Could the Tory race affect the Labour succession?
October 23rd, 2005-
Brown’s price eases from 0.23/1 to o.4/1
As the chart shows the implied probability of Gordon Brown succeeding Tony Blair, based on the best betting price, has moved sharply since the high-spot of the Chancellor’s speech at the Brighton conference just a month ago.
Although this is a very light market with little liquidity it is clear that there the near certainty that last month’s 0.23/1 Brown price suggested has been affected by what has been going on in the Tory party and the prospect of a Cameron leadership.
The Observer’s chief political correspondent, Ned Temko, is reporting this morning that “…David Cameron’s emergence as favourite to win the Tory leadership raised fresh questions about Labour’s succession battle yesterday, with members of Tony Blair’s circle suggesting that Gordon Brown could have a tough time beating a much younger and more media-friendly foe.”
Temko goes on to note that the William Hill price against David Miliband as next Labour leader has been cut from 50/1 to 25/1. We think it is dangerous to attach too much significance to such a movement.
In very light markets it can be distorting to focus on the price from one bookmaker and you get a better picture if, as we do, you look at the best price that is available from a range of bookmakers and betting exchanges over a period.
The Betfair betting exchange has seen just £22,555 worth of matched bets in this market, more than 90% on Brown, of which a total of only £203 has been on Miliband. And although there has been a move to Miliband he is still not at the high point of 5/1 against being leader that he reached on that market in early June. That information would, perhaps, have taken the edge off the Temko report.
With many parts of the media now following PB.C in attaching importance to betting price changes it is important that it is done properly.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
The calls to skip a generation are arriving from anonymous Blairites and Diane Abbott…..uhm, a bit suspicious.
1,
True can`t understand Diane Abbot, thought she was a Brown
supporter.
However maybe thats only conditional against Blair.
When Blair goes, she and her friends, will have to find another one to support against Brown.
They cant be seen supporting the leadership, that would be against their so called princibles.
2. Many MPs on the hardleft don’t like Brown. People like John McDonnell think he’s as bad as Blair (some articles on their website are a perfect example of this). It shouldn’t be forgotten that Brown helped to create New Labour.
During the conference, Katy Clark was asked if she would support Brown and she refused to endorse him (she woudl like to discuss policies not people….she’s probably right in the end).
If they get enough signatures, they’ll probably field a candidate to the Left of Brown (there were talks about Alan Simpson or even Frank Dobson)
So I’m not surprised Diane is not supporting Brown.
But then trying to understand Diane Abbott is sometimes difficult….maybe she was meaning that they should skip a generation in the sense that Glenda is too old to be the stalking horse!
Can’t see it myself - I don’t know anyone in the party who doesn’t expect Brown to win, probably unopposed. It’s easy to get a shift in a thin betting market, and in the interest of the press to puff it simply because any surprising development sells papers.
Off topic….isn’t it interesting to watch John Major on TV and not marvel that someone like this could ever have been Prime Minister? And I’m not just talking about his pink socks! He oozes uselessness and he compounds it by blaming everyone else but himself. The only saving grace is that he TRIED to talk about something of substance. Quite a diversion from the vacuity that is David Cameron. Does he have anything interesting to say other than ‘Look at me, I can make the Tory party look interesting?’
4. Nick, don’t you think a contest could be good for the party?
Not a real contest that could split the party (especially if Blair will stand down later than sooner and so the contest will take place near the GE), but a contest between Brown and someone like Simpson (so with no chance to win). Just to get media exposure and having the chance to offer new ideas.
Roger 5 - agreed. It was also amazing and somwewhat horrifying to see the interview with Ruth Kelly and realising that she is still in charge of the country’s education policy. Surely Labour have got better people than this?
I wondered whether the Education White Paper, out on Tuesday, is a set-up so that they can attack Cameron who, of course, is Kelly’s Shadow.
Indeed understanding Diane Abbott is difficult.
She might shortly be writing in the Daily Mail if she opposes Brown.
Like Glenda did, when she asked Blair to resign everday.
Where has Glenda gone with her columns in the right wing press, or did they just get bored with the same attack.
Re: 5 - it’s my experience that when a leader of a particular type retires after a long tenure, the successor is often someone of a diametrically-opposed character. Major was all the things Thatcher wasn’t as far as Tory MPs were concerned apart from the fact that he seemed the best able to keep the policies going. Rather like Blair now, three terms of power had left Thatcher isolated and alienated.
Blair’s succesor will be someone the Labour Party is comfortable with, a less divisive figure but nonetheless someone who the Party thinks will be able to win them elections - in the same way as Blair wasn’t John Smith.
For the Lib Dems, CK was the complete antitheseis to Paddy Ashdown. The NEXT LD leader will be more dynamic but probably more abrasive within the Party (except for the Smithsonian faction !!).
The Tories have gone from an older right-winger to a younger, consensual figure like Cameron in the same way as they “flipped” from Major to Hague in 1997. Cameron’s successor won’t be Osborne but probably an older, more clearly defined right-wing figure. What price Liam Fox to be the Tory leader after next ??
8. They’ll probably resume Glenda’s columns when the focus will be back on Blair and Labour. Strange that they didn’t offer a column to Skinner to develop his point that Cameron was educated beyond his intelligence.
Stodge 9. I agree with the analysis - the election of CK was a reaction to Paddy Ashdown whose only mistake was to put his faith in what Tony Blair told him. But then a lot of people have made the same misjudgement.
On topic….’could the election of Cameron affect the race to succeed Blair?’ The short answer is no. If this last fortnight has done anything it’s shown how desperate the once mighty Tory party have become. To say Cameron is style over substance is to flatter him. A few weeks ago I was quite excited about a Cameron leadership. I thought it would give the Labour party some focus and send Charlie Kennedy back to the chat shows where he has shown talent. But what qualities has Cameron shown? None. He’s only about presentation. Do the Tories really think this is what the country want post Blair? It’s early days but my money will be on Brown in ‘09 to better the results of ‘97 by quite a margin.
“The Observer’s chief political correspondent, Ned Temko, is reporting this morning that “…David Cameron’s emergence as favourite to win the Tory leadership raised fresh questions about Labour’s succession battle yesterday, with members of Tony Blair’s circle suggesting that Gordon Brown could have a tough time beating a much younger and more media-friendly foe.””
You read it here first
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2005/10/19/will-tony-relish-a-new-challenge/
13 - Fraser Nelson has a very similar piece in the Scotland on Sunday this morning.
