How serious a position is Tony Blair in?
July 26th, 2006
-
Why I’m putting more money on him going this year?
Three news stories in the past couple of days have caused me to put more money on Tony Blair not surviving in the job until the end of the year.
First the reports that Lord Levy - Blair’s tennis partner, Middle East envoy and fundraiser - did not answer police questions after his arrest but repeatedly said “no comment” indicate, surely, that this is getting serious. If this goes to the next stage and a charge the Prime Minister would be very exposed.
Second the court appearance by Des Smith - the schools’ fundraiser - yesterday in which his lawyer spoke of “a well-established link” between the provision of financial support for specialist schools and preferment of honours. The hearing was on a driving charge and his solicitor was trying to explain the pressure that his client had been under. If this is what is being said on his behalf in open court what has he told the police inquiry?
Thirdly reports of Rory Bremner’s conversation with Blair while they were holidaying near each other in 1996. A Sunday Times report from last year picked up by Guido has “…..After a pleasant game with Blair and making a few jokes at the expense of John Major, then prime minister, Bremner raised a serious point. “I said, ‘We’re laughing at John Major now, but if you get into power the boot will be on the other foot and you’ll be on the receiving end.’ “Blair laughed rather nervously and said, ‘Uh, um, how does Lord Bremner sound to you?’ ” It was a joke, Bremner emphasises, “but he was aware of patronage and bringing people within the circle”. If Blair was saying this to a comedian what has he said to other people over the past ten years?
In all betting you have to judge the odds you are being offered against your personal assessment of what is going to happen. I’m not predicting that Blair will go but I do believe that the chances of a departure in the final quarter of the year are higher than the price of 5/1 that I bet at overnight.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Well done for picking up on Guido’s and Iain’s post about Levy’s obstructionism. I was skeptical of the charge of cover-ups by Nick Robinson, etc, but if Levy truly did respond ‘No comment’ and refused to answer police questions, that is clearly a major story.
If the BBC refuses to cover such a story, the Tories will be right to go on the offensive against them once they return to power. We cannot have blatant bias of that sort in a public service broadcaster.
My settled view is that Blair goes some time after the May locals next year.
“Expensive lawyer advises rich client to make no comment on issue where laws are extremely murky”.
What’s the story?
That he said he had offered the police full co-operation.
Mike’s point #3 is irrelevant however IMO.
A Labour Cllr in Scarborough has defected to the Lib Dems:
http://www.scarboroughtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=800&ArticleID=1650084
I love his quote:
“The Labour Party has lost its way. The only party which has any socialist policies is the Liberal Democrats.”
“The only party which has any socialist policies is the Liberal Democrats.”
He presumably only takes snap-shots of the Chameweon!
1. I’d missed the article on Levy myself, but it’s supposed to be an unattributable Whitehall source on an interview conducted in private - so either it’s nonsense or it’s come directly or indirectly from Levy himself. I can’t work out what he would have to gain from taking the initiative to release the story, though of course he could have talked about it with someone who wasn’t as discreet as he’d assumed. Even so, it’s not just the Beeb who are rightly treating this with caution: none of the media look to be running big with it (and the Beeb probably hears nasty echoes of another story highly critical of the the government that was released before its accuracy could be assured).
So how does that affect the chances of him going this year? I can’t see any prospect of him giving up power voluntarily with this hanging over him, so if he’s to be forced out then the honours probe is just about the only game in town. The thing while we know that when crises blow up, leaders can be dispatched quickly - Thatcher, IDS, Kennedy - the most likely cause of such a crisis is dependent on things of which we have very sketchy knowledge (unlike the three people cited earlier).
I think Blair’s position is very serious but not because of any of the matters you highlight which amount to nothing.
4. Yes, that quote is a little gem.
Do you agree with something else that the councillor said, though:
“”We now have a situation where a Labour Government is, I believe, promoting recycled Thatcherite policies and is nothing more than a caretaker Tory government.
“The so-called ‘New Labour’ project has failed. All it has done is push the party further and further to the right.”
Hmm…”caretaker Tory government” ? Not really.
4. Rik W in ‘non-Tory defector’ shock! Very non-partisan of you to bring it to our attention, although maybe it was just for the quotes!
Topic: Does anyone have a sense of how long this investigation could last? It seems to be running and running. Even if Blair ultimately is found to be on murky ground and forced to go, is there not a chance it could be after the end of the year anyway, thus losing the 2006 bets?
4. Rik, most worrying thing should take your attention.
Look at those pictures of your 2005 Winchester candidate:
http://www.georgehollingbery.com/img/gallery/GH.jpg
http://www.winchester.gov.uk/Image/Councillor/Hollingbery.jpeg
Now it all depends which one is the oldest one.
If the first one is the oldest one, well, it means he has fought hair loss without the need of a rent-boy.
But if the first one is the new one, well, we all know what happened the last time a Winchester politician lost his hair!
tpfkar - was that you I saw in the Parliamentary lifts yesterday?!
Tony Blair is in serious trouble because his Party have lost confidence in him. Those who thought his instincts were noble-like me- have been let down. Those who thought he was a poodle of George Bush out of cowardice have been proved right. A bit of “an international joke figure” is, I think, how Douglas Hurd described him this morning. Who can argue?.
To realize how slow I’ve been to see what was obvious to others shows how strong Party loyalty can be. And when it’s gone I imagine it’s hard to get back. I feel more antipathy to Blair (and to some extent Labour) than I do to Cameron today and that’s saying something.
Whoah - you don’t want to be hanging out with Rik in the parliamentary lifts.
Usually, I follow MS’s betting tips slavishly and unthinkingly. But with TB remaining PM for a couple of months after resigning (for voting for his successor), it is tough to see how he won’t be in No. 10 on Dec 31 2006.
The most likely reason for the Guardian to have delayed publication of their ICM poll is that as indicated yesterday it really is dramatic. And that can only mean a Labour vote collapse. Yesterday Condi’s arrival was always going to lead the news. To-morrow if it’s dramatic enough this should. Cameron down a couple of points or Ming up a couple wouldn’t do it. Perhaps the men in flat caps wont delay till conference but and give him his marching orders now?.
Having said that yesterday’s byelection in Rushmoor Grange ward was in a safe Conservative seat it was a LibDem gain !!!!!
