Is Labour ready for the flack over its election system?
September 10th, 2006
- Are the party rules “fit for purpose?
If I was an opposition “attack dog” I would be licking my lips in anticipation over Labour’s coming leadership election. For unlike what has become the norm in other parties the choice of Labour leader is not determined by a membership ballot in which all votes have equal value.
For a process that might have looked democratic when last used 12 years ago when the party was not in power now has a dated feel about it and could be tested severely when the election happens.
- Because this will be about choosing a new Prime Minister every little bit of the process will be subject to the most intense scrutiny. However hard Labour tries this will be much more than an internal party matter.
Given that knocking the gloss off the new leader must be the Lib Dems and the Tories’ first priority then discrediting Labour’s electoral process will be a good place to start - and the system that’s in place offers some easy targets.
No doubt opponents will have fun suggesting that just like in George Orwell’s Animal Farm with the Labour party “all animals are equal except that some animals are more equal than others”.
For in terms of electoral power an ordinary Labour member has just one third the impact of a Lib Dem, Tory or other UK party member. And an individual Labour MP’s vote is equivalent to the views of just about 500 ordinary party members.
This is because, unlike the other parties, the 180,000 members get between them just a third of the overall votes in the electoral college - the same as the 360 odd MPs.
Another line of attack will, of course, be the 33.3% of the electoral college that makes the decision that goes to the trade unions. Although this is now decided by balloting individual union members expect an effort to link this to the current party funding row.
We’ll hear that the unions are being given massive influence in choosing the next PM in return for their cash. You can forsee Labour being put on the back foot when it’s suggested that the most unionised parts of the economy are in the public sector - workers who are hardly unbiased because their livelihoods are dependent on the public purse.
None of the other parties at Westminster gives donors any extra say in leadership elections - so why should Labour?
Then there is multiple voting which might take a bit of explaining and looks anti-democratic. Thus an MP who is in a union and is a member of the Fabian Society will be able to vote four times - all giving more ammunition for opposition attack dogs.
- So we have the formula: 1 MP = 500 members = 2,777 trade unionists
I’ve deliberately set out these “flaws” in a simplified and biased manner to show how vulnerable I believe that Labour is. Unfair? Certainly - but that’s the nature of political argument. Well thought out slogans and sound-bites can get remembered.
Many Labour figures are hoping that an open well fought contest will provide a real boost to the party. Maybe that will happen - but it could be dominated by attacks on the election rules?
Thanks to Philip Grant who has stood in as guest editor and all those who have contributed guest slots during my vacation.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Well done to Philip and all those who contributed guest slots while Mike was away.
Whatever system is used, Brown will win. Us conservatives can’t attack the system as being undemocratic as our party chairman tried to to take away the right for members to vote on our leader.
So that means it is now up to the Lib Dems to criticise both Labour and Tories? It wouldn´t be the first time, that they took on both the others over some issue, would it? They are usually right too!
Much as I dislike the Labour Party I can’t see any purpose in making an issue of their electoral system.
The internal procedures and rules of any political party must remain purely a matter for that party - they can’t (and they musn’t) ever be considered to be points of legitimate complaint for those of us outside of that party. Therefore it’s entirely up to Labour members to decide whether or not they like their own electoral system.
John and Steven are right - I think whatever system they use, Brown has been ingrained in the minds of Labour politicians and activists for so long as the heir apparent that it will be next to impossible to shift that enough to stop it coming to pass now. As for the electoral mechanics of it all, I suspect the public could scarcely care less how they do it.
I haven’t been able to contribute much all week due to guests we have been entertaining (who have now departed, at last! :)) but on the broader political situation - I would be amazed if Blair actually made it through to next spring in Downing Street. All of the sniping and back-biting we have been witness to this past week is only going to continue in the open (and probably get worse) until the question of the leadership has been resolved (and may well continue covertly afterward.) Labour are already behind in the polls by 7% on average and this gap is likely to grow, spreading even more panic among jittery Labour MPs, particularly the crop from 1997 onward who are not used to political adversity. How will they be kept in check until May 2007? The Upcoming Scottish and Welsh elections will also intensify this.
Secondly, I think Brown has been seriously damaged by the events of the past week - particularly by the strength of the opposition to the prospect of his leadership that appears to be forming among his cabinet colleagues and the remarkably personal attack that has been launched on him by Charles Clarke - which, as others have suggested - will prove to be an absolute gift to the opposition when Brown actually succeeds.