12 - Do you think that result is more or less likely than the ‘meltdown’ you were predicting in 2005?
Roger doesn’t think Cameron will not be successful as leader of the Tory party. Surely this is the one of the best endorsements David Cameron can have.
….And as an outside bet I would go along with Stodge’s reasoning and say that if the Lib Dems choose a solid Vincent Cable like character the Tories could sink to being the third party. There are only so many male models who have the vote. Cable-Brown-Cameron….it’s hardly a contest.
16 You protesteth too much Roger. I can see why Labour supporters would love to have the ex-SAS mumbler as Tory leader because it would signal no change. It is much harder to assess Cameron but the ability to communicate in a compelling way is the first requirement for a leader. Cameron has that and I can see that you are worried Roger.
Sophia at 15….One too many negatives for me there! However far be it from me to boast about my punditry skills but I did come 3rd equal in the PB.com competition for the Tory leadership election!! (All gratuities for for future ‘tips’ in plain brown envelopes please)
Max. It’s ironic that your team has just lost it’s most successful manager for years and your other ‘team’ is about to appoint it’s least successful. As Book Value might say…you heard it here first!
9 Stodge…You end with a good question.
His strong showing this time has done his prospects no harm whatsoever.
There won’t be another figure from ‘the right’ to stymie him next time.
19 - Fortunately one of my teams has a backer with £260 million to pick up the perfect leader. If only politics was so simple!
Countryman, you are starting to sound like Mike Smithson. I think you have been reading his editorials too much.
Rawnsley in the Observer today was asking the same question. Cameron has put himself up there now - he has to start putting meat on the bone or he will be exposed very quickly. The danger for the Tories is not that he is a young upstart, but that he is a bubble, floating to the top and looking pretty, but full of very little but air.
Joking aside I have been both surprised and disappointed by Camerons lack of substance. I agree Countryman that the ability to communicate is very important but unless you have something important and interesting to communicate you’ll soon be found out. Surely one or two Tories on this site must be feeling uncomfortable about what they are hearing from cameron? He looks like a presentable frontman. Personable and charming but just like a George Bush figure with the serious politicians behind him. It is to be seen whether the Americanization of our politics goes this far. I doubt it which is why I really think a substantial politician like Brown will probably be home and dry.
15. Sophia, you’re a bit to hard with Roger.
Btw, Labour’s women are warning agaisnt a too macho agenda:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article321607.ece
Nick, off topic - but on the economy… Wonder if you’ve seen today’s remarks from Derek Scott, Tony’s and Gordon’s own economic advisor (a few years back) in the Sunday Times:
“Gordon is buggering up the economy. It’s exactly what happened in Germany in the 1950s: the economy is doing reasonably well, politicians start taking it for granted with more and more spending, and you f**k it up totally.’
Interesting, no?
Actually maybe this isn’t so off topic. I hereby predict that in three years time Labour’s pitiful handling of economic affairs, pushing up back into Euro-mediocrity, will be starkly obvious. He will be no shoo-in. And Blair will be finally reviled. And it’ll be a very close general election.
12 - It all depends on the degree to which Brown’s Potemkim economy has unravelled by 2009. If an economy based on buying iPods with credit cards and selling each other modest houses at increasingly fantastic prices turns out to be a model for sustainable development then he’s sorted.
BTW, has anybody else noticed that Ruth Kelly has piled the timber on recently? Too many Turkey Twizzlers.
…I think rather than Miliband, Benn is probably the most capable anti-Brown candidate who could at the same time be competative against Cameron.
Overall though Brown will almost certianly win the leadership by a very firm margin and if Cameron is the Tory leader and things continue down the path as they are at present… the Labour Party will pay for its indulgence of it’s tribalism IMO.
I would think the bad economic news is also counting strongly against Brown.
I know people are bound to try to work out which leader is best against which opponent. But I think it may be simply too difficult to figure it out. Just put up your best person for the job.
Roger at 12, I think Cameron has a lot to lose and little to gain by being specific on policy at the moment, as someone argued before. He’s way out in front, why risk alienating people by saying anything that some Tories might disagree with?
Cameron says that law-makers should not be law-breakers. Fine. But he’s a London cyclist and having been one myself for many years, I would be surprised if he could say that he never breaks red traffic lights, rides on the pavement or goes the wrong one up one way streets.
Also I know it is much easier to take the non-authorised and illegal routes through Hyde Park than to stick to the designated cycle path. What does DC do?
Mike, you know what DC will say he does - he hasn’t ridden on the pavement since he got elected
28.” But he’s a London cyclist and having been one myself for many years, I would be surprised if he could say that he never breaks red traffic lights, rides on the pavement or goes the wrong one up one way streets. ”
Don’t suggest those things. The Daily Mail could follow hin for the next 6 weeks just to have a photo of DC breaking a red traffic lights!
Old Tarzan has advised Cameron to be vague on policy so labour doesn’t nick them. Fair comment.
24.
“pityful handling of economic affairs”
If tories are relying on this to win an election, they are very complacent.
Brown on any fair analysis has steered the UK economy quite succesfully.
Can`t see this all falling apart to the degree you make out.
However do think there will be a reaction to increased spending on the public services.
This is Browns achilles heal, and where the conservatives have a real chance.
But they are about to elect a leader who will not endorse serious tax cuts.
So the electorate might decide to stick with what they have got, a capable,diligent, hard working Brown.
Re Tony and the succession.
For anyope doubting the Labour government’s achievement over the last eight fabulous years, here’s Tony Blair’s To Do List from 1997. I just found it under my Sunday morning pain au chocolat. He seems to have ticked off all the great things already achieved.
