Is time running out for Tony?
October 31st, 2005-
Should you be betting on an early departure?
With more calls for David Blunkett to resign and after a week which has seen one Cabinet row after another spilling into the public domain the chances of Tony Blair serving a full third term must be slightly lower. On top of the spats over education policy, smoking, and the reform the benefit system, the attack 
on Blunkett is particularly damaging - because he is seen as being so close to Blair.
-
In addition there’s the possiblity that the troubles plaguing his partner in the Iraqi adventure, George Bush, might reopen issues in the UK and add to the pressure.
Ever since Blair made the announcement about his career intentions in September last year commentators have been predicting problems. It was almost inevitable that at some stage during the third term he would be seen as a lame duck. Following recent events that might be happening sooner rather than later.
Because his ministers know he is on the way out then, inevitably, he’s lost some of his authority. Who do aspiring Labour MPs try to impress - CampBlair or CampBrown? The answer is obvious. Add to that the ambition of the Chancellor and no obvious reluctance on his part to make trouble then these problems could continue.
On top of this there will be a new Leader of the Opposition in five weeks time. At the moment it is hard to predict how that other public school educated Oxonian, David Cameron, is going to perform. But, no doubt, it will not be long before someone points out that Cameron got a much better degree and if the opinion polls move one or two notches in the Tory direction then there will be more ammunition for the Blair dissenters.
-
Until now we’ve been firmly of the view that Blair would be able to carry on as long as he wants and would find a means for a dignified exit on his own terms. Now we are not so sure.
There are a number of betting possibilities. The convention bookmakers have Blair leaving in 2006 at 4/1; 2007 at 7/4; 2008 at 2/1 and 2009 and beyond at 5/2. The Betfair exchange has a range of options in three month periods running to January 1 2008 and beyond where the price is 1.74/1.
Cantor Spreadfair has a spread of 135-165 weeks on the length of Blair’s third term starting last May.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Cameron has a better degree? This sort of thing just doesn’t count in politics. I’ve got a PhD in abstract mathematics - am I Prime Minister?
More generally, I just don’t see the pressure you’re expecting - it’s in the party’s interest to have the transition near the next election (honeymoon period) instead of after three years of media attacks on the new leader. And in a funny sort of way the Tory press aren’t gunning for him as they used to, because they know he’s going anyway: rather, they’re starting to give him false praise, the better to bash his successor. My prediction remains that he’ll announce the time of his departure at the conference after next, Oct 2007, for sometime in 2008.
I think nick is right, the earliest he will go will be may ‘07. But i would be supprised if he held out till ‘08.
o/t Have we turned a corner ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4389874.stm
I think nick is right, the earliest he will go will be may ‘07. But i would be supprised if he held out till ‘08.
o/t Have we turned a corner ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4389874.stm
1.”Cameron has a better degree? This sort of thing just doesn’t count in politics. I’ve got a PhD in abstract mathematics - am I Prime Minister?”
In 1992 the Cambridge educated Oliver Letwin lost Hampstead and Highgate to the RADA educated Glenda Jackson.
If a better degree would have been important, Letwin should have had a 20% lead!
1. I am in total agreement. The better degree thing is utterly spurious. No-one suggests Churchill was a bit of a duffer since he didn’t have a degree. He ended up with a Nobel prize for literature.
I would put a sizeable sum on Tony going in 2008.
The difference in quality of degree is worth exactly 0.
There seems to be ‘Blair fatigue’ around the BBC at the moment. But I don’t see that that necessarily damages his successor.
The assumption that Cameron will perform well is questionable. Firstly, his election will hardly catch Labour unawares. Secondly, the curious affair of the gay smears dossier suggests DC may even be Labour’s preferred candidate.
john L, i have been away from the news for the weekend. What on earth is the gay smears dossiers?
This is slightly O/T, in that (picking up on Nick Palmer’s very kind mention of it in the last thread) it is partly just a shameless plug for my new book on backbench rebellions - The Rebels: How Blair Mislaid His Majority (www.therebels.co.uk) - but it is also relevant to the broader question of the thread (although not - for reasons already well set out - the quality of degrees).
The MP-as-sheep myth is so ingrained that people are frequently surprised when you point out to them that the last parliament saw the highest rate of backbench rebellion in the post-war era. More than 200 Labour MPs voted against their whip between 2001-2005 - and most of them are still there. Even if you allow for the fact that some of the less frequent rebels will be willing to change their behaviour given the smaller majority, plenty won’t. There are, for example, 60 Labour MPs remaining in the Commons who voted against the Government 10 or more times during the last Parliament - and will be odds on to do so again.
Nick was kind enough to mention the book’s launch on Wednesday, at which lots of MPs turned up - and talking to them whilst clutching a glass of rotgut (but extortionately expensive) Commons wine, I was struck by how disgruntled many of them were by some of the recent government announcements. Such disgruntlement extended way beyond those commonly dismissed as the ‘usual suspects’. There is trouble ahead from the parliamentary party in the next two or three years - and whilst some individual ministers have clearly grapsed that they need to make themselves more accessible to MPs given the smaller majority, those at the top of the pile have yet to face up to the new parliamentary realities. The announcements on education reform do not give the impression of a Prime Minister who has realised that he has to treat the PLP with some TLC if he is to get his legislation through.
