The money goes on an early Blair departure
November 10th, 2005
-
Probability of him being there after December 2007 now rated at 24%
For all our focus on the Tories in recent weeks the big question in UK politics is still the timing of Tony Blair’s departure from Number 10. Our chart illustates how punters are rating Blair’s chances of still being in the job after December 2007. This is based on best betting prices and underlines how damaging yesterday is being seen.
-
After the first ever Commons defeat the speculation this morning is that Tony Blair might be pressured out early rather than later.
The political editor of the Times, Philip Webster, sums it up like this: “..the defeat laid bare the frailty of his Commons majority as he proposes controversial reforms to weaken local authority control of education, to introduce more private sector provision of healthcare and to crack down on incapacity benefits abuse. Within his own ranks Mr Blair, and anyone who follows him as prime minister, has to cope with around 30 “serial” rebels who can never be counted on to support him, except perhaps in a Commons confidence vote that would prompt a general election if he lost. Senior backbenchers told The Times that Mr Blair would need the support of the opposition parties on all three issues to push his reforms through. The overriding fear of the Labour whips was that, having tasted victory on an issue such as the terror laws, MPs will now be emboldened to defeat a weakened Prime Minister on the core policy areas.”
-
No one can dispute that Tony Blair is a remarkable politician and he has an extraordinary ability to bounce back. But how serious is the current crisis? How many more Commons defeats can he cope with?
In the past we have been bullish about his prospects. Today we are less so but we are still to be convinced that the current prices on when he will go represent good value.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
An interesting one - how about if Blair were to play the Nuclear card: “The election was won on this manifesto and if you won’t toe the line I’ll go to the country.”?
Blair has always been more popular with the electorate than his own party.
Time to say goodbye….
1 - popularity of the leader as opposed to the party is probably the single most overrated factor in British political analysis. It has never counted for much historically, presumably because we do not have a presidential system (pace Mr Blair!). Witness Churchill in 1945 and Callaghan in 1979 for instance.
The corollary of this may explain why IDS’s leadership was not the disaster most supposedly sophisticated Conservative MPs thought, and why Michael Howard didn’t bring the Tories to the gates of Downing Street.
It occurs to me that we no longer hear the old cliche of Conservative leadership elections that the parliamentary party is the most sophisticated electorate in the world; presumably since it is now obvious they vote for the wrong person every single time.
1. None of the parties is in any sort of state to fight an election - few candidates in seats not held and this year’s spending to pay off. In any case, there’s no guarentee that he’d get one if he asked for it (it not being ultimately the PM’s decision). The Labour party’s got a workable majority and an alternative leader. Besides, who’d want a December election?
A different theme - Blair now risks being hit by the Tories on both sides: able to beat him on certain key votes undermining his authority at large, and pushing through other policies e.g. Education which they use to divide him from his party, particularly if it is continually referred to as Conservative policy, which ‘free schools’ more or less is.
Given it’s now a commonplace to state that the tide has definitely turned on Blair and is ebbing away rapidly, when exactly was the high water mark?
Arguably things have only got worse for Labour since, say, the week before the fuel protests in 2000? Or maybe his government was still on the up when it raised national insurance and got away with it in 2002?
1. Tabman, will he go to the country with those 49 rebels too?
Then if the majority of MPs don’t want to go back to the polls (how many MPs in marginal want really risk?), he’ll only speed up his departure. They’ll oust him.
I find the idea that Bliar would go to the country wildly entertaining. I would expect him to lose his majority. 2010 still looks good to me, with the same result.
Paradoxically this might be good for Blair’s legacy and the country at large if it means a return to Cabinet government. What Blair has been good at is identifying problems that Labour has traditionally ignored such as crime, health, education and so on.
The trouble is he tackles them by ramming through either the same policies that have already failed for the conservatives (such as banging more people up) or some ill-thought-out proposal that is really little more than a slogan that tripped glibly off the tongue of some self-styled policy wonk who probably votes Tory anyway.
If forced to persuade Cabinet and the PLP and wider party then we stand a fighting chance of policies and legislation that works and does improve our lot.
If so, then Blair will, as some say of Orson Wells, have lived his life backwards: Prime Ministers normally start with Cabinet government before retreating to a kitchen Cabinet and thence to a few sycophants.
When is the next big vote due? This 90 day thing is quite a big issue, but what topic is up next?
OT: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1864841,00.html - where does Michael Howard fit in?
Would Blair rather compromise and get some of his agenda through, or not compromise, not get any of it, and present himself as a martyr?
the idea he’d go to the country is probably the most far-fetched suggestion i’ve ever seen on here!
Surely he’ll have to go now? He’s such a clear liability after than lost vote- what authority does he now have to get any of his legislation through? And if he calls another election, I’ll think he really has gone mad- when was the last time anyone called an election shortly after the previous one to get ‘a better mandate’ and didn’t get a worse one?
Perhaps TB will be more likely to compromise on other areas, education, health, etc, than he was on terror. Terror not a subject he wanted to compromise on, I think he wanted to cover himself with the 90 day thing, so if/when there is another attack he can say he did the most.
…..The trouble is he tackles them by ramming through either the same policies that have already failed for the conservatives (such as banging more people up)……
Banging people up works quite well.
This doesn’t weaken Blair too much, because he is still popular in the country at large. As that has always been the source of his strength, nothing much has changed.
There are 20 Labour seats with majorities less than 1000, about 60 with majorities less than 3000. I don’t think the sitting MPs in these seats would exactly relish an early election, especially one fought on the issue of suspending habeas corpus. Besides, as already pointed out, the Queen would not necessarily grant a dissolution as the government has a functioning majority and is only a few months into its term.
….She wouldn’t need to: the Cabinet would have deposed him before he’d even got to No. 10’s doorstep.
I dont have a copy of the Labour manifesto to hand, but I assume that it was written in fairly vague terms - “we will improve standards in school giving more choice to parents”, “we will take all necessary measures to improve security from terroist attacks” - that sort of thing.
