Sooner or later?
September 4th, 2006Would Blair prefer a quick exit to a humiliating timetable?
After some relatively eclectic topics last week, let’s return to a favourite of this site and to British political coverage as a whole: the succession to Tony Blair. As usual, Blair is being asked to set a timetable for his departure, and refusing to, to the general unhappiness of Brownites and the Labour left; neither the TUC or the Labour conference is likely to give him a smooth ride. The difference this time is that the discontent seems to be spreading much more broadly within the party, with an anonymous rebel (reader beware) claiming that there may now be enough MPs willing to back a leadership challenge.
The expectation now appears to be that Blair will be forced to set a timetable that sees him depart at some point in 2007 (currently priced at 4/7): possibly before the Welsh assembly, Scottish parliament and local government elections in May and probably before the Labour conference in September.
But it is somehow hard to imagine Blair patiently following a process that sees him hold onto office until some thrashed-out deadline, seen by all as a lame duck who can be safely ignored until he’s gone. Doesn’t it seem more plausible that once he decides it’s all over, he’ll make a very quick exit?
Thinking along these lines, it looks pretty attractive to follow Mike Smithson’s tip of last month and back an October–December 2006 departure at 6.6/1.
Philip Grant
Guest editor
Mike Smithson returns on 10th September.
MessageSpace Advertising
I have bets on Oct/Dec 2006 and 2nd half 2007.
Does anyone know how long the minimum & maximum times the replacement process could take? It will be important for betters, as I imagine that bets will be paid out when a successor takes over, not when Blair announces he is going. I think this is the harder variable to bet on, rather than the date Blair is forced to act.
I guess a coronation could take a matter of days, whilst a contested election with say one or two rounds, would take how long? Earth calling Andrea!
It could be possible in a long contest for Blair to announce he is standing down in May, but no successor be confirmed until the Party conference.
Alternatively I guess Blair could stand down immediately, and (God forbid!) his deputy take over the helm during the inter-regnum. More conceivable I suppose if Presscaught has been replaced by then, less conceivable if he is still in place or they both go together.
100-1 TB decides to form his own party. If so any bets on what it would be called.
2. NEW Labour (Neo-con, Egotistical, Warmongering)
Incidentally, Betfair currently offering 8-1 on Oct-Dec 2006
If Tony created his own party I’d vote for it.
There are only two plausible time periods, I think - summer 2007 and summer 2008. Each gives the new leader the September conference to launch his new era. Anything else is a messier transition in mid-session. As Robin implies in post 1, the time taken by the process itself adds a couple of months or so to whenever it’s announced, so in view of Xmas eating most of December anyone betting on 2006 is more or less counting on TB resigning in the next few weeks, which is wildly implausible.
With the likelihood of a leadership election in 2007 higher than it was, the likelihood of a separate and earlier deputy election is also now more or less nil: nobody wants to bother with two elections in a few months. In any case Prescott has, I think, weathered the storm, though he’s unlikely to stay on as deputy when TB goes.
Please God may this unedifying soap opera end soon.
1. Robin, I don’t know what the Labour rulebook says about the minimum and maximum time for a leadership election. But in 1994 Smith died on May 12 and Blair was elected on July 21
OT The Greens have selected their candidates for Holyrood elections.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5310824.stm
The Scottish director of Amnesty International is number 2 in Glasgow and former LD Stuart Callison is number 1 in West of Scotland.
Thanks Nick. I think you are broadly right in that the conference seems the right time to launch the new leader. Personally I think that summer 2007 is most likely (not 2008), following the drubbing in May’s elections (local and devolved). I really can’t see him being able to hold on in those circumstances. If he did, then a forced contest would be inevitable.
7 - Hi Andrea, I saw your query on another thread but I don’t really want to go into it on a public forum. I’d be happy to e-mail you in private about it though.
5 - Very good points Nick and I tend to agree with your analysis.
5. Nick, do you know if the dates have been set for Labour’s conference next year? I had a quick google and check on Labour’s site but there wasn’t anything obvious. It could be fairly crucial if the the conference straddles the end of September and the beginning of October. If not, then I agree that the July-Sept periods will be nailed on as the preferred options.
That said, there are still ‘events, dear boy’ to consider. Loans for peerages, uncertainties in Iraq and Afghanistan, contentious legislation, ministerial resignations and any number of other things could throw the timetable off track.
The problem with the timetable will be when to announce Blair stepping down so that it looks like his own decision and not that of someone forced into it? This coming Queen’s speech should give a pointer as my prediction is that he’ll want to announce it very late on in the parliamentary term - late June or July - so that the local/devolved elections are well behind him as are any serious parliamenary battles for the session. If it’s a fairly light or uncontentious Queen’s Speech then look for 2007; if not, then Blair’s looking at 2008 - though whether he’ll make it is a different question.
The current ‘attrition rate’ in Afghanistan of UK troops is (forget the seriously injured shall we?) roughly 100 military personnel per year BEFORE the Nimrod AWACS disaster. That’s ignoring Iraq. Another dishonest (to people and parliament)engagement by Blair/Reid.
Apparently proto-terrorists from all over the Muslim world are now booking package holidays to take a pot at what they describe as Bush’s bottow wipers.
My Labour friends are predicting a total electoral slaughter at the local elections based upon this subject, immigration (more the lies/deception than the actual numbers game)and power price-fueled inflation.
Beware the Ides of March, Mr Blair (and Brown too for sitting on the sidelines like a gormless geek watching it all happen)!
Now it is the Lib Dems who are stoking the already raging rumour fires in Scotland. When are we going to get some decent, bona fide BPC polls measuring Scots’ voting intentions?
LibDems set to ditch Labour after election
http://www.sundayherald.com/57736
“Internal LibDem calculations predict Labour will win 43 seats in May (down from 50), with the SNP jumping from 25 to 41 and the LibDems up from 17 to 25.”