One final thing. Mike is probably right that the dynamics of MPs’ allengiances have shifted somewhat because of the PM’s known retirement, but I think some of that happened a while ago, but in general I think it is unwise to overplay the Blairite/Brownite split within the PLP (not that this is what Mike was doing). Most MPs belong to neither camp. The myth of the two camps, however, suits both sides. It allows those around Brown to pretend that they control huge swathes of troops, which they order to attack or retreat at will. It is therefore ‘Gordon’ who decides whether the Government wins or loses key votes, and who thus decides the fate of the Prime Minister. The myth similarly suits the Blairites because it allows them to deflect attention away from the real reason that they get into dificulties with their backbenchers, enabling them to place the blame on the Brownites and their devious scheming.
The truth is more prosaic. When Tony Blair has got himself into dificulties with the PLP, it has not been because of ‘Gordon’ and his Brownites. It has been because he has managed to alienate the broad non-aligned mainstream on his backbenches.
And when Prime Minister Brown - eventually - runs into trouble with the PLP, it’ll be for exactly the same reason.
If a degree mattered, then how did John Major get into parliament? I doubt whether 99% of the population will have a clue what he took his degree in and even more not care.
9 - How do you think the rebels in the last Parliament compare to those rebels, led by Michael Foot, in the 1966-70 Wilson Parliament, when a section of the Left repeatedly voted against the government? Given that this is a Labour government, does the weekly PLP meeting provide an effective forum for Labour rebels?
Also, surely pure numbers of rebels means very little until it is taken into the context of majorities and likely impacts. A few rebels in a hung parliament who bring down a government is intuitively a much more “rebellious” group than 100 rebels in a parliament with a 178 majority? How is all this factored in?
P.S. Are there any price movements on Blunkett as deputy leader as a result of this weekend’s pressures?
9. I’m not surprised rank and file MPs feel disgruntled, given the recent flow of crackpot, illiberal policy proposals. This government, hideously, is starting to resemble the one it replaced. Will we get a revived proposal to bring in a ‘traffic cones hotline’ soon? I can’t wait to meet my local ‘respect sheriff’ - will he lassoo me if I swear in public?
I have always assumed that TB planned stay on until the very last day of this Parliament having overseen the election for his successor - leaving his chosen successor as a kind of ‘Prime Minister Elect’ along side him during the general election campaign.
This last week has been curious, is there really much more dissent in the Cabinet or is the spin machine making much of disagreements that exist all the time?
And if yes, then why? Could Blair’s team be building up to a kind of ‘night of the long knives’ clearout to promote the ‘next generation’ that some in the PLP will want to skip to if we Tories go down the Cameron route, or is the trouble being stirred by impatient Brownites looking to undermine Blair now?
9. I agree that the split of Brown/Blair camps among MPs is over-estimated. I have the impression that the majority of MPs are loyal to the party before being loyal to Blair or Brown in particular.
15. To promote the “new generation” in the PLP didn’t need to do that. There were already talks about a reshuffle to let new names in in place of old faces (like Beckett).
Splits usually generate bad press, so it seems a bad idea to overplay them.
I have always had that impression when talking to Labour MPs. I think the Blair/Brown thing is the overarching plotline that the media have used to try and keep people interested in political news when NuLab had a silly-size majority and politics was dull. I think we’ll get far more Lab/Tory news now that the Tories seem to be sorting themselves out.
Re 1 No … but that surely is a great qualification for pensions minister!
Talking about Labour MPs, who do you think could retire next time? I know it’s too early, but just to guess (the “runnin out” headline inspired me).
My picks for retirements are: Glenda, Bob Wareing, Frank Dobson, Clare Short, Alan Williams and Margharet Beckett.
Gwyneth Dunwoody will become the longest serving female MP and perhaps she could go too.
I do think Mike and Phil are on to something, though probably still trumped by Nick’s point on the Party’s interest being against an earlier switch. Yet another, more market-based Blair bash at ‘reform’ is going seriously to get up people’s noses unless there is a demonstrable case for it. Why does the NHS need yet another restructuring? The great benefits of sustained investment are now coming through in the empirical evidence. I’m sure there are a whole load of worthwhile things to progress on patient-focus, prevention, quality standards etc without yet more effort and expense on the organisational structure and who works for whom with whom (against whom?). And who wants the bother of trusts for generally good primary schools. I may have to put in effort keeping religous orgs/business out of controlling influences in our school, having opted for the local, secular primary. Surely a waste of time? On top of the planned capital investment, all I can see we really need as a bit more cash to make learning assistant full-time in every class. (btw I’m not so sure about secondaries. I’m less well informed but do see some justification for reform here - the ‘demonstrable case’ test I referred to.)
