Is Charles Clarke the man to tell Blair to go?
March 23rd, 2006
-
Should the “men in grey suits do their duty”?
After all the pressure on Tony Blair over the “loans for honours” row yesterday’s budget must have felt like a welcome respite. But this morning the left-wing magazine, the New Statesmen, joins the growing list of newspapers and magazines which are calling for an early Tony Blair departure.
This is not yet available online but according to Newsnight it says that “the men in grey suits must do their duty” - a suggestion that senior party members should take him aside and suggest that for the good of the party he should make way for a successor.
-
The programme also says that in an article in the magazine the former Young Liberal Leader, Peter Hain, suggests that the only person who is in a position to tell the Prime Minister to go is the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke.
The problem with this is that Clarke has been a long-standing opponent of Gordon Brown and it’s questionable whether he would make such a move to help the Chancellor. Clarke has also been talked of as a candidate himself though he has recently said that he would back Brown.
An intriguing thought is that if Clarke became the assassin he could put himself into contention. The Home Secretary would have done what others, including Brown, had not had the stomach for and this could be rewarded.
Everything depends on whether “the loans for honours” row burns itself out or will there be further revelations? The Sunday papers could be interesting.
On the markets the Blair’s departure date betting is After January 1 2008 3.2/1: April-June 2006 5.8/1: Oct-Dec 2006 6.6/1: Jul-Sep 2006 4.4/1. So of the 2006 departure periods July-September is favourite.
The Budget has led to no changes in the Next Labour Leader betting. Brown 0.34/1. Miliband 10/1 Johnson 22/1 Milburn 25/1 Benn 25/1 Clarke 37/1
It is very hard to see anybody but Brown doing it and as soon as there’s a whiff of Blair going that 0.34/1 price will tighten considerably. Blair is a remarkable survivor and that 3.2/! on him staying at Number 10 for another 21 months might start to be tempting. I cannot read this and am keeping my money in my pocket.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
It’s not looking good for TB that’s for sure. I really can’t see him staying on until the conference though he’d probably want to. The press are hero worshipping GB this morning which tells us more about their view of the Labour leadership than it does about the budget. The only question now is how to ease Tony out without humiliating him.
One word of caution re Gordon and the budget. As I posted yesterday morning, the reception of it the day after and the reception on the Sunday following are two different things. If anyone remembers the furore over the pensioners’ 75p a week increase a few years ago, it may be made to look like a tea party now that the £200 a year pensioners’ Council Tax rebate has been scrapped.
I’ve posted consistently that GB will take over because he holds all the aces in terms of party, parliamentary and union support. I’ve also said that there’s no credible alternative. If Blair goes soon (ie this year), that remains the case. But if not - and frankly, as a Tory, I know, removing a sitting PM who’s won three elections causes all sorts of problems for the future - there is just about time for someone else to come through. I really can’t see the Labour Party picking a younger version of Blair eg Miliband - thin pope, fat pope etc - and the odds on Clarke do look appealing as a fallback position if GB falters.
Fungus for PM - watch out you drycleaners.
With apologies to those who haven’t read Briggs.
I never tire of that Charles Clarke picture - thanks Mike.
I love that picture!
Interesting to see Mike having doubts over Ming and wondering if Vince Cable could be leader-I posted on here that Cable would be my choice the day before Kennedy resigned. For me he has Huhne’s gravitas but with far better communication. I would still like to see him as Deputy leader.
Out of the budget, the big thing for me (well ok not personally) was the loss of the pensioners’ tax credit. Surely this is an open door for the opposition who can talk in terms of bribes and Labour only caring about pensioners in election year?
And I went canvassing for the first time last night….cold and hard work, but will probably do it again soon!
Hilary Benn is looking very attractive at those odds. He probably won’t be the next Labour leader. but some money in now looks a good idea. The odds are sure to shorten over the coming weeks and months.
BV 4. Thanks to PB.C it is now the top picture when you do an image search for Charles Clarke on Google.
I have to admit that when I heard the reference to Clarke on Newsnight last night my immediate reaction was - I can use the gun picture in the morning.
BBC “Jack Straw to make important announcement shortly” - more soon. What can it be?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4836024.stm
Chair of Capita has quit over Blair loans for contracts allegations.
It does not look good!
More on above from SBS:
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is to make an “important announcement” shortly, the BBC has been told.
There are currently no details about the subject of his statement, which is expected at about 0900 GMT.
—
Wonder if it really will be “important”, or if it is just NuLab doublespeak for some gimmick.
Seems it is something to do with the three western hostages, reports they have been freed. No resignation then!
just about to post about Straw, but I see you’re ahead of the game.
9. But SBS, surely Roger has made it clear that it is ludicrous to suggest there have been any cash for contracts deals!
So what do people make of the press coverage - DC seems to get a pretty decent right up in the papers I’ve seen so far - Scotsman, Telegraph, Times, the Sun - even Jonathan Freedland is quite nice about him. A lot say he was perhaps too loud and agresive but also saying quite impressive overall. Not bad for a first attempt.
One thing to bear in mind is that the New Statesman has been calling for Blair to go for at least three years, so the opposite editorial line would have been more shocking.
14. Only the Independent as far as I can see has really looked at any of the numbers in the budget. They have noted that the budget report predicts a sharp slowdown in the rate of growth of public spending in the next few years, which risks causing noticeable deteriorations in public services by the time of the next election. I would add that the slowdown could well be even greater than currently planned as the revenue side of the budget projections is still based on very optimistic growth forecasts.
Conclusions - Brown would do well to get out of the Chancellor’s office asap and dump this dungheap on someone else. The Conservatives could have a nice avenue of attack along the lines of ‘Labour has run out of money’ but will have to think hard about their alternative tax policies.