1. Botch Constitutional Reform - Check
2. Screw private pensions, abandon reform of public pensions - Check
3. Create bloated public sector - Check
4. Ensure Britain’s kids are 24th out of 28 countries in educational achievement acording to the OECD - Check
5. Make violent crime rise rapidly - Check
6. Quintuple immigration without asking anyone if they mind - Check
7. Pump billions into the NHS with no discernible effect - Check
8. Impose about 40 new taxes - Check
9. Preside, generally, over a dimunition of respect and decorum in civil life, leaving Britain’s streets awash with vomit, broken glass and blood every Friday and Saturday nights - Check Check Check
10. Pander to minorities with absurd laws on religious hatred, thus repealing 1000 years of English free speech - Check
11. Similarly, bring in ID cards at vast cost, returning us to World War 2 type illiberalism - Check!
12. Invade some sovereign country illegally - Check
13. Mire the British Army in the ensuing enless conflict - Check
14. Abolish hunting in a craven gesture to your class warring Left, even though the law won’t work - Check
15. Aim to put us at the heart of the EU but actually leave us, and the EU, in the middle of nowhere - Check
16. Suspend habeus corpus - Check
17. Encourage terrorism against the UK - Check
18. Build an absurd Dome whose vacuity and expense neatly symbolise the emptiness of my achievement and the wastage of my governance - Check
19. Make sure wife behaves like a tosser - Check
20. Slow down economic growth as much as poss - Check
21. Stuff Gordon
As we can see he has pretty much fulfilled his ambitions, therefore I predict he will be retiring sooner than we think. Indeed, he obviously feels that he’s only got one great thing to do - kipper his old chum GB. Given his record of success, I’m sure he’ll manage that too.
31. Sooner or later he will be obliged to develop some points, he couldn’t be vague for the next 4 years!
33 - You forgot - win 3 elections in a row - check .
Sean 33. We try on the site to keep discussions on the impact of events and policies on political outcomes rather than have policy debates. My views on TB are well-known but you cannot argue with the fact that he has an amazing ability to win elections.
Given what had gone on before in the previous two years - - the illegal war in the face of public opinion, the Kelly suicide. Hutton and Butler - May 5th 2005 was an extraordinary triumph for TB.
The big unknown for Labour is whether GB has the same election winning magic.
Well, a wise Opposition isn’t too specific on economic and tax policies (I suggest some of our Tory posters look at the way Thatcher and Whitelaw played it in 1975-1979). For their dire predictions to become more than partisan wish-fulfilment there needs to be a defining moment when the electorate can vividly see the incompetence of the incumbent government. One of these can be identified for each change of government in the last half-century:-
1964 preceded by resignations from Treasury bench and perception of sleaze (e.g Profumo affair)
1970 preceded by devaluation (I remember that every economics student then had a magic wand - float the pound :))
1974 preceded by a perception that a government that claimed to have a policy to deal with Trade Union barons actually didn’t
1979 preceded by the IMF “broker’s men” and Healey having to fly off to meet them in the middle of a Labour Party conference
1997 preceded by Black (or White) Wednesday
On all of the three last occasions the incumbent Chancellor had done all the right things since its moment of truth - but to no avail politically.
My perception is that the present situation is more like that after the collapse of the Lawson boom at the end of the eighties. I think it was Sir Roy Harrod who said that steering the economy was like driving a car by looking in the rear-view mirror. What might be interesting in terms of this site is for people to try to identify what such a “defining moment” would look like in to-day’s world, and assign a probability to it…
33.
3 election wins, three big majorities.
Must have done something correct.
Shame you can`t see it.
However, you would I guess, know better than the british electorate.
Who in the main, have made the right choices of which party is to govern, since world war 2.
[37] Sorry, Mike, I meant to turn the “bold” off after the word “each” - poor proof-reading…
36. Yeah, I was letting a bit of steam off, apologies if it seemed irrelevant…. but I’m not sure it was that OT. What I was trying to say, satirically, is what you said much more concisely - that TB might (in my opinion) be a terrible prime minister running a dreadful government, but he is a hugely guileful, charismatic and clever politician. That is to say, he is a man who usually gets what he wants electorally, despite being a lying jerk.
I suspect that one of the things he wants now, after eight wearying years in office, is to make sure GB doesn’t take over. Out of sheer spite, perhaps. And I therefore wouldn’t put it past Blair to engineer it…
“It’s early days but my money will be on Brown in ‘09 to better the results of ‘97 by quite a margin. ”
You have money to burn then?
36.”May 5th 2005 was an extraordinary triumph for TB.”
That’s why I thought you were a “new labourite in love with Blair”!
Yes, lots of things happened in the previous two years, but he was the responsible.
I couldn’t understand how somebody could say that Kennedy gaining seats had a bad election and Blair losing many seats had a triumph!
37. Very interesting and perceptive analysis. Essentially you are ascribing (I think - forgive me if I’m wrong) to the Tipping Point theory. You know the theory and the book I’m sure.. that there comes a moment when mass opinion suddenly switches, a paradigm shift, only then is it possible to see things were inevitably heading that way anyroad.
However I think your breakdown is slightly forced - in many cases you are right (White Wednesday was definitely the tipping point for the Tories), but 1964 is an interesting counter example I think (though my history may be shaky). There, I believe it was a general build-up of resentment over the sleaze, arrogance, snobbishness and decreptitude of the Churchill-Macmillan government that led to its fall, not one single economic/political crisis.
We could be heading that way now with Labour. An incremental rise in resentment, sense of spin and deceit, cack handed but not catastrophic handling of the economy, the Dome, corruption, immigration, crime etc etc etc (I won’t bang on again!). Labour party membership has collapsed, their GE vote likewise (it’s only the witlessness of the Tories keeping them in power). Ergo, when the ‘tipping point’ against Labout arrives, as it will, it may be only a tiny thing, as the dam is waiting to break, and the camel’s back is already close to breaking.
Er, enough metaphors, already.
42,36
It was in the context of what Mike set out.
44. I don’t agree with him even if the context he put the comment in.
Blair is responsible of his actions, if his choices made some voters swicth party, he’s the responsible.
He should thank the fact the tories still were in a mess, becuase otherwise he would be praying for Glenda’s support in this moment.
[39] Many thanks.
43,
Sean, agreed the tipping point will happen, the sea change will be set in place.
But don`t believe myself we have reached that yet.
Everyone knew Major and the conservatives were dead men walking in the middle nineties.
Lamont even admitted as much when he was chancellor.
Brown is not in that mode yet, and Labour have a real chance of a fourth election victory, with a working majority.
To the horror of you I bet.
I am getting slight fed up with all this rubbish about Cameron having no policies! It would be daft for him to set out a detailed policy platform at this stage but what he has done is set out a series of themes and a few individual policies:
Education – Give schools more freedom over curriculum, timetables etc and allow them to select by ability. In favour of City Academies. In favour of tuition fees for students to broaden higher education.
Health – Give foundation Hospitals greater independence to own their own buildings and land and hire their own staff
Abortion – wants a modest reduction to 20 weeks in abortion time limit
Transport – introduce a road building programme paid for by tolls
EU – pull out of link with EPP and have EDG stand alone again as it did before
Law and Order – Against Death penalty and wants to build more prison capacity – against ID cards – in favour of local control of Police forces
Defence – would replace Trident as we need a nuclear deterent
Not a bad spread of positions 3-4 years out from a General Election and when he is not yet leader! More specific than Blair on some issues!
