Stephen Tall’s guest slot: another Lib Dem election?
August 31st, 2006Past precedent, future Presidents…
For those feeling starved of party election contests, the Lib Dems might just have a morsel to stave off the hunger pangs pending the Big One, Labour’s Brown v Someone battle.
Simon Hughes (pictured), the current party President, is nearing the end of his first two-year term of office, and is eligible for re-election for one further term. The question is: will he re-stand, and if he does will anyone challenge him?
When last the post was up for grabs, in 2004, Simon won an impressive mandate: 24,333 (71%) Lib Dem members chose him over fellow MP, Lembit Öpik, in an election which saw a pretty healthy 47% turn-out. But, prior to that, you have to go back a decade, to 1994, for the previous contested election.
Which may suggest the post of President is not exactly the most coveted of roles - so what is it the President is expected to do? Well, officially s/he “shall be the principal public representative of the party and shall chair the Federal Executive”. Or, as Simon has rather more snappily put it, the job is “to be the voice of party members within the party, and the voice of the party to the outside world”.
Two aspects may well arouse greater interest in a contested election this time. The first, and most obvious, is the opportunity it affords any MP thinking of a future leadership contest to raise their profile within the party. The happy precedent here would be Charles Kennedy, who topped the poll twice, in 1990 and 1992, enjoying embarrassingly Stalinist votes of 82% and 70% respectively.
However, the presidential path is not always paved with gold. Simon’s first year as President appeared not to stand him in good stead during his second unsuccessful run for the leadership, with the previously less well-known Chris Huhne instead emerging as the activists’ favourite. Nor did Lembit’s failed presidential campaign strengthen his base of support within the party.
That the Lib Dems’ leader and deputy leader are both men in their 60s will certainly increase the pressure on one of the party’s up-and-coming female MPs to throw their hat into the ring. Lynne Featherstone, Susan Kramer, Jo Swinson and Jenny Willott (for example) all have loyal followings, and each would be an asset at the party’s top table.
There is, though, a second possible aspect which may pique interest. There is no reason why the President must be a Parliamentarian - though the need to have time, relevant experience and a public profile will likely limit the pool of possible candidates who may wish to stand on an “activists’ ticket”. In any David versus Goliath battle, a fair few Lib Dem members will be hardwired to root for the underdog. And on a 40-50% turn-out anything might happen.
Nominations for the presidency open on 4th September, and close on the 27th September. If the Presidency is contested, the all-member ballot will take place between 11th October and 3rd November. There’s no betting market as yet, but it would provide gamblers with a diversion from the future of the Labour party.
Stephen Tall is a Lib Dem councillor in Oxford. He runs his own website, www.stephentall.org.uk, and blogs at A Liberal Goes A Long Way.
MessageSpace Advertising
No self-respecting Stalinist was ever returned on a vote of 82%, let alone 70%. Trust me on this one, Stephen - back in my drinking days I married one
What a great artical Stephen. Funnily enough I spoke to a LibDem Councillor about this last week. He was sure that the party would engage in a bit of profiling of their own - a young woman would emerge, not because she’s be particularly good but to contrast with the current leadership. Having said that my view is that Featherstone or Swinson would both be very good at it. However I don’t think Simon Hughes would be challenged and this is an arguement for 2 years time!
I’d be delighted to see Lynne as party president.
The thing will all-member ballots is that so much relies on name recognition, that non-MPs are never going have enough ‘anti-establishment’ support to get anywhere, unless it’s somebody with celebrity outside parliament.
Nice piece Stephen and a welcome relief from the preoccupation with Blair/GB on this site through a summer which has been a bit barren for us political punters.
Might PB use its considerable influence to persuade Betfair to open a market? Personally I’ve no idea who would win and I wouldn’t like to be the odds compiler.
O/T I had a bit of a tiff with Anthony Wells on his YouGov blog. Anthony, who occasionally posts here, was characteristically reasonable and professional in response to my criticisms. For those who are not already familiar with it, I commend his blog. It is at http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog It makes the perfect complement to Political Betting.
sorry to be off topic - the death has been announced of Hector Munro former MP for Dumfries.
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1284712006
1) How safe is Ming ?
As you say in the article the presidents role is often used as a springboard to challenge for the leadership, But as an outsider I’d say Hughes is well known anyway and if he did believe he could have another chance soon then he no longer needs the presidency to raise his profile.
It wouldnt suprise me if Hughes did decide to call it a day either.
Featherstone was part of Huhne’s campaign so presumably he owes her.
2) are the Orange bookers in the ascendant ?
A reason for staying on would be to help block somebody else, depending on how willing the Bookers and Cleggites are to move into position .
I can see the Presidency fulfilling the same role as the Deputy Leader battle in LAB - A proxy fight between different wings .
3) A Kennedy Comeback ?
It may be too soon, but I can see the return of the king would energise a lot of activists. The minor skirmishes in the media we are currently seing will be interesting to track as a sign that the comeback is on.
This will be only really of interest within the Libdems so 99% of the Country will not know it is happening. My guess is Hughes will restand and win. I doubt Lembit will stand given how silly he looked during the Kenndy and Oaten sagas.
It looks like you can only do two terms but they are of two years, not four. I could see a possible future leader going for this role after Hughes finishes a second term.
There are one or two people in the Lib Dems with near “celebrity” status for members eg Tony Greaves (but who has been ill). Martin (now Lord) Thomas tried a few years back, but although quite well known among “old” Liberals, didn’t really “cut it” in the celebrity stakes!
[5] I love it when the world confirms my fantasies about it - at the end of the obit it says Lord Munro is survived by his wife, Doris, and two sons, one a major-general and the other a brigadier - they don’t make Tories like that any more, do they?
4 - peter, read your gentlemanly exchange with Anthony. If that’s your idea of a spat, you need anger un-management training from others on this site.
But I completely concur with your recommendation of the site.
