Who’s there now to lead “the men in grey suits”?
April 30th, 2006
-
Every cloud has its silver lining for Lucky Tony
My suggestion on Thursday that the problems with Charles Clarke and John Prescott could actually help Tony Blair stay longer at Number 10 was greeted with a mixed reception on the site.
For I argued that the problems with his troubled cabinet colleagues could help him spread the blame a bit more after Thursday when Labour suffers the expected drubbing in the local elections.
But there’s another element in the current situation that could make Blair’s tenure that bit more secure - the undermining of the authority of John Prescott.
For the Deputy PM is just about the only senior Labour politician with the authority to lead a “delegation of men in grey suits” to tell Tony that his time is up.
Andrew Rawnsley sums is it well in today’s Observer: “..It was in the power of Prescott to pull the trigger on the Prime Minister by making a public declaration demanding an early date from Mr Blair for his departure. The one solace for the Prime Minister in a sea of troubles is that this threat has evaporated. The debagging of the Deputy Prime Minister contributes to the impression of a government that is simultaneously arrogant, ridiculous and reckless. But it does have this consolation for Number 10. John Prescott is now a much weakened figure whose residual credibility is threatened with more demolition from further revelation. Instead of John Prescott being in a position to tell Tony Blair how long he has left in Number 10, it is now John Prescott who is fighting to save his own job and what shreds remain of his dignity. “
The market on when Tony will go continues to be very interesting. I’m keeping my cash on him being there at the end of next year.
Mike Smithson <
MessageSpace Advertising
Betfair site appears to be down at the moment Mike .
When Chameleons attack … [hat tip to Stephen Tall]
An interesting Sky News report where Dave gets a ‘bit fed up’ (go to around 3 minutes in): http://www.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,30100-cameron_p11561,00.html
Very good analysis. I find you annoyingly correct.
Tony is likely to go on and on and on.
The Thatcher record is ever more vulnerable.
I think the odds on Tony leading them at the next election is close to evens.
All he needs now is a Gordon scandal that means he can justify not passing the crown. I am sure this is well within the sights of the Downing Street apparatchiks.
3 You mean we are in for a dirty tricks war between the Blairites and the Brownies?
Agree with the commentary but of course it is all so damaging for Labour. At this rate it will be Cameron and not Brown who is next PM.
poor analysis!
if Prescott goes, he’ll want to show he still matters…next Labour conference to stop people thinking of his own..shortcomings, he’ll prove he still matters by calling for Bliar to go
I genuinely feel a bit sorry for all those entirely decent people in Labour who will be kicked out of office next week.
However you have to say they voted for this government and supported it so it isn’t entirely unfair. Plus there are plenty who are just as arrogant and useless as their more famous colleagues.
7,
You, are having a laugh, no wonder people don`t like politicians.
Re 6 - Prescott is bust forever. Even if he calls for Tony to go, no one will listen to him. And it will be easy for the spin merchants to position it as sour grapes.
Tony must continue to giggle himself to sleep each night.
And with the Clarke / Prescott / Hewitt debacle, he has all the excuses he needs to justify a poor performance.
Our Wilsonian prime minister is safe for ages.
9 - “Wilsonian” - perfectly sums up Blair’s legacy in one damning word.
10 - Be fair to Harold, John: he kept our troops out of a disastrous American-led war in Vietnam.
Blair has an important legacy. It is that he cemented Thatcher’s reforms and shifted Britain permanently to the right, by ending any real left wing party.
Britain is now entirely a center-right country.
12 - Commentator - centre right, if you please. We’re not the 51st State yet, despite the best efforts of some in government.
9. But once Prescott has gone who is gods i mean bliars representative in the party? Prescott always was useless, but he was a good photo-op for the middle class PM…Gordon Brown is Labours only hope…a grand scottish coalition after the next election with ming the merciless…
I’m not sure whether, on balance, Blair is helped. He’s boxed in badly, because his options are extremely limited. If Prescott does a George Brown and becomes a backbench Deputy, there will be severe problems with electoral management. An election for Deputy would also create worrying problems. This doesn’t even cover the fact that Precott’s ministerial claque (Mccartney, Winterton, Caborn) might turn against Blair if Prescott does.
If Blair sacks Clarke or Hewitt, then the Blairite faction within the Cabinet will fall apart - it will be proved, beyond doubt, that he can’t protect the ministers who are close to him. He can’t project a patina of comptence by “taking personal charge” of prisoner releases or holding another NHS summit, because the public simply won’t trust him if he does. If he doesn’t go soon, the “25% strategy” will start to apply to Labour rather than Cameron’s Tories. I don’t see Labour as a whole putting up with this beyond the summer.
12,
True, even Lib Dems, going that way, with Clegg and Ming.
Once there is a coalition with Camerons New conservatives,after next election, it will be further cemented.
Fascinating revelations in the Mail on Sunday today. Absolutely extraordinary stuff - compelling, absorbing, hilarious. And the John Prescott thingy is quite interesting, too.
