Why the reluctance to burst the Blair bubble?
March 26th, 2006
-
Are Labour MPs fearful about Gordon?
The Tory party, as in the poster above, might have called on the electorate to “burst Blair’s bubble” in the 2001 General Election campaign but they lost and lost again. Now in spite of the appalling headlines there does not seem much Labour pressure for him to go.
From this distance the Tory strategy behind the poster looks questionable. For all it did was to highlight what has proved to be one of Labour’s greatest electoral assets - Tony Blair.
So after a week which has seen the continuing “loans for peerages” row and Gordon Brown’s tenth budget Blair is still at number 10 Downing Street apparently with the intention of doing what he said he would - serving a full third term.
-
After sitting on the fence on the issue of Blair’s departure I’ve now started putting money on him hanging on until the end of next year. The current prices have this at about 3/1.
Amongst all the political coverage in the Sunday papers the best piece on this is by Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer. In it he argues that the reasons Cabinet and Parliamentary colleagues have not moved against Blair are because of real fears about “…the temperament and style of a Brown premiership.”
Rawnsley goes on “….. He has run the Treasury as a very tight regime. If he has rarely deigned to tell the Prime Minister what was going to be in his budgets, the cabinet is understandably terrified about how it might be treated by a Brown-led Downing Street..There has been a lot of personal rule from Tony Blair’s sofa under the present incumbent. But there has at least been one contesting pole of power to Number 10. That has been the Treasury. There would be no check and balance to Prime Minister Brown because there would no longer be a Chancellor Brown..You can run the Treasury by concentrating on one big project at a time. You can also disappear from view when it is politically convenient. Tax credits go wrong and Gordon Brown pushes his subordinates towards the sound of gunfire. His response to the spending crisis in the health service is simply not to talk about it..A Prime Minister cannot go into denial. He has to be ever-visible as he has to have the capacity to juggle a multitude of balls at the same time. ‘Can Gordon learn to delegate?’ asks one of his colleagues. You have to doubt that after listening to another budget speech which treated the rest of the cabinet as if they were his satraps.”
Things could get worse in the weeks ahead. The May local elections could go badly wrong for Labour but as Sean Fear pointed out on Friday expectations are so low for the party that they could shrug off almost any outcome.
The loans issue continues to rumble and the effort to divert attention to the Tory loans is having only a limited effect. Labour’s problem is that it is the party of power and all the patronage is with the Prime Minister. Thus it’s much harder to smear the motivation of Tory lenders and donors.
William Hill have emailed me about bets on Blair outlasting Margaret Thatcher - which he’ll do if he’s still there in November 2008. You can get 8/1 on this possibility although I cannot find this price online. If it was I’d put a bit on.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Good article Mike. Sentiments like these suggest that the Conservative anti-Brown strategy is working as it is giving some of those on the Labour side real doubts.
And I’m probably wrong, but I think I’ve seen the image for a while now-could it have been a 2001 poster not 2005?
re 1. You are correct - the poster was from 2001. I’ve amended the article.
It is ironic how the Tories have flitted between attacking Blair and Brown.
As you point out, Mike, they highlighted Blair in 2001 when he was still Labour’s best asset, and in the run-up to 2005 had the awful idea of “vote Blair, get Brown”, which was pretty much Labour’s own key message to the electorate!
WRT to ‘can Gordon learn to delegate?’ asks one of his colleagues - well, if pushing your subordinates towards the sound of gunfire isn’t “delegation” in the political sense I don’t know what is
- isn’t loyalty defined as the willingness to sacrifice yourself for your boss? PMs only delegate through weakness - Thatcher pre-Falklands due to the circumstances of her coup; the Blair/Brown relationship - as evidenced by Brown’s length of tenure - is surely unprecedented in modern politics.
A better question for Rawnsley to have asked would’ve been: who has the power and desire to harm Brown by refusing to serve under him, as MacLeod and Powell refused to serve under Douglas-Home?
Does anyone know where if anywhere you can find notional results for the new constituencies?
Good article Mike. I went out with colleagues last night (all teachers) and as always the conversation turns to how much we all detest Ruth Kelly. Funnily enough to a man (and woman!) everybody disliked Blair and wanted him out. But a great many were still prepared to vote Labour and sustain him in office because they had more faith in the party than the leader. Even if Blair stood next time, they’d still overwhelmingly vote Labour. Curious British electoral system this where we have no direct say on our Prime Minister, only our local MP.
Just testing to see if I’ve moved the clock on the server.
It’s unlikely that Blair will go this year (unless local elections will be a disaster).
who’s the anonymous source with doubts mentioned by Andrew Rawnsley? being anonymous is pretty useless, he could have made it up or it could be some of the ultra-blairites in the cabinet.
could andrew marr have given patricia hewitt an easier ride?
couldn’t agree more about Browns psychological flaws…I think Cameron unwillingness to engage in head to head combat will drive him crazy….
with his new teeth is his bite now worse than his bark?
7 Mike S. Have you pinched another hour from our lives.
….. at this rate Alastair Matlock and I will be receiving telegrams from Liz every seven days.
Alastair Matlock is 102 as has donated his stomach for the fight to the Conservative party.
Jack W is 103 and has donated his nose for scandal to Andrea Luxuria. (together with several tasteful Gucci dresses).
The most likely reason is that Brown is Labour’s trump card and you don’t play your trump card until it’s necessary. Cameron is making no significant inroads and it’s possible that unless he stops trying to ape Blairite policies he’ll actually start moving backwards. The Labour party can see this and that’s why there is no pressure on Blair to go. Even Dianne Abbott seemed relaxed about the date (as long as it was this year and the transfer was dignified)
re 11. …ever so loyal Roger. Brown is a humourless bullying control freak with little appeal to the middle classes who gave Blair power in 1997. The sure way to let the Tories in is to elect Brown. The sure way of keeping them out is for Blair to stay.