I’m ploughing through the detailed tables from the Taxpayers’ Alliance poll (224 pages). If you leave aside the more tendentious questions about tax (here are 16 reasons to dislike tax, which do you agree with? Now, do you favour reducing any of the following taxes?) there are lots of nuggets to interest pb.c pm’ers. For instance, there’s a measure of the core votes of each party. Asked who, if any, they identify with, they get
24% Lab, 17% Con, 9% LD, 4% others, 40% nobody.
Just 10% say flatly they’re satisfied with Labour’s record. On the other hand, say they aren’t satisfied but prefer a Labour government to a Conservative one, while 36% say they’d prefer a Conservative government. 12% reject all three options. Among LDs, Labour is either liked (12%) or preferred to Tories by a 69-23 margin. (Remember though the human tendency to pick the middle option if given a choice of three.) Asked to choose between DC and GB as being more in touch and competent, there’s an even split.
Sorry, typo, omitted the figure for “not satisfied but prefer Labour - it’s 39%.
At the conference Evan Harris will vote to keep the 50p rate on earnings of more than £150,000 plan:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1222831.ece
The role of president would be an ideal one for the comeback of CK. It would give the party an enormous boost and enable CK to have a active role, but one that he could work himself into as he recovers from his alcohol problems. I shall e-mail him today and ask that he put his name forward.
I personally would support any “stop the orange book” candidate for this influencial position.
Interesting -
I say bring back Cyril Smith!
Could Charles Kennedy stand again for president? That would be interesting
I’d be extremely surprised if CK went for the position - but I do think there will be a contested election.
I think it’s a mistake to see the likely contest as one of ideological differences. I think it’s more likely to be a case of:
* who will present the best face of the party to the wider world
* who will be best placed to work on some of the ‘behind the scenes’ requirements for the role eg representing the membership and increasing its size
My personal preference would be for Jo Swinson or Lynne Featherstone. Matthew Taylor would be a safe pair of hands and is an accomplished media performer, who is currently under-used imo.
13 MJS. If Kennedy stood he walk it …. or perhaps stagger it !! …. there remains a great deal of goodwill for CK in the party. Indeed he might be elected unopposed. Further the Presidency would allow him to continue any rehab without the work required in a specific portfollio.
Additionally Chuck is a good media performer and the job requires a high media profile. A good way back for CK !!
The only drawback is that Kennedy might be seen as the Prince over the (whisky and) water. An alternative court ??
10. LOL! My trouble is that I dislike rudeness of any kind, even on PB where a certain amount of mudslinging is to be expected as part of the knockabout fun. Just as well I’m not a politician!
I really like Anthony’s site and I’ve learned to respect his professionalism over the years, so I was loathe to criticise but something about ‘The Taxpayers Alliance’ rubbed my fur up the wrong way. Who are these people who purport to speak for ‘us’?
BTW, I will be answering your email later this morning. You are about to learn more about CDC than you ever wished to know!
Re 17, Iain Dale ran an article to which an anonymous poster posted these alternative words to the Skye boat song:
Speed bonnie boat,
Like a hack on the make;
Back to his seat on Skye.
Carry the lad that was born to be King,
Back to the seat on Skye
Where is the man?
Down in the bar,
Loudly the Whips pro-clai-aim
Out on the town,
Out of his head,
Charlie is pissed again
I like the song, and this version did make me smile, but we will have to see about Charlie’s recovery.
From a health point of view I don’t know if it is too soon for him.
Stephen Tall
Good leader.
I haven’t got much time today- but looking at Oxford local issues-
re; the outside cafe space on Broad Street- why is the Tory led county council being allowed to overrule a town council decision? I have written to the Tory council leader pointing out the clear democratic defecit but received no response.
And, Jean- a fine woman- but she is really taking a local bashing on the wheely bin issue. Residents naturally want wheely bins, but want them collected weekly.
Also, I humbly apologise to the site (especially Julian H, a fine fellow of a man) for my typos. As a dyslexic illiterate who frequently rushes the writing of posts without reading them back, I am lost without my spell and grammar check.
Benedict - that song is sung at the “Glee Club” at Lib Dem Conference every year - and even published in the Liberator Songbook. One of a number of affectionate digs at friends (& enemies) that we get in when we’ve had more than a few drinks ourselves
The serious point is that this song has been in the Songbook since well before 1999 when CK became leader (in fact I think it dates from the early 90s), so the fact that he liked a dram or two was hardly a secret. Indeed, since the media do like to pop along to the Glee Club from time to time (no idea why!), it can hardly have been a surprise to them too.
“My personal preference would be for Jo Swinson or Lynne Featherstone. Matthew Taylor would be a safe pair of hands and is an accomplished media performer, who is currently under-used imo. ”
Swinson has come out of the CK drink issue smelling of roses. But she is still very young and is better of making her mark in the Shadow Cabinet. Taylor is a good choice, and given his run for deputy leader, he does seem to have the drive still.
How about Jeremy Thorpe? (Joke!)
22.”How about Jeremy Thorpe? (Joke!) ”
uhm, your animal welfare policy would need a review in that case.
More songs here: http://www.liberator.org.uk/tipTypeArticles.asp?type=Songs
You can’t beat “The Land”, “Bermondsey” and “The Liberal March”
I am not 100% sure but do not think Kennedy can stand having served two terms as President already.
Random suggestion for President - Lorley Burt MP
19 - that’s been sung at the glee club at party conferences for at least 15 years. It’s included in the ‘Liberator song book’ wich can be ordered from:
http://www.liberator.org.uk/
It has lots of other old favourites like ‘Losing deposits’, ‘Exmoor ba tat’ and ‘on the first day of merger’.
It also includes songs of historical interest such as the ‘Liberal March’ and ‘The Land’ from the 1906 campaign. Interestingly ‘the Land’ is about Land Tax and contains the lines -
‘Why should we work hard and let the landlords take the best
Make them pay their taxes on the land just like the rest!’
I was told recently that Charles having been party president for two two-year terms in the 1990s is not eligible to stand in any future contest. Can anyone confirm this?
Whilst Simon does have a certain following in the membership, it is hard to see anything from his term as president so far to commend him. Perhaps conscious of the comparison with his previous election pledges he would back out if faced with a contest?
