Could Labour and the Lib Dems skip a generation as well?
November 19th, 2005
..
-
Might David Milband and Ed Davey benefit from the “Cameron effect”?
One side effect of the emergence of David Cameron for the Tory leadership has been a change on the betting markets for the Labour leadership. The 54 year old Gordon Brown remains, of course, the red-hot odds on favourite but in recent weeks there’s been money going on the 40 year old Minister of State for Communities and Local Government, David Miliband who joined the Cabinet in May.
On the Betfair exchange he’s now at 15/1 which puts him in the second favourite position ahead of “heavyweights” such as Alan Milburn, Charles Clarke and Peter Hain.
-
Like Cameron, he entered Parliament at the 2001 General Election, and like Cameron, as well, he went to Oxford where he also got a first in Philosophy, Politics and Economics.
There can be little doubt that a Cameron leadership will have an impact on the other parties. The generation aspect is clearly important and Miliband would appear to be in a good position if the mood moved against Gordon Brown.
Unlike Labour, where we know there will be a change before the General Election, the Lib Dems look set to remain with Charles Kennedy. But if there was a vacancy then one of its brightest stars is another Oxford-educated 40 year old, Ed Davey. Like Cameron he leads for his party on Education.
Everything, of course, depends on timing. It’s hard at the moment to envisage anything other than a Brown-Cameron-Kennedy line-up at the next General Election. But if Cameron manages to get some traction into the Tories, and that is a big IF, then the other parties are bound to be affected.
-
We might yet see the 2009/10 election leaders being three men who were born within a year of each other, who all went to the same university at about the same time and who all read the same subject.
Whatever the political landscape is changing and it will be fascinating to watch.
SPAM-TRAP APOLOGIES. A number of comments have been held up by the spam-trap because they contained the word “Pussy” - as in “Pink Pussy” - which Jeremy Paxman sought to question David Cameron about on Thursday.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
The fundamental difference is that Labour are the Government. The Tories are asking themselves one question - who is the best person to get them elected? They haven’t even started to think about whether Cameron would be a good Prime Minister or not.
Much as winning elections is of major importance to the Labour Party, their leadership election cannot be fought on the same basis.
BTW I think you’re slightly misusing the term “skipping a generation”. Davey succeeding Kennedy would not be “skipping a generation”. Miliband replacing Blair, would, but because he would be leapfrogging a whole load of people between his generation and Blair/Brown’s not because he would be their instead of Brown.
2.Charlies and Davey are 6 years apart (1959 vs 1965).
Then maybe Mike Smithson meant skipping a “parliamentary” generation going from the ones elected in early 80’s to the ones elected in late 90’s or 2001.
Alex 2 - fair point but I think that age of 45 is the key milestone. In parliamentary terms Kennedy is amazing having been elected at the 1983 General Election. Next week he has his 46th birthday and he’s spent more than half his entire life as an MP. At this rate he could be “father of the house” when he’s in his mid-50s.
I was going to use the term “Cameron generation” but it made the headline too long.
Would Milband have a problem with his rather geeky look at all?
Yes, it is makes more sense looking at political generations rather than age. Kennedy could conceivably hand over to somebody older and it would still essentially be skipping a generation. It is exceptional when you consider that Kennedy played a significant role in the SDP era - not merely in that he happened to win a by-election but that he was a key player in the merger. I think David Owen is still smarting over Kennedy not joining his continuation party, and it may have been a decisive move. That was at a time even Blair was building a career but still pretty obscure and Cameron was doing something he refuses to talk about because it happened in the twentieth century and he, like all of us, is entitled to a private century. The SDP saga was very much of part of an earlier generation.
5. Agree Miliband looks like the type of dork I would have mercilessly tortured at school. Also, having funny looking hair is a proven electoral liability at the highest level.
[6] Charles Kennedy was, most unusually for the period, first elected at a General Election (1983) - I think he has the unique distinction of being the only person elected for the first time at a General Election as a SDP MP. There are, of course, veteran Liberals who still don’t like having “their” Party led by a “socialist” - not that I can think of any of their names, of course, although I seem to remember that Michael Meadowcroft, elected under the “Liberal Alliance” description at the same election, claimed to be a socialist. Eh ba gum, there’s nowt like a broad church…
7. A bully and a sexist. Roger will have comments to make about that I bet. I agree 100% though
I think in the end that Benn would be the more likely candidate where Labour to skip a generation, Miliband simply does not have the base within the party and wider membership… though I should say that it’s very telling that Benn is probably the youngest potential leadership challenger. I don’t think either Balls or Miliband will be Labour leader within the next five or even ten years, certainly not Balls who may have a brain the size of a planet but is one of the dullest political personalities I’ve ever come across.
Beyond Labour I think Davey combines an openness to new policy ideas, good connections within the party grassroots and a fierce political instinct that would make him a likely successor to Kennedy… though I would differ to those such as Mike, Innocent, Tabman, etc… who are going to know far more about the inner “workings” and attitudes of the Liberal Democratic faithful.
In the end though Brown will probably be leader, but there is a latent desire, unawakened within the party as yet, desire for a clean break from the Brown/Blair years… and that could well mean that should he challenge Brown a substantial and well liked figure within the party such as Benn, or potentially Johnson, might do better than expected… though at this stage I don’t see how Brown would lose a ballot of party members.
