Will Charles Kennedy survive? (REPLACEMENT STORY)
November 26th, 2005
-
Markets opens on the Lib Dem leadership
It’s a sign, surely, of the position that the Lib Dems now have in British politics that a bookmaker considers them important enough to open a market on whether their leader will survive. The price is 1/3 that Charles Kennedy will still be in post at the General Election and 9/4 that he won’t.
Given that we might be four years off a General Election there is no point in locking up your cash for so long for such a modest return on him staying. But what about the 9/4 on him going?
Whenever his leadership has come under scrutiny by his fellow Lib Dem MPs Kennedy has managed to play the Simon Hughes card. This was brilliantly described by in the Times by Matthew Parris. “.. Simon Hughes, the ageing young pup who for a decade has seen himself as the natural “elsewhere” heir to the leadership, is more admired by Lib Dem activists than by their MPs. Charles Kennedy knows this. He adopts the flip side of the resort of fugitives who hold in front of them a captive child: “Shoot and the baby gets it.” Kennedy holds Hughes behind: “Shoot and you’ll get the baby as your leader.” It always works.”
-
The big short to medium term danger for Kennedy is if David Cameron enjoys a prolonged media honeymoon. The liberal, with a small L, social agenda that DC appears to be following together with a much softer Tory line on environmental issues might start to eat into Lib Dem territory.
If the party’s poll share starts to decline and May’s local elections are disappointing then we might see a move - but we doubt it. The Lib Dems have not got the ruthlessness of the Tories when it comes to getting rid of leaders.
Either way we do not see this as a bet worth making.
Why the story was replaced. The original piece was written in the belief that the timing of the bet was December 31st 2005 not the General Election. I was misled because this was how it appeared on the betting odds search engines and the betting slip itself says “Liberal Democrat Specials. Charles Kennedy to be leader. 12:00 31/12/2005. Stay or Go”. The bookmaker has not responded to my written request for clarification but we assume from another page of their web-site that the General Election is the date - information you would not see if you got into their site from one of the search engines.
I thought that 1/3 on Kennedy still being there on New Year’s Eve seemed a great bet. If it had not been for a problem with my credit card details I would have put £900 on in the expectation of making £300 in six weeks. Blue Square should take immediate action to clarify the terms of the market on the betting slips and in the information going to the betting search engines.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
OT: Clare Short has been warned by Hilary Armstrong that she has broken party rules not writing her she planned to rebel. She could have the whip withdrawn. Other MPs, including Bob Marshall Andrews, Glenda Jackson and Kate Hoey, received the letter too.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article329442.ece
Yes, I made the mistake of betting £250 on CK to stay at 1/3 by 31/12/2005! Fortunately, after a frantic email to BlueSquare customer support suggesting I was, effectively, misled they refunded my bet. Is Political Betting also responsible in some way for the confusion, as I made my bet based on :
http://politicalbetting.bestbetting.com/?partner=politicalbetting&market=18706897&origin=scr
.. which still shows “Leader Changes: Charles Kennedy to be leader
Saturday 31 December 2005″. Can PB not change, or remove this?
Regards.
Interesting story. We all appreciate Hughes, but he is not the man to take over as leader. Kennedy has done very well on policy (notably making the right call on Iraq at an early stage, but also making changes to the team that have enhanced Lib Dem credibility on the economy).
His health and presentational skills have not always matched this.
The second of these is improving and I think it is almost certainly up to Kennedy whether he leads the Lib Dems into the next election.
3.”We all appreciate Hughes, but he is not the man to take over as leader.”
Is Hughes still considered the main challenger to Kennedy for the leadership?
I remember reports of Kennedy’s camp accusing Hughes’ camp to plot against Charlie during the Cheadle by-election, but then Hughes always seems MIA in the media.
To be fair to Mike its entirely Bluesquare’s fault. I think that you should have held them to the terms on the betting slip rather than asking for a refund.
I only spotted the discrepancy because I wanted to see what other bets were available.
5 Guido. You are correct. This betting shambles is entirely of the Bluesquares making …. and so far they’re lucky to get of so lightly.
The startling political earthquake of the day is the return of the “fragrants” ones husband to the Tory fold !! Oh what fun we’ll have !!
http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4472638.stm
6. Sorry link is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4472638.stm
It’s a sign, surely, of the position that the Lib Dems now have in British politics that you can bet on our leader being a self-destructive alcoholic.
Parliamentary be elections will determine this question and given the Lib Dems skill in this area the answer to the question must be Yes, beyond any reasonable doubt.
1 - as if the absence of a letter would have led Hilary Armstrong to confidently expect Clare Short’s vote!
10. Book Value, Short spoke against the 90 days in the Commons’ debate……maybe Armstrong doesn’t read Hansard!
HA is acting more like a school teacher than like a Chief Whip. She’s part of her job to know who is going to rebel; if she needs written letters to discover it, maybe she should consider to change job.
Does Jeremy Corbyn need to write a letter for every rebellion he’ll do or could he just send a weekly letter with all the planned rebellion for the following week?
Alex 2. The betting odds pages are provided here by Bestbetting and the terms of the bet are those that come from the bookmaker. I was nearly in for £900 and would have gone to the betting arbitration service.
I’ve raised this with Blue Square by email but have had no response.