Re 20, Tyson What about the democracy deficit when the ODPM wants councils to build more houses than there voters want?
Or when tuition fees are passed with Scotish votes in England?
Or are you only worried about it where you live?
RE 21, Oxonian, yes I know. I find this current clamour a bit of high hypocracy.
On the health note, I just hope if he stands, he is well enough.
Charlie Kennedy president? There has been strong runour he’s up for a comeback so maybe this is the target but I would have thought a nice front bench post in a Ming reshuffle was the idea?
If I was was the Ming Man I wouldn’t want Charles being anywhere near an elected post, it would only risk showing off his popularity if he walked the vote. I’m sure Ming is looking at the procedure book right now and perhaps has found what has been suggested here, Charles can’t stand (now I could make a joke there…but sure..)
[26] I’ve a bone to pick with you, Dan
- I followed your link and then found myself at Lord Bonkers’ Diary… I was going out to have a decaff latte but after Lord B’s reference to “an inflatable Boris Johnson” I think I need the caffeine and it isn’t good for me, you know 
26. Nice to see the Lib Dems showing how up to date they are with the issues that really vex ordinary people, like landlordism. Perhaps the next manifesto can include some proposals in other key areas like Irish Home Rule, married womens’ property rights and the extension of the franchise.
32- I think you will find a penny on a packet of fags to pay for education is still high up on their manisfesto…
(O/T apologies Orange lovelies…but has Guido finally self-exploded
? Haven’t been able to access the site for a couple of days.)
32 Wag. Don’t get beyond yourself …… I’m still waiting for the Whig (Lib Dem) reaction to the landing of that basta*d Monmouth in the West Country !!
34 John O. “…. Orange lovelies …”
Me think you need a holiday John !!
John O - his order-order.com address seems to have died, he is still around on the 5thnovember address.
34. Guido’s site is alive and well and dropping very unsubtle hints about Kennedy’s ‘recovery’.
35. V.Nice Jack.
34 John O. BTW Just had a squint at Guido, no probs for me over the past few days.
37 Antony. Seems strange, I’m still getting Guido through order-order.com ???
5thnovemver.blogspot.com
See earlier post for CK > brown incident.
41. Sleeping like a log, I understand.
Tories pledge to raise “green taxes” if elected. However the boy Osborne having skipped double maths would not specify in what direction these tax rises would occur or broad rates :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5300880.stm
43 - The Tories are turning into a poor man’s Liberal Democrats, aren’t they?
ok here is my suggestion for an activist lib dem president, drum roll please………………………….. Mike Smithson!!
I see Osborne is promising a raft of unspecified Green taxes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5300880.stm What is the betting that they will be pinching some of Ming’s proposals and all those Conservatives who were critical of them on here will be U Turning and saying they are the best thing since sliced bread (wholewheat ) .
Benedict White- glad that you are on the site, and going off thread again- you keep on talking about the great reforms by the Tories for the poor in days gone by. You suggest here here that the Tories have always been interested in the poor. Just to point out though that there are many who think that the reforms were motivated by;
-providing concessions to the poor to dampen down revolutionary instincts;
-or more plausibly, entirely driven by the needs of capital to have a healthy and educated workforce to better exploit;
More recently, Thatcher’s right to buy policy was driven by a narrow sectional interest to buy off the working classes, and up the Tory voting ranks. As a result, over the years, there have been many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of poor (predominantly Labour, or politically unaffaliates) who have lost access to good quality, state housing. The transient poupulations that populate our seaside resorts are testament to that. Why do we have so many millions of incapacity benefit seekers without any roots back into stable communities?
Heseltine’s inner city reforms in the 1980’s were in response to the riots. Thatcher’s assault on the working classes had led such a degeneration in our great city centres that they were on the verge of revolution.
It is this attempt to reposition the Tories as some socially, conscience animal that is now again acting the voice for the working classes by opposing immigration; it just doesn’t wash.
Nor is presenting Tory concern for the public sector credible, after the experience of 18 years of running everything down. People remember. And by the way, during 10 years of opposition name one decent policy the Tories have come up with for the public sector, anything at all, just one. Sorry “bring back matron”. That is just how seriously the Tories take public services.
Now that Labour has finally learnt how to manage capital- everyone wins. Capitalists, working classes, public services and the poor. This is one thing Labour has been honest about- they manage capital better because they can invest more in public services, and redistribute wealth.
I wish you Tories would not be so disengenuous. Do not say you are anti immigration because you are protecting the rights of the working classes. Many of you just do not like immigrants, especially black or asian ones. You still have many racists in your party, who support your party, and who represent your party. Same old record, but needs to be played until your party, at least at a representational level is either purged off racists, or is honest about its views.
You do not particularly like the non working poor, or the underclass. You wouldn’t be wanting to put so many of them in prison otherwise. You wouldn’t have turned so many of the underclass into transients who live below the wire. You do not like traditional working classes because they do not care for you.
These things need to be said. Not to change you personally, but to stop the masquerade of the Tories re-positioning themselves under false pretences. I know many Tories. I know what their inner and core beliefs are. I know what drives them into the arms of the Tory party. I know what they say to each other when they think they are in closed company.
Jack @ 40: Very strange - http://order-order.com works, http://www.order-order.com doesn’t. At least, not for me.
47 - noise.
48 Antony. I use the link on the right that is without the http://www.
No good asking this compter illiterate why, but some seem to do without the http://www. ok. The Beeb never use it !
Tyson, of course the Conservatives were motivated by electoral self-interest in improving the opportunities available to the working classes. Just as Labour is motivated by electoral self-interest in expanding the number of peeople depending on the State for their income.
51. ….and expanding the number of people thankful to them for their right to reside in the UK
52, That too.
Nine Scottish firefighters have been disciplined for refusing to hand out leaflets at a gay pride march !