LibDem 515 Con 445 BNP 137 Lab 94 - result in May was Con 683 LibDem 373 BNP 257 Lab 209 .
Rushmoor-Range by-election:
LD 515
Con 445
BNP 137
Lab 94
LD gain in big swing!
Interesting that this story is getting traction. I note the comments in the speeding case. I think Des Smith will be back to assist the Police sometime soon.
I can see why Roger has lost faith. I personaly think he is begining to make John Major look good on a number of fronts, sleeze being one, and understanding international affairs another.
Interesting times ahead. I wish I had some money to put a few bets on.
I’ve lost faith because I think he’s a fake. I don’t think he’s a crook and I think that those who want him out are pointing their fire in the wrong direction. Major was never himself sleazy he was just hopeless. Blair has flattered to decieve for quite a while but the truth is his chancellor was the only thing that gave him or his government credibility.
Roger, while I also think that the Lebanon issue will have created a Lab-Lib movement(though personally I think that people are judging on incomplete information both about the conflict and about what is being done), I don’t think that newspapers work like that. If you have a big story, you publish it before something goes wrong with it, e.g. another poll or a major event overshadows it (and I don’t think Condi’s arrival is quite in that category). The delay is odd but I doubt if that’s the reason for it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5215366.stm
Are there still people out there who think these targettings are accidental? I suppose it was accidently shelled 14 times, then accidently an air-strike was called in, then accidently the rescue team was shelled afterwards? Presumably the UN troops in the blue helmets accidently looked like Hizbullah types, and the steam from the brewing tea-pot accidently looked like Katyusha rockets being fired?
The IDF has a long history of deliberately killing UN troops in the Occupied territories and on the Labanese border. They call the UN “speed bumps”. It’s about time some of you people opened your eyes.
Ah, come on. The sad fact that politicians should never ever tell jokes is shown once again - even 10 years later they may be used against you. Unlike most ‘embarrassing’ jokes this one wasn’t even in bad taste - it was obviously just a joke. In general, if I were contemplating committing an offence, the last thing I’d do is make jokes about it.
I’m very confident about TB not going this year, and prepared to put money on it - where is the best place to do so?
20 Sorry Nick, the “incomplete information” business was exactly the line spun about Iraq. When anyone questioned the existence of WMDs, the New Labour answer was that TB had access to much more complete information than humdrum mortals.
And now, about the conflict in the Lebanon, again we hear from you that “people are judging on incomplete information”.
If the Levy story is true I think it is very very relevant. What I heard was that he was refusing to answer questions and has stuck to a pre-written statement - not quite the same thing as saying nothing but not quite the ‘full co-operation’ he was claiming to be offering.
As I said on my blog there is growing recognition (and frustration) that Levy is blocking the investigation progressing any further up the chain (i.e. to No 10) by saying nothing more than he has to unless he is actually charged, as is his right.
There is a downside, which is that if he is charged his uncooperative behaviour will look very damaging in court.
I conclude one of two things - 1) He is sure that there is not enough evidence to charge anyone, including himself or 2) He is acting as a ‘body shield’ to protect Tony Blair for as long as he remains in office.
It is anyones guess which of the two apply.
RE 22, Nick I agree about the Bremner remark being a joke, as for Tony being here next year I am not so sure. I am not saying he will go but he is so out of step with every one in and out of his party I can only see trouble ahead.
The fact that anyone is prepared to regurgitate a two year old story from a ten year old joke ought to show how little critical material his opponents have. But what it actually shows is how hopeless his opponents are. Guido’s stuff is mostly regurgitated rubbish which desperate Tories read because they are so weak on policy that they have nothing else. If they had a decent leader and some policies they could take Blair apart. They wouldn’t need Guido’s garbage. Fortunately the Lib dems are hitting some real targets and they alone are scoring points for all of us.
How do the mechanics of Labour leadership election work? I seem to remember that, in the past, elections have always been held on the basis of a timetable allowing the result to be announced at Party Conference, so that the new leader could take over for the start of the new parliamentary session. If that were the case, how soon would Blair have to resign to meet that timetable? Unless something very dramatic happened it would seem a bit odd for him to keep going pas this date, and then resign in the first month or so of the new parliamentary session, presumably only a few weeks after the Queen’s speech, announcing his government’s plans for the coming year.
22 – For once I agree with Nick Palmer. The comment to Rory Bremner was clearly a JOKE. If he’d said something like “Well, I hear MI5 are very good at getting rid of people”, would we have taken it as showing he was considering having his political opponents murdered?
It really is pathetic when PPC’s really think that their best chance is to home-in on what Lord Levy did or didn’t say. Don’t you Tories worry that you used to be a party full of ideas who are now reduced to scraping the dregs out of Guido’s dustbin?
TGFTLD’s
Not that anyone care about him, but John McDonnell said he “will still be surprised if Tony Blair announces early”. He has predicted an announcement in about May or June of next year with the 2007 conference as another possibility
18 and 19. Re: sleaze- I saw Major on Marr trying to reinvent history by procaliming the moral high ground. Imprisonment, cash for questions, sex galore, unregulated finances and (the image still haunts me) strumping Edwina, then going on the family values crusade. Marr let him get him away with it. Major though cuts such a sad figure it is a bit like shooting at the red cross.
Also, Major’s international presence was equally dismal.
Blair had 6 good years internationally 1997-03. He raised the profile and prestige of the UK. Unfortunately Iraq has seen him now cutting as weak a figure abroad as Major. That said I agree that Major’s grasp of international affairs was good, and Edwina aside, Major was a decent man. Pity his party wasn’t and probably still isn’t.
28 - Oh Roger get real - this is probably the biggest UK political corruption story since Jeremy Thorpe! Of course people will discuss its implications. However, when the time comes there will be a manifesto full of policies that we will put before the British people in the hope and expectation of gaining their support.
Levy and Prescott are in the mean time useful indicators of the true state of the core of New Labour - rotten!
’sex galore’ eh? whoaar missus!
Re: 4 & 17: Obviously Rushmoor is a hotbed of socialism, Rik !!