Well Max Simon Hoggart thought Camerons smile at the end of his rant reminded him of his cat’s backside which I think sums up what most writers made of Camerons performance yesterday. If you are a fan of the Tories I’m sure you’d be jumping up and down. If you were a normal person you might wonder why he couldn’t resist resorting to insult
17 - As a normal person I frequently wonder why you can’t resist resorting to insult Roger.
18. Because he has nothing else to offer Max.
“The press are hero-worshipping the Chancellor this morning” - Roger.
Rodge, old fellow, I see that last night you made a comment about partisan posts, and how you find them objectionable. Ahem.
Do you not think a teensy-weensy bit of partisanship has crept int your perception of Brown’s coverage? Just a tiny little of bias? Just a scintilla of prejudice? Just a… etc etc.
The BBC’s headline this morning - the first I’ve read - is ‘Brown Silence on NHS Criticised’.
Just rewatched Campbell’s response. Some observations:-
1) The jokes fell flat - but then if he had 200 MPs in his party there, there may well have been some of the forced laughs heard when Brown and Cameron spoke. After all, political jokes are not generally funny.
2) If you shut your eyes, the content of the speech was very good. It really tore into the budget. Vince Cable I expect had a lot to do with it.
3) In the past nobody has paid the blindest notice that what Liberal Democrat leaders have had to say. No analysis was ever done to what Ashdown, Kennedy, and in one case Cable said. But this time, at least the political commentators are sitting up and paying some attention to the content, whilst some are rubbishing the delivery. That in itself is progress. One of the reasons for this was that Cameron’s brash, polished performance was content-lite.
4) This all bodes well for the future. There is starting to develop an edge to LD policy, especially in economic issues.
5) I expect Labour to be very badly hit by the lack of council tax rebate for the elderly.
We all know that the elderly are much more likely to turn out for a General Election. What are the comparitive figures for local elections? Is the differential larger or smaller. If larger, it is very bad indeed for Labour.
21 - Sort of agree on the jokes. Although I didn’t think any of them were particularly good though. It does seem easy to be a funny MP without actually being that amusing - Stephen ‘I’m mad I am’ Pound is a good example of this. And It’s definately easier to get a laugh - forced or otherwise - if you have a load of your mates behind you.
20 seanT. Criticised by who ???? and it turns out to be none other than Conservative Health Spokesman Andrew Lansley
Oh and then Lansley laughably says that Brown and the Treasury “have abandoned the NHS” My chuckle muscles are doing overtime on that one. As the Tories opposed the extra cash for the NHS as “reckless” one might wonder what words we’d use for the Tories …. forsaken, deserted, discarded etc etc.
Overblown critisism from the Tories only brings their line of attack into disrepute. A more thoughtful line would come over much better me thinks.
21. Sorry SBS I think the idea that the Lib Dems are developing some kind of ‘edge’ on economic issues is really wishful thinking. Hand wringing about consumer debt, an ‘unfair’ tax system and inequalities in wealth does not constitute a serious programme for economic improvement. Nor does the ‘green’ tax stuff dreamt up by Chris Huhne, which from a cost perspective is totally unrealistic. There is a massive amount of work to do in this area.
24 Fred. You really do have more front than Blackpool !! …. is there any prospect of a Tory economic policy this side of the next Nicholas Soames diet book ??
24 - Jack I notice the absence of the term ‘piss poor’ in any of our national press WRT Cameron. Some very nice comments about him from George Pascoe-Watson in the Sun amongst others.
“Mr Speaker, he is in the past!” Mr Cameron sat down with a tight little circular smile that, I regret to say, reminded me of our cat’s backside.
The last line of Simon Hoggarts article. Sorry you find it offensive Max!
Re. the press there is a thoughtful contribution from Peter Riddell in the Times today. His article highlights the political risks that now loom for Brown because of the need to rein in spending in the face of the deteriorating fiscal position, and suggests health could become Labour’s poll tax.
23. You don’t think the Chancellor’s complete failure to mention the NHS is a little telling, then? On the day when London hospitals announce a thousand more beds to close, a £700m cash shortfall, etc etc etc.
The NHS is spinning towards crisis, and the architect of that crisis, Gordon ‘Brilliant’ Brown - with his ill-thought-through largesse and socialistic mindset - saw fit not to mention this in his BUDGET SPEECH.
And it ain’t just the Tories who are on his case. Peter Riddell, an annoyingly fair minded commentator, has this headline in the Times today:
“Why so quiet about the NHS? Health threatens to become Labour’s poll tax.”
NHS funding is now a major issue. Because Labour have cocked it up. They’ve taken billions off us, and hosed the NHS with the cash, and now look on in wonder as the money dries up and nothing really seems to have changed. And people are aware of this.
Like I say, I have been in and out of hospitals a lot recently (pregnant diabetic partner, etc etc) - nothin really seems to have changed. Casualty waits are still many hours, the escalators still don’t work at the Whittington, &c. What has changed is that my GP makes nearly £100,000 a year, though I still have to sit in a crowded waiting room for hours to see her, and i can’t get an appointment for weeks.
Its rubbish. Its a rubbish waste of money. And the electorate are wise to it. Its not just the Tories who are angry about the NHS. If you believe it is just the Tories cooking it up, then you, as a passionate Labour supporter, and in for a shock at the next hustings.
20. SeanT. take a walk to your local newsagent and take a look at the headlines.
26 Max. You clearly haven’t read the “Jacobite Times” this morning !!
And as for Pissedoff-Watsit never has a man struggled so manfully against his Conservative instincts to undertake his masters instructions. How he must be chaffing against the bit awaiting Murdoch nod against NuLabour that isn’t coming anytime soon.
On the press coverage, it’s interesting that Cameron had a good press from the FT.
I stopped taking the FT in protest at it’s left-wing politics a couple of years ago.