Apparently there was also a squabble over their hoses !! oh er missus.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5301334.stm
Anthony, Jack, Thanks chaps: I was missing my five-times-a-day dose
RE 47, Tyson “Just to point out though that there are many who think that the reforms were motivated by;
-providing concessions to the poor to dampen down revolutionary instincts;
-or more plausibly, entirely driven by the needs of capital to have a healthy and educated workforce to better exploit;”
It is very hard to have a productive discussion with some one who wishes to put the worst of motives on anything we do, even if it is to the good of the poor or anyone else.
I could go on, but as you will interpret any thing I say in the most negative way possible I am not sure there is any point.
I think it is very unlikely Charles Kennedy will stand for President; it is indeed highly unlikely he is eligible to stand because of the way the party constitution is drafted. Nice try, though.
Amazingly nobody seems to have heard of a definite challenger to Hughes. However, there is almost certain to be one; who it is will depend on (a) whether there is a feeling among the sort of people on the Federal Executive and those committees that Hughes has been so bad that he needs to be replaced; (b) whether there is an MP with sufficient ambition that they can put up with an unpaid position that involves a fair amount of time and lots of travel for the rubber chicken circuit; (c) a non-parliamentarian brave or insane enough to challenge the status quo.
I go for (c) and fancy that any such will get a good vote.
Ref Liberator, it is always a reliable source of information on these matters and regarded as essential reading my many Liberals. The Songbook is also good value.
56. Ranting on about ‘the needs of capital’ to ‘exploit’ the workers tell us more about dear Tyson’s inner prejudices than the rest of his rambling effort does about the prejudices of the Tories, methinks.
Has Rik W vanished? He never commented on:
the other day Rik Willis was having an argument with a fellow Conservative on here about whether paid Tory agents were necessary or a waste of space.
Given his employment with Rob Wilson MP perhaps this story about the (unpaid) Tory agent for the Reading East MP might make him change his mind:
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/2003/2003351/drinkdriving_tory_banned_from_road ?
“Ref Liberator, it is always a reliable source of information on these matters and regarded as essential reading my many Liberals. The Songbook is also good value.”
Is the Collective on a profit share?
Wag at 32 wrote: “26. Nice to see the Lib Dems showing how up to date they are with the issues that really vex ordinary people, like landlordism.”
Not landlordism, but Land Tax which, ahem, even some prominent Tories have recently been talking about.
By the way, the “WAG” monkier doesn’t really narrow it down much - which one are you? My money’s on Ashley Cole’s wife but if not, mostl likely Wayne Rooney’s ladyfriend.
It is very difficult to call this election without knowing who the runners and riders are. If Hughes does not run again, look for another challenger from the left - says, Evan Harris.
There will certainly be a female candidate. Most of the new impressive female MPs are too young, and will want to concentrate on ministerial shadowing - but Lynne Featherstone may have a go. Liz Lynne MEP may also be fed up with the European parliament, and has never been publicity or ambition shy. There must be worthy female candidates in the Lords too.
Among other MPs, Malcolm Bruce may want a swansong. Safe pair of hands and all that - no ambition left for something senior. So could Alan Beith. However, the latter may still have ambitions to be Speaker of the Commons (as did Ming once). Matthew Taylor will no doubt have a go. Lembit is unlikely to try again. John Hemming is a loose cannon (!) and may have a go.
It could be from the Lords; who had heard of Lord Dholakia before he became President. From the Lords, Archie Kirkwood is an old hand and would do a good job. There will be others… Paul Tyler? Alex Carlile if he gets bored working for the Government?
In the end I do not expect more than 3 candidates. One from the left (Hughes or AN Other), one woman, and AN Other (probably Taylor). This means that if there is an Orange Booker, it will probably be Featherstone.
59 readingliberal. Rik is on a political working holiday in a south coast boat yard restoring Morning Cloud !
BTW on your moniker ….. is it so unusual for a liberal to read ??
62 - “If Hughes does not run again, look for another challenger from the left - says, Evan Harris.” should read “If Hughes does not run again, look for another challenger from the left - say, Evan Harris.”
sorry. kind of alters the meaning.
Wag @ 32 - “Free Trade and Home Rule” remain manifesto commitments still largely to be implemented
- not to mention disestablishmentarianism :-).
For the punters, I strongly tip one of the wimmin to be well worthy of a gamble.
59 RikW hasn’t commented upon the story but I will - I find it utterly incredible that a cllr caught 3 times over the drink drive limit (who also ran from the scene of the crash) doesn’t consider he should resign from his position immediately
Any prominent Tories on this site care to defend this man’s view?
47 - if you think that Labour finally has learnt how to manage the economy, then I think that you missed the recent ICM poll. Well worth a look.
Until this week, I’d have said Sarah Teather would have been a good possibility for president, but after the Kennedy serialisation this seems less likely.
How about a true Liberal for president - Dave Cameron?
47 “…This is one thing that Labour has been honest about …”. The, implication is that New Labour have not been honest about much else.
A faint signal in the noise from Tyson.
54. Jack, yup, I read it. Fergus Ewing has defended them in the press. Muriel Gray savaged him in The Herald (and she implicitly advocated to vote against him at the next election)
Re 66, Gerry, No I don’t fancy defending him. Mind you I am only a humble member.
67.”Until this week, I’d have said Sarah Teather would have been a good possibility for president, but after the Kennedy serialisation this seems less likely”
I read on LabourHome that she plans to contest Brent Central and not Hampstead and Kilburn next time. It’s a risky decision, because H&K will be much easier to win than BC.
71. Ah, the source is Kilburn Times, but I haven’t read their piece myself, so I’m not sure of what kind of report they made
66 A cynic might consider that he’s trying to avoid a by-election and disappear quietly next May.
47. Oh dear, Tyson, it hurts doesn’t it? Your party has become the party of illegal wars, of women-molesting deupty prime ministers, of sleazy resignees in the European Commission, of generally bombing foreigners, of mortage fiddling ministers, of lying about dossiers, of allowing massive immigration because it’s good for business, of betraying the poor and the working classes, or hating this country because it is too white, of.. well… I don’t need to go on, do I?
