Can Blair keep it going for another two years?
January 30th, 2006-
Does Blunkett really know what’s going on?
The comments by the twice sacked ex-cabinet minister, David Blunkett, that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have reached “a new understanding” that will see a changeover at Number 10 within two years have set the 
Blair departure markets going.
In a BBC interview Blunkett said; “My sense is that there is a new understanding - yes..And it is good because anybody with any ounce of understanding of politics knows that when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown work together we are a winner. When they are divided, our opponents can divide us and it is as simple as that.” .And on timing Blunkett said this could be in “a year or two years”.
Quite what we are to make of the comments is hard to read. Does Blunkett actually know something or was he just responding when asked by Andrew Marr to speculate? For the phrase he used was “my sense” which does not imply that he has any real knowledge.
The one-two year spectrum is frustrating for gamblers and, in addition, there is the current uncertainty over the Education Bill and the continued effort by the Cameron-led opposition to divde the Blair-loyalists from the rest of the party.
-
A change-over within eighteen months of a General Election would seem to be the best strategy for Labour. The next General Election is going to be a lot more challenging for the party than the last three and holding it during Brown’s honeymoon period looks the smart move.
It is interesting that David Cameron seems to be hell-bent on getting Blair out early. He wants to start taking on his real opponent as soon as possible.
My instinct is to assume that Blair will still be there in 23 months time and to take the 2.4/1 that’s available on him surviving until then. But I am not fully convinced and this is a market to keep away from at the moment.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
It won’t be available for long. As of 5am, you can bet a mere £3 at 2.45/1, then £1 at 2.4/1, £3 at 2.35/1, £6 at 2.3/1, £13 at 2.25/1. You get down to £150 available at 2.1/1 before you seriously enter double figures.
Technology really ought to provide a way for strangers to make long-term bets the way friends and acquaintances do - with both of them holding on to their money and earning interest or whatever on it until pay-day. I’m sure the fact that both parties must pay out for bets like this two years in advance is a real deterrent to such gambling, and distorts the odds as a way of providing people an incentive to do it. It also means that bets like this just aren’t available except in tiny amounts.
Peter 1. I agree completely. My long-term bets are with the spread-betting firms where I have credit accounts. This means I do not have to put up cash now but I might be asked to put some money in if the market moves against me. The betting value is often not quite as good as with the betting exchanges - but at least I don’t have to put up the cash now.
I think the sense that Blair and Brown have broadly agreed the pattern is generally shared in Westminster: they are working together harmoniously (notably on the education Bill) and the press is having real trouble spinning the old “new Blair-Brown fury” stories. I doubt if they’ve set a particular date, or that David Blunkett would know if they had - indeed his wording makes it clear that that he doesn’t.
I think Mike is right - it’s in everyone’s interest on the Labour side to have a smooth transition towards the end of the Parliament and an election soon after to seek a mandate for the new leader. The Tory strategy of concentrating fire on Brown (’shame that great chap Blair is going’) is clear, since he really is a racing certainty to follow Blair, but possibly they’re being a bit too obvious to be persuasive - Cameron’s ‘nice fellow’ persona certainly vanishes when he’s talking about GB. My personal guess, with no inside information, is that TB will announce at the Conference in 2007 that he will be stepping down the following summer, giving the 2008 conference as the launchpad for the new leader, and leading to a May 2009 election. But it won’t be set in stone at this stage.
I agree with Nick. There is a window for a 2009 leadership change and a 2010 election if the economic and political cycle necessitate it (as it did for Major in ‘92). Either way the odds on Brown as PM and election winner must be shortening all the time. Another super piece by Jackie Ashley in the Guardian this morning …
Blair will stay in power in order to beat the length of term that Thatcher served.
[3][4] Younger voters might be forgiven for thinking that elections have to be in May
- Nick Palmer’s scenario is perfectly plausible until I recall that there is absolutely no precedent for a Prime Minister announcing a “deferred” retirement in that way. Given that Blair can hardly ever resist getting under the constitutional bonnet and tinkering, I wonder if he has given thought to de-coupling the Premiership from the Party Leadership - a Party Leadership campaign lasting as long as a pregnancy is surely an unnecessary hostage to fortune.
Surely the next general election will be on “Super Thursday” in June 2009, to co-incide with the European elections that have to be held that day. The May local elections of that year can be legitimately delayed (I believe) until June to wrap them all up in one go - as the local elections were held to co-incide with them in 2004.
Surely Labour won’t risk a drubbing in these “Super Thursday” polls in June 2009 (which they got in 1999 and 2004 when they were relatively more popular than now) as the basis of going into a 2010 campaign. Mind you, there 2004 drubbing didn’t stop them winning in 2005 - but if they want to have any Euro MPs left and keep their local councillor numbers up they’d be advised to combine the elections.
I’ve no doubt that there will be a Brown Bounce when he takes over, but the key question is how long will it last?
The dilemma Labour face is that the longer Brown is forced to wait, the more tension between No 10 & 11 increases, however the earlier Brown succeeds Blair, the longer any honeymoon period would have to last to make a positive impact on a 2009 election.
I think Blue Alex makes a valid point about the May/June 2009 set of elections, which surely represent the latest point that Brown would wait to go to the country for a mandate of his own. I wonder though whether he might not want go much earlier and call a snap 2008 election while still riding high in his honeymoon period.
8 I agree that Brown is likely to seek his own mandate at an early stage. I think autumn 2008 is likely. This will depend on the economic situation of course, but it seems that Brown will not be able to afford to continue public spending. This argues for an election sooner rather than later.
“It is interesting that David Cameron seems to be hell-bent on getting Blair out early. He wants to start taking on his real opponent as soon as possible”
I’m surprised you see it this way Mike. It looks to me like Cameron is attacking Brown from behind the shield of Blair knowing Brown can’t fight back. It is Brown who seems to be straining at the leash to get his teeth into Cameron and with good reason. I suspect he feels Blair is showing him far to much respect.