So I do see pressure on Blair growing. But whether Brown can learn from previous mistakes and play this rather better in this Parliament remains doubtful.
21….. continuing….
According to the House of Commons’ GE research paper, the average age of MPs who did not stand for re-election last may was 60.6 years on polling day.
I expected an higher average age, but not all of them were willing retirements: some were Scottish MPs with their seats abolished and then there were Jane Griffith and Howard Flight among them.
86 MPs didn’t stand for re-election: 58 Labourites, 16 Tories, 8 Libdems and 4 from NI parties (including the MP for Basingstoke).
The youngest MPs to retire were Paul Marsden (37.1 years old on polling day) and Richard Allan (39.2 years old).
20 - The MP for Sedgefield will retire. Especially if he stands down as PM in 2007-08.
23. Yes, I forgot about him! :-C
The MP for MP for Folkestone and Hythe will probably follow him to the House of Lords.
Maybe TB will be all humble and not have himself elevated to the Lords like John Major?
Yeah right!!
24 - Semi-serious point, do you think that the LibDems will be able to take F&H if Howard steps down? He must have a fairly sizeable personal vote that may well not bother to stay Tory if he goes off to the other place…
26. I don’t know. Now the tories have a good majoirty (24%), but with the Libdem never say never.
I thought Surrey South West would have fallen to the Libdem this year becuase of Virginia Bottomley’s retirement, but the tories increased their majority in the end.
26 - Looking at the way Lib Dems did against Tories in direct competition last time I’d say it was an outside chance at best. In fact, I’d stick my neck out and say no.
26. As long as we have a good candidate who runs a local campiagn then it will be fine. Didn’t the Lib Dems make a bit of a hash running the local council as well?
More bad news…..A report paper has just announced that UK businesses are set to prosper in the New Year and business confidence is high. The stock market has just advanced nearly 70 points on the news.
30 - Thats excellent news not bad news. I’m not that parochial. I like having a job and money.
Just got to say that I saw the film ‘The Sea Inside’ last night. Its a mawkish, dreary, sentimental piece of unintentionally hilarious drivel.
Is this slightly off-topic? Sorry. But I simply had to get that off my chest. Won’t happen again.
30
The thought that the UK stock market takes any notice of a random report is ludicrous. The market is actually up 70points following the positive gains made on Wall Street late on Friday, and on the takeover bid made for O2 by Telefonica.
30 - The stock market is advancing this morning on takeover bid fever with a couple of big ones just announced this morning. It has zero to do with a report by some spotty oik at BDO Stoy Hayward.
25 - He might not do it just yet to avoid public scrutiny of his business interests. I think that may be a factor with Major too. Major hasn’t ruled it out forever has he? I thought he just said he was a bit busy?
Couple of O/T points (sorry Mike)
One of our regulars is being commemorated on the £2 coin - I’ll leave you to find out which (clue: Saturday).
Retiring PMs were traditionally offered a (hereditary) Earldom. Since there is the most impeccable of all “old” Labour precedents - Attlee - why shouldn’t Tony become 1st Earl of Sedgefield - presumably it wouldn’t cause a by-election these days…
33 - GOt in before me! Quite agree.
Sorry…I must be confused. I was reading all the posts about collapsing ecconomies, record bancrupcies, more debt than Mozambique, Sri Lanka, Argentina, South Africa. Houses being repossesed at a rate that would make Al Capone blush….Plus…. a sparkling new old Etonian with an excellent degree who could learn his politics on the job…….
OT. I liked ‘The Sea Inside’ though I agree that it was mawkish. And the wit was intentional
As recent history shows, economics in the elctorate are as much about perception as reality. The events of September 1992 were politically catastrophic for the Major Government but the years that followed showed the economy to be in good shape and indeed an outside observer would have argued that the economy was in fair shape by 1997.
However, people remembered high interest rates, negative equity and the rest and the Tory record for effective economic management was shattered.
In 2005, one could argue the economy is in much worse shape yet for those in work and with a mortgage, it isn’t too bad with interest rates low and the housing market reasonably strong especially outside London. I think the slowing housing market and accompanying economic insecurity was one of the reasons why the Tories did so well in London and the SE.
If the housing market rebounds and interest rates remain low over the next 18 months, the electorate’s sense of well being will return. The other key factor is that the 18-20% of people employed by the public sector in much of the country have a vested interest in the status quo. They aren’t going to vote for a Party advocating wholesale root-and-branch cuts in the same way that the average turkey isn’t going to vote for Christmas.
Politically, if the economy “looks” good and the handover from Blair to Brown is smooth, I believe that not only will Brown win the next election, he COULD increase the Labour majority, primarily (but not exclusively) at the expense of the LDs.
Go and cheer yourself up on Wallace and Gromett. you wont be disappointed
37. I’m still unsure if they’re more catastrophic tory posters here or John McDonnell’s weekly newsletters!
Folkestone and Hythe is, fundamentally, too divided a constituency for the LDs to make much progress, unless Labour rolls over completely. The local LD council is unpopular, too.