Watch superman Tony get out of this latest problem. The reports this morning of his dramatic attempt to change the agenda by backing an elected House of Lords is another example of his pure brilliance.
In 2005 the problem for the Conservatives was that a ‘Vote Blair, Get Brown’ message was in reality a “Vote Blair, Get the dream of Brown’. People see Brown as competant and strong and they know who he is; they can imagine the rest and will have imagined that he will be better than Blair.
The reality of the dour gloating PM that Brown would be was less important than his quality of not being Blair. Of course when/if he becomes leader the reality will kick in.
12. maybe Mike Smithson could join Blair in a civil partnership in Bromely….so he could watch his darling in action everyday.
re 11.. That doesn’t ring true somehow. As much as i hate it voters make their decisons as much with their guts as with their heads and in the privacy of the voting booth they will likely turn on the “analouge chancellor” who just doesn’t have that everyman quality.
5 - Jon, have you tried Anthony Well’s paper in the links?
Mike at 12. I know it’s difficult to believe that everyone doesn’t see things through our eyes (Osborne being a genius notwithstanding!!) but here is some pretty strong evidence to suggest otherwise
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2006/NOTW%20-%20Cameron%20v%20Brown%
Blair will still want to out-do Thatcher (place in history etc etc) and this means end of 2008. Expect a resignation Nov 08, leadership contest by Feb, Brown going to country May 09. You heard it here first!
re 17. You really ought to use more up to date numbers Rogers and look at detailed polling dynamics. Last week YouGov had Cameron’s Tories beating a Brown-led Labour party by by 39-37. As soon as you put Cameron’s name into a voting intention question then the Tories get a boost. Brown is usually a negative.
The more people see of Brown the less they seem to like him and the less they like him the less they want to vote Labour.
Check the polls out here http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/leaders/brown/
18 Antony Little. I think that’s a very reasonable analysis and you might slip the dates one year further for the same result.
…& to show that I put my money where my mouth is I’ve just offered to lay Brown at 0.36/1 for £1000 on Betfair.
19. that poll showed a Con lead of 3% in the current situation….so Brown is actually improving with being down just 2% according to that poll!
naturally you picked up just the numbers you liked the best for your usual Brown bashing
Gordon is generally seen in the PLP as a substantial asset, and the reservations reported by Rawnsley are more at an individual level (’how will I fare as a Minister under the new leader?’) than a party level. Roger’s post at 11 sums up the position. If TB had said he planned to “go on and on”, I think we would now be seeing more unrest about it within the party. But it’s hard to work up much interest in “2007 or 2008 or 2009?” when the Tories aren’t making more progress in the present situation. What’s the hurry?
I seem to have upset some of our Tory regulars last night, but if they’d done a bit less self-righteous gloating over the last week they would be in a better position to defend the current reports. And do target Broxtowe, folks, as your fox-hunting friends did with their funding last year. The local Tory campaign in 2005 was the first serious effort they’ve made in Broxtowe in my time: they massively outspent us (I counted 14 Tory billboards in the constituency at one point) but it helped us get LibDem-leaning tactical votes back. The hunters targeted lots of us, and Peter Bradley is the only clear case where it worked.
Mind you, there isn’t much you can do to help here at the moment, since the Tories don’t have a PPC, and haven’t put out a single constituency-wide leaflet (not even a ‘thank you for the votes’ as they did in 2001) or even (so far as I know) a press release since the election: their only effort has been to fight two council by-elections, and after losing those they didn’t bother to trigger another one when another vacancy arose. My impression is that they’re quite demoralised at the moment: ‘we chucked everything at them and they’re still there, what’s the use?’. But it’s early days still.
15. “turn on the “analouge chancellor” who just doesn’t have that everyman quality”.
You mean unlike Cameron?
Mike S sometimes lets his personal feelings show regarding individual politicians - something he always warns us against - see his views on Charlie Kennedy, whom he never had a good word to say.
I think that discussions about whether Brown will be more or less popular than Cameron are ludicrous at this point. Our view if / when it happens will be dependant on more factors than we can say at this point. Namely 1) How he deals with events as they arise 2) The general state of the economy 3) the perceived direction of the Labour Party and 4) how he presents himself once PM - probably very differently (i.e. not ‘playing the role’ of the Iron Chancellor).
Brown may or may not be successful at all or some of these factors. But we don’t know at the moment. Meanwhile Cameron is building up points in his negative column as wel as positives. Lightweight with a tendency to put presentation over principle being the principle ones.
At the moment we are in that stage you get before a boxing match where it is all being built up and everyone seems to say they know how the fight is goign to go. In the end it is rarely how predicted - except if Frank Bruno was involved!
An article by the vituperative Paul Hutcheon
‘Reaveled: How the Tories spent £18m at election’
http://www.sundayherald.com/54828
O/T Does anyone know the timetable for DC’s list of Conservative principles/ new direction being prepared for and distributed to the membership to vote on please ?
re 25. Agreed I let my personal feelings show but don’t you Paul? I was totally against Kennedy and events and revelations proved me right.
I was also arguing against David Davis for the Tory leadership and again, to my great profit, events proved me right. There I could not see how someone with such poor communication skilled could be leader of the UK’s second party.
On Brown I feel his big problem is his personality and how he comes over. Labour’s electoral process makes it harder for him to be defeated for the leadership but if he gets it I’ll bet heavily on the Tores to win most seats.