On the Education Bill. It seems to me that in 1997, Blair would have been relishing this as a chance to burnish his ‘I’m not a socialist’ credentials. Obviously times have changed. He doesn’t have nearly so much political capital within his own party any more. And the Lib Dems (not to mention Respect and the Greens) are much more clearly challenging from the left than they were in those days. Nonetheless this fight may well help Labour keep centrist voters on side and away from the Tories for now. And despite the Lab / Lib Dem front opened up at the last election, so that far more seats are at stake there, it’s still more important for Labour to keep wavering voters from going Tory than from going Lib Dem.
So there’s still a tactical imperative to keep centrist voters voting Labour rather than Tory at the ever increasing expense of losing votes and seats to the Lib Dems and, in the case of votes, to other left-wing parties. However strategically, over the next decade or so, this is going to be a serious problem for Labour, fighting on opposite fronts. When they do lose and start bickering, they could be in far worse trouble than the Tories are. And the result, like the 1920s, and barring a hung parliament leading to PR, could be a couple of decades of more or less unbroken Tory rule.
8: ‘I’ve no doubt that there will be a Brown Bounce when he takes over…’
Not sure about that. The problem is that this saga has dragged on for so long many of us are bored to death with Brown’s premiership even before he’s got the job. My feeling is that Brown is destined to see out the last few years of the fag end of new Labour as the pendulum of politics makes it inevitable swing to Cameron’s Tories. Sadly for him, Gordon Brown will be a latter-day Sunny Jim – or a not-so-Sunny Jim perhaps.
I’m not sure you can have three primary elections at once, I know you can have two, but I seem to remember you can’t have three.
I’m also not sure if having the locals at the same time really does benefit Labour that much, 2009 is the year the Met authorities do not have elections and London doesn’t elect that year either as it’s the county council year.
Having them at the same time as the Euros could be interesting, I wonder how the Tories will feel about competing with UKIP on that playing field.
I hear that Autumn 2008 is seen as a potentially good date.
Roger @ 10: My guess is that Cameron wants to get Blair out early simply because if Blair goes before, say, the end of 2007 it will be trickier for Brown to realistically call another general election while still in his honeymoon.
I seem to be the only person here convinced now that Brown will not take over. If Blair is old and tired, so is Brown.
Blair at least seems to recognise that the party has to change as circumstances do: that means new blood at the top. He clearly has preferred candidates; if David Miliband takes over from Ruth Kelly, he becomes an even better bet. The Labour Party cannot afford to consider itself bound by a handshake in a London restaurant a decade-and-a-half ago. There is no right of succession; there are only elections and votes.
Typical David Blunkett: “When they are divided, our opponents can divide us and it is as simple as that.” Dissent will not be tolerated. He was a hopeless councillor and leader in Sheffield; his stint at Education left the department in the mess which has threated to end Ruth Kelly’s career besides spending 60M on an e-university no one wanted when we already had one that was popular and worked. The man’s an egotistical incompetent authoritarian facsist buffoon. Now’s he’s come out against even elections in the People’s Party. Division is good. Without division and competing analyses and policies, there can be no democracy.
15 - Can anyone be a libertarian fascist? If I may say so, don’t discredit an argument by such exaggerated language, at least not so early in the day
[13] Counting would be a nightmare, unless it was made electronic (possibly with a provision for statutory manual recounts if the majority was less than say 1% of the poll).
[14] Good point (as ever :)) Anthony - the rule in these things is, surely - do whatever it is your opponents want you to do least of all…
Dave Wheeden . “The man’s an egotistical incompetent authoritarian facsist buffoon2.
You’re printz and I claim my £5!
8 and others - The idea that there will be a Brown bounce is a fallacy, continued references to John Major are misleading in the extreme.
Major was relatively unknown in 1990, he had shot up through the ranks from obscurity and was ‘new’ in the same way that Cameron is ‘new’.
Brown is anything but - indeed even after all these years Blair still looks fresher and more interesting than Gordon Brown.
Labour supporters spend lots of time extolling the undoubted abilities that Brown has but to my mind he is a dour, dull Scot, who looks and sounds like a throwback to the world of black and white 1950’s politics.
Anyone who thinks making him prime minister will result in a rise in Labour poll ratings is deluding themsleves.
One reason Cameron can’t wait for Brown to take over is because he knows this only too well.
We will struggle to overtake Labour as long as Blair is in the chair but we will pick up 5 points off them as soon as he leaves.
[15] Whatever his limitations as a Minister and Parliamentarian, David Blunkett was a very effective leader of Sheffield City Council, certainly by comparison with other left-wing (yes, they were in those days :oops:) leaders such as Ted Knight or Valerie Wise - or even Margaret Hodge.
“Labour supporters spend lots of time extolling the undoubted abilities that Brown has but to my mind he is a dour, dull Scot, who looks and sounds like a throwback to the world of black and white 1950’s politics”.
How surprising Marcus that someone as impartial as you should think of him like this. I bet you thought Michael Howard was a breath of fresh air!
My guess is Blair will want to out last Thatcher. Vanity will ensure longevity.
22. Perhaps he’ll just settle for his eldest son being charged with trying to start a revolution in Africa to make a fast buck?
19 - John Major wasn’t that new. Newer than Brown, certainly, but he was well established and well known. Major was not seen as some sort of “outsider” who had not been closely associated with Thatcher, but any change is a change and he got a big bounce out of it (a sort of feeling that there had been a change of government even though there hadn’t really).
It is odd that you say that Blair still looks fresher and more interesting than Brown. In 1990, Thatcher still looked fresher and more interesting than Major - she was certainly a more substantial and interesting character - but she had made too many mistakes, too many enemies and Major briefly cleared the air. I see no reason why Brown shouldn’t do the same, dependent on how the economy looks at the time of handover.