37 - I quite agree, Roger, that there has been a Daily Mail hysteria in some people’s postings on the basic economic position. I was merely taking you to task on your comment, “The stock market has just advanced nearly 70 points on the news” of a spotty oik’s research paper rather than on M&A fever, which was a ludicrous piece of spin.
9 Phil in his excellent post said, It allows those around Brown to pretend that they control huge swathes of troops, which they order to attack or retreat at will. It is therefore ‘Gordon’ who decides whether the Government wins or loses key votes….
This is a game of unintended consequences. After building this myth GB will not be able to disclaim responsibility for the NuLab record on every thing from Iraq to tax credits.
Re. 30, I’m not an economist, but Manchester was absolutely heaving last Friday, the busiest ‘pre-Christmas rush’ I’ve seen for at least four years.
It was, of course, half-term (which helped) but it was definitely busier than the half-terms of the last four years.
James “It has zero to do with a report by some spotty oik at BDO Stoy Hayward”
That made me laugh! Though in fairness to ’spotty oiks’ he can’t be too bad if the BBC’s main financial news feature is based on his report!
Have you had the test to see if you’re British enough?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4099770.stm
I got 8 out 15 right.
47 - I got 9 to my eternal shame… does that mean i should be deported?
48. I actually knew a 9th answer. I knew that PG means “parental guidance” in the film classification system, but the question stressed the “according to the guide” point and I thought that questions about film classification system weren’t so crucial on a test for immigrants and so I answered it was a tea brand……….
48. I got 9 as well. A set of stupid questions on the whole though.
48 - Yet another 9 - and the questions are daft in general…
Mike can you encourage a bookie to open bets on Blunkett? PM giving him backing makes me keen for a punt!
48/50/51. So my result wasn’t so bad afterall!
48 David R I got 11 so I can sit on a district Council, apparently. Wow.
But take comfort. The book is wrong like the education White Paper it has basic errors. Santa clearly comes from Lapland. Everyone knows that!
54. with 11 you could seat in Parliament!
52. If his supporter speaking on the daily politics now is anything to go by, then he’s a dead man walking.
56. who is this DB’s supporter?
54. I got that wrong as well. The questions about police and solicitors give fuel to the suggestion that immigrants are more likely to commit crime.
57. Some unknown woman labour MP. (Just stating facts Roger, not being sexist)
Who was that stupid woman not defending Blunkett very well on Daily Politics?
Terrible. Bonkers obviously couldn’t get any stronger support from someone capable.
58. I got wrong the questions about PG meaning, Santa, English outnumbering Scots and Welsh, the myth of Father Christmas and then the last 3. I answered that people are obliged to attend a police interview at the station, that people should ask a solicotor if he’s qualified in the area of law of concern and that you can divorce after 6 months.
57 - A Blairite clone whose constituency borders Blunkett’s (I think).
57/62 Angela Smith?
61 - Did you think the populations of England, Scotland and Wales were pretty similar in size?
I got 10 out of 14 in that Quiz. The 999/112 was one of the questions I got wrong.
64. no, but I answered that English outnumber Scots and Welsh by 7 to 1
63. That’s it. She was terrible. Bit like being defended in court by that Jade woman from big brother.
66. Now I’m watching it. Actually it’s finishing.
I agree with Guido about Blunkett. Two weeks anyone?
(I got 11 on the test so they must have been stupid questions)
66. I think her constituency will be abolished and she should face either Blunkett or Michael Clapham (a left wing rebel). I suppose she’ll try the second option.
If the Conservatives will stop their silly hyperbole about Blunkett I think his own side will do the job for them. I can’t understand why the Tories don’t realize that their calls for resignations (with their history) make them look cheap and opportunistic. They should learn from Ming Campbell the Lib Dem Minister for misbehaving Ministers. He seldom asks for a resignation and manages to sound objective. Unlike the malign sleaziness of the odious Greyling. Hopefully when Cameron gets his feet under the table he’ll have a quiet word….
30-Was the report that you read by any chance called ‘GB’s economic outlook’
37-’Sorry…..I must be confused’What’s new!
70. if you’ve to wait Labour, Blunkett will orobably get a promotion!
The only criticism you could expect from Lab is Marshall Andrews claiming Blunkett is crazy.
Guido 60. I’ve sent a couple of emails off. The problem is that in the past year whenever they’ve run a Blunkett market it has cost them. You could get 7/2 at the start of December on him going by the end of the year. Then you could get 5/1 on him returning to the Cabinet during 2005.
David Blunkett - the punters’ friend.
65 - the question is “native born English” - so you have to remember that the immigrant population is proportionately larger in England than Scotland and Wales. (I got that one wrong too.)
73 - you know the Christmas period is beginning when the Blunkett resignation betting starts. He made it a happy Christmas for me last year.
70 - for once, Roger, I agree. Rabid shouting and forced outrage never did an Opposition any good.
75. are there any chances that he’ll resign, get his job, resign again and finally get his job again before Christmas 2006!?