None of this means that Brown could not conceivably pull things together in the medium term and go on to win a general election, but that is looking much less likely now than it did even as recently as a fortnight ago. As any Tory who has been around a while can tell you, once these bouts of fratricide have been touched off they are remarkably difficult to stop, and it seems set to run and run where the Labour Party is concerned after more than a decade of extraordinary calm and unity.
5 Steven W begs some important questions.
Political parties are a cross between voluntary organisations and public bodies with a role in government. As the former, their internal rules are a matter for them; as the latter, those rules are a matter for all of us.
PPERA reflects the increasing belief that parties are part of our system of governance.
Ironically, PPERA imposed detailed regulation on the funding of local parties and branches, the aspect of political parties in which they most correspond to small local voluntary organisations.
In contrast, it is in the election of the leader of a governing party that the party is most clearly a part of the constitution.
GMTV’s The Sunday Programme reports that the Conservative Party declined to put up anyone this morning.
Presumably they are reluctant to get involved as this would give Labour an external opponent to unite against.
It will be interesting to see how the Prime Minister’s tour of the Middle East plays out. Will his likely failure to bring significant change lead to frustration and an earlier resignation? Or will simply being seen to make an effort bring disillusioned formrt Labour supporters back to the party?
Don’t see that the electoral college causes much problem unless it gives glaringly different results from section to section. And even then it will not really be for the other parties to make capital over it (aside from the odd persistent jokey aside). There will probably be enough dissent within Labour itself to cause problems.
I hope AH Matlock and Steven are correct that the public will be relaxed about Labour’s internal electoral system. Much will depend on how efficiently the election can be administered. If the unions have lots of members who claim they’ve opted to pay the political levy and they’re denied a vote, there’s plenty of shady groups out there all too willing to finance legal challenges and we then move into new territory.
Goodness me, anybody seen the Observer?
It says a large group of Blairite cabinet ministers are ready to come out behind another candidate for the leadership. And that if they do, Brown sends a deputation to no. 10 (MPs) next week demanding Blair go now.
Do these Blairite cabinet ministers have any significant policy differences with the Brownite ones or are they worried only about their own jobs?
John L - personal loathing of Brown, anger.
************************
Gordon Brown’s long-held dream of taking over as Prime Minister received a significant blow this weekend after it was revealed that up to 10 cabinet ministers are discussing backing an ‘anyone but Gordon’ candidate and that Tony Blair will not give the Chancellor a personal endorsement.
Senior government figures are threatening to make the contest a bitter referendum on Brown’s personal integrity after last week’s vicious bout of infighting. They spent Friday discussing their choice of candidate and the mechanics of a bid after concluding they could no longer support him.
This follows a serious breakdown between the two rival camps, culminating, according to one very close confidant of Tony Blair, in the Prime Minister telling friends: ‘I have never known how mendacious he [Gordon] was, how full of mendacity.’
*************************************
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1869062,00.html
12 - poor Gordon. All this might be true as far as I know, but to be called a liar by Tony Blair?
Excellent article Mike. The other weak point is that some people get more votes than others. Talk, for example, John Prescott. He gets a vote as an MP, as a Party member and a Trade Unionist. Yet other people would get, maybe, two votes (as a member and in a Union) and others just one.
Not that it would do the Tories, or LibDems, any good to attach this. The attack-dog media will do it for them without any fear of the hypocrisy call.
13 - Me thinks that the PM doesn’t know what mendacity means.
14 - I don’t really see why this is a problem. Each section’s “voting strength” is not based on their numerical strength.
15 - or maybe he was lying.
The Party WILL NOT back another Blairite. The Blairites are optimistic if they feel the mood is strong enough for them. NEC elections should inform anyone putting money on where to put it! The Union vote simiarly. Only the PLP vote is up for grabs but the word is renewal, New Labour is not once what it was.
Any sensible backer IMO has to lay Johnson, Reid, Milburn. Back Benn (the only unity candidate) and hold on Brown till the timetable for the election is clearer. Straw is becoming a good bet for Deputy.
In the end renewal and unity will be the two key factors in voting. Experience as criteria will be relegated (a la Cameron).