23 Nick Palmer Whatever anyone else said, it was very distasteful that you attack the Tories by moaning on about’foreigners’from other EU countries being involved in UK politics as they are entitles to be under EU and UK law. What next in your desperation?
Don’t expect Blair to go until he beats Thatcher lenght of time in office.
27. tory boy. I think the vote will take place at “the end of summer”, but I’m not sure about a particular date.
btw, I think I could have been a bit to aggressive with our great host Mike Smithson (re Brown), sorry if I was, but today I’m a bit nervous and an anti-Brown discussion isn’t helping!
I’m not convinced yet Blair is actually going to stand down. Blair could yet win another election, and he is a man who understands electoral history and is driven by ensuring his place in history. In Labour politics he already has it, but by going on that little bit longer he could be the longest serving PM and the only one to win four elections (something nobody else may ever do again). He must also know that with the majority reduced now and the Conservative postion while not wonderful, certianly improved from where it was, a Brown leadership could end in a messy hung parliament at best for Labour. I doubt too many swing voters would be upset if he stayed and the surprise element may just be enough to win him the election.
Interesting piece on Blair by Will Hutton in the Observer http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1739808,00.html
A telling point is this ..”First out of the duplicity traps are the Labour party’s treasurer Jack Dromey, and its National Executive Committee, all distancing themselves from the grubby world of political fund raising. We could not be more innocent, goes the collective cry. We did not know and cannot imagine how this happened. We were not told.
However, some facts. In the autumn of 2004, the Labour party was £16m in debt and traded at a loss. In 2005 it spent £18m fighting the general election. Yet not one person, we are invited to believe, thought to ask where this largesse had come from
The paper also calls in its main editorial for a contested election for the Labour leadership whenever that happens. A
Blue2Win. Your misinformation has reached new hights. Nick Palmer didn’t mention “From other EU countries”. And since when has Australia been in the EU?
23 -
An article by Westminster Editor James Cusick asks how Gordon Brown will fight an election with empty coffers
Labour’s little red bank book
http://www.sundayherald.com/54858
‘Labour used a sales technique to secure Blair’s third-term. The 2005 election was signalled by the launch in 2004 of Labour’s “Proud of Britain” campaign . Yet behind the scenes at Labour’s headquarters, there was little to be proud of. The party had a massive overdraft its bankers were unwilling to extend and the cost of running a successful general election campaign was expected to jump from £12m in 2001 to £18m.
What will be the atmosphere inside Labour’s headquarters before the next general election? There will be no cash for a pre-campaign. The party will struggle to find £25m or £30m to match the Tories. Will “Brown for PM” on a few posters, and a sprinkling of off-peak, cheaply made television adverts be enough to keep Labour in power? The cash-for-peerages scandal has closed one of the party’s most important sources of private funding. In an era of highly sophisticated and expensive election campaigning, Labour may be about to discover if they can win again – on the cheap.’
34 Sweden was in the EU last I heard. British wives of non British husbands are not ‘foreigners’ either. Wake up!
My point is Nulab are defending themselves by attacking other people as ‘foreigners’. Whether they are in the EU or the Commonwealth or neither using xenophobic dog whistles as a tactic is unacceptable and hypocritical.
Mike. Yes I do let my feelings show in some capacities
Events showed that some liberal democrat MPs agreed with you - we will never know whether they were right to do so. At the moment a change of leader has had neutral impact.
I made money on the Davis thing as well. His campaign was arrogant, and could be seen a mile off that backwards was the only way for it.
But re my point about Brown. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you - I was just saying that it is impossible to say. On the current match that we have had. Brown was boring but solid and Cameron was OTT. It will be interesting to see what the next polls are after the exchange on budget day. My feeling… but I could be wrong…is that Cameron won’t have done his personal standing that much good with his performance.
[37] It’s an interesting take on internationalism, B2W - you seem to be saying that the super-rich should have the right to finance elections wherever in the world they care to do so…
39 IA… Re 443 yesterday, I’m happy to pray for you! I hope that you found the conference worthwhile.
——————————————————————
On Tory funding, I think I read that Mr Said is claimed to have given a donation. Aside from the fact that Mr Said makes his money selling arms, the only other thing I know about him is that he funded the business school at Oxford and through that has been extremely supportive of thousands of would be managers and entrepreneurs in this country….
39 I am saying that using xenophobia is not acceptable and attacking EU nationals or others who reside in the UK and vote here on the basis that they are foreigners is hypocritical of Nulab at best and nasty at worst.
Whether the subjects of the attack are rich or not is irrelevant. Characterising them as rich is simply a device to encourage envy and so elicit support.
I have lived and worked in many other countries including several in the EU. Would I like to be attacked when living there for exercising my civil rights that are perfectly lawful? No. Should it happen here? No. Is it hypocritical of the Labour party to do that in this instance? Yes.
Hereditary Monarchy passim: the hereditary principle is fundamentally illiberal as it denies the opportunity to become head of state to those born outside the succession. Furthermore it denies self-fulfillment to those born within the succession. One only has to look at the travailles of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family in recent years to see the harm that this has done to the individuals in question.
Interesting report> a spokesman for the chancellor last night said that Gordon Brown had “never held a meeting” with Aldridge (of Capita),/i>.
But GB and Prescott should answer the same written question as an MP has put to Tony Blair:
“List meetings his Adviser on Government Relations has had with (a) Capita, (b) organisations acting on behalf of Capita and (c) Mr Rod Aldridge in the last 18 months; what the purpose of the meeting was in each case; and if he will make a statement.”