11 Andrea. I understand that the Royal Mail is hopeful of getting the Jeremy Corbin Rebellion Letter business, in the clear expectation of a huge increase in half year profits !! ….. and if they get Clair Short to sign up the skys the limit !
13. Jack, it’s all a plot to improve Royal Mail’s financial situation. They’re already planning more postal offices in Islington North and Hayes & Harlington. More workers will be hired in Nottingham South too.
14 Andrea. The Christmas mail rush will be nothing compaired to the rebellion rush. Although I wonder if the unalloyed joy from Conservative ranks at the return of Shepards Pies finest will not bring a surge of congratulatory mail down at the Rectory, Grantchester way !! ….. more tea Vicar …..
15. Jack, Vauxhall postal offices will be very busy with the surge of congratulatory for their new tory members and Kate Hoey’s rebellions letters.
16 Andrea. Indeed, let us also not forget the trepidation that the Beaconsfield postmen must be feeling for the New Year as “Herbie” Matlock joins me in noble rank !!
I see that the Lazarus of the Lords leads the “Times” today …. the Tories couldn’t buy such coverage !!
17. Jack, I’m still hoping that Herbie will be able to sit between you and Baroness Jenny Tonge by the end of the year.
Andrea,
Is there any information of when Jeremy corbyn and others actually supported the government.
We all know when they don`t.
18 Andrea. I fear I must dash your hopes as my Scottish title precludes me from the red benches ….. and with Baroness Tonge as company … I say hooray for hereditary titles !!!!!!!
BTW news reaches me that the postmen of Beaconsfield are already practicing tugging their forlocks and bending their knees in anticipation of Herbs enoblement.
19. Dez, well, they supported the government in the majority of the votes in the end.
For ex this week they supported it on the “on the run” bill and on the Equity Bill (though Jeremy Corbyn signed the EDM complaining about transsexual people not being included in the bill)
17 Jack W you seem to have a fixation with the crook Archer.
Pity the Times doesn’t check its stories before it prints them. A simple enquiry to CCHQ might have shown that the fiction writer was still fantasising.
If you read the Australian article you will soon see the level of the fantasy: only a few of his friends failed to stick by him, and hundreds of those staunch companions that he invited to his bashes in the penthouse were, apparently, totally loyal to him.
Oh, and by the way he is just publishing a new book. Oh, what a coincidence, a new book and a story for the gullible press both at the same time. Who wooda thunk it!
22. With an Italian point of view, I would say that he hasn’t done nothing serious and he has still a chance to become PM.
Trying to enter a British point of view, I would say it’s better for the tories to leave him alone and look at the future.
Andrea asked if Hughes is still seen as the alternative. I think that if the post became vacant fairly near a General elcection there would be a move to coronate Ming. After the next election therre are many people in with aa chance (Clegg, Huhne, Laws, Davey and others)
This story gives me a little more confidence in the BBC governors. But whether it will create the will for more balanced reporting at home and overseas must remain uncertain.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-11-26T054238Z_01_KRA610478_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MIDEAST-BBC.xml
22 Blue2Win. “… you seem to have a fixation with the crook Archer ..”
Are you speaking in Oz vernacular ….. Is the greatest novelist of the age ill ??
Anyway I must away to see the All Blacks getting a thrashing at ….. shepards pie and champagne dining …..apparently we’re also playing them at rugby ….. anyway I off to behind the sofa with a large cushion !!
22. Are you not a fan of the noble Lord then? BTW, I’ve written a full article about that academy idea. I’ll let you know when it’s published.
27 Woody, Archer the Crook. Goodness yes, I love him for the self-centred, Tory party-damaging, pompous, egotistical, perjurous, fantasising author that he is.
Look forward to your article.
I wonder if the Frank Field ’slip’ about Blair’s body not being able to take any more is a preparatory to Blair using the time honoured excuse for departure of his health. Its particularly useful when the deterioration is blamed on the Dour One and his obstreperousness.
So it still seems likely that the plan is to fight on until its clear that he will not get his legacy through and then quit through ill health leaving the Labour party at one another’s throats.
In the process Brown will be damaged so much that there is absolutely no chance of his challenging Blair’s perceived stature.
And then the pressure will really be on Kennedy. If the other two parties can renew themselves through leadership changes why not the LibDems.
Simon Hughes as leader should provide an electoral disaster that can only help the Cameron surge.
24. Thanks Peter.
29. uhm, written in that way it seems Brown is responsible of Blair’s health deterioration.
Now wait and see if Hilary Armstrong will ask Clare Short written letters to confirm if she has the intention to demage TB’s health.
Rik, can you email me (palmern at the Parliamentary address will work) - I have a harmless offer for your boss? Btw, have sent you an email too, woody.
The idea of Tony Blair using Frank Field as an agent to trail a health announcement is a good one - about as likely as using Dianne Abbott, I’d say.
The formal thing about whips (in all parties) is that you’re supposed to give them notice if you plan to oppose the party in a vote (merely making critical speeches doesn’t count), so that they have the chance to arrange for you to meet the front bench and see whether your objections can be met. If you remain unpersuaded, then at least they can’t say you didn’t give them a chance. It doesn’t need a letter - most people talk routinely to their regional whips on current business, whether it’s controversial or not. It’s like the difference between ringing to work to say you’re ill and can’t come, as opposed to simply not turning up.
28,
Will Cameron , let Archer back into the Conservative Party.
Or can he duck making a decision, and let some comittee decide?