Is there any truth in the rumour I heard from a former MP that the Brown camp had planned to send a series of round-robin letters from MPs but that after the first one they had cold feet and pulled the others?
14.”He gets a vote as an MP, as a Party member and a Trade Unionist. Yet other people would get, maybe, two votes (as a member and in a Union) and others just one.”
The Socialist Societies and the Co-Op Party have a vote too
3 - I think an electoral system should always come under scrutiny in whatever walk of life it is involved. Electoral systems are often deliberately chosen to induce certain results, and often reflect the “character” of the institution invoking them. It is through the electoral system that a leader is granted legitimacy.
It is entirely feasible that there a circumstances where the winner of the electoral college is not the winner of the popular vote. And we all know what that means…
And we all recall the impression that Alun Michael only triumphed over Rhodri Morgan because of the handpicked electoral system in order to make it as difficult as possible for Morgan to win. It tarnished Michael’s image that the membership voted 2:1 in favour of the other, and that he was only saved by the unions who were in Blair’s pocket.
Labour’s election procedures have always been highly suspicious. I would be deeply shocked if no one made them an issue.
Also, Alun Michael was supported by the Unions who exercised a block vote without consulting their members, while the unions that balloted their members supported Morgan.
21 - There’s a fundamental difference between the Wales/London elections and the Labour leadership. In the former the Union leaders cast their votes, in the latter the members decide. Furthermore the current system is “established” (even though it’s only been used once). Keeping the status quo is the only way to avoid charges that it’s been designed for a certain candidate.
18 - Jack Straw for deputy leader? He’s not tarnished by Iraq then?
BPIX poll for Mail on Sunday:
Con 40% L 30% LD 14%
Somebody enlighten me, is BPIX a real pollster? We know Mori is not. If so, cracking Tory poll and LibDem disaster.
In Baxter that makes glorious reading: Con majority of 82, Liberals down to 8 seats.
I know it’s not likely, but I can dream, can’t I?
Mike - whilst the Conservative membership might be OMOV* the membership are only offered two candidates once the MPs have whittled it down.
This, in its own way, is just as patrician as Labour’s so-called “party democracy”, and is another (minor) example of why the Tories find it hard to attack Labour, tarred as they are with the same brush. Iraq is the biggest exaple of this.
*unless, of course, they’re on a “husband and wife” membership - in which case it’d be interesting to see how the vote is decided!
BPIX is a couple of tame academics employed by Associated Newspapers, isn’t it ?
The BPIX poll actuallly shows all three main parties 1 point down on their July poll when figures were CON 41 Lab 31 LibDem 15
27 I don’t know. My only recall is that YouGov is most reliable, ICM knocks % off the Tories and you can forget Mori. No idea about Bpix. Maybe Mike will enlarge on the poll.
knocks 1%, that is
1. John L/Mike S. Heartily concur. Well done Phillip on your stewardship of the site.
However the big overnight news is that mi Lord Matlock slung his guests out of Perthshire Towers in the early hours and then couldn’t resist the lure of PB and posted @ 4 from Scotland at 3.13am !
Imagine the scene if you will as Matlock in a floor length ermine clad night gown and cap meanders with candlestick in bony hand through the stone clad corridors of his Scottish seat and feeds another shilling in the meter just so we may have his latest cogitations. Now that’s what I call unswerving service to PB !!
Thanks all for your kind words. And to think at the start of my stint I expected it to be a slow-news period!
32. And you were worried about not having topics to discuss! Labour came to your rescue!
18. That’s very observant, complete_control, and sound betting advice imo. Not much I can add to it except that the only one of the candidates I can claim to have any acquaitance with is HB. He seems to be popular and capable. One possible handicap is that he also seems to be very keen on his current post although I expect that wouldn’t stop him from reaching higher if the opportunity were there. I would certainly expect him to move on to higher things but certainly not the top job; not in the short to medium term anyway.
Brown and Hague bothe good value on the telly rhis morning.
Another Scottish opinion poll - this time in the Sunday Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2351341,00.html
MORE Scots now favour living in an independent nation than remaining part of the United Kingdom, according to a survey which appears to show devolution has fuelled the push for separatism north of the border. A YouGov poll commissioned by the Sunday Times reveals that 44% of Scots back independence, compared with 42% who support the status quo.