Andrea- agree totally; announcement next May/June, full handover to conincide with the party conference in September (US style convention). Both these events will be stage managed to produce an overwhelming feeling of renewal, gratitude (to TB) hope, change- and enough momentum to carry Brown into a 2008 May election. There is no way PM Brown wants to take the May 2007 election hit, and no way he wants to risk his momentum past May 2008.
Roger, the story about Lord Levy refusing to answer questions was not ‘the dregs out of Guido’s dustbin’ but from the Times.
And it is an important story that mysteriously seems to have been completely missed by the BBC.
It ill becomes any Labour supporter to complain about people like Guido; I don’t seem to remember Labour people complaining when Alistair Campbell spread the completely untrue story that john Major tucked his shirt inside his underpants, for instance.
Your party have spent the last 25 years blowing up every single scurrilous rumour that came your way into a massive ’sleaze’ story from Belgrano to Mellors Chelsea Strip.
The difference this time is that this has potential for exposing real corruption at the very heart of Government.
Rik. I think you are confusing your own prurience with what makes a big story. Just supposing the only person they charge is Lord Ashcroft because they somehow find a document written by him offering a title for money. It’s hypothetical but I wouldn’t find it either particularly interesting or earth shattering. I would just think it a bit rough that the others got off and he got prosecuted.
RE 30, PJ, Yes major was a decent man who had a grasp of international affairs. Tony is not.
As for the party, well we are all decent, but then I would say that wouldn’t I?
34 said, the odd’s of 5-1 will tighten considerably if there is another Levy headline grabbing story or two. Blair being questioned by the police being the main one.
There is money to be made at 5-1 if you get your timings right, and get out of the market before it eases right out.
31 - certainly starting to look on the scale of the Thorpe affair. Let us hope the judge is not swayed by the establishment. Thorpe did not give evidence in court, but the judge was certainly swayed by the establishment. Times have changed since 1979!
37 Benedict. “..Yes Major was a decent man ……”
Yuck !!!!!!! …. Major was a sleazy adulterer and hypocrite bar none. He presided over a weak government that lacked direction and fundamental leadership …….. and I voted for it in 92 !!
39. Sorry SBS - much as I might like it to be otherwise, I think the allegations against Thorpe were far more serious.
34. PJ. It all makes sense!
41 - on reflection, yes. Thorpe has hardly made the most of his freedom, however. Shunned by his friends, career finished, crippled by Parkinsons - I met him 15 years ago, and his speech was almost unintelligible then, and he struggled walking. He looked close to death and appeared to be about 95. Amazingly he is still alive, but nobody is interested in him at all. I do think the verict may have been different these days.
OK - let us say the Levy case could equate to John Stonehouse?
37. Bit harsh Benedict on Blair’s decency. I think all things considered Blair is pretty decent. I think he is pretty much trying to do the best thing for the country in his own way. He has big flaws- self righteousness and belief in own propoganda, awe of power, capitalists and capitalism etc…
For 6 years he did pretty good- problem with flaws though is that they become more exposed, evident and all consuming with time. Why people end up getting divorced which is pretty much where we the British public are at with Blair. Trick for Blair though is whether he can divorce platonically- my guess is that he can.
43. That’s probably a bit more like it. Btw. I agree with your other point about the verdict in the Thorpe trial. Politically though I think it made little difference - everyone assumes Thorpe was in fact guilty - hence his being shunned thereafter.
Re: 43 - A little harsh SBS. Thorpe lost his seat in 1979 and went into voluntary “exile”. He enjoyed a rehabilitation (unlike Edward Heath with some Tories) with the Liberals and LDs. One year at conference in the late 80s, he was in the audience and got a prolonged and heartfelt standing ovation from the activists (I was there). As you say, his health declined in the early 90s.
His period as leader saw the Liberals peak at 19% in the February 1974 election. He was also leader when the community politics movement got going in the late 60s and early 70s and oversaw the great by-election successes of the early 70s including Sutton & Cheam. This came after the disaster of the 1970 election when the Liberals fell back to just 6 seats.
I’m not sure whether or not he ever felt a coalition with the Tories was possible after the Feb 1974 election but I doubt either side really wanted it. The manner of his downfall was regrettable of course but that shouldn’t be the only thing for which he is remembered.
[snip] edited by Robert
–sorry Barry, that was definitely potentially libellous.
47. !!!! Libel alert Mike !!!
On yesterday’s by-election in Rushmoor Grange it appears the Con Cllr went Ind and I assume then resigned causing the by election.
13.1% swing from C to LD/ I think the result shows
1. Cons reluctant to go to polls again so soon after May esp because of reason for election and they knew that they would still have a Con Council in Aldershot.
2. LD’s excellent at persuading all their voters to go out again AND squeezing the Lab vote.
Still a very good LD result
40 - Jack is not only 103 but utterly saintly in all respects. Only such a paragon of sinless virtue would be able to cast stones as gleefully as he.
And he must be wholly and completely unrelated to that appalling Jack W who, only last week, was splitting himself silly with mirth over the smearing by insinuation of a candidate with financial corruption.
No one does sanctimony quite like our Jack. Oh No.
It’s a pretty big thing to forget… though of course it was a not guilty verdict.
Tomorrow’s byelections are as follows :-
Kirklees MBC Greenhouse Safe Labour seat - May result Lab 3343 LibDem 1089 Con 608 Green 433 BNP 394 - Candidates as May plus Respect
Norwich CC Mile Cross LibDem seat but other 2 seats in ward are Labour LibDem will do well to hold May result Lab 849 LibDem 700 Green 250 Con 235 - candidates as May
Aylesbury Vale DC Gatehouse safe LibDem seat - 2003 LibDem 474/439 Con 180/160 Lab 160/141 Ratepayer 83/75 - Parties standing not known
Oxford CC Hinksey Park Labour seat with Greens 2nd - May result Lab 882 Green 543 Con 221 LibDem 161 - same parties standing
East Northants DC Rushden East Conservative seat in a split ward - 2003 result Con 610/521/487 Lab 496/450/417 LibDem 253
Candidates not known
Dartford Heath Safe Con seat but disgraced previous Conservative councillor - 2003 result Con 874/847/788 Lab 486/481/449 UKIP 261 LibDem 225/224 - Candidates Con/Lab/Green/BNP/UKIP/NewEngland
There will also be 2 byelections on Friday in Surrey
37 Benedict again- I know many Tories are decent people. By calling the Party not decent I was referring to the policy direction- all the zenephobic, single issue, anti European, anti immigration, nimby minded, Mail headlines, illiberal, hang em and flog em, anti gay, pro pro captitalism at all costs, pro war (any war it doesn’t matter) sectionally English white (predominantly south east white van man), cruel sport enthusiast- all this rhetoric it has been espousing for years. That is what I mean by the Tory Party not being decent
49. The newly elected LD councillor stood in that ward in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006
52 - The Kirklees by-election is “Greenhead” not “Greenhouse” ward. It’s not as safe for Labour as the result from last May suggests (though they’ll still probably win).