What Blair is trying to do is going from vague manifesto “committments” to specific policies. The Labour rebels are, at last, begining to realise that the Labour manifesto that they won the election on, is “anything Mr Blair says it is” which understandably they are getting a bit fed up about.
How many of the payroll vote struggled with their consciences? Where is Nick Palmer when you need him
A further question. Why has Hilary Armstrong not resigned. She must be the worst Chief Whip in the last hundred years?
Surely she should have told Tony Blair that his stance WOULD lead to a defeat. It’s not like it was close.
Has somebody edited my comment to read Bliar… unless it was a Freudian typo?
Re 19 - Jon - “Bliar” is what you wrote.
12 - “when was the last time anyone called an election shortly after the previous one to get ‘a better mandate’ and didn’t get a worse one” - 1974
Hmmm… I’m obviously losing it. Previously I thought he was a liar but I’m now inclined to the view that he actually believes everything he says or he has a direct line to the supreme being orquite possibly the supreme being reports to him.
Blair will go c.2008 - don’t think anything has changed as a result of the vote. The simple fact is that a year before the next election suits Brown and his supporters as much as it does TB. BTW just heard David on Radio 5 - some fury from Tory supporters about the position of their party - and on the whole not very impressive, particularly on the idea of borrowing to finance tax cuts.
TB is not in trouble. He will bend with the wind as always does, and make it look normal. But it does not bode well for GB.
TB may be right (or he may be wrong) with what he is trying to do with NHS/educational changes. At least he is trying. The GB solution? Usually, it is simply throwing money at the problems. And micro-managing them. He will have tried that. He is seems unenthusiastic with TB’s ideas. So what will be his approach? Everything is going swimmingly?
Can GB try the JM line—the same policies as the leaderene, without the bits you don’t like? Is that sellable again? Is it even true?
Unlike most posters, I think the loser is GB not TB.
Clarification - David Davis! Cameron was just coming on after him.
18. Who would he replace her with I wonder?
26 - I think therein lies the problem. Who the hell would WANT that job?
I can´t see Labour going tot the country over this. Nor do I see Blair going just yet. But I agree that one defeat makes others more likely (I think the schools reform looks harder to pass, although the Tories may help Blair out).
The guy who loses most is probably Brown who will - perhaps sooner that he once thought - inherit a PLP with a talent for insurrection.
Has anyone contacted the Sun the complain about their coverage or knows where we do?
I have been online again now and they are now grouping Davis, Cameron and Paisley with Bin Laden under a list of winners of yesterday’s vote.
Do they not remember that Blair has voted against anti-terror legislation before.
This is disgracful coverage.
All Blair needs is another terrorist atrocity and he will be able to claim the moral authority and unlike 7/7 his popularity would rise at the expense of the opposition.
Unlike 7/7, Blair would be spun as the great protector of the people, who fought to strengthen anti-terror measures, but the opposition proved themselves weak on terror and look at what has happened now.
He could portray those in his party that aren’t yes-men and the opposition parties as weak and reckless with national security.
By then more people would have forgotten it was Blair’s war that made us a target; the argument has moved on.
I believe this WILL happen.
29 - It is apalling stuff. I was shocked when I saw the front page last night.
You can complain by writing to them but believe me they are getting more mail from the idiots who support this scandalous line.
29. Murdoch and hos cohorts are going too far this time. Did any of their ‘journalists’ spend any time in the hourse yesterday. The case for 90 days was demolished. Every phone in I’ve heard about this, it’s only essex man who has rang in with an ill informed rant supporting the issue.
Some of the Labour-inclined posters on this site may be a little complacent I think. There is a whole raft of Blair’s pet legislation coming up in education, health, and social security which is acutely vulnerable to rebellions. Some Labour insiders seem to think the Tories will help get this stuff through. They might - but after yesterday I wouldn’t bet on it. The scent of Blair’s blood could mean further alliances of convenience with the Liberals and Labour left.
30. Blair is the weak one. He has failed to stand up to Bush, to stand up to the EU, to stand up to the police on the ludicrious proposal, to stand up to doctors who don’t want to work nights or saturdays (RE PMQs yesterday), to civil servants on pension reform.
His whole tenure has been made up of people telling him what they want and him giving in.
Printz - this could happen - but a MP should not and must not be shaped by this in my view. Do they accept 90 days for the sole reason it prevents Blair from having a popularity boost if their was another terrorist attack, God forbid?
That would be an absymally poor argument for supporting it.
Re: The Sun - we all predicted the Sun’s headline - humiliation, attack on opponents - ignoring the fact that for the second time in the recent past the detention period has been doubled. Trevor Kavanagh is a known “Friend of Blair”, and I expected this rant from him, but even knowing what they would do (photos of survivors and victims of 7/7 classed as tragic losers), using the Traitor word, and the classification of Davis, Short and Cameron in the same breath as Al-Zarqawi and Bin Laden is pretty much going too far… could this be the moment the Sun became a regional newspaper, selling only to “Essex Man”?
34 - I couldn’t agree more. I hate Blair, his yes-manship with Bush, his war, his spin and fabricated dossiers. I hate his gerrymandering of the voting system and his PFIs, his betrayal of pensioners, of his own party, his betrayal over Europe, his failure on drugs and violent crime, his 24 hour drinking, his politicising of the civil service, his selective use of expert opinion, his use of terrorism to his advantage.
I am just saying as I see it. I believe Blair would bounce back with another 7/7.
37. I fear you’re right. More bounce than a box of pogo sticks.
18. I was watching House of Cards last night. Perhaps she is doing a Francis Urquhart on Blair.
35 - agree wholeheartedly. I was involved in 5 different IRA bomb threats in the 90s, all live, all luckily dealt with by the Bomb Squad.
The government policy at the time of internment didn’t work, did not prevent these bomb attacks, nor those in Warrington, Enneskillin, Omagh, or countless other car bombs both on the mainland and in the Province.
