Is this the face of a man who is on his way out?
July 18th, 2005
-
Could Blair stay to fight another election?
As the polls were closing at the Hartlepool by-election on September 30th 2004 Tony Blair issued a statement that he was about to go into hospital for a small procedure and that he would stand down as Labour leader and Prime Minister before the then next General Election but one - which is probably scheduled for 2009.
The move seemed designed to deal with ongoing unpopularity following the Iraq war and to end the speculation about his position within the Labour party. In essence he was saying that he was going to go but not immediately.
As a device it worked and since then the Westminster village has been trying to guess when he would in fact leave Number 10. In the immediate aftermath of the May 5th victory there was much talk of a handover to Gordon Brown within months - and certainly not the years envisaged in his September 30th statement. In the first week after the election you could have got just 2/1 on a transition during 2005.
Following the victory over France in securing the 2012 Olympics for London and the general acclaim at the way he, personally, has dealt with the bombings and their aftermath there’ve been weekend press reports that Blair might just be considering staying on.
-
Quite how Tony Blair would square a statement that he was not, after all, standing aside with what he said last year we do not know. But to him such turnarounds are merely minor linguistic challenges. In the normal Blair way he would get away with it.
From all the reports the critical thing to him personally is whether or not his continuation in the job is undermining or helping Labour and it’s here that we think there has been a change of view. He did not go when everything was against him so why should he leave when things are going he his way. Of course there would be ructions from the Chancellor and parts of the party - but since when has Blair been worried about this?
The spread-betting market that we very much like is Sporting Index’s BetHiLo spread on how many months the Blair third term will last. It’s currently at 19-21 month so a buy would give you increasing profits for every month he stayed after February 2007. This looks great value.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Blair will go, I think he is smart enough not to stay pass his sell by date. Im guessing he will leave after May in 2007 b/c it would be the 10th year of his primership and his government and a mildstone in his own mind.
Plus Brown will want to have at least 2 full years to set up his own record before he goes into a General election in 2009, which will in my opinion not be an easy election for New Labour.
I still don’t understand why 2009 is the preferred election date and labour are odds on to win again at this stage.
Around 20 labour held seats are now super-marginals, there is also the re-drawing of the boundaries which will favour the tories by up to 20 seats, throw in almost certain house price falls, the potential implosion of the 1.2 trillion debt bubble and the associated economic malaise, Iraq goes from bad to worse, and the fact that people might want a change after 12-13 years, now can you really see a 66 seat majority surviving?
Who knows what he thinks? I’m sure Brown would make a move against him though if it became clear he was planning to seek a fourth term.
2009 is the preferred date by convention. In British Politics it is normal for a government to serve for a minimum of about 4 years before calling an election. It can’t go higher than 5 though.
So 2009 is 4 years after this years election…
2 In modern British politics when a government trys to go to a full 5 year term, it usually means that the government is in trouble and is afraid to go to the polls b/c they know they will lose. Such was the case in 97 when Major dragged out his government for the full five years (1992-1997).
If Brown has to go to 2010 then that can only mean one thing. Also all the things you listed could happen, but we are not certain. Such a sitution would be ripe for the Conservative if b then they had the right leadership, message and have shed there 1980’s and 90’s baggage.
3. Absolutetly the reason. Brown has not taken Blair out until now even though he has the Power on Numerous Occasions is the Fearful Cost it would entail in the ensuing BloodBath in the Labour Party, better to await the Smooth handover of the inheritance. If Blair did U-Turn and it became Clear he might never get his inheritance what he would have to Restrain him? IF and a Bloody BIg IF as i’m not sure this Stuff comes from Blair himself but merely People who hate Brown’s Guts and fear whatr will happen to thems when their Master goes Blair did it, he had better take Brown out somehow first, before Brown Takes Him Out.
I’m still thinking late 2007 or early 2008. Can’t see there being much electoral appetite for him fighting again.
However Brown is quite capable of destroying himself in any challenge.
I see Blair serving a full term and Brown (if he’ll be the next leader) calling an election in late 2009 (in June 2009 there’ll be the Euro Elections) or early 2010.
I don’t see Blair fighting another election. 2009/2010 is the last chance for Gordon. Then he’ll be too old and new men (or women) will emerge. If Blair will stay, the final year of this term will be a carnage (or at least a big fight on every bill and this attitude always lead to defeat). 24 MPs of the Campaign Group voting against and the majoirty will be reduced to something like 20. Then Clare Short and Glenda Jackson and try to add 10 brownites (especially the one at the end of their career like Nick Brown) and the governemnt majoirty is gone.
Excuses Blair could use after winning an election of the basis that you vote Blair and soon get Brown:
Blair could say that, yes there was a time when he was thinking of standing down, but colleagues have “persauded” him to stay on.
They have urged him to give up his plans to write his memoirs and spend more time with his family. He has decided to make “the ultimate personal sacrifice for Britain.”
He has “never been one to shy away from tough decisions.”
He could say he feels he has “a duty to the nation” and to his party to continue to serve the people of Britain and deal with the new challenges that face Britain.
It would be “a betrayal of the British national interest” to step down at this stage, he could claim.
Apart from which, it would be “sending out all the wrong messages,” to the terrorists.
Now isn’t the time for him to stand down, he could say, when there is “a process underway” to make Britain safe and to modernise Europe and to complete the rebuilding of our public services.
It is the duty of all of us to recognise “the enormity of the problems we face,” we could be told, and to accept that we must trust him to introduce the measures needed to make us safe.
He could say he has “the full support” of his team, it was them afterall and “in particular Gordon Brown” that convinced him “to do the right thing for Britain.”
9. If the tories will manage to find a decent leader and run a decent campaign, there will be a huge risk to have at least an hung parliament.
Will Blair really want not to win an election? He could retire undefeated and let Gordon to fail to win.
Or maybe he really wants to experiment a coalition government with the Libdems. Charlie as home office secretary or as foreign affairs secretary?
Ten. No way Blair has show no inclination to have a Coalition Government with his Own Party, never mind the Lib Dems. Of course if he suffering from RKS Syndrome, Vanity may persuade him to Stay on but there is the Pressing Issue of his retirement home.
Anyways Staying on wouls set the Scene for the final showdown between the Old Master and the Apprentice that would outdo anything George Lucas could dream up. The Tories maybe under fresh faced Cameron, would have the Joy of watching in reverse the agonies their Party endured in the Mid to Late 90’s as Labour tears itself apart. Whoever won that duel, Blair to stay on or Brown in a Coup would find themselves leading a weakened Party with a defeated but not Vanquished faction to contend with Still brooding and uninclined to help, with a revitalised Tory Opposition.
OTOH If Blair feels Labour needs a 4th Term to seciure his Legacy, and he feels Brown may not get that 4th Term he may just decide to Grit his teeh and decide whatever happens he is still better placed to win than Gordon which maybe the Case, and doublecross the Scot Again.
11. but Labour will get a 4th mandate?
It’s not a sure thing. With the new boundaries Lab majority could be reduced to 30 seats. They could get back Bethnal Green (GG said he would retire next time) and Peter Law could make a Livingstone’s comeback to his old home, but Labour has many ultra-marginals to defend (and some like Oxford and Islington South with the Libdems in second place).