The New Statesman wants TB to go? In further breaking news, I can reveal that Ian Paisley has decided not to turn Catholic…
I don’t think the general public will have registered Cameron and Campbell one way or the other: their vague impression will simply be that the Budget was good for schools and otherwise pretty neutral. The reason the non-repeat of the £200 reduction to compensate for past council tax rises is not being heavily featured is that this bullet has already been fired at the General Eleection - it was announced as a one-off, and the Opposition pushed the ‘temporary bribe’ line then. I’d expect the usual post-Budget poll result: “Reasonably good for Britain, not good for me personally”. But the party standings will be interesting. I predict level pegging again, +/-3, with LDs down a bit.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1053-2098995,00.html
For those who like SeanT and Fred didn’t bother to read Peter Riddels article (Which needless to say doesn’t resemble their precis!)
27 - No Roger your sugestion that all Tories were not ‘normal’ was what I found offensive - although I’m almost certain you know this.
33.”The New Statesman wants TB to go? In further breaking news, I can reveal that Ian Paisley has decided not to turn Catholic…”
oh God, Nick Palmer doesn’t want TB to go…what a shock! what next? Liz Taylor re-marrying?
sorry for the harsh comment, but it’s the second time in a couple of weeks Nick labels the opinion of the someone who asks TB to go as “he always says it, it’s not news” without failing to note that someone could say the same thing to his opinion.
Sorry Fred. I shouldn’t have lumped you in with seanT. I’ve just re-read your post and you might well have read it. SeanT hasn’t!
Apologies Max. Put it down to my inarticulacy. I meant Tory anoraks as opposed to normal people. Not Tory voters.
31 - It’s not just him though Jack - Freedland in the Guardian is pretty positive, as was the Telegraph as was the Times as was the Scotsman.
29 seanT. I have no doubt that the NHS requires ground up reform that Labour and the Tories are unwilling to implement …. let alone the Lib Dems.
My own families recent experience of the NHS has been excellent. The Dowager Lady Jack W was extremely poorly (now largely recovered) and I have nothing but praise for the outstanding and timely treatment she received from start to finish. However I am sure that others like yourself have had different experiences in an organization that treats millions every year.
In addition to suggest that the NHS will be Labour’s poll tax is so fanciful and laughable as to defy analysis. The Tories have not just to critisize the NHS but to come up with credible alternative policies …… back to the Soames diet book syndrome I think.
Fair enough Roger - although I do think you can be a member of a political party and a normal person!
31: Jack, I thought Pascoe Watson was a Brown fan and Kavanagh was a Tory
Er, Roger, yes I read it. The piece is a very cool analysis of Brown’s time helming the NHS, and says the Cameron-Brown positions on the matter are fairly close, and Cameron should come up with some new ideas.
I wasn’t really arguing that. What I was saying is that Riddell has (correctly, to my mind) pointed out that the NHS is no longer a vote winner for Labour, and is in grave danger of becoming a serious vote loser. The piece concludes by referring to Brown’s ‘ambiguous’ legacy as a Chancellor, and, ominously, that the ‘days of plenty are over’.
Riddell is, I’d say, a europhile centrist Christian Democrat whose instincts, therefore, are probably closer to Blairite NuLabour than any other leader/party. His criticism of Brown is very telling.
42. AnnaK, you really like that article about Charles Clarke, do you?
40 Jack W you have a fair point. The NHS is facing meltdown over the next 20 years.
If you give something valuable away then demand for it will be infinite.
As healthcare becomes less and less geared towards curing people who are sick and instead keeping people alive at all costs the healthcare demands on an ever shrinking working population by the ever growing non working elderly will become intolerable.
Everybody knows this. Everybody knows that this situation is being made much worse by the PFI’s and NHS employee pension commitments that will continue to cost more and more in the future; but no politicians are yet prepared to face up to the implications.
The patients passport was an honest attempt to broach the subject yet Conservatives now recognise it was the only policy that bombed at the election - because the other two parties used it to beat us over the head with.
Unless the three main parties stop using the NHS for party political point scoring and get down to work out a solution I’m afraid the time-bomb will just tick on.
40. Jack W - fair enough. And I don’t want to come across as someone violently anti-NHS; some of my fiancee’s experiences with the NHS have also been very good (scans and ultrasounds for instance). I personally believe very strongly in the NHS; at its best it is a wonderful system, staffed by fab people (etc etc).
But something is just not quite right. We’ve spent more on the system in the last few years than we ever have before, by a long chalk, and it just… doesn’t feel like that. Slight improvements. A mild amelioration of the socialist squalor. And that’s it.
And I’m still peeved that GPs are earning so much. It’s too much. And they do private work as well. Gah.
I also think GPs earn too much. However, we keep hearing there’s a shortage, so I guess that we need to pay that much as it is “the market rate”. What can we do about that?
47 - Am not sure, but I think a part of the problem is that money alone is not a suitable incentive - I can’t think of any of my friends that are going through Medical training that are doing so because of that £100K salary at the end, they are doing it because they want to help people, are interested in how the human body works etc etc. Sure, if the salary was only £20k then I’m sure less would be doing it, but I suspect that we are now some way above the point of inelasticity.
47. In a system based on rationing, there will always apparently be shortages of everything. That is the essence of how command economies work (or rather don’t work). Massive excess demand for a free product means massive excess demand for all the inputs needed to produce it - doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical equipment etc. etc. It also means, inevitably, waiting lists - however they might be disguised.
You can disguise this for a while, as GB has done, by lavishing the system with huge rises in funding. But soon enough this cash will be absorbed and you will be back to square one.
45/46 Marcus/seanT.
…. Agreement !!
Perhaps a Royal Commission and all party consensus on the issue is required. The difficulty is politics. Labour know it’s an ace issue for them still and the Tories still can’t get any viable leverage on the issue, but still hope to use the issue to beat the government with. So stalemate ensues.