My first reaction during the party conference to the likes of Jowel, Hain et-al basically declaring Brown’s leadership inevitable was that the opposite was about to become the case, Mike would probably agree that as soon as something seems to be all but inevitable and begins to be reported as such is when events begin to finally conspire to prevent it being so easy.
10. Ben, please tell me John Reid has no support among the members.
According to Alice Mahon he has a good following among the MPs….I couldn’t watch him as Labour leader.
Red Alice agrees that Benn could a possibility even if Brown is “inevitable” (judging from the “inevitable” term she doesn’t seem vey happy to have him a leader).
Milliband is pretty much unelectable, he’s like Willetts without the charisma. Given that Balls is like Milliband without the charisma labour had better look elsewhere.
As for the lib dems I’ve not seen anyone yet who has particularly impressed me but please, please not Simon Hughes!
11 – Andrea
I never witnessed much following for Reid in the Labour Party at large and not got much sense that Reid has any reliable support within the PLP and probably nil within the trades unions.
Though I should warn you that I’m pretty far removed from the party mainstream these days, on a range of issues foreign and domestic I find myself fundamentally disagreeing with the prevailing attitudes and prejudices within the party at large
Re 8. I used to love Michael Meadowcroft who had the wonderful political philosophy of - I want a fair society but I do not trust the state
That sort of sums up my politics.
10. Benn is an interesting politician. I think he knows what he’s doing at international development as it’s the kind of job where you don’t make enimies. He isn’t that young of course so if he wants to be leader, he can’t hang about.
15. According to Diane Abbott (I’m realizing I get too much info from these rebellious women) he refused the Work and Pension portfolio.
13. Thanks Ben.
10, etc. On leaders, why not Darling for Labour leader: silky smooth and a safe pair of hands? Does not make mistakes.
14 – Mike
Would you be at all surprised if I said that I find myself more and more agreeing with the sentiment of that Meadowcroft quote?
14/18. so who do you trust?
19 - Andrea
People.
The ordinary, decent, fair minded citizenry
I don’t think the state, as directed by the government of the day, can assume that it knows best and the people don’t especially when many of them, such as doctors and teachers, know a good deal more than any members of parliament or Whitehall bureaucrat about how best to get things done.
In short I don’t think the route to a fairer society rests in government direction or regulation, I’m not a believer in the currently prevailing attitude that “where there’s a problem, we need a program”.
20 - Ben - It may surprise you that broadly I agree with you but then I find that it is the left that wants to ban capital and corporal punishment, the Lib Dems that want to join the Euro etc etc. I think the reason I became a Tory rather than a Lib Dem or Labour member is that in my view it is the left that wants to tell us all what is good for us so often.
The Tories dont get everything right but seem to have more faith in a free market (in all respects).
[14][18] I agree wholly as far as it goes - but I don’t trust the market either (why are we going to pay a helluva lot more for gas? In part because we don’t have the storage capacity we need - a clear case of market failure.) I want a Party that will commit to fairness in a credible way, and commit to a “what works” philosophy. On paper, that’s what Labour offered in 1997 - but I had seen too much of “Nulab-ism” at local level (from the inside) in the preceding ten years (oh yes, it began in Kinnock’s day) to know that they didn’t know how to do it, which is why I voted Labour through gritted teeth in 1992 (in a key marginal) but not since (the Boundary Commission moved me into a safe seat). Political debate is debased by the popularity of “quick fix” ideas from left and right - the amazing irony is that if Cameron is, like Kinnock, going to be allowed at least two elections to fight, he is probably in the best position of anyone to advance a consistent, as opposed to a populist, pragmatism.
The Lib Dem glide to the right has started: Kennedy plans policy shift on taxation to woo floating voters
20. well, I don’t always trust the government, but I don’t trust the people either.
You said “ordinary, decent, fair minded citizenry”, but not all people are decent and fair minded.
21.”I think the reason I became a Tory rather than a Lib Dem or Labour member is that in my view it is the left that wants to tell us all what is good for us so often”
The tories tell people what is good for them too. All parties do it, the tories are not an exception.
The Libdems told people to join the Euro, the tories told people not to join them.
not sure why labour would ditch brown (successful chancellor, intellectual heavyweight, decent, capable, etc) for miliband or anyone else? in fact they won’t. rather than looking old, brown could make cameron look young. depends what the country is looking for in 4 years time - too early to say.
not sure if this was discussed the other day, but anyone kknow why kennedy cancelled an engagement on thursday for ‘family reasons’?
21 – Rik
It may startle you but I agree that the tendency for the Left to always claim to know what is best for people and to legislate accordingly strikes me as maddeningly autocratic and patronising
Though I think its already common knowledge that I would by and large agree with you on the issue of Europe.
27. Ben, but the right is not different. And the middle-ground too. Don’t the tories tell people what they think it’s the best for them concerning Europe? Why if the Libdems says EU is good is “autocratic and patronising”, while if the tories says it’s not good is not “autocratic and patronising”?
I see a double standar here.
17-Rico-’Darling for Labour leader’
Not the photo negative man please!
Ben - Are you still a party employee?
30. John, have you slept well (please don’t go into the details!)? Should we expect some delirious comments today too?
31 - Recovery is complete :(. I’m back to being the sober deliberative statesman of the site..