It’s very easy to fall in a hung Parliament territory.
Does Blair really want to risk his legacy as an election winner?
12 , Andrea . I take the view that TB will leave the stage after about 3 years and leave GB (almost certainly) time to get his feet under the table prior to a GE .
I stand ready to be laughed out of court by convinced Blair-haters, but I think health, and a related promise to his family, really was the major factor in his decision to retire. To the extent that allies are whispering about him staying on it is raising unceertainty so as to enable him to stay on to the back end of the Parliament, but I have no doubt that he will never fight another election as PM. Mind you, the 17-21 month spread does look better value now.
“They could get back Bethnal Green (GG said he would retire next time)” - no, he said he wouldn’t stand in Bethnal Green and Bow next time; BIG difference!
12. I’m mot sure he would. On the other hand i was merely putting forward the plausible arguments why me might stay on. I have no Idea whether he will though. Though if i had to Choose i would say unless GB Self Destructed in the next 2-3 Years the Certain Blair Knowledge of Gordon’s highly likely Nuclear Reaction to an announcement to Stay should be enough to persuade him to go as planned, but you never ever know Stranger Thingss have Happened………
15.yes, you’re right.
What winnable seat could he find next time?
Probably it depends from what country will UK attack in these 5 years.
When was Galloway elect for the first time?
Am I right thinking that parties will avoid to have GE and Euro Elections in the same day?
17. GG has talked of running for Europe, the PR System means he should be able to get in easily for a Nice little relaxing Job.
“on September 30th 2004 Tony Blair issued a statement that he was about to go into hospital for a small procedure”
Unfortunately, the queue for conscience transplants on the NHS being what they are, they couldn’t do the whole procedure at the time and he’s still on the waiting list!
Andrea, IIRC he was first elected in 1987 for Glasgow Hillhead ousting Roy Jenkins
18. He failed last time to get a seat.
In London (the best prospect for Respect), Respect got 91,175 votes.
The last London seat went to Labour’s Robert Evans (the one who lost Brean East by election to Sarah Teather). Respect would needed more than 155,528 to get the last seat.
20. thanks John O.
21. I got Brent East’s name wrong again……
21 - It will be quite interesting to see whether he would win a Euro seat. Respect are probably stronger organisationally and in terms of profile than they were in the Euros. However, they would lose votes to the Greens across London, plus for every Bethnal Green type area there is a Richmond Park type area so he can hardly think he would stroll into the European Parliament.
While we obviously can not see into Blair’s personal reasoning, I think that there are two things that will make the decision. Firstly, and critically, is his family. Although the children are growing up, the health problems that particularly Kathryn has had have brought the PM quite close to leaving before. A promise made to his family is far more binding than one to his party, and I think that he will not break it. The timing is his alone, but the fact is he is not going to fight another election as PM.
Secondly, however is the thorny issue of “legacy”. This, I think, determines the precise time. The G-8 has set a long term agenda, and he may choose to go to St.Petersburg next year as the previous G-8 President to maintain some of the direction he asked for at Gleneagles. The EU Presidency also has has key policy agendas- and this does not finish at the end of this year, because the Presidency works in a troika- the previous holders, the current holders and the next holders, (so currently that is Luxembourg-UK-Austria). I would suggest that he will not, therefore, step down until at least June 2006 at the earliest- the end of the Austrian Presidency.
However, one intriguing idea emerges from this leak about timetables for troop withdrawals from Iraq. If troops are to be withdrawn, then he may choose to go a short while after such a withdrawal was completed- say mid 2007 if we beleived the leak. In any event I am willing to bet that he will go and by January 2008 at the latest, and I submit July-August or December 2006- or April-May or July-August or December 2007 as the most likely times. In any event He will do a Wilson and control his own exit at a time of his choosing.
23. Last year’s Euro results in London:
Conservative 504,941
Labour 466,584
Libdems 288,790
UKIP 232,633
Greens 158,986
Respect 91,175
Total seats: 9
MEPs elected by round:
Greens (JAne Lambert): 158,986
1) conservative (Theresa Villiers): 504,941
2) Labour (Claude Moraes): 466,584
3) Libdems (Sarah Ludford): 288,790
4) Conservative (John Bowis): 252,470.5 ( 504,941/2)
5) Labour (Mary Honeyball): 233,292
6) UKIP (Gerard Batten):232,633
7)Conservative (Charles Tannock):168,313.6
9)LAbour (Robert Evans): 155,528
————————————
10) Libdems: 144,395
11)Conservative: 126,235.25
12)Labour: 116.646
13) UKIP: 116,316.5
14)conservative: 100,988.2
15)Libdems: 96,263.3
16)LAbour: 93,316.8
17)Respect: 91,175
Galloway could try and win Sparkbrook and Small Heath in Birmingham, someone with better knowledge of the boundary changes than me might be able to say if this is a pie in the sky idea or not.
Blair won’t be fighting another election as leader, even if he wanted to the fact that he has so categorically stated his pledge not to run for re-election means that he just couldn’t… this is not say that he will probably remain as leader at least until early 2007 and may well play a key part in Labour’s next general election (as the guardian was reporting the other day).
As for the contours of the next election, a string of Labour seats are, on paper, at risk from the LibDems, however by 2009/10 the likelihood is that memories of Iraq will have faded, Gordon Brown is likely to be PM and the tone of the Labour government will probably have shifted in a direction that many leftwing voters, who felt disillusioned with Labour in 2005, will find appealing… at the same time it is unlikely that a shift to the left in rhetoric and emphasis would act as a discouragement to many of the new middle class voters who where won around by Blair in 1997 and stuck with the party for the most part in the following elections.
A great deal will depend on the state of the Tory party, but while the economy might slow down it is unlikely to “go belly-up”, Gordon Brown’s style of government and presentation might eventually leave the public uninspired but its unlikely that this will occur within the first few years… in short the Conservatives would be foolish to rely on the public simply falling out of love with Labour after the departure of Blair or because of some economic cataclysm that will probably not happen, indeed it is likely that at least initially Brown will not only not damage Labour’s chances in 2009/10 but instead actually improve them be winning back many progressive voters.
While the shift in rhetoric that a Brown lead Labour party would probably embrace might allow the Conservatives to reclaim a more coherent voice, it doubtful that much ground would remain to the left of Labour from which the LibDems could attack the government. This might well precipitate a crisis for the LibDems with the party’s left wanting perhaps to shift further to the left to undermine a Brownite Government and hopefully win those labour seats left vulnerable to the LibDems in 2005, at the same time the rightwing libertarian faction of the party would want to strike out to the right in response to the stateist tendencies of a Brown Government… it is likely that neither would have the support to pull the party in either direction and Kennedy would no doubt try to negotiate a middle course with a tilt to the right.
The LibDem facing a recovering conservative party (the extent of that recovery will be critical) and a Brownite Labour Party will face a very tough election, under pressure in their 2005 gains from Labour, struggling in their marginal targets both Labour and Tory and under pressure from the Tories in their rural strongholds.