31.”The idea of Tony Blair using Frank Field as an agent to trail a health announcement is a good one - about as likely as using Dianne Abbott, I’d say.”
Nick, not a good example. Considering Abbott is always willing to be the first one to report all Westminster rumours and gossip, I wouldn’t be surprised she could get the info
Re whips. If I knew Clare Short was voting against, it’s impossible the whips weren’t aware of it! If they wanted to arrange a meeting with a frontbench to persuade her (so to lose time), they could have done it.
Then if the letter is not needed, she didn’t need to tell her intentions to the whips, because she already told them to the world. With a good lawyer she could even win in court!
I would be very unhappy if the Revd Hughes became leader of the Liberal Democrats. I’d go for the coronation of Ming myself. In other news, I’ve also just been selected as the LD candidate for a moderately safe ward for 2006.
32 - Lord Archer has paid his debt to society and has served his party suspension. I don’t see what grounds the party has to keep him out. He’ll never have a prominent role within the organisation again, but I don’t think he should be denied membership.
The LibDems are too soft to dump their leader, but the post-CK debacle (whenever it comes) will be the defining point in their 20-odd year history. Left under Hughes (who will surely stand) or right under anybody else?
32,
I agree with that, didn`t know if there was any party rules which could be applied.
As when Howard, de- selected the MP in the GE campaign.
However if he has no position other than member, might not apply.
Will he take up his position in the house of Lords as a Conservative?
37. Are Dez and Dez502 2 different posters?
Color me confused!
38,
Andrea,
Yes same sorry just my typing.
I do think there is a considerable difference between Archer being able to regain party membership, and his being allowed to resume the Conservative whip in the Lords. The latter would be a step too far for the present at least (if at all). Alastair Matlock is correct in the technical sense of ‘having paid his debt to society’ through imprisonment, but has Archer expressed any remorse for his perjury?
39. Dez, @37 you were replying to your own post@32 (agreeing with your self). So I was a bit confused
Re-reading other comments too, I think you were agreeing with AHM@35, right?
Why is the Archer story such a big deal/ main item on pm? The presenter actually asked Michael Crick “why all the fuss?”? Er……because the media have whipped it up.
Yes,
Andrea, aggreeing with 35 on the Point regarding Archer had paid his debt to society.
However was enquiring about his position regarding the Lords.
As I think this could be a difficult one, if he took his seat.
40 - John: Archer has spent time in prison, he’s been thoroughly humiliated and has been made a laughing stock. Yes, it was entirely his own fault, but you don’t keep kicking when the man is down. Once you’ve got him on the mat, that ought to be the end of it. I don’t know about remorse because I don’t know the man personally, but you can’t force people to ‘feel’.
I agree that there is a difference between being allowed to rejoin the party as an ordinary member and resuming the Conservative whip in the Lords. Difficult. This will be one for our new leader.
Incidentally I notice that Lord Black is still a Tory peer.
40. John O, where have you been all week? You left me alone in the hands of Lord Matlock of Beaconsfield.
45 - Andrew. Well, Lord Black has yet to be convicted of anything as far as I am aware.
46 - Don’t pretend that you didn’t enjoy it Andrea!!
44 AHM. My understanding, my soon to be honoured Lord Matlock of the Bell House, is that should his local constituency in Cambridgeshire accept his application to rejoin the party, there is little that the national party could do.
The Lords is a different matter. Perhaps a compromise would be that Archer be allowed into the Conservative Group after a further 2 years should he remain on his best behaviour !!
48. I couldn’t possibly comment about it in a public forum….my left wing reputation could be damaged
49 - I understand that he’s applied to both South Cambridgeshire and Vauxhall, Jack. His membership was suspended for five years from February 2005 which makes me think that if the party really wanted to keep him out, it could be done.
As I have said to John above, I do agree that the Tory whip in the Lords is a different kettle of fish, but according to press reports this morning Lord Archer is pursuing that as well and Michael Howard is reserving judgment for the new leader.
51.AHM. He hasn’t apparently applied to Vauxhall.
45,
Lord Black is a tory peer.
But at the moment has just been accused, not convicted of anything.
So I do not think we should jump to conclusions.
Also big fraud trials are difficult ones,I have sat on a jury, must admit, glad it wasn`t a year long serious frad trial.
One for the time, and secondly for the expertise needed to find some one guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, or not guilty.
I therfore have some agreement with the position that certain trials need expert jurors, who understand such big business accounts etc
51 AHM. Do you imply my nearly noble friend that the Tories would indulge in vile skullduggery to keep a reformed tenant of Her Majesty from their door !! Shocking, quite shocking !!
52 - hmmm. I’m sure I read somewhere that he had.
55. yes, it was reported this morning, but Vauxhall association said they haven’t received any application by Archer. Then a party’s spokeman confirmed he contacted the South Cambridgeshire tory association.
54 - You may very well think that, Jack. I, on the other hand, could not possibly comment.
56 - Andrea. Right then. I also remember reading that the press had contacted Andrew Lansley (MP for South Cambs) about Archer’s application to rejoin South Cambs and seemed to have no difficulty with it.
58.”Andrea. Right then. ”
We were both right in the end
According to a Cameron’s spokeman, David Cameron’s view was that Lord Archer’s days as an active politician are over and there is no question of him re-taking the Conservative whip.
No comments by DD.