I personally don’t think GP’s earn too much and I don’t come from any medical background on this. I tend to be one of those people who believe earnings should either be in line with either entrepeneurship or the complexity of work you have to do, as indicated by the training you have to go through. Medics have to spend six years studying and then a couple of years working in hospitals where salaries aren’t that great before they can even become GP’s and that’s if they survive medical school. They also as GP’s have to do a lot of work outside surgeries. Therefore I think they should be paid well. The only disagreement I would have though, is that pay should be set locally rather than nationally.
The same argument I would use for accountants/lawyers even footballers, who have to consistently perform at a very high level and take numerous examinations (in footballer’s case trials) before they reach the top with many dropping out. When they get they they have to perform at a consistently high level over long hours (well maybe not footballers in terms of hours) and therefore deserve to be well remunerated.
What irritates me is when you get people working part-time for various quango’s who get whopping salaries, for not very much work or necessarily on the basis of that much talent (more who they know).
Yes. Politicians are never going to be able to sort this out - as long as the NHS is controlled day to day by elected representatives we are forever going to have treatment-for-he-who-shouts-loudest; the Herceptin cases recently were an ideal demonstration.
My comment at 52 was to JackW at 50 by the way.
The tide is definitely turning in The (New Labour) Times:
- “Brown a meddlesome micro-manager” and “sleight-of-hand merchant”
- “does little to satisfy Britain’s long term interests”
- Brown premiership “already hampered”
- references to “the digital age” (DC comments obviously resonated)
- “it was a relief so discover that David Cameron’s oratorical 4×4 has a fifth gear - the torque was impressive”
- “high octane Tory attack”
- Mr Cameron “was the revelation. He shot up to the dispatch box like a bat out of Hell. He was shouting! He was screaming! It was an attack speech that was so aggressive that it should have been wearing a studded collar. It was eight minutes long and absolutely riveting.”
How’s about that then Roger?
The NHS is a shambles inasmuch as it is very poor value for money. GB should carry some of the can because of his enthusiasm for micro-managing it. That requires staticians and reports in order for him to do so. That looks (accurately) like more paperwork and more non-frontline staff.
He used to claim that he wasn’t going to allow big increases to the NHS funding without ensuring ‘the people had value for money’. His approach, although a genuine attempt at improvements, has not worked.
TB’s attitude is to involve the private sector. This is fine as far as it goes, but that isn’t actually very far.
The tories have few fresh ideas, because they believe (probably correctly) that any serious changes to the NHS are vote losers for them.
Impasse. But we need FPTP because it leads to strong govt, which can take unpopular but sound decisions. Not here, it doesn’t.
Funny, I recall Mike Smithson said he found the “c*ampagne” joke of Brown pretty pathetic……today in “my” (I mean the one I usually read) Italian newspaper (La Repubblica, btw), the journalist stressed that particular comment and it seems he liked it very much……..ah, he described Brown’s performance as “brilliant, funny and convincing” and he “destroyed Cameron”. He finished the article saying that Brown could do a better job than Blair.
Naturally it’s a centre-left newspaper….and they seem to like Brown (considering they sometimes print some translations of his speeches)
Funny, I recall Mike Smithson said he found the “champagne” comment of Brown pretty pathetic……today in “my” (I mean the one I usually read) Italian newspaper (La Repubblica, btw), the journalist stressed that particular comment and it seems he liked it very much……..ah, he described Brown’s performance as “brilliant, funny and convincing” and he “destroyed Cameron”. He finished the article saying that Brown could do a better job than Blair.
Naturally it’s a centre-left newspaper….and they seem to like Brown (considering they sometimes print some translations of his speeches)
56/57. ops, sorry, but that comment was moderated earlier and I was trying to find out what word was responsible of the ban!
After the **** he’s made of himself over Jack Dromey, is there anyone at all who takes CC seriously about anything at all?
I suppose if you were Shrek’s donkey and had forgotten your spectacles. . . . .
57 Andrea What do you expect when you read The Lenin Times?
Re: Cable as leader, I can see why people are saying that, but it wouldnt be a good move. I love Vince - I think he has done wonders for the party’s economic policy. He has given the party economic credibility unheard of in the 80’s and 90’s. He is great in one-on-one talks (like Ming) and honest personal interactions with voters, but a dynamic leader he aint. He’s got a slightly whiney voice and has less charisma than Ming (cue laughter).
I would also be worried with him as deputy, as then the party really does look like it is lead by old men. I favour David Heath, who is funny and bombastic, aswell as very solid on home affairs. And he reminds me of Brian Blessed, who I love! A worthy addition to the Flash Gordon Saga, with Ming… “Ah Well, who wants to live forever? DIIIIIVE!!
59 -
So is Brown his ‘Princess Fiona’ - beautiful until Clarke gets in the way and then changes to an ogre! 
[49] Fred, I appreciate you probably wrote that before post [48], but “massive excess demand” is an assumption, not a fact, about any “free good” - you wouldn’t say that there is “massive excess demand” for air - well maybe you would…
***
If I were a Labour campaign manager for the May locals I’d be far more worried about “Labour’s £4 a week pension cut” headlines on every “In Touch” and “Focus” pamphlet in the land.
61. Blue2win….if my interpretation of your comment is right, well, you don’t even deserve a reply.
61. Mark (and other LDs)…who do you think he’s the favourite for the Deputy Leader position?
61 - David Heath would be good. But I feel that Matthew Taylor has been lurking in the shadows for too long recently. He needs to be brought out into daylight. I certainly would not have wanted him as leader, but he is still relatively young (42) and has been in Parliament for 19 years. We need somebody youngish to counterbalance Ming. Somebody to pick up the kind of support CK did. That is precisely why Cable, for all his virtues, is so wrong. I know MT is not popular with fellow MPs, but he has a lot to offer still.
Mr Camerons eight minutes seems to have sounded like an out of control rant in the chamber and an effective demoltion job on the telly. Perhaps 400 - 500 heard it in the chamber 4000 - 5000 in full on the TV.
But it does sound as if they really dont like Brown.
Andrea You seem to be having sense of humour failures recently. If you dish it out be prepared to receive it back.