The Professor at 4:
“the odds on Brown as PM and election winner must be shortening all the time”
Given this is the graph of Labour having most seats at the next election (on betfair), I’d say you are (not for the first time) wrong in your blinkered view of all things Gordon.
should read “the graph of the odds of Labour”
22 - I’ve always thought ten years rather than outlasting Thatcher. That way Blair would be outdoing Thatcher by going when, with hindsight, she clearly ought to have gone. There is no great prestige to be gained in lasting a day longer than someone who basically outstayed her welcome.
15: Your analysis is broadly correct Dave, but sadly Brown will take over because so many people in the Labour party are allowing themselves to fantasize that the man is some sort of political miracle worker who will keep them in power for ever. (In my view the chap is merely a journeyman finance minister with a tarnished reputation, who’ll spend out the rest of his days dreaming about what might have been.) Ashley’s article in today’s Guardian about sums it up: the endless, tedious gossips concerning handovers, tactics, plots and deals really is symptomatic, to me anyway, of a regime on the wane with leaders trapped in the bunker of their own self-obsessions.
Good Morning Wonkers ……. well apparently on Saturday I was savaged by one of Geoffrey Howell’s sheep and following extensive medical assistace I’m ending up as mutton stew on the Conservative High Table …. someone pass the salt ….. pinch, pinch …. over the shoulder.
Anyhow had a splendid Sunday lunch a dieu with one of the Tories finest …. no not Rik W or Iain Dial a quote ….. and yes there are fine Tories out there ……. it’s a bit like truffle hunting, you have to get down and dirty and snuffle away.
So here goes ……. Tories in genuine excellent heart and they keep pinching themselves to believe what’s happened over the past few months and that includes Cameroon and those very close to him. The broadly continuing good press and media coverage has surprised and they are awaiting serious bad news that hasn’t come.
The coffers are doing well from both associations and larger private donors.
Tactically in the short term the fly in the ointment is the D & FW by-election. There has been much discussion on how to play this one. The predicament was whether to push resources and Cameroon into the forefront and go from a low 4th place and hope for momentum and a good result or have a paper campaign and take the hit and the potential bad headlines -”Tory setback” etc etc. The recent and to some extent continuing squabbling within Scottish Tories hasn’t helped. In the end a low key campaign was decided upon. Hence the other parties saying the Tories have gone awol in the seat.
Of more long term interest is the Lib Dem situation. The Cameroon team recognise that whilst the sandal munchers troubles are a source of hilarity to most, the serious point is that the recent fall away of the Lib Dems has benefited Labour more than the Tories. Indeed it is in the Tories political interest to see a modest recovery for the Lib Dems long term. Polling confirms this point.
In all the Cameroons believe all is to play for and whilst a majority Conservative government is still “just out of sight next time” a damaged and weakened PM Brown is more likely than not. A two hit stategy is on the cards …… and they strongly believe that Cameroon will be given that chance and be Prime Minister in 6-8 years time.
So back to the mutton stew …….. I wonder whether it goes with venison and a side portion of steamed Lib Dem canvasser ??
What is extraordinary about Brown is his caution over the leadership. He has never been prepared to take a risk to get the job. He would have stood a good chance against John Smith in 1992 when Kinnock stood down. He did not have to agree to Blair’s plan at the Granita restaurant two years later but he did. And in recent years there have been a number of occasions when a push from him could have brought him the top prize. The current mess that Blair is in over the Eduation Bill is a case in point.
Lacking that killer ambition to take risks might ultimately just cost him the job altogether.
20.” certainly by comparison with other left-wing (yes, they were in those days ”
oh, yes, lots of time has passed since those days! Last week, I saw an old NEC elections leaflet with the Campaign Group asking to vote Dawn Primarolo and Alan Simpson backing Margharet Beckett for the leadership.
30. “And in recent years there have been a number of occasions when a push from him could have brought him the top prize. The current mess that Blair is in over the Eduation Bill is a case in point.”
I think that a problem is that he could have been seen as a backstabber and parties don’t usually like backstabber.
30 Mike S. A good general knows when to engage in battle. I think GB would have been humiliated against John Smith and TB. This way GB gets the crown having not had the need for regicide.
31/32 Andrea. Why are you not studying hard ??
33. I recall a Blair/Brown/Prescott/Beckett poll in 1994 with Brown trailing even Beckett.
Jack, what have I done now?!
Marcus@ 19
As a LibDem I’d be delighted if here was no Brown Bounce, but I suspect that may well be wishful thinking on your part.
If the Tories are banking on a Brown premiership being politically still-born then they are in danger of making a serious mistake. While I agree that Brown is not a miracle worker and that he will have real difficulty matching Blair’s appeal, I suspect that it will still take some time for that to become apparent. That is not entirely in his hands, as a key factor in his popularity will be the state of the economy. How long it takes for the novelty to wear off, whether the economy holds out and how long his honeymoon lasts will be the crucial determinants of whether he can maintain Labour’s majority at the next election
34 Andrea. Monday morning - Are you at Uni researching your leaders decision to abstain from sex in the run up to the next Italian GE ??
Can you imagine such pledges from UK political leaders ….. too much information me thinks !! …… and it’s nearly time for mutton stew for lunch.
mike the fact that brown hasnt put his personal ambitions in front of the party is one f the reasons why members like him so much.
what do tories think of the people that ousted thatcher, or tried to undermine major and helped contribute to their political downfall.
I think it could be agred that GB will have less power when he accedes than does at present, and he will have to spend most of his time doing things he will not enjoy and never master (eg smiling). I’m reminded of my deputy headmaster when I was at school, a robust Yorkshireman, brilliant at his job, he wanted to lead the institution he loved. When he finally got the chance, he absolutely hated it, as it just seemed like all presentation and ephemeral nonsense to him. Same for GB, except he is only brilliant when compared to Dennis Healey.
re 36. I’m sure “five times a night Tony” would be delighted to give such a pledge.
oops! agred -> argued
36.Jack, I’m at home. I won’t be in uni until Thursday.