9. Max, no problems. Anyway you can contact me through: anpa82@inwind.it
12. Do they except the tories to fall or the “others” to be swept away?
12. That doesn’t leave many for anyone else. Are they predicting a Conservative melt-down from even the present lowish base, or a complete wipeout of the minor parties?
Winning a third term doesn’t seem to do party leaders much good, does it?
I rather expect Blair to produce a rabbit from the hat - possibly a change to his Party’s rules to require, when in government, the election of a “PM candidate” for the following election, the incumbent being ineligible if (s)he has already won two elections. He could even try combining this with a law for fixed-term Parliaments - I’ve said before that I see advantages in having our elections in the May after the U.S. presidentials, as we just happen to have done since 1997.
Blair must have given up on outlasting Thatcher, surely - changing his Party’s rules so that no one else in it can win three full terms might strike him as an appropriate consolation prize.
14.
Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing!
Taking those LibDem figures, where on earth are the net 17 SNP/LD gains going to come from? OK, so the SSP/Solidarity will lose 5, maybe the Greens will lose 1 or 2, and the Inds 1-2. The SSCUP MSP will disappear; but that still leaves 7-8 seats unaccounted for. Surely the LibDems don’t think that the Scottish Tories are going to plummet from 17 MSPs to only 9-10?!? No: there must be some serious spinning going on there.
14. The tories + others elected 35 MSPs last time. Even assuming a SSP collpse, they’re expecting a reduction in Con or “Others” MSPs number
16. Stuart Dickson, is Jean Turner standing again in Strathkelvin & Bearsden?
I suppose Canavan is safe in Falkirk West. And Margo McDonald is standing again (according to some posters here she’s likely to be returned)
Blair will have to be dragged out of no 10. Whilst there are a lot of people making a lot of noise - the only people that have the gumption would be the police. 2008 + is still my prediction - and where my money is.
Blair will have to be dragged out of no 10. Whilst there are a lot of people making a lot of noise - the only people that have the gumption would be the police. 2008 + is still my prediction - and where my money is.
18 Andrea
There are cuurntly 5 Independents:
Dennis Canavan - should by safe
Margo MacDonald - may be safe, but could have had her glory-days
18 Andrea
There are currently 5 Independents:
Dennis Canavan - should by safe
Margo MacDonald - may be safe, but could have had her glory-days
Campbell Martin - elected as SNP- he is an almost certain “goner”
Brian Monteith - elected as Tory- he is an almost certain “goner”
Jean Turner - your guess is as good as mine, although I would not be at all surprised if she got back in
So, there must be 2-3 losses there?
sorry about that double posting
7 - Andrea. Thanks. As David says, the time taken could be important if it straddles one of the quarters we bet on. Betfair pay out when “Blair ceases to be the offical leader of the Labour Party”.
I’m still hoping the police enquiry may come up with something very soon, which would make me some extremely nice returns.
Nick Palmer I think you are right, Prezza has weathered the storm but in the process he has sunk the Labour party.
21. Stuart Dickson, yes, sorry. I was comparing with the 2003 results and not with the actual state of the parties (and so I forgot former Con Brian Monteith and former SNP Martin Campbell)
re. 12
Oh, I’ve just spotted an anomoly in the Sunday Herald’s figures: they state that the SNP have 25 MSPs, which is correct, but they actually won 27 in 2003 (one became Presiding Officer: George Reid; and another went Ind: Campbell Martin). So, in reality, the LibDems are only predicting 14 SNP gains, not 16.
Nevertheless, they still seem to think that the Tories are going to lose at least 5 MSPs. I find that story unlikely.
12 Just a caveat Stuart , when a newspaper reports ” internal LibDem calculations ” they may not be LibDem calculations at all , they may be the newspapers’s thoughts on what LibDem calculations are or figures plucked from the top/botton range of internal LibDem calculations .
My own thoughts are that given those SNP and LibDem gains Labour would lose more than 7 . Of the minor parties I would expect Greens to perhaps gain 1 or 2 and the Conservatives and SSP to lose a few .
I agree some polls measuring Holyrood voting intentions would be useful .
28
Thanks Mark.
I disagree with you about the rosiness of the prospects for the Scottish Green Party. If you look at their performances on the regional list vote, it is extremely hard to see where on earth they would make one gain, let alone two? Nowhere are they even close to getting an additional MSP: all the “next” and “next again” and “next, next again” people on the list are from the big parties. It is however extremely easy for them to lose 2-3 MSPs, even if their vote only dips a little (or if Turnout rises, which is entirely possible if it looks like a close ‘un).
The SSP/Solidarity are almost guaranteed to lose 5 seats out of their 6.
28 I have no basis on which to say this, but I find it hard to believe that the Tories will be in a worse position in 2007 in Scotland than they were in 2003 at the height of IDS.
I know there have been rumblings about Goldie and the MSP team, but surely 1999 and 2003 must have been at core vote level? Or is it one of the idiosyncracies of the PR system that we may lose more list seats than we gain in constituency seats, as our popularity rises?
1. Robin, your 2007 bet looks fine. In fact the 4/7 still available is starting to look like value, especially in view of all the helpful comments here about the technicalities of the changeover.
One of the few polls on Scottish Holyrood voting intentions was by Yougov back in April . http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/TOQ060101001_1.pdf
An interesting finding ( to me ) was that Conservative support was at 11% except for those aged 55 and over where it was 18% . Conservatives in Scotland seem to be slowly dying out and not being replaced at the same level .