The 90 day rule would also not have prevented the 7/7 attacks - these people were under the radar terrorists, the SIS had no clue they existed, and that is why they got away with it.
The 90 day rule would not have prevented 9/11, even though people were based out of here - again, responding after the fact. The best way to combat all these atrocities, as we all know on here, is to properly fund the SIS to do their job, so that they have enough evidence to charge someone within 14 days, let alone 28/90, as well as work with the local communities to identify root causes of this, to get them to isolate the individuals (rather than foster them as the segregation in Northern Ireland did), and to re-franchise those who are vulnerable to this form of radical thinking (I refuse to call is religious extremism, as it goes against the very fabric of Islam).
But no, instead of decent long term strategies, St Tony of the Soundbite would rather construct Sun pleasing headlines for policy, which, if anything, may end up either generating mroe haterd for our society, or will lead to countless lawsuits and, I am certain, will end up being challenged and defeated via the EHR
35, I believe 90 days was defeated because MPs did not see evidence it was needed and that it was an afront to civil liberties.
As we saw with that old man at the Labour Party conference who was held under anti-terror laws, the police cannot be trusted with even moderate extra powers, let alone holding somebody for 3 months.
And as we all know Sir Ian Blair was the mouthpiece of Blair’s policies in the General election campaign.
I don’t think MPs were going to give in to Blair, on the say so of some police chiefs.
I agree that Blair is in trouble. The argument that he is ‘with the people’ on this question may or may not be true but it’s irrelevant so far as his future at the top is concerned. Mrs T was ‘with the people’ over the ERM but it was her implacable opposition to it in contrast to the majority of her senior colleagues that really started about her downfall.
I have consistantly believed that Blair intends to stay until the very end of this Parliament (’serving a full third term’) with an anointed successor at his side in the run up to the next election.
Now I am not so sure that he will get the chance. But to bring about his removal before Blair is willing to go you need an assassin.
Gordon Brown has consistantly lacked ‘killer’ instinct and he is not going to strike. Whatever you say about Brown if he was as ruthlessly ambitious as Blair he would already be the PM. Many on the left of the Labour Party are losing faith that GB will ever wield the knife and they are beginning to look beyond him.
So If Gordon doesn’t strike; wo who will?
Icarus, you’ll find my earlier comments on the previous thread but one, where people commented as the result came in. The choice was essentially between “extend the powers a bit” or “extend them a lot” (in my own survey it was very noticeable that responses polarised around 28 and 90). I think 90 would have been better in the current circs, but I can perfectly understand the reasoning the other way.
Rather than rehash the argument itself, two points:
- I think that this was a mature debate of the kind that people always say they want from Parliament. Accordingly it would be good if both sides would refrain from slagging off those who took a different view - most egregriously the Sun, but also others on both sides. Loyalty played a part for some Labour MPs (which is not the same as toadying or careerism - most of us who’ve been around for a while have no great career expectations), and opportunism was a significant factor on the Tory, though not the LibDem, benches - as a front-bencher said to me, ‘I don’t think, at least I hope, that this is going to make a difference between life and death, and frankly we can’t miss a chance to beat the Government.’ But certainly the outcome was decided by people who simply felt the civil liberties argument outweighed the security argument, and it’s a legitimate viewpoint and in no way ‘treason’. Conversely, it’s silly to criticise Blair for continuing to say that he personally thinks the decision a mistake: it would be hypocritical to say anything else. The Government has said it won’t try to tinker with the result (e.g. reintroducing 42 days or whatever): it disagrees but accepts that it’s Parliament’s view.
- The outcome displays graphically the risks that a smaller majority bring. I think the comments about fresh elections, resignation, etc. are wildly OTT. Rather, we are entering a period where the Government’s ability to push through radical change is constrained by Parliament’s different currents of opinion: when the critical currents combine, as on this occasion, there will be a defeat. People who profess to like democratic debate ought to prefer this, though it’s not as comfortable a situation for those of us who think the current Government usually gets things right. I predict an unusually interesting Parliament (in fact on less traumatic issues it’s going to be fun), but not an early Blair retirement, and those who think he’s going to chuck it in have misread him.
42 - Nick, how do you think Blair (and presumably the whips) ended up calling it so wrong: they must have underestimated the size of the rebellion quite significantly, surely?
Blair will not want to go at a low point. He will want to go out on a personal high point.
He is too proud and vain to go under a cloud. He won’t want to be remembered as the leader who was kicked out by his party, or who had to resign because he lost authority.
Whatever mess he gets himself in, I think he will be waiting for the time in the future when he hopes things will improve.
I can only see another terrorist atrocity on British soil as Blair’s
way of bouncing back and people saying “he told you so” and “he fought to protect us.”
If that happens the terrorists (or dark forces) will be doing Blair a big favour.
If you bet on when Blair goes I would consider this.
Nick - agree with the last part of your piece - as it was in the late 80s/early 90s, for the first time after 8 years we have a Parliament that can and will hold Government to true account - The Commons, as opposed to the Lords, now hold the ultimate sanction of rejecting Government policy on the basis that it is just plain wrong - lets be honest, if there had been a rebellion of Labour MPs back in March the size it was yesterday, the Government still would have comfortably won.
My biggest problem with the 90 day law was twofold - first laid out above, how we need to invest in Intelligence systems far more than just banging people up on the basis of a suspicion but with no evidence , but secondly that the Government shoud have put the case better, rather than simply say “the police want it, we want it, the majority (sic) of the people want it, and look at 7/7″.
If the Government had gone to Sir Ian Blair and said “Give me the evidence, give me a solid arguable case, and we will put it to the country”, I am sure the Govt could have won this debate by a majority of 5 - 10. They had 4 months to get this report put together, but instead they left it to be pushed through in the way past legislation has - by sheer force of will, which is common with the arrogance of any party (it applied to the Conservatives in the 80s) who has been in power with sizeable majorities for so long. This may be the lesson that the Government actually needs to argue cases in depth to persuade the Houses and the public, in which case we may see a strong and reasonable Government. BUt the other risk is a repeat of what happened in the 90s, the downward spiral, not listening to the people, entrenching positions and trying to shout louder than the other lot…
45 - Milkybar, I agree.