32. So no more suggestions of “strange” activities between you and the lovely Clare?
24: The National Liberal Club in Whitehall (of which I was a non-political associate member for a while - I’ve stayed at the Carlton Club too, come to that) has a bust of Gladstone in the entrance saying something like:
“Conservatism is suspicion of the people tempered by fear. Liberalism is trust in the people tempered by caution.”
It’s quite funny but, hmm, I know what he meant. I’m possibly confirming Ben’s worst fears when I say that I think that institutions with well-tested rules for treating people fairly are more trustworthy than the judgment of random individuals. Most people have a shot at being fair and decent most of the time, but you can’t safely rely on it once emotions get involved. I would not like divorce settlements or asylum applications to be decided by juries, for instance.
I hope labour go for Milband…He is rude and looks at people with rather dodgy “looks”. Brown is a certainty for labour anyway…Libdems will always be the minor party… So long as their new leader continues down the leftist policies to hemorrhage labours vote to them.
23 ‘The Lib Dem glide to the right has started: Kennedy plans policy shift on taxation to woo floating voters’
If you actually read the article rather than the headline it’s hardly a shift to the right. Kennedy is suggesting a continued redistributive tax regime, with high rates of tax for the wealthy, maintaining local income tax, scrapping tuition fees and environmental taxation, which by taxing high consumption inevitably taxes the rich harder. What’s right wing in all of that?
Richard Church
This is terrible, always a man to succeed a man whatever party!
The Lib Dems might go for a woman as a successor, certainly be different. Outside bet Lynn Featherstone, she will hold Hornsey with a larger majority, London press will be interested, jibes about being a millionaire and nursery fees, but most women would probably resonate with the latter. By 2010 she will have been in Parliament 5 years, about right, she has leadership qualities, took Hornsey and Harringey by the scruff of the neck with the present result.
Could do the same for the country!!!!!!!
I would have thought the Conservatives would have been pressing Caroline Spellman to come really to the fore.
37. I like her. When we were talking about future Libdems star here, I suggested her, but no one else was very interested in her.
She seems a terrific campaigner.
And he uses arcane terms such as ‘clot’ in being rude to them.
Re. Ben’s point, it’s not so much ‘Where there’s a problem, we need a programme’ with New Labour, more ‘Where there’s a problem, we need a taskforce or an initiative’. On the other hand, for all the control freakery and attempts to create new Soviet man (the curriculum for under-5s and Margaret Hodge’s silly comments about banning musical chairs as the game is too competitive), the government has, in other respects, made people more free (particularly by equalising the age of consent, and legislating for civil unions, measures which right-wing libertarians can applaud, but which social conservatives oppose).
I thought a classic example of the bossiness of some sections of the left was summed up by Hull City Council trying to ban use of the terms ‘lady’ and ’senior citizen’ (the latter of which started out as a PC term, anyway).
37. I keep hearing how everyone rates Caroline Spelman but never really hear why they do?
(I’m probably still bitter about her not repling to an a policy issue I wrote to her about)
29. Photo negative man? I know what you mean. But he exudes calm confidence. He seems sensible. And he has superb eyebrows!
35. Surely if Reid has little party support, Milliband would have even less when the leadership became vacant.
30 – John O
Not currently, stopped a month or two after the election. I’m back in academia now, learning again… I’m only in my early twenties after all.
Still being young and at uni gives you the most wondrous ability to be open mindedly philosophical about things… and I’m not just talking about reading “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”
39.”the government has, in other respects, made people more free (particularly by equalising the age of consent”
I wanted to mention it before when Rik suggested the tories don’t tell people what is good for me.
I don’t particularly like when Olga Maitland tells me when I could have sex
37. Btw, who is most senior (in terms of years in the Commons) female MP in the Libdems parliamentary party? Sandra Gidley?
34 – Nick
“I’m possibly confirming Ben’s worst fears when I say that I think that institutions with well-tested rules for treating people fairly are more trustworthy than the judgment of random individuals.”
Institutions I don’t necessarily have a problem with, it’s when the state more than anything seeking to direct and dictate what people and groups of people can and can’t do.
My problem with current government is not that it relies too much on “institutions with well-tested rules for treating people fairly” but that it seeks to replace those institutions which have proven successes with any half-baked, ill thought out plan, program, initiatives etc… that pops into the PM’s head, and then most of these new institutions seem to cost more and be less efficient than what they where introduced to replace.
This trend towards ill thought out and ultimately damaging policy, is not helped by fundamentally good ideas being watered down in the interests of political expediency and ideological concerns.
39 – Richard
I agree that on some issues this government has been socially libertarian, and at the same times has in other areas been the reverse… but as a stick in the mud catholic, though probably not as observant as I should be, I find that the government is liberal on the issues where it should be more conservative and reactionary where it should be more progressive.
43 - Andrea every party has an authoritarian streak. But the Tories are not telling people not to join the Euro, we are reflecting the majority view. That is very different!
As for people telling you who you can have sex with, I agree with you. As to WHEN and WHERE I think it is quite legitimate for the state to say that you cannot, for instance, have sex outside the front of a school, or in daylight in a supermarket! lol
36. Richard, near the end of the article: “the existing Lib Dem list of spending cuts - £5bn worth… would be expanded to £15bn worth, equivalent to 3% of government spending.”
Also, I wouldn’t entirely agree with your statement that “taxing high consumption inevitably taxes the rich harder”, as a higher savings ratio means the rich tend to consume less as a proportion of income.