48 - I forgot Tax - share the benefits of growth between higher spending on essential services and tax cuts for the public.
45,
Andrea, that is scary relying on Glenda`s support.
Hope Brown doesn`t need to after 2009
[43] Very interesting post - I find the analogy with 1959-64 quite suggestive - not least because on that occasion Wilson’s image was not unlike what Cameron is hoping to do - and he got a majority of only five in what was still to all intents and purposes a two-party system. To-day’s equivalent is surely a hung Parliament, and my only safe prediction is that all the Parties and/or the media will be commissioning focus groups to find out what people want politicians to do in those circumstances - i.e. a relatively quick second election as in 1966 or October 1974, or a semi-formal deal with other parties for a (say) four-year period. I certainly wouldn’t care to be a Party Chairman who didn’t have the answer to that one :).
50. Dez, trying to imagine if the tories would have been in a decent shape last may and Labour would have won with a 20 majority or something of that sort.
It would have been pure fun to watch.
Discussions in Dowining Street:
“Get Diane Abbott out of Portillo’s sofa. We need her in the right lobby”, “Tell Jeremy Corbyn to delay his weekly rebellion”, “Tell Glenda she’s not playing Elizabeth I”, “I promise I’ll put Marshall Andrews in my election leaflets”, “Explain to John McDonnell that capitalism is not on the verge of collapse”, “Are you Bob Wearing doesn’t want to enjoy a quite retirement somewhere far from the opposition lobby?”
48. Everybody would be able to introduce “a series of themes”. Without more details it’s almost impossible to judge if some of them could be implemented and if they could work.
just a point for all the tory posters that are predicting a economic meltdown. I think one of the reasons why people respect brown so much is exactly because people allways talk about doom and gloom.
they overstate their case so as to damage brown but when it doesnt mess up the public look at brown and think wow he must be amazing.
why not say the economy will be fine, a monkey could maintain such a strong economy like ours. therefore if it doesnt all go swimmingly people expect more fo brown.
if you lower the bar so low he will step over it, if you raise it he may not make it.
but this would require vitriolic posters like sean t excepting that things wernt all doom and gloom
33 Love it SeanT !
53 - Andrea it would be ridiculous to introduce detailed policies now when he is not yet leader and doesnt have a shadow cabinet of his own to discuss and agree them with! Tony Blair didnt in the run up to 1994 and hardly did in the run up to 1997.
36 Mike, sorry to be a pedant, Dr Kelly’s APPARENT suicide please !
56. I don’t mean to introduce a full manifesto full of details, but I would welcome if he (or DD or someone else) will specify a couple of policies. Not only saying “I would do X”, but “how I would do it” too.
probably he could have already done it, but the media hasn’t paid much attention (they seem more interested in drugs and kiss
58. I mean at least in the next few years (see post 34)
52,
Andrea,
Agreed it would have been great fun for the media.
Do`nt know about the country though.
The tipping point for Labour would surely have arrived.
The public would see the hard left having too much influence, if the Tories at last moved to the centre ground, then change of administration would be inevtiable.
Hope for Browns sake he has a majority over 25, or he will have to start looking elsewhere after 2009.
Scottish Nationalists, welsh, the odd irish MP,OR Independent.
He will need a good whip!
60. I forgot the most important one: “Tell Clare Short that the Education White Paper has nothing to do with Iraq!”
I agree it wouldn’t fun to watch for the country.
Btw, from the Scotsman:
“The Cameron supporter and openly gay MP Alan Duncan blew a kiss to the journalists as he entered the room”
Does Hanky Dinky Dunky think he’s a movie diva from the 50’s?
I’m trying to imagine the scene: it could be worse than Mandelson waving to the audience whilst attending a theater production near Naples this summer.
It’s facinating that people who have a deep interest in politics are, quite fairly in my view, pointing out that Cameron seems to be exceptionally light on detail. What will be even more interesting, particularly if he is up against Gordon Brown who is solid when it comes to details, is whether the general public who are not really that interested in politics, actually care about Cameron’s lack of detail. If not, all those who attack Cameron for it will merely be damaging themselves, and strengthening Cameron’s hand everytime they do so. In a situation like that, Cameron will be virtually untouchable in terms of lines of attack from opponenets and critics alike. It may be that Gordon Brown on technicalities thrashes Cameron every time in the commons or in debates, but the public may not care. It should also be mentioned that Michael Howard’s manifesto at the last election was very detailed, to an extent so was William Hague’s at the election before that, it did no good at all. Maybe lacking detail and keeping wide policy voids is the way forward.
51,An analogy has occured to me r.e the 1959-1964 Parliament;after the third successive Tory victory in 1959,their fortunes steadily declined,culminating in Macmillan’s resignation and his replacement by Alec Douglas-Home;his being a peer gave a stuffy image against the (then)young Harold Wilson-so it is conceivable by 2009 Gordon Brown will be the equivalent of Alec Douglas-Home,and David Cameron would be the young,brash Harold Wilson(obviously party labels are reversed in this analogy!)
Whatever,as a Labour voter,I cannot help but agree with posters who state we have had a very easy ride;I can see it becoming much harder,pretty soon;I surmise on Local Election night next May I will need a bottle of the ‘top shelf’ to steady my nerves!:lol:
If it’s any consolation Patrick, Alec Douglas-Home very nearly won against the odds (the Tories were at least 10% Labour when he became PM), and parties can recover from dismal local election results (Labour in 1968, Tories in 1995).
Not everyone admired Wilson in 1964. My mother had just arrived from Ireland, aged 22, and voted Tory because she thought Douglas-Home was a gentleman, and Wilson was untrustworthy.
Red Flag. I never said it was ALL doom and gloom. We won the Ashes..
More seriously, I’m not saying that we are about to enter a 30s depression, just that there IS a sense of gentle economic stagnation, and a feeling (shared by Labour Party economic advisors, as I have noted above) that the good times are over, that too much voters’ money has been frittered away on ineffective reforms, and that all those taxes, regulations and pointless public sector jobs are now coming home to roost..
Like I say, not a holocaust. But still a darkening of the public mood, re Labour - given that the economy is virtually the only area where they have been able to point to serious success.
Because if it isn’t the economy, stupid, what else does Labour have to show for its eight years in power, what laurels are they going to rest on. ASBOs? Iraq??