What I find hypocritical is Blair saying MPs must listen to expert opinion on this matter with no examples and he didn’t tell us expert opinion was divided.
And when he made his case for war he didn’t tell us that expert opinion had made caveats in the evidence, that the dossiers had been manipulated by his own spin doctors and how he had been warned by our own security services that attacking Iraq would likely flame the fans of terror.
In my view that is dishonest and hypocritical and I am surprised that any of his MPs who supported Blair can defend it if they have any honour.
What we saw was a man of arguably no principles trying to turn this into a matter of principle and it didn’t wash.
Thing is, I watched his performance, and I always heard the classic ringing in my ears:
“A day like today is not a day for sound bites really. We can leave those at home. But I feel the hand of history on our shoulder”
Just can never shake that one…. and it sums up his performance yesterday - I doubt he does it deliberately, I truly believe that he believes in what he does, that he is, at times, a conviction politician, but it comes across as opportunistic and forceful, and it is a nature of his character that more and more are picking up on, and viewing as a fault as opposed to a benefit
Well, as might be expected, a fair bit of huffing and puffing from some on here. One defeat doesn’t necessarily mean the end of Blair as we know him. That said, as Nick alluded, the reduction in majority (though still larger than many Governments have enjoyed) in May has encouraged the Labour serial “rebels” in the same way as the Tory Eurosceptics were emboldened by the reduction in the majority in 1992. People, who could be masked and ignored in the last two Parliaments, now have influence and significance and will need to be “managed” just as Major did so successfully with rebels like Bill Cash and Iain Duncan Smith in the mid-90s.
For a Prime Minister used to governing with a massive majority, this represents a major culture change and one he may find difficult to adjust to as I suspect Thatcher would have. Their “style” of Government requires a massive Parliamentary majority. Concensual leaders, like Major and Wilson, can function with narrow or no majorities.
It’s a little strange to hear Tories criticising the attitude of The Sun given the support they got from the paper from the mid-70s up to 1997. The LDs have put up with the Sun’s vitriol for decades - we can handle it, so can the Tories.
As for the legislation itself, I am delighted such an illiberal measure failed. I applaud the support of the Conservatives and hope this will mark a change to a more socially liberal approach. As a Londoner, I need no lectures on the threat from terrorism but I’ll be damned if I’ll sign away my basic freedoms and liberties out of fear.
Printz…you seem to be suggesting that Tony Blair wants another terror attack? Have you taken leave of your senses?
re 42 As ever Nick talks a lot of sense. But perhaps doesn’t see quite how the tide is coming in on TB after a genuinely good run in the months immediately after the election (which is a rather different scenario to TB chucking it in). Book value’s point about the whips is a very good one - looks a bit daft to have senior Ministers flying around creating climate change when you’re down by that many. Are we going to see the same thing on the education reforms? I hope so and I hope, for example, parents are telling Nick they don’t want business/religous groups muscling in on good primary schools.
48 - I’ll assume you haven’t read the Sun. This is not ant-Tory stuff it’s anti-parliament. It is equating the 300+ MPs against the terror laws with Bakri and Bin Laden as traitors.
That’s abysmal dreadful journalism that cuts right accross the party spectrum. I am against it not as a Tory but as someone who is proud of living in a liberal democracy.
A couple of things:
1) I am fairly sure that Nick’s Tory chum in parliament is not representative. Many, many Tories that I know simply are massively against the idea of extending police powers, in the same way that a vast majority of them are against ID cards (support for them - that was opportunistic). If we consider the high five-figure number of resignations from the party which occurred due to Howard’s stance on ID cards, I think we can detect where the centre of gravity amongst the party really lies on issues of civil liberty, and I’m afraid no amount of spinning will credibly highlight a contradiction between support for civil liberties and support for tough law & order policies.
2) As for Trevor Kavanagh, he was rumoured to be fairly pro-Tory at the last election and was only prevented from “coming out” for them at the behest of higher powers. Kavanagh is therefore highly unlikely to be trying to make a partisan point (correct me if that’s not what people are implying) in attacking the Tories, but rather be expressing the will of those same powers that be - and possibly even his own opinion on this subject.
When will The Sun be renaming itself the ‘Volksischer Beobachter’?
Anatole - that surprises me - Trevor Kavanagh is the journo who always got the Blair interviews in the papers - particularily Kavanagh as opposed to any other Sun journo.
TK is also very strong willed, and won’t attack things he does not believe deserve it - he is rarely subbed, so most of his copy is his, and if he needs to voice an opinion of his Paymaster, then it is normally couched in his language as opposed to Rupert’s, unlike the majority of the Sun’s and NOTW staff.
For him to use language like this in his article, ignoring the boxouts, then it means one of two things - either he truly believes every word, or RM has got something on him. The most surprising thing is that it is known that NewsInt are starting to shift to a more politically neutral position, as they do not know who will win the next election - rumours are that the Rebekah Wade incident last week was a set-up so that he could remove her as editor and put someone more neutral and less associated with Blair in place, as such backing both horses.
So for TK, after the past 8 years, to be a closet Conservative? I somehow doubt it…
Fred - do you mean Volkischer Beobachter?
51. Three things strike me in that appalling Sun story. Firstly there is no space given to the reasons why we opposed the plans. Secondly, Kavanagh calls tories gutless. Interesting comment seeing as we have suposedly gone against the popular opinion on this. Thirdly there is that quote from Labour MP Tom Harris (never heard of him) “Britain is a safer place for terrorists today. All this will do is give reassurance to people planning to blow up bombs on the Underground.” Is he trying to make out that had the 90 day law been passed yesterday, a potnential terrorist planning an attack would have suddenly thought, ‘They can lock me up for 90 days without charge now, perhaps we had better noe launch an attack after all’.