I doubt the Libdems would be able to fulfill those pledges
39. But will Cherie be delighted?
I note someone is trying to usurp Gordon as the next leader of the Labour party :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4661024.stm
He is Peter Mandelson and I claim for Andrea 5 Brazillian boyfriends !!
41 Andrea. It’s hard being a student in Italy.
Imagine if the pledge was extended to all MPs ….. poor John Hemmings would be in the loony bin and rent boys in despair.
43. Jack, but he have still to face her:
http://i.imdb.com/mptv1.gif
Praising Blair for his past decisions sounds like a clever policy for when we have The Dour One in charge. I think a lot of people, particularly Labour supporters, will miss TB’s charm and ability.
I don’t buy the ‘people have tired of style over substance’ argument at all. TB sounds professional. GB will sound like a rank amateur.
45 Andrea. Berlusconi link here :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4661618.stm
Has this been big news in Italy ??
48. Jack, uhm, not very much. A news like the others.
Parties are too busy to decided candidates for the elections and to insult each other…..
What time is Camerons speech today?
Interesting article in today’s Indy. They’ve commissioned John Curtice to run and poll of poll & project the results in seats.
“The weighted average of this month’s polls by ICM, MORI, ICM and Populus puts Labour on 39 per cent (up four points on last month), the Tories on 38 per cent (up one point) and the Liberal Democrats on 16 per cent (down four points).
That would give Labour 354 MPs and the Tories 235. The number of Liberal Democrat MPs would more than halve from 62 to 29. Labour would enjoy an overall majority of 52 - although proposed changes to constituency boundaries could reduce that.”
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article341953.ece
The poll projects 20 LibDem losses to the Tories and a dozen to Labour. Not at all good for we LibDems but it does provide a useful ‘benchmark’ in terms of identifying how many seats are realistically vulnerable if the party is squuezed by both Labour & the Tories.
it also says a tory defected to the lib dems.
so which is worth more a ppc or a former mp.
tories and lib dems discuss!!
Err.. Former MP, clearly. Wonder if any tory MEPs will defect if they’re forced into a corner by William’s Hague’s mission to Brussels…
52. How’s Caroline Jackson doing?
51 red flag. Neither is politically worth a spit in the ocean ! The dullest of no score draws ….. replay not required !
49 woody. Unsure about that …. I had 2.00pm in mind …… but I may be suffering an overdose of mutton stew …… neither DEMOS or the Tory website have details.
51: It sounds like Sir Cyril defected last summer. Presumably he was unwilling to come out of the closet all the time Chaz was still leader.
29, Jack, I truly am in awe:
“Anyhow had a splendid Sunday lunch a dieu with one of the Tories finest….”
You mean the Almighty himself is now seeking your omniscient counsel
I know you are never knowingly undersold but….
There for the Grace of Jack….
Apparently old Maggie wasn’t a Conservative !?!?! ….. we must all of dreamed the 1980’s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4655204.stm
56 John O.
….well all my info is heaven sent. 
We spent most of the time discussing the Six Nations and Scotland’s excellent chances …..
Sadly I note that the France game is nowhere near a sell out and decent tickets at Murrayfield may be had for £30 for adults and £15 for wee ones.
I fear Andrea and I will be battling over the wooden spoon …… quite right for a pair of old stirrers …… some might say.
58. Jack, it was just a nightmare!. The 80’s never existed: No Maggie and her handbags, Major has never screwed Edwina, the mines are all still open, Labour has never produced the 1983 manifesto, Tony Benn is still running for the leadership, SDP has never left Labour, ABBA are still together, Elton John is still straight,….it was just a dream!
59 - http://www.anthonymayer.net/ah/thaxted/thaxted1.html
59 Andrea. I nearly believed you !! ……. but then you said Elton John is straight.
You write as if it is a formality that Gordon Brown will win the leadership election. This is far from the case IMHO.
61. Jack, in those days people believed everything they were told
57. She was a radical counter-revolutionary. She was a Tory (in the old-fashioned sense - church and king, anti-big government, nationalist) rather than a Conservative.
64 fred. Maggie “was a radical counter-revolutoinary.”
Well I never saw her selling “Socialist Worker” at the LSE or perhaps you mean selling under the counter sprouts at her fathers grocers shop !! …… or more likely a Liberal Unionist ??
65 Surely “Kulaks Quarterly”…
51/52 - Sir Cyril Townsend actually signed the Lib Dem’s nomination papers in the Torridge and West Devon constituency during the general election. Its old, re-heated, news in that regard, and his support for the Lib Dems didn’t actually do them a lot of good in the constituency itself, needless to say!
65- Jack. maybe she was leading a double life
66/68 John O/Andrea. Maggie seen here in the front row down Finchley High Street marching in support of the collectivization of deceased sheep and crocodile handbags ……. is that the Chingfordski skinhead in the background :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak
57 - If you remember the 1980s* you weren’t David Cameron.
* Or indeed the 1990s but definitely not after 2001.
Post the 1920s, there’s little point trying to distinguish Conservatives from Victorian Liberals, as they largely ended up in the same party.
I always though “We kolkhoz farmers are liquidating the kulaks as a class, on the basis of complete collectivisation” was such a catchy little slogan. Any chance of it being set to music?
James at 24 I must disagree with your statement “John Major wasn’t that new” - as far as the public was concerned before 1989 nobody had heard of him.
He appeared from the relative obscurity of being chief sec. and within a few months was Chancellor, within eighteen months he was PM.
He had several compelling advantages then over Gordon Brown now.
1) He was not closely associated with Thatchers history and was therefore able to be repesented as a ‘new broom’ in a way that Gordon Brown as co-architect of New Labour won’t be able to.
2) Say what you like about his politics John Major was liked by the general public who -until the very end- preferred him personally to the party he led (in complete contrast to browns polling).