I believe I made the argument before the election that the LibDems would stand at about 60 seats after the election, however at the next election they would be likely to suffer losses, and the scale of these losses could really vary.
The Tories are at a crossroads once again, with another potentially key leadership contest in which the choice of leader could have a huge impact on the pace of any recovery and their performance at the next general election.
Of all the party’s Labour’s position is the easiest to foresee with some confidence, Blair is likely to remain as leader for the next few years, barring an electoral disaster (outside of London, it is likely that the recent trend of Labour doing very poorly in local elections, seems set for a very modest reversal in the big cities), what by-elections are thrown up however will be interesting to watch… following Blair, Brown is likely to win the leadership though I don’t know if he will obliterate the opposition in the way that his mentor John Smith did in 1992 and some of the more partisan Brownites would hope… A Brownite Labour Party would certainly be more recognisably “Labourite”, as I have always argued the Chancellor’s rhetoric is more leftwing than the PM’s and so are his priorities, his relationships with the trades unions and the popular left are also better (though Blair’s have improved in the last few months), but he would be unlikely to be indulgently partisan and alienate the voters who he, as an architected of “new labour”, worked so hard to attract to the party, but the Labour base would certainly solidify under Brown and it is likely he would have a stronger, more united party behind him entering an election in 2009/10… Brown’s hopes could be dashed by events’ be they domestic or international but as things stand it is likely that the solidified Labour base, a still recovering Tory Party, and a largely irrelevant Liberal Democratic Party would mean Brown would be in a very strong position where he to seek his own mandate in 2009/10…
26. see this thread on Anthony Wells’s site, especially comment 81 from Iain Bowen http://pollingreport.co.uk/blog/index.php?p=404
Galloway’s only other chances would be Poplar and Limehouse (better for Respect thanks to the removal of Canning Town), West Ham or East Ham.
The big question is whether Respect can hold on to the Muslim votes which must have constituted the vast majority of Respect votes on May 5th.
26 - Jon W
Sparkbrook and Small Heath is being broken up as a seat a large part of it is going into the new Birmingham Yardley and will probably mean that John Hemming’s time as an MP will be “tragically” brief, at the same time Salma Yaqoob seems to be cementing her self as the face of “respect” in Brum… she is on local TV a great deal and outside of London, it would appear Birmingham is the only city where a strong respect organisation exists and a significant respect campaign is likely, its important to remember that fairly recently Kashmiri Nationalist Councillors where elected, so its possible that Respect will stand a chance at winning seats… though I doubt as many as they may potentially win in Tower Hamlets, the only other areas where they might factor would probably be newham. In the light of the seats merger with Yardley and the presence of Yaqoob I really don’t except Galloway to run for parliament and Europe might be a real possibility.
27.”The LibDem facing a recovering conservative party (the extent of that recovery will be critical) and a Brownite Labour Party will face a very tough election, under pressure in their 2005 gains from Labour, struggling in their marginal targets both Labour and Tory and under pressure from the Tories in their rural strongholds. ”
The Libdems MPs who just gained their seat from Labour could benefit from the first incumbency effect next time.
With so many marginals to defend, I don’t think that Labour could spend lots of money in not held seat.
I agree that it could be difficult to gain new seats from Labour if Brown will consolidate the labour core vote. Inslington South’s new MP could follow Chris Smith’s path: winning it with a tiny majority the first time and the increasing the majority in the following years. The Libdems had a big chance to take it this year, ma maybe the majority was too big even for them.
Ben @ 29 - Ben obviously isn’t very up to date with the Birmingham Boundary changes. Yardley now does not lose Sheldon to Hodge Hill and gain Sparkbrook and Bordesley Green, but instead remains as it is with the addition of Acocks Green, a ward where Labour outpolled the LibDems in 2005 but by a) not enough to make a difference and b) where the ethnicity of the candidates may have had some effect. Acocks Green, like the other wards in Yardley, elects LibDem councillors with reasonably large majorities. I can’t see John Hemming’s career being cut short by the boundary commission.
And to be honest, Respect have been stuffed by the commissions changes. The East Birmingham Muslim community has been scattered amongst 3 seats.
30. People seem to think Brown will be the Sort of FFresh face Blair once was. He may well be a Novelty as PMN ,but as a National Politician he’s a well known quantity, and Labour will be fighting the icmbency/time for a change factor. That doesn’t mean they’ll lose but it means it’ll be very tough to gain Seats, and with only 34 Seats to play with befrore he hits Hung Parliament Territory that Surely doesn’t Leave Gordon Much Margin For Error.
With Potential for Tory Tactical Voting to enable as with Cardiff Central the Lib to bit off one or two Labour held SEAts, it may an additional reason for not suspecting an Easy Ride For GB?
30 – Andrea
I must admit when I saw that places like Cambridge, Hornsey and… gulp… Manchester Withington had fallen to the LibDems I was surprised that through that all Islington South was held all be it by a tiny margin, I had heard that, while some disliked her, the candidate Emily Thornberry was a solid campaigner and was fighting it very hard. It will be interesting to witness how the local authority elections go in the area of Islington that comprises the Islington South seat.
I would expect that by 2009/10 with Brown as leader Labour will be well positioned to take back seats such as Rochdale, Hornsey and be favourites where seats such as Yardley and Brent East have been significantly effected by boundary changes, and while most target seats are probably going to be currently Labour held seats, it would mean relying on a tiny margin of error with a majority of just under 70 to neglect seats that the party would have a good shot at regaining… potentially the biggest impact winning back voters who abandoned Labour in 2005 could have will be in the new super marginals where the LibDem vote will once again be squeezed.
32.”With Potential for Tory Tactical Voting to enable as with Cardiff Central the Lib to bit off one or two Labour held SEAts”
When did the tories select their candidate in Cradiff Central? In some cities seats they selected their candidate very late. I won’t be surprised if in those seats thei vote collapsed.
(for the Libdems)
And the libdems got lots of switchers from the tories in Cardiff Central when they didn’t need them (no one doubted that they would have taken it). When they needed them, they didn’t switch in big quantity.
Another problem for Gordon is that the LAbour majoirty couldn’t be reduced too much. I’m sure he doesn’t want to depend from Jeremy Corbyn and Alan Simpson (the 2 top rebels so far in this term).
31 - Iain Bowen
Sorry didn’t realise that Birmingham’s boundary changes had developed further since I last checked, ah well guess we’ll be seeing more of dear old John for some time to come… I also seem to remember from Anthony Well’s analysis of the boundary changes that a new Sheffield Central emerges where all the wards a currently held by the LibDems… so it could well be we’ll be looking at two LibDem MPs in Sheffield, though local politics can sometimes be an inaccurate guide to national contests, in Leicester South Labour beat the LibDems in every ward save two, and yet only has councillors in one of those wards
…mmmm 2007
33, You’re predicting a Lab Majority of 70 this far out? Braver man than I. I have No Idea at this Stage What mAy Yet Happen.
He may not want to rely 34 on that Lot, but if that’s the Majority if any, the Voters leave him with(he may lose remember), then that is What he will Have TO Do.