53. Two already today - have you been bitten by any rabid dogs lately?
55 - Apologies Jeremy , I do not know the area - are Respect likely to poll well ?
47/48. Yep, I’d suggest removing that!
56. 1.5 rants to be fair. Dealing with some very stressful stuff at work at the moment, got a sore leg and cannot run, and find ranting at Tories to be extremely satisfying and therapeutic. You should all try it!!!!
I wonder if the Green vote in Oxford will be affected by the lack of students… though Hinksey not really studenty anyway.
57 - I doubt it. The Lib Dems have been putting in a lot of work though. For anyone who’s been involved in Lib Dem / Liberal Party politics over the last 30 years, John Smithson has been running the campaign - a name which strikes fear into his opponents, as well as quite a lot of his supporters!
50 John O. Fiddlesticks !!!!!!!!!
You are confusing the political reality of John Majors record, hardly a matter of dispute, and the political reality of party campaigning that ALL parties undertake.
I’m quite happy to pass judgement on both !! and such judgemnt doesn’t have to conflate.
John Major oft talked of the “bastards” in the Cabinet. Fine, but the voters also passed judgement on him … useless bastard was the verdict - seven wasted years of feeble and fagged out government and surely one of the worst Tory administrations in history.
58. The only libels worth considering are the ones which could be believed. I find it quite amusing to read that Blair personally ordered the murder of Kelly.
62. Jack, but you voted for it…so it’s your fault too. You’re responsible for it. So we can pass a judgement on you too, can we?
“one of the worst Tory administrations in history”
I think that is unfair actually. Stablising the economy under Ken Clarke gave Labour the strong economy they inherited. It wasnt Brown who broke “boom-bust” but Clarke. Also, the Good Friday agreement and IRA ceasefire. I think the problem was less Major, but more that the Tory party had become ungovernable. As a result, he was dragged into reactionary politics - as the Labour party has been also. Major was the most human and genuine PM since the 70’s.
64 Andrea. I accept my share of the blame !!
…. and yes I accept the judgement of the court …. 4 weeks rehab in my darkened room ….. or wine cellar as some call it. 
62. So that makes a total of 14 years of feeble and fagged out government up to now, then.
62 Jack. Fooofumm!!!
I was referring to the “Major was a sleazy adulterer and hypocrite bar none”. All rather sternly Calvinist for a supposedly frisky Jacobite. And I always thought of you as a straight socially-liberal sort of guy
And, of the many who commented on Mike Smithson’s tale, only you and the gorgeous pouting Dan thought that it a jolly jape. M’Lud, I rest my case.
(Hey ho, don’t want to be accused of a pj rant)
63. So you find the death of 120 British servicemen “amusing”. You find the death of 100,000 iraqis “amusing”. David kelly’s family don’t think his death was “amusing” (and I have actually spoken with a very close relative)
66. Nah, Jack….no wine cellar for a month!
Instead help me to solve this mistery: what the hell is the guy next to Gwyneth is doing in that pose (especially the hands)?
http://www.gwynethdunwoody.co.uk/Page%20-%20Picture%20Gallery3.htm
Ah and the average age of C&N CLP seems to be something like 70 year old!
“2005 electing victory” - literacy standards aren’t brilliant in the CLP, evidently.
65/68 Mark/John O. I’m afraid I view the Major decent, “humane and genuine” in the same class as Blair “straight kinda guy” - Utter Bollo*ks.
Yes Major may be credited, among many others, with an ongoing Ulster settlement and our Ken got a hook on the economy, but ye gods how many recessions did we go through for it ??
62 and 65- 2 sides of the same coin (although 65 doeth too much credit to Major for the Good Friday agreement).
Actually think that 1992-3 began a longer period of remarkably good governance in the UK building on a strong economic legacy, with Britain being led by humane, and predominantly caring leaders. Major was finished really by 1992 as a leader, much like Blair recently.
70 Andrea. Well Andrea, from our discussion on the Sophia Loren thread earlier, it’s quite clear the excitable gentleman is on an exchange visit from Milan ……. magnifying glass anyone ????
72. Just the one Jack, caused mostly by the barmy exchange rate policy which I have little doubt that you, as an ardent Europhile, supported at the time.
72 - PS…You ain’t heavy, you’re my brother ;). Or my daddy
(lurking furtively last night)
75 Fred. Recessions - “Just the one..”
Oh that’s all right then !!!!!!
Further as an economic liberal I didn’t support the ERM, fixed exchange rates, let alone the ludicrous rate we went into it ….. unlike the Tory government and the opposition parties !!
69 Barry- grief causes the brain to do the strangest things, so doesn’t surprise me that relatives could think this. I went to church after a close bereavement- supersticious claptrap.
To be honest Blair is no more responsible for the Iraqi deaths than I am. The US was going to do what it was going to do. I agree with you on the UK servicemen deaths- but in spite of my complete abhorrence to Iraq, I think the UK being there tempers the US miltary arrogance, and has ultimately saved more lives in Basra. Many more civilians would had died with US military occupation in the south.
77. I don’t believe you.
76 John O. I’m sure you’d make a very fine relative as long as you’re not a John O’Major lookalike or wear aluring external grey Y fronts !! ….. don’t play with your peas do you ??
79 Fred. Not a member of the Cambridge Debating Society then !
81. Too many sanctimonious windbags there for me, Jack.
Blair *should* go now but he won’t. The only reason is that those who should do it are too scared of being blamed. There is so much anger in the labour ranks over the Middle East that he could surely be crippled in a vote.
I would also be expecting, as in the one by election from yesterday, a strengthening of the lib dem vote. The current situation just reminds people as to why they stopped voting labour.