76. well, but Roger seems to question even the opportunity to ask his resignation. Greyling sometimes goes OTT, but asking Blunkett’s accounatability is part of his job.
78. andrea. The press will call for his resignation if appropriate. The politicians do well to examine his wrongdoing. No-one find it attractive to see someone trying to get someone in their own profession fired. It’s just bad tactics. Everyone has a soft spot for a nice person few for a rat! David Davis was famous for getting two Ministers fired. Look at the good it’s done him!
10 more MPs back Cameron
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/31/ntory31.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/31/ixnewstop.html
70-So now if the opposition exposes sleaze it’s just ‘cheap & opportunistic’,unless there is a woman invoved in the sleaze then it becomes sexism.
The BBC website say of Blunket that , Prime Minister Tony Blair says Mr Blunkett has his “full support”.
So Blunkett is doomed then.
79.” No-one find it attractive to see someone trying to get someone in their own profession fired.”
it’s not a great comparison. Following this logic, no one should contest elections anymore because it’s not “nice” to get MPs fired.
I suppose Labour MPs have never asked for a resignation in their history.
72-Agree after each episode of sleaze Mandelson got a promotion.
82 Whoops the italics have not come off as I i/ rather than /i. Apologies.
For once I agree with Roger (rare, but not impossible..) Grayling is going over the top in demanding the Nuclear option - resignation, better in my view to raise the whole question of the conflicts of interests and scandals that have dogged this Labour Government since 1997.
For all their pontificating about the Conservatives in the Major years, nothing we did compares with the constant stream of stories of ministers and party officials bejaving in an ‘innappropriate’ fashion involving sometimes very large sums.
Did you know that Blunkett stands to make a million dollars from the stake he was ‘offered’ in the company?
80. Please let us talk about Labour for a day, just for a day!
After the weekend press about Nulab disunity and ferret fighting perhaps they will remember the Blair line in 1996, If they can’t be trusted to keep the (fill in the space) party together, how on Earth can they run the country?…The sooner they are put out of their misery the better…
79. Are you saying if a policeman was taking kickbacks, their collegues shouldn’t try to have him sacked.
“I suppose Labour MPs have never asked for a resignation in their history”.
Of course they have. I just think it’s bad tactics whoever does it and from whatever party. I think one of the reasons the Lib dems have come from obscurity to being real challengers is that people see them as ‘nice’. Don’t underestimate it as a vote winner.
90. I think it’s fair to ask for resignations sometimes. The problem with Grayling is so over the top.
91.”The problem with Grayling is so over the top. ”
ops, I left out a part: ……Grayling is THAT HE’S…
I think Blunkett is now a fatally wounded politician. There is a general air of wrongdoing around him. You know a man is known to have a dodgy rep when one of his juniors says “Those who know David like I do know he’s an honest man” or words to that effect.
Of course one reason they are so vulnerable to financial scandal is because before coming to Westminster most Labour MP’s have absolutely no commercial experience at all.
Consequently -aside from originating appalling legislation they let themselves become totally under the spell of some business ‘leaders’ who most Conservative MP’s would know to give a wide berth to.
Obviously I’m not naming names on Mikes site but there are a several sudden millionaires who have a lot to thank their Nulab friends for, as any reader of Private Eye will know.
Politicians should always beware strangers bearing gifts; I am constantly amazed at how many MP’s are surprisingly stupid when it comes to managing (or ideed, not managing) their own finances.
Roger wrote one of the reasons the Lib dems have come from obscurity to being real challengers is that people see them as ‘nice’. Don’t underestimate it as a vote winner.
Mrs Thatcher was a lot of things, but not nice. Don’t overestimate it either… Blair’s problem is that he seemed nice in 1997 (the “Demon Eyes” poster really should have been saved up for later :)) but has been rumbled.
Never forget your Andrew Marvell (always enjoyable to dig this one out):
“Those same Arts that did gain
A Power, must it maintain”
Marcus [94] - very good indeed, insinuating that what Labour needs is more Robert Maxwells
Marcus. I read in one of the Sundays a report about a 37 year old hoping to get Ken Clark kicked out of the Chairmanship of a finance company for which he is being paid a large salary whilst doing “next to nothing”. I don’t mean to be controversial but before Thatcher it used to be necessary to ‘work’ to make bucket loads of money.
97 Roger, you are joking, right?
Tell me, Roger, what ‘work’ did Blunkett do in his fortnight that made him worth 1 million dollars? - the equivalent of £60,000 per day?
Come on mate, your lot have been at the gravy train with a vengeance - and it must be galling for a good socialist like you to realise that your masters become capitalista’s so readily.
99. All this talk of labour sleaze and the ’socialist’ wife of the prime minister hasn’t even been mentioned yet.
Re ratio of English to Scots and Welsh - after the current boundary review, England will have 533 constituencies, Scotland 59 and Wales 40. Wales is over represented by 6 so should be 34.
That means the true ratio of constituencies should be 533:93, very close to 6:1.
Per 74 - if the immigrant proportion is larger in England, then the ratio should be less than 6:1. So how is the answer 9:1?