66. I see Heath more than Taylor in terms of “Charlie’s appel”
65 - Cable is closest to Campbell (although Taylor was also a supporter). Taylor lost the chairmanship of the parliamentary party to Holmes after the general election so query his support among MPs.
I would say Cable is favourite although on a pure popularity poll, Heath would probably beat him as he is hugely respected by colleagues and the wider party.
68. Blue2win, it’s that I sometimes fail to understand your (I mean British) sense of humor.
Then I didn’t dish it out anything….I just reported the content of an article.
you really want a reply, ok:
“I expect from “The Lenin Times” comments as balanced as yours”
are you satisfied now? I didn’t really want to post it, but you asked.
67. I think the telly numbers would be much higher than 4,000 to 5,000. Viewers for BBC One Budget special… 750,000? N24… 50,000? Sky… 60,000? And that doesn’t take into account the clips run on the main bulletins that each pull in around 5m viewers.
Given a choice of which audience I’d rather impress… bit of a Prescott* really.
*(no-brainer)
re 40. I agree with Jack on the Tories and the NHS. Poll after poll has shown that this is as solid a Labour issue as you can get and that the Tories are not trusted on it. It’s going ot take a long time before that view changes.
It will be interesting to see the post-budget polls, particularly if they ask the “if Brown was PM” question. My guess is that Labour under GB will now poll ahead of the main voting intention.
Reflecting on the past 24 hours the most significant elemement has been the way Brown is presenting himself. He has clearly taken on board the criticisms about his style and he is talikng at much less of a rate. I thought he was reasonbly good on the Today Programme this morning.
55. David - I am afraid you are right; any major reform of the health system in the UK would undoubtedly be a massive political gamble. In my opinion there will have to be a cross party consensus before any real changes occur.
63. Innocent - if you are really interested in these matters, then may I suggest you read Janos Kornai’s ‘Economics of Shortage’ (1976) or any of his successor works for perhaps the best exposition how command economy systems malfunction.
66 - Having said that I think that Heath will probably get it, just ahead of Cable. MT will lurk on the backbenches (having been noticably ignored in Ming’s appointments). Or MT will take over responsibilities of whoever of Cable or Heath is elected. (Another reason I don’t want Cable as deputy is he is just so good as a Shadow Chancellor - I certainly don’t want MT going back to that job).
There was discussion on potential speakers yesterday should Martin step down as speaker. Haselhurst is 69 this year; other deputies Sylvia Heal and Michael Lord are 64 and 68, so I don’t think it will be any of them if or when the time comes. I daresay Malcolm Rifkind would like it, but too strident a voice perhaps. Patrick Cormack anybody?
If Martin wanted to step down as speaker, but stay as MP, would he have to defect from Speaker to Labour, or force a by-election?
Andrea My apologies, I forgot the language issue that I of all people should not.
The implication of what I said is that as you say you are a left winger you may be reading left wing newspapers that would be naturally more sympathetic to Labour than Tory.
My post was meant to be a light hearted way of suggesting that.
67 - I thought quite the reverse - that it went down well in the chamber but poorly (somewhat hysterical) on TV. But its all taste I suppose.
67 - I caught the 10pm news last night having not seen the live coverage (other than the comments here…) and noticed something about Camerons media management:
When you saw clips of Brown, you had Prezza and Blair in shot behind him, Prezza struggling to stifle yawns most of the time. Not a particularly attractive proposition. Contrast this with Camerons side - the other Torys in shot were Boy George and Theresa Villiers (in a very bright blue suit with a noticeable short skirt). Much more attractive. I realise that as far as politics goes it matters not a single iota, but I do think that for people who only watch the news occassionaly you start to get the idea that the Torys are starting to look young and attractive and a prospect to be able to vote for again.
76. Blue2win, I said that it was a leftwing newspaper and that they seem to like Brown in previous articles too.
But they were pretty sympathetic with DC too with some articles about how the tories are changing and how he’s electable.
But it seems they sometines just cut and past a Guardian’s article!
75 - I don’t think there is anything to stop him staying as an MP - he was elected albeit only with SNP and SSP opposition. Betty Boothroyd chose to stand down and force a by-election though, didn’t she?
Enjoy democracy while you can.
78. The comparison with Prescott would always be flattering of course. What would represent a change is if Blair too was seen as a tired old has-been.
78. in his first PMQs’ outing, it was reported that DC wanted tory women to sit behind him. Unfortunely Forth was already sitting there and he told them to find another place to sit!
Btw, I thought Gideon and Villiers were sitting there, becuase they’re the shadow chancellor and Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
It’s like Ming who had Goldsworthy near him.
I see Burstow been Younger-Ross to be chief whip for the LDs. Don’t suppose there are too many secrets left for MPs to confide in him.
75 - why does the Speaker (and Deputies) have to be a sitting MP? Always thought it daft that their constituents have someone who cannot represent them on the floor or in the division lobbies of the House.
Although I suppose it’s preferable to having businessmen bung a bit of wedge in Tony’s direction and let the highest bidder chair proceedings…
80.”I don’t think there is anything to stop him staying as an MP - he was elected albeit only with SNP and SSP opposition. ”
He had other opponents: Socialist Labour Party (their candidate did well), BNP, Scottish Unionist Party and an Independent
Scottish Unionist Party are Scotland’s answer to the Ulster Unionists. Very Orange.
86. why is the Speaker unchallenged by main parties? ok, I know, the tradition and all….but if I live in the Speaker’s constituency and I think he’s crap, why shouldn’t I have the opportunity to send him home?
84. SBS, but shouldn’t they tell him all the secrets already confessed to Stunnell now?
87 they polled 4.5%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/703.stm
I would love to see tha barcharts when the speaker stands down
Like I said yesteday I thought Cameron was good in a difficult situation.
From what I saw of Des Brown ,Cable and Osborne’s tour of the news shows, I thought Cable came out best largely because he was able to offer policies he appeared confident with and seemed relaxed that ‘god forbid’ they may be unpopular in some sectors.