More on locals from today’s press -
Thrasher & Rallings now saying Con 35 Lab 28 Lib 27, Con +100 seats, Lab -200. Rather different from the infamous Newsnight ‘projecton’…hmmm.
BPIX Mail on Sunday poll of local voting intentions Con 35 Lab 26 Lib 23…not sure about whether sample was taken in just the areas where locals are to be held though.
2 - this is very funny! Cameron does get easily rattled, doesn’t he?
I know as a Liberal Democrat, I cannot really complain about bar charts, but at least LD charts have some foundation of truth in them - even if the figures used are largely irrelevant on occasions.
However, I have just got a leaflet with the dodgiest bar charts ever from the Tories. No scale, no %ages, no indication of what area the “survey” covers, or who did it (OK - LDs are guilty of this too). It shows a close battle between Tory and Labour, with LD on about a third of either the Labour or Tory support. It is being distributed in a LD / Tory marginal ward. I would say this chart is wholly made up.
It’s a shame that we don’t have a regular Peebie who has their ear to the ground in respect of what is going on in the Trade Unions. They too have annual conferences, culminating in the TUC itself’s. Are motions calling for disaffiliation (or reduced contributions to Labour from their political funds) coming up from the grassroots? It’s hard to see the “left” (whatever that is in the Labour Party these days) not sweeping the “constituency section” of the N.E.C. - I’ll repeat my prediction that Great-Uncle Walter Wolfgang will top the poll there.
As to the Magic Seventy - or rather, the 30 names the “usual suspects” haven’t yet got - everything surely depends on whether MPs elected in 1997 personally want a fourth term: those who are minded not to stand again, or who think that signing up can hardly damage their chances of holding their marginal seat may yet do so.
This is my first contribution to the commentary. I live and work in Scotland. I grew up in Dundee in the sixties and seventies. Since the 1970’s Labour, whether old or new, has been in power in local government (in all its restructured forms). Labour has also been in power locally, regionally and nationally since 1999. Since 1999 it might be argued that Scottish labour politicians’ greatest contribution has been to vote on peculiarly English matters (I make no comment on how valid or how useful these contributions were). This against a background where 54% of the GDP is taken up by government in one form or the other.
At what point does anyone consider a new “conservative” movement will arise to either attack or dismantle Labour in scotland. Put another way, is there room for a new movement in Scotland?
“Thrasher & Rallings now saying Con 35 Lab 28 Lib 27, Con +100 seats, Lab -200. Rather different from the infamous Newsnight ‘projecton’…hmmm”
They must have read my article then!
After the events of the last week, I now think it could be rather worse than that for Labour, and the BPIX poll gives some support to that view.
Sean, I saw this and thought I might draw you on your views:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1764611,00.html
Thrasher and Rawlings, does that mean any Lib Dem gains, presumably 100?
22 - Sean what was your estimate in the competition for Tory and Labour net gains/losses?
23 - Apparently worm urine is even better! My dad bought a wormery just for that purpose!
21 - I’ve never seen the point to be honest. I don’t see politicians in any other party who would join with current Tory politicians to form a new group - it would just be the same old faces with a new name. On top of that you would have to build an entirely new infrastructure. The only way that a breakthrough will be made is if things go badly wrong economically and people want a change of government (like the CPC breakthrough in Quebec) or the kind of slow steady progress (starting at council level) that has been made in my own part of the country.
22. looking at thrash & rall table of locals results in 2002, the new figures they are putting out suggest a 5% lab-con swing from then…not sure if these are strictly comparable but looks like labour bloodbath is possible…
11 - BV - ONLY because it’s you, I’ll concede that point :). Agree also with Commentator @12 (but that’s more of a tribute to the enduring legacy of Mrs T).
I may be wrong, but I think there’s a real possibility that Labour will come third in vote share again, particularly because of the turnout factor. I predict the Tories in the range of 35-39%, Lib Dems around 25% and Labour down to around 23%.
In this particular scenario, the Tories could make some small gains from the Libs, but the Libs would more than make up for it by gaining big from Labour. The vote could really be squeezed and throw up some really unexpected results.
Indeed, in the long term, I think it is Labour, not the Tories, who have the most to fear from the Lib Dems.
Actually, maybe 23% is a little pessimistic.
26 - I’m not sure about a bloodbath. I would think there are enough bomb-proof Labour wards in London and the Mets to prevent a real hammering. That and the Cons & Libs not having the people and resources to target every single vulnerable seat.
Yes I tink Max has it correct there… down here we would probably win pretty much the whole lot if we had the people and the cash but we haven’t - which is why I think Labour will not do as badly as they could.
“That said” - I would think they will lose all their marginals pretty much whatever happens in the next four days.
Another 2500 foreign criminals not deported…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/30/nclarke30.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/30/ixnewstop.html
32 - Well, I thought Blair’s “wait and see” line was very interesting. To me, that means “keep him for the locals, so that there isn’t a resignation fallout, then try and get him out in the post-election reshuffle.”