That would be like shooting fish in a barrel though.
I thought the unwritten rule of an opposition’s approach to resignations was “only ask for a resignation if you are pretty sure you are going to get a resignation.” Asking for a resignation and not getting it looks weak and a bit hysterical. Asking for it and getting it looks as if you are running the show.
So either the Tories know that there is more to come out and Blunkett will go, or Greyling is a fool and the Tory leadership contest is impeding their ability to keep people like him in line. I suspect the latter, although the former is not impossible.
Ooh Yes, Cherie Blair. ’she does a lot of work for charidee, mate’.
To be fair to the Tories you have to make the complaint in the first place for the story to run, particulary as the BBC is worried about firing off unsubstantiated allegations against ministers. The problem is that Grayling does not presume innocence. Davis was very effective against Blunkett because he presumed innocence and asked for an inquiry in order to get some clarity over the matter involved. Grayling should do the same. After all opposition attacks strengthen the determination of governments to hold onto ministers. This is not good if you are an opposition, as you will only benefit if the minister goes, ergo try not to make it a party political affair.
I refuse to defend Blunkett. However how is it possible that a Conservative leadership candidate be claiming “a three figure” salary from BAT as a director, a “large salary” from a finance company as it’s chairman and his MP’s salary from the public purse all at the same time? Don’t you think it’s likely at least one of those groups is being short changed?
106. Ken is not the only politician who holds remunerated directorships. Just go to have a look at MPs register of interests.
104-Yes,its called the Blair memorial (anything goes) fund.
105 Perhaps the plan is to make Blair dig defensive ditches around Blunkett. Deeply committed Labour leadership fails to stop digging to protect minister shock. And Tony has still been digging again on this lunchtime’s news slots.
The longer Blunkett clings on the more the sleaze label will shift to Nulab. It is, after all, more or less there already.
In the political effect but not error Blunkett could become the Hamilton catalyst of the new Millennium
106 And I refuse to defend Clarke. My point is that Labour MP’s are more often than not naieve about business and it’s potential for conflicting interests.
Clarke has no potential for conflict of interest -indeed most opposition MP’s don’t - but Blunkett certainly does.
And the bar should be set much higher for Blair and his cabinet because of the ‘holier than thou’ tone he took all the way through the end of the Major Government.
Before anyone starts on about Conservative sleaze, Tory MP’s end up in prison usually through their own high-handedness and conceit. Our famous Tory felons were guilty of letting their pride lead them into purjory - not of massive financial scandals.
106-The charity that Cherie Blair gave a speach at in Australia definetly got ’short changed’ when they received less than 10% of the funds.
Cherie pocketed £ 17,000 !
110.”And I refuse to defend Clarke…..Clarke has no potential for conflict of interest ”
You’ve defendes him!
At the beginning of this affair, I thought that Blunkett’s conflict of interests lied in the fact he could need DNA tests to show if he has father a new child from a married woman or not……
It’s intersting though, that one of the clues as to when you are reaching the end of a political era is the development of three things- a resurgent opposition, cabinet disunity and a hostile press digging up financial and sex scandals.
All we need now is a botched leadership bid and the stage is truly set.
112 I mean’t I refuse to defend Clarke’s salary, it’s up to his employers whether he gives value for money, not you and I.
The problem with KC and Savoy Asset Management is that the company he chairs and whose chief exec is a pal of KC has not been making money for those who invested in it. It is not a case of conflict of interest, corruption but ineffective management and monetary loss.
The point about this though is that if an MP does take on an outside interest, mainly employment then they should be prepared to do the necessary work alongside taking the salary.
114.”it’s up to his employers whether he gives value for money, not you and I. ”
no, becuase I’m socialist and the state should control over everything, Ken’s salary included.
(I’m joking! I don’t want to be denounced as a dangerous lef winger)
“Consequently -aside from originating appalling legislation they let themselves become totally under the spell of some business ‘leaders’ who most Conservative MP’s would know to give a wide berth to”.
Yes - the Hindujas being one example. The Tories kept their distance, mainly because they heard rumours about their reputation, whereas people like Tony Blair don’t really know how to discriminate between successful and reputable entrepeneurs and the cheats and chancers. It was the same with Wilson - hence his “lavender list”.
113. So we’re just short of one and two………
Good news for us Cameroons. After a week the betting has finally moved further in his favour on IG.
110 “And the bar should be set much higher for Blair and his cabinet because of the ‘holier than thou’ tone he took all the way through the end of the Major Government.. Before anyone starts on about Conservative sleaze, Tory MP’s end up in prison usually through their own high-handedness and conceit. Our famous Tory felons were guilty of letting their pride lead them into purjory - not of massive financial scandals.”
Can’t agree. There are now official channels that work when allegations of ministerial misconduct are made, which there were not under the Major and previous governments. Robin Butler, a fine civil servant but no Miss Marple, was in the position of investigating allegations against Aitken without any back-up or way of proceeding. Now we have an official mechanism, it’s incumbent on us to at least wait until it’s exhausted before shouting about things.