46. Rik, it’s not the Libdems are obliging people to join the Euro against their will. They simply say what they think it’s right, then people could not to follow them.
Then I know you know what I meant when I mentioned sex…..using your examples, it’s legitimate to tell people WHO could not have sex with too(children).
46.”in daylight in a supermarket”
Rik, is it ok to have it in a supermarket at night?
23. Very astute move by CK. Any net increase in total taxation, no matter how re-distributive, can be portrayed by opponents as an increase in “average” taxation. Purely re-distributive tax changes cannot be.
Abolishing ID cards will also give the Lib Dems a fair bit of leeway in their spending plans.
50 - Alan it is a Lib Dem myth that abolishing ID cards will save lots of money. Firstly they havent been introduced yet so there is no saving from “abolishing” them. Secondly since the charge to cover their cost is coming from us the citizen will the Lib Dems tax an equivalent amount to spend on police, teachers etc? It is a typical Lib Dem spin story.
On Miliband, he’s on record as saying that Labour have a great leader and a great leader in waiting. Miliband doesn’t have the support in the party, nor in the trade unions, nor in the PLP. I wouldn’t bet on him even at these odds. However, any speculation that lengthens the odds on gordon brown is good for wise investors, so I thank Mr smithson for his service. I shall be buying brown as soon as the odds lengthen.
A far more interesting market would be labour deputy leader. Benn, Johnson, Darling (handicapped by being a Scot), Hain and Straw might all be tempted. However, there will be immense pressure on Brown to support a younger woman. So Jowell, Kelly and Cooper might be good outside bets, though I’d advise the latter pair to grow their hair, in the light of comments above!
50. However- if the LDs will no longer increase taxation, will they find it possible to offer their usual string of open ended spending commitments to be funded by the extra taxation?
After all, how will personal care ,tuition fees, post offices, etc etc be paid for now?
52.”So Jowell, Kelly and Cooper might be good outside bets, though I’d advise the latter pair to grow their hair, in the light of comments above! ”
It’s not that Jowell has long hair!
Then I still prefer Patricia Hewitt to Jowell and Kelly.
I would have thought that the key objective of the next Labour leader would be to try and win back their former voters that switched to the Liberals this year and to prevent further defections.
To that end a combination of experience and the ability to articulate Labour’s core beliefs and values will be required,clearly the most qualified candidate for that role would be John Prescott with perhaps Denis Skinner as his deputy?
54… possibly. She seems to have got out of her recent problems quite well. I can’t see Brown wanting her. but then he might want to show his inclusivity.
56.”I can’t see Brown wanting her. but then he might want to show his inclusivity. ”
Picking up Jowell would a sign of inclusivity too.
Interesting musings from Matthew Parris in the Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-1878723,00.html
Rik W and Andrea, the US Libertarian Party campaigns for people to have the right to have sex in their front gardens in full view of everyone else. They regard laws against this as being a gross violation of personal freedom. One of their other wacko policies, which always made me laugh, is to allow heroin vans to sell heroin like ice cream.
59,”the US Libertarian Party campaigns for people to have the right to have sex in their front gardens in full view of everyone else. They regard laws against this as being a gross violation of personal freedom”
It’s just because they don’t have Prescott as neighbour!
Talking of John Prescott, last year I went to Hampton Court Palace, and one of the guides pointed to one of the Putti who is the spitting image of John Prescott.
Ed davey woudl, certainly in this part of the world, have alot of grassroot support. He could also win the large Richmond and south-London memberships (well, by LD standards they’re large!). He does not present himself as right wing (a la Oaten) but is telgenic, decent in debates, and is clearly a good campaigner (those who work with him rave about him).
Saying that, I worry that he is a bit too ‘normal’ to be an effective leader. people like Charles because he is so diffrent- quiet, ginger scot who doesn’t talk spin and shout across the Commons. davey looks like every other MP his age in Parliament- Oxbridge, city dweller, career politician etc. He may not appeal to the rural seats like Charles did.
I would still back him though if he was against Hughes or Oaten.
51. Do you really think that the costs of the ID card system will be completely covered by the charge to the holder? That’s just Labour spin ! By 2009 there will be real expenditure on ID cards.
Sorry for the huge number of mistakes. Written very fast!
63 - maybe - but it will not pay for the thousands of policemen the Lib Dems claim or the abolition “give the Lib Dems a fair bit of leeway in their spending plans”!
65. 2009 is a long way off, Rik.
66 - yes it is but ID cards are planned for 2008 and as I said “scrapping” them will not save a single penny! So the idea that this helps the LDs financial plans is wrong.
BTW I oppose ID cards but on libertarian principle.
67. Rik, do you know how much the holder will have to pay to have the ID card?
Last week, I went to Stanstead to hear William Hague. On Thursday, I went to Foxton village hall to hear Mark Oaten. The previous Monday I was at a UKIP meeting. I know it sounds sad, but…..
At all these gatherings, over 90% of the attendees were aged more than 50. All you activists will not be surprised. The question I’d liked answered is: is that getting worse?
68 - It has not been finally set but figures of up to £300 have been mentioned!
9. Come on chaps, we’ve all done it. Who could not derive pleasure from seeing tears course down the face of some little Miliband-esque worm as his trousers are enthusiastically flushed down the bog.
17. Blackadder IV has guaranteed that Darling’s political career has gone as far as it is going. It would be ‘Good morning, Darling!’, etc. across the despatch box.