The poll shows support for independence has almost doubled since 2000, a year after the founding of the Scottish parliament. Then, devolution seemed to have damped down nationalist feeling, with ICM finding only 23% of Scots favouring full independence.
This poll shows the Scottish National party neck and neck with Labour, enough to allow the SNP to lead a ruling coalition after next year’s Scottish election.
BBC reports Brown denied involvement in the letters but I think careful reading of his words shows no such thing - a quicker thinker than Marr (Paxman or Humphries) could have pressed harder. His ‘denial’ was in terms that he was not directly involved, heard “All sorts of rumours etc”. Sunday Times reports Tom Watson visited Brown at time so presume he heard rumours first hand.
A good performance from Brown though - he only reverted to quickfire platitudes a couple of times. Still don’t know how he will handle hard questioning.
Labour tells the Taliban “Dont worry, we wont send reinforcements”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2350705,00.html
Meanwhile, Labours open immigration policy offers access & housing benefit to Terrorists.
Labour hates Britain, her Soldiers and her People as much as they hate each other.
For a politico the programme was good value.
Marr did get Brown out of his shell a bit. He clearly has potential to be alot better in front of a camera. Answered questions.
Hague didn’t do too much “punch an judy” stuff, his energetic thoughts about China were really intresting. Enjoyed it.
There is so much going on in the world, and these characters (Hague, Brown et all) are brilliant, intellegent men. They have so much to say. I would love the debate to get more into this detail. But for some reason it seems it never will.
BPIX who are they?
Even so Labour despite all the problems are still on their core vote. The Libdems nearly always poll better on the day, than in the pop’s. Interesting situation developing in Scotland, will GB (if its him) be the last PM of a United Kingdom. In the event of a Tory government in London, will the calls for independence grow stronger, I should think so, ditto Wales. What ever happens in England the Tories won’t improve much in the Celtic areas. Many Tories have given up on Scotland, Portillo/Duncan have already said the union ‘is not sacrosanct’. If push comes to shove, would the Tories fight to hard to maintain the Union? Don’t think so!
36. Marcia, interesting poll.
I suppose Sherindan can hope to hold his seat with those polling figures. It would be interesting to see the regional splits, but I suppose his support in Glasgow is higher.
41 I would think it should be higher for him in Glasgow but strangely some of his loudest SSP critics are from the Glasgow branches. However the Glasgow voters may think otherwise.
42. Oh, Rosie Kane is from Glasgow, right? I suppose she’ll head the SSP list there.
In 1999 the SSP polled 1.99% in the whole Scotland, but more than 7% in Glasgow. If Sheridan’s party can repeat that trend, he can be in.
42 _ Yes but she was going to be first on the list and him second as per their rules - the first one of the list was to be a female then male. If he had stayed in and the SSP vote plummeted his chances of election would have been put in danger.
[12] Well, the pot and kettle aspect of Blair’s comments on Brown are good fun, but if the Tories have got the sense they were born with they will point out that when Tory PMs felt that way about their Chancellors, they sacked them.
Brown was better than I’ve ever seen him before. I’m sure all those who get a vote will have been watching and will have been impressed. He really is a formidable politician when he steps out of his Treasury straitjacket. Betting against him doesn’t strike me as sensible.
44. Marcia, thanks. I hope there’ll be public hustings with both Sheridan and Kane present…I bet it would be fun!
As ever, a good point and well-made. Thank you for the tip on Brown as well. I’ve been in negative territory on Brown for ages but it fluctuates when I lose my nerve from time to time!
Gordon Brown at No11 is like Dracula managing a Blood Bank.
Media interviews suggest Scottish Labour party is firmly behind their man. No Surprise as he pumped English cash back home. As Scottish MPs distort British politics, they also distort Labour Party politics.
GB will lead labour. This will help drive home to the British what the Scottish Labour Mafia is up to.
Not much movement to report on Betfair’s Blair Switch markets.
The diehards who were still hoping for a September resignation are starting to give up. There’s £36 available for layers at 50 - still free money imo if you don’t mind tying up funds for a few weeks.
The October-December market is still a bit edgy with prices fluctuating around the 4.5 to 6 level. You can lay £100 at 4.9 if you like and this ties in neatly with Paddy Power’s odds of 4-1. I’ve already laid Q4 quite heavily but I may go in again if the dust continues to settle.