65.”Because if it isn’t the economy, stupid, what else does Labour have to show for its eight years in power, what laurels are they going to rest on. ASBOs? Iraq?? ”
The tories haven’t shown nothing either, so people remained with Labour.
64 The next general election may well be as razor-close as 1964;I am not anticipating next May being as horrendous as 1995 for the Tories!Just remembered something,that night,around 2.30am,the BBC tried to extroploate the council elections into parliamentary seats-and their computer crashed for a few moments,as not a single Tory wiould have survived-so they ‘revived’ John Major in Huntingdon!
R.e mid-term blues,1992-1997,1974-1979 and 1966-1970 saw the most dramatic swings,with 20%+ swings to the opposition party at thenadir of mid-term unpopularity,just before Mrs.T’s departure in November 1990,they had suffered adverse swings of 15,20%,in Mid Staffordshire and Bradford North-so if,over the next couple of years the Labour govt suffer adverse swings of 10% in by-elections,I would classify that as normal mid-term blues-any further and I would start to really worry
seant t how about this:
1. Inrtoduced the first ever national minnimum wage
2. Record rises in state pensions and minimum incomes for pensioners (over 100 pounds)
3. Highest police numbers since records began
4. Cut crime overall by 30%
5. Per pubil funding increased by over 800 pounds
6. wrote of 100% debt to the worlds poorest countries
7. 69,000 more NHS nurses
8. almost 28,000 more nhs doctors
9. banneds the export import and manufacture of land mines
10. nhs direct
11. new deal helpied over 440,00 young people into jobs
12. Record numbers of people in work
13. 200 winter fuel allowence extra 100 for over 80’s
14. 30 percent increase in local government
15. introduced new 10p starting tax
16. cut long term youth unemployment by 75%
17. free access to all national museums
18. over seas aid almost doubled
19. 5,6,7 year olds in class sizes less than 30
20. created sure start
21.every single nhs waiting list lower
22. introduced disability rights commision
23. the good friday agreement
24. free tv licenses fdor over 75’s
25 free eye test for all pensioners
26. banned fur farming and testing of cosmetics on animals
27 all workers now have rights to 4 weeks paid holiday
28. 68 major new hospitals
29. 42 nhs walk in centres
30. first ever perternity leave for dads
31. maternity leave extended to a year paid for 6 moths
32. half a million children lifted out of poverty
33. freedom of information act
34. 24,700 more teachers
35. 1.1 million children benefitting from childcare places.
oh and if you do want to incluse the economy
36. lowest inflation for 30 years
37. lowest sustained interest rates for 35 years
38. lowest unemployent since 1975.
a hell of a lot more than iraq or asbos’s sean t i like you’ll agree!
65,
ASBOS are one of the most successful things they have introduced.
Anti social behavior is a big thing in many areas, and many middle class liberals should`nt scoof at there usefulness.
I`ll take a bet with you any future administration will not get rid of them, conservsative or even the Lib Dems, who opposed them, but don`t go shouting about it at election time.
69 - The Lib Dems support ASBOs. What we oppose is blanket curfews which are applied to young people whether or not they have done anything antisocial.
68 - No 4 is not true - they have not cut crime by 30% and violent crime has risen significantly!
crime overall has fallen due to things like car theft home theft falling dramatically
Is no. 14 a reference to the rise in council tax (closer to 70% I think)?
72 - Im not sure that is true either but it has certainly NOT fallen by 30%!
All categories of violent crime have risen significantly. Violence against the person is up hugely.
don’t for get as well that before the general election they changed the way you record crime. eg if there was a fight between 5 people it would count as five inncidents instead of 1.
that said i do appreciate that there i a problem with violent crime that does need to be dealt with.
Red Flag…. a fair old list, agreed. But I think it tells a tale in itself. Where’s the beef? When you have to include in your list ‘free admission to museums’ it strikes me we’re scraping some barrel bottoms.
Don’t get me wrong, free admission to museums is great - I agree with it strongly - but its still pretty small beer, compared to, say, ooh, the counter example of invading a foreign country illegally.
Here’s my point. Whatever you thought about Thatcher, she transformed the UK (I’d say massively for the better, obv). Her government had a narrative, a big story. She finally tamed the overmighty unions, she opened up the economy, privatised half of Britain, sold millions of houses back to their council tenants, deregulated the financial sector, put a rocket up the City of London, abolished exchange controls, smashed cartels and retail restrictions, helped Ronnie Reagan defeat Communism, and during her elevenses she threw the Argentines out of the Falklands.
Compared to these achievements (whether you think them good or not), Blair is a minuscle figure, a pygmy. What Labour has done is take the new Tory consensus on economics, and tinker with it to help the poor. This is good - again I agree with it - the Tories neglected the public sector and poverty issues - but it’s just…. a little underwhelming. And for almost every example of Labour achievement you mention - take state pensions - one can argue that they have tarnished their achievement in the same field (having screwed private pensions). And other fields (foreign policy) have been disastrous…
I think this is why Blair has that slightly desperate look on his face these days, under the chirpy grin. He knows he’s blown it. He inherited a stable economy, an enthusiastic electorate and a huge majority, and he’s done sod all. He’s the 21 year old posh kid who crashed his brand new Porsche.
Book value.
70.
I apoligise Lib Dems have gone up in my estimation.
You make a valid point.
However, still think ASBOS unlike sean, are a usefull tool, admitedley against an individual who is causing such behaviour against a community.
76.” helped Ronnie Reagan defeat Communism, and during her elevenses she threw the Argentines out of the Falklands. ”
she supported evil dictators like Pinochet……..
She stood by Pinochet because he had been a good ally and friend to us during the Falklands. She felt it was her duty to stand by him no matter what Amnesty International or some upstart Spanish Judge may have thought of him.
73 Rik W Maybe it refers to the increase in useless extra burdens on the payroll to include all the paper clip counters and monitoring officers that are deemed so necessary to run a modern town hall.
Ken Livngstone alone has ncreased his precept in London by more than
100% in just 4 years..
The Jury’s clearly out on the economy as things stand, but if it looks like ***t, smells like it, and tastes like it, it probably is !
I’m not really convinced about tipping points. These only seem inevitable in retrospect. There are quite a few ‘tipping points’ that never tipped:
Suez
3 Million Unemployed
Council Tax
Weapons of Mass Destruction
These would all have been seen as ‘tipping points’ had the government lost the next election but in each case the government was re-elected. I think the overall public view of government competence over a long period and their confidence (or otherwise) in the opposition to do better is much more important.