33 - That’s not how I read Ben’s comment - I think he was saying Labour currently have a majority just under 70 and would be wise to target to gain as well as to hold next time (because, as you say, 70 is not much to play with). I tend to agree and Brown coming in will I think take the edge off the “time for a change” argument. It will be interesting to see how many defeated Labour MPs try to get back into their old seats. Any inside track on this, Ben?
33. I’m not all that sure that all those seats will come back. The tories thought the same and many of their seats lost to the Libdems are still yellow (or orange?).
Re:Emily Thornberry.
I’m a bit surprised too. I thought that the Libdems hads more chances to take Islington South than Barbara Roche’s seat.
I remember that the Guardian was making fun of her, because she put lots of photo of Chris Smith in her leaflets and some voters could think that Smith was still the candidate.
38. John Cryer (who lost Hornchurch to the tories) has said he’ll try to find a safer seat in the east part of London.
There were talks here a couple of weeks ago about Stephen Twigg replacing Margaret Hodge in Barking.
But the big question is the tories will try to bring back Helen Clark!
Andrea the Tory Switching Still Mattered a hell of a Lot in Cardiff Central, as it made a relatively Safe Lib Dem Seat from Labour instead of one they were holding by their fingertips desperatly for Next Time, as in the reverse Case with the Tories in Cheadle. Withouit that Tory Switching it may have been e real backs to the Wall Jobs for the Lib Dems in Cardiff Central especially with a more Popular Labour Candidate than Jon Owen Jones(Not too difficult to find to put it Mildly), instead of what Looks Like A Relatively Easy Hold.
More Chillingly for Labour is the example it sets. Watch out for Cardiff West next time, it maybe the Next Hornsey
42. yes, you’re right about making it a semi-safe seat.
Except that Jenny Willot will be a disaster as MP, I don’t really see the Libdems losing it the next time.
I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned what I’d regard as one of the crucial political factors in Blair’s decision: the US elections. I expect him to stay on while his buddy Bush is in the White House, which makes excellent sense if you believe, as Blair clearly does, that this is the most important relationship for Britain — and Brown is not well-liked by the Republicans(?). Brown, or another, will then have a chance to forge his own bonds with a new President, who may be a Democrat; I’m sure Brown would prefer that. I don’t agree with the primacy of the US relationship (from a position of ignorance), but I think Blair’s views, and even Brown’s, are likely to be as I’ve stated. Can anyone who knows matters better comment?
Andrea - demographically, Hornsey & WG is a much more wealthy, educated seat than Islington S. Islington is associated with the “GMW” tendency but in fact it also has considerable pockets of urban deprivation - I think it’s something like the 6th or 9th most deprived borough in the country. Witness the fact that H&WG had Tory MPs up until relatively recently, whereas Islington (to my knowledge) never has.
“That said”, I wouldn’t bet against the Lib Dems winning Islington S in 2009/10. Their campaigning machine is formidable - and getting stronger - and they may re-run their excellent candidate from ‘05 (that would be the first time since the 80s that they’ve had continuity of candidature).
Meanwhile, it’s true what Ben says about Emily Thornberry being a mixed blessing. She inspires some but creates deep antipathy in others (notably local Labour members). There was a story reported in Private Eye (and never refuted) that Chris Smith’s partner can’t stand her, for example. Smith himself went public that he favoured an a rival candidate in the Labour selection process.
As Ben says, it will be interesting to see what happens in the local elections next year - albeit that may simply be a reflection on a pretty well-run local council (by contrast to predecessors in Islington and to many of its neighbours).
37 – Welshman
38 – James
James is correct, what I was saying is that when your starting with a majority of just bellow 70, it would really be wise for the party to target seats that we lost narrowly both to the Tories and the LibDems… regaining voters on the left thanks to a Brown premiership could help deliver seats from both parties.
Naturally a disaster could engulf the third term, Brown could prove a poor and unpopular PM or the Tories could stage a rapid and impressive recovery as a campaigning force… all these things and more could scupper the third term and by extension Labour’s hopes for a fourth, but at the moment that does not seem likely. What seems most likely IMHO is a recovery Tory party, a struggling Liberal party and a Labour party who’s base has solidified after the trauma of Iraq will face off in 2009/10… as I say, things could be different, but as things stand this is probably what things will be like.
On the issue of regaining seats lost to the LibDems in May, I don’t doubt that some newly elected LibDems will prove good at entrenching themselves as many LibDems have in the past, but as I said before the election this is the first time that the LibDems won and lost seats on the national platform their candidates stood on rather than simply relaying on strong, localised campaigns to win the one seat at a time… it is likely that with Brown as leader Labour will win back many voters lost in the election back in May as a result it is reasonable to surmise that some seats will return to Labour, however its also probable that a number of new LibDem MPs will be able to hang on to their seats, though they will probably find it tough.
As to former Labour MPs looking for new seats, James, I can’t say I’ve heard anything, Oona King is desperate to return though I don’t see the local party in Bethnal Green giving her the nomination again, if she’s prepared to stand somewhere else though I think she might well find another seat, Twigg is another possibility though I don’t know where… Mike Ion who was Labour’s gifted candidate in Shrewsbury and Atcham might contest the redrawn seat which is said to favour Labour more strongly, in addition I think there will be a lot of retirements heading towards 2009, the majority of the PLP are still of the Kinnock-Smith generation, I think it likely that a significant number of seats will be looking for new PPCs to contest them in 2009… but I’m afraid that’s all I know.
42 Why What you heard about Jenny Willott?
43… OTOH if His old Mates the Clintons Get Back Surely that proves the opposite to your Theory Assuming, the US Elections are Factor in his Mind Of Course, Which They Maybe, But Which I Doubt.
42, 46 - I think Andrea meant to say “unless”.
44. “There was a story reported in Private Eye (and never refuted) that Chris Smith’s partner can’t stand her, for example.”
Emily Thornberry thanked Chris Smith’s partner in her maiden speech.
45. Chris Leslie could be another who wants to come back.
46. I didn’t hear anything about Willott. So that’s why I said that if she’ll be a decent MP, she’ll keep her seat for sure, while she’ll be a disaster, she could lose.
47. yes, Book Value. I meant it. Sorry.
“Emily Thornberry thanked Chris Smith’s partner in her maiden speech.”
Yes, I heard it. Struck me as a belated attempt to build bridges, but no evidence it worked, and you’ve got to question how she got herself in that pickle in the first place (Private Eye made some suggestions …).
49 - not to worry. In fact what you said is not wrong but just quite old-fashioned - nowadays if you say “except that Jenny Willott will be a disaster” it implies that you expect she will be.
50. I was surprised when I read her to thanks him, because new MPs usually thank the previous MP, not all his family members.
What did Privare Eye suggest?
52.” was surprised when I read her to thanks him”
it should be “I was surprised when I read her thanking him”.
51- I’ll try to remember it.
Welshman @ 46: Maybe I’m wrong, of course; but the point is that Bush hits it off so well only with Blair, whereas even Hilary Clinton has never been so very close to him rather than his party.