The result would be very interesting. No phone calls? No intermediaries? No messages through third parties?
The cover up is proving, as usual, at least if not more damaging than the original event.
My dream scenario timetable:
May 2006: Blair claims the local election meltdown is due to the disloyal rebels in his own party. His loyalists rally around him.
July 2007: Blair announces that he “regrets” his “plans” to step down as leader that he announced before the last election. There is so much more he would like to do for the people of Britain.
December: 2007: Blair announces he is “having second thoughts” about leaving after his sychophants (such as Mr Palmer) continue to give their full support.
September: 2008: Blair says he will serve a FULL five year term as he he promised. Polls show Blair at 25% approval: more popular than Brown.
August 2009: Blair says that it would be “a betrayal” to his party to go now. He promised to serve a full term and serve a full term he will. He dares his party to betray the people of Britain by challenging him.
March 2010: Blair makes a “back me or sack me” speech, claiming only he can save the British people from themselves. His party do not have the bottle to start a leadership battle in a general election campaign.
May 2010: Blair goes on to fight the general election. The Labour party end up with around 100 seats (all Labour rebels). New Labour is dead. Blair is humiliated and leaves for America the next week, never to be heard of again.
44.” The Labour party end up with around 100 seats (all Labour rebels). ”
considering there aren’t 100 Lab rebels, it’s unlikely they could win 100 seats….even if BMA survives by 2 votes after 15 recounts and having blamed Tony, Gordon, Mike Smithson, Lord Matlock, Anna, the Jacobite Party, the Queen, the Pope and Widdy’s cat.
43,
You cant have been around in the UK in 05.
As at the last election attacking foreigners, was a major theme.
Good to see the Cameron effect is working.
44,
If thats the dream, you didn`t say who you wanted to be the winner in 2010.
Jack Duckworth on the daily politics show defending himself from sleaze allegations of planning descisions in Croydon,another amazing coincidence,significant New Labour donor gets planning permission months after giving a major donation to New Labour.
Looks like the New Labour sleaze will go on and on.
Printz said at 44: July 2007: Blair announces that he “regrets” his “plans” to step down as leader that he announced before the last election. There is so much more he would like to do for the people of Britain.
Funny you should say that. It seems as though Blair has apparently said or has come close to saying on some Aussie pre-recorded TV interviews he did yesterday for transmission on Monday morning Australian time that he regrets pre-announcing his retirement (but not the “so much more” bit thankfully).
48
Slip of the tongue,of course it was a major ‘loan’ to get around the rules.
George Galloway providing good value for money on BBC1 London just then about Crossrail. From the sounds of it the Tower Hamlets locals could be explosive. Is there usually much in the way of activity on locals with Betfair? Most of my money is tied up in the world cup at the moment but if there’s anything promising to bet on……
If roger is still skulking around I suggest you read the end of the previous thread. If you’re going to make false accusations expect to make yourself into an enemy. An apology would suffice but, then again, we know that new labour never apologise, even when caught red handed.
45 - Rebellion has not got a great record in terms of helping the rebel in any case - people simply don’t distinguish. Tory rebels went down with all the rest in 1997 while there were a reasonable number of rebels among the victims in 2005. When the tide turns, going around saying you cast such and such a vote on foundation hospitals won’t save you from drowning.
TB could resign as Labour leader and put himself forward in the subsequent election, inviting allcomers. Is Labour’s system such that no two-horse race between him and Brown would ensue?
49 - typical Blair revisionism. The reason he announced his resignation was so that he wouldn’t harm Labour’s election campaign. He now “regrets” having done such a thing as if everything would be the same now regardless.
The Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead has announced that it will be sacking 480 Doctors ,Nurses and other Healthcare workers along with closing 100 beds to meet the latest NHS cuts.
The only upbeat note is that it is currently advertising for four new middle management jobs of Risk Assesment Managers at an annual salary cost of £ 164,000.
The lunies have finally taken over the asylum.
52 - Yes, sometimes disloyalty can be punished just as much by the voters as blind loyalty to a government usually is. Though in the end of the day, it nearly always comes down to which seat, and what sort of seat it is, as to whether you’ll hold it or not. For example Chris Bryant will never lose in Rhonda, but Bob Marshall-Andrews is probably almost certainly going to lose next time.
52.”there were a reasonable number of rebels among the victims in 2005.”
none of the big rebels lost…especially because BMA was the only one in a marginal.
Then among the “selective” rebels, I recall John Cryer. then who? I don’t recall any other rebels who has lost in 2005. The MP for Kettering if you consider him a rebel.
anway I agree with you that it doesn’t always save you from big swings (yes, Clare, we’re talking about you).
45: Andrea, I think there would be 100 Labour rebels if Blair clung on for another four years!
47: The winner would be, well most people would be winners to see the back of Blair, but as this is a dream, I’d like to see Respect and Greens to hold the balance of power with the Tories. That would be fun. Maybe they can be serious about the state of the environment and the state of Europe that we never voted for.
49: I think Blair would stay on if he thought he would win. He’s vain enough. But he would avoid humiliation. But there again he is deluded, maybe he might announce in the commons that: “it would give out all the wrong signals for me to hand over the reigns of power at this stage,” while holding an Alistair Campbell dossier called “Iran’s WMD.”
58. Printz. if there’re 100 rebels, I doubt Blair could stay. If he stays, it means there aren’t many rebels out there to get him.
Perhaps Mr Palmer, who seems to have an aversion to Australians, could give us a little background on the patronising Patricia Hewitt. To start with she is an Australian, educated at the most exclusive and expensive school in that country.