59 - If that’s DC’s view, then that’s fair enough. But before any final decision is made, Archer’s past service to the Conservative Party - including the millions of pounds that he has raised for it - should be remembered too, and not just his flaws.
Andrea @46. Young man, you have a lamentably short memory. You know full well that I have been communing in Birmingham during the week, but I can say no more about whom I saw and what we did.
However, I did notice with wonder and admiration that Beast of Beaconsfield has recently been in spectacularly smiting mode…
61 - All in a good cause, John!
61. John, I thought the Birmingham visit was 2 weeks ago……too much work to do for uni, my head is exploding!
Then I suppose Birmingham is not internet free……
yes, Beast of Beaconsfield is in great shape
63 - I always find a jug of Stuctural Holes (formerly known as pink p*ssies) a great relaxation at times of stress…
64. John, no more Structural Holes (presentation made, the professor liked it, he gave me a good mark), now I’m busy with the evaluation of active work policies.
I’m so desperate that my relaxation at times of stress this week was to email to AHM talking about the Catholic Church…………
64 - Wooo. An untypically louche statement for you John!!
66 - atypically, rather.
Andrea, Are you trying to convert him, or he you?
I can certainly provide a highly positive evaluation of inactive non-work policies (although I’ve been interrupting a piece of boring consultancy work to peek here!).
Hey ho, that’s enough from me tonight. Enjoy your evening.
Alastair, Well, one really has to keep the fans guessing every now and then.
Toodlepip!
68. John, he hasn’t tried to convert me yet…
Have you fever again (re your comment@64)?
Archer should be allowed to be a member of the conservative party.
He has done a lot for the party, and served his time, his suspension is finished.
His past friends who were quite willing to accept his genoristy before, should not kick him now.
However in his own intrests he should not enter the house of lords, thus placing the party hierachy in a dilema.
I’d be happy to see Archer on the Front Bench. We need statesmen of his calibre.
Sean (at 72) - Do you really mean that? You said: “I’d be happy to see Archer on the Front Bench. We need statesmen of his calibre”.
Well, Archer is just a pathetic self-publicist and liar (presumably I am allowed to say that, since it has been proven). So why do you think the Tories actually NEED a person like that? Are they somehow short of people like that?
73 - It’s pretty obvious that it’s a piss-take, isn’t it?
Archer is a bit of a pain really with the publicity he brings. I do wonder how many convicted criminals there are amongst the Labour and Lib Dem membership.
Alistair, take a look at my prediction for Archer on the Conservative Leadership site, Fantasy Shadow Cabinet!
76 - Ann Winterton as head of policy development!!!
God help us!
Sorry, AHM (74). I have never known Sean Fear to speak other than with all seriousness. He is, after all, a lawyer.
Apart from which, I though Archer was still admired in Tory circles. And reasonably well despised in all others. Which is why I thought he might have fitted in well on the Tory front bench.
Are you quite sure that Tories don´t admire him any more?
75 - I totlly agree Woody. If he really wants to help the party he should keep as far away from it as possible. He has to accept he has no political future anymore.
78 - I think Archer is a rather sad figure in the eyes of most in the Conservative Party. People tend to appreciate the good works he has done for the party in the past, but also wish that he would just keep his head down and not make waves. Personally, I favour him being allowed to rejoin the party, but I think resuming the Tory whip in the Lords might be asking a bit too much considering all the trouble he’s been in.
Max and Woody are probably right. He would do best by the party by just staying away and it goes without saying that he has no political future, but at the same time I can understand his desire try and resume the life that he knew before prison.
Alastair Matlock I have to disagree with you about Archer.
He may have collected large donations for the Tory party but he happily admits these were a route to power and influence.
He was a vice chairman and was expelled because he brought the party into serious disrepute with his perjury. That was the most manifest offence but not the only one.
His behaviour prior to his arrest significantly contributed to a negative impression of the party as sleazy, nasty and selfish, and contemptuous of the society in which we all live.
That taint on the party (whose majority is so far removed from such abysmal behaviour as is humanly possible ) has just recently begun to recede. However, David Cameron will have to continue to fight that slur on an honourable party up to the next election and beyond. The slightest error by any significant party member or MP will revive the taint and our message might be lost again in the prurient din.
Creating that rack for the party is difficult to forget even if you can forgive.
If he really cared about the party he would apply to be a member and be quiet. But no, he is flaunting his wish to renew his membership and his contacts with past and present leaders in an interview in which he is promoting his new book. Whose interest, then, are closest to his heart?
Does he still indulge in fantasies in life as well as in print? The Vauxhall membership seems one example. Has he learnt anything at all? Does he think we are all incapable of checking what he says? Or is he so contemptuous of us that he doesn’t care? Or does he no longer see the border line between his books and the real world?
He may well have (almost?) paid his social debt through his prison sentence and period on licence, but I do not believe he has paid his debt to the Conservative party and its supporters.
He should spend a few years when not on parole proving his positive, selfless intent and reformation before asking to be readmitted to the party let alone the whip. A time in which, by his living example, he can make amends for the damage he has done. More in line with Profumo than Blunkett.
I agree with Max. He has done the Tories an enormous disservice over the last few years and the party hierarchy should tell him to sling his hook (another choice phrase from the North there…). The Tories have to be ruthless if they are to make real progress, so squashing this pathetic attempt by Archer to publicise himself would be an excellent start and send a clear message to the voters.