Your party has lost the moral high ground it might have once occupied. Indeed it’s not even in the moral low ground. You lot are in the moral gutter, with blood on your hands, and the betrayed eyes of the poor looking at you with contempt.
I guess this hurts for leftwingers. I imagine a lot of decent Labourites feel very betrayed by what New Labour has done in their name.
Nevertheless it was done in your name, and you have to bear the shame.
I feel your pain, really.
66. There are prominent Tories on this site? really?
75 There is one especially prominent Tory poster on this site who uses the moniker ……. oh special branch rattling at the gates again !!
How stories evolve department: the Sunday Times rang two days ago to interview me at length on whether the Guardian story about a potential challenge of some sort to TB at the conference was right: was it likely or desirable? They rang again today about a different angle (’would Gordon as leader help in your marginal?’). To avoid duplication I mentioned the earlier interview, and they said no, the responses to that hadn’t been interesting enough so they’d scrapped it. In other words, I take it that most MPs responded like me (’neither likely nor desirable’). In the current interview, they tried hard to get me to say ‘I think Gordon Brown might save my seat’, prompting me twice whether I wouldn’t agree with those words - I said I thought he’d be helpful but I didn’t feel the seat was otherwise doomed anyway. The other main line of questions was whether I wanted a leadership election. (I said GB had nothing to worry about, but a friendly and constructive election discussing issues would be positive.)
I don’t think we can reasonably expect RikW to comment here on a colleague in the same team - give Rik a break! But I would have thought that the Tories would be telling the fellow to stand down at the earliest opportunity.
RE 77, Nick, it is interesting how they ring around, and when they don’t find any “bad news” they don’t bother to write it up, but ring around again to see if they can get it another way.
I suppose we get the press we pay for, which is why the internet in general and blogosphere in particular are taking off.
On the drunk driver issue, yes, I suppose people will be shouting at him privately.
This guy more local to me didn’t resign either on the drink driving charge
http://archive.thisisdorset.net/2002/6/29/88763.html
until they caught him with child porn some years later
http://www.standardsboard.co.uk/Casesummaries/Casesummaries/N/NorthDorsetDistrictCouncil/Name,2803,en.html
The mind boggles really
47 Why do we have to have the absolute rubbish from the left that the Right to Buy has somehow caused homelessness? For the majority of people who bought their home under right to buy would still have been living in them as a council house were it not for right to buy. So it hasn’t reduced anything.
Mind you the fact that Labour are now building fewer houses per year than the Major government is quite telling.
75. Of course there are prominent Conservatives on this site. We all hang on every word written by Snowflake5 who is clearly an unreconstructed Thatcherite. Unfortunately she is stuck in the past whilst the rest of us have moved on to the new century…
Re the drink driving Councillor, the late Jamie Cann MP didn’t resign when caught drink driving, so I suppose it is just the way of things. Don’t do as I do, do as I say.
I think if I had been caught drink driving I would be asked to consider my position by my local party.
However I am not going to make myself a hostage to fortune just in case!
RE 81, I can remember a Labour MP had his car caught doing over 100MPH. I think he was Home Secratary at the time.
47 Tyson
You claim to know what the Tory mind is. I am a proud Englishman and know what motivates the socialist and the left winger. I am not a racist.
The ultimate aim of socialism is to undermine and destroy the white western world. Every far left wing organisation always has either an Anglophobe or a white hater using false names to hide their anti-English, anti-white agendas and uses deception to cover it up.
The reason why the far left hates the white man is because the white man rejected communism in the early part of the last century and the left have wanted to get even ever since. This hatred of the white man is propagated by the Race War industry this includes the CRE, BBC and the fiercely Anglophobic SWP, RCP, etc. The left also uses niaive white people who feel alienated and plays catholic v protestant card or vice versa to create civil wars (e.g in Ireland, etc.) and disunity. Your left wing brothers enacted biased Racial Equality Laws and worded them in a premeditated way to prevent freedom of speech on important issues like immigration. The left created the term ‘racism’ and encouraged the non-white to use it in an aggressive, manipulative way against the white man. The left also created ‘Political Correctness’ so as to further stifle debate. Now you want unlimited immigration into England hoping to weaken and permanently destroy it. Tony Blair has done the job for you. I’m sure that when England falls into chaos you will be laughing and cheering the day the white man becomes a minority in his own country, the July 7th bombings will be like a storm in teacup by then.
I don’t like to say it but unlimited immigration is an act of war against the English and Tony Blair knows it. The Labour Party wants to get even with the English white working classes because they did not back up the miners’ union leaders (who are all well known marxists, Anglophobes and white haters) during the 1980s strikes,and unlimited immigration is the perfect punishment for us.
Ben: you’re uncharacteristically intemperate in describing the criticism of Right to Buy as ‘absolute rubbish’. There’s obviously a case for it, not least that it’s popular, but this is the problem. People’s incomes vary (usually upwards) over time, and historically people in council houses would in due course buy a private hopuse of their own. The council house would then be freed to rent out to someone on low-income, probably just entering rthe workforce, and the system was self-sustaining.
By requiring councils to sell the houses to interested tenants at a massive discount, the Conservatives forced councils to accept a reduction in the council housing stock, reinofrcing it by forbidding them from ring-fencing the (reduced) proceeds to build at least some new council houses as replacements. Labour has modified this by allowing councils to spend the housing proceeds gradually on the housing stock, though most councils have refurbished existing homes rather than build new ones. The discount remains, though somewhat scaled back, so the underlying trend downwards remains. If the proposed policy to req
Ben: you’re uncharacteristically intemperate in describing the criticism of Right to Buy as ‘absolute rubbish’. There’s obviously a case for it, not least that it’s popular, but this is the problem. People’s incomes vary (usually upwards) over time, and historically people in council houses would in due course buy a private hopuse of their own. The council house would then be freed to rent out to someone on low-income, probably just entering rthe workforce, and the system was self-sustaining.