It would be rude and ill mannered to suggest that this background should in some way prevent her from lecturing us.
Then of cours “do as I say and not as I do” has always been clause V of teh Labour Party.
59: True Andrea, but this was a dream!
After the nightmare of Tony Blair turning out to be a big bad wolf as well as the boy who cried wolf disguised as Bambi (as News at 10 compared him to in ‘97) can I not have a dream?
60
Sounds very similar to Harriet Harman.
12. “Brown is a humourless bullying control freak”.
This comment has been noted, Mr. Smithson.
13. “In 2005 the problem for the Conservatives was that a ‘Vote Blair, Get Brown’ message was in reality a “Vote Blair, Get the dream of Brown’. People see Brown as competant and strong and they know who he is; they can imagine the rest and will have imagined that he will be better than Blair.”
Exactly.
64
‘Vote Blair, get Brown message’
Was that why Labour lost so many seats last year?
The Tories here seem a bit touchy in the last 24 hours. You’ve only got yourselves to blame - we wouldn’t be winding you up like this if you hadn’t spent the last fortnight professing profound shock at the idea of undeclared loans to Labour. As Roger pointed out a couple of days ago when Anna was praising Cameron for cleverly getting Labour to publish its list while keeping the Tory one private, these things do get out.
To be serious: IMHO we will never get away from this sort of thing unless we have low, effective spending limits that apply all the time and affect both the country as a whole and individual constituencies.
Printz at 44: Try this scenario instead:
2006 labour Conference berates Blair for education reforms and for planned review of pensions.
November 2006. Blair makes a major speech criticising the ‘forces of conservatism’ in his own party for preventing ‘root and branch’ reform of public services - ‘if Labour cannot reform the welfare stat, who can?’ he lamented.
March 2007 Blair invites Charles Kennedy and Ken Clarke to join a ‘cross party’ No 10 policy group to study a new mandate for the NHS.
March 2007 Cameron is persuaded to re-state Conservative ‘core values’ which includes a statement widely interpreted to signal that the Tories will offer a referendum on EEC withdrawal if elected.
April 2007 Blair defeated again in the commons on another round NHS reforms designed to improve access to NHS patients for private hospitals.
‘Dramatic’ cabinet reshuffle expected in the summer
July 2007 Blair invites Ken Clarke, John Bercow, Menzies Campbell, Charles Kennedy and Malcom Rifkind to join his new ‘National Unity’ - a grand coalition government mandated to ‘reform the Public Services, combat the Terrorist threat and to safeguard Britains place in Europe.
Before you all laugh remember that it’s happened before…
66. Palmer, did you ever express the need for ‘low, effective spending limits’ *before* NuLab got caught. You make me fart blood.
66. The problem with low spending limits is that there is no limit on the amount of space newspapers can give to their own partisan points of view. Politicians should not be forced to fight the press with one arm tied behind their backs.
66 - Pots and kettles Mr Palmer, you seem to be a bit touchy yourself recently. I wonder why?
66: Mr Palmer, please explain exactly what you think the Tories done wrong?
I don’t notice any rules being broken by the Tories.
I don’t notice any contracts being handed out to Tory donors.
I don’t notice Tory donors being awarded with peerages.
I don’t notice any 50 story eyesores near the Tower of London being approved to Tory Donors.
I didn’t notice the Tories saying they would be whiter than white in party funding.
I didn’t notice the Tories trying to avoid their own rules.
I didn’t notice the Tories openly stabbing their own colleagues in the back over this matter.
Please enlighten us Mr Palmer as to exactly what the Tories have done wrong.
66 - Nick, for cring out loud it’s not just tories who are attacking you! Unless you get out of your ‘everyone’s doing it’ mindset and that only labour and tory voters matter you’re going to be treated with this level of contempt.
I find Nick Palmer’s comments to be utterly astonishing.
What’s the point in running around crying “Wolf!” when you’re a long, long way into the process of growing sharp teeth, wirey hair, pointed ears and a bushy tail?
Another point on “undeclared loans”. Surely the payment of interest to the lender, assuming the loans are on a “commercial” basis, should be appearing in the accounts somewhere?
66: Sure, undeclared loans hurt the Tories as much as Labour. But I notice that Labour have been attempting to make this the focal-point of the “scandal” as opposed to the thing that most people are worried about - the fact that it seems to voters that; a) the people who loaned money to Labour then got “favours” in return, and that b) some of these favours were nominations for peerages. That’s what the big issue is about. To give credit where it’s due, Blair has done extremely well to force people to look away from “loans for peerages” and instead simply look at the issue of undeclared loans instead.
67: Marcus that is scary. Would certainly allow Tory, I mean Tony to cling on.
I often wonder if Tony Blair’s role model is Oswald Mosley and New Labour was inspired by New Party.
Like Mosley, Blair crossed the floor. But Blair did it dishonestly in mind, not in body, from CND socialist against EU, to war-mongering neo-con Euro-loving privatising, big-brother.
The Fascists would certainly be proud of much of what Blair is doing.
A grand coalition against the backdrop of a war might suit Blair’s purposes.
If not, I guess he can always go for EU President or lecture in America where they love him. But personally I’d prefer him to go to court for war crimes and then if guilty be hanged in Parliament Square for the world to see.
23 - I don’t know, Nick Palmer - the swing against you was above the national average so there must surely have been some effect. Your majority is down to 2700 now in a traditionally Tory seat and chances are that the electorate will be sick of your lot by the next election. Peter Bradley contends that there were many seats other than his where the Ashcroft funding had a bearing on the results - I think he even called it ‘buying seats’ which is naturally New Labour code for ’sour grapes’.