Personally I think Tony Blair will do exactly what he said - serve for close to a full term, then hand over. The Labour leadership election will predate it by a few weeks to avoid a hiatus. I don’t think the US Presidency will affect it - both British and American leaders on both sides are too professional to allow the relationship to deteriorate (the Tory-Republican spat was a rare exception, caused by a clumsy attempt to persuade Bush that Blair wasn’t the good ally he thought).
I also think that, assuming (a) it’s Gordon Brown (b) the Tories are led by any of the contenders except possibly Ken Clarke and (c) the economy is still in reasonable shape, Labour will get an increased majority next time, for much the same reason as Major beat the trend in 1992: the swing vote of people who want a change but not a big risk (many of whom voted LibDem this year) will feel that giving Gordon a try is a reasonable thing to do.
Nick, how close do you mean by “close to a full term”? Till 2008? 2009?
45 - Ben , I think you have rose tinted glasses on when forecasting the next election as a straight fight between a popular GB and a recovering Conservative party . Leaving aside circumstances that could arise both national and international to blow Labour off course , the Lib Dems are not going to stand still and do nothing in the next four years and there around 20 seats under the new boundaries in which the Lib Dems outpolled the other parties in the County Council votes ( 7 of them Labour held ) and of course the majority of Labour seats did not have County Council elections this year .
These are the seats plus others in Wales , Scotland and the Metropolitan areas which the Lib Dems have 4 years in which to work solidly to convert a good percentage of them into gains at the next GE .
By the way , on the new boundaries , Shrewsbury is still favourable to the Conservatives .
55. I see that Nick Palmer is very optimistic today. Hopefully all this optimism won’t be counterproductive.
Keith Bradley ans Stephen Twigg were optimistic to keep their seat in May and we saw what happened.
58 - Yes rose tinted spectacles are flavour of the day with Labour but let us see what they have to say when squalls and stormclouds gather as they will . That is not say that I am forecasting doom and disaster as some Conservatives seem to wish upon the country but some problems are on the not too distant horizon .
Is there any precedent for a governing party increasing its majority after 2 elections in which it declined and with unfavourable boundary changes?
55 - Can’t disagree with Nick except to say that I don’t think a Tory party under Ken Clarke would be noticably more popular than any other option. I know Labour voters who’d vote Tory if Ken was in charge, however, I also know Tories who wouldn’t. Though it rather depends on to what degree the Europe question has gone away by the next election.
55. Mr Plamer it is far Cry from saying Labour will Struggle to Increase it’s Majority to that it will Lose. The electorate maybe prepared to Trust Gordon as it did Major in 1992, we Shall See. But Vis your Major Point, yes he did beat the trend in that he won when people expected him to lose, but he didn’t increase the Majority or even hold Close to it did he? Perhaps you Should Have Qualified It Slightly.
62 - But Major did famously get more votes than anyone else ever at a general election - the reason being that people weren’t yet prepared to risk Labour and went with the safe option (in my analysis) - so I think the Brown analogy holds. I personally am very sceptical of Brown - his instincts do seem to be rather big state. Though happily I can’t imagine his favoured form of communication is via Richard and Judy.
63. Fair Point, but equally i think anti Labour Voting may act as well as did anti Tory Voting Then, so in my mind i very much doubt Labour would at this Stage Increase it’s Majority, but Events, Dear Boy! Events.
As it happens i agree with Nick’s High Opinion of KC, but i think he understimates DC at his Peril, just as the Tories did Tony Blair. Be Honest Nick back inthe Early 90’s you might have had a feeling he might be a Stars but the Mega Star he Becames?
60 - woody662
McMillan’s Tory government increased their majority in 1959, while Thatcher increased her majority in 1983, McMillan’s victory is perhaps the more pertinent as that was the third election after the Tories came to power in 1951.
Only a fool would predict an outcome some 4 years in advance. Nick should no better having been in political life since 1997 that the fortunes of ones political party can change in one day.
As an old Tory going back to the 50’s, I would have never thought even up to 92 that my party would lose three elections in a row. But it happen.
Only the Lord knows what the future holds.
65. I was a party worker during that election.
66 (only fools make predictions…): Hey, if we’re only allowed to make predictions we’re certain about, this is going to become an awfully silent site. Naturally all kinds of things could happen between now and whenever. I have a prediction until I have a different one, but it reflects an honest opinion when I make it.
A curious thing about the Spread Betting HiLo site, though. I almost never bet, but I have a SB account from my punt on UKIP getting 0 seats in 2005, which seemed to sure a thing to miss (as it was). So as I’m really sure that Mike is correct about the HiLo bet being sound, I thought I’d have a go. Discovery A is that there is a very low limit - you stand to win or lose less than £100. Discovery B is that you can’t bet on HiLo as a Spread Betting customer. Discovery C is that if you’re a Spread Betting customer, they won’t let you register as a HiLo customer, but they’ll advise you that the markets are virtually the same, and HiLo is basically for people with small bets. Discovery D is that the bet doesn’t exist on Spread Betting, only on HiLo, and that there are currently no political bets at all on Spread Betting.
I assume it’s really a small lure to bring in new customers to their HiLo market and they’re not willing to risk losing money on political bets in the higher-stakes area. But it’s a curious bit of market segmentation.
65 - Sorry Ben but the 1959 victory was the 2nd after the 1951 win but 3rd in a row . A 4th Labour win of any sort would be unprecedented .
45.” I think there will be a lot of retirements heading towards 2009, the majority of the PLP are still of the Kinnock-Smith generation, I think it likely that a significant number of seats will be looking for new PPCs to contest them in 2009″
How many Labour MPs will be over 60 in 2009?
Gwyneth Dunwoody will be 79 years in 2009, but it seems that she wants to continue forever.
Bob Waering will be 79 years old too (in a super safe seat). Glenda will be 73 (but her seat will probably become a Lab/Libdems marginal). Dennis Skinner will be 77 years old (another very safe seat). Frank Dobson will be 69 and Bob Marshall Andrews 65 years old (but his seat is an ultra-marginal).
Clare Short will be 63 years old (with no good prospects for her career and without Blair to attack, I don’t know what she could do).
Jeremy Corbyn will 60 years old (but I don’t see him standing down).
Rudi Vis will be 69 years old (but he’s in a marginal seat). Margharet Hodge will 65 years old (her seat is a very good one for new candidate). Ian Gibson will 69 years old.
Piara Khabra will be 84 years old.
I’m sure there’re many others who are old enough to think about retirement (I don’t know the MPs pension system, but I’m assuming they will get decent pensions to live a good life for the rest of theirs years). I think there’re many between 60 and 70 years.
Andrea at 70: the pension depends on length of service. You’ll get about £1250/year starting at 65, for each year you’ve been an MP (to be precise: 1/50th of final salary for each year up to recently, then 1/40th). So anyone under 65 will need to fill the gap somehow, and those over 65 will need another pension from an earlier job to live a comfortable retirement if they’ve not been an MP for very long.
It’s a generous scheme though relatively few are MPs for long enough to do really well out of it (average is I think 10 years, which would give a pension around £13500/year). But the main motivation for carrying on is simply that it’s hard work to get here and it goes against the grain to give up the influence you were trying to get. Naturally that applies all the more to Cabinet Ministers.