As for Levy, the innocent will talk because they can prove their innocence, either he’s been very badly advised or he has too much to hide.
82 Fred. Somewhat harsh on a large number of present and past Conservative cabinet ministers !!
……………………………..
On the former point, it’s a matter of record that I’m an economic and social liberal so it’s hardly a surprise the ERM and it’s allied enterprises weren’t dear to my heart. Further the Lib Dem love in with all things EU is one of the main reasons the yellow peril nationally has yet to receive the X at GE’s !
as well as the by-elections listed above there is a by election in Rhondda Cynon Taf….its in the Pontypridd constituency
84. ‘it’s a matter of record’ is it? you mean you keep on saying so on this site? you’ll have to do better than that.
btw. the ‘windbag’ tag might indeed be properly attached to some of the people you mention…mostly soi-disant ‘one nation Tories’ and ardent supporters of the ERM back then as I recall.
PJ, whatever you think of the Tory party - clearly not much - there is one dividing line that puts your party in the moral pit compared to any other recent British government.
YOU INVADED IRAQ.
You - your government - invaded a sovereign country. They also told lies, allegedly, to get there. This grotesque action has led to tens of thousands of deaths, untold misery for millions, it has destabilised the Middle East, encouraged Shia militancy, increased the risk of terorism for us all, besmirched the name of the British and US armies, destroyed the credibility of the secret services, ruined your party’s reputation, and introduced live beheadings to our TVs.
Yes, Tory MPs voted for Iraq. But, more importantly, so did Nick Palmer and his chums - they voted for it time and again. 254 Labour MPs wanted Iraq. They also voted down an inquiry. So. You did it. You went for it. You. Your government.
Frankly, compared to that, Neil Hamilton and wife is pretty small beer, innit?
I’m sorry to bang on about Iraq. But it mustn’t be allowed to lie. Ever. Your MPs, your Labour government, committed the greatest error in the history of modern Britain. Some would say it was more than an error - it was a crime.
Whatever, it’s certainly and forever your shame.
When exactly are the bookies counting Blair’s retirement; on the declaration of his retirement or the giving up of the seals of office when, presumably, Brown becomes PM? I think the idea of an announcement in March that he will step down as Labour leader after the elections in May is quite attractive ( the leadership contest would start immediately after the poll). That way he doesn’t become the focal point of a ‘Get rid of Blair’ vote in May and Brown takes over as PM in say July after the leadership contest so he doesn’t get the blame for any poor results either.
88 - The problem with that is, because of the extended nature of leadership elections, he then becomes a lame duck at the Despatch Box, which might, in theory, allow Cameron to score numerous free hits before the recess is over.
62 - Hinksey Park certainly is affected by students being away. There are a large number of undergrads in the ward but also a very large number of graduate students. I would expect a low turnout although all four parties have put in a fair effort.
52 - Aylesbury is a difficult defence for the Lib Dems as I am told their councillor left under something of a cloud.
91. Oaten-coloured, perhaps?
85 Thanks for that Mark , The council website is hopeless and does not even mention the byelection but I have found out that the ward is Beddau - 2004 result Lab 426 Plaid 221 Ind 174 LibDem 89 . No info on nominations .
Hot day, hot tempers. Frankly SeanT although the language is strong the sentiment is bang on.
I just cannot see how anyone can compare the JM sleaze with this Government.
The worst ’scandal’ under Major was vanity driven perjory and the cash-for-questions issue -both dealt with quickly and openly; albeit without grace from the guilty.
This Government have led us, under false pretences, into a catastrophic alliance with a dangerously pious White House intent on re-drawing the map of the Middle East, at almost any human cost.
I was terrified to hear Condoleezza Rice talking yesterday about the Isreal issue using exactly the same terminology they use about the situation in Iraq, and in Afghanistan:
“… the only solution is a sustainable peace - one that can deal with the causes of extremism”
So cold, its the kind of heartless -zealous- attitude that I thought was reserved for the terrorists.
86 Fred. “….you’ll have to do better than that.”
I think not. It may have escaped your notice but I tend to say what I mean. And if you can’t accept the veracity of my long stated position then that is a problem for you and thus there seems little point discussing any issue with you ??
Simply stating “I don’t believe you.” is without any supporting evidence pretty lame Fred and if I may so to you :
“You’ll have to do better than that.” …. MUCH BETTER.
Sorry if this was posted b4 - not had time 2 scan the site much in last couple of days but an intersting blog piece by Gaby Hinscliff on the Guardian website from Tuesday
Tories shy of success
By Observer / Politics 03:22pm
As we say in newspapers, once is a freak incident, twice is a growing trend, three’s a phenomenon sweeping the nation.
So now that I’ve had three perfectly sensible Tory MPs in a fortnight violently scold me for suggesting - as you do, making small talk - that their party seems to be doing well at the moment, my ears are pricking up, writes Gaby Hinsliff.
This is not just general crossness about some of David Cameron’s wheezes, like his rather thoughtful recent speech on hoodies (’bloody stupid’ was the most printable thing I heard from backbenchers privately last week: the rightwingers want him to be hanging’n’ flogging yoofs rather than understanding them, and even the moderates admit that many of their grassroots activists didn’t like it).
Nor is it a fear of complacency - what you get from Cameron’s inner circle about not getting carried away just because they’re ahead in the polls, since it’s not far enough ahead.
No, I keep being told crossly, it is not going well AT ALL in a way that suggests almost an inbuilt resistance to the idea of success. The Tory equivalent, in a way, of Clare Short going around saying that a hung parliament would be good for Labour, or the one in four odd labour voters who rather bafflingly told a recent Ipsos/MORI poll that they’d like labour to lose the next election so that it could have time to think properly about the future.
The way one of the brighter Tories explained it to me was thus: if David Cameron gets into Downing Street next time, it would probably on current polling be either by a tiny tiny majority or in coalition with the Lib Dems. In other words, a big enough swing to get a big majority over Labour is probably impossible given where he’s starting from.
Which means he would be in the same kind of position as John Major, always vulnerable to just a handful of bloody-minded backbenchers who could pretty effectively thwart his programme in government. This would not matter if he were as one with his party and could rely on carrying most of them, most of the time, on the policies that mattered to him.