3) He was younger than the PM he was replacing, and younger and much fresher than his opposition rival.
There are other reasons connected with him being the very opposite of Margaret Thatchers very divisive (and hectoring) style that also gave him a warm glow to begin with that Brown just won’t have.
30. Regarding GB’s lack of killer instinct, it’s interesting to consider the probable course of events if the Granita deal had gone the other way. Would TB have waited this long before defenestrating GB? I think GB’s lack of appetite for human blood is a (possibly fatal politically) weakness. Is he emotionally damaged after 10+ years of being deceived and psychologically tortured by TB?
I know this is horribly O/T (still, there’s not much happening today, is there?) - but I’ve just realised something. The Guardian is the Daily Mail for pious lefties. It panders to their baser instincts, it succeeds by gratifying their prejudices - just as the Mail does with its readership, and the Express with its.
Check out the headline in today’s issue. Police Inquiry Into Racist Attacks At Jail.
This is really not, by any stretch of the imagination, an obvious front page lead. Some reports of nasty racist bullying in a high security prison? Wow. OK its not a nice thing, it deserves coverage, but in terms of news value its Dog Bites Man, not Man Bites Dog. Page 5 at best I’d have thought.
So why did the Guardian lead with it? Because it finds the moral clitoris of their readership. It allows their readers to tut over their muesli, it allows their readers to feel morally superior to the rest of us (something they adore), it subtly attacks what is left of the Establishment (police, prison warders), it confirms to your average Guardian reader that yes whitey is bad, racism is everywhere and appalling, etc etc.
Basically, this headline is the precise equivalent of a Daily Mail headline screaming - Asylum Seeker Fiddles with Kids. Both headlines are true, neither should really be on the front page, both pander to prejudice. so why does the Guardian persist in thinking it is morally superior to the Mail?
Search me.
This front page story is also notable for being, I reckon, the first time a national paper has used the C word, in full, on a front page. ‘black c***’ is the context. Another anti-racist frisson for the Islingtonians.
Sorry. Just had to get that off my chest.
The earth didn’t move for me, Sean.
But I agree with your general line of attack. Keep it up.
Where is this Brown bounce going to come from and what has Brown to offer the voter as a PM?
He can offer that at least he isn’t Blair, that most slippery and vain man in the eyes of millions, who could not say no to Bush and he is likely to be overshaddowed by Blair’s legacy as revelations about his predeccessor come out.
He can offer that he will reverse Blair’s extreme right wing policies and social failure. But the opposition will remind us that he has been central to it in a silent sychophantic nodding way for the past decade, before piping up with a series of U turns.
He can offer a calm and unspun presentation, without the likes of Alistair Campbell, although some may say he is boring and uninspiring.
He can offer that the economy has prospered under his cancellorship, but with job losses and taxes rises that might be hard to sell.
75 Oh yes of course - that regretable base human instinct to be concerned about the existence of racist bullying in prisons.
78. Of course we should be worried by racist bullying. Equally we should be worried by asylum seeker pedophiles. Neither are front page news, I’d have thought. Unless you’re pandering to readerly prejudice. As the Guardian clearly does.
It is as depressing and predictable a newspaper as the News of the World, in its own unique way.
77 Printz, these things only interest existing Labour voters, and then not by much.
Blairs secret has been to reach out to the wider voting public.
I see Blair is touring clinics to publicise the health white paper with Jeremy Corbyn…..he was expressing signs of rebellion even during the visit!
75. and 79. Entertaining as ever. I think that the reason that the Guardian considers itself morally superior is that it considers and reports the complexity of a story and knows that it’s readers understand that complexity, whereas the Mail panders to it’s reader’s simplicity. You’re right that each reinforces prejudice, but it’s the danger inherent in the prejudices that separates the papers.
The Mail prints a headline “Asylum seeker paedophile” and it reinforces the prejudice that all asylum seekers are evil nasty criminals intent on fiddling with kiddies, raping our girlfriends and destabilising our way of life. This inflames the hatred of readers and makes us a less pleasant, tolerant society and endangers genuine blameless asylum seekers. And (I know it was the News of the World’s fault) paedeatricians.
Their story damages our society.
The Guardian prints a headline “Racist attacks in jails”, and it reinforces their reader’s prejudice that prison guards aren’t the sort of person that you’d invite for an organic fair trade brunch next Sunday. Their story doesn’t damage our society.
But of course I’m the worst person to comment - a Guardian reading Tory! I used to read the Telegraph for the very reason you state; it made me feel safe and warm, reminded me that there are other people who think like I do; but it’s just too dumbed down now!
75. And on the C word issue, there was an amazing article in the Independent a couple of week’s ago where Germaine Greer discussed how she felt about the word. At the foot of the article was an explanatory note which said that the newspaper normally prints the word in full, if it is in context as a direct quote, but because the article was about the word they’d decided to produce it as c***. Which seems a weird and contradictory decision!
82. I take your well-made point, but I don’t quite agree. What the Daily Mail aims to do is confirm its readers anger and grumpiness… What the Guardian aims to do is reinforce its readers moral smugness and narcissism. I think the latter can be just as dangerous as the former.
Indeed, given that the Left has now been in power for eight years, and is the Establishment in all but name, I think the moral smugness of the Left is MORE dangerous to our society now than the grumpiness of the Right.
It is arguably Tony Blair’s moral smugness and narcissism, for instance, that led us into Iraq. He just knows he’s a nice guy, he’s a Guardian reading Christian, nothing he personally believes with such commitment could possibly be morally wrong, etc etc. And so we went into Iraq.
If the Guardian was a really radical paper, which it purports to be, it would challenge its readers views. Especially on things like race, gender, minorities, etc. It never does this. It is laughably unradical. It is a prissy and conservative organ dedicated to making its readers feel smug and nice about themselves, and giving them a little leg-up so they can sneer at the rest of us. It is petit bourgeois.
Marine Hyde is funny though.