On Tory felons - but what was the substance that Aitken and Archer were lying about? Perjury doesn’t arise just for reasons of pride. There’s something to hide (see also the Libby case). And back in the good old days, more got covered up - Reggie Maudling faced no criminal charges for all his extremely dodgy activities. Sense of perspective, please…
Btw, Blunkett has a Work and Pensions debate to start in a couple of minutes in the Commons.
119 Lewis Baston I was under the impression that it was John Major who initiated the Standards in Public Life process. This government have changed it and, in some ways, improved it. But as usual have gone over the top with it for others but themselves (councillors for example).
If Blunkett was in local government he would have been in the dungeons with the inquisitor-in-chief already.
119 In essence, Archer lied about his nocternal activities with a prostitute and Aitken about a hotel bill.
This is just not in the same league as the sort of issues that have arisen under this Government and previous Labour Governments.
Nobody is expecting perfection - when power and money mix there is always potential for problems and with 650 MP’s there are always going to be bad apples.
My central point is that the Labour Party are much more susceptible to financial scandal than Conservatives, and the current administration are in may ways more vulnerable than any of their forebears because they have postively touted their business friendly credentials and because the new labour machine needs business donations to keep them out of the clutches of the trade unions.
Lewis at 119. forgive me asking but are you a journalist? I remember reading something by you of similar name that I enjoyed very much perhaps in the Guardian or Independant?>
118. Money still being bet on Davis - someone just bet £100 at 11.0 (ie 10-1) on Betfair very soon after it was offered.
121: I’m well aware that the Nolan etc process started under the Major government - it was in part a reaction to the Hamilton case and the attendant bad publicity. I wouldn’t deny that the big change in parliamentary standards took place from 1995 onwards and is part of a process. I was talking about ministerial standards - controls on which did not effectively exist prior to the Blair government.
I’ve grave reservations about the way the Standards Board has operated in local government, although this is partly the parties’ fault. There was a rash of trivial complaints about MPs a few years ago, which by a sensible mutual agreement was halted. The trouble with local government is that it’s difficult to enforce such an agreement.
101 - Does anyone know if the boundary changes in Wales bring the size of the constituencies into line with the reat of the UK or will Welsh constituencies continue to be smaller.
As for Grayling I think what he’s doing is fair enough. If it’s left to the press then we end up back in the situation where they can lay claim to be the real opposition. It may not be to everyone’s taste but I do feel it’s neccessary.
Marcus. Financial scandal? Don’t you think you should name names or should we just assume you’re talking about all Labour MP’s?
OT for the ones who are seeing Blunkett now in the Commons.
What does that kind of red flower many MPs are wearing represent?
OT I know, but I had to laugh; a conservative legal pundit was on NPR defending Bush’s choice of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. Questioned as to whether Alito was a conservative idealogue, the pundit’s evidence to the contrary was that he once upheld the appeal of a Muslim Police Officer who wanted to keep his beard at work, and upheld the appeal of college students who had been banned from advertising a beer in their college magazine.
Well, that’s that then…
122 - Would you really say that accepting funds from Asil Nadir was much less serious?
128 - It’s a poppy (made out of paper) that commemorates our war dead.
131. Ah, thanks Max.
130. ….Or cash in plain brown envelopes from Al Fayed to ask questions?
Blunkett just made a joke about his virility.
134. Rifkind suggested the PM has crumbling confidence in Blunkett
127, 130 - Where do you want to start? £1m from Bernie Ecclestone (followed by a U turn on tobacco sponsorship)will do.
134 Are you sure it was a joke?
137. well, the junior ministers laughed.
122: But Archer’s lie was in the course of establishing a false claim to libel damages, or at the very least misrepresenting his circumstances in a court case to aggravate those damages. And that’s also a very naive reading of what Aitken did. I can’t see anything remotely similar in recent years. I will agree that Harold Wilson had a peculiarly bad sense of when businessmen were on the level or not, and was not as fussy as he should have been, and that some cases in the last few years are a bit reminiscent.
Come on! The Maudling case was the most serious corruption and abuse of power situation at least since 1922. Marples was pretty bad too. In past Labour governments only Stonehouse and Brayley really figure, and Wilson didn’t reappoint Stonehouse in 1974.
123: Thank you. I have written the odd thing in the public prints, but I’m not a journalist as such. I’m a psephologist and writer, for the Electoral Reform Society and under my own steam.
127, 130 … Or a sample from Kevin Boone’s good site ‘a brief history of sleaze’ (www.kevinboone.com)
“Keith Vaz MP: rebuked by the committee on standards and privileges for recommending for an honour an acquaintance with which he had a financial connection. Other allegations of corrupt practises were investigated, but not proved. Mr Vaz was criticised by the committee for attempting to delay the investigation and refusing to answer questions.
John Reid MP: investigated by the committee for allegations that he had tried to exert undue influence on other MPs to give false evidence to the commissioner for standards. No action was taken.