By requiring councils to sell the houses to interested tenants at a massive discount, the Conservatives forced councils to accept a reduction in the council housing stock, reinofrcing it by forbidding them from ring-fencing the (reduced) proceeds to build at least some new council houses as replacements. Labour has modified this by allowing councils to spend the housing proceeds gradually on the housing stock, though most councils have refurbished existing homes rather than build new ones. The discount remains, though somewhat scaled back, so the underlying trend downwards remains. If the proposed policy to req
82 Then there was Harriet Harman, Solicitor General, done for I think 99mph, but might be slightly less. I remember thinking it was convenient that she wasn’t doing 100mph.
I think the story you meant may have been Jack Straw’s driver who did over 100mph. They got away with it by arguing a possible danger to the Home Secretary, but IIRC he was late for a meeting.
…uire Housing Associations to do the same, it will repeat the problem there. I think it’s a genuine issue, and not at all absolute rubbish.
81 - one other aspect of the Reading councillor case that hasn’t been mentioned is that the party was a quarter of a mile from his house and yet he still took the car! Shows what many Tories really think of Cameron’s ‘green’ agenda.
A 27 year old man can’t be bothered to walk 400 yards, gets pissed, wraps his car round a tree and then runs away. Next we’ll be hearing how the Tories are tough on yob culture…
Whether the housing stock is council or privately owned would have no bearing on the overall supply though.
84 & 87 - And now let’s get to the real reason socilaists did not like the council house sell-off; because it lifted people free of state dependency and meant that the state had less control over their lives.
Which is exactly why true-blue Conservatives loved it.
On a lighter and O/T note, I’ve just been to the RAF Museum in Hendon.
I expected it to be cheesy and dull - I went there for “work” reasons - but its incredibly moving. Elgar at full volume. Lots of Spitfires and V2s. And lots of kids and families looking at Sopwith Camels. I saw at least three old RAF veterans, proud in their blazers and medals, watching footage of Churchill doing a speech.
I am embarrassed to admit I almost blubbed. Well, almost. I was amazed too at the unabashed patriotism of the place. Most politically incorrect. I am quite surprised Labour hasn’t levelled the whole museum in anger; I do understand their are plans at Cabinet Level to turn it into the Winnie Mandela Theme Park, next year, a place to celebrate Africa’s greatest woman.
Every child in the country should be bussed to the RAF Museum once a year, so they know what a great country this was, and can still be. Then some of them might not grow up wanting to slaughter the rest of us.
85/87 — agree with Nick Palmer about social housing.
A shortage of social housing can also be a factor in causing racial tension if what little social housing that is built is then allocated preferentially to immigrants or ethnic minorities (who are often in greatest need).
Trouble is that if Labour were to massively invest in social housing, the Tories would likely then sell it off at a discount (attracting votes) and use the money to pay for tax cuts (attracting more votes).
Maybe the government could buy up some of these abandoned streets in northern towns, and use them as social housing. Restoration work would provide an initial economic stimulus, and simply increasing the population would provide more.
88. You might think about adding ‘Desperate’ to your moniker.
91 I’ve not been there for years, but it is good fun, and it’s certainly cheering to learn that they’re not required to put on exhibitions about racial tension or sexual harrassment in the RAF.
This Lib Dem councillor mixed refusal to resign for drink driving with cross dressing as well.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/81/81125_drinkdrive_councillors_voter_pledge.html
89: Sean Fear: yes, if one accepts that homelessness is bad (not just for the individuals but the society around them) it’s perfectly possible in theory to solve it entirely with private provision: you set Housing Benefit at a rate generous enough to attract private investor, and they build the homes to accomodate HB recipients. To some extent this is exactly what is happening. However, many private landlords refuse to take HB recipients, whether out of bad experience or prejudice, so some people do end up homeless or near-homeless (dossing on friends’ sofas etc.) because they can’t dfind a private place to take them and the public supply is shrinking.
Straight Talker: if you can’t be bothered to respond to a serious point, I can’t be bothered to reply to your rhetoric.
94. Yes, I was expecting - dreading - that round the next corner I’d see some special exhibit honouring the role of Malcolm X in fighting slavery or something. But no! It’s all about how great Britain is, and how resolute we were during the war. Fab. I’m sure there are plans to modernise it and make it relevent to alienated Wahabbist youth in Colindale.
Why should the drink driving Cllr resign? He has stated he won’t seek re election. He was stupid, did something wrong and will be rightly punished by the courts.
I assume he wasn’t under the influence while carrying out his role. Has he missed meetings because of drink? Gosh this is reminding me of a someone already mentioned a few times here today…
RE 96, One of the reasons why private landlords are less kean on HB tenants is that if the tenant, by mistake or otherwise gets over paid HB, the council take it off the landlord. The tenant usualy does not have the means to make good the over payment either.
As for your proposition on social housing, I am afraid I can’t agree. Many of the people I know who have bought stayed in their houses after buying them for years, had they not bought them it is much more likely than not that they would have also stayed in those same houses.
When they do move it is in many ways equivelent to the old house swap situation, except taht they have a wider choice and no waiting list.
The real key issue as to why there is a current shortage is that the number of housholds is growing, both within the currently resident population and also because immigrants need housing also (though they are not always able to get social housing) whilst less social and indeed general housing has been built.
RE 85, Nick Palmer MP. Where is your evidence taht but for the right to buy most people in social housing move on and move up to home ownership? And of those who do, how many use some form of shared ownership?
91/97 seanT. I think you would do well to remember that patriotism isn’t the preserve of the right. Tens of thousands of RAF personnel died in WWII who would descibe themselves as socialists, liberals and of no particular political persuasion.
Not forgetting of course that in 1945 the service vote put the most socialist government we’ve ever had into Downing Street replacing a Conservative PM and greatest political leader we’ve ever had.
O/T Ken Livingstone in trouble again accusing Trevor Phillips of ‘going so far over to the other side he’ll soon join the BNP’
Link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/06/03/tvnews.shtml
Play the London news 4 mins 30 secs is the report.