83. Weird! I’m not sure I’ve ever seen the C word ever, in a newspaper, apart from when the Indy famously ran it - in their coverage of the Mike Gatting/ Pakistani umpire argument. But that was in the Sports pages, at the back.
It was quite shocking seeing it in full on the front page of the Grauniad.
Maybe I’m not getting out enough.
84 - I agree with you. I have bought the Guardian a couple of times recently to see the new format; also the Observer. I hated it. It’s just so dull and self-righteous. You’d never get somebody as barking mad, yet thoroughly entertaining, as Bruce Anderson (of the Indy) writing in the Guardian.
I’m certainly no Tory, but I’d rather take the Torygraph than the Grauniad.
We’ve had the argument so many times on here- but I persist in saying it wasn’t that Brown lacked the killer instinct- he didn’t actually WANT to be PM, he just wanted to be running the country. Which he has been doing since 1997. He wants to be PM eventually, and I’m sure he’ll be sorry if (when?) they lose the 2010 election. But he’s had most of what he wanted already.
As for when Blair will go, my money has always been on late December 2008 or January 2009, and I’m sure Brown wants that record broken as much as Tone does.
I agree with those who say that Brown won’t seem new, and the line the Cameroons will take is that he’s old hat. And no, he’s not going to excite anyone by his persona. But I suspect he will work hard to excite people by a whole new set of ideas (bribes, call them what you will), which is one reason the Cameroons are trying so hard to goad him into revealing his hand now- but he ain’t that stupid, is he?
As for the Blair-Brown thing, it’s just the same charade they’ve played all along. Is there anyone in the world who doesn’t yet realise that’s been a fix to keep people interested all along?
On the Grauniad - well, I would think it’s great, wouldn’t I, (despite its London-centrism)? But I may say that in the runup to the General Election, they ran a really good spread of views on the war.
O/T - but has anybody been following the progress of the Animal Welfare Bill. Apparently, the government will be issuing Codes of Conduct, setting out the “rights” which pets are entitled to.
Who else believes that no sane government should be bothering itself with this kind of trivia?
86. I agree with you, too. I’ve been checking out the Indy recently, and its much improved. Consistently more zestful and energetic than he Guardian, and much more surprising. Yet it clearly remaining a left wing paper. Which proves that not all leftwing papers have to be dreary, self regarding and smug. What’s more, the Indy is run on about a tenth of the budget of the Guardian (as any badly paid freelancer will tell you!).
Dunno what the Guardian’s problem is. But it sucks. They have quite a few talented journos and designers there, so its more a problem of ethos I think. It takes itself and its position as the organ-of-record for the governing classes too seriously. And it is deeply, deeply scared of upsetting its readers.
88. Sare, why would you think that? Er, you don’t work for the Grauniad, do you?
If so, shhh…. don’t snitch on me! I still pitch ideas to them daily.
Actually, it’s a fantastic paper. And Alan Rusbridger is the most virile man in london, so I’ve heard.
89. I love Animal Welfare debates, especially when Woddy tries to shout down people who disagree with her.
Btw, I think Tessa Jowell is wearing part of my grandmother’s sofa at the moment!
84. But if lefties wanted to be challenged they’d buy the Mail and if Tories wanted to be challenged they’d buy the Guardian (which I do). Of course newspapers give their readers what they want to read - they want to sell newspapers.
I’m happy to accept that moral righteousness is dangerous in a national leader, so therefore I agree that Guardian readers shouldn’t be put in charge of anything; but then neither should Daily Mail readers!!!!
89 - even at a local level, government interference is a disaster. My home town’s museum had a nice little natural history section with live mice, newts, bees, worms, fish etc. The local council (a Lib / Lab coalition) feared for the rights of the animals, so decreed some should be released into the wild, and the rest should be killed. Bit daft!
Leave it to the RSPCA. Don’t let government, local or national interfere. Is the Welsh agriculture minister still a vegetarian?
93 - not so; reading the Indy get challenged from the far right (Bruce Anderson) and the left (Johan Hari - who was also very pro-Iraq war).
89 Sean. But for the fact that MP’s post bags are stuffed silly from the “pets win prizes” brigade …….. get down Shep !!
OT. More news from the Tory front …….. are you wet or dry ….. no not politically … or rash for nappy wearing fetish Tory MPs !! ….. or indeed the contents of your cellar ……. Guessed yet …….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4661366.stm
94. That’s a great story!!! What they should have done is released all the animals within the museum in a locked room for a month. At the end of the month open the door and anything that survives has won it’s freedom!!!
Oops, sorry, Endemol Productions thought of that first didn’t they?
95. Do you really read all of them? I can assure you I never ever read Polly Toynbee - too bad for my blood pressure…
One can imagine that local councils will be set targets by the government for the number of people they successfully prosecute under the new Law. So some old lady who forgets to put her cat out at night will be a very soft target - and find herself being fined.
It will make no difference at all to real animal cruelty.
I agree with you Sean. The Government’s sentiments are right, but there is no way you should legislate for this sort of thing. After all who is going to enforce it. You are better off leaving this sort of thing to pet shops, vets and the RSPCA and encouraging them to remind pet owners of their duties.
93. Indeed. I think we should go back to the old days, when everybody who ran the country was recruited from the readership of The Times.
Heh.
Like you, I also buy the Guardian to challenge my own views - but recently I’ve found myself just more crushingly bored than challenged. You can just whip through it in a minute.
But anyway my point remains - the Guardian is not the left wing equivalent of The Times, it is morally and culturally inferior to the Times, which presents a consistently wide range of opinions and isn’t frightened of daring views on right or left; the Guardian is in fact on the level of the Daily Mail, it is the Daily Mail with a cultural studies degree from Lancaster University. Which I find richly ironic, given that the Mail is the paper the Guardian most loathes.
I might add, before I get sacked by all papers I work for (!), that, politics aside, the Mail is a brilliant paper at doing what it aims to do. It hasn’t got pretensions. And Dacre is probably the cleverest and most skilful editor on Fleet Street.