52 - Kavanagh has always been a Thatcherite Tory. That doesn’t excuse today’s Sun political coverage that he has put his name to. He’s a very highly paid journalist who is very well respected by Rupert Murdoch. Certainly I expect him to well outlast Rebekah Wade so he has the clout to write what he wants within the pro-labour constraints (I’m sure he has been told to retain a pro-Lab stance since 1995).
Calling 300 MPs traitors is totally out of order and there is no excuse.
49 - I don’t know what Tony Blair wants, but what we do know is that terrorism has helped push through USA and UK government policies and those policies were often clearly spelt out before the terrorism happened.
Terrorism therefore helps George Bush and Tony Blair. Draw your own conclusions. I have not reached any conclusions apart from that. I remain open minded to all possibilities.
55. Yes, sorry for the typo.
54 - You sound like you know the Sun/TK yet you don’t know he’s been political editor since 1983 and working for Murdoch for 30 years? In that entire career he’s been pro Labour for Tony Blair’s leadership and thats IT.
Those Tories outraged by The Sun might recall the thousands of untrue, unfair and disgraceful stories they ran about Labour MPs in the 1980s. I believe they may have called Chris Mullin a traitor or similar before.
57 - David, thanks for that, I didn’t realise he was a Thatcherite at all, as my only exposure to him has been post 95 (My mother is a socialist, so the remotest hint of the Sun in our house would have been treasonable :-D)
I now wonder about my opinion of the man, as my exposure to him at Uni made him seem as one of reason and principles…. oops, seems like I was a naive teenager after all!!!
David - see above post - not for years, just through Uni and journo friends - went to City, so used to sit in on the Journo department lectures as many of them were cribbing off my Psych notes!
btw, if it means anything at all, I now feel like a complete tw@t for that post….
[42] Many thanks for joining us this morning, Nick.
I suggested last night that the PM would’ve done far better to have got a good night’s sleep before talking to the media - I notice you don’t defend his decision to go on air last night. I think the damage is the more serious because it is presentational - in the heat of the moment he failed to play his best card, that it is more proper and democratic to go to a vote and lose than to withdraw the motion because the Chief Whip says you’ll lose (which is what all his predecessors would have done). The PM looked rattled and exhausted yesterday and this is damaging to him in a way it never was for, say, John Major - it’s my old chum Andrew Marvell again: “those same arts that did gain/A power, must it maintain.”
As to “making the case” for 90 days - well, how could you make a case for 90 as against 120 or even indefinite internment? It’s got to be an intuitive judgment - I haven’t read “Hansard” but I would hope that at least one MP said that (s)he was voting for the proposal least likely to act as a recruiting sergeant for terror - and that’s intuition too.
What we have not got, and what I very much doubt we shall ever get, is effective intelligence on this brand of terror. There simply aren’t the shared assumptions that applied in the Cold War and in Ireland. For example, Sir Iqbal Saqranie believes that the blasphemy legislation will result in the banning of “The Statnic Verses” - he is going to be disabused, and that will provide an “excuse” for the next atrocity (which he will condemn).
For the West, society is a means to the end of individual happiness (whether we use religious or wholly secular language). For Islam, the individual is nothing, the ummah is all (btw the reason that orthodox Muslims hate Sufi mysticism so much is precisely because the Sufi tradition is individualist, not collectivist). If you don’t understand this, beg borrow or steal a copy of the current (17 Nov) issue of the New York Review of Books and read Pankaj Mishra’s article.
O/T One further thought on the infamous Populus poll yesterday.
In spite of all the points made about only 61 Tories saying Davis, I wonder if the poll actually deserves a bit more credence than most people are giving it.
Forget the figures for Tory voters and instead just look at all voters. The sample size for all voters is 729 which is perfectly adequate. The figures are:
DC 37%, DD 30%, Neither / don’t know 33%.
Now we know that in previous polls 2 or 3 weeks ago DC was miles ahead of DD amongst voters. So there does seem to be clear evidence here of a substantial narrowing of the gap amongst all voters. If the gap has narrowed amongst all voters then it is very possible that it has also narrowed amongst Tory voters and indeed Tory members.
63 - I think he HAS been a very good journalist but the last few months I’ve started to think he’s on the decline of old-age. His ranting against Ken Clarke was vitriolic and this week’s paper has been ridiculous.
The Sun is naturally a populist Conservative newspaper. It went Labour as Murdoch hates being on the wrong side and he brought in a Labour Editor. It will switch to the Tories as soon as they pull level with Labour or when Gordon Brown becomes PM and Kavanagh will (assuming he never retires) go back to being the pro-Tory hack he naturally is.
Though this latest escapade means I am worried he will go overboard and mental.
Today I thought he was the journalistic equivalent of TB. Thinking himself infallible and failing to realise that he doesn’t have the influence he believes to be his god(Murdoch) given right.
Re: 51 - No, David, I don’t normally peruse The Sun. If what you say is true, we find ourselves on this rare occasion on the same side. This is not the first time MPs have found themselves on the wrong side of public opinion (capital punishment). It is to be applauded that rational argument and a desire to safeguard democracy has won out over media-induced hysteria and fear.
67/68 - Agree. Interesting that TB may have achieved something without intending to - consensual politics from all sides of the house
Well they’ve put me and Stodge on the same side!
re 66 that’s a useful post. Trying to distill the various reports we have, it now ‘feels’ more like a 60/40 than a 70/30. Which is perhaps why Betair odds have only moved half-way back to those at the start of the week. Still as I got a little on DC @ 1.37 I’m not too bothered. And, to repeat myself, it looks very, very rosy for Mr Smithson!
Mike L -
It depends what you compare to - Cameron’s largest lead over Davis in a poll of the general public was 27 points in a MORI poll last month, so it’s obviously down from that. Comparing it to Populus’s last poll (just after the conference) Cameron had an 8 point lead in a forced choice between Davis and Cameron, now it is 7 point lead, so there’s virtually no change.