Ladbroke’s best price 1-7 on a 2007 resignation remains unchanged from yesterday.
The price for Brown as next Labour Leader has drifted a bit and there is now £110 available at 1.55. I think this is value and the only reason I haven’t taken some is that I suspect it will drift further yet.
Those sad souls involved in the Super C****o
Excellent article, Mike.
3 - disagree on two counts. First, how Labour choose their leader is a matter of concern to us when they’re choosing our next Prime Minister. Indeed, even if Labour were choosing the leader of the opposition they would benefit from public money to run his/her office, so wouold still be a legitimate matter of public interest.
Secondly, it will further tarnish Labor’s image. Remember when Blair was elected everyone said he was the first to be elected under OMOV. It added to his air of freshness, a break with the old Labour past. Now it’s going to be Labour’s electoral process which seems out-of-touch, and sooo last century.
The interesting thing about closing ranks like the Labour Party did yesterday is that those who stepped furthest outside like Clarke end up looking isolated. It happened to Claire Short. I reckon there will be a seat for someone in Norwich at the next election.
…licence market will have noted Blackpool’s drift. Since Greenwich hasn’t shortened, something else must have benn backed but I cannot imagine what.
I would not expect the Tories to criticise the Labour method of electing a leader. They will say that as it is a PM being selected, and the government is in such disarray, there should be a GE. (This is despite there being no GE when Margaret was defenestrated.)
As for the LDs, I don’t think the media notice what they say at the moment such is the concentration on the real issues of the days - like TB’s non-resignation, GB’s non-plotting, Clarke’s non-helpful advice, and Milburn’s non-briefing against GB…
Sorry about the split posting…53 goes on the end of 50.
expat 49
Do I take it from your comments expat, that you would support the Conservative party dropping Unionist from its name, and Scotland from the Union. Turning the Conservative and Unionist Party into what would be in affect the English Nationalist Party?
24 As I said at he time of their last poll , BPIX are not members of the BPC , do not publish their methodology and have a website that for 18 months now still says under construction .
36 Do you know the LibDem figures in this poll , the article does not mention them ( or that for Greens ) but by deduction seem to be around 26% which is pretty high .
57 Sorry that should read LibDems plus Greens around 26%
52. Roger, I think it depends on who you’re and if you behaved. The problem with Short was that she has always been so OTT in expressing her opinion. Whilst she was in the government she attacked heavily the Left in some occasions (for ex when she compared the MPs not supporting the NATO actions in Bosnia to appeasers of Hitler or when she supported the NEC decision to bar Liz Davies from standing in one of the Leeds seats in mid-90s), so when she left goverment and the blairites started to attack her, the Left wasn’t keen at all to defend her, because they remembered her past behaviour toward her
as a labour party member i am more than happy with the current system
54 Speaking as a Tory I don’t want a GE right now. I want another year of Labour infighting during and post a leadership election.
The British People should vote for the Party that has their interest at heart and has the best chance of winning.
The Conservatives cannot ‘force’ Scots to like the English.
The Scottish people’s views are to be recognised and respected.
57. Mark, the 26% left in the constituency figures is high (considering the Greens don’t stand in constituencuie), but the 28% left in the list figures isn’t so high (considering that “others” polled around 7% last time)
It’s prefectly clear that a “stop Gordon” campaign is brewing by the Blairites (and others, probably). Nick P can spin as much as he likes that it isnt, but that is no longer credible.
38. The Times article about the conditions UK forces are working under in Afghanistan is extremely worrying. The fact that soldiers felt forced to send their own make shift video as seen on BBCnews a few days ago should have sent alarms bells ringing and still we have yet to hear about reinforcements and desperately needed equipment!
57 - Mark only the print version covers the Others/Lib Dems
Lib Dems - 18% and 15%
Others - 10% and 15%
Seats - Lab 42, SNP 38, Lib Dem, 19, Tories 17, Greens 9, Others 4
I think this poll is more believable than the System 3 ones although again as I expect turnout to be very low that could change thigs slightly.
66. Max, do they give a breakdown of the “others” in the list figures?
66 Those Others figures look way too high
66. and who’re the 4 “others” surviving?
Canevan, MacDonald…then who? Sherindan? Another SSP? Jean Turner? The Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party?