98. La Polly is a mustread! If you disagree with her, just read her column to make fun of her.
I can’t stand Nick Cohen!
98 - I certainly read those two; they are very entertaining.
Thats right Russel Torygraph readers like myself, who laugh at ourselves and criticise our own side should be in charge. Vote Penketh
101 - I hate the Mail, but I rate it very highly; it does what it does brilliantly, and sells by the bucket. It is also occasionally very courageous - it is the Mail that named Stephen Lawrence’s alleged killers.
25. If these are the odds then I suggest that you place your bet on GB now (even if this is not the outcome that YOU want).
19.”Labour supporters spend lots of time extolling the undoubted abilities that Brown has but to my mind he is a dour, dull Scot, who looks and sounds like a throwback to the world of black and white 1950’s politics.”
Perhaps to your mind as a Tory but - even if the total Tory vote goes up to say 38 - you are completely underestimating GB’s appeal to the 62% of voters who WILL NOT vote Tory, the vast majority of whom will be comfortable voting Labour with GB at the helm. Polls held today asking this question are worthless.
This “dour, dull Scot” stuff is metropolitan Notting Hill set Tory tripe and wholly self-deluding on your part. I don’t accept that the Chancellor is perceived as either dull or dour and cannot see why his being Scottish is relevant (although I accept that it worries him). No other British politican has such a positive and trustworthy persona. His very reticence in seeking the top job and his caution on so many matters - including his handling of personal matters - will play enormously to his advantage - people want a careful leader respected at home and abroad. A safe pair of hands not tarnished by Iraq. Cameron is saying don’t worry you will still be able to vote for Tony Blair by voting for me. The electorate’s answer is obvious. Soft Lib-Dem voters will have no reason to vote Lib-Dem anymore especially with the nu-Libs wanting to seem more Blairite than Cameron.
101 seanT. The Mail “hasn’t got pretensions”.
Except to be the unchallenged manifesto of every Tory leader that is !!
30. Mike I agree with you. The success of the New Labour project has been largely because of the combination of Blair as PM and Brown in the treasury. And despite the hype surrounding Gordon Brown I do not think he is as political astute as Blair.
Gordon Brown’s golden moment came and went in the last parliment when his popularity as a potential leader was at its peak.
Tony Blair will step down in the next couple of years and I have no doubt that when he does it will coincide with a drop in Gordon Brown’s popularity.
I think this lack of killer ambition/caution has also meant that he has stayed at the treasury to long. His popularity is so dependant on the success of the economy, that if it takes a serious downward turn over the next few years it damages his chances of becoming PM unchallenged and winning the next GE.
Do you suppose there are so many Tories on this site because the rest just give up because of where the political center of gravity lies? Sean T admiring the Daily Mail isn’t nearly as surprising as Russel defending the Guardian. Have you got any Italian friends like yourself Andrea who might help correct this serious political imbalance. Remember even Mussolini would be to the left of the likes of SeanT?
108. “Tony Blair will step down in the next couple of years and I have no doubt that when he does it will coincide with a drop in Gordon Brown’s popularity.”
Dream on …
109.”Have you got any Italian friends like yourself Andrea who might help correct this serious political imbalance. Remember even Mussolini would be to the left of the likes of SeanT? ”
Roger, what have I done now? I’m innocent!
I won’t comment on Jowell’s clothes anymore, I promise
Btw, Mussolini started as a member of the socialist party.
109 roger. Can’t you encourage some Labour chums to come and play ?? ……….. we could do with a few SNP bods, the odd Green type and a few Unionists ….. although the “Save Ulster from Sodomy” mob would have their work cut out with Andrea. ….. I understand the rampant Jacobite Party is also (over)represented.
Roger, sweet. Always good to have you on board to bring some much needed clarity! And the syntax of your posts is always so refreshingly different and original.
Actually, if you read what I said, I admired the Mail ‘politics aside’. i.e. as a well-put-together and skilfully edited paper. Which it unquestionably is. Ask any journo. Or any newsagent.
Per Hughes website - looks as if he has lost the support of a Parliamentarian - he did have 18, but now only 17. But he still has 10 MPs. Not sure who has gone - probably an MSP.
But he’s still adding supporters - now got over 1,000 - still well in the lead.
A question about the 2006 local elections. Will the Tory strategy be based on maximising Council wins or on total number of net councillor gains? Looking through the list there are significant number of councils that’ll turn on a few seats in 06 which will make the picture look good for Cameron. However what number of seats they gain is yet to be seen. Does anyone have the total figures for the number of councils / councillors up and their current status? Cheers, Tone.
“Do you suppose there are so many Tories on this site because the rest just give up because of where the political center of gravity lies? Sean T admiring the Daily Mail isn’t nearly as surprising as Russel defending the Guardian. Have you got any Italian friends like yourself Andrea who might help correct this serious political imbalance. Remember even Mussolini would be to the left of the likes of SeanT?”
Am I the only one struggling to understand a single word of this?
115 - Hammersmith and Fulham has a huge number of marginal seats. Although it is 29 Lab 17 Con - I believes it’s down to a total of a few hundred votes across the borough.
115 - there are 1861 London borough seats and 815 (give or take by-elections) in the metropolitan boroughs, and another couple of thousand in the districts and unitaries. Net councillor gains is a meaningless statistic because the baselines are all different - 2002 in London and some districts, 2004 in the mets and some other districts. Council control is more significant.
There are lots of wards in Hammersmith & Fulham that are very marginal - a relatively small swing could see 15 change hands (blame also London’s silly block first-past-the-post system). It would be astonishing if Labour did keep control of H&F.
116 Julian H. I may be wrong …..(Yes it has been known !) but I think Roger is implying that as the centre of politics lies with Nu Lab and its’ philosophy then the over-represetation of Tories (and I would say Lib Dems) on the site discourages governmemt supporters from bothering here.