80 and 81 Alastair I was referring to your much earlier post. Your latest chimes closely to my more verbose view.
83 - Clive, I think I’ve been fairly consistent in what I’ve said throughout. He should be allowed to rejoin the party as an ordinary member, but I’ve deliberately not given a view on resuming the Tory whip in the Lords.
As was pointed out in the papers this morning, Archer has many friends and detractors within the party, so whatever Cameron decides is going to rub some up the wrong way. I’m prepared to accept his decision either way, but if it were up to me, I would sympathetically acknowledge his request and thank him for all his previous work on behalf of the party but tell him that restoring the whip to him just wasn’t in the party’s interest and that this consideration must be paramount.
I find it difficult to be as strident as perhaps I should be though, largely because I have a lot of personal sympathy for him and what he’s been through.
If Archer really cared about the Tory party, he would have done a Profumo and disappeared into a world of charity work. It’s bad enough that eveytime he’s mentioned, the fact that we made him a Lord is bought up. Archer has to face the fact that he had a good run with what he got away with before the perjury trial. Time to give it up. Camerons first act as Leader should be to make the membership ban lifelong. The would give him a real look of authority.
84 - I am with AHM on this one. Archer has been a bl**dy fool but he has paid his penalty in the eyes of the law and should not have to suffer in every way for the rest of his life just because he is a public figure.
Why do we believe in forgiving pop stars, footballers and TV actors almost anything but do not extend the same to politicians? George Best was no saint but he retained public affection despite his antics!
84.You must be a very understanding chap, Mr. Matlock. It seems to me what Archer has ‘been through’ is entirely the result of his own vanity and arrogance, two qualities he still appears to possess in abundance as far as can be gleaned from today’s story. I have no sympathy with him whatsoever.
85 - Lord Archer does do a lot of charity work, Woody. I think it’s a bit unreasonable to expect him to drop off of the face of the planet for the sake of the Conservative Party. In the grand scheme of things, this is a non-issue. Do what you need to do to protect the image of the Conservative Party, but the response needs to be proportional to the threat that Archer represents to our image, and I think a life long membership ban just looks vindictive and needlessly harsh.
76. Sean, I’m a bit disappointed of your choice of Nicholas Soames over Adam Rickitt as shadow Foreign Secretary.
87 - I’ve said several posts above that the trouble he got himself into was entirely of his own making. But, he has paid a heavy price for that Fred. Are you in favour of continuing to kick a man once he’s down? I think he’s taken enough without people piling on again.
Fred - BTW, you are a Tory, aren’t you? Would you kindly email me on alastairmatlock@gmail.com ? Many thanks!
86 - Spot on, Rik.
76/77 Sean/AHM. Conservative Fantasy Government :
Prime Minister : Derek Conway.
Deputy PM : Adam Rickett.
Chancellor : Dame Shirley Porter.
Foreign Secretary : David Irving.
Home Secretary : Johnathon Aitken.
Enviroment Secretary : Zak Goldsmith.
Pensions Secretary : The Maxwell Brothers.
Lord Chancellor : Jeffrey Archer.
Secretary Of State for Gay Affairs : Julian Brazier.
Leader of the Lords : Lord Herbie Beaconsfield.
Secretary of State for Wishful Thinking : Blue2Win.
Secretary of State for Political Correctness : Sean Fear.
Secretary of State for Handbagging : Ann Widdecombe.
Secretary of State for the Liberal Democrats : Tory Boy.
Secretary of State for Rastafarian Affairs : Andrew Rosindell.
Secretary of State for Ties and Bondage : Eric Forth.
Secretary of State for Taste and Decency : David Mellor.
Secretary of State for Interplanetary Affairs : John Redwood.
Secretary of State for Gob Stoppers : Sir Malcolm Rifkind.
Secretary of State for Hair Raising Events: Michael Fabricant.
Secretary of State for Quiet Men : Ian Duncan Smith.
Secretary of State for Sutton and Cheam : Rik W.
Secretary of State for European Intergration : Bill Cash.
Secretary of State for Sharpened Incisors : Micheal Howard.
Head of the Diplomatic Service : Anne Winterton.
A sure fire set of winners for 2009 !!!!!!
93 - Brilliant! Particularly the Lords appointment!
Alastair you are a kind gentleman. I cannot be as kind or magnanimous to those selfish people who thought they were above the law, contemptuous of us all and careless of the damage they were doing to the party : I refuse to name them and give them they are best forgotten.
Archer hasn’t suffered any more than he ought to have done. He suffered so much that his fortune has increased while he was in prison I read somewhere.
It is his wife that I empathise with, she has been loyal and generous and patient. Money doesn’t make up for her lot. She does seem the unsung heroine of this tacky saga.
86. Rik - George Best is not a good comparison. He was a fantastically talented man who sadly succumbed to the bottle. He remained in people’s affections because they could look back and remember his amazing feats. Archer is a conman and sometime writer of mediocre fiction. The public view him, rightly, with contempt and the Tories should not touch him with a bargepole.
86&92 - I agree to an extent and he has been punished for what he’s done - I just feel it would better for all concerned if he didn’t seek the Tory whip.
I suspect people were willing to forgive George Best because he wasn’t saying one thing and doing another. Everyone knew he was a bit of a lad liked a drink etc. Archer on the other hand broke the law despite standing for a party that believes in a tough line on law and order.