28. The Lib Dems do have a record of producing voodoo ‘polls’ in Scotland of late though, don’t they? Such as this one…
http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/news/0604121.shtml
32
Well, if the Tories really do only poll 11%, or, to give them the benefit of the doubt, say 14%, then it is quite easy to see them losing a few MSPs, cos they won 18 on a vote of just 16.53% (constituency) and 15.50% (regional list) last time. But I just do not trust the figures pollsters allocate to the Scottish Tories, for several reasons.
Personally, I strongly suspect that they will be around the 18 MSP mark which they managed in both 1999 and 2003, although a small number of gains or losses either way is perfectly conceivable.
33 Dr. Voodoo
Hee hee. Yeah, I had forgotten about that stinker. Pooh.. the Moray LDs will be reeking from that faux pas for many years to come: expect to see the Tories is clear 2nd spot from now on in that seat!
Can we have another thread tomorrow of when Blair is going.
As the intrest is so great,and it hasn`t been discussed enough.
The boredom factor is realy kicking in.
30 Robin. Not sure the Tories will do much either way in the elections. It’s possible to make a decent case for them to lose or gain the odd seat here and there.
Of course the implosion of the SSP and the poor state of Labour matched against probable gains for the SNP and Lib Dems make for interesting analysis. I’ll try one :
Sheridan plus one other in Solidarity and Dennis and Margo. Turner out and SSUP leaves 6 seats up for grabs. Greens remain on 7 and Tories remain on 18 = 29 seats allocated.
100 seats left for Labour, SNP and Lib Dems. Give or take a couple of seats either way :
Labour 40 .. SNP 40 .. Lib Dem 20.
Pretty tight going to form a government !! Greens holding the balance of power between a continuing Lab/LibDem administration and a SNP/LibDem one.
29 – I think you’re probably right about the Greens Stuart to gain an extra list seat in any region would take a lot of extra votes. I think your also right about the Tories - I’m a bit more optimistic with 2-3 gains but no more than that.
What will also be interesting is how many constituencies Labour lose - I reckon about 10 (including about 6 to the SNP) some of which may be offset by a few list seats.
30 – I don’t think it’s all that easy to make accurate estimates given the lack of polling evidence. You pick a bit up from canvassing etc but even then it’s just one part of the country rather than a national picture. There may be more come out closer to the election itself but I doubt there will be all that many. The Herald used to do regular polls but apparently dumped there pollster after they got the Tory vote share very wrong. At the time all the talk was of significant Tory losses and the Lib Dems claimed they would make a number of gains.
Nick Palmer, B2W…
yep, Prezza does seem to have weathered the storm - for now. However, I think that storms will now just keep coming his way. Every minor thing that comes up, and all the old news will be thrown into the public gaze again. I’m still surprised by the strength of my wife’s negative reaction to him (and by association, Labour) - she has never in all the time I’ve known her expressed any reaction to any politician or political party at all.
I tried to post this in the Super-C thread, but was spam blocked. If it goes to Greenwich, then people of the North will not be impressed by yet another flagship project going to London, and accusations of too close a relationship will be coming Prezza’s way.
If it does not go to Greenwich, then it may seem that Prezza’s personal relationship probably made the bid politically impossible to succeed.
On TB’s departure - this is beginning to feel more and more like the demise of Mrs T. The more protracted this becomes, the more likely it will damage Labour - will his legacy appear to be that for the vanity of outlasting MT he sacrificed a lot of goodwill towards the party?
37 - Jack I think Dr Jean Turner will probably keep her seat. She seems to be very well thought of through there.
Solidarity I can only see picking up two seats if Gail Sheridan stands. The rest of the SSP are finished IMHO. And Margo should hod on - she may not do as well as last time when (IIRC) she got almost enough votes to be elected twice!
Personally I am split between the “They will have to drag him out kicking and screaming” line, and the “he will go when he is ready”.
If he is thinking of going soonish it would be silly to say “I will be going soon” as he would become an even lamer duck.
34&38 Could a low turnout favour a party like the conservatives considering their rising popularity in the polls across the UK and help them gain a couple of list seats?
38 - I think an extra Green seat where they already have one may well be a stretch but they were only about 2,000 - 3,000 behind in the two regional seats where they didn’t win a seat last time - West of Scotland and Central - if the SSP are likely to lose their seat in both these lists then one or two gains may be on the cards.
40 Max. On Jean Turner, you may be correct … perhaps shock of the night ?!!?.
Looking at the possibilities, I fear it’s difficult to see beyond a fragile majority with the Greens involved.
42 - I think we do benefit from a low turnout and I think we could be heading for a lower turnout than last time. How that translates into seats I don’t know. There doesn’t seem to be much enthusiasm out there at the moment and I can’t see whats going to happen that’s really going to excite the electorate.
Still only time will tell. I also expect that DC will have a far bigger role than William Hague or IDS did. Apparently their was some polling done that showed he was liked in Scotland but the party label remained a problem.
44. Jack, why do you think it’s so shocking if Labour doesn’t unseat Jane Turner?
45. Thanks Max. I have wondered if the Scottish tories would receive a bounce from the favourable media coverage that DC has been getting over the last 12 months. I don’t expect it to be big but it could add a couple of list seats especially if it pushes a few more “shy” tories to vote. Some people have just not bothered in recent years seeing it as a wasted vote but this might be changing?
42 Chris D
Theoretically, yes, but…
In practice Scottish politics nearly always deals the Tories a very ugly hand. Is there any evidence whatsoever that there is a positive “Cameron-effect” north of the border (or even north of the Watford Gap)?
1,915,856 votes were cast in the list section in 2003 (down significantly from the 2,338,911 in 1999), which was 49.4%. Do we have any evidence that turnout will be lower than that already low figure in 2007? Not as far as I am aware. In fact it seems likely to be up if the race is tight, which it certainly is at the moment. SNP voters almost certainly were pissed-off in 2003, and many stayed away from the polling booths, but there is an undeniable spring in the SNP step at the moment, and that bodes ill for the prospects of certain Con candidates.