78 Is that so Andrea,
Whilst our reliable European ‘partners’ didn’t supply the non evil dicatator of Argentinia with exocets and diplomatic support I suppose?
79. Go and tell this to the mothers who lost their sons and daughters during Pinochet years!
AH Matlock, it’s not only Amnesty International or a Spanish judge.
Following your logic, Stalin was an ally during the World War II. So should we support him too?
82. yes and so why the others were in the wrong and Thatcher not?
77 Dez I sort of/would like to agree that ASBO’s are a good idea.
I think that as things stand only time will tell when reoffending rates are analysed versus non ASBO offenders.
Rather like my lot with Cameron at the moment, I rather feel there’s something of an “its’s the only game in town” hyperbole about them currently.
Certainly it’s not a policy the reds can back off on having invested the amount of political capital in them that they have…
There’s a good Leader in today’s business contrasting London and the South East (public spending equivalent to 32% of local GDP) with places like the North West (public spending 47% of local GDP) and Scotland (50%). If you want an explanation for the regional variations in party performance on May 5th, you really need to look no further.
In the long run, it’s good news for the Conservatives to be gaining support in the economically dynamic parts of the UK, but in the shorter term, it will be a very hard task to gain support in areas that are so heavily dependent on public spending, and transfer payments from the South.
matlock i think those comments are very distasteful.
if your family had been abducted and killed im sure you wouldnt feel the same way.
83 - Andrea, I’m not going to get into the Stalin issue because that has nothing to do with Pinochet whatever.
Margaret supported Pinochet as a private citizen while he was under house arrest in London, and he reasons for doing that stemmed from the relationship she had with him while they were both leaders of their respective countries. Pinochet undoubtedly saved the lives of many British servicemen by stopping those shipments of Exocets that the Argentines would otherwise have used against us. Whatever else you or anyone else may think of him, he has my gratitude for that.
87 - I don’t care whether you think they’re tasteful or not. They are simple statements of fact.
Andrea, I think she felt that the British government should be primarily concerned about the fate of its own people, and there’s no doubt that Pinochet’s tacit support for the UK in 1982 saved British lives.
82 War sucks. Winning’s everything losing is nothing.
No-one (apart from Galtieri)made them invade, everything else falls out from the back of that.
90 - Exactly.
just becaus someone does a favour for britain doeant mean that they should be exhonerated from crimes against humanity.
the fact is matlock that he was responsible for many many deaths. he should have had his day in court regardless of what he did for us in the past.
93 & Others
I’d also add that I don’t think civil rights in Chile during the period in question was something I’d like to be associated with or condone.
Hmmm Andrea -Pinochet, responsible for about 3,000 dead, left a democratic Chile by standing down as President + a prosperous country = evil dictator
- IRA responsible for several thousand dead & punishment beatings = in government in Northern Ireland!
The fact is that Pinochet was a relatively benign ruler of Chile compared to dozens of regimes across the world. He was a friend to the UK in a time of need and did not deserve the treatment given to him under this government.
93 - I never said anything about crimes he may or may not have committed during his tenure. I said I was grateful for the support he rendered us during the Falklands conflict. If you want to try and stretch that into some sort of condonation of crimes against humanity then you are welcome to do it, but you’ll forgive me for having a good laugh.
79. Margaret Thatcher’s support for Pinochet predated the invasion of the Falklands. They were ideological soulmates. As Alan Walters said “Everyone hated Chile -
except Margaret. I’d probably talked to her about it for the first
time some time in the 1970s. She knew I’d been there, and she asked
me about it … She admired Pinochet for putting Allende out of
office.”
Re Pinochet. I always find the Left’s hatred of this man oddly at variance with their toleration, if not veneration, of another unsavoury Latin American dictator - Fidel Castro.
Like Pinochet, Castro has ruined many lives, imprisoned many enemies, and had people shot and tortured. Unlike Pinochet, he has driven his country’s economy into the ground, and turned every other Cuban woman into a dollar-prostitute (trust me, I’ve been there).
Yet you don’t hear the Left agitating for Fidel Castro’s arrest every time he comes to Europe. Funny, that.
oh so we are using the argument that if he wasnt as bad as others it doent matter.
This is a simple fact. He was resposible for thousands of deaths.
he should be brought to justice for it.
if i was a family member of a victim that had been drugged and thrown out of a plane to their death, im sure the fact that he helped out another nation so he isok would be no concilation
96 - AHM just ask the left how many former Soviet and Warsaw Pact leaders have been arrested for their crimes against humanity!
The UK left was often in tacit support of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact allies despite it being the biggest threat this country was facing. Groups like CND were Soviet stooges (wasnt Blair a member once?)
98 - spot on! A bit like their pussy footing around Mugabe who is a Socialist fellow traveller and black to boot!
agree re castro and there are plenty of other supposed left wing dictators that should be aressted.
it doesnt matter whether they are left or right wing if they are responsible for intentionally killing their citizens they should be in court
97 - That may have been a factor in her behaviour, but I think that it is quite clear that the motivating force behind her public support for Pinochet during his house arrest was the fact that she felt she ‘owed’ him for his help during the war.
The sad truth of any government in the world is that by necessity you have to end up supporting some unpalatable regimes. The test of a foreign policy though is, is the world a better and more democratic place than when you started. Undoubtedely under Thatcher and Blair the world has become more democratic and violence has decreased.
Anyway if you demand an ethical foreign policy then you would have to stop dealing with many countries in the Middle East (such as Egypt and Jordan) and in South East Asia (such as China and Vietnam). Is it better to tolerate these regimes in the hope that bringing them in will decrease oppression and human rights abuses or is it better to ignore them, where they will not necessarily be any pressure for them to change?
IMHO it is a very hard question to answer. I think though that if engagement works, then it should be followed (as for example in China where things are gradually improved) and if it does not such as in Burma then you shouldn’t try it. But this still leaves countries like Iran and North Korea whose military/economic threat makes it hard not to try and engage even though things do not seem to be changing for the better.
95. Rik. So if somebody left a country in a prosperous shape, he could kill 3,000 people?
A benign rulers? Benign rules doesn’t leave behind 3,000 deads!
IRA people who killed people or planned terroristic acts should be in prison. Did Sinn Fein support them? yes and infact you’re a negative opinion of them.