Osborne was a lamb to the slaughter but not necessarily his fault , after all what exactly is he meant to say if he cant describe any alternative policies yet ?
It got me thinking later that maybe hes doing a Blair masochism strategy- and is just prepared to take this for another year or until Brown moves on.
89 - most of them are now in the public domain already!
Andrea - I dont think that in Glasgow North you have any choice of MP - you get whoever the local Labour Party bosses say you are going to get.
The NHS has been a Labour ‘banker’ issue, but so was the economy for the Tories. But that changed after the ERM mess and continues despite the economy in 1997 having got back into good shape as a result of post ERM policies.
So there is nothing immutable in the NHS remaining a Labour party issue of choice.
If the service gets no better, or even worse, after doubling spending and raising taxes to pay for it, then the average voter ( who is no dummy) will wonder if the service they ‘cherish’ is safe in Brown’s hands. Especially if he keeps smirking about how great he is without doing anything different or new to put things right.
And agin he is fiddling with the NHS in England and Wales and Education in England not in Scotland where his constituents are.
The budget results in the Barnet formula giving Scotland another 90 million without the dread hand of the Chancellor telling them how to waste it. Lucky Scotland.
Talking of bar charts check out the DUP home page. Blink and the bar charts have changed. Amazing! Would like to see that work on a Focus leaflet.
http://www.dup.org.uk/
92. SBS, during the mass outings of LD scandals, the Indy reported that some MPs went to Stunell to tell some more secrets.
87 - They wouldn’t be as liberal as the UUP. Danny Houston is the leader and is (IIRC) the deputy Grand Master of the Scottish Orange Order. I remember him boasting about burning his season ticket when Rangers signed Mo Johnstone.
Icarus, yes, you’ve a point there. has there ever been a speaker who was sitting on a marginal?
If I were Labour, I would try to get Bob Marshall Andrews elected as the speaker….so they would block him from going in the opposition lobby and they would prevent the tories to take his seat!
98
Great plan… not sure what either BMA himself, or the rest of the house would think of it…
82 Fred have you seen the cartoon in the Independent (click The Dour One to expand). Can you spare a bent penny?
98 - George Thomas’s seat went Tory in 1983 when he stood down. Some might say that Speaker Thomas was a Tory anyway. The MP from 1983 to 1987 died recently - Stephan Terlezki - Polish refugee he was. Seat regained by Labour in 1987 - Rhodri Morgan.
Good Speaker Thomas anecdote. He was once criticised by some Trot for wearing what looked like an old Etonian tie. His reply “Oh I don’t know what it is. I bought it from the Co-Op in Tonypandy.”
The Dromey attack may have been Clarke putting down a marker to stand against Brown.
Either way it was clearly a way of postioning himself and behind the scenes he could be spinning this with various camps. What would he want other than Home Office ?
100. Blue2win, who should the other man represent? a simply citizen or Jack Dromey?
101. Thanks
Question Time
“David Dimbleby will be joined in Ipswich by Harriet Harman MP, Boris Johnson MP, David Laws MP, Director of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti and Director General of the CBI Digby Jones.”
Think there may be a substitution made for Ms Harman.
Andrea Err, it looks like that up-and-coming Labour politician, er, Tony something-or-other.
105. Blue2Win, ops,……maybe you were right about my “sense of humor” failures…..
btw, earlier I replied with the “don’t deserve an answer”, because I wasn’t sure what you were meaning, so that comment could have prompt you to explain it better….ok, I know, I’ve a sick mind!
Andrea at 36: you’re right, I’ve said the same thing lots of times. But Mike was featuring the NS view in the lead-in to today’s story, and readers not familiar with the New Statesman will I think have concluded that this was a new position for them (’joins the growing list’). Don’t you think so?
The Westminster view on both sides is that the NHS is in general a Labour issue, just as the rights of country sports people is in general a Tory issue. It doesn’t mean that the Tories can’t have a pop at alleged NHS ineffiency or we don’t have people like Martin Salter who argue the case for anglers and shooters, but they’re both seen as away games.
One can argue forever about NHS quality - personally I’m in doubt that it’s improved a lot, and, for instance, the decision to allow prescribing of statins on the NHS means that over 1
96 - “some MPs went to Stunell to tell some more secrets” - Most kind of them to contribute to the Hazel Grove MP’s retirement fund! (Let’s hope not although there must be a bit of a temptation for chief whips!)
104 - That’s the best line up they have had for a while except Harman. Jones is a bit of a plonker but quite good fun, ditto Johnson. I like Laws and Chakrabati is always interesting. Hopefully they will ditch Harman for somebody good.
Andrea at 36: you’re right, I’ve said the same thing lots of times. But Mike was featuring the NS view in the lead-in to today’s story, and readers not familiar with the New Statesman will I think have concluded that this was a new position for them (’joins the growing list’). Don’t you think so?
The Westminster view on both sides is that the NHS is in general a Labour issue, just as the rights of country sports people is in general a Tory issue. It doesn’t mean that the Tories can’t have a pop at alleged NHS ineffiency or we don’t have people like Martin Salter who argue the case for anglers and shooters, but they’re both seen as away games.
One can argue forever about NHS quality - personally I’m in doubt that it’s improved a lot, and, for instance, the decision to allow prescribing of expensive statins on the NHS means that over 10000 people who are alive today would otherwise be dead, something which doesn’t turn up in any productivity statistic. But you always get a debate on how far to go - see the herceptin controversy.
Oops - typo there - I meant to say “in no doubt that it’s improved a lot”!
108. Nick Palmer, IRCC, during the election campaign, the New Statesman even advocated to vote LD, SNP and PC when they were second to Labour.
The previous time you made that comment in the last few weeks was to reply to a quote by Diane Abbott….but you know, DA isn’t really worthy of any defence
109. Well there’s nothing like denying all the available evidence and subsituting personal faith instead to close down a debate. Are you perhaps a creationist as well?