30
Don’t forget the “don’t vote party”. They might do very well in labour wards other parties can’t reach.
re 28. Elena - what might keep Labour in second place in votes on Thursday is the nature of the places where elections are being fought. London and the Mets should keep the national figure reasonably high.
On your general point I’ve felt for some time that whenever Labour does lose power - at the next election or the one after - could mark a major change on the left of British politics. The trauma of following Blair, irrespective of his policy agenda and values, simply because he looked a potential winner is going to stick round the party for a long time to come.
Mike Smithson
34 - Exactly what I was thinking. The Labour vote seems VERY soft and I think a lot of people who were toying with voting Labour simply aren’t going to turn out. That will exaggerate the Tory and Lib Dem gains.
23 If he and his wife aren’t careful, they could have ASBOs slapped on them.
25, I didn’t enter such a competition. I think that anything under 100 net gains for the Conservatives would be poor, and anything over 200 would be good. I think that a net loss of more than 250 would be poor for Labour.
Today I am going to make a very simple point/
I know those inside the magic circle of the blair and brown camps would guffaw at this comment from an ordinary member of the Labour party. But, I would hope that all these decisions were being taken with the best interests of the country and the party in mind. ;-(
After all how many votes did “Tony Blair’s Legacy” get at the last election?!
35 - I think you are right, Mike. The general trend of seats up for election means that it’s going to be harder for Labour to suffer a bloodbath, but I certainly think one is possible. I think no matter what happens in the cabinet over the coming days, we’re going to see a bad result for Labour, and above expected results for the Tories and Lib Dems.
Just saw the Sunday Express poll (ICM) on Sky News, three main parties all under 30%! Has this *ever* happened before?!
CON - 29
LAB - 27
LD - 22
40 - Euro elections 2004. But then the “others” vote was very largely for UKIP.
40, well at this rate the three main parties at the next election will be UKIP, Greens and BNP.
37 Hi Sean . In the pb.com end of year comp , you forecast 200 losses for Labour and 50 losses for Lib Dems . My own figures were 175 and 100 respectively . I would of course revise them in today’s circumstances .
Thanks for reminding me, Mark. I’d forgotten all about that. I would revise those figures now. I had thought Labour would make gains in the Metropolitan boroughs outside London to partially offset their losses elsewhere. I’m pretty sure that won’t happen now. I also think that the Greens and BNP will pull additional seats off Labour, mainly.
39 - I think a Labour bloodbath is quite possible - they did reasonably well in 2002 - pre-Iraq - in London.
44 - Agree my forecast now would Labour 350 losses Lib Dem 80 gains Con plus 250 Others plus 20 .
46. 350 Labour losses sounds quite dramatic. Enough to send Blair on his way? Or are they braced for that kind of defeat already?
35 - In terms of votes, Labour may come second (but do remember that Scotland, where Labour are still certainly the most popular of the UK’s main three parties, does not vote on Thursday).
However, when the BBC give a notional national share (which allows us to compare each year’s set of locals, as if voting had taken place everywhere) I am sure Labour will be third. A week ago, I said: “I hazard a guess now at: Con 36 LD 29 Lab 27″ I stand by that for the moment, but am tempted to put Labour lower.
30 - “I would think there are enough bomb-proof Labour wards in London and the Mets to prevent a real hammering.” In the 1990s, there were thought to be a lot of bomb-proof Tory wards. However, a lot of LD and Labour paper candidates ended up getting elected. (Most of these wards have now returned to the Tories.) I expect quite a lot of LD and Tory candidates to be aghast at being elected on Thursday night. Could be very bad for Labour indeed.
I Would think they are braced for anything even worse at this stage with all the negative news they have been getting . Always expect the worst and then some more and when things are only very bad you can spin a positive gloss on it .
I agree SBS.
Labour could lose seats which they have held throughout the 80’s and 90’s and were thought safe.
50 - in a way it is a shame. They will lose some good, hard-working councillors, as the Tories did in the 1990s. The paper candidates who may be elected for the LDs and Tories (or BNP) may have little local knowledge, interest or connection. The defeated Labour candidates will be livid with the Government. Look for a possible push (or putsch) to ditch Blair energised at a local party level.
In the competition I said:
Labour -580
Lib Dem + 180
That would give the Conservatives 350 - 375 gains. At the time they were up at 40% nationally, I thought that could go higher by May. Therefore my figures must be out or ……
When were the yougov and ICM polls carried out?
Sorry is the ICM poll saying 22% for others? !!!! Crikey.
The poll was flashed on after the Yougov and BPIX ones on Sky News, I took note of the figures but there was no other detail.
Anyone admit to reading the Sunday Express?
55 We will have to wait to see the full results . These may include a % of will not votes .
55. Is that 3 polls out today in the Sunday papers?
51 - I think so too, and it’s obviously one of the most irritating things about local elections. Councillors are lumbered with the actions of their nationwide party, even if they’re very committed locally. Labour lost some great councillors, for instance, in 2004 largely due to Iraq.