96. AH Matlock. I don’t find nothing to laugh about when we’re talking about dead people.
100. Rik. You’re criticizing UK left for supporting evil dictators, but then you’re doing the same with other dictators. So you’re not better than them.
99 - I believe the Chileans are working toward bringing him to justice for crimes that may have been committed while he was President of Chile. Have I protested or expressed disagreement with this? No. So please, don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve spoken to support for this country at a time of need and that is all I have said. I know this is Sunday, but I’ve had one sermon already - I don’t need another one from you.
100 - They’re all ‘enlightened International Statesmen’ thesedays, I expect.
101. Totally agree. If the dicator is left wing, right wing or centre ground doesn’t matter, they shouldn’t be supported.
104 - Andrea: I was laughing at the risible idea that I somehow condoned alleged crimes against humanity because I was appreciative of Pinochet’s support for us in 1982 - nothing more and nothing less. Anybody who reads anything more into that statement than what is written there is just behaving like a wind-up merchant.
104 Andrea that is a completely circular argument!!
I am pointing out that real politics demands some compromise and toleration of regimes of which we disapprove. The problem with the left is its complete hypocrisy over Pinochet. My point is that if we apply such high standards to Pinochet we should apply them to Mugabe, Castro, Iran, China etc. Instead what do we see? Jack Straw shaking hands with Mugabe, while calling for Pinochet to face trial.
HYPOCRISY!
On Pinochet. My sister a few years, when on a gap year in Chile stayed with a (wealthy) family who hated Pinochet for what he had done. In my view it is right that he should be tried for crimes against humanity. However in Chile a lot of people still remember Pinochet with affection, which is why things have progressed so slowly. There are also problems surrounding his age and senility which are delaying matters.
108 - Hear, hear.
106. I rather like the idea of a ‘centre ground’ dictator. Though I can’t think of any offhand. Paddy Ashdown maybe? The EU could be regarded as a ‘centre ground’ dictatorship, I suppose… the tyranny of the bureaucrat.
Anyway back to Pinochet. Apart from economics, the one thing in his favour, that I can see, is that he handed power to democratic forces, voluntarily - like Franco. Castro has not done this, one notes. Indeed, it’s odd how rightwing dictators seem able to do this, whereas left wing dictatorships never go quietly.
I suppose Paddy Ashdown went quietly, in the end.
108. Rik, yes they’re hypocrite. But the fact you consider Pinochet ” a benign ruler” is disappointing!
107. AH Matlock. Perhaps I’m a wind-up merchant, but your comments were ambiguous.
111. I’m not aware of “centre ground” dicators too. I think many dictators in Africa or Asia couldn’t be described with our left/right labels.
109. I hear interviews with people from the old DDR on German election day saying that they lived better under the DDR regime. but I don’t think that’s enough to change our judgement over DDR.
Franco died and so never handed over power to the Democrats. Interesting point never the less. After all Gorbachev handed over power to the Democrats and is revered around the world. So did F.W. De Klerk in South Africa. How you deal with fallen dictators is in an interesting matter though? In some countries they try them in the courts (or send them to the Hague). However in others like South Africa and Eastern Europe, they go through reconciliation processes rather than reopening old wounds through court trials.
111 - Difficult for anyone to argue with Pinochet’s ‘economic miracle’ but it’s a pity that it’s all marred by (very regrettable) human rights violations.
114 - Indeed. de klerk was Mandela’s first Vice President was he not?
Andrew M. Shurely shome mishtake. Diametrically wrong, I think.
Gorbachev handed power over to the democrats?? As I recall, he was ousted while hanging out in Crimea, no?
Similar mistake with Franco - he engineered the transition of Spain to a constitutional monarchy, by grooming Juan Carlos. That was his express wish, after his death.
But maybe my history is playing tricks on me. Haven’t been out the house yet, need some fresh air…
“Gorbachev handed power over to the democrats?? As I recall, he was ousted while hanging out in Crimea, no?”
He was (briefly) ousted by the hardliners, then returned. You could argue, though, that the role of Yeltsin in leading the resistance to the coup meant it was all over.
“Similar mistake with Franco - he engineered the transition of Spain to a constitutional monarchy, by grooming Juan Carlos.”
Franco did set up Juan Carlos as his successor - though probably not with the intention that he would be merely the figurehead of a democracy.
114. I think some countries chooses to go through reconciliation processes, because re-opening old wounds could led to further destabilizations and more blood spread.
This debate about Pinochet almost made me angry! I was forced to have a cup of tea to relax my nerves.
Just to relax the atmosphere, here’s the biggest news of the day:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wken23.xml
Re. 108, I note that Noam Chomsky, the man described by the New York Times as ‘the most important public intellectual alive today’, still refuses to admit that the Khmer Rouge committed genocide. And, of course, there’s the way he and Edward Herman sneered at those fleeing from Pol Pot’s genocide (for more on this, see Samantha Powers ‘A Problem from Hell’ and Francis Wheen’s ‘How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered The World’). Unlike that other denier of totalitarian genocide, David Irving, that other pourer of scorn over the suffering of those lucky enough to bear witness to totalitarian genocide, Chomsky is venerated by trendy young staff at Waterstone’s, trendy novelists such as Arundhati Roy and Iain Banks, and invited on stage by bands such as Chumbawumba and Rage Against the Machine.
John Pilger, meanwhile, argues apropos the Iraqi insurgents (who kill Iraqi trade unionists and women’s rights activists, and attack water plants) that ‘we can’t afford to be choosy’. So Pilger’s moral universe is as follows:
Killing of trade unionists by Colombian paramilitaries: bad (because the paramilitaries there can be linked to the government, which is backed by the US)
Killing of trade unionists in Iraq - ‘We can’t afford to be choosy’
Blowing up water plants and other civilian infrastructure in Nicaragua by Contras - bad
Doing the same in Iraq - ‘We can’t afford to be choosy’
In its indulgence of the likes of the Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, Kim Jong Il and Milosevic, the ‘Everthing America does is wrong’ left shows the absolute mirror image of everything they dislike in Kissinger et al, ie ‘He may be a b*stard, but he’s an anti-American b*stard’.
This isn’t having a go at Andrea (with whom I generally enjoy good-natured discussions), it is very much aimed at sanctimonious a*sewholes such as Michael Moore and Harold Pinter (I didn’t half scoff when all the news bullettins simpered about Pinter’s anger at power - what utter rubbish, the only power at which he directs his tirades and awful poetry is American power, while bending over backwards to excuse the power abused by Stalin and Milosevic).