71 - There is of course also the possibility of deselection but that is rather less than it used to be in the bad Old Labour days .
71. Is the 13,500 pension net or gross?
Gross I would think - the general idea about pensions here is you get tax relief when you pay into the fund (or your employer does) but what you get out is taxed as if it were salary.
70, Andrea, there are 63 Labour MPs who were over 60 at the beginning of 2005. 26 are now over 65.
Also 31 Conservatives and eight others over 60 at the beginning of 2005. 12 Conservatives (including Ken Clarke and 3 others are now over 65.
72. In fact its Tory MPs who are more at risk of deselection these days, whether by constituency party (Nick Hawkins) or leader-diktat (Howard Flight).
Times have changed after the London bombings. We enter a new political era.
I expect Blair will play on people’s fear to win public support as Bush did. I doubt though he will mention duct tape as that was mocked in USA.
We’ve already seen the politicised Sir Ian Blair help Tony Blair in a general election campaign over the issue of terrorism and ID cards.
And Tony Blair has already used the bombings to drive forward his authoritarian measures, moving us towards a police state.
If it is close between Tory and Labour next election, I expect Bin Laden will appear as the Bogeyman to give Blair a boost as he did for Bush.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1340331,00.html
After all, it will be payback time, after Tony Blair has done so much to boost Al-Qaeda as reported today, by acting as a recruiting sergeant for Bin Laden’s terror network by sending boys to fight and die in Iraq.
75. Thanks, Robert
71. Thanks Nick.
72. What’s the problem concerning pensions and deselections?
74. Thanks. I think UK MPs have a worse pension system compared to Italians MPs. Our MPs, when they’ll be 65 (but it could be reduced to 60 years if they make more than one term) could get 25% of their salary as a pension if they’ve been MP for at least a term (5 years). They get 85% of their salary after 7 terms. Their monthly net salary is 4088.03£ (gross salary is 8554.81 £).
So that’s why I was thinking they could get a decent pension, but I was forgetting that in UK it works in a different way.
77 - You don’t seriously think Bin Laden will still be free in 4 years time , it must be at least 2 years ago he was surrounded and would be captured imminently - LOL
Is there still the equivalent of severance pay to MPs who lose their seats at an election ? One of the things with deselection was that the deselected MP would be encouraged to stand anyway so he could get the compensation for losing MPs.
80. Aren’t deselected MPs treated like retering MPs?
79 - You aren’t surely implying that US forces get near Bin Laden, they don’t get the permission they need to take him out?
Seems Bin Laden is too useful to the neo-cons.
Ben - nice to have you back! And a good thread too after the last few that have been Tory navel gazing + sad news of Ted Heath’s not entirely unexpected demise.
Ben - I have to take issue with your (rose tinted) analysis. As has been pointed out by woody 662 (among others) it is rare for a long term government to turn round a losing trend. Although John Major got more votes than anyone before or after around 40 Tory MPs lost their seats in that election. Blair/Brown don’t have 40 seats to lose.
The idea that the Lib Dems won 15 seats from Labour from the left is nonsense too - all bar three were previous Tory seats - only Inverness, Rochdale and Ceredigion weren’t - and you could argue that these were seats ‘returning to form’. The other 12 were seats the Tories had lost to Labour but the Lib Dems won with the Tories in third place.
The significance of this is that a more left sounding Brown premiership doesn’t squeeze the Lib Dems - it makes it easier to win even more Labour seats.
Which is why Brown (if he becomes PM) will never win a majority at an election (he is likely of course to be leader of the largest party after the next).
Finally on a sadder note - those Tories who deny Edward Heath’s achievements might like to consider that when he won Bexley for the first time it was by 130 votes. Finchley was a safe seat when Margaret Thatcher was its MP - Labour won it in 97 (and hold it today) Bexley and Sidcup remained Tory even in the disaster of 97. So which Tory was more in tune with the country?
The sooner this conman /war monger goes the better,ideally dumped by his own party.
It was his descision for his self publicity & ego to become Bush’s poodle,however ,what is unforgivabale & will be his epitaph is that he secretly agreed to take this country to war,then set about fabricating the reasons for war to get it through parliament.
As a result of the Bush / Blair actions we have over 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead,93 Bristish soldiers & now we are attacked by terrorists in our own country,all the result of his joint actions,not to mention other casualties such as Dr Kelly.
Meanwhile,a country that had no connection with international terrorism,is now rampant with terrorists & is on the point of civil war.
As the media & polls are starting to show, the blame for for this disater is now being correctly apportioned to this conman.
83.”The idea that the Lib Dems won 15 seats from Labour from the left is nonsense too - all bar three were previous Tory seats ”
The fact that they were tories seats in the past doesn’t exclude that this year’s switchers came from the left.
It’s logical that the seats lost to the Libdems weren’t always Labour in the past: labour majority is those seats is thinner and so it was easy for Labour to lose them.
Obviously not all Libdems voters are from the left, but it’s possible that former tories in those seats have already switched to the Libdems in previous elections and this year switchers are only from the left.
85. Another thing: Which MP switched from Lab to Libdems? A moderate centrist? No,Brian Sedgemore!
85 - Andrea - you may be right. But my point is that none of the Lib Dem gains are hot beds of socia-lism - look at the size of Dennis Skinner’s majority. These are middle of the road urban and surburban seats including - Manchester Withington, Leeds NW, Birmingham Yardley, Hornsey and Wood Green, Cardiff Central, Bristol West. These are not seats that George Galloway could ever win.
You’re right to say that former Tory voters voted Lib Dem in these seats - but if the Lib Dems had been seen to be left of Labour in 2005 why would Tories stick with the Lib Dems - surely they’d lose Tory voters just as they were attracting left wing Labour voters?
It’s a false analogy to say the Lib Dems are a left wing party (only committed Tories on this site say so). They are a centrist party - like the other two, just with different priorities - localism, environment for example that might not be currently mainstream. Just like joining the EU, or withdrawing our forces east of Suez in the 1950s.
84 - John, well said. I agree. I believe millions in UK agree with what you say.
But not one of the main political parties shares that view. They have all said there’s no link with Iraq and the terror threat and they will not condemn Bush or Blair. The Greens and Respect are the only national parties to condemn Bush.
Polls show how much hatred there is in the middle east for Bush. Nearly 100% in several countries disapprove of Bush. Bush is the most hated man on the planet.
It is obvious that if you bomb and occupy a country for no good reason as far as they can see, you will create a lot of anger and propoganda for terrorists. Jack Straw is starting to sound like that Iraqi Information Minister.
I look forward to seeing Saddam on Trial. I hope Saddam calls on Donald Rumsfeld as a character witness, who did an arms deal with him, after the date of the charged Saddam atrocities.
It is the neo-cons who Blair supports who proposed developing biological weapons that can target specific genes or races. Blair and every Labour MP who backs him, backs evil far greater than Saddam.