Alternatively it might be a load of boll**ks !!
“Am I the only one struggling to understand a single word of this?”
Probably not Julian. I’ve just re-read it and I’m struggling!
………But yes Jack has it about right!
119. Ah, well deciphered Jack. I still don’t understand though - does being of the “centre ground” (assumed in this case to be Nu Lab) make people timid, and thus unprepared to risk facing the vicious tirades exchanged on this message board?
P.S. Can I assume we’ll all be purchasing SeanT’s latest novel?
Lewis: (blame also London’s silly block first-past-the-post system)
Why is this silly? People have the right under this system to split their votes. Norwich used this system for the first time in 2004. People who liked a local Tory candidates but wanted to vote Labour could do so etc. People could vote 2 LibDems and 1 Tory if they wished. Being able to split a FPTP sounds good to me. After all a close friend of mine liked the Tory candidate here at the general election but couldn’t vote for the national Tory party. If that were a block FPTP system, she’s have been able to split her vote.
123. Why do you suppose it’ll be any more readable than my 109?
Don’t answer that……..
121 roger. “……..But yes Jack has it about right!”
Really ?!?!!? ……. Para 1 or 2 or a mix of both ??
122. Julian. Nu Lab are the masters now !! and don’t give a toss about message boards. Long live the King ….. for now !!
115. From my experience of local elections, a Tory “strategy”, i.e. someone at the centre deciding what to try and do, can’t possibly exist. The Conservative Party is a devolved party, and although CCH might try to offer a little extra support in some places, most Council elections will be decided on the efficacy of the local party. Some are excellent and punch above their weight, other are clueless. Nothing David Cameron can do about it.
According to the Newsnight Review team your 109 post would likely be considered a “boisterous return to postmodern ideals”.
123. Thanks Julian! Never being one to pass up a chance of self-promotion, i’d just like to say that my next book isn’t actually a novel - but a memoir. Millions of Women are Waiting to Meet You, Bloomsbury Books, May 2006.
But yes I am expecting a spectacular surge of interest from pb.commers. Indeed I have set aside a volume of the special luxury gold-tooled edition just for Roger. He’s a bit of a fan.
Professor Ashley @ 106. In a recent Readers Digest poll on the most trusted people in Britain the most trustworthy politician was Glenda Jackson at number 45. GB was languishing somewhere below TB and Thatch (peace and blessings be upon her) in the mid 100s. However, if we redefine the ‘trustworthiness cycle’ so that it starts at 120 we find that GB is, indeed, perceived as highly trustworthy.
129. But Sean, your blog doesn’t publicise your previous books very well - where can we find them? I enjoyed the “Hot Chicks I’ve Slept With” bit though - Mariella Frostrup?!
127 - Largely true, I think, but there are some situations (e.g. London) where effort is transferable. I imagine there will be a fair flow of Conservative activists out of Wandsworth and into H&F and Merton.
124 - I think block FPTP is silly because it is:
- even more disproportional than normal FPTP (in 4 of the 32 London boroughs, the party with the second highest share of the vote won an overall majority);
- enables parties to win all the seats in quite a large area with only 30-35% of the vote;
- makes it possible for a voter in using those three votes to help defeat a candidate they support.
I agree that there are times when people will want to split their votes, but block FPTP is so much less efficient at enabling this than STV. The fact that it’s used, by the way, gives the lie to many objections to STV - that it’s too complicated for the voter to handle and that multi member wards are unworkable.
Block FPTP is also a very annoying system when it comes to working out percentage shares of the vote!
75. If the Guardian is “the moral clitoris of their readership” does that make sean T the immoral clitoris of our writership?
Re: FPTP - what percentage of the vote did the Lib Dems get in Richmond (London) when they got 49 out of 52 seats? Less than 50 I think.
How often has the party with the most votes in Croydon, ended up not running the council? (remember Croydon is a two party areas - Lib Dems don’t get seats here.)
131. Remarkable as it may seem, not all my books have been international bestsellers.
Yes, I know, a cruel injustice. Indeed so savage is the injustice, I believe at least one of my earlier books may be out of print. Ye Gods!
But if you are really keen, they are: Absent Fathers, Kissing England, and The Cheek Perforation Dance (three novels published by Andre Deutsch, Flamingo and Flamingo, respectively).
Good luck. You may need it to find all of them. Or any of them.
By contrast, I’m hoping the memoir will be annoyingly ubiquitous - indeed, its being serialised by the Mail on Sunday if you want to save the cost of buying it in toto. Roger has asked me to send him three signed copies of the relevant issues of the MoS, even though he already takes the Mail every day. Fans!
34, certainly under 50%.
Croydon was won by Labour in each of 1994, 1998, and 2002, despite winning significantly fewer votes than the Conservatives. 2002 produced several odd results like that; Labour also won Hammersmith, Merton and Bexley while polling fewer votes than the Conservatives, and won more seats in Harrow (but not overall control) even though the Conservatives won 50% of the vote.
Hammersmith and Bexley are, I should think, write offs for Labour in May.
136 - as we have said, FPTP is particularly rubbish in local elections.
I asked about this earlier but it fell on stony ground;
The Indy, on Saturday, had a comment piece which said that labour had done internal polling showing that lib dem votes were being lost equally to tories and labour and that they saw this as a worrying sign. I don’t have access to the online version so can anyone repeat that particular paragraph here?
Surely someone else must have read it (given the praise that that august organ has received on this thread!).
More than anything that snippet of information made me sit up and take note, I suppose the Curtice ‘poll of polls’ was just number crunching and, given it said the opposite, I was wondering if it was lazily reflecting received wisdom as opposed to changes on the ground?
138. Jackie Ashley’s piece in the Guardian today claimed that Labour’s internal polling showed switchers from the Lib Dems going two to one for the Tories. So basically three different places say three different things; perhaps polling isn’t all that reliable and consistent; shock, horror.