Brown and Cameron were saying due to the barracking and shouting and a couple of times when it got too bad the Speaker intervened to stop it.

However when Nick Clegg was trying to speak there was very loud barracking and also people clearly having very loud conversations which were picked up and transmitted by the microphones. Perhaps it is easier to tune this stuff out when you have the pictures too because today I could barely hear what he was saying.

Now I am not really trying to make a party political point here because this sort of discourteous behaviour is on show in the Commons from all sides and against most people who speak, especially when the House is very busy. At a time when politicians are supposed to be listening to what people want to trying to reform politics do they really think this sort of display is what the public want to see? No wonder people are so turned off by politics in this country.

I have written about this before back in January and I know I am not the only person who feels like this.

Other Reckonings - 10th June 2009

• The excellent Cardiff Student Lib Dems blog asks why Cameron is so afraid of democracy
• Patrick Hennessey was surprised to see Gordon Brown on the front foot for once
• Recent Twitter convert Nich Starling thinks that Labour have given away the timing of the Norwich North by-election
• Jonathan Fryer asks what Bob Crow has achieved
• And Lynne Featherstone thinks that after all his promises, Gordon Brown has failed his first test

Expect a referendum on AV+ at the next election

Having listened to what Gordon Brown had to say today during PMQs and then later during his statement, I am now coming to the view that what will happen is a referendum on Alternative Vote Plus to coincide with the next General Election.

My evidence is as follows m'lud:

1) During PMQs, Gordon Brown said this:

What I say about electoral reform, however, is that I have never myself supported the policy of proportional representation for a Westminster Parliament; that has always been my view. The right hon. Gentleman has to accept that the policy of proportional representation exists for the European elections, and I do not see a proposal from his party to change it at the moment. He has to accept also that the Jenkins proposals for the additional vote plus PR laid down criteria by which it would be impossible for the British National party to hold a seat—even under the PR system—in the British Parliament, unless it won a constituency seat.

Now I know that he says he does not support a proportional system at the start of his answer, but AV+ is not proportional. Not fully anyway so by careful semantics Brown could get around this. He also goes out of his way to talk up AV+ as a system that shoots down in flames, Cameron's BNP point. Why would he do this if he wasn't trying to convince us of its merits?

2) When repeatedly asked is he was going to have a referendum on this before the General Election he repeatedly said there were "no plans" for this. Of course that could easily mean that he will do it and there is absolutely nothing to stop him having it to coincide with the next General Election.

3) Alan Johnson is now Home Secretary and after the failed coup last week, one of the most powerful people in the government and heir apparent. He has said on the record that he wants an AV+ referendum to coincide with the next General Election. He may well succeed Gordon Brown in the Autumn and if the measures announced today already have momentum, turning it into a referendum will be all the easier for a new PM with probably a bit of a honeymoon period that he can exploit.

4) Brown will feel that he has to be seen to be doing something and his calculating brain will be telling him that this measure will "stuff the Tories". I don't agree that it will at all and a proportional system will be better for everybody (once we all get used to it) but that won't be how Brown will see it, he will be looking at this like he does with everything from a partisan perspective.

So, that's what I reckon will happen. Of course my track record in predictions doesn't appear to have been great of late but I think I might just be on the money here...

UPDATE: I should probably just clarify that this is what I reckon will happen, not what I think should. I want Single Transferable Vote which is the proportional system that I think is by far the best one.

20 Year Rule - Brown's latest wheeze?

Gordon Brown's announcement today about the package of reforms he wishes to bring in have a characteristic twist. Whenever he does something like this he is always looking for schemes and wheezes to slip in that he hopes will not garner much attention (until it is too late) and will yield some partisan advantage.

The one today vying for that honour is the announcement that the 30 year rule could be relaxed to 20 years. He mentioned specific exemptions for the Royal Family and cabinet papers. However I thought he had hedged this a bit when I heard it. This is what Hansard records that he said:

I should also announce that, as part of extending the availability of official information, and as our response to the Dacre review, we will progressively reduce the time taken to release official documents. As the report recommended, we have considered the need to strengthen protection for particularly sensitive material, and there will be protection of royal family and Cabinet papers as part of strictly limited exemptions. But we will reduce the time for release of all other official documents below the current 30 years, to 20 years. So that Government information is accessible and useful for the widest possible group of people, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who led the creation of the worldwide web, has agreed to help us to drive the opening up of access to Government data on the web over the coming months.