Neo-con PNAC report published a year before 911, co-written by Paul Wolfowitz who was Bush’s defence deputy:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi…casDefenses.pdf
Some quotes (published 12 months before 9/11):
“advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror into a politically useful tool.”
“While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of regime change of Saddam Hussein.”
“The process of transformation (of the military) even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbour”
9/11 was that Pearl Harbour that they needed to initiate their agenda. Bin Laden delivered it for them.
87-A 50% tax rate & votes for prisoners that’s something that old labour would have been proud of.
80/81: deselection and retirement are the same as far as the Parliamentary rules go (they don’t acknowledge the existence of parties - we are all seen just as individuals) and I don’t think the ‘redundancy pay’ (usualy 6 months’ salary) that you get at the end requires you to have stood and been defeated.
Dan at 83: there are lots of marginal Labour seats like mine which will be easier to hold if people who voted LibDem/Green this time in protest over Iraq decide they will vote Labour under a Brown leadership - as very large numbers currently say they will (naturally they could change their minds).
John at 84: um, the only detailed post-bomb poll shows precisely the opposite to your rant: people rate Tony Blair much more highly, oppose withdrawal from Iraq by a significantly larger majority, and approve more than before of the Government’s efforts to oppose terrorism. I think that most of this is simply the healthy desire to avoid pleasing the terrorists and the figures will settle down again, but most people will sensibly remain more inclined than you to blame the bombers for the bombs, not Tony Blair or anyone else. Your belief that both Britain and Iraq would be free of terror if we’d left Saddam in place is not universally shared.
89 - “A 50% tax rate” was something Mrs Thatcher was proud of for a substantial part of her premiership.
52 - if I remember rightly, there was some suggestion that news of Mr Smith’s medical condition (or the timing of its release) was not managed in entirely the way he would have wished …
97.”look at the size of Dennis Skinner’s majority”
Actually I’ve just noticed that he did pretty well: only a 4.5% swing against the Libdems. He only lost 3.4% compared to 2001.
87-”but if the Lib Dems had been seen to be left of Labour in 2005 why would Tories stick with the Lib Dems - surely they’d lose Tory voters just as they were attracting left wing Labour voters?”
maybe the reason is tactical vote. In Bethnal Green tories vote collapsed to got Galloway.
87-”It’s a false analogy to say the Lib Dems are a left wing party (only committed Tories on this site say so). ”
Like some tories here talks about a future Brown’s government as an ultra left winged governemnt.
92. ” collapsed to got Galloway” shoudl be “to go to”.
91.”if I remember rightly, there was some suggestion that news of Mr Smith’s medical condition (or the timing of its release) was not managed in entirely the way he would have wished … ”
yes, I read those speculations, but in which way is Emily Thornberry involved?
Nick Palmer @ 90: Your statement that “most people will sensibly remain more inclined than you to blame the bombers for the bombs, not Tony Blair” is disingenuous to say the least. By his enthusiastic participation in starting a war that has claimed many tens of thousands of civilian lives, Tony Blair has incited an enormous amount of hatred towards Britain and the British.
Of course the UK (like France and Germany) would still have been a target for those opposed to its role in Afghanistan. But had the UK and US, together with their allies, concentrated on eliminating al-Qaeda and establishing a stable democracy in Afghanistan, instead of embarking on their reckless adventure in Iraq, I don’t believe the London bombings would have happened.
“So which Tory was more in tune with the country? ”
Derek Conway?
Places like Manchester Withington, Hornsey and Wood Green, Cambridge, were, as you say, once Tory seats, but moved markedly to the Left after 1979. These aren’t really middle England seats; they are Left-wing seats that find the Lib Dems more in tune with their beliefs than Labour are.
Re. 95. Totally agree Sean, Dan I agree that the Lib Dems are a centrist party but you must concede they used left wing rheotoric during the election campaign to attract those who see Tony Blair as ‘right wing’.
95 , Sean . The danger for the Tories is that if they effectively abandon University seats and the city suburbs outside of London the prospects of a Conservative government is severely diminished . Look at Cheadle , how this remains a Lib Dem seat is a complete conundrum , known only to Lord Rannard , Tabman and the electors of Cheadle .
Re [90][94] - there seem to be two basic POVs WRT the bombers’ motivation… the “clash of civilizations” model propounded by Samuel Huntington among others (and I think endorsed at least implicitly by Bush) and the “US policy blunder” model - an interesting (and well written) example of which is “Imperial Hubris” written by an anonymous CIA staffer - implicity endorsed by Chirac and Schroeder.
The latter model implies that US policy is driven by Big Oil and the Zionist lobby.
As to the UK position, I have to say that much as I deplore conspiracy theories, it is notable that British policy is exactly that of a client kingdom and 100% consistent with the existence of a secret treaty whose effect is to abrogate sovereignty.
Hopefully at some future PMQ Blair will be asked about which of these models he endorses…
Sean at 95 - Cambridge went (marginally) Labour in 1992 - 13 years after 1979 (as did Hornsey and Wood Green). I accept that Withington (and the Newcastle and Liverpool former Tory seats) may have seen demographics move decisively against the Tories - but I don’t think it is the case that the others can be dismissed as ‘left wing’ seats.
If that’s the best analysis the Tories can come up with - it shows the depth of the trouble you are in - ‘it’s the voters fault’ seems to sum it up.
If the Tories are to form a government on their own these are the sort of seats that Tory candidates should be getting two or three times the 15% or so that they polled in May.
It would be possible for the Conservatives to win a working majority without coming close in either Hornsey or Cambridge.
Dan - the Cambridge seat of 1979 is a different seat from the Cambridge seat of today. The city seat no longer has the Trumpington and Queen Edith’s wards which were in the 80’s very safe Conservative areas. These were assimilated into the old Cambridgeshire Southwest seat (Sir Antony Grant), and subsequently South Cambridgeshire (Andrew Lansley). Also, Robert Rhodes James held the Cambridge seat with a substantial personal vote - he was a pure academic, which appealed to a large part of the permament University electorate.
The fact is that the two countries in Europe have been hit recently by terrorism, Spain and Britain, and both were closest to Bush in the war on Iraq. Iraq is a bloodbath. Almost daily in Iraq they have events like the London bombings. I never hear Nick Palmer asking for a moments silence for them. Blood on Iraqi soil is cheaper than on British soil and that is one reason there is so much anger. That is why Al-Qaeda has had a perfect recruiting sergeant in the form of Tony Blair and Bush.
I have no doubt that Nick Palmer and other Blairites will continue to pretend there is no connection with Iraq and the increased terror and what a wonderful place Iraq is without Saddam and how right they were to invade Iraq and how wrong our own security services were, Nelson Mandella, Kofi Annan, the Pope and most the leaders around the planet as well as the majority on the security council who wanted to give weapons inspectors more time. But Bush, wasn’t going to wait to kill Iraqis. Tony Blair knows best and a rewritting of history and a dismissal of expert opinion proves he is right.
I also have no doubt Tony Blair will use terror to his own advantage to advance his own agenda. We will be threatened by endless statements by crony Sir Ian Blair warning of more attacks until we bow down like subservient beings to Tony Blair’s big brother society that wants to control us in the name of terrorism, but can’t even control teenage hooligans.