But he has anything up to 80 rightwingers behind him who are suspicious of his intentions - content not to rock the boat right now because he’s doing well in the polls and they badly want to get into power, but not likely to put up with any newfangled nonsense once they’ve got in.
So on that basis, this MP argued, it’d be better for the long-term health of both Cameron and the Tories to lose the next election than only just win it: better let Gordon Brown win it with a tiny majority of his own, be pulled apart by his warring backbenchers, leaving Cameron to roar in and pick up the pieces the time after that.
Not a theory I suspect Cameron subscribes to himself - I’ve no doubt he’d rather be in with a majority of one, than in opposition - but interesting nonetheless. Just at the point where it is barely possible to find a Labour MP who is not convinced they’re going to lose, it is interesting how many Tories are not convinced about winning.
The evidence Jack, is your continued espousal of the left-liberal consensus on almost any given subject. That makes it very hard to believe that, back then, you would have opposed something that was supported by practically the entire political establishment and most of the media. Of course, if you can produce some documentary evidence to the contrary, I will gracefully accept I am wrong.
88 - I don’t really see it. I would have thought going into the local election effectively without a Leader would be a major electoral disadvantage. Like it or not, a lot of people vote in local elections on the basis of national politics, and voters might well be wary of voting for a party without knowing “whose” party they would be getting.
96 - That’s an important point which I’ve agreed with for a long time; but it ignores one thing. If the Conservatives are the largest party in a hung Parliament, or if they have slimline majority, the obvious thing is to take a leaf out of Harold Wilson’s 1964 or February 1974 books: seek to form a stable government (in a hung Parliament, preferably a minority one), govern stably and carefully for any time up to 18 months, then call a second election. If divisions and leadership crises erupt within Labour once they lose the discipline of government, all the better.
SeanT
You really give alot of credit to Blair. He had no influence on the decision to go in- that was taken by a bunch of rightwing US idiots before. The Tories were, if anything, more gungho than Blair (IDS get in earlier, Thatcher wanting to extend the 1st Gulf war into sovereign Iraq).
If this is a defining political issue for you you must support the LD’s, - the only party to come out with any credibility (as they are now with the Lebanon situation). The Tory Party is a implicit as Labour- it would have done exactly the same thing, probably without the self righteousness posturings of Blair and his mission to convince us all that it was the right thing to do- leading to the WMD fiasco, Kelly etc..
The Tories would have spent less time on the PR front, but they would have done it with the same consequences. And there is a side of me that is happy with British troops on the ground in Iraq- a solely US venture would surely have caused more civilian casualties.
00 - You don’t punish people for what they didn’t do you punish them for what they have done. Labour are the only party that had that power and have (mis)used it.
The situation in Israel is analogous and the hindsight that has changed tory policy on Iraq (something that would be a good thing if they gained power next time) needs to take hold there regarding the present situation as well.
Thankfully this seems to be the case, comments from Tapsell and so on will make it easier for Cameron to align with the lib dems against this craven foreign policy.
The following from today’s Indy sums up the mistakes that are being made regarding our approach to the middle east.
“What exactly is being defended by the violence in Gaza and Lebanon? Is it the citizens of Israel or the nature of the Israeli state? I suggest the latter. Israel’s statehood is based on an unjust ideology which causes indignity and suffering for those who are classified as non-Jewish by either a religious or ethnic test. To hide this primordial immorality, Israel fosters an image of victimhood. Provoking violence, consciously or unconsciously, against which one must defend oneself is a key feature of the victim-mentality. By perpetuating such a tragic cycle, Israel is a terrorist state like no other.”
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article1197235.ece
97 Fred. The second part of the equation is that I’m a social liberal. Thus it’s hardly surprising that I’ve stongly supported the liberal consensus on those issues.
However in economic matters since the demise of Maggie the “establishment” has not followed any form of liberal agenda and accordingly has not enjoyed my support.
That I don’t fall neatly into one party or another is a difficulty for me and I have to choose or not the least worst option for government. In 05 I was unable to determine, as for 09/10 who knows ?
I’m sorry you feel unable to accept my word on this matter and accordingly and with sadness consider our correspondence closed.
99. Cameron has already shown how he intends to react if he has a slim overall majority - English Votes for English legislation.
If the Tories won a bare majority of 2 U giving them 326 seats UK wide, then banning non-English MPs voting on English legislation, assuming they had 5 seats across Scotland and Wales, would them majority of 108 in England. That would be a landslide margin on English legislation - under those sorts circumstances I suspect he’d happily let the Scots & Welsh have whatever legislation they wanted, while relying on the DUP for votes on foreign affairs and finance.
Get a grip Fred - how old are you? … “if you can produce some documentary evidence to the contrary” … On the question of what Jack W thought in 1992, any sane adult would believe Jack W himself over, say, a random internet poster who has never met him. PS The Liberal Party is full of people who are left-liberal and want to leave the EU.
96 - Bullseye I read that too. I’ve always felt that it is extremely unlikely we would win an overall majority next time. The number of seats we require to gain is too large for one election My own hunch is a tiny Labour majority (10-15) or Labour as the largest party in a hung parliament. Both these scenarios maybe beter in the long run for the Tories IMO.
Mark Senior
Yes the website is useless….it was much better when Plaid ran the council
There are Labour Plaid LD and Independents candidates. One confusing factor is that the independent was the plaid candidate last time….
102. Very melodramatic. Still, it was worth a try.
off topic but have just added up these figures which exclude independents…greens and the Socialist labour party….
County Council by elections in Wales September 2005-July 2006
All contests including at least one of the four main parties aggregate vote is:
Plaid 3226
Con 3070
Lab2039
LD 1350
This is ten elections three of which were uncontested by Plaid. In the seven contested by plaid the aggregate results are:
Plaid 3226
Lab 1570
Con 1858
LD 541
I have excluded independent votes and one contest that was simply between independents.
103 - Looking at it purely from this perspective, the problem would be getting to the destination. A referendum might be won, true, but it could be very high-risk, especially if there’s a straightforward party divide, or Conservative dissidents. Trying to get a major constitutional change of that sort through Parliament with a majority of 5 without a referendum would just be asking for trouble; the Callaghan government paid dearly for trying to implement devolution in similar circumstances.