46 Andrea. Perhaps I should have said “unexpected”.
49. Jack, her website is very interesting
http://www.jeanturnermsp.com/
Off topic.
Moving away from idle speculation: here is one event that has been widely expected for years now. Still, now that it has actually happened it just seems unreal:
Croc Hunter Irwin killed by stingray
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Croc-Hunter-Steve-Irwin-died-instantly/2006/09/04/1157222051588.html
RE 51, Stuart, I had heard, very sad and very unlucky. My children will be very sad.
48. Tiny sample size but the local byelections in 2006 so far have Lab -13% Con +5% LibDem +7% SNP +3% Oth -2%. So Labour’s vote splintering in all directions according to this.
53 - not too dissimilar to the pattern from Westminster / Holyrood by-elections in the last year.
54. Could we start to see wide-scale anti-Labour tactical voting north of the border? that would be fun.
The only point of Blair for large sections of the Labour Party is that he appeared to be an election winner. After being in the wilderness for so long we were prepared to put up with almost anything to get the Tories out.
The slide in the polls has taken away Blair’s last prop. He performs no function for Labour any more. Knowing how people feel within the party I cannot see him lasting much beyong the Manchester coference. Roll on Gordon.
All PM s get a little delusional in their second term and that only gathers pace in the third. They all seem to get obsessed with their place in history, their legacy, or the simple belief that the world will fall apart without them. And that last one is the most powerful of all and has manifested itself in most, but not all, long serving modern Prime Ministers: Lloyd George, Churchill, Thatcher.
Psychology is much more powerful than backbenchers in forming leadership decisions, so what in Blair’s unconscious will the factors be that make him want to hold on.
Some possibilities (whch might be conscious aims too) are:
- beating Thatcher’s record
- keeping Plod from the door (easier when PM than MP, although he will not admit to himself consciously that there is any risk as he is ‘Anthony’ the priceless one)
- wanting to see through the Iraq troop reductions mooted to start at the end of the year and then say ‘We won it’ and claim to have brought peace to the world
- proving that TIC TAC* is truly ‘psychologically flawed’
- restoring Labour’s dominant position in Scotland, Wales and in English local government - remember we are not talking about reality here.
- Completing the nanny state project for womb to tomb government interference, and so claim to have brought peace to our housing estates.
- Save the Union by further constitutional changes
- And lastly, but most importantly, that little voice that says,’Wait! Hold on! The world is dangerous and uncertain, and they need you,so don’t jump too soon. You’ll see! Next week/month/year will prove it. They won’t cope without you Tony! You’re the one! The only one that can do it!’
*TIC TAC - A game, very apt for politicians, otherwise known as noughts and crosses,
or
The Invisible Chancellor - Timid And Clumsy
I still say 2007 is the best bet. Blair will have a thoroughly uncomfortable conference experience, which will hammer home that he has to go soon, but he’ll weather the storm until May 2007, I should think.
After that, he’s probably a gonner. Labour are going to take a drubbing at the polls and lose even more of their already decimated local base. Scotland and Wales are also going to be uncomfortable experiences.
I’m sorry, but I cannot believe that 2008 is even a remote possibility anymore. The man may be known as “Teflon Tony,” but I think 2008 is one giant step too far for his party, no matter what he thinks. At the end of the day, he’s not going to beat Thatcher’s record.
moving swiftly off thread again 51- Stuart-has anyone ever been killed by a stingray?? Probably the most passive animal you could find. And Steve Irwin aswell. A bit like a trapeze artist meeting their demise by slipping on a banana skin after a show. Sad all the same because the guy was entertaining, and raised the profile of wildlife.
Benedict- I thought you were uncharacteristically pointy with me last week. You must know by now how much pleasure I get at poking fun at the Tories. I wonder if the end of your party will be as surprising as Irwin’s, or will Blair’s for that matter?? By the way where was that bloody stingray when Blair was swimming in Barbados??
And, who was that manic social exclusion minister (new labour speak if any) on Marr yesterday?? Where was she dredged up from. Rather spoilt my breakfast. And is Nick Clegg a clone of Cameron? I swear they are the same. Why are our politicians so underwhelming??
Monday morning rant over
59.”And, who was that manic social exclusion minister (new labour speak if any) on Marr yesterday?? ”
I suppose it was Hilary the Useless, ops, I mean Hilary Armstrong. She was the former Chief Whip
60 - I’m shocked to the core that Hilary still has a job. Will her brief include Tony’s recent brainwave of monitoring troublemaking children from the womb?
Re 59 Tyson, Re Steve Irwin, just to over egg your metaphore, it is like a high wire act man, used to walking at 1000 feet in a force 9 gale, with no net or safety wire dying slipping on a banana skin after a show.
The reason for being a bit testy is that I can’t see the point of a discussion if you genuinly believe we only act out of the worst of motives.
What did the maniac Minister for Social Exclusion (a truely new Labour job title if ever there was one) say to wind you up?
On topic… (sorry). Will Conference be uncomfortable for Blair - clearly yes. Will it be uncomfortable enough that he steps down this year - I dont think so. So we move on to May ‘07. Now, maybe I’m wrong here, but surely these seats are (in general) those last contested in May ‘03, which wasn’t exactly the height of Labour popularity. I think that he might therefore come through those too and scrape through to another summer… My money’s on ‘08 at the moment, although I’m awaiting further moves to decide when / if to invest further in this market.
Tyson, whilst I have you attention I asked Roger yesterday what he meant by “Social justice” and the “progressive agenda”. Perhaps you could share your thoughts?
59. “And is Nick Clegg a clone of Cameron? I swear they are the same. Why are our politicians so underwhelming??”