60 Red Alert
If you are more than happy with the current system, you shouldn’t be. Only party members should be involved in selecting the party leader. The system would be not dissimilar to the US system. Any MP could put themselves up for election, the Parliamentary party would whittle it down to three candidates, by MP’s making their selection. The constituency chairpersons would conduct a vote, the candidate that receives the most votes, would be nominated by that constituency. The MP that has the backing of the most constituencies wins, the second becomes Deputy leader and Deputy PM.
66 - I’m afraid not Andrea but the bulk of it will presumably go to the Greens given they gain two seats.
68. In the list vote aren’t so high IMO if they include the Greens.
the “others” in the constituency section in 2003 got 9.6%…but considering SSP collapse, I would suppose they will be down next time.
Did they give the Greens as an option for the constituency vote or not?
I saw Brown this morning and thought he tried really hard and could definitely improve. It was a soft interview though from an interviewer who only dropped his party membership to get the BBC job. My wife forced me to turn the TV over because his monotone delivery and sucking of teeth were annoying her. I thought Hague was very good too.
As a union member do I get a vote in the Labour leadership, and if so approximately how many other tories will get to vote for the ‘anyone but Gordon’ candidate? I remember the TUC got very agitated in the 80’s when about a third of trade union members were voting for Maggie.
expat 62
Is that yes or no, cos’ I’m reading it and it don’t make any sense to me. Do you believe that the Union should be continued with, or do you agree with M.Portillo and Alan Duncan, ‘that it is no longer sacrosanct’ The union has been an article of faith with Tories comprabable with the Monarchy and the Constitution. Are you, as I presume a Tory rejecting that aspect of Tory belief, yes or no?
Oh dear, I’m getting a headache from trying to read that first post……
52 - Roger, I think there will be two seats up for grabs for Labour in Norwich next time. Clarke is heavily rumoured to be standing down (that is, his own side are spinning it). Gibson is also a cert to stand down - or as one Labour Councillor in his constituency told me recently, “if he doesn’t we’ll have to be on permeant by-election watch for 4 years. Jesus, he’ll have to go.”
p.s. To balance that up, another councillor, from the south side of the City, said they’d “have to carry him out of the Commons in a box…”
73.”As a union member do I get a vote in the Labour leadership, and if so approximately how many other tories will get to vote for the ‘anyone but Gordon’ candidate?”
It depends if your union is affiliated with Labour and if you (as an individual member) have opted out of the affiliation
Reading the Sundays is such fun - there seems to be a briefing that Charles Clarke was, should we say, having a Charles Kennedy moment when he gave his interviews (glass of red win in hand, genuinely can’t remember what he said), Hain accusing Johnson of disloyalty in letting it be known he was interested in Deputy Leadership. Expect we will continue to get ebb & flow of briefings attacking character of main contenders for some time now. There is also un undercurrent of Scots mafia as to many Brownites speaking are Scots (except for a ‘Welsh’ South African)
However there are dangers to the Union - Gordon presumably hopes that having a Scots PM will keep the nats away - much as Canada had procession of Quebecois as PM to keep Quebec in the federation, However he doesn’t recognise the democratic deficit exposed by Scots votes on English issues which was not as much the case in Canada (some irritation at Francophone policies). IMHO among his highlighted agenda for constitutional changes he needs to reorganise the ministries into Union & English ones and put English MPs in the latter and accept EVoEL for legislation coming from those - brings clarity and undermines the Scots issues. Might prove problematical in next administration if Tories win plurality in England but provides foundation for another step if necessary and speparates English from Union matters.
76. Gibbo also had a minor stoke in 2004, so I suppose that’s why councillors are concerned by the risk of a by-election if he stands again.
73 - IIRC only union members who pay the political levy are entitled to vote.
Personally, I don’t have any complaints about Labour’s electoral college composition: seems quite suited to the structure of the party and is reasonably democratic, and just the job for a prolonged and comradely ‘campaign’
I really wouldn’t underestimate Brown. Like most others I’d thought he was without charisma and couldn’t think on his feet. I realize that Marr didn’t give him a hard time but he was far more interesting than I’d expected. More interesting though were his ideas for the future. I’m sure many other Labour voters can’t now wait for Blair to leave the stage and for Gordon to take over. One thing I’m sure of is that he’ll change the feel of the Party dramatically. I feel the same sort of optimism I had in 1997.