102 , Printz . Even allowing for the rantesque nature of your post the comment that Sir Ian Blair is a crony is utterly misguided . A cheap shot at a highly distinguished police officer only serves to diminish your arguement .
Perhaps you will think better of it and withdraw ? or have you too been infected with Rik’s disease.
101 - “Also, Robert Rhodes James held the Cambridge seat with a substantial personal vote - he was a pure academic, which appealed to a large part of the permament University electorate.”
Interesting point - so is the new MP David Haworth.
100/101 - but there are always exceptions that prove the rule
I still think that my point stands - there are of course other seats - Yardley, Bristol West, Falmouth and Camborne - can these all be dismissed as ‘left wing’ seats? Doesn’t the fact that the only non-Conservative MP in Brum is a Lib Dem one mean something?
Yes I’m sure the Tories can win an overall majority without Cambridge - but they need to being doing better there than they are, and they need to do better in Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham, Edinburgh etc etc. There are voters the Tories have lost that they must reconnect with if they are to win again. Simply dismissing the seats that many of them live in as not necessary doesn’t address the issue in my view.
93: “yes, I read those speculations, but in which way is Emily Thornberry involved? ”
Andrea, I’ll have to leave you to speculate as I don’t want to come a cropper with m’learned friends. Ultimately I have no idea whether any of it is true; merely that it seems to be a rumour “doing the rounds” in Labour circles, which suggests not all is sweetness and light in that camp.
103. He’s entitled to his view. Vis Was it a Coincidence Ian Blair (or his Predecssor?) Called directly in favour of the Govt earlier in the Year, when the Govt unlike now was showing no interest in cross Party Consensus? In other words directly entering Party Politics? Even though opponents included Lord Condon.
103 - Jack W.
Sir Ian Blair is the policeman who decided to have several interviews with the media in favour of Blair’s ID cards and in favour of Blair’s anti-terror laws in the middle of a general election campaign.
Basically he’s been doing the dirty work for Blair. Warning us of terrorism, telling us how many terrorists there are walking the streets and at the same time linking the solution directly with Blair’s agenda. He is promoting the government and promoting the government’s policies. That isn’t his job. He isn’t a politician. He should get on with tackling crime.
Odd how we have so many terrorists according to Ian Blair, but he never asked for a single extra police officer. Why was that then? Odd how ID cards, not compulsory for at least 8 years are the solution that he has to raise in an election.
Now you may want to, but I don’t want to live in a police state where the police get involved in campaining at election time. It is not for policemen to make the case, but politicians.
Are we to have knighted health chiefs doing media tours at election time saying how we need more of Blair’s PFI hospitals to save more lives? It is nothing but party political progoganda and you should recognise it for what it is, which is completely unacceptable.
Maybe it’s payback time for his knighthood, but unelected public servants should stay out of party politics.
This is a very serious matter when we have so many authoritarian measures being introduced or talked about, from biometric trackable ID cards, to car tacking systems, to arrests on the say so of the home secretary. These are contentious matters where we don’t need top policemen campaigning on behalf of the government.
Re. 103, I agree. He also conveniently forgets to mention that, even after Spain withdrew its troops from Iraq, the Madrid bombers planned more bombs (in fact, a bomb was found on a train line shortly after the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq, and a statement by the Abu Hafs Al Masri Brigade said it was in revenge for the explusion of the Moors from Andalusia in 1492).
109. That’s a Separate Issue from what he said about Ian Blair though. Or are you Criticising That As Well?
107 , Darth Vadar . It’s not that Printz isn’t entitled to his view . He is of course . However how was the case Printz put forward enhanced by a cheap attack ?
As far as identity cards are concerned , you are putting the cart before the horse as Ian Blair’s support for ID cards (that incidently I oppose) predates Labours’ conversion . Look at Ian Blairs’ record - this man is as much a crony as Mother Terasa was an agent of the Empereor !! May the force be with me !!
Every government department has been politicised by having NuLab spin doctors installed like Jo Moore.
But in the police, Sir Ian Blair is the mouthpiece for government police policies. As I say, maybe it is payback time for his knighthood.
Anyone who doesn’t believe it, I suggest you keep watching the news and listen out for numerous more warnings of terror attacks by Ian Blair linking it to support for government policies.
108 , Printz . “.. Now you may want to , but I don’t want to live in a police state ”
Again , you lessen your case by thoughtless cheap abuse .
A rant is never a substitute for rational arguement . Take a look at Ian Blair’s record as a police officer - if he’s a crony , I’ll have some more like him anytime.
111.I don’t think it was Supporting ID Cards, but the whole Anti Terror Dtention withhout trIal thing that raised eyebrows, coming effectively in the Middle of an Election Campaign, when the Govt was very happy to accuse it’s opponents of being Soft on Terror, the Timing was well unfortunate shall we say…..
I don’T like much of what Prinyz has had to Say, but on this Score i think while he went too far in his descrption of the London Copper, given that Public Servants are mean’t to observe Strict Pre-Election Neutrality in the Campaign itself, by going public even though the starting gun had yet to be fired, it did seem Curious given the Legislation would be reintroduced Later anyway.
The Force is Strong on this One!
114 , Darth Vadar . Ian Blair was in a no win situation - He’d already supported ID cards and then the government says ok we’ll go for it . What was he to say - I’ve changed my mind ?? . No the only logical stand was to say “fine” . Btw at the election MH and many tories supported ID cards. It was a tricky situation , and most objective politicians realized Ian Blairs’ predicament.
115. Easy. I refer all enquiries to the Home Office. No need to repudiate previous Statements. In any Case as i say i don’t believe it was ID Cards that generated the heat as i think the issue he intervened on was the Detention Without Trial Issue, which really did generate a Lot of Political Concern.
O/T err, Darth - judging by your syntax, capitalisation and spelling, your posts look remarkably similar to those of some others we’ve had (in different names) in the past. Could you clarify whether you’re in fact the new name for an earlier poster?
For once, we can’t blame Jack W for posting under multiple identities - or at least not unless we think he’s arguing with himself!
102 - Printz, I don’t want to get into what could be an emotional debate but doesn’t it say something that despite the deaths from car and suicide bombings (8,000+ so far) the Iraqis still want a democracy and that they are not prepared to give into the Ba’arthists and assorted Al-Quaeda scum who perpetrate these outrages? Also, why do many critics of the war still portray these mass murderers as the ‘resistance’? I think that Blair has shown real leadership and that people like Robin Cook, Clare Short, Charles Kennedy, George Galloway and all those looking to make cheap political capital out of the shocking events of June 7th will be proven wrong by history.
117 , Oxonian . The funny thing about all these multiple identities is that I’ve only ever posted under my own name !
When Kinkell was infatuated with the site I do confess we helped each other on posts , and on more that one evening he sat in my library with his laptop and we laughed ourselves silly at the sheer lunacy of posting at each other - stupid father and son stuff I suppose . These days like other 18 year olds he drifts of to another temporary passion - her name is Emily !! …..”far too busy for that stuff dad” is the response said in that quaint “Dad get a life” way !!