I have highlighted the section "there will be protection" because it does not state what the scope or limits of this protection is and states they will be "part of strictly limited exemptions" again without defining what that means. It does not say cabinet papers will be completely exempted.

Now call me an old cynic but as soon as I heard this my first thought was that this could be a highly political and partisan measure. By the time this came in in 2010 we would suddenly find a lot of information from the entire 1980s would come out in one fell swoop. It cannot be a coincidence that happens to coincide with the entirety of Margaret Thatcher's reign as Prime Minister. Even if there does end up being an exemption for all cabinet papers there will surely still be some politically embarrassing things that went on further down the chain and journalists will have a field day with 10 years worth of data to mine.

This is unjust and unfair. Brown is trying to move the goal-posts and use his power in a way that could give his party an advantage and disadvantage the Tories. If Brown wants to convince us that he is not trying to pull a fast one here he should pledge to decrease the limit say by a year or two every year so the information comes out gradually (although a bit faster than before) until the 20 number is reached and not until after the next election. That way, there will be limited or no partisan advantage in the scheme.

I see that Mr Political Betting, Mike Smithson also thinks there is something suspicious about Brown's plans here.

Work interfering with my political habit!

I am my own boss and that means I generally work very long hours often including evenings and weekends. However because I am usually largely in control of my own timetable it does mean that I can afford myself the occasional political treat during the day like watching PMQs or the budget speech and also enough time intermittently to blog.

However since the start of last week I have been largely working on customer site and this means that I am now not really in control of my own timetable. I missed PMQs last week and I will probably miss it again today. This is likely to go on until the end of July! I am having to catch up with things in the mornings and evenings.

How do others bloggers/activists juggle their work/family and political stuff?

MP pastoral duties - Let's have a heated debate!

During a rather frenetic Twitterfest around the subject of potential electoral reform, I tweeted that I thought that the primary function of an MP should be to legislate and scrutinise the government and that the pastoral work could be balanced a bit more with this.

I had a couple of responses from Darrell Goodliffe and Caron Lindsay who both think that the pastoral side of things is very important. I said I would blog about this to explain what I meant a bit more clearly free of the tyranny of 140 character limits!

The dual role of MPs to legislate and hold the government to account while at the same time performing a pastoral role for their constituents seems to me to be a slightly quirky thing. It has evolved over the years to where we are now but with the advent of electronic communications, most MPs nowadays get much more correspondence from their constituents than they ever used to. I suspect with the decline of deference over the last few decades that they also feel more entitled to attend surgeries and discuss their problems with their parliamentary representative.

Now, I need to be careful here so that I am not misunderstood. Keeping in touch with your constituents as an MP is very important. Actually, I would go further than that and say it is a vital part of our democracy. However I wonder if things may be swinging too far and that MPs can sometimes be swamped with case-work and issues that in some cases they are perhaps not the best placed person to deal with. Councillors should and do perform this function and there are lots of other people and agencies who can help but I think that the local MP is the most high profile and visible politician which is why they can become the first port of call.

There are some issues that MPs should and must get involved with if it relates to national issues and/or requires representation to government. I also think surgeries are a very good thing but I wonder if there might be a way to arrange things so that MPs do not necessarily become the first port of call for things and instead only get issues that they are able to help with.

The reason for all of this is because an MP only has so much time and energy and I feel that a good proportion of it should be put into holding the government to account and scrutinising what they are doing as well as contributing to legislation. God knows we need it, especially with some of the half-baked laws that have ended up on the statute books in the last few years!

I am not sure how many MPs agree with me about this. It would be hard for them to say anything I guess because what MP wants to be heard talking about reducing their constituency case-work? I think this is an important issue though and as I say, I am not advocating a massive change, just a rebalancing to the way I thought things were supposed to work perhaps with the public advised better as to where the best place to take their issues to initially is.

I would be interested to hear other people views from all parties about this and am certainly open to persuasion that I have got this wrong and the balance is actually about right.

UPDATE: Costigan Quist has drawn my attention to an article he wrote last November that talks about this issue too.

Other Reckonings - 9th June 2009 - Electoral Reform Special!