I think you are far too smug for your own electoral good - but that will made our ouster even sweeter when it inevitably comes.
73
Its just his usual complacency,its otherwise known as being a New Labour robot,that way you don’t need to think for yourself,its taken care of by central office.
77
The other problem will be if TB has decided on an elected HOL there will be no retirement job for him,how sad is that.
77. Alastair, tory’s growth wasn’t anything exceptional in Broxtowe (+ 0.5% compared to a +0.6% at national level). LDs didn’t do very good either. Fringe parties (Greens, UKIP and Veritas) seem to have got some voters away from the big parties (even if they didn’t that well either, but they didn’t contest the seat last time)
80. …cont…then the swing is not so much different from the England swing. Broxtowe: 3.6% England: 3.3%. East Midlands: 3%-
I’ll now look at the swing in Nottinghamshire
79 - What a pity!
80 - If the same dynamics are in place next time, Nick will lose his seat - and 2005 was a good year for Labour. Chances are things will be worse for them next time.
82. AHM, what do you mean by “dynamics”? continuing to take 6% away from him and add 0.5% to the tories?
83 - Yes. Not necessarily the same figures, but if the overall trend that manifested itself at the last election in that specific constituency carries into the next one, it’s very likely that he will have lost.
84. In 2001 he increased his majority IIRC.
btw, swings in other Nottinghamshire seats are:
Ashfield 4.7 (Hoon’s seat)
Bassetlaw 0.9 to Lab
Broxtowe 3.6%
Gedling 2.1%
Mansfield 0.1% (there was an Indy with lots of votes)
Newark 2.6% (there was a big swing to Con in 2001….it was Fiona Jones seat)
Rushcliffe 4.8% (Ken’s seat)
Sherwood: 3.1%
Nottingham seats:
N North 0.3%
N South 2.9%
N East: 11.5% to LDs
85 - Very interesting. Clearly Nick didn’t do so well set against some his Nottinghamshire colleagues - except the dismal Geoff Hoon.
86. I think that many seats have strange dynamics….in some cases Lab did bad in 2001, but good this time…in other cases, it’s the opposite.
Some seats have more Lab traditions than Broxetowe too.
Before this degenerates into another “Who’s got the biggest swing ?” thread
I can report I’ve received a couple of leaflets today from Respect. I live in the People’s Republic of Newham where Labour hold 56 out of the 60 seats, 2 are ex-Labour Councillors who defected to Respect, 1 is an ex-Labour Councillor who defected to the Conservatives and another is from the Christian People’s Alliance.
Back to Respect…their Borough-wide leaflet contains the names of 32 candidates, including two in my Ward (a three-member Ward of course) as well as the candidate they are running against Sir Robin Wales, the Labour Mayor. Now, inasmuch as they criticise BOTH the Tories and Lib Dems for not running full slates (which is true), it’s a little strange that Respect can’t find a full book of 60 candidates. In other words, though they may be fighting every Ward, their hope must be to get enough anti-Labour votes to get the odd candidate elected here and there. It is NOT a serious challenge to the ruling Labour group though I think Respect will win some seats (6-10 maybe) in Newham with other parties winning another two or three that still leaves Labour with a comfortable majority. I can’t speak as to what is happening in Tower Hamlets but again if Respect are serous abnout winning any Borough, they have to be fielding full slates of candidates rather than one or two in each three-member ward.
Turnout over here may be more of an issue…
88 - Come off it, Stodge. We all know you’re as big a ’swinger’ as the rest of us.
I think those Tories who think they can lose the ‘nasty’ image should read the last several posts. I notice UKPaul that you were very upset with me on the other thread that I thought you were a ‘Tory’. I can understand that. Your leader David Cameron also doesn’t want to be a ‘Tory’. He wants to be a liberal Conservative or even a compassionate Conservative. I think being a Tory is like being a Soci***ist. You either are or you aren’t. With Cameron I’m still not sure but with you UKPaul I have no doubt!
90 - From your vantage point, the view couldn’t be clearer I’m sure Roger.
Apologise roger, or expect me to step up my attack. You know you lied so the next step is to apologise.
Are you as much of a liar as the rest of the labor party? Your reputation is at stake I think on this, are you going to lie and believe he;s got away with it like your leader.
For the benefit of others, roger has no attack against non tories therefore the best he can do is to claim that everyone who attacks him is a tory. It’s pathetic and breathtakingly transparent.
Apologise roger, you’ve run out of options now. I’ve proved you wrong and you’vce nowhere else to hide.
Where is your attack on the nastiness of lib dems (myself) or other parties - SNP (marcia) and so on (am I right in thinking that Printz is a respect supporter?) by the way?
90 - Roger - do you honestly think your in any position to accuse others of being ‘nasty’!
Re: 88 - Maybe so, Mr Matlock, but on the 2002 figures, Respect (or the Conservatives or the Lib Dems) are going to need a swing of over 30% to dislodge the current Labour incumbents in my ward.
That said, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some statistically remarkable results from east London in May.
Indeed not……. and I’m not unsympathetic. I can see why you’re all rattled. You’ve given it your best shot and you’re still nowhere!
First it was witty xenophobic Hague then the ’silent’ but useless IDS. A blast from the past with nasty Michael to the desperation of a Blair impersonator…….
……… But no sooner had he got the impersonation perfect than the country’s mood changed! And however low the Labour Party’s sinks you all know who will be wallowing underneath them!
Life’s a bitch!
95: After that rant I doubt you can really accuse other people of being “nasty” without looking like a hypocrite.
Sorry UK Paul. I don’t hold my reputation in such high regard as you!