My predictions largely go on turnout - I think the Tories and Lib Dems will have average to good turnout, whilst Labour’s will be very low due to these last few days of scandal. Polls sometimes do measure turnout, but not very effectively, IMO. I therefore think that the Con and Lib poll numbers will be higher than projected by the polls at the moment, and Labour’s slightly lower.
We also have to remember the Lib Dem effect. I think there’s going to be a lot of movement from Labour to Lib Dem on Thursday, meaning above-predicted results for the Tories because of the split votes. The Libs should also do well in the inner city wards.
As I say, I’m preparing for some really unexpected results come thursday.
54 I just can’t believe that ICM poll if that’s the true figure. Have they changed their methodology recently???
On the local elections… The Economist carries an interesting piece this week. It show the % share of the vote of the 3 parties in locals in recent times. The Tories would do exceptionally well to get 35-40% of the vote looking at this graph. The seats that are up should see them polling below their national average in terms of % vote….
Also the article points out that Labour did quite poorly in 2002 and the Tories quite well, so the Tories are defending a “high water” mark… I’m not sure whether the Tories will make huge net gains. I think it will be a good night if we have a net gain in seats and we take control of at least 2/3 more councils in London…. An excellent night will see the Tories controlling nearly half of London’s councils, picking up the odd seat in Manchester/Liverpool and advancing significantly in Birmingham.
59 - They just repeated it again, the heading for all three was ‘local election polls’. Maybe it was only a locals question but they put it along with two more general polls if that was the case which seems unlikely.
51&58 I agree.
In my opinion Tony Blair will somehow manage to turn this present spate of adversity into an opportunity to burnish the government’s fortitude and consubstantially his personal ’staying power’. Going against the grain of the so-called “We’re all Brownites” worldview of the guardianista media class, I think in the next 5-6 months we will see something of a Blairite renassiance in government if he can transcend personal attachment
to fatally compromised ministers like Hewitt and Clarke by replacing them with heavy hitters who the public and media respect like Johnson, Reid and Hillary Benn. With this to date endlessly deffered reshuffle he needs to be bold - combining generational renewal that while disprortionately benefiting Brownites (Ed Balls, Ed Miliband, Douglas Alexander, etc) can be presented as New Labour reaffirmation if petty factional identities can be put aside.
Ideally at Work and Pensions a John Hutton promotion to DTI should be followed by Ian McCartney moving back to this brief in government, he is a symbol of continuity with old labour values of generious welfare provision and concern for the disadvantaged and if pensions reform and disability reform is going to be successfully carried through we cannot afford to alienate voters.
My money is on Blair lasting until at least 2007 and hopefully into 2008, he’s built for weathering crises and we have to remember just how much power the Prime Minister retains over the Parliamentary party - with an effective whip operation he should be able to muster an effective defense against any fringe left alliance with the hardcore Brownites, unlikely as such a scenario is. What does concern me is the mood of the Labour Party membership - morale seems at an all-time low at the grassroots - New Labour needs to put its own house in order by concentrating on membership development and retention after these local elections otherwise they will be generals without an army.
Surely when it comes to shafting Blair, Prescott surely could never have kept his grey suit on long enough to do the job? Watch out for Alistair Darling coming up on the rails.
We need to know more about this ICM poll. You may get a regional poll (eg. London only) from time to time, but what should we make of it if it is a poll of “all areas facing local elections this week”? If it is this, then large buckets of salt are needed, as about 70% won’t both to vote at all, but I doubt the survey reflects this. And we would then need directly compare it to the actual votes last time (which is 2002 for London, and 2003 or 2004 in other areas). Factor in also that in some areas, there is not a full complement of party candidates (B&D for LD and Tories, Labour in Richmond etc.).
I just can’t make sense of 22% others at all. Perhaps Mary Scanlon is standing all over England, and people think she is a worthy independent.
57. Does anyone have a link to the polls out in the Sunday newspapers? I’ve had a bit of a hunt, but no success.
40. Is that a GE voting intention poll? If so…
64 SBS if it is a local election poll then I imagine they’d be hard pressed to decide on a weighting for the sample. You could do it on the 2002 results, ask people who they voted for in 2002 and weight accordingly, but other than party loyalists who can remember for whom they voted in the local elections 4 years ago?
In addition since in a lot of wards the parties standing this time around will be different from the choice given in 2002, such a weighting might be a bit useless… Respect may well take seats in Tower Hamlets for example, but didn’t even exist in 2002 (I think?)
Just for fun…
On Baxter, sans Tactical voting, the ICM poll figures give us another respect MP (Birmingham Sparkbrook), Con; 238, Lab; 297 and LD; 77. Lab short 27 of a majority.
62 - Are you being serious Dan?!?
23-25 Bob Flowerdew recommends this on GQT everytime the subject of composting comes up.
Worm wee (having just drawn off a couple of bottles worth from the recycler) is good for a direct plant feed - but you need to dilute it. Human pee is used to help start the chemical process invovled in composting. Wouldn’t recommend it for direct application onto plants though.
Just thought this might be interesting. Maybe someone can work this into a politcal anolaogy? Tabman?