John Maxton MP: investigated for allegations that he had misused public funds to support party campaigns. Refused to cooperate with the commissioner, and eventually left the Commons to become an MSP.
John Major MP: criticised by the commissioner for not declaring his large fees for giving lectures, even though he had declared on the register that he did engage in this activity.
Peter Mandelson MP: criticised by the commissioner for not declaring a large loan from fellow minister Geoffrey Robinson. No action was taken by the standards committee, but the embarrassment led to Mandelson’s resignation as a minister. Shortly after his reinstatement, Mr Mandelson resigned again in the wake of allegations that he had helped the Hinduja brothers obtain British citizenship in return for financial support towards the Millennium Done.
Geoffrey Robinson MP: suspended from the Commons for failing to disclose to the standards committee a large payment from Robert Maxwell. He eventually resigned as Paymaster General after his loan to Mr Mandelson came to light.
Nigel Griffiths MP: criticised by the committee for failing to disclose that he was renting his own property using constituency funds. However, the committee decided that this was not improper in itself, and no action was taken.”
128. Andrea, bit of background history on the poppy appeal here…
http://www.poppy.org.uk/About_Poppy_Appeal/History.html
The Remeberance Day ceremony at the Cenotaph is quite a sombre and moving thing to watch and I’m disappointed that I will miss it (will be in transit on the morning of the 13th).
136 - Yes, but are all the scandals, taken together, qualitatively, than those attributed to the Conservatives? I wouldn’t say so.
138. Junior ministers laughing at bad jokes is part of the career advancement programme I believe.
141. Thanks Richard S.
Btw, the woman with the leather boots I was trying to identify some weeks ago is 2 benches behind Ian Paisley today too.
126. Wales will continue to have 40 seats - ie 6 too many.
For some reason there has been a long delay - the Boundary Commission for Wales submitted its report on 31 January 2005 but it still has not been put before the House of Commons. It will only be published when it goes before the Commons.
It is the law that it should be submitted as soon as possible so the delay seems a bit strange.
144. I’m not watching Andrea, but I do know that Iris Robinson does a strong line in leather boots, so it might be her.
146. Chrisco, she was my number 1 suspect. With the info you just gave me, I could say “case closed”
Margharet Hodge’s record seems broken now…she’s struggling to finish sentences
How does Margeret Hodge remian in a ministerial job? She seems to have a long record of ineptness rewarded by promotion.
149. The man who defeated Helen Clark is speaking now.
I see tory posters’ favourite MP (John Bercow) spoke earlier.
140 Marcus Interesting post and good site quoted. Thanks.
140. I forgot all about Vaz and Robinson. They can go on the list.
146. Chrisco, does Iris Robinson have long hair now?
101 - “Per 74 - if the immigrant proportion is larger in England, then the ratio should be less than 6:1. So how is the answer 9:1?”
I forgot that was the “correct” answer! (I did the quiz when it first came out, and got that one wrong.) 9:1 sounds very dubious to me.
“Prime Minister Tony Blair says Mr Blunkett has his “full support”. ”
that’s fully trussed and totally distrusted then?
Blair will of course have to get Blunkett removed sooner or later - people are seeing him as outbidding his boss with audacious deceit and nasty right-wing agenda.
154. Book Value, what was your score?
149 - She’s “incompetent but loyal”. It can get you into the cabinet eventually…. ask Estelle Morris
157. David, any comment on today’s dresses?
154 - Could a possibility be that lots of Scots and Welsh have moved to England?
This would be consistent with the fact that Scotland’s population has been falling whilst England’s population is rising.
159. but I think they were asking about “English born”.
hahahaha, Marcus’ list of villans includes John Major!
The woman with the boots is Theresa Villiers!
156 - I think it was about 10 or 11. Some of the questions (like the PG one you mentioned) seemed to be more about memorising the book than actually understanding anything.
Gareth from The Office is taking questions now
158 - I have been in a meeting about Scotland…. After thinking about Rosie Kane for a second Margaret Hodge seems like a radiant ray of sunshine and lovliness… whatever she’s wearing. But I’m not paying much attention to the commons debate. Was the soon to be director of a few companies good?
154 -
Population of England - c. 50 million
Population of Scotland - 5.5 million
Population of Wales - 2.5 million
Population of N.Ireland - 1.5 million
Therefore England: Scotland + Wales = 50 : 8 = roughly 6:1
I suppose the 9:1 figure would be true if a lot of the population of Scotland and Wales were English, but I can’t imagine that’s any more significant than the number of Scots and Welsh living in England. 9:1 is roughly the ratio of English to Scots - maybe they meant that?
By a series of lucky guesses about what a document I’ve never read said, I ended up with 12. Excellent. My upper lip is so stiff you could use it as a ruler.
165. He wasn’t anything special. Not even very aggressive today.
167 - Thing I din’t understand is WHY? He will have been told he was coming back to the cabinet with indecent haste so why did he jeapordise his career with bit of grubby business?
168. I agree. I’m surprised he didn’t pay more attention.
168. I think he&