Because any interesting aspect of their character could be seen as controversial and therefore in some quarters unpopular and thus is surgically removed by PR types (except for the licensed eccentrics, who are tolerated provided they get nowhere near power)
Do we have a minister for eugenics yet? If so, which Labour MPs will be sterilised first by the Blairites? (Most rebels seem to be beyond their procreative years).
RE 63, Lennon what do you think you are doing being on topic? Tsh tsh…
Actually I agree, the last locals that are going to be fought again may have been the lowest point for Labour. However some were thinking the same of the last locals, so predictions of what would or would not have been a good/bad night for Labour varied wildly.
67 - Indeed… and Tory spin to say ‘well if we win Hammersmith & Fulham then we really are doing terribly well…’ and the like means that everybody keeps moving everybody else’s goalposts, so nobody knows if anybody has successfully scored or not…
Two (three if you count Steve Irwin) interesting sub threads. I agree with elena that there is no chance of Blair lasting to 2008 - it would be a bloodbath. I think think there is value in him being out before Christmas - we will know more about Labour’s/the Brownies’ mood during conference which should be very uncomfortable for Blair. If he stays on there is no doubt Labour will suffer next May.
On the Scottish thread - I think the Lib Dems predictions (if they are from them not newspaper speculation) are designed to set the Nats up to fail - ‘we predicted 40 seats - they only got 32′ etc. I’d expect Jean Turner to face a very tough battle from the Lib Dems - her Scottish seat is part of Jo Swinson’s Westminster seat. The dynamics of the contest are now very different.
I’m also not sure about Margot McDonald’s prospects - she was very much part of the independently minded left of Labour swing that saw the Greens and SSP win lots of seats. The implosion of the SSP doesn’t only have consequences for them - it makes the ‘left of Labour’ ticket (in all its guises) more unpallatable (although the Greens could pick up a couple of seats in the regions they currently don’t have represnetation on the back of it).
As ever Lothian will be one of the most interesting areas. I can’t see the SSP winning a list seat, Margot McD will not have anything like the following she had last time, and the Greens can’t win more than two - there are a number of real seats changes likely. The Lib Dems must be looking to pick up at least three on the back of their good general election performance in almost all of the area.
The problem in predicting any big changes in MSPs is that what you gain/lose on the FPTP seats you tend to do the opposite on the list.
Thanks Andrea. I clearly had erased the name Hilary Armstrong from my head because it just made me twicth.
Benedict- your metaphor for Irwin is closer to reality. When I heard the stingray story this morning I first thought the guy had been run over by a car. Incredulously did I realise that he had been killed by the animal equivelant of Gandhi.
Re: Hilary Armstrong- the woman is manic, and public outriding for Blair now is akin to the holocaust deniers. His position is untenable, and even worse he is trying to create somekesceens on the most appalling, populist, policy statements. Hilary (useless) Armstrong, if she believes him, she is as deluded as he is, if not she is simply a lying careerist NuLabour apparatchik, albeit one with no charisma or talent.
RE 70, tyson, I hear Hillary speaks highly of you.
70 I am not sure that Gandhi and a three foot razor sharp dagger laden with poison pointing out of his backside. Nice mental image.
Thanks.
Surley Blair must go now. Isn’t it fair to say that he appears to almost deliberately winding people up at the moment.
Does anyone actually genuinely want him to stay apart from Tweedle Dumb (Milburn) and Tweedle Dumber (Byers)?
70 I am not sure that Gandhi and a three foot razor sharp dagger laden with poison pointing out of his backside. Nice mental image.
Thanks.
Surely Blair must go now. Isn’t it fair to say that he appears to almost deliberately winding people up at the moment.
Does anyone actually genuinely want him to stay apart from Tweedle Dumb (Milburn) and Tweedle Dumber (Byers)?
RE 70, Tyson, you still have not said what she said to wind you up.
BTW, This is the woman, who as cheif whip, Dave described as “screaming like a child”.
70. Armstrong is really a deluded woman. She’s probably the only Chief Whip on earth who is able to send the PM away before a vote and then lose that vote by 1.
Actually sending MPs to Scotland during a crucial vote wasn’t a bright idea either.
When Labour lost the 90 days detention vote, she wrote Clare Short saying that she didn’t alert the Whip office of her intentions to rebel and she had to do so (was Hilary expecting Clare’s loyal vote?!).
She once threatened Bob Marshall Andrews not to send ministers to Midway during the election campaign and BMA replied that he wanted a written reassurance that they won’t come to Midway
74. And she once threw a copy of Blunkett’s biography against Dinky after a PMQ’s!
RE 75, Andrea, I like BMA, he is so appealingly off message
re 39 - Prescott has weathered the storm - surely it’s that the public think he’s a joke, we saw over the jet bomb plot that he is peripheral in any real sense (even when running the country the most they let him do is visit Doncaster Airport) so as he doesn’t matter anymore why get worked up about him?
and the bigger lesson is that Blair is going down the same route. Does anyone take his speeches and calls for renewal with any degree of belief that what he says matters? He has never been a great PM for domestic matters - initiatives but no action - and on foreign affairs even the US realises its Germany, France & Italy they need to talk to. He’s starting to be perceived as this demented bloke who thinks he’s PM while most of his cabinet look to Fife to see if the Silent One gives them the nod. There is no opportunity to create a legacy, he offers no new insights into improving Britain - why hang around any longer?.
Latest odds on B/f - plenty of value for you 2006ers !
75: And after Dave’s stop-shouting-like-a-child soundbite at PMQs didn’t Hilary approach him in the corridor afterwards and say, ‘You’ll pay for that.’ Ooo Scary!
oops
Re 80, Did she? Oh bless…
Blair has one great moment left in the locker and it’s Northern Ireland…if the devolution plan works, which actually it very possibly won’t, he can go with some serious statesman kudos
Threatening one half of the population with something both stupid, totally undemocratic and possibly illegal when challenged is not a good idea. In fact its just encouraging one group of terrorists to keep their weapons whilst the other group of terrorists is having a very dangerous split.