[74] Fred: I have never suggested that command economies don’t malfunction. From a quick glance at Wikipedia, I am less than convinced that Kornai’s “shortage economy” is as unique to command economies as he thinks it is - the whole of economics is based on the idea of shortage, as far as I can make it out - for a start, all economic activity, even in these days of e-Bay and Amazon, has a spatial component - the Internet has in some markets much reduced the significance of land as a factor of production, but no one thinks it has eliminated it. (If I do have a bee in my bonnet when it comes to economic ideas, it’s that there are three, not two factors of production :))
Even in the USA, the private sector share of health spending was only 55% in 2002, according to the O.E.C.D. Logically, the provision of free healthcare to veterans in the U.S.A. is as open to all Kornai’s criticisms as anything that went on in the former Soviet Union - but it commands universal support, for obvious reasons. The relationship between the inputs, the delivery mechanism, and the outputs in health is poorly understood - for example, the Canadian and French systems have a similar level of per capita spending, & a similar %age of private sector share of that spending, yet, depending on which outputs you look at, either can be said to outperform the other!
Help! I haven’t had a political bet since 6 March and that on the likelyhood of a hung parliament (some time away methinks). Is there any money to be made on political betting for a year or two?
Whilst guessing whether the Footsie will end up or down on IG is proving quite profitable - If it is less than 10 down at midday back up (or vice versa)- you win £280ish risking £200ish. NB This rule is not infallible and may of course stop working completely now! However it is is not as fun as politics and I havent found a relevant site as enjoyable as PB.
114 - Italian Elections / Prime Minister… (just ask andrea for tips…
)
108- James, better them contributing to his retirement fund than the Sun contributing to it, don’t you think?
116 - I guess it will all pay for a few Focus leaflets in Sutton and Cheam to keep those pesky Tories out!
114 - Also, and interesting betting idea from a colleague of mine - Man Utd for the Premiership. (Yes, you can stop laughing now…). Man Utd are 12pts behind, but have a game in hand. Assume they win that, and its 9pts. Say that they gain 3 pts on Chelsea before the 2nd last game of the season. (Not too unrealistic). 2nd last game they play each other, so Man Utd win that and then it goes to the wire - and Chelsea will be nervous as anything, so anythings possible.
113. Economics is about scarcity (rather than shortage), or rather how scarce resources are best allocated. The shortage economy literature is an attempt to explain why shortages and queues became endemic to the old Soviet-style command economies. The answer is the absence of a functioning price mechanism and a complete lack of budget constraints.
Both of these are a feature of the NHS, especially the latter in recent years. What the shortage economy literature will tell you is that trying to solve ’shortages’ by increasing inputs (i.e. relaxing the budget constraint even further) is futile, as the NHS is now discovering.
Concerning your broader point - there is plenty of room for mixed public and private provision in health, I have no problem with that. But I would contend that the NHS model has more severe drawbacks than any of the other models used in the major industrial economies - which may explain why none of the other countries in this group have imitated it or have any plans to.
118 Lennon. Chelsea’s superior goal difference over Man Utd is 10 which is also worth a point. I’d keep my hands in my pocket on that one !
114. The 3.2 on Blair to survive until 2008 strikes me as outstanding value. Most evidence indicates that this is the date that Blair and Brown both want - and despite all the media huff and puff, it will take something considerably more damaging than the loans for peers stuff to remove him any earlier.
What is becoming clear now is just how desperate the Labour party finances are. There are informed reports that the gap to fill is £30 million. This is potentially disastrous for a party that has lost half its members since winning the 1997 election and its relations with its union paymasters are bad, and the unions themselves have financial problems with declining memberships and spiralling costs. The deep pockets of the past are no longer available.
On top of that they recently bought a headquarters building that they cannot use, and so expensively rent a place in Victoria street.
Prescott and Brown say they did not know about the loans : its the Dromey defence. They were not told. But surely they could not be unaware of this dire financial position?
All three are on the Labour National Executive, indeed they with Blair are the first four names on the list. So where did they think the election campaign money was coming from? How did any of these three innocents think the huge deficit that must have been reflected in the monthly and quarterly reports was being bridged? How did the campaign co-ordinator (Brown) explain the position to his colleagues? Who, indeed, handled the campaign loans cash anyway?
What startles me is that these people who quote statistics to prove how well the national economy are doing and sail blithely on, did not apparently make themselves aware of the real state of the organisation they claim to love and cherish.
Is it simple incompetence and they did not make any real effort to ensure they were fulfilling their duty of care? Or did they know and not understand? Or did they understand and decide that it was someone else’s problem.
Whichever, do you really want these people in charge of our economy?
The fallout from the Loans Don’t Buy Peerages scandal continues to gather pace.
122. One point that seems to have been missed… if the Labour party is facing a black hole of between £12m and £30m, Brown will not have the wherewithal to call a snap election immediately he takes over, if that is 2007 or 2008 - there simply is not enough time to fill the gap and build up a war chest.
122 - Yes,yes, very good, but could you tell us when the tories will be revealing the names of the secret donors who funded their election campaign?
122/123 B2W. Your post might carry a little more weight is the Tories weren’t hiding their own donors and weren’t up to eyeballs in debt.
Mr Nadir would you pass me a Smith Square ? and there’s that nice Dame Shirley …… graveyard for a penny or how about a £40M surcharge ??
124 - You have to distinguish cashflow insolvency from balance sheet insolvency. If Labour are substantially in the red on the balance sheet - by £10 million, £20 million, £30 million or whatever - it isn’t really a huge problem. Lots of perfectly successful enterprises are balance sheet insolvent and that’s fine as long as creditors are better off hanging on in there than winding it up (and there is no point doing that sort of thing with a political party as there’s nothing worth having). What is potentially problematic is if donors stop coming forward as a result of this (which I would note is not only a problem for Labour). That would have an impact on cashflow, which is potentially serious. But if they don’t stop coming forward you can pretty much ignore the balance sheet and Brown can go to the country whenever he likes.