To get back on topic - I think the Libs would be mad to get rid of CK - he’s one of there biggest assets. In saying that I would be delighted if they picked Simon Hughes as the next leader but I just can’t see it happening.
95 - That may be Clive, but money isn’t everything. Where does he go to get his reputation back? That is his most devastating loss. Or it would be to me in his place.
97 Max Yes, you are right, that hypocrisy was central to the increasingly negative view of the party. And selfishness, something Archer seems still to exude when he uses the party and his connections with it when promoting his latest book to a journalist.
93. Jack, my contacts told me Ann Winterton is aiming to the Immigration Secretary position too.
A couple of more appointments:
Defence Secretary: Joan Collins (who will dare to face her? Especially in the morning)
Secretary of State for Third World Ads: Ken Clarke
Secretary of State for Fertility: Tim Yeo
Secretary of State for the promotion of Party loyality: John Bercow
Secretary of State for Beauty contests: The Right Venerable Helen Rosemary Brinton Clark
99. Mr. Matlock I think the example of John Profumo might be one that Archer could consider following if he wants to rehabilitate himself. But I’m not holding my breath.
99 Alastair He will never get his old reputation back nor his place in politics. He legitimately has a bad reputation that he needs to change.If he doesn’t understand that he has learnt nothing.
He has to build a new reputation as Profumo did. He earned enormous respect and admiration for the work he did and determination he showed to accept that he had done wrong and needed to make amends.
Archer’s charity work is not enough alone, he has to show he understands what he did wrong and the damge he did and say so: clearly. An apology to the party might be a start.
He could have used this Australian interview for that but instead talked as if nothing has changed as all the really important ‘friends’ had backed him, he speaks to the Chief Whip on a friendly basis, rejoins the party and expects the whip to be restored.
Oh, and by the way I have this new book….look for the name Archer on the cover in W H Smith.
No, its too rich for my blood.
If Archer has the Party’s best interest at heart surely he should ask himself the following question:
If I apply to be a member of the Party again, is this likely, on balance, to be helpful or unhelpful to the Party?
I would have thought the answer is fairly obvious.
102 - Fred. I think you may be right about that. ;o)
The world would be a frightfully dull and boring place without characters like him in it, however inconvenient and troublesome they may be.
Far be it for me to intrude on the private grief of the Tory party in relation to Archer, but I’m with Alistair on this one.
If any thing Archer deserved a long stretch for his appalling literary output as much as perjury. But he’s done his time so let him do the crime and rejoin the Tories ….. is that the right way round ????
The Tories are worried about embarrassment ….. good god, with the litany of charlatans the Tories have had over the years, I say let the old rogue back and tell the media to piss off …… most deserve a second chance ….. even Archer !! It’s not a sign of strength to deny him but of craven cowardice before the baying press !
103 - Clive. Certainly, he will never recover his reputation nor his political career. He frittered them away. I hold no brief for Lord Archer and I am not here to defend his wrongdoing. I simply do not see the point in summarily executing him in a political sense by denying him his membership as some above have argued. If they think that taking that sort of line with a man already regarded by the great majority of the public as a figure of fun is going to do this party any credit at all, then I think they are wrong.
I think you and I are largely in agreement on what the result should be, but seem to differ on how politely it should be done.
106 - Good to know even you can see sense once in a while Jack! ;o)
107.A H Matlock, he knew that he would have created a media fuss by trying to rejoin the party and especially by trying to get the whip back. So why create embarrassment to the party?
If he wants to contribute to the Lords works, he could do it without having the whip restored.
86. I can’t see how you can compare a Politician with a Footballer. Politicians are law makers and are supposed to set an example in the eyes of the public. Plus, the majority of the population outside Tory voters seem to hate Archer. Incidents like telling that reporter ‘You just wait until I’m Mayor of London’ wouldn’t have helped.
107. I agree that Lord Archer was a character. However, we are now in a position where Labour are the party of sleaze and we are exposing the sleaze. The last thing we need after that we need after that turnaround is reminders of the past. Every time Archer voices a political opinion or pulls stunts like this, it serves as a reminder to the public of sleazy Tories. He should know this and steer clear of the party and politics. If he cared about the party he should realise this.
107. I don’t think he seen as a figure of fun, I’m afraid. If he were (a la Peter Stringfellow for example) I think it would do no harm to let him back in. It is far more serious than that - he is viewed as an arrogant unprincipled crook, on a par with the likes of Robert Maxwell. Allowing him to rejoin would cause enormous PR damage at a time when the Conservatives are finally getting some relatively sympathetic coverage from the media.
108 AHM. I’m not sure my support is the most valued on the site !!!! If you agree with me thrice in a calendar month you get your party membership suspended - Three strikes and your out !!!!!!!
109 - He doesn’t want to sit as an independent peer, Andrea. He wants to sit as a Conservative. He is fully within his rights to ask, as will the party be to acquiesce or deny his request. I doubt that his motive in all this was to create embarrassment to the party and I would be surprised if anyone at all is still talking about this in two days time. Storm in a teacup.
113.”He doesn’t want to sit as an independent peer, Andrea. He wants to sit as a Conservative”
He should just be grateful he could still sit.
“I doubt that his motive in all this was to create embarrassment to the party ”
but it’s what he’s doing.