Complete voting list from last night now available - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4424170.stm
Also interesting article on Cabinet meeting held today - Tony feels MPs out of touch with public - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4423678.stm
51
It may back-fire it’s so disgusting. Especially coming on the heels of the accusations of domestic violence.
Personally I find it hard to take Sir Ian Blair seriously. He’s a Blair toady. He says he wants what Blair wants. Where’s the surprise?
Kavanagh has indeed always been a Tory, and I think he is on the record saying her though the Sun should have been neutral in 1997 and should have backed the Tories in 2005 (until their decleration they effectively were this time running their big campaign on gypsies).
The Sun is just doing what its readers want and think - you can’t blame a newspaper for doing that. All newspapers, including the quality papers, do it often in as transparent a way.
31. You’ve got to laugh at Trevor Kavanagh, “Gutless Tory MPs were joined by up to 47 Labour rebels as they wrecked the PM’s bid to hold terror suspects for 90 days without charge.
The vote went against Mr Blair by 322 to 291. And the limit was slashed to just 28 days by an even bigger majority — despite police warnings this could leave the nation dangerously exposed to terrorists allowed to roam free.” Erm, ’slashed’? Hello! Doubled I think you’ll find…
One of the best headlines is in the Independent this morningGood news for Blair: his stalking horse has lost its back legs
Re The Sun bringing in a ‘labour supporter’ as editor. Wade is, of course, an ex young tory so not exactly a traditional labour supporter.
Any chance that some of these MPs ‘named & shamed’ will take on that paper? I wonder what price you could get on ‘Who goes first - Wade or Blair’?
John Reid is on the Daily Politics blaming the Tories for this of course. He keeps saying we did it for short term gain. So having The Sun call you traitors is short term gain. How interesting.
72. Anthony, thanks a lot. But when would you say was Cameron’s “peak”? I would have thought quite a while after the Tory conference - probably around the MPs’ second ballot.
61. Their famous headline about Chris Mullin was ‘Loony MP Backs Terror Gang’, and I am fairly certain they labelled him a traitor during his campaign for the Birmingham Six.
re 71. Thanks for your concern about my finances. There a three possible outcomes for me. Cameron winning with 66%+; Cameron winning with 50-66%; Davis winning. In all cases I make money but the best scenario is the middle one.
Before the Populus poll came out I backed Davis at 7.4/1 to give me some extra insurance.
42. Nick Palmer, what happened to the 60 days amendment? Why wasn’t it moved before the 28 days one? Have they planned to move it if the 28 days were rejected (so that’s why Labour voted against it)?
38 - Woody - I am also re-watching the House of Cards, To Play the King etc - it is great and very reminscent of today’s government!
On the Terrorism Bill, I think 28 is an acceptable but unpalatable compromise. I completely opposed the illiberal proposal to detain people without trail for 90 days and am not surprised that it came out of this authoritarian govt. If we surrender ancient rights and liberties then the terrorists truly are winning the battle. The cross party compromise that 28 days is sufficient is a position I can live with, especially now there is a “sunset clause” but I am delighted that Parliament has shown its teeth in the defence of historic rights and freedoms!
I’m interested that so few of you think, as I do, that Blair’s position is now pretty much untenable. I agree that Brown does not have the necessary ‘killer instinct’, besides the fact that he would surely much rather wait until he’s got the economy turned around (introduced some more stealth taxes, weathered the storms they produce, and then seen the figures improve and been able to boast the economy never actually went into recession and the house market had a soft landing). But I agree that the waters for him are now much more muddied. However, I think it is the cabinet that will be crucial one way or the other on whether Blair goes after this. If they are minded to keep propping him up, he may go on, though I could still see the ‘resigning in a fit of pique’ option happening sooner or later.
As for Hilary Armstrong, as far as we can tell she told Blair clearly he did not have the votes- he just thought he could manufacture them, I guess. I suspect something else was going on in recalling Brown and Straw.
73. I thought Widdecombe was voting for the Bill. Did she get stuck on a train (by which I mean the train was stuck, of course)?
85 - Well his latest idea of taxing patios could make him a laughing stock. I am losing a lot of respect for Gordon Brown as he has the infallible streak Tony has developed before he even becomes Prime Minister. I think he will be a truly awful PM.
I think TB might well be in trouble as there is already a story saying what he said to cabinet. This is starting to feel like the end-game of the Blair government.
86. She said she wasn’t voting against. She abstained.
84. Last night was the first time I’ve seen an episode. It looks like it could be written for now though if you substitute the Picture of Maggoe for Blair. I think I’ll buy the DVD.
I remember one of the Yes Minister writers said once that when researching for scripts, he found the same situations were still being debated in the 50’s as in the 80’s. When you watch YM and YPM now, it’s still the same situations in the main. That must be why political drama ages well.
“I think TB might well be in trouble as there is already a story saying what he said to cabinet.”
Yes - and there was a similar plant by the PMOS last week, as Wilson used to do as soon as Cabinet was over. But the parallels with the Major years have just been becoming more and more apposite over the past couple of years: take Diane Abbott and George Howarth violently disagreeing with each other on Newnight last night, as Tories used to do over Maastricht. The transformation from a damaged but stable government to a weak government has really been quite remarkable.
I agree with Sara that if you analyse the facts of the current situation Blair’s position looks untenable. His reaction since the vote in calling parliament irresponsible ought to make a vote of confidence, at the very least, an inevitability.
86 - I have no idea, tbh… Interesting that the only Con for was Tapsell. I know Nic Soames is not well at the moment, but perhaps the rest who did not vote were advised by the party whips that if they supported the bill, they had better not go on record as such
Well I have emailed the Sun to complaint about this coverage and I await a reply - will keep you all informed over how they justify their case.
O/T Anyone noticed the betting on Liberian President?