63 - During the height of Nottingham Forest’s troubles this season, the then manager Gary Megson, after one particularly gutless performance by the players, invited some fans into the dressing room after the game to read the the riot act…Somehow this has attractions to Labour’s current problems. I think Blair and Brown shold be locked away in a room for an hour with some ordinary, hard working, Labour party members who could perhaps knock their heads together and remind them that when people voted Labour, they did exactly that they voted Labour, and not for them personally, and their job is to steward the country and promote Labour values and ideas, and not their ludicrous egos and legacies!
You talk about the whips, you know when faced with a rebeillious back bencher whips often use the tactic of saying, basically, “who the hell do you think you are?”. No one voted for you, your opinions don’t matter, they voted for the labour party and that’s why you are an mp. Well, ditto for blair, you are pm because people voted labour. No one cares about your bloody legacy. Now get back to work.
62-Daniel Cremin
So although we have a pensions crisis (at least in the private sector) we can continue with the practice of changing the pension’s minister on an annual basis.
No wonder its in such a mess ,no wonder it never gets fixed,apart from the public sector which of course is untouchable.
Are you serious about a clapped out old rust buckets like Ian Mcartney? What has he ever contributed?
Apart from anything else,nobody can understand what he says.
Futher to my point at 68, I recomend you read this Daniel http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2006/04/real-reason-tony-blair-has-delayed-his.html
I think your placing too much faith in the Blairites, and I think in your heart of hearts you know the game is up.
deathley serious andrew - don’t underestimate the power of teflon politics!
This is like the 5th year of a two term presidency - the government’s reputation fades amidst a media feeding frenzy and positioning for the next leadership battle.New Labour just needs to get off the ropes by as Blair countlessly echoes ruthlessly focusing on a subtantive public policy of futher reform - if it could be expanded to include areas like Transport and the consumer rights agenda Brown is said to be favouring for the future this would show a government that is far from out of steam. I don’t know how they’ll do it but New Labour can’t simply rely on the talking point current affairs onslaught subsiding, they need to communicate more directly with the public - there has been very little follow through on the 21st century version of Labour Listens we were promised at the end of last year. Getting all senior labour figures on deck on this is what’s needed - yes they’ll take hits but its vital for the government’s future credibility to reestablish a reputation for social relevancvy and responsivness rather than remaining in the bubble of the Westminster village.
71 - Dan, if it is the same Cremin I know, is an unreconstructed Blairite.
70. Based on that post, I would say Labour really are in danger of a bloodbath next week, and maybe at the next GE, too.
73 - Would you agree with me that Blair is the roadblock to a Labour recovery?
70
Good point,certainly legacies, hanging onto jobs whether competent or otherwise,plus inibriated with all the privileges & trappings of state is at the top of the priority list, am not sure that the people that put them there even figure on that list.
Along these lines, there is an interesting piece by Brian Gould on Austin Mitchell’s website.
They might like to also remind Blair that they don’t give their hard earned subscriptions to the Labour partry ,to have it pissed away on hairstylists for the British version of Imelda Marcos.
This is like the 5th year of a two term presidency….
If Blair thinks like that, he’s toast. What he continually forgets is the fundamental dynamics of British politics are not presidential, despite the styles of recent PMs. Blair doesn’t have an independent mandate from the British people that he can use to slap down the Cabinet and the backbenches. He’s not got the personal credibility to sound credible over reform - we have just seen the NHS reforms, which bear his personal stamp, run into the mud. This might well have been a reasonable way to get out of trouble when Blair was a popular and respected figure; now, it’ll look like the sort of tired “relaunch” all PMs fall back on when they run into trouble.
When people talk about percentage shares of the vote they need to state what they mean. One possibility is simply to look at percentage of votes cast at these local elections. The other is to try to extrapolate what the Parties would have scored if elections had been held across the country which is what the BBC will attempt to do, as I understand it. Sean Fear complains that they assume that ‘Others’ would be squeezed in a real election so some of their vote gets allocated to the other parties on an apparently arbitrary basis ( although they will presumably poll nowhere near as much as suggested by some polls because they won’t be standing in many places so it’s not clear whether you aim off for that and produce a high figure or do what Sean complains of)). A further complication is Scotland ( and Wales?) where there will not be any voting. I’m not clear whether the BBC will be calculating on a GB basis or not. In terms of comparisons these considerations will be vital.
If there was an extrapolation taking in GB and factoring in an extrapolation of ‘others’ based on them standing everywhere, I doubt the Conservatives would get more than 35% but I could see Labour down to 25% and the LDs higher on 27% and 13% for ‘others’. If others are reallocated I guess all the Parties will nudge up a point or two.
Overall it seems to me that wherever there is a well organised alternative to Labour it will achieve big swings partly but not totally because of very low turnout from Labour voters. The swings to LDs and BNP will be higher than to the Tories because Labour voters will still be more reluctant to switch straight across to them.
Any thoughts Sean?
75 - LOL - I am not, repeat not, a Forest fan!