I say lucky enough to bear witness to totalitarian genocide - I mean, of course, the purely relative good fortune of having escaped being killed in such totalitarian genocide. Seeing other (especially friends, relatives, wives, husbands or partners) killed in either the killing fields of Cambodia or the gas chambers is not like winning the pools. Being sneered at by Chomsky or Irving must add insult to the injury.
As for Pinter, my dislike of his politics (and recent hilariously foul-mouthed poetry) does not stop me thinking that he deserved the Nobel Prize (for, if nothing else, his earlier plays such as The Dumb Waiter). As for the foul-mouthed poetry, at least it gave a lot of people a good laugh through Craig Brown’s wonderful parody (’Harold Pinter’s Book of English Verse’) in a recent Private Eye:
‘The owl and the pussycat went to sea
In a beautiful pea-green boat
They took some honey
And plenty of money
Because they were f*cking yanks
Sucking the sh*t out of the a*se of the poor’
and:
‘Tiger! Tiger!
Burning bright
In the forests of the night
The big pr*cks are out
They’ll f*ck everything
Watch your back’
If any charity wants to raise loads of money, they should give swearboxes to Pinter and Alistair Campbell (again, I loved the Eye’s ‘all time famous Alistair Campbell advertising campaigns’, including ‘Mr Kipling makes f*cking good cakes’, ‘Guinness is good for you, you f*cking tw*t’, and ‘You c**t in a Nissan’)
Andrea got so worked up by the discussion of Pinochet that needed a cup of tea, I’ve got so worked up the Pinter-Pilger axis that my spelling went awry (a*sewholes indeed! - certainly no relatives of the late Andy Warhol).
I should also qualify my unfortunate reference to those ‘lucky’ enough to bear witness to totalitarian genocide - any luck therein is merely a lesser misfortune than joining those exterminated in such totalitarian genocide (and this is arguable, when many survivors have stated that they would rather have died themselves).
122. Richard, actually I would like to point out that I don’t aree with killing of innocent poeple in Iraq by insurgents, with suicide attacks on a bus in Israel or with the actions of Colombian paramilitaries.
I’m not saying you did - apart from saying in 122 that I wasn’t having a go at you, I should have made it clear that I wasn’t even implying that you shared the attitudes of the Pilger-Pinter axis. My apologies if you thought otherwise.
121- Richard
Another well argued piece which I agree with totally. The “blame America first” crowd get very much on my nerves… and yet they generally get a free pass from the media and from the political left in general, its bizarre that the crimes of a figure like Pol Pot or the terrorist thugs in Iraq are considered more sympathetically than democratically elected and accountable politicians such as Tony Blair and George Bush.
What is even more troublesome is how much resentment and inverted prejudice there is on the left these days… is it any wonder I despair for the Labour Party? If I could offer my two cents worth it’s a good deal less “reformed” than people choose to believe… I still like to recall the looks of total shock at one CLP meeting where I made the case for Atlantism and the benefits of the United States has brought to the world at large…
124. Richard, the fact you said it wasn’t a go at me made me think you were thinking I shared their opinions.
I’ve a contorted mind, so I thought that if you felt the need to specify they weren’t directed at me, you were implying that they could have been directed at me.
I just wanted to clarify becuase misunderstandings are easy on those issues : I thought AH Matlock was justifying Pinochet’s human rights violations earlier.
This subject is increasing my spelling mistakes too: I left out a G from “agree” @123
Ben, many of the inhabitants of successful societies (which, whatever their faults, Western democracies are) have some sort of perverse wish to bring them down. I think it would need a psychologist rather than a politician to explain why this should be so.
I meant 121, not 122..
As for lack of punishment, it’s interesting that the former head of the Stasi was not punished for the many East Germans tortured during his reign of terror, but merely convicted for the killing of a policeman in the 1930s.
Re. 111 - left-wing dictatorships never go quietly? Well, after Gorbachev’s repudiation of the Brezhnev Doctrine, the Jaruzelski dictatorship in Poland went fairly quietly in 1989 (although one could argue that, had Solidarity’s success in the elections of that year been foreseen by Jaruzelski, he might have tried to rig the vote, or restrict the number of seats which Solidarity was allowed to contest still further).
The State Emergency Committee (Yanayev and co), Honecker and Milosevic were all prepared to see bloodshed rather than go peacefully, but those around them weren’t willing to play along.
Re. 43, the Churchill-Macmillan government? Have Eden and Home been airbrushed out of history, like Trotsky?
The wider point is a good one, though. At the 64 General Election, despite Wilson’s campaigning brilliance, Labour’s share of the vote rose by a mere 0.3%, and the Tories lost power only because the Liberal vote increased by 6%. Did Wilson’s last minute stroke of genius in persuading the BBC to postpone Only Fools and Horses till after the polls have closed make the difference between victory and defeat? Or would Gaitskell (had he lived) beaten Home?
128 - Surely Steptoe and Son? Phew, I need a stiff G and T after reading such effervescent correspondence. But Hear Hear to you and Ben in particular!
A bit off topic, but I overhead a Tory MP, listed on David davis’s website as a supporter, telling some members that he supports Cameron. He said he had ‘changed his mind’ and his endorsment wasn’t binding.
Very interesting I thought.
130- believe me Tim there are quite a lot of them!!!!
Re. 125, thanks Ben, I’m only glad my own branch is slightly less anti-American! Most of my branch are middle-of-the-road in that context, as they are re. domestic policy. Our one member of the Pinter-Pilger axis departed last year (to the great relief of the rest of the branch), though not before being an utter pain in the posterior at the 03 branch AGM, where her ranting and shouting (combined with utterly wretched chairmanship) made the meeting last four hours (we all staggered home at 11.30pm).
The worst ever CLP to which I belonged was Nottingham East - crawling with Bennites and Trotskyites, and other nutters who honestly thought that we should keep the old Clause 4 and that unilateral nuclear disarmanent was a vote-winner!
You’re absolutely right re. the free pass given to them. For example, Philip Larkin has been posthumously vilified by (among others) Tom Paulin and Lisa Jardine for some Alf-Garnett like sentiments expressed in private correspondence (not knowing that it would be published posthumously), whereas Harold ‘International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic signatory’ Pinter was (a few years ago) given a whole season of programmes on BBC4, including an interview with an audience which tittered sycophantically at his defence of Stalin’s post-war aggression as ‘a heavily defensive kick’.