69 - It depends where you go. Go to Reading East and you will find a lot of younger people 20’s -40’s.
62-Tim-Ed Davey didn’t seem to go down particularly well at the Liberal conference this year,his proposal for the Royal Mail was heavily defeated.
70. 300£ for each holder!?
70. I think the £300 figure was for the true overall cost of the cards. The government are quoting about £90 charge to the holder. So that difference represents the potential saving.
75. Thanks Alan J. Is it for life then or do people have to renew it after a number of years?
7: The fact that David Miliband is very keen on sport, and pretty good at it* may well have been one of the factors which prevented him from being the subject of negative attention from idiots at his (comprehensive) school; also that he is a very pleasant, normal well-rounded person.
I am making no jugment here about his political stance or career.
*as suggested in these averages:
http://londonerratics.com/averages.html
I played cricket in the same team for about ten years.
76. I don’t know - ask the government - it’s their scheme !
77. I trust your word here, becuase I couldn’t really understand what those numbers mean. Actually I’m still trying to figure out when a player scores a point….
Not Lynne Featherstone - for some reason she just annoys me and comes across as a bit strange.
One part of Lib Dem spending policy I do like (don’t all gasp at once) is that they clearly state which policies or departments they would scrap and where that money would go. That to me is a grown up and sensible tactic and something the Conservative Party should steal, rather than just saying we want lower taxes.
71. Or to misquote General Melchett in the final episode, if D’s career is to go no further perhaps it is a case of, “Goodbye Alasdair Darling.”
77 - Robert Waller
Any prospects for a new edition of the Rutledge Constituency Almanac? And when we might expect it to be published?
39 (Richard) Give me an example when has David Miliband been rude to anyone and called them ‘a clot’? I’m interested - it’s not a term I’ve heard in years. Are you sure it wasn’t in jest? Perhaps his formidable intellect and swift rise through the ranks has made him a little arrogant.
73- wasn’t it Norman Lamb’s proposal.
You may be right, but Simon Hughes had his motion defeated too and is quite popular, so I wouldn’t read much into it.
79, Andrea, yes, I thought it might puzzle you! It’s called a ‘run’ not a point, in fact …you have to get to the other end before the ball does … I can explain cricket fairly quickly if you know baseball, but generally it’s a bit difficult in this medium.
82, I am writing the 8th edition of the Almanac (currently in the Gs)but with 400,000 words plus and a full time job we’ve set the delivery date to the publishers in August 2006, I’m afraid.
83, ‘rude’ .. and .. ‘made a little arrogant’? Not in my experience (he still plays the odd game of cricket).
If Ed Davey is the best name Mike Smithson can come up with for next LibDem leader it just about says it all. I’d put money on Nick Clegg or Chris Huhne succeeding Kennedy. I’ve heard somewhere that nice Norman Lamb might be a good bet too…!
I agree about thae miliband Not arrogant thing. He seems one of the nicer people in politics, by all accounts.
However, he still doesn’t have much support in the PLP, amongst unions, or in constituencies. If i were advising him, I’d be telling him to spend a lot of time in the tea room and (less so) in strangers. Take every invite to a CLP dinner I can get, and meet every single union regional secretary over the next 4 years- all in order to position himself for some future post-Brown leadership election.
I have no idea if he’s doing these things.
Its Chico time! Hideously off topic, but I just voted for the first time ever in that X Factor programme - the guy was enjoying himself and it was hilarious that he was really enjoying himself and created his own song.
Perhaps my reputation will now be in tatters on this board!
86 - well, it depends when the handover is. I can’t see Clegg or Huhne would be elected leader during their first parliament; Davey or, as you say, Lamb, would be a better bet then.
Then again, I wouldn’t have said a few months ago that Cameron could become Tory leader after 4 years in the Commons. I guess you wouldn’t have either.
Completely off topic but i just found an old video cassette with the Spitting Image ‘chicken song’ on it. They should so bring this programme back! They could have some fun with Charles Kennedy et al!
76. I understand that it has to be renewed every ten years.
87. He was on QT a while back, and I was distinctly left with a poor impression…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/4264586.stm#
You have to notice what he does in the background when others are speaking..Its irritating and to some extent rude well rude.
86. We can always hope and pray for Simon Hughes to be the man.
68, 70, 75: The cards will cost around £30/person, or £90 if you want a passport at the same time (the card will act as a travel document within the EU so you don’t necessarily need a passport). The £300 figure is the guesstimate (to put it politely) of the London School of Economics team, whose public face is the chap who led the campaign against ID cards in Australia. Opponents had been predicting that people would need to pay £100-£300 for the card alone, so there is a certain amount of the ‘well, I’m sure it will cost more really’ line seen in post 63. It depends whether you include related costs, including card readers by public and private bodies - e.g. if a bank replaces its bank card with an ID card reader, and the reader costs £100, is that £100 more cost to the scheme? Depenidng on whether you like ID cards, you exclude or include it…
The card is expected to last 10 years (opponents speculate it might wear out faster), so the effective cost is £3/year, which IMHO is neither here nor there even for people on the lowest incomes - the issue, as Rik implies, is seen as more one of principle. The first card that you get (at 16) will be free.
If and when ID cards become compulsory, it’s widely thought that they will become free, in which case the £30 cost obviously *will* come out of taxes. But that won’t be the case yet at the next election, so the LibDems can’t credibly base any savings on it.