95 - strange that I don’t see the word ’sorry’ in that post anywhere. Maybe it’s just a reflection of the inability anyone in new labour to say sorry about ‘loans for lordships’, ‘NHS crisis’, ‘Iraq’ etc etc. Never apologise, never explain - sounds like a good title for the next labour manifesto.
Simon at 68: Yes, I’ve been on record as favouring lower spending limits for a long time. Sorry to hear of your digestive problems.
AHM: you predicted I was going to lose in 2005, IIRC? Broxtowe had above-average swings to Labour in 1997 and 2001, and an above-average swing away in 2005. The Tory vote crashed in 1997 and has never recovered, but my vote varies with the degree to which people lend me tactical support, and that was certainly harder last year with the Green intervention and the background of Iraq.
ukpaul: But you’re much more virulently anti-Labour than most of the Tories, like printz (who also seems more anti-Labour than pro-anything), and you were before any funding issues arose.
printz: you seem not to have seen the Sunday Times report today, from a Tory source, that they offered to put forward people for peerages in return for loans, on the understanding that the loan could be withdrawn if the peerage failed to materialise. You’re happy with this?
97 - and it appears in the next post! Well at least you now realise that I’m a liberal (more than I am liberal democrat but that’s politics) so apology accepted.
Now, about those loans………
99 - Yes, I did Nick Palmer - and good progress was made toward that end, though admittedly we came up short. You are now well within range for next time though - and I look forward to that prospect with particular pleasure.
99 - Nick, I find new labour to be like the traditional conservative party so I can understand that many tories would be happier with Blair than I. I also hope to see both labour and tories become more liberal so I at least have some choice when voting. There’s at least a hint of it about Cameron (but will it last?), as for Brown I’m not sure that he understands the meaning of the word liberal!
Am I right in thinking that Printz is a Respect supporter?
Back to the thread I am in agreement with Sean Fear, that Blair is a vote loser after all, thats my experience in a safish Labour seat with new strong LD challenge. However he does attract soem key centre-right voters in swing seats which while not big in number were key in 20 or so seats.
Anyone considered the possibility that a Brown leadership will be a vote loser because he will no longer be Chancellor?
104. It’ll be okay, Balls will be a surefire vote winner as Chancellor.
Printz “I don’t notice any rules being broken by the Tories.”
The point is we dont know if any rules have been brokemn Loans at less than commercial rates from foreign donors break the rules- if you wont say who the loans come from then how do we know?
Hasnt Letwin admitted that Tories have sold honours?
Keep the loans thing bubbling so that it will boil over in time for the locals why dont you!!
99. Nick, why do you bother with these boneheads? But then, why do I bother to ask you why you bother ….
107 - Hey, forsooth, Mr. John Riley surely? Last time we “conversed” you were going to organise a spectacular event - fine wines and tasty morsels - on Knutsford Heath (as recalled fondly during the election). Are we still on ;)?
71 - “I don’t notice Tory donors being awarded with peerages”
There are plenty of examples of major Tory donors getting peerages (although as with Labour there is no proof of any link between donations and peerages). For example, Lord Ashcroft (2000), Lord Black of Crossharbour (2001), Lord Feldman (1996), Lord Kalms (2004)… The list is lengthy.
tut tut - not very nice
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/scotland/story/0,,1740053,00.html
How much proof do you need?
111 - Sufficient proof to avoid any risk of being sued.
108. Mebbiz.
Elena at 96. It didn’t feel like a rant but doesn’t that just go to show!
Apparently the previous list from both main parties was nodded through on the proviso that their act was cleaned up for this time. It appears as though the tories pretty much did so but labour’s attitude was, to say the least, cavalier. They’re the architects of their own downfall as they had been heavily warned beforehand.
The only reason I can think of, as to why they went ahead regardles, is that they did it on purpose, knowing that everything would come out. Okay, it would upset the lenders but, if they can convince the state to fund campaigns to a much greater degree, then the parlous finance suddenly look a fair bit rosier.
Is there any wonder that people are cynical?
Another thing is that labour are desperate to make trade union money into being a lot of mini-donations/loans by the members! Is that for real? I presume there’ll be a majority vote from each union’s membership to make sure that they agree with this funding if so.
I agree with Mike, that Brown comes over as just such an unattractive person. His default expression is a deep , brooding scowl.
I think that the tories could have quite a bit of fun and success along the lines of “The Five Faces Of Gordon Brown”
Grumpy Gordon
Greedy Gordon
Gloomy Gordon
Grouchy Gordon
Grumbly Gordon
Puerile maybe, but I’m sure that the public would recognise a bit of Gordon in all of these.
It’s getting like vote2005 in here.
Very dangerous tactic to try to ridicule a political opponent as the “Demon Eyes” posters found to their cost. Also it’s a game for any number of players. Incidentally some people lampoon very badly. For example i suspect such an attack on Ming would backfire. I’m not at all sure that one on Gordon would go down very well either.
As an aside the man who gave you “Demon Eyes” is currently Camerons private PR man at a salary of £275.000 pa. …..
Come to think of it that might be an interesting place for Trevor Beattie to start!
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/PA_NEWA447201143380341A0?source=PA%20Feed
According to Hain, Blair could stay until 2010.
119 I wish it was 20.10 this evening
Smoking ban finally here - no more smoke filled rooms.
120 - O/T - It was nice to see the extent of the coverage of Margret Ewing’s funeral in the Scottish press. Clearly she was held in high esteem across the political spectrum. John Swinney’s eulogy was very good as well.
It’s a sad loss for the Parliament which has too few politicians of her calibre.