What rubbish that Dale piece is - just off the top of my head Steve Timms, John Healey, Bill Rammell are all top notch - the latter two come across as credible in person as well. Andy Ingram is a Reid-like figure and will make it to defence secretary someday. Not sure if it would be wise to promote Hazel - although at North West labour events she always goes down well she’s not exactly resonated that well with the public, nevertheless apparently she’s a competent minister so perhaps she could enjoy a behind the scenes role in the Cabinet Office as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. John Denham would be a good addition to the cabinet a ticket-balancing nod to the soft left ‘Cookite’ wing of the party.
74 - Dan, if it is the same Cremin I know, is an unreconstructed Blairite.
============
Lol i usually get chastised for being a “Swedish social democratic” compass groupee by my peers! As I said in my post I’d like to see a far greater focus on transport issues, an area deprioritised progressively in the second term - hardly an unreconstructed blairite! In fact if anyone deserves the term ‘unreconstructed’ surely its you, you don’t think even thatcher went far enough!
I don’t think the term Blairite / Blairism means anything. It implies some sort of Blair ideology, rather than the abiding desire to hold onto power at all costs, which is what Blair seems to stand for. In twenty years time, love it or hate it, people will still know to some extent what Thatcherism was.
42. At the Locals, people will vote for their preference. At the General, they will settle for their best hope.
I am still curious about the timing of the sleaze implosion. Labour have been too slick & slippery for this to be a coincidence. Anyone have any conspiracy theories?
“Labour have been too slick & slippery for this to be a coincidence.”
That’s the myth. A lot of their slickness was the media giving them an easy ride. No longer
83 - I think there is a loose ideology that can be called Blairism. You might call it “hard liberalism”; what it effectively involved is transforming Labour into a party not unlike the right wing of the Democrats, on the basis that a party with such views could well dominate British politics for years to come.
83. Agreed ‘Blairism’ is surely about an absence of ideology, about ruthless expediency.
84. I blame Al-Qaeda
Labour were fundamentally crap at spinning; they let the messengers get too big for their boots, which made them poor at the job, because their spinning was so obvious. That’s the difference with Campbell and David Hill; everybody knew what the former was up to and how he did it. This means that when things get tough for the government, they find it difficult to be believe because everyone automatically discounts their message. Blair and Iraq also made the situation worse.
I suppose I would define Blairism as a total compromise with right-wing economic ideology to uphold and promote socio-democratic values (ie a means to an end). Sounds Orwellian, I know. But that’s because it is.
86- “I think there is a loose ideology that can be called Blairism. You might call it “hard liberalism”; ”
These days you could equate it with an absence of liberalism.
90 - Arguably, it’s the type of “liberalism” Clinton demonstrated when he approved Rickey Ray Rector’s execution.
A very quick precis of Blairisim:
To begin with its a rejection of ideological absolutes on both the left and right of the political spectrum. Instead its a programme shaped by recognisably social democratic values(think Bernstein) but presented as the ‘radical centre’ of British politics.In particular its proponents emphasise the importance of community, family, economic efficiency and the empowerment of citizens as consumers in both the market and the public services. In foreign policy terms its grounded in the notion of burying Britsh government’s traditionally ‘insufficiently assertive’ stereotype by carving out a pro-active role as the arbiter of reform in the EU and a global role model on debt relief and humanitrarian efforts. Its acceptance of market economics is based on the belief that globalisation is not just a challenge but an opportunity that can generated greater national wealth and improved living standards - hence the advocacy of labour market flexibility and the liberalisation agenda within the EU common market.
86 - I dunno. I would call Thatcher a “hard liberal” in terms of economic values, at least if we’re looking at the old definition of liberalism. I don’t think Blair fits that criteria exactly, just borrows parts from it.
Basically, Blairism is trying to be all things to all people.
92. Hmmm shades of the infamous ‘neo-endogenous growth theory’ speech there….
I was thinking more of the “American” than the classical version of liberalism; should have made that clear. The guiding motivaitons are electoral, although there is some influence on Blair and Brown (if not absolute acceptance from the latter) from those US thinkers (including some of the neo-cons of the 1970s in domestic policy terms) who grew increasibly dubious about traditional models of social welfare provision, and moved closer to what is now known as the “enabling state”. Blair, fundamentally, wants to claim ownership of this policy strand for Labour so that Tory swing voters will be convinced that effective reform of the way government deliver services can also be delivered by Labour - a sort of Disraeli-type manoeuvre.
As an aside, how would anyone describe Cameron’s ideology? (Ok, Ok, despite “opportunist”)! I’d say it’s difficult to tell at the moment, although I think he does borrow from some Neoconservative ideals.
96 - let’s wait for a policy. It’s pretty hard to work his ideology until we have one. You can’t work out policy from photo-opportunities.
I think the high-faluting but ultimately vacuous comment 92 aptly describes Blair himself. The man a void. An emptiness. A big bundle of idealistic showboating disguising a basically selfish careerism.
W*nk may be the best way of describing Blairism; w*nker the best way of describing Blair.