Incidentally, although the LibDems have “bravely” announced they’ll scrap the DTI, they’ve hastily said they will retain large chunks of it, notably the science budget, which is over 50% of the total.
I think I can summarise what I and most people think about ID cards, when we put our minds to it…
“It’s a whole lot of hassle and cost, for no discernable gain”
…complete waste of government time and money, it won’t do anything significant to prevent terrorism or other broader forms of crime, so what is the damn point in compromising people’s basic freedoms and spending lots of money on a program that won’t really achieve anything?
I think it’s the result of election season posturing that’s now landed the government with a pointless and cumbersome legislative commitment. In the end though I’d be surprised if the House passed any legislation pertaining to ID cards, unless that is the Tories backed it, which I strongly doubt.
re 94 Nick. One huge saving the Lib Dems could make compared with Labour is not to invade other countries which are not threatening the UK. This has the added benefit of not being illegal under international law.
94. As bad as the civil liberties implications are it’s the government’s track record on large IT projects should make all right thinking people run a mile from something as technology driven as the proposed ID cards. Still, it’s only billions of the tax payers money with which they’re having a punt.
95: That’s not what most people currently think, Ben, according to every poll that I’ve seen and all the direct feedback that I get as a champion of the scheme. You’re perfectly entitled to feel it’s what they should think, of course!
96: Yes…but you have to be prepared to tell victims to get lost. For instance, the war with Serbia to prevent ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Kosovo was primarily a British idea, with the Americans reluctantly dragged in to help from the air. It was controversial at the time, it didn’t have UN sanction, and it cost money. Presumably a LibDem government would have just let Milosovic get on with it - saves a bit of cash, eh? Similarly, why not leave the Taliban in place, even though they were assisting terrorism around the world - they’ll never do anything to us, surely, and we can save a few quid…
OK, that’s a bit rhetorically put. I’m not arguing that it’s our duty to intervene all over the globe. But it’s as easy to point to horrors where the West failed to intervene, such as Ruanda, Congo and Darfur, as to cases where intervention was later thought wrong. It’s possible to adopt non-intervention without UN sanction as a firm policy, but as the UN very rarely approves intervention by force (twice since WW2) it’s a recipe for standing by and letting stuff happen. The fact that this saves money is IMHO inadequate as a justification, and I don’t think you’ll find that Ming Campbell, for one, will in fact endorse it.
(8) “I seem to remember that Michael Meadowcroft, elected under the “Liberal Alliance” description at the same election, claimed to be a socialist. Eh ba gum, there’s nowt like a broad church…”
I seem to remember that Michael Meadowcroft even claims to be a Liberal. Ho ho! The only reason for the existence of the so-called “Liberal” Party is because his ego was too big to fit inside the Lib Dems. (A bit like Scargill and the Labour Party and/or Socialist Alliance and/or Respect.)
94. Some frequently seen Labour costing tricks here:
Vastly underestimate the likely cost : CSA, Dome, Cost of pensions protection spring to mind
Ignore cosequential cost to business : after all they have a bottomless pit of money
Question the motives of anyone who disagrees with the above.
The sooner a system of independent costing of Government proposals is put in place the better.
In the meantime we’ll have to rely on the LSE.
War Room Alumnus
Looks safe for Cameron. Would have preferred socially right wing agenda under Edward Leigh. No handouts for unmarried mothers.
Nick,
On ID card opinion polls:
An debunking of the “opinion polls indicate people are in favour of ID cards” is here: Infinitives Unsplit
Essentially - In the latest poll (with unbiassed questions - available here) we have:
“Q: Are you in favour of, or opposed to, the introduction of a system of national identity cards in Britain?
A: 45% in favour, 42% opposed, 13% don’t know”
and
“Q: Do you think that, if the government sets out to introduce identity cards, it can do so smoothly and efficiently, or would the introduction cause a lot of disruption and inconvenience?
A: Would probably be disruption and inconvenience: 84%”
and
“Q: The government has estimated that the total cost of introducing a system of national identity cards would be around £6 Billion. Do you believe that this amount of money should, or should not, be spent on introducing identity cards?
A: 66% thinks this money should not be spent on ID cards”
and
“Q: Another estimate of the total cost of introducing a system of national identity cards is higher: between £10 billion and £19 billion. Do you believe that this larger amount of money should, or should not, be spent on introducing identity cards?
A: 81% thinks this money should not be spent on ID cards”
as rather interesting answers.
Or, in summary, extracting from the Inifinitives Unsplit summary:
“Do you support the introduction of ID cards? 42% No
Is it worth spending £6B on their introduction? 66% No
Is it worth spending £19B on their introduction (a more realistic figure)? 81% No
Do you have any confidence that this will not be an inconvenience? 84% No”
Andy at 102: And they accuse politicians of spin! What you’re quoting is a YouGov poll from June. There have since been at least five others, all of which showed larger pro-ID majorities, ranging up to +34%. In fact, you’ve not even taken the latest YouGov poll, no doubt because it showed a pro-ID surge. Forsooth. (To see the full list, click on Antohny Wells, then click on ID cards.)
From the Sunday Times:
‘DAVID DAVIS has warned his rival for the Tory leadership that he could stir up trouble for him in the shadow cabinet if he backs Tony Blair over the government’s education and health reforms.