At one point George Weah was at 1.01 (ie 1-100). That was not a freak price - £135 was bet at 1.01. A total of over £2,600 was bet at 1.07 or shorter. Now, the last price matched was 16.0!
I’m not sure when Weah was at 1.01 but if you combine this with the Cameron odds of 1.1 a few days ago, then the combined odds of both Weah and Cameron losing would be over 1,000-1 against. Those odds now would be about 4.5-1.
I guess this shows political betting can be very volatile!
Th
Why have Weah’s odds lengthened so much? I’ve missed something, clearly.
On the above point - if the Did not Votes had backed the Government, ignoring Sinn Fein, Speaker of the House and Assistants, Chairs of committees relating to the Bill, and Tellers, the Government still lost by 12 votes
I’m sure someone more knowledgable than myself will correct me if I’m wrong but was it not Eonoch Powell who said something about politicians complaining about the press is like sailors complaining about the weather. I don’t particularly care for the way the Sun has covered this story but at the same time I didn’t get terribly upset when the Sun, equally ludicrously, described Blair as the most dangerous man in Britain.
In the past the Sun has been a very good friend to the Conservative Party and hopefully one day will be again - I wouldn’t denounce it on the basis of a few days news.
Julian H - he was ahead on the first round of voting, but is now behind in the second round run-off.
Johnson-Sirleaf was well ahead from the start of counting, and now looks unassiiable with 80% of polling stations reported, and a 57.9% to 42.1% lead. Weah has responded with accusations of fraud, although these haven’t been backed up by international observers as yet.
The government’s own taskforce on tackling Islamic extremism recognises that Britain’s foreign policy is a factor.
Hazel Blear’s response is that they need to build up ‘community capacity’. I shortly expect to see league tables of community capacity, with failing communities being shut down and private contractors coming in to run them…
What are your positive suggestions Chrisco - out of interest.
The situation developing is a mixture of Maggie and Major. Blair will not quit until he has his legacy in place and has it entrenched enough to make it impractical for Brown to undo it. So he goes on and on and gets right up Labour noses with his continual push for Tory radicalism in education and welfare - which is largely what his ‘legacy’ really is.
Brown will not be able to mount a coup, because if he does he is a damaged ‘assassin’ like Heseltine was. But he is caught in a Catch 22. A political assassination would be too bloody and political suicide, but the longer the delay the deeper the rifts in the Labour party become making inevitable a slower, but just as certain, electoral suicide.
So by the time Blair leaves there is factionalism and in-fighting with weakened discipline leading to a contested succession with Blair fairly openly supporting an anti-Brown candidate to continue his still incomplete legacy project. The leadership fight leaves the Labour party split to pieces and throwing punches at one another on the streets.
Brown will get the job but be damaged in the process. He will be unable to avoid the fallout from years and years of being part of the Blair administration. Brown will not look like the new broom, but more like the old caretaker sweeping up after the school pantomime.
The election will be held off to the last moment (as per J Major) and the divided house of NuLab will fall.
96.Btw, on the vote about the 28 days proposal, there were 2 Tory rebels (Michael Mates and John Stanley) and 51 Labour rebels (49-the 2 tellers). The new 2 Labour rebel MPs were Martin Caton (Gower) ,Frank Doran (Aberdeen North), Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) and Rudi Vis (Finchley & Golders Green)
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North & Leith)and Peter Kilfoyle rebelled on the 90 days vote, but they didn’t back the 28 days (Kilfoyle voted “no” and Lazarowicz abstained)
Libdem, SNP, PC, DUP, SDLP, Gal*oway, Peter Law and Dr Taylor were all present and voted for the proposal.
101. Not sure what you mean Eric?
99. Thanks. Isn’t 1.08 pretty much free money then? (assuming the result isn’t declared void)
105. what will happend bet-wise if the election is declared void many days after the results are announced?
Clarke has taken the blame for the defeat…..then he blamed people like Marshall Andrews (who will have try to avoid a protest march against him by Peter Tatchell) and Ian Gibson (uhm, maybe Clarke wants his seat. Ok, I know, I’m cynic) who vote always against and conspire with the tories.
Andrea - they are exceptionally tedious people though, seemingly driven by their own sense of self-importance. What has Bob done to upset Tatchell though? Must have missed something.
108. According to the Evening Standard, he allegedly called another Labour MP (Jim Dowd) a “faggot” in the COmmons lobby on Tuesady before startina physical fight.
Tatchell has called him to apoligise saying that those kinds of abuse are “unacceptable, especially from an MP”.
Thank you - great! And Tatchell never lets go when he’s identified a homophobe.
109. He’ll have been added to the Tatchell hate list. Inserted just above Mugabe probably.
110. yes, that’s why I joked about the protest march. He’s really able to organize one. Maybe the Greens need a candidate in Medway next time……
(ops, sorry for the spelling mistakes in my previous post)
111. woody, probably he has been sandwiched between the Bromley council and Cornerstone.
I’ve to admit I’ve written an eamil to BMA this morning and I was less nice than Tatchell. the email contained the following words: homephobe, without dignity, lack of respect, bigoted, worse than the tories……
If you would not hear me anymore, call the police!
101 - Chrisco’s positive suggestions can be read on
http://liberalism2010.blogspot.com/2005/11/why-is-blair-doing-this.html
Will Mates lose the whip?
And here is the vote on 90 days
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2005-11-09&number=84
Not quite as Eric predicted.
114-”Will Mates lose the whip? ”
Peter,why?
Re: 84 - And I come back to find myself with Rik W !! This is a day to be remembered.
116 Andrea - Because he was a Tory rebel (but perhaps on the other vote).
118. yes, on the second vot (with John Stanley). Peter Tapsel was the rebel on the forst vote.
I don’t think it’s enough to have thw whip withdrew.
I was told two days ago that betting on Davis was crazy - well I have just closed my position and made a handsome profit! He was never going to win, but I think those naughty Times journalists might have made a bit of money too - no? It’s actually amazing how much journos at the Times read this site!!