The Observer this morning is full of an astonishing about of clever manouvering by the Blairites. As an outside observer (who wishes only disaster upon Labour
) it is amazing to see the brazen hipocrisy of the Blairites - the line is that “everything has changed now” and, from cabinet members: “until last week everyone was behind Brown, but now he has forced us not to support him”. Absolutely laughable!
This is an outright lie and everyone who has been reading here for any amount of time knows it: the Blairites have been looking for a reason for 18 months to publically jetison support for Brown and now they have found it. But the thing to remember is that they would have eventually found a reason whatever Brown did anyway. If the Brownites hadnt moved last week then we all know Blair would have attempted to stay on (damaging the country) in his search for a “legacy” and until a ‘Stop Brown’ candidate emerged naturally.
The pompous piety of the Blairites in today’s Observer quotes is truly ugly to read. Stuff like “We have underestimated the extent to which he was prepared to bring the house down in pursuit of his own personal ambitions” in this article are as though the last 9 years of Blair hadnt existed. But you’ve got to admire the coherance of their gameplan, and the bad news for Brown is that because the media love a contest the ‘Stop Brown’ campaign will gain momentum. As an impartial observer, I think that the destruction that Brownites are willing to unleash on the party to get the crown is as nothing compared to the destruction the Blairites are willing to unleash on it to prevent him getting the crown! All I can say is bring on the destruction boys…
Oh, my url link didnt work
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1869062,00.html
81 - Roger, I too was wowed by Gordon’s “New Individualism” - Tough on people, tough on the causes of people?
81 - do you think it was a little preview of conference speech?
I’m sure that I slipped into a coma at least 5 times during the Gordon Brown “interview”…
82 - Yes.
Well you came and you gave without taking
but I sent you away, oh Mandy
well you kissed me and stopped me from shaking
And I need you today, oh Mandy
Im getting to wonder is ‘Roger’ is really Gordon Brown of the BBC - Brown Brainwashing Corp. I was not impressed -after all Marr and him are mates.
JohnO-Cynic!
Mark- I agree. It’s the unedifying death throes of a discredited faction who know their time is passed
I don’t expect what Brown had to say would be impressive to hardened Tories. His message was designed for those who see things from a center or center leftish point of view.
87.”Well you came and you gave without taking
but I sent you away, oh Mandy”
So Mandy is a top
Good news for the other parties if Brown convinces enough labour members that he’s okay really (that Roger is swayed by him suggests as such).
One thing is certain, both tories and lib dems can’t wait to sink their teeth into Brown, so much history, so much division, he’s a sitting duck. Are labour members really going to make it easy for the opposition or are they going to come to their senses? Difficult to judge at the moment.
The Times story today, like that in the Observer, makes it clear that Blair’s one-year timetable remains in grave danger. Not only do TB’s supporters expect another early effort by the Brown gang to force the PM out, but a committee of ‘men in gre suits’ is also set to push for Blair to go in Jan/Feb. The early quarters on Betfair still hold the value. I cannot see TB surviving beyond early new year.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2350793,00.html
Re that slightly perturbing Scottish poll (perturbing for me as a Unionist) - wasn’t Devolution meant to be one of the main achievements of this wretched government?
Now we see that Labour have merely laid a carpet for the seperatists to walk on. What a catastrophe Labour is, everything they touch turns to dreck.
Bu we must deal with the world as it is, severely screwed by Labour.
so, if the Scots are becoming more independent-minded, perhaps the Tories should seek to accommodate them in a much looser Union, joined under the Crown, but with the majority of issues devolved to seperate English and Scottish parliaments, with maybe only Defence and Foreign Policy (and even then with opt-outs) kept at a Union level. Both countries would, of coure, have the opportunity to opt-in to do stuff at a Union level.
I see that one Scots Nats guy is already talking in this way…
Apart from that poll the Sunday papers are completely fab. Brown called “that f***er” by a top Blair aide in the Times.
There’s no coming back from this kind of venom. The game is on. Labour are doomed to years of backbiting.
Members of all political parties, collectively, suffer from the delusion that they (and only they) are truly representative of the population.
They assume that just because a particular politician matches their views he/she will also be in tune with the views of the general public.