The shadow home secretary makes it clear in an interview today he would not remain silent if David Cameron, the shadow education secretary, won the leadership vote and then went ahead with his plans, potentially saving Labour from a series of Commons defeats.
He said there would be “an argument” in the shadow cabinet if Cameron, who has refused to promise Davis a front-bench job if he wins the leadership run-off on December 6, proposed this.
His comments come as an opinion poll for ITV’s Jonathan Dimbleby programme suggests Cameron is well ahead among both neutral “floating” voters and “potential Tories”, those who will probably vote for the party but haven’t yet decided.’
104- Alistar H Matlock, don’t forget to report tgta Madonna’s stepmother-in-law wants all women short-list for the tories.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1880236,00.html
105-” tgta”
It should be “that”. It’s what happens when I type after having just returned home and without turning the light on!
105 - Oooh, missed that one. Thanks Andrea.
103 - Frankly it doesn’t matter what ID cards cost or even how many would really want them. The fact is that many people are prepared to fight this to the bitter end in using whatever methods are at hand, the civil strife caused will make the poll tax look like a picnic.
Does the government really want to divide the British people in this way? It doesn’t make any political sense.
107. AHM, it’s an essential piece of info….just in case your wife will receive “Women4Win” material (naturally with Theresa May on it)!
109 - I had better watch for that! Can’t have these women getting out of line…
110. Considering Mrs Ritchie is Kensington and Chelsea’s chairwoman, she should ask for a local candidate next time more than for a woman.
111 - Oh, I think Sir Malcolm will do K&C proud…
112. Nothing against them, but after Portillo and Rifkind, but I think that when Sir Milcolm retires, they should have a good local candidate and not a parachutee again.
113 - Alan Clark was a parachutee too, as I think, was Sir Nicholas Scott. I’m not sure when the last time K&C had a local as it’s MP was! That is the nature of it being such a safe seat.
From the Sunday Telegraph:
‘The Government was accused of waging a “dirty tricks” campaign last night over a potentially explosive file on David Cameron’s personal life.
Allies of Mr Cameron cried foul after the Treasury issued an unprecedented statement revealing that it held sensitive security information on the Tory leadership front-runner.
Officials said the information was compiled when Mr Cameron was recruited as a special adviser to the Conservative chancellor Norman Lamont in 1992.
The existence of the file was revealed in an unusually detailed response to a Freedom of Information request by The Sunday Telegraph.
Yet officials said that they could not release the information, stressing - in a bizarre twist - that this was because of “the effect disclosure would have on the individual”.
In a highly unusual response, they also highlighted a 15-year-old parliamentary statement detailing how the vetting procedure, used at the time of Mr Cameron’s recruitment, worked.
It explains that it is aimed at identifying any individual who “suffers from defects of character which may expose him or her to blackmail. . . or which may otherwise indicate unreliability”.
Last night allies of Mr Cameron complained that the Government was trying to fuel the debate over whether he had ever taken Class A drugs.
Gary Streeter, the Tory MP for Devon South West and a supporter of Mr Cameron, said: “This smacks of Labour dirty tricks and desperation because they know that in Cameron the Conservatives are on to a winner.”‘
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=MS3JI3FND1EXLQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2005/11/20/ncam20.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/20/ixportaltop.html
Some things never change…
114.”I’m not sure when the last time K&C had a local as it’s MP was! That is the nature of it being such a safe seat”
The safest one in term of %.
104 - Myself, I can’t think of a single valid argument for including David Davis in the shadow cabinet anyway. The better option by far would be to just let him rot away on the backbenches, especially if he’s dead set on causing trouble.
116 - I think that it’s important he be included for the sake of party unity, but that assumes a certain willingness to cooperate and be productive on his part. If that is not there, then I agree with you.
116. I think he’ll cause more trouble from the backbenches (and plots) than from the shadow cabinet.
117.AHM. Is Dominic Grieve local?
118 - Well, he is now!
103-Mr Palmer-What is your government’s proposal to reimburse taxpayers for the £ 2 billion that has now been wasted with Gordon Brown’s tax credits fiasco?
119. I suppose your seat will have a huge demand too when it’ll be vacant in the future.
AHM, think all those lobbying (and presents!) from potential candidates…..:wink:
121 - Yes, but I don’t expect (or want) a vacancy for many years.
122. It’s not that I’ve been wishing bad to him!
123 - No, I understood what you meant. Beside which, my overriding goal at this time is to secure my (richly deserved) peerage!
114 - But revealingly that story first appeared in the Brown-slavering Daily Mirror earlier this week tucked away in Kevin McGuire’s unpleasant scribblings:
“TICKING away in a Treasury vault is a timebomb capable of destroying David “Coke” Cameron.
A few typed sheets in a manila folder pack the explosive potential to blow away the wannabe Conservative leader’s career before it starts. In those pages he confesses to a life of sex and drugs in the years before he decided that prime minister was the job for him.
Cameron spilled the beans in the early 1990s during what is known as “positive vetting” by the security services. Seeking clearance to read secret papers as Tory Chancellor Norman Lamont’s special adviser, he blabbed everything.
The idea is to avoid blackmail but the intrusive questions are beyond anything a husband or wife might ask each other about their earlier lives”
Chancellor Gordon Brown has rejected a public request to read Cameron’s file. It is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act.