110, 111 - Well, I think you’re both wrong. No point in going over the same old arguments.
114 - Minor embarrassment, Andrea. We won’t need Archer to remind the electorate of Tory sleaze in the past. The Labour party will do that quite readily if they think it will get them anywhere. He key is to be sharp enough to deflect that sort of attack and make the government the issue. With great respect, anyone who thinks giving Archer his membership back is going to make us any more vulnerable to that sort of thing than we are now is greatly exaggerating his significance.
116. well, I agree that no-one will probably remember it in a couple of days (very few people really follow what happen in the House of Lords anyway).
116 AHM. Hear hear, my Lord !!
Alastair Indeed we are not miles apoart on this at all. However, a last point. Really.
I don’t think Archer mentioned his membership to cause embarrassment to the party. He did it because he knows that ‘Archer rejoins the Tories’ would get the interview widely published and his book promoted.
And it has done just that. Several papers and news outlets have reported that he has joined, full stop. Most go to mention the book.
I doubt he even thought about the damage to the party. If he did it didn’t stop him.
In this his criminal conviction is no longer the issue, but his selfish disregard for the party and his position in it, is.
If I am wrong, he will make an apology and withdraw his application to membership and the whip and make a statement saying that he is sorry for the trouble he has caused the party he loves.
119. I understand what you are driving at but I’m afraid I just can’t see how Archer being permitted to rejoin as an ordinary member is going to do the Conservative Party much damage, if it does any at all.
The right honourable Lord Archer, as stated earlier should look to Profumo as an example or even Aitken, do`nt think he will.
The publicity, the sheperd pie and chamagne could be back.
I’m with Jack on this. Everyone is entitled to a second chance and none more so than Jeffrey Archer……
Anyone who had read Michael Cricks biography will have known that he never knowingly told the truth yet it didn’t stop John Major making him a Tory peer and William Hague, Party chairman. And then declaring him a whiter than white candidate for Lord Mayor of London!
How we laughed…….
But of course that was before Hague’s excellent choice of Conrad Black for another Tory Peerage……..
John Major at least had an excuse. He was far too busy with Edwina to notice anything.
I thought John Major was having oats with Edwina before he became PM, and thus would have been in no position to confer a peerage on anyone? Really, Roger…. do at least try to get your facts straight.
Indeed it was AHM. It’s so difficult to keep up with these Tory goings on. Would this be before The Hamiltons started taking brown envelopes from Mohammed Al Fayed or after? If I remember Jeffrey became Baron Archer of Weston Super Mare in ‘92 and it was The Lady Herself who appointed him to the deputy chairmanship in the late ’80’s
122.”Anyone who had read Michael Cricks biography will have known that he never knowingly told the truth yet it didn’t stop John Major making him a Tory peer.
John Major at least had an excuse. He was far too busy with Edwina to notice anything. ”
He has not even that excuse. When he created him Life Peer, he was already back in Norma’s arms.
123. yes, AHM, their affair ended in 1988.
126 - Indeed Roger. Perhaps the difference between the Tory Party and Labour is that we confine our liars and less savouries to pygmy roles in the cabinet and the House of Lords while the Labour Party, based on the record of the last 8 years, has sent their most accomplised con man straight to 10 Downing Street.
There goes your peerage for the next eight years!
Ah well. We all have our crosses to bear.
128. Talking about peerages, has anyone offered a peerage to Edwina?
A momentary thought might also be spared for the late Monica Coghlan who was torn to threads at Archer’s trial when she was telling the truth. Ms. Coghlan was certainly no angel but did she or her family deserve the abject humiliation that was meted out to her? She didn’t get a second chance, did she?
131- no, she was killed in a car accident involving an armed robber.
131 - A tragedy, of course.
132 - Yes, and she was killed before Archer’s trial (though he had been charged).
132 - Andrea. I think John was referring to the treatment she was subjected to during Archer’s trial, not the actual circumstances of her death.
127,
Didn`t know that the conservative party planned it that way.
What was Major doing while PM then , being totally honest about his affair to the great british public, whilst preaching back to basics,to the pygmies in his cabinet, Mellor , Aitken etc.
Looks like the conservatives are Electing Blair Mark 2, so looks like we are all going to be conned shortly.
135.AHM, don’t underline everytime I fail to understand something!
137 - Nevermind Andrea, If John is right in his post at 134 (which contradicts what he said at 131) then I was wrong too!
136 - Dez: Go jump.
138. His 2 posts don’t necessarily contradict each other: she was humiliated during the trail, no one gave her a second chance (now we’re talking to give it to Archer) and she died even before seeing him convicted.
139 - Unless my eyes deceive me, John says at 134 that Coughlin was killed before Archer’s trial, after having said she was torn to ribbons at Archer’s trial. Both can’t be correct, unless he meant that she was killed before the conclusion of Archer’s trial. Admittedly, I don’t remember the nuances of the situation, so I was assuming what was said at 131 was correct.
130
Andrea , dont think so.
She probably deserves one though, for keeping quiet.
Probably could have ended Major much earlier if she had spoken out.
As i think the only thing going for him from Oct 1992 to April 97, was most voters saw him as quite honest if if he was inept.
135, 138, Andrea, Alastair…you’re both right, and the ambiguity was mine.