114 - Scottish election in May 2007 another big bet. Although we all know it will be a Lab/Lib coalition again.
But James, donors *will* dry up. That was the argument against the stupidly low £5k threshold in 2000 - many donors just don’t want to air their political allegiances in public.
The idea that these people have dark reasons for wanting to keep their names out of the [papes is just codswallop - I don’t believe Labour donors are after ’special favours’ any more than I believe it of Tory or Lib dem ones.
I generally keep my political involvement quiet from my clients - partly because they may not share my political views.
If you take anonymity away from donors most won’t donate, except for the ‘past caring’ super-rich or the retired.
It was a badly thought through law in 2000 that got Labour into this mess - that and the sheer hypocrisy of having come up with a law and then devised a way of getting round it.
127 About 7 million of loans seem to be due very soon and the building will bring in less than 6 million net when sold and the banks seem chary…. so… still a 23 million hole to fill. If that happens they won’t be able to rent a dog kennel and someone to look for a dog to put in it.
Billy and Jack. Slagging off the Tories, while your standard reesponse, is not a credible response to the serious issue of the Labour party potentially imitating a whale in the Thames and going belly up, and our PM and Chancellor being part of the management team that allowed that to happen.
122. About Dromey’s position, no-one picked up that quote from Christine Shawcraft:
she seems to say JD should have known about the loans
A bankrupt individual cannot stand for election. What not the same for bankrupt party?
“Of course Gordon did not know about the deficit. He is far too prudent to let that happen…” - as the Professor might say.
130 B2W. Slagging off Tories such as yourself is as much a pleasure as a duty …. although if it were a bloodsport I’d be warned off for cruel and unsporting behaviour as you’re such a whale of a target.
I’m sure there are Tory posters on here who must cringe at the one eyed drivel that you post …. much as Lib Dems do when Colin W surfaces. However it provides the rest of us with hours of unintentional amusement that is to your credit.
Any news on the Tory donor names ?????
The thing I don’t understand about the Labour party loans is this:
Where did Jack Dromey think the money came from for the election, if he didn’t know about the loans?.
The bankrupt party wouldn’t stand - arise “The New Labour Party”
35 Icarus. Which “New Labour Party” is that ?? the Gordon, Cameron or Ming one …… at times it’s difficult to tell the difference.
130 - We’ll see, but I don’t think you really appreciate the fundamental distinction between cashflow and balance sheet. Debts on the balance sheet can be restructured until the cows come home - it’s all very dull and nobody cares. All that matters is that creditors see the best way of getting paid as being hanging on in there, and I think that’s a no-brainer. Marcus may be right about donations drying up but I have my doubts - now is precisely the time to give to prove you are no fair weather friend and secure your peerage.
re 133. The Tory donor names. My sense is that the Cameron/Osborne have managed to get away with this one. There’s no great pressure solely because the party is not in power so it does not matter very much. For Labour this could run and run.
133. Jack, “Any news on the Tory donor names ????? ”
Theresa Gorman: an Aphrodite HRT clinics passepartout for all male MPs
Nicholas Soames: the packages of the biscuits he ate the morning of first election in the Commons
Alan Duncan: 2 copies of Gay Times with Adam Rickitt on the cover
Ann Widdecombe: her verginity and a panda
Edwina Currie: an offer to have an affair with an lonely MP
Helen Clarke: herself
138 Mike S. I think you’re correct at the moment …. but if a Tory donor/loaner emerges and they accidently and quite by chance have recently become Lord Matlock of Brown Envelopes then the Tories attack will have been blunted and any idea of straight dealing by Cameron on the issue will be blown out of the water.
Still at present it’s advantage Tories and Lib Dems.
133,
I agree, does the conservative party no good this issue, and Cameron knows it.
The attack dog Evans has even gone quiet.
Continuing our collective partial reviewo fht epress, may I offer the Daily Record?
23 March 2006
CAMERON KO’D BY THE MAIN CONTENDER
BUDGET 2006
THE shine came off David Cameron when he went up against Gordon Brown in the Commons for the first time yesterday.
The Old Etonian is at pains to appear reasonable in his weekly duel with Tony Blair at Prime Minster’s Questions.
But faced with the man who stands between him and Downing Street, all he could produce was sound and fury.
The Chancellor’s critics predicted he’d lose his cool in his first clash with the smooth young would-be PM - but Brown came away looking like the comfortable tenant of No10 he soon hopes to become.
Cameron has sought to minimise differences between the parties as the Tories march back to the political centre ground.
But Brown restated them, saying investment in education and training - not tax cuts - would equip Britain for the future.
He contrasted action on the environment with Cameron’s “no” to climate-change tax.
And he took a dig at Cameron’s Treasury role in the Black Wednesday exchange-rate fiasco that cost Britain billions. All the Tory leader had to offer in return was a tirade that contained little in the way of alternatives to the Chancellor’s Budget.
Cameron’s response was the shortest in recent political history at under 10 minutes.
To be fair, he may have been tired - he had already gone several rounds with Blair.
And like a practised wrestling tag-team partner, Brown was soon taking his turn in the ring against Cameron.
While he has been repeatedly taunted by the Tory leader, this was his first chance to respond - and Brown was so relaxed that he even began with a joke about his own leadership ambitions. He also used an announcement about VAT on children’s shoes to slip in a sly reference to Cameron’s by-election “flip-flop” over the Iraq war.
Naturally, Labour MPs loved it, howling “More, more, more”.
The last word though, should go to new Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell - the third man to speak.
Looking across at Cameron, Campbell said: “I’m not sure I can follow that constructive contribution.”
140. Jack, don’t tell me you’re insinuating….you know what!
Probably it’s not a case that the party w