Yet just as Captain Hook ran at the sound of the crocodile who swallowed an alarm clock, Cameron must tremble at the thought of the ticking file.
And they still think they’re being so clever!
125 - Not being a fan of the Daily Mail, I hadn’t seen that. Seems rather strange that, having allegedly confessed to all of this stuff, he was still given the job in 1992 doesn’t it?
125 - not clever of the government at all really. Leaking things like this just confirms people’s fears about how they abuse authority.
126 - Daily Mirror, rather.
125-John O-Do you think anything written by Kevin Mcguire or that appears in the Daily Mirror could ever be taken seriously let alone believed?
111. Andrea, we don’t have Chairwomen in the Conservative Party, or Chairs. The position is Chairman, whether the holder is male or female. And I think the Times article is out of date as Shireen hasn’t been Chairman of K&C for several years now. Last I heard she was chairman of Dartford.
125.Kevin McGuire is usually as accurate as I’m about cricket
130- Maybe The Sunday Times is recycling articles.
114: The odd thing about this Telegraph story is that it was prompted by a Telegraph request. They said could they have the file, the Treasury said no and here’s why, and the story is “Labour smear”. Er…?
120: Every fiscal scheme has costs, mistakes, failures to claim, etc. The argument for tax credits is that they greatly reduce the ‘poverty trap’, which under the previous government meant that people on lower incomes were actually better off unemployed. What working tax credit (the main one) essentially does is give you some of the money that you’d have got on the dole to help make it worth your while to get a job. As your work improves and your pay rises, the credit gradually falls away, but not fast enough to deter ambition. In an ideal world, pay would be so high that this wasn’t necessary, but in our globalised economy this is not practical. The alternatives are to accept higher levels of unemployment (been there under Mrs T) or to cut job seekers’ allowance below its already modest rate (even the Tories haven’t suggested that one). IMO it’s a good deal for the taxpayer.
131 Or just up to the usual sloppy standards of Times journalism
132 Nick Palmer Sorry, your defense of Treasury dirty tricks doesn’t hold even dirty water. Its not only Guido that has become aware of the ‘dig for victory 2010′ messages, are they only from the Dour One’s camp?
Are you telling us that Nulab has not, and never has, misused its access to government data in this way?
If you missed it:
http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/2005/11/brownites-dig-for-victory.html
guido’s article is hilarious. for a start where is old queen victoria street? and didn’t labour move from there to other offices? oh yes, and the rest of it is wrong too - particularly cameron as blair mark 2. desperate stuff and basically made up.
Nick at 103,
Actually, that was the only poll on the YouGov main site that had “ID cards” in the title, which is why I missed the other YouGov one (”London Bombings” - possibly events may have tilted the answers there? Interestingly, the London subsample of that one had 42% for and 42% against).
Still, I’ve seen members of the Government often quote the MORI poll of March 2004 to show overwhelming support for the case - if the YouGov poll published at the start of July this year is well out of date, the MORI one of March 2004 is prehistoric.
Maybe it would be best to say that the latest tranche of polls (June-July 2005) had support varying from a net -74% to +34% - and that when putting the charges in, support falls lower?
103. Nick, as Andy pointed out in 102, the five polls that you allude to all start with a statement such as “Some people say that the introduction of ID cards will help in the fight against terrorism…” This is plain-old push-polling. That is why Andy chose the poll he did as it is the only one in which the question is neutral.
I am indebted to Andy Cooke @ 102 for the reference. I should add that my little diatribe on this topic was in response to some absolutely shameless use of polls by Neil Harding in his defence of/support for ID cards.
I analysed only the MORI (2004) and YouGov (April 2005) polls simply because Neil Harding referenced them as unqualified and huge support which was simply nonsense and could not be allowed to stand.
Nick Palmer MP: Neil has now seen the error of his ways and no longer supports the Government’s proposals. He concedes that in fact, there is no longer a single sentient blogger in the UK that supports this scheme.
Why do you think this might be?
Toodle Pip!
P-G
As The Pedant-General above has pointed out, after about a month or so of arguing in favour of the government ID scheme, in the face of total opposition from the blogosphere, I eventually changed my mind.
I still feel an ID scheme could be of enormous benefit for this country, but have been persuaded that the government’s specific proposals have too many holes in them to be worthwhile.
In particular, what worries me about the government scheme are the following;
The storing and use of recorded biometric information on the National Identity Register (NIR). In particular the use of photos and fingerprint information and the danger this poses to the anonimity of vulnerable people - those on witness protection schemes and victims of domestic violence etc. What safeguards are going to be in place to protect these people from having their new identity and address revealed by old photos etc?
Also what safeguards are going to be in place to protect against racist police using the NIR to frame ethnic minorities of crimes?
Finally, the clincher for me, was the massive opposition within the IT industry itself. If even these people who have the most to gain from such a scheme, are raising private doubts about the viability of biometric technology for such a massive project, then there must be big problems with the technology. Without biometrics the benefits of an ID scheme are too small to be worthwhile.
These are the main reasons I changed my mind. If Nick could give any answers to these queries, I would appreciate it.
Thx - don’t know why I added in Victoria to the address.
Labour HQ : 16 Old Queen Street London, SW1H 9HP
Everyone is having a go at me nowadays. As for making it up, no, but I do get it wrong - thats the risk of a gossip blog. On this one, I’m sure, Brownites dread Cameron.
139 - Good to see you’ve seen the light Neil!