Well done, thanks a bunch.
79. Looks like 2006 is a more difficult bet to take at this stage,speaking as someone who has had his money on it from a long way out!
Looking at the procedural situation set out by Nick Palmer and others it could be a few months before Blair leaves the post after an announcement, thus it really shortens the window on this one.
Increasingly it looks as if the only way 2006 is going to happen is if he is forced out pronto and/or is given no room whatsoever on an announcement, it has to be swift. Whilst I still see this as having every possibility of happening and have fairly fancy odds on a end of 2006 departure, I’d be somewhat more reticient with current prices if I was entering the market for the first time now.
Having said that, I would like lots of money to go on a 2006 departure as I’d like to go lay off more on 2006 at shorter odds..so err, yes 2006, definitely bet on it…
Just to start a new “sub-thread”, the Tories are now saying that economic growth is a means to an end, not an end in itself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5311494.stm
Tyson, whilst I have you attention I asked Roger yesterday what he meant by “Social justice” and the “progressive agenda”. Perhaps you could share your thoughts?
benedict- how long have you got.
The other week I met a good friend of mine, an academic, and a strongly pro Israeli jew. We demolished a bottle of excellent malt, smoked some fine havanas, and put a full night’s stint on the middle east. I also had at hand atlases, history books, and academic and polictical books on the region. We didn’t get very far, but we both enjoyed and benfited from that discussion. Took me back to being a student.
I can tell you one thing-if Blair had done the same thing he wouldn’t have thought in a million years of putting foreign troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. Only someone who is culturally, and historically illiterate could have done such a thing. Cue Bush and Blair.
Re; your question- as brief as I can be;
social justice- everyone has a right to the same experience of human life as any other- we only have it once and no one is better than anyone else-
the progressive agenda- that we are still far, far away (in my view many generations and centuries) from delivering social justice- but we must always be working towards improving the human experince of the majority. That said we also have important obligations to the environment, and fellow creatures
History on the whole is progressive, but we have the occasional troughs (i.e Genghis Khan,Nazi Germany; 9/11 and the repercussions). One of my biggest regrets with 9/11 is that globally it knocked progressive politics off the agenda.
A simple example of how I personally see progressive politcis playing out is that in years to come (hopefully sooner) people will consider it absoultely unthinkable and repellant that in one area of the world thousands of children were dying because they didn’t have access to clean water, yet in another people were buying yaughts, private jets and islands purely as consumption goods. How crazy is that when one human life is the same as another??
My own thinking is that it ultimately it will not be technology or materialism that will deliver social justice. It will be based on progressive human thinking that ultimately will jettison ideology and religion, and work out how to organise human societies in a way that maximises human happiness and experiences whilst caring for the environment and animal life.
Tried to be brief!!!
If Northern Ireland was the best moment left in my locker I would try Prozac
Now now Jon….trust me on this, Tony is really really grasping for this and he will happily give he can to any Joe Soap with a gun to get it.
Now now Jon, it may be a country full of whingeing ne’er do wells but trust me on this, Tony is really really grasping for it and he will happily give what he thinks will work to any Joe Soap with a gun to get it.
74-Benedict- why Hilary especially annoyed me is that she was trying to re-badge Blair’s appalling policy announcement to target menacing pre births with a project she saw offering residential support for families at risk of losing their children. She was disenegenuous, and dishonest. Worse still she presented this in that manic slightly zealous way that is unable to deal with disent.
73 Dr Polytude- the stingray may be well protected, but is not generally known for its offensive qualities against humans. Harbouring a small interest for marine things I have not heard of another story where someone was killed by a stingray.
86. I’d vote for that.
Re 86, Tyson, broadly agree with your view on sending in the troops in some ways. I happen to think we could have done and do a good job, but only with much more resource and much more care.
On the social justice issue, it assumes that everyone wants their life to be the same as the next mans surely?
RE 90, Tyson, you mean the horrificaly Nazi style crap about feotal ASBOS?
Meanwhile while the Blairites & Brownites argue over the internal future of the Labour party a British tourist has been shot in Jordan, another soldier killed in Afghanistan, two more soldiers killed in Iraq. We have a PM thoroughly discredited in the eyes of most of the electorate as regards anything he says on the subject and a PM in waiting of whom we have no idea what, if any thoughts, he has on our security or the security of our armed forces, ill equipped with conflicting goals.
85. That’s just a statement of the obvious, isn’t it?
RE 94, Good summary of the position Ted.
71 Tyson, “I hear Hillary speaks highly of you.” There is only one ‘l’ in ‘Hilary’, though i am sure an awful lot of labourites have told her to go ‘two-ell’!
Is it reaqlly sexist to point out the common feeling one gets when either armstron, Blears or kelly are on the box that the speed of the mindless jabber is directly proportional to the lack of substance of anything to say? Which just about sums up ‘community inclusion’ from the party which is doing its damndest to ensure that people’s involvement in and trust in local elected organisation diminishes down a hole.
Tories floating the idea of guaranteeing public spending increases. That appears to mean that all three main parties are now being run by economic loons. Can’t the sensible people from all three parties form a fourth party that’ll actually be worth voting for?
74 Benedict: “as cheif whip, Dave described as “screaming like a child”.
if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . . .
RE 97 and 99, Zebidee, thanks for that.
I don’t think it is sexist, but the same phenominum (sorry about the spelling) occurs in men as well.
98. Depends if they are in real terms or not.
98. Christ, will they ever learn. If this is an attempt to say the NHS is secure with us they could do it a lot better. NHS and maybe Education apart, the public have issues with big government, big spending and hwo and where it is going.