Seeing as there has been so much discussion on Twitter and in the blogs tonight about the floated proposals from the government for electoral reform, I thought I'd make tonight's OR a special about that:

• Costigan Quist thinks the lack of proportionality with AV and a timetable will make this yet another piece of Brown fudge.
• Andy Hinton thinks that senior Lib Dems need to get a line on our view of AV fast! I can give them one right now!
• Jennie Rigg pleads to Cthulhu for STV and asks why can't we have it. Amen.
• Iain Dale thinks the move is an attempt to save Brown's face.
• And Conservative Home are unsurprisingly against the plans suggesting that there is no clamour for change. Maybe not from Tories but there is from many others quarters, I can assure them. What's more surprising is that most of the comments don't even seem to understand what AV is!

UPDATE:

• One more for good luck. Rene Kinzett, Conservative PPC with a message to his fellow party members to embrace the opportunity to lead on reform. Looks like we might have another in the mould of Mr Carswell!

AV is not proportional!

Gordon Brown is apparently going to announce proposals to change the electoral system at Westminster tomorrow to - wait for it - the Alternative Vote system. Not even AV+ as advocated by Alan Johnson recently (and which sparked a lot of debate in the Lib Dem blogosphere) but just plain old AV.

What a surprise! After all his talk of promising to reform the system and listen to people he has plumped for a system that can actually be less proportional than First Past the Post.

I am doubtful whether a change to AV is even worth the Lib Dems getting behind. There are some positive things about the system such as ensuring that candidates always have at least 50% of the vote in the constituency and reducing the need for tactical voting. However because it is not proportional, the results will still not be fair across the country and after all the hassle of introducing a system like this, any further reform will be off the table for a very long time. People will say "but we've already had electoral reform haven't we?" and switch off.

I will be interested to hear what other electoral reform supporters think about this.

RIP FPTP?

There is an excellent post from Cabalamat on Amused Cynicism today which argues that the First Past the Post electoral system is now dead and it needs to be buried.

It uses data from Political Betting to show how the European vote has drifted more and more towards the smaller parties in the last 50 years and that people are getting more and more used to and comfortable with this level of pluralism.

The conclusion that he comes to however is interesting and very controversial. He thinks that the minor parties (Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens) should all come together and field candidates who when elected will implement a referendum on electoral reform and once it is passed dissolve parliament. It's an interesting idea but it is unlikely to happen for a plethora of reasons.

I think the central thesis is right though. Nobody responsible for implementing the new electoral systems in this country in the last few years has dared to bring if FPTP. It just wouldn't wash and the only reason we have it for Westminster is for historical reasons. But it has long ceased to be fit for purpose and most people who do not have a huge vested interest in the existing system, and even some leading Tories and Labour members are now openly speaking out about reform.

I wouldn't say it is dead yet but I would be very surpised if we still had it for Westminster elections 20 years from now.

Eggs

Pelting the BNP Leader Nick Griffin with eggs is not the way forward. It just makes him look like the victim of an angry mob and will elicit sympathy for him.

Far better to engage them in debate and expose their policies for what they really are, hate filled, incoherent and nonsensical.

There has been a good debate on this going on on Charlotte's blog here today.

I've realised what's been really bugging me...

Over the last few weeks, as the Government's situation has gone from bad, to worse, to diabolical there has been something in the way that Gordon Brown and other ministers have tried to defend him and their position that has been really niggling away at me and I have realised what it is.

Almost every defence that you hear has an implicit (and sometimes explicit) assumption that only Labour can govern. That it is only Labour and Gordon Brown who in fact have any right to govern.

I have heard Gordon Brown himself respond to questions about whether he should stand down with phrases like "No, because we need to do x to fix y problem" or "We are tackling the problems with the economy". It is as if nobody else and no other party could possibly even be considered able to govern at all.

Now, of course that's politics. You position yourself as the answer and try to paint your opponents as the opposite. However I just get the feeling with this lot that they have reached the point where they have been in power for so long that they genuinely think they are the only ones who can do it.

I have a long enough memory to remember what things were like under John Major towards the end of his reign. I recall (although I cannot find a link to it) some government adviser or somesuch resigning in about 1996 and getting into the papers by talking about how the Conservatives seemed to feel that they had "a divine right to govern". I also remember john Major in the run up to the 1997 election in a rather odd admission that he was going to lose publically offerring to train Tony Blair in how to handle European conferences. It showed that Major really felt that nobody could do it properly but him.