101. Sorry old pal, but I disagree. I think patriotism is, largely, now the preserve of the right (and maybe some Lib Dems?!!). This is a real shame. Of course back in 39-45 lots of Brits were unashamedly patriotic and whole-hearted socialists - there was no contradiction. And quite rightly - there shouldn’t be. The 45 Labour government was the best Labour government ever, one of the best British governments ever, but people like Nye Bevin and Atlee loved their country, too. They would have blinked in perplexity at modern lefty attitudes.
Because these days patriotism is sneered at by virtually all of the left. Some leftoids are overt in their anti-Britishness, some disguise it as rampant europhilia or cheerleading for immigration. Either way they despise where they come from. I think this is a tragedy more for the left than for Britain, but it ain’t good for anyone.
Bring back decent lefties like Atlee and Bevin!!
“91/97 seanT. I think you would do well to remember that patriotism isn’t the preserve of the right. Tens of thousands of RAF personnel died in WWII who would descibe themselves as socialists, liberals and of no particular political persuasion. ”
Fair point. Much of the Left would do well to remember that fact also.
Patriotism (and nationalism) should really fall more comfortably with socialists than people whose politics focusses more on the individual. To say one is proud of their country essentially means that they are proud of millions of people they have never met and many parts of land they have never been to - this is a very much a collectivist sentiment.
103 seanT. What rubbbish. You confuse the ramblings of some left-wing commentators with the views of ordinary left-wing voters who retain a love of country as deep as any on the right.
Perhaps you confuse the love of a right wing ideal that you see as patriotism, rather than the love of the diversity and traditions of the rich tapestry of our democracy and cultures that is the fullest meaning of love of nation.
96 - it WAS a serious point. Socialism relies upon people being reliant on state help and under state control. Without that, the inequalities the creed attempts to correct become greater. The Left have a history of trying to exert more ever control over people’s lives, and there has rarely been a better example of this than this government.
Jack, I can’t think of any recent conflict that this country has been involved in in which any significant section of right wing opinion has identified with those we were fighting against. But almost any conflict will find a significant section of left wing opinion that does so (regardless of whether a Conservative or Labour government is in charge).
This summer really is dry isn’t it, yesterday debating whether we should be allowed to watch violent porn today we are having a debate about who is proudest of our boys during the war.
getting back on topic, Lynne feaherstone would be a good bet I reckon, she is pushy, backed Huhne (who would’ve been a threat to the tories) is a moderniser and even if her blog drives me to irritation with its mundanities and ridiculous use of the english Language i quite like her anyway.
x80. “We all hang on every word written by Snowflake5″
Glad you hang on my words Ben! I oppose Right to Buy too. It means the council acts as property developer, spending tax money to build houses, and then flogging them at a loss to tenants. I’m not sure why councils should get involved in loss-making activities like this. Leave the property development to the private sector, and keep council houses reserved so that the council can do their duty to house the poorest and most vulnerable in their district.
Is the above Thatcherite enough for you?
106. Oi. I never said ‘ordinary left wing voters’, did I? Anyway there aren’t many of them left! What I meant by left was the activist left, the MPs, thinkers, pundits, journos. I suspect many of them do have a painful relationship with British patriotism, finding it deeply suspect at best and repellent at worse. They woukld far rather feel guilty - about the Empire, slavery, Dresden, bad sandwiches we forced on the Jordanians in 1912, than feel proud and happy. Guilt gives them a better buzz, apologising even more so, then they feel morally superior.
Orwell skewered this leftwing hatred of Britain fifty years ago. It certainly hasn’t got better since then.
And you know nothing of my intellectual beliefs, you choose to clothe me with some stereotypical vision of Tory values that is all yours.
I wrote extensively about patriotism in a novel, Kissing England. I’ve probably thought longer and harder about what patriotism “means” - especially British/English patriotism - than anyone else here. Including you.
You can buy the novel for onepence, I understand. Quite cheap for an entire education.
108 Sean. Perhaps that’s because too many on the right in military conflicts take the view “my country right or wrong”. Fortunatley in the Iraq war some more astute in the Conservtaive party realized that the conflict was a dog’s breakfast from the start.
How most Tories must wish that they had demured the beat of the war drum in Iraq. But then the Tories were fearful of being out flanked by Blair in a military conflict.
Snowflake
“If you don’t hate immigrants, why are you making stuff up about them?”
I don’t hate immigrants, and I am not making stuff up.
“Why pretend they are taking the jobs of Brits, when they are doing work that is unfilled, why pretend that they supressing wages?”
I am not pretending that that they are taking jobs of Brits. They took mine. Like your partner, I was a programmer, and I lost my position to an Indian who was willing to work at a rate that was uneconomic for a tax-payer. (He was brought here by an agency who rotated their workers back to India every 6 months. They therefore paid no tax.)
“Yes, I’m aware that a plethora of Tories have posted claiming cleaning wages are high, but you guys also claimed the economy was slowing down whem it wasn’t - the only link supplied so far shows an average of £6.7 per hour - and I note that SeanT is ignoring his own link!.”
I know nothing about “cleaners wages”, and haven’t mentioned the subject. You did.
“How do you think Poles and others feel when they hear you spreading mis-information about them with an eye to hounding them out?”
What twaddle! I have no intention of hounding anybody out of anywhere. I don’t spread mis-information. If you read my posts carefully, you will find that they are meticulously constructed and always factual.
“Labour cared enough about the underclass to institute the minimum wage, to increase the LEL threshold, to abolish the N.I. entry fee and to introduce tax credits.”
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Labour cares about the underclass. All the evidence that I have is that it cares for its own, ie paid-up union members.
If Labour REALLY cared about the disadvantaged, it would eliminate the poverty traps, bring down the cost of housing, etc. Instead, it diverts funding to its heartlands to the detriment of poor rural areas.
“I note that still no one has come back to explain why you opposed the increase of the min wage to £5.05″
I didn’t oppose the increase of the minimum wage. Get your facts straight if you are going to make accusations.
“And why would you want to withdraw the lifeline that is tax credits?”
I have never in my live commented about tax credits, so I would be grateful if you would stop making libellous statements.
“Spare me the fine words about caring for the poor - you only bring them up because you believe you can use them to bash immigrants.”