If I was Brown I would be worried. If other ministers are having doubts about him being PM.
Blair could stand in another general election but I don’t know that he would win. I think the public would see him as a man who could not let go of power.
I think Blair will resign sometime after being in power longer than Mrs. T.
If I had the money I would put it on Hillary Benn to take over from Blair.
116 “The Five Faces Of Gordon Brown”
whereas Tony Balir is just totally two-faced?
71 - “I don’t notice Tory donors being awarded with peerages.”
Are the tories on here willfully naive? Do they have the political memories of goldfish?
Only just over a year ago the tories were fencing off the same accusations of peerages for financial support.
The tories obtained peerages in 2004 for Irvine Laidlaw,\Stanley Kalms, Leonard Steinberg and Greville Howard. All of whom had made donations to the tories.
Would like to retract that assertion now?
107,
I am thinking the same after reading some of the comments.
I hope Nick continues to post, as I value his contribution being a current MP.
I like this site, with the strong views.
However,
without the personal insults, just because people have differing,perspectives.
Jon at 117: true, enough already. Unilateral ceasefire from this side for now.
On the topic: Although I argue that TB will go not before 2008, I think that comparing with Mrs T’s duration isn’t really a factor - I’ve never heard it mentioned in Westminster. After all, it didn’t end very happily, so it’s not a precedent to seek to emulate.
Thanks, dez!
124 - I think people mean the fact Cameron hasnt recomended anyone for a peerage yet.
128 - No, they said “tories”. And we can’t expect cameron to be any different, after all, he is refusing to publish the names of the people who are secretly bankrolling the tories.
Right Hon Nick Palmer - Haven’t you got a constituency to tend to? A wife and family to nurture? Or a baby to kiss?
I can feel a rock ballad in the making…
The Ballad of Nick Palmer MP…
How would it go?
130 - Something like this:
I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament
I always voted at my Party’s call
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all
I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the Queen’s Navy.
(Credit: Gilbert and Sullivan)
The beeb says Brian Haw has been arrested at Parliament Square.
matlock, you come over as very bitter, and a bit less than rational…”2005 was a good year for labour”….hmmm…losing over 5% national vote share….”a good year”….don’t think the bbc will be calling begging you to replace anthony king as their top elections analyst.
133 - Rubbish, Pilgrim - they won didn’t they? I’m sure Labour’s spin doctors would agree with me.
125 - Dez it cuts both ways. I usually enjoy Nick’s posts too and I think some of the criticism is OTT. But the post in question was clearly a dig at the Tories whereas Nick had said little critical about Labour’s loans. And if you then accuse everyone of us of being self-righteous and sneering references to ‘fox-hunting friends’ (i’ve none!) then your going to get a bit of stick.
At the next election voters will judge the Labour Party on its record which as Nick Palmer often points out is a pretty good one. Brown will also have the effect of really galvanising Labour activists and this will be very important in the marginals. I’ve met him on a number of occasions and he always comes across as really genuine guy. He’s no actor like Blair. He really is someone who wants to ensure that everyone in the UK fulfills his or her potential. I think that he will do enough before the next election to convince voters that they want a full blown Brown government rather than another poltician who is more interested in PR than principle. The Brown message of attacking poverty and increasing spending on education is a pretty powerful one.He will also restore that real sense of moral purpose to politics which motivates so many on the left.
Re 36, I wonder. Its policies that are the problem.
Jack W -
I can’t see a Blair resignation in late 09 followed by a Brown election and then a GE in 10 for two reasons:
1. He couldn’t manage it.
2. That would really box GB in. Under the 09 changeover plan Gordy could hold off another year if he so chooses. For Blair to pen him in like that, he’d really have to hate him …. oh. Er, yes…
131 - my personal G&S favourite is Private Willis’ song (presumably before Rik got his commission):
135: yes, I agree I was being provocative, Max - I’ve complained about the tone of some posts in the past but didn’t this time as I did start it. But the comment that we’re getting a bit too much like the old Other Side site had a certain ring of truth, I think.
128 Antony L. I think 09 remains an option if events drive TB/GB to that conclusion. I firmly believe it’s in both their interest for a smooth transition.
141. Jack, without “events”, do you think he will go on beyond 2009?
AHM @ 101: In my opinion, that post is a personal attack for party political reasons. Since you are a reasonable man, shouldn’t you express yourself reasonably — even if others don’t? Of course, I myself am far from guiltless; I wish that I could be as calm as Innocent Abroad, who (apart from being interesting) *never* seems to lose his temper.
140 Nick P. I think Nick is correct. There’s a considerable difference between robust debate and honest political difference and the type of tacky personal abuse that some posts descend into.
139 - Bravo.
143 - Thank you for your opinion, but what I said at 101 was and is heartfelt and I do not withdraw or retract one word of it.
143 - well said.
142 Andrea. No. I place no credence in Blair going “on and on” past 2009.
140 - Fair enough Nick and I agree some people go to far.
The one thing that pisses me off is that no one seems to be bothered one iota when Tories on this site get it in the neck from various Lib and Lab posters (I suspect you know who they are). If people are going to condemn (143 &146) then perhaps they should take a closer look at the comments made about Conservatives on this site.
I also hope you’ll all bare with me over the coming weeks - the smoking ban is causing me to be exceptionally tetchy!
145 Alastair. I must say Alastair that the “particular pleasure” ending of your post @ 101 seemed to me an eyebrow raising comment and most unlike you. Perhaps you meant it as a light hearted sign off to the post. Else why would the personal as opposed to political defeat of a member of the site provide you with so much “pleasure”.