Anyway, I think someone told me that Davis winning was as unlikely as England winning the World Cup. Well now, the Davis’ new odds of 7/2 is as likely as Brazil winning the world cup - not out of the realms of possibility - no?
Actually, In this respect of the Davis bet, M Smithson was very helpful here - thank you. Mike, by the way, how many hits are you getting per day from unique users on the PB site?
Moving away from UK politics, I see old Terry Venables is being touted as the next Ireland manager at 6/4. I’m laying that one - a little far-fetched me thinks.
Just got an e-mail from the Cameron Campaign which has a bit in it quoting a Telegraph story that rubbished the Populus poll in the Times.
Also announces a few more supporters - Justine Greening, Stephen O’Brien, Oliver Heald, Eleanor Laing, and, just when it was all going so well - John Redwood!
I think the Telegraph has been reading PB.C
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/10/ntory210.xml
re 120 On weekdays when there are a lot of developments we get into five figures.
122 - indeed. I think your prediction was correct a while ago when you said that the site would end up in someone’s A Level Statistics coursework.
121. I read somewhere that Redwood would be the first shadow minister ditched by Cameron in an attempt to get rid of the dead wood.
123 - Really?
**starts to post more anonymously**
I started with my full name. I’ll be “D” soon
125 - do you think Redwood would join UKIP if he clearly had no future with the Tories?
I do think he’d be tempted if UKIP could establish a parliamentary base of some sort, and the Tories still remained notionally pro-European. If some future government called a successful referendum on the Euro (and yesterday killed off the last feeble chances of that under Blair), and the Tories pledged to respect the result, the position of some anti-EU Tories would be very difficult.
127. I can’t see that. By “no future” I assume you mean in a ministerial sense. For obvious reasons there will never be a UKIP minister.
129 - I mean in a ministerial sense, yes. What I was getting at was: if he decides he’s never going to be a minister again either way, might he feel more politically comfortable in UKIP?
Corection: instead of “notionally pro-European” I meant “notionally open to remaining within the EU”, which would be much more difficult on the hypothetical situation of UKIP representation in Parliament.
130. but with UKIP he won’t probably be even an MP!
132 - He could always do the dirty and get elected as a Tory, then change sides with a few years left before the next election. Would be a very big feather in the UKIP hat and give them a lot of publicity I would have thought.
133. I think Book Value is a very bad boy and he wants Redwood to stand for UKIP splitting the right wing vote and letting the Libdems winning through the middle in Wokingham!
If PR is introduced in the next Parliament (a remote possibility, but given the increased likelihood of a hung Parliament, more plausible than it has been since the early ’90s) then UKIP are likely to get some representation. Even under FPTP, if the LDs firmly commit themselves to the left, then a SW seat or two might become feasible.
133. Given how principled Redwood’s always been in opposing single-issue anti-EU parties I highly doubt that he’d do something like that. It would be too damaging to his own credibility.
credability? redwood?
137. …asks the impartially named “Red Flag”
The Sun’s coverage reminds me of those Republican attack ads in the 2002 mid-terms smearing Max Cleland as a friend of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden just because he insisted that trade union protections apply to anyone working for the Department of Homeland Security.
If Blair thinks MPs are irresponsible to ignore the advice of the police on the 90 day detention period, then isn’t he being irresponsible in ignoring their advice (and, indeed, that of many judges and doctors working in A & E depts) in pressing ahead with 24 hour licensing?
I’m frankly surprised there hasn’t been more public condemnation of the paper by MPs.
Is it not time for the British public (or at least the ‘thinking’ branch of our mass media) to face up to the complete anti-democratic farce which our government is, as exemplified by this vote?
There is no ‘Labour Party’ any more, insofar as you can define it by any political parameters that one can think of.
The measures which Tony Blair proposed last night would have shamed many a Tory Home Secretary, but they are basically Conservative, as owned up to by the one Tory who ‘came out’ for Blair on the issue and the half dozen right-wingers who could not bring themselves to traipse through the ‘liberal’ lobby with Howard, Davis and the other Conservative hypocrites, who every single one of us knows full well would have gone along with the ‘Police suggestions’ for detention without trial if they had been in power?
Residents of Calderdale, where both Labour MPs voted against the measures, are perhaps the only people in the land who collectively can say that they have Labour representation in any historically-recognised way.
It is a crying shame that only 49 Labour MPs were prepared to stare down Blair and his butch enforcer Ms Armstrong on this issue - one can only hope that there will be a few more who remember what they are MEANT to stand for on Health and NHS ‘reforms’(sic). The only really interesting question here is whether the Tories, whose policies Blair will be putting through on both these matters, will once more prostitute themselves for perceived potential electoral advantage, and bring down the most effective post-war conservative Prime Minister ever for the ’sin’ of being a far more effective advocate of their policies than any Tory (including that great vacillator Thatcher) have even been.
48 Stodge - Great posting !
Had vowed to maintain a vow of silence until the end of the Tory
leadership race as we had all going round and round in circles
restating absolute opinions that were clearly never going to change
with work backing up as a result.
(AHM - I still owe you a call, personal email currently being fixed !)
I agree in almost every respect (but would want clarification on
the extent of the drift in social liberalism before agreeing fully!)
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
Covers it best for me.
Despite any short term c**p that The Sun (aka Cavanagh & Murdoch love TB), short term opinion polls (which originally favoured war in Iraq on the back of TB’s dodgy dosier) or the Police (who are now totally politicised and compromised (at senior level) and are now seen as an extension of TB’s ‘enforcement’ section as a result might say.
Thank God Westminster has finally emerged from its coma.
Perhaps the best way to punish the Sun is to ignore it, give no interviews, no invitations to soirees or receptions. If no-one with real influence and power (unlike their own weak synthetic version) notices them the hacks will hate it.
143 B2W
If that’s a motion - I so second !