This is arrogance of the highest order. Gordon Brown should put himself in the shoes of himself from 13 years ago and remember how scornful he was of such claims from the then moribund Conservatives. They need much better reasons for people to vote for them than "we've been in for a while and others aren't up to the job". That is an argument for perpetual incumbency and as Major found out in 1997, it doesn't work. It just makes the "Time for a Change" argument resonate all the more.

Alan Johnson could deny Tories a majority

According to a poll commissioned for today's Independent, Alan Johnson the Home Secretary could deny the Tories outright victory at a General Election.

The main figures from the poll (which also tests other potential candidates) are:

Alan Johnson, Home Secretary

Man most likely to succeed Gordon Brown if he is toppled before general election.

Election result with him as leader:

Con 36% Labour 26% Lib Dems 19% (Con six seats short of majority.)

Support among Labour identifiers: 76%

Gordon Brown, Prime Minister

Hoping to see off plotters as Cabinet did not join revolt

Election result with him as leader:

Con 38% Labour 22% Lib Dems 20% (Con majority: 74)

Support among Labour identifiers: 71 per cent

So The Tories would only have a 10 point lead with Johnson vs a 16 point lead with Brown.

Although this is interesting to note, I don't think it is going to be enough to make a difference now that a cabinet and then a PLP rebellion now seems to have been quashed. It is also interesting to note that the First Past the Post electoral system that the Conservatives are oh so keen to cling onto allows Labour to deny them a majority on just over a quarter of the vote!

Just as interesting however for me are the ones who also come close to Mr Johnson:

Jack Straw, Justice Secretary

His withdrawal of support could finish Brown.

Election result with him as leader:

Con 36% Labour 25% Lib Dems 19% (Con majority of 10)

Support among Labour identifiers: 71 per cent

David Miliband, Foreign Secretary

Raised profile last summer but campaign faltered

Election result with him as leader:

Con 37% Labour 25% Lib Dems 19% (Con majority: 30)

Support among Labour identifiers: 73%

It shows that for all the hype, Johnson is not the only one in the frame by any means. I thought David Miliband's chance had been done in by a banana but apparently not!

I am keen to see how these sorts of figures hold up over the next few months.

Other Reckonings - 8th June 2009

• Steve Guy thinks Labour could be facing another 20 years in the wilderness
• Paul Walter asks if Cameron will now criticise the STV PR system that has just given him a stunning victory in Northern Ireland
• Skipper reckons that Labour's future's in the balance. He used to teach me politics you know. Sort of.
• Berkshire's number one blogger and MP for Wokingham John Redwood thinks Caroline Flint did not earn any sort of promotion
• And the first Conservative I ever met who was for electoral reform, Janice Small (She's also Tory PPC for Batley and Spen) writes a very good piece calling for a full debate on which system we should go for on OurKingdom

PLP doesn't have the cojones

Surprise, surprise. Despite some calls from the "usual suspects" for Brown to stand down it appears that the PLP meeting that was billed as "make or break" for Gordon has turned out to be "make".

Swarms of loyalists are out right now spinning about how there was a small minority against him but the vast majority of the ranks are square behind him. It is starting to look like this rebellion is fizzling out. The cabinet and the PLP are too spineless to do the necessary and defenestrate Brown.

It seems that they are so fearful of losing their jobs in the General Election that there would be huge pressure for if Brown was replaced that they daren't risk it right now. That seems to now be the only thing that Brown has going for him.

However I have read both James Forsyth and John Rentoul argue very convincingly that his respite is temporary. The argument is that although they are scared to get rid of him right now, come the Autumn things flip. He will still be desperately unpopular and utterly useless as a leader but then an alternative leader could take over and with the nights drawing in, quite reasonably say that (s)he will call an election for early Spring, perhaps even name the date. That's roughly when Labour will have to go to the country anyway and the natural self-interest of Labour MPs switches to support someone, anyone but Gordon who can try to mitigate the annihilation.

So unless there is a game changer in the next few days, it looks like I might have to cough up my tenner to Charlotte and Kalvis.

However I may well pop down to the bookies and put a few quid on Brown not being PM by the end of the year. That seems certain now. So much so, that I wonder if I will even get odds on it.