Want to gain a lot of votes Tory party? More prisons to lock up more violent criminals for longer. The Joe Soaps who make up the majority of the voting public will buy it.
102. I think Michael Howard tried that and lost..
It was Michael Howard though coupled with the lack of a definite plan.
103 Jamie. Twas the messenger wot lost it, perhaps not the message !
92-On the social justice issue, it assumes that everyone wants their life to be the same as the next mans surely?
92- benedict- why?? Discussing how to create a truly level playing field that enables ALL human beings to fulfill their potential is not the same as imposing the same life experiences on people.
Liberal democracy and capitalism are hrdly doing a great job in promoting differentiation.
First we have homogenised education supported by homogenised systems (ie national curriculum) measured by homogenised marking systems. All I think are incompatible with the human condition.
Children want to explore and learn in different ways, simply putting them all in a uniform and getting them to sit through the same experince and do the same things is counter intuitive to their personal development. The need for children to develop their unique qualities is pretty much knocked out of them by 5 (and earlier now as education is exteneded into early years settings).
Next we have our living environments and city centres. All homogenised and set to type. Just about every high street in Britain conforms to an identikit model. Because capitalism’s raison d’etre is to make a profit mass production rules. That is why everything becomes the same. People do not have any real choice becuaes they do not understand what real choice is.
Entertainment- the same again. TV schedules, even the look of your TV, your furniture and holidays. I guess your life experiences are similar to your neighbours, friends, school peers.
The greatest totalitarian, state minded marxist would have been impressed with just how standardised and predictable all our lives are.
Do not get me on political theory. I am in the pre contemplative stages of writing a set of essays exploring themes around the moder world. I have got about 20 topics so far. I could go on all day.
Tyson. In terms of homogenisation of the modern world, you missed the decaffeination of all political views regarding race, culture, religion: through the process of political correctness.
These days we are all expected to have identical views on race, multiculturalism, genetics, etc; any expression of contrary views in an official environment (even when those views might speak scientific sense - re the IQ debate) leads to dismissal. In other words, you can be sacked for talking scientific sense. True Stalinism.
Capitalism and globalisation may sometimes make us all look the same, dress the same eat the same, etc - liberal-left politicial corectness wants to make us all THINK the same. I know which I find more repellent.
105. Ok - William Hague then
RE 106, Well tyson when you have written them, stick them on a blog and let me know where it is.
86: “everyone has a right to the same experience of human life as any other”
Struggling with this one - do we all have a right to drive a Ferrari and shack up with a supermodel? What exactly do you mean? Sounds like you want to force absolute equality, thus stifling the human spirit and all of our instincts pretty much, and removing all incentives to effort for self advancement. No thanks.
Will we see a polling shocker for Labour overnight?
The September Populus survey for the Times is due out in the morning and the surveying will have gone on over the weekend when the headlines were not good for Blair.
The last Populus poll was at the stsrt of July when the Tories were just 2% ahead. My guess is that Labour’s deficit will be much bigger and might be of a scale that which could reinforce the “go now” lobby.
It will also be interesting to see if Brown’s position has improved.
Neither opinion polls nor actual polls mean anything to Tony B anymore - legacy is all - and he has nothing substantial of merit.
111 Have you had a tip off?
RE 111, Welcome back Mike. I hope the sedding went well!
I look forward to the polling results as well, though I agree with Jamie that TB won’t listen.
‘Benedict- the sending of the troops into Iraq and Afghanistan could never, was never and will never be a good idea; the stuff that Kerry, Howard and some Tories are jumping on in losing the peace is just claptrap.
If resources are the issue do you think that we could have done as good a job as the Russians in Afghanistan (occupation force of 100’s thousands over 20,000 dead), or preceding that the British at the turn of the century in Afghanistan.
Unbelievable that 15 years ago we were arming the very people to kill young Russian men who are now killing our young men. One of your key inspirations George Orwell couldn’t have made it up. Did you know that when we were occupying Iraq in the 20’s we (Britain) used chemical weapons against civilian populations in the country??
Any occupying force in the region over the last hundered years has contributed to carnage, destruction and ultimately defeat. Why could it have been different now, or done better?? Because we have better weapons. Every occupation of the region has been conducted asymetrically- ie mobolised, technologically superior armies set against embedded, comparatively poorly armed resistance defended by the locals. Every occupation has resulted in popular hatred. Whatever angle you come from there is no prospect for success through military occupation of the region.
What could have been acheived in the region with the 400 billion ploughed into it to fund the occupation?? Going back to my point before when reflecting on the progress of history. We are generally on the move but 9/11 and the aftermath has caused a slight glitch in proceedings.
Amongst other things the response by the US and the UK has taken a collective leave of its senses- not only have we managed to radicalise Islamic youth, inflame a region, exponentially increase the numbers of the protagonists (and support base), disportionately imbue fear in our own populace and create social and civil divsions at home, but we have maneged to get bogged down in wars thought would have been seemed as unthinkable 10 years ago.
Still in 20 years or so we will be back on track. The middle east will have its dictators back, we will have no troops in the region, and the young Muslims will be more concerned about important things- education, jobs, sex, rather than thinking of blowing themselves up in the fight against the occupiers.
RE 115, Tyson, whilst I have a great deal of sympathy with what you say, what we needed to do is make it look like anything else other than an occupation whilst making sure we could secure borders etc.
96 Benedict - had just walked back past our village war memorial where fresh flowers have been laid on birthday of a local farmers son killed in Iraq three years ago (friendly fire). Thought of the families today receiving the news that their son/husband/father had been killed and trying to keep faith, in face of that terrible news, that he had died for a purpose. Then you look at the papers and blogs and Blair v Brown and it all seems so inconsequential to the real world.