To take just one example. You claim Blairism makes us the arbiter of reform in the EU? How does the UK arbitrate? With whom? We caved over CAP. And the Rebate. We’ve done nothing Constitutional in the EU, except hope for the best and slowly give away more powers.
Blairism is Thatcherite economics - Thatcherite economics badly tinkered with in the vague but misplaced hope of producing a more egalitarian outcome. In foreign policy it is spineless idiocy and craven mendacity (Iraq) disguised as ‘assertiveness’; socially it pretends to be liberal (gay rights) while on the most important matters it is as illiberal as any party to govern the country in fifty years - Blairism is deeply authoritarian in a particularly asinine and nannying way.
The one good thing you could say about Blairism is that it is managerialist and therefore basically competent in things like economics; but after the NHS debt crisis and tax credits fiasco I’m not sure you can say even that anymore.
Blairism, whatever it was, is now a busted flush. And no one will mourn it. Unlike Thatcherism, it will disappear as an ‘ideology’ along with the man itself. And good riddance. Blairism (and NuLabour) is like Yugoslavia under Tito, a mess of contradictions, stupidities and absurdities held together by the charisma of one man.
Apres Blair, le deluge.
92. Fair enough, as far as it goes. It does of course miss out any concept of individual liberty and it misses out one of the dominant domestic policy drivers, which is never to allow Blair’s Labour to be outflanked by the Tories on the authoritarian right on law & order issues. Much as I loathe this strategy, I cannot deny that it has (had?) been immensely successful at keeping the Conservatives at bay.
95. I think that is the motive, yes. But in fact Labour’s talk of reform has been a smokescreen for what has actually been a very old Labour package - lots and lots of money and complete surrender to public sector vested interests.
96. Well it worked for TB and the Nu labour project.
98. Actually, amend that - I do think ‘Blairism’ will survive as a political term - but it will be used as a shorthand for ‘expedient media spinning’ or ‘especially adept fibbing in the service of a governing party’ - it will be the word we use when we want to say that a politician is a dubiously adroit manipulator. ‘Hey, that was pretty Blairite’, we’ll say, or ‘wow, he’s a real Tony Blair’. In the same way we regard the PM now, the term will be pejorative, but tinged with a reluctant admiration.
As a term of ideology, ‘Blairism’ barely exists now and will surely expire for good, very soon - as it has no meaning or use.
100. “complete surrender to public sector vested interests.”
Nonsense. Labour is bringing in reforms which are deeply unpopular in the public sector (which is neither an indicator of them being good or bad reforms).
Labour has undoubtedly poured money into the NHS (arguably without proper financial controls etc) but that is consistent with their aims and rhetoric, and hardly a surrender to anyone.
103 - almost complete cave-in by Labour on public sector worker pensions.
The whole thing was supposed to be a trade-off: spending to keep the base happy, and structural reform to impress the right. The results have either been mixed on unsuccessful, although the government is not totally out for the count here.
103
‘complete surrender to any reform of public sector pensions’
Guido reports the following:
‘There is a rumour going around in press circles that Prezza, alerted in advance by a journalist that he was going to be exposed, confessed to Pauline about the wrong mistress. He mangles the English language, so muddling up his mistresses would be no surprise.’
I would be a bit careful on public sector pensions. If you are talking about the local government aspect, it looks as if the agreement will be present workers retain there agreed contractual entitlements but new recruits lose all that. That seems fair to me.
95,
Do`nt think firemen would agree.
However on the whole you are correct, but Thatcher, and Major came unstuck, as this government will, when you take on the higher eschelons of the public sector,who are in desperate need of reform, namely the civil service, police, courts,probation, social services.
there should be their!!
The reaction to the Prescott affair(s) is interesting. Objectively this is the kind of behaviour that has generally come to be expected of politicans and few can really be shocked by it. But the level of derision is similar to the treatment that, say, David Mellor got in the 1990s. OK, they are both unlikely Casanovas and that accounts for some of it - but it’s also that the Blair government now seems as venal and worn out as Major’s did back then.
108 - entirely fair. Provided you increase the contribution rate for employees above the nominal 6%. Say to 10% for those who want to continue to accrue benefits payable at 60.
111 - Philip. I think it’s all the more potent (if you will forgive the use of the word in this context) because people remember that nobody was more vocal than Two Jags in deriding the Tories for sleaze in the 1990s and now this. Those who live by the sword die by the sword.
109 - did we ever get round to reforming the fire service? Or is the shift pattern still that of WW2 (when, unlike now, most fires were at night). 2 days on, 2 nights sleep in (unions won’t allow training), 4 days painting and decorating / plumbing.
True, they do pay 13% towards their pension. But they can retire on full benefits after 30 years, and often go for ill health early retirement before that (to concentrate on the plumbing etc).
Don’t get me started on the firemen.
113 - ditto for police pensions - there do seem to be a lot of security guards in office buildings in their early fifties… on full police pensions!
Police can retire after 30 years service. Join at 18 in the past, 21 now, anything wrong with that.