My main point was indeed that Monica was posthumously vindicated and that she was traduced at Archer’s cruel and calculating behest remains a scandal. Her public humiliation remained almost to her untimely death which meant she did not see her tormentor face justice. So she and her family had really no second chance to rebuild their lives.
Alastair, Oh dear…there were two Archer trials. The first was the 1987 libel case (where Monica was torn to shreds) and then his 2001 trial for perjury (by which she had been killed)
140. She died in April 2001. I think John was referring to the 1987 libel action too.
141. Dez, Edwina said that she thought about revealing it while Major was still PM, but then she renounced becuase she fear the government could have brought down.
She hasn’t a great evaluation of Major’s PM years.
142 - But how does it in any way help to assuage the grief and anxiety her family must feel to have him denied membership in the Conservative Party? She is sadly departed and he’s done his time in prison. Let her rest in peace and let him get on with his life.
144 - Ah, yes that would make sense then.
144,
Andrea,
I think Edwina in that case is correct, I am sure if that had been widely known,Major wouldn`t have survived, and Major would not have stood down in 1995 for re selection as conservative leader.
So therfore Cameron might give her an honour for services to the conservative government for the years 1990 to 97.
However on the other hand if she had spoke in 1991, it would have been a good election to lose, with normal politics resuming in that Labour were in power for 4 years then another 20 for the tories.
Lots of people on here would be very happy now.
146.”However on the other hand if she had spoke in 1991, it would have been a good election to lose, with normal politics resuming in that Labour were in power for 4 years then another 20 for the tories.”
but she would have lost her seat 5 years earlier in that case. I think she survived by a 6% margin in 1992 (Woody could help me here).
Btw, here’s her commments about him as PM: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2294229.stm
145 - In practice, I don’t believe we disagree terribly. While Archer is a nasty piece of work who appears to care not a jot about the lives he has ruined, that should not now disqualify him from joining the other 300,000 party members. However, there can be no justification whatever for his playing any part as a legislator associated with our party in Parliament, or indeed any other public role.
149 - I agree with everything you have written there without reservation.
Btw, check your email…
….And my reply. We are at one!
And there we have it, don´t we? Now we know what all the invitations from AH Matlock were about…….
“Btw, check your email… (Comment by A H Matlock at 150 — 27/11/2005 @ 12:25 am
“….And my reply. We are at one! (Comment by John O at 151)
AH Matlock is the undercover Tory Whip on PBC, and they all fall into line.
So the rest of us have to assume that Archer is to be forgiven, to the extent of being admitted to Party membership and allowed to pay a subscription, according to his means…. And in due course….
As I implied some time back, the Tory front bench does not seem the same without people like him…….. I don´t think it will be long before he is thoroughly reinstated.
Re. Edwina Currie, where is the second volume of her Diaries? Didn’t the first volume sell sufficiently well?
As for her novels, A Parliamentary Affair was quite enjoyable (as were the two sequels), but some of the dialogue in She’s Leaving Home was diabolical (it made Jeffrey Archer read like Philip Roth).
What would have happened had Edwina spilt the beans was examined a few years ago on the News 24 version of ‘What if?’ (rather less intellectually demanding than the R4 version, as can be deduced from the News 24 version having Amanda Platell on the panel).
153. Richard, she decided not to publish them because libel laws were tightened up.
I suppose she had some more things to reveal if she was so afraid of a libel actions….
Well, as the more astute of you spotted, I was indeed joking. IMO, Archer has too much scandal attached to him for us to want to let him back into the party (the perjury was just the tip of the iceberg).
155 - Sean. So, you would go further than denying him the Tory whip in the Lords and also prevent him even re-joining the party as an ordinary member as well?
156. AHM, did you see that mini-macho from Rutland has came out in favour of Lord Archer?
157 - Andrea. Yes, I did see Duncan’s statement on the BBC and I am inclined to agree with him. I see that David Mellor has also chimed in, rather cheekily too considering his own position!
Cameron has basically said that it’s up to Archer’s local party to decide whether or not to accept his application for membership, but that as leader he would not permit him to sit as a Tory in the House of Lords. This coincides with my thinking entirely.
The big issue on ‘will Kennedy survive’ is whether he will survive the first half dozen chat shows/question times which Paddy Ashdown appears on on return from Bosnia. These appearances will either make him sharpen up no end or he will pale into insignificance in the shadow of a man who was a great communicator particularly with the more neurotic parts of the public. Not that I’m a great fan of Cap’n Paddy, who was prepared to see his party disappear for a piece of the Blair illusion, which I think he was ‘honestly’ sold by the great conman. The only real trouble with the Lib Dem leadership has never been the bloke at the top - it’s been the second rate hangers-on, quite a few of whom are the same under Kennedy as under Ashdown I, with whom they have allowed themselves to be surrounded and to filter the real world (and their party) to them.
“She does seem the unsung heroine of this tacky saga.”
Is this a new form of acceptable drug for Tories to take but not inhale? I see that Portillo has just been found without trousers by the Male (sic) on Sinday in a (shock!) heterosexual non-matrimonial scenario, which will doubtless increase the size of purse he can extract from rich ****ers eating cardboard food while twiddling their diamond-encrusted hearing aids.
Max says (97) that “Archer on the other hand broke the law despite standing for a party that believes in a tough line on law and order.” he somewhere omitted to say: “for the lower classes.”
Meanwhile, Fred asserts, correctly (96): “Archer is a conman and sometime writer o