Opposition parties could accuse Cameron of trying to gerrymander the Common for naked party advantage, or for ignoring urgent issues like the economy, health and education for the sake of an obscure constitutional issue. Most importantly, it would probably take at least 18 months, almost certainly more, for the proposals to be properly drafted and made law. For all these reasons, EVoEL would be no good to Cameron in such a situation, although, if he has a comfortable majority initially, then he can introduce it and it could pay off in a future Parliament.
PJ. Trying to half-shift the blame for Iraq onto the Tories, just because the Tories supported the war as well, simply will not wash.
The situation (as I have said before) is very analogous to the ERM disaster (though Iraq is infinitely more serious).
Most Labour MPs and probably most Labour supporters believed we should go into the ERM in the early 90s; in fact because of Labour’s europhile tendencies (and the same goes for the Lib Dems) people on the left were possibly even keener on ERM than the Tories.
Nonetheless it was a Tory government that made the executive decision to go into the ERM, so they should carry the can when it went wrong. As it did on Black Wednesday. The Tories have been paying for that sin ever since - and that’s only right. It was the
Tories’ fault.
Same in Iraq but with knobs on. Some Tories were even more gung-ho for the war with Iraq, but it was a Labour government that did it, that span the story, that sold the prospectus, it was Labour MPs like NickP who walked through the Aye lobby and brought us into this cataclysmic war.
Labour must carry the can. You are the government, you made the decision. It happened on your watch.
What intrigues me is just how bad Iraq would have to get before someone at the top of Labour would turn around and say: OK, it’s a nightmare, we made a terrible mistake, I resign.
100 people are being butchered every day in Iraq. Obviously we need more Iraqi dead before anyone in Labour shows an ounce of decent shame.
A Professor rides to Tommy Sheridan’s assistance :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5216748.stm
It was especially the Tories fault re: the ERM as we went in at the wrong level.
01 ukpaul- there is no hindsight with the Tories, or converging with the LD’s. They had a real opportunity to define themselves differently on foreign policy and Iraq through electing Clarke (or Rifkind for that matter). There is no way that Cameron has the guts, instinct or political capital to shift the goalposts. For all the positives he would get from the Indy he would be pilloried by the right wing press, and left out to dry by the warmonger elements of his party.
Bottom line is that if you are anti war (and this now defines your politics more than any other issue- SeanT) you change party to the LD’s. Many Lab voters did this at the last election. I didn’t detect a similar movement from Tory supporters. That is why I find the Tory based anti war element opportunistic to bash Blair and Lab, and not based on principle.
109. I agree it would be gerrymandering the constitution but I don’t think it would take 18 months of wrangling to do it, actually you could do it in an afternoon.
You see you wouldn’t need primary legislation for EVoEL, Parliament would still be the legislative authority - all you would be doing is changing the internal workings of one House, it the same way you would change it’s sitting hours.
All you would need to do is change the standing orders of the Commons. For instance an incoming Tory Govt could set up an “English Grand Committee” (both Scotalnd & Wales had one before devolution) made up of all English MPs, with second and 3rd reading of English Bills taking place ‘in committee’.
112. Nice try SBS, but the Bundesbank made it abundantly clear at the time that a lower rate than 2.95 was not acceptable. The BoE tried to negotiate around this but were told to buzz off.
13 - I praise anyone who moves in my direction, to not do so because of where they used to be would be churlish in the extreme.
115 - However, we could have got a better rate had we gone in 1985, as Lawson wanted to.
113. Sorry, that’s rubbish. On other threads I have expressed my sincere regrets at my own position on the war - with caveats that I was lied to by the government, and I’m not paid, like MPs, to get these decisions right. I have also positively acknowledged the Lib Dems’s correct perspective, likewise the foresight of people like Robin Cook.
To call the anti-war position taken by people like me - people who have had to admit that they were mistaken and misguided to support the war - is absurd. No one likes admitting they were wrong. I certainly don’t. But I was very wrong on Iraq.
But not quite as wrong as the people who actually made the decision, who took us to war. Your lot, your chums, your feeble apology of a government.
Again, I reiterate. If I were a Labour MP/Minister who voted for the war I would now resign in shame. I do not understand how a person of integrity could stay and cheerfully weild power after such a terrible and murderous error. This is why politicians are morally reviled by most voters.
The pro-war Tory MPs should merely pour ashes over their heads and beg our forgiveness at the ballot box.
Too hot to do the research but I think that sterling is not far off 2.95 DM now.
If we were in the Euro base rate would be 2.5% instead of 4.75% we would have no B of payments problems my house would be worth a lot more and my mortgage would cost half as much to service!
Currently Sterling is at 2.86 DEM (DEM-€ur Fix was 1.95583, Current £-€ FX is 1.4631)
This English votes issue really indictaes where the Tories are at and where their aspirations lie. Kind of reminds me of those Labourites clinging to PR in the 80’s because of the all powerful hold of the Tories.
The English votes issue betrays their limited aspiration as a sectional south east party, that with fair wind, neutral policies, government unpopularity, poor headlines, continuous news managment and spinning, a nice boyish looking leader, could just about cobble a majority together. This strategy is based on the premise that no one really wants the Tories back, but they might just be so fed up of Labour that it ends up coming back.
To get into power properly the centre right needs a root and branch shake up to produce somehting that genuinely excites people in the north, Wales, Sctoltand, and the cities. I am sorry but English votes will not do this.
Douglas Fraser in “The Herald” speculates that the Scottish Tories will move someway to the right ahead on the 07 election :
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/66593.html
115. The average sterling-DM rate in 1985 was 3.78, i.e 28% above the actual 1990 entry rate. Even allowing for the inflation differential from 1985-1990 that would have been an even more uncompetitive rate.
You would have got better rates (2.9-3.0)in 1986. But Lawson anyway pretty much got what he wanted by intoducing a policy of shadowing the DM from about that time. This led to sterling being artificially held down and exacerbated the overheating economy of the late 1980s, eventually forcing up rates and triggering a recession. There was no such thing as a ‘right rate’.