113 - true, you can dig up any number of quotes along the lines of “whiter than white, purer than pure”.
Two shags, might be a working class hero in the pub.
If everyone had to resign for extra liasons when married, won`t be many going to work on tuesday.
However like Mellor he is a figure of fun, but wasn`t that always the way.
118 - Now, now Dez. Don’t judge all us married folk by Two Shags’ degraded standards.
119. AHM, I’m keeping all your emails
120 - I hope so! You keep them and make sure the MoS doesn’t get them
121. Yeah, my dear
119,
No I wouldn`t, maybe they will be a back lash to the moral standards of the previous elites, Clinton , Major,Prescott,and people will be longing for the new purtians of a Brown regime run on a protestant, calvinist scottish work ethic.
In visiting London I see very few Labour window posters for the local elections, more ‘Vote Green’ than ‘Vote Labour’ I presume things not looking too well for them. In Waltham Forest depending which ward you are in the LD’s seem to have quite a lot of window poster up. A Lib Dem worker made the mistake of asking me who I was voting for? ‘SNP’ brought puzzled looks.
It get worse for Labour …..Trish Law is thinking about standing in Bleanau gwent
http://www.icwales.com
125. I read Law’s reverend was on TV attacking Labour. And it seems Labour has called for activists to start leafleting even before the funeral. They seem very keen to attract bad press!
125 It’ll be interesting to see whether she goes for the Assembly or Westminster. Traditional Labour voters could easily salve their consciences by voting for her in one election and Labour in the other, if they are held on the same day.
98. SeanT let me juts say I find you very rude and as a flaoting voter you have put me off the Tories forver by showing they are STILL THE NASty PARTY!!!
Message is that Labour are having a difficult time in Stoke on Trent, however after Moray I retain caution. If its true hope its not the BNP!!!!
123 -
Did I read you correctly saying that you were a Conservative last night? 
128 Oh please! Let’s not get back into a squabble about who’s rude and who isn’t.
28 - If you’re a floating voter why do you call yourself “Labour HQ?” And if you are a floating voter, why would the words of one person on an internet site put you off voting for the Tories forever?
25 - She’ll have to be careful she doesn’t split the independent vote. If Dai Davies goes for the Assembly, she could go for the Westminster seat. If they’re both after the same seat, it could help Labour.
132. There’s no way they’ll both contest the same seat. You see Davies quoted in that article, so I suppose there’s an agreement between the 2.
131 - I think it was a joke!
133: - In that case, Labour have to be worried. Mrs Law already has a high profile and seems dedicated to upholding her husband’s legacy. If her husband could win the ’safest’ Labour seat in Wales, I’m sure that she could do it as well.
Do you think the other parties would stand back and give the Lndependant a clear run, they didn’t at the general, otherwise they might lose their deposits.
136. I think they’ll contest it, but probably without putting too many efforts…especially because they don’t seem to have many chances! They’re all under 5%.
136. I’d be surprised if they did stand back. But their campaigning might be targeted at whichever seat Mrs Law wasn’t standing for.
132 - re 128,Absolutely spot on Elena!
Oh, I think the parties will almost certainly stand, but they won’t get anywhere. Perhaps the Lib Dems could increase their vote share by making some pretty nifty bar charts, although I’m sure the challenge of saying that it’s a “two horse race” in Blaenau Gwent might be a little difficult for them. If Trish Law did stand, I would expect her to win.
Will Mrs Law actually stand though?
We often get speculation regarding the widow (Gow Smith Penhaligan) standing for it not to then happen.
41 meant Penaligon
42 Penhaligon finally.
141. Law’s agent said she’s considering it. If Labour manages to piss her off even more in the next few days, she’ll probably stand.
128. Was a spoof post…I thought obviously so…alarmed to have fooled two people…!
Is Sarah Bissett-Scott still a Labour member?
If so, doesn’t she think that giving interviews about her affair with Prezza is not that good for her party?
45 - oops!
Btw, according the Sunday Mirror, Sarah Bisset Scott was the candidate in Stevenage in 1992. But looking at past results, the Labour candidate in Stevenage in 1992 was Mrs J.A. Church. There was a Mrs S.J. Bisset Johnson who stood in 1992 in Hertfordshire North
O/T Why is there so little traffic on (the District section of) vote-2006.co.uk? (I don’t meant to appear disloyal to pb)
79, I wouldn’t mind the BBC trying to come up with a notional result so much if they didn’t treat it as a notional general election result. If they simply produced an extrapolation, and gave the correct percentage figure for the minor parties, it would actually be quite helpful to compare the figures in different years.
128. you’re nearly as funny as Fred. or bowel cancer.
134. hard to tell. i think he needs to add one of those little faces so we know when to laugh (with him this time)
Do U suFFer from OCD?!? IS THIS FREAKING u oUT!!? . is apalling spelling and punctuation demonstrative of a poor education or the fact most (normal) people have better things to do than proof reading for fear of, ahem, riddicule
bqqwsbytau…
mhvnvzwdc lypcxhr bpxrqew oouqodfic …