This is another example of why people are starting to label Labour as the new Nasty Party.
I care because (probably unlike you), I have been poor. I have been ridiculed for my lower-class accent by the toffs when I was interviewed at Oxbridge. I have been in household where we had to beg the power company not to cut us off because we couldn’t pay the bill.
I put in many hours of voluntary work every week. I campaign on behalf of the underprivileged. Do you? I have fought (successfully!) against cuts in public services. Have you?
How DARE you lecture me about “caring for the poor”!
I have a number of Labour activists friends. Now I understand why they drifting out of politics.
56 Benedict-”It is very hard to have a productive discussion with some one who wishes to put the worst of motives on anything we do, even if it is to the good of the poor or anyone else”.
Labour helps capitalists because they (the capitalists) can then generate higher taxes to invest in public services, and redistribute wealth. It took Labour a long time to get the handle on this one, but now that they have- they have become very good managing all things economic. Marxists are great technocrats- a university friend of me tells me that if he wants any bureaucratic job done well he asks one of his marxist staff.
For the Tories the inverse is true- they help the poor for two reasons;
-so they do not rebel and cause civil unrest (as per Heseltine and the 80’s)
-to improve their productivity with a priamry motivation to help capitalists.
The problem with Tory economic (mis)management is that in their idolotry of capitalism they have not been able to manage the economy effectively. The market needs regulation, management and control- unleashing market forces creates booms and busts. No good for capilalists or the working classes. The Tories do not do control well.
Immigration presents an intriguing contradiction for the Tories- mass immigration is good for capitalists, but a core Tory instinct to dislike most things foreign conflicts with this. Kind of generating a Tory scizophrenia. Interesting to read how this is playing out- but helping the working classes, please….
108 - there are Conservatives (very many) who think it was a dog’s breakfast. But there was no Conservative equivalent of George Galloway, or Respect, who act as apologists for our opponents.
“Marxists are great technocrats”
Is that why the Eastern bloc was so effective?
fisked
111 seanT. If we “know nothing of (your) intellectual beliefs” it’s certainly not for the want of you posting them.
You may have written about patriotism, but I’ve served it and seen it in action, including the deaths of colleagues. I need no lessons from a rampant belicose armchair general to tell me the meaning of, let alone cost of patriotism ….. it’s written in my memory till the day I die.
x13. Once-bitten - I’m sorry you lost your job. But if you hadn’t been replaced here, you’d have been replaced by outsourcing directly to India. This activity cannot be banned. It’s part of the working of the global economy, part of being in the WTO. no government anywhere will withdraw from WTO obligations. I hope you’ve found another job - contractors rates in programming are currently rising quite fast, indicating that demand is greater than supply. In any case programmers cannot be described as “underclass” in any way.
I’m glad to hear you support both the minimum wage and tax credits.
115 Sean. There were plenty of “apologists for our opponents” in the thirties. You’ll recall many of them sat on the Tory benches and even in government !
RE 114, Tyson, you have not answered my key question, which is why should I be ars*d to discuss anything at all with you, if all you do is assume that we only have bad motives for anything we do?
Answer that question, and may be there will be a point to a discussion. At the moment I can’t see one.
Not many, once war had broken out, though.
118. Hmp! I respect your service to this country, of course. Read my original post about the Battle of Britain!
But don’t go calling me a blinking armchair general. As regular readers know - surely inoluding you - I’ve seen war. I was kidnapped in southern Lebanon, held at gunpoint by Hezbollah, while simultaneously being strafed and bombed by the Israelis. I’ve also seen and heard people die - I heard the screams as the Isreali bombs hit, I saw the aftermath.
I know what war does. I’ve also been to Bosnia, Beirut and Belfast during their respective troubles -I’m a bloody journalist.
So don’t go pulling rank on me about armchair generals.
Rant over. We must agree to disagree on the lack-of-patriotism in the left!
120/122: There were quite a few - until 1940/41 - who kept their heads down, and some who were in back-channel discussions for a compromise peace. One, Archibald Maule Ramsay (Con, Peebles) was detained under the Defence of the Realm Act from 1940 to 1944 for promoting Nazism and Nazi propaganda broadcasts. He was a loony anti-Semite - but his ‘discussion groups’ etc had distinguished members in the 1930s. See Martin Pugh ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts’.
114 - immigration is also complicated for the left since many of those at the bottom who are most adversely affected by new immigration are black. (Related — The Voice newspaper’s front page complains East European immigrants are being favoured over Black Commonwealth immigrants; conversely, every issue of Country Life has articles praising Polish craftsmen.)
Another problem (while we’re generalising) is that whereas immigration is good for Britain, it is bad for the places people emigrate from.
I’d certainly back Featherstone.
Yes, Ramsay was an interesting charcter. He put forward a bill in 1944 to make Jews wear yellow stars.
122 Sean. Sorry Sean, there were plenty in Conservative ranks willing to sup with the devil, even after Winston became PM in May 1940.
The moral is that the meaning of patriotism is not war and support for conflict but supporting and cherishing the beliefs that made us the nation we became and that includes preserving the rights of the like of Galloway, to the extent that we lay our lives down in the service of our nation as our forbears did.
123 seanT. If you’ve seen war you’ll realize that patriotism isn’t the preserve of the right anymore than poverty is the preserve of the left.
Real patriotism in our democracy is the preserve of us all and not just the flag waving absolutists of the right.
x25. John, Poles are only coming here because unemployment in Poland is at about 16%. So if they remained in Poland, they’d just be sitting at home claiming dole. It’s actually better for Poland that they come here, get jobs, get off the Polish social security rolls (lessening the drain on the Polish treasury), earn money, and hopefully pick up languages, skills, new ideas, a insight into how complex economies work, so that when they go back they are armed with both capital and knowledege to start something in their economy. We get labour, tax paid, and hopefully contacts that will serve us well in the future. It really is win-win, but fear means that people can’t see it.
128. Fair enough. But I think you are misconstruing me. I never said that leftism and patrio