Observer @ 117,
If you check the post mortem in Lawson’s memoirs “The View from Number 11″, I think you will find that the anticipated entry rate for the abortive 1985 entry was DM 3.70, though Lawson accepts that a subsequent realignment within the system would have taken that down to DM 3.40. Do not forget that the big fall in Sterling came with the oil price collapse in 1986. At the time it was difficult to disentangle the oil related component to the fall from that consequent on being dragged down by the downward adjustment of the dollar.
114 - True enough as far as Commons voting goes, but then certifying which Bills are “English” would be just as important for a workable EVoEL procedure, and I don’t think it would be possible to develop a classification system simply by Standing Order. You’d need some statutory backing, as with the Parliament Act. Besides, if Cameron chose to act in this way without the backing of a referendum, there would be so much constitutional bitterness that the two main Opposition parties would try everything possible to beat him on a “UK” measure and force the government out (or even to try and reverse the Standing Orders), and possible Lords obstruction of Bills passed in this way (or even the potential non-cooperation of a Speaker) would lead to a massive constitutional crisis (would the Parliament Act apply in such a situation, for example?). All this would be a very bad prospect for a Conservative government hoping to improve its position at a poll in the near future.
18- but SeanT you are still supporting a party whose official position is that the Iraq war was not a mistake, that the British troops should still be there, and who supports the Israeli action in Lebanon. How can you reconcile that with your obvious feelings about the conflict??
124 - Fair enough. OTOH, entry at that point might have made alter realignments easier, although I admit that’s arguable.
[96] As long as Cameron is 20+ seats ahead of Labour after the next GE, he’ll form a government, majority or minority. Labour won’t want another election quickly, so no need to deal with the Lib dems. In fact, it’ll fall apart - remember, the Shadow cabinet is elected annually in opposition, and a leader who’s lost power has little authority. In fact, all he’ll be able to do is organise for his preferred candidate to succeed - if he has a plausible one. I don’t think Gordon Brown does, FWIW. If the Cornerstone-heads don’t like Cameron’s policies they can lump them. Labour will abstain if they play rough. And in the last resort there’s always an elected Upper House - since the Tories have no majority there, they’ve nothing to lose by going for it, and not much to lose by going for PR in local government in England - perhaps by bringing back the aldermanic bench “elected at large” by list as some Assembly members already are in London, Scotland and Wales.
BTW, Bullseye, did the comment I posted on your blog fail to get through the software, or did you decide it was offensive? I honestly didn’t think it was…
Thanks for that Lennon (120) Does your office have air conditioning?
122 – The SSP are someway to the right of most of the Herald’s journalists to be fair! It’s rather typical of them to suggest that when the Tory party puts forward a distinctive Scottish agenda this is a sign of spilts within the UK party whereas when anyone else does it it’s lauded as being what devolution was meant to be about.
The article does have some substance though. And I do think the Scottish manifesto will be more of what people see as ‘traditionally’ Conservative. Partly this is because it is far easier to find savings and fund tax cuts from the vast amount of waste generated by Labour and the Lib Dems.
127. What should have happened is that Lawson’s other suggestion from that time, that the BoE be made independent, should have been acted upon. The DM-shadowing of the late 1980s and the desire to get into the ERM were greatly conditioned by the idea that UK monetary policy had no proper ‘anchor’ after the supposed discrediting of the monetary targeting approach of the early 1980s. Hence the idea was that if we couldn’t have an independent central bank of our own, the monetary policy of the successful German Bundesbank should be imported via exchange rate targeting.
But this second-best approach had a massive flaw - there was no particular reason why German monetary settings should be appropriate for the UK. Post unification, the difference between the proper stance of policy in the UK and Germany became enormous, hence the ERM debacle.
126. Check other threads. I’ve havered in my Tory-support, quite considerably. But I’m still reluctantly Tory, just.
I have also seen Tory ministers - Boris Johnson for one - stand up in public and say: we got the war wrong, it was a tragic error, please forgive us. I await the same from any significant Labour minister. From the people who actually made the fateful decision.
The question you should be asking is of yourself. How can you continue to support a Labour government that is so hypocritical, mendacious, and catastrophically inept? How, in God’s name, can you continue to support a government which lied to take us into a war which has cost the lives of tens of thousands?
Every Labour supporter must ask themselves this. Every day.
186. “BTW, Bullseye, did the comment I posted on your blog fail to get through the software, or did you decide it was offensive? I honestly didn’t think it was… ”
Always asking for troubles, Innocent Abroad!
I’ve to say I’ve posted a comment once there and it failed to appear (not that it was important…it was a correction about the spelling of Blaenau Gwent)
26 -
“18- but SeanT you are still supporting a party whose official position is that the Iraq war was not a mistake, that the British troops should still be there, and who supports the Israeli action in Lebanon. ”
That describes many labour party supporters, maybe they should just give up and go and join another party then. That appears to be the logical conclusion.
I promise to shut the F up about Iraq in a minute. Must be the heat.
But here’s my last sally. While we’re all focussing, with some justification, on the unfolding crisis in the Lebanon, Iraq just rumbles bloodily on. With more people dying there than in the Lebanon.
Here’s the latest report for yesterday:
“BAGHDAD - Two car-loads of gunmen assaulted an Iraqi police checkpoint in the north of the country Tuesday, leaving five officers dead and bringing to 26 the number of people killed in 24 hours of violence.
Police in the northern city of Tikrit said that the insurgents had managed to escape after their attack on the roadblock in Dujail, a Shiite village 40 kilometres (25 miles) north of Baghdad.
As night fell on Monday, gunmen ambushed an Iraqi police unit in central Baghdad, killing six officers and wounding 30 more, a police officer said.
The clash erupted on Haifa Street just north of the fortified Green Zone, which is the seat of the Iraqi government and the US embassy.
The firefight underlined the failure of the Iraqi government’s six-week-old operation to regain control of Baghdad’s streets from anti-regime insurgents and sectarian militias.
On Tuesday, three roadside bombs exploded in the city, killing two civilians and a policeman and wounding 22 people, police said.
Gunmen also murdered a Shiite activist from the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a pillar of the ruling coalition.
In another attack, a family of Shiite civilians who had been threatened by a sectarian death squad were ambushed by gunmen as they fled a mainly Sunni neighbourhood south of the city, medical and defence officials said.
Two of the family were killed and one was wounded when their removal van was sprayed with bullets.
Four other civilians were shot dead around the capita