I just feel that Blair must go because he cannot offer or deliver anything more, every day he and his current cabinet (especially a useless Defense Secretary unable to talk in other than newspeak) continue the sacrifice of these people seems in vain. Brown doesn’t strike me as a much better alternative, his silence on most subjects doesn’t give me confidence. Perhaps Johnson or someone else could do better but this government doesn’t give me much hope.
112. Agreed. Quite astonishing when you consider the length of time he has been in office. He risks going down in history as a Lord North style figure.
111- Thanks Mike. Looking forward to the poll.
Before it even comes out, it is worth remembering that Populas tends to understate the Conservative vote and overstate the Labour vote. Here is my guess… Con 39 Lab 33 Lib 19 Oth 9.
115. Re. ‘radicalised islamic youth’, do you think attitudes like this -
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/04092006/323/10-british-asians-backs-honour-killings-poll.html
sprang up only as a result of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?
117. “Brown doesn’t strike me as a much better alternative, his silence on most subjects doesn’t give me confidence. Perhaps Johnson or someone else could do better but this government doesn’t give me much hope. ”
Brown is usually attacked by some people because he should be more vocal about non economic issues. But it doesn’t look as the other possible contenders (usually mentioned when criticizing Brown) are better in that department. I don’t think Alan Johnson has been much more vocal than Brown on many subjects. And Hilary Benn…well, actually, I think Hilary Benn has never openly say what he thinks about almost all subjects!
John Reid is maybe the only one who has spoken more than the others.
116 If we had done it with blue helmets on, that would have helped.
BTW Blair has finally lost me. I gave him a chance. He’s finished, and must go asap. For me it’s Brown or bust.
121. Brown regularly talks about non-economic issues (Britishness etc.) but doesn’t address anything unpopular (Iraq etc.).
123. Nothing Brown does will please his critics. He addressed something, he shouldn’t because it’s too easy to address it. He doesn’t address something, oh well, it’s because he has no guts. If he addresses it, he shouldn’t because he creates problems and should pay attention to his businness. When he’s present, you hear people complaining. When he isn’t present, well, he should be present.
110 Jon c
Sounds like you want to force absolute equality, thus stifling the human spirit and all of our instincts pretty much, and removing all incentives to effort for self advancement.
So that human spirit we are at now where we all shop the same, eat the same, watch the same , have the same aspirations to go to a package holiday in Tenerife- to support a smaller clique of wealthier people who basically do the same things except with better gadgets.
And SeanT- do we advocate the drowning of ugly women as witches, or the extermination of a race? As politics moves on some of our debate and dialogue becomes anachronistic and irrelevant.
The kind of politics that you preach is reactionary , it sets progression back, it is not helpful- so yes some topics are much better left unsaid in mainstream politics (or decaffeinated). I’d never question anyone’s right to say them, but seanT you are already talking from a bygone area, a past that is not going to return. Race, religion, immigration, the concept of Britishness- all belonging to a history. Things change. We move on.
The politcis of your son’s generation will be about the environment, co-ordinating ever increasing integration, transport management, and ultimately resource allocation. You will seem like some quaint old cross between Captain Mannering, Jeremy Clarkson and Alf Garnett, chunnering away in the background. A reminder of how things used to be. A real family treasure.
123. Btw, he addressed the Trident issue. Not sure if it’s a popular or an unpopular one in the whole nation. But it was quite controversial in some sections of Labour Party.
“do we advocate the drowning of ugly women as witches, or the extermination of a race”
Why not?
RE 124, Yes Andrea, we get to have a go at him what ever he does
127.”do we advocate the drowning of ugly women as witches…
…Why not? ”
because would it make more difficult for Maude to reach his female candidates target?
I love it, Andrea.
126. Benedict, it’s more or less what happens with DC by his opponents, isn’t it?
Re 131, true, but on that case it is entirely unjustified
111 - Thanks for that. The poll will be very interesting. Even though it’s Populus, I wouldn’t be surprised if the defecit was large indeed (ie 8-10 points in favour of the Tories).
29 and if we do bring back drowning of rugly women poor old Hilary (whatsherface) community whatever spokesperson, ex whippy with a thingy for social enterprise or something like that will be in trouble, sadly so will Kelly and that mad Tory who represents Maidstone and wasn’t fond of Howard (forgotten her name aswell)
RE 125, Tyson, do you reject the idea of a nation state, the idea that people within one may have a sense of identity and pride, or both?
RE 134, Tyson, and you problem with that is what exactly?
75 Andrea- as much as many in the Labour Party may want to throw Bob Marshall Andrews, stockings and all, into the middle of the ocean, he represents Medway (not Midway).
137. Tyson, yes, I know. After posting it I noticed I mispelled his constituency name, but I hoped that no-one would have noticed it
134.Tyson, you would be braver than me if you were to attempt to take on Ann Widdecombe in full battle mode. :D:
131. - Andrea - obviously echo Benedicts comments regarding unfairness to DC but it’s a possibility we are within three months of a Brown premiership but on most policy areas Brown is even more of a blank canvas (sorry DC didn’t mean it) and he’s been the second most important man in the UK Government for over 9 years
33 benedict- I am getting annoyed with you now. I had a bad run in with govt officialdom last week work wise, have slogged through the weekend, and needed to get some papers out. I wanted a quick review of the site, and you got me embrolied in a whole debate on politcial theory (of course one of the things I love pontificating about- I can almost hear my own voice as I write this)- so do not entice me with a debate on the nation state, please. Just to say that it has served its purpose, its days are numbered and we can get on dealing with our global national instincts through the diversion of sport- all things political and economic increasingly will be taken on by international institutions.
Thanks for distracting me, but I am now going to have to spend some time earning a living.
Re 141, Tyson my post was at 135, sorry for dragging you away from work.
I will however take the answer as yes…
125. The correct spelling is Mainwaring.
143 I think you mean ‘Don’t tell him, Pike’.