That why Labour supporters are so much in love with Gordon Brown (because he’s of the same mindset as they are) that they can’t see that he has no appeal whatsoever beyond their core vote. It’s the same thing as when the Conservatives elected IDS.
Conservative/Liberal minded posters here, I believe, are being totally genuine and honest when we say that it’s Alan Johnson who we fear the most. I know that I certainly do. I fear him because I like him - so I know that if someone as anti-Labour as myself likes Johnson then his appeal to the general public is likely to be pretty strong.
95 - Your last paragraph is spot-on.
95.” so I know that if someone as anti-Labour as myself likes Johnson then his appeal to the general public is likely to be pretty strong. ”
but can’t the same thing you said about parties members said for you? You like him and assume that what you like is what the general public like and so you think his appeal on the general public is strong.
(I’m not saying you aren’t right)
94. Sean, I have always thought that when push comes to shove, the Scottish people would vote down independence in a referendum. I still believe that.
You are right, though. Devolution didn’t save the union and it was never going to. Once you get some power, you want more. Human nature.
197 it should end with a ?
93 - Punter.
“The early quarters on Betfair still hold the value. I cannot see TB surviving beyond early new year.”
You would think so, wouldn’t you? I’ve certainly looked at the prices for the first two quarters but a number of the politicos on this site, particularly those who are well versed in the parliamentary and Party administraitive technicalities, have pointed out from time to time that the early months of 2007 would be ‘technically difficult’. I don’t really understand why but I defer readily to their greater expertise - especially as it seems to be reflected in the betting markets. In other words, it may be that what appears to you value is in fact a chimera and reflects nothing more than these technical difficulties.
I am heavily committed now to a 2007 departure but I wouldn’t chance my arm on which quarter, largely because of said technicalities and also because each of the betting firms are likely to have different definitions of what constitutes ‘departure’. You really need to get into the detail of what that means to each of the firms before committing a wad to a fairly precise date.
Honestly, if the Scots choose to leave, I would not want to stand in their way. I am English first, British second, the UK third.
96. SBS, maybe you’re interested….Reading East Labour is selecting from an all women shortlist in December.
97. Perhaps - I like Alan Johnson, yes. But I don’t agree with him politically. I just think he comes across as a decent human being.
I’m not claiming that I’m representative - I’m just rather taken aback by the fact that I have respect for a senior Labour politician. I’ve not liked any other member of this government at all.
95 - The only thing I would add is that I dont fear Johnson. If I was a party member and had put all my eggs in one basket then I probably would. As a comon or garden voter, however, I would welcome a Johnson leadership the same way that I welcomed Cameron over the other candidates. If there are three parties that I am relatively happy with then so much the better.
common, not comon!
95. Nah, Johnson might have a decent track record so far, but he’s untested either in a top job or under the media spotlight. If he became PM, he’d also have to deal with Gordon, either in the cabinet or on the backbenches, but in either case as a very visible king-over-the-water.
What I can’t work out is why the Blairite faction is behaving as it is. Don’t they realise that without Blair they have no purpose? GB has gone so far in accepting just about everything that Blair has done - domestically and internationally - that the personality issue is dead without one of the main players whatever happens to Brown. He and Blair built New Labour; they’re two peas out of the same pod (perhaps a sweetpea and a sourpea?
).
O/T. The next hurricane in the Atlantic will be named Gordon. Should be fun if it arrives in time for the Labour conference.
100. If you are gently suggesting I am talking my own book, then that is of course true. But so, I think are you. As it happens my positions are based on my convictions about the likely course of events as well, though. For me, the infighting is now so intense that an early change of leader is essential.
I agree there is an issue re. ‘precision’ but as I have committed funds to Q3 and Q4 this year and Q1 next, I have covered all the likely bases from my point of view.
103. well, I think I’m pretty on the Left (in British terms) and I like Johnson. So I could say he has appeal outside the Blairite camps…but for some strange reasons I don’t mind Hewitt either and I somehow doubt about her appeal!
104. Perhaps fear wasn’t the right word for me to choose. I don’t “fear” Johnson in the sense that I believe he’d be a bad Prime Minister - indeed I think he’d probably be a pretty good one (putting aside, for a moment, the fact that he’s not from my section of the political spectrum).
I just “fear” him in the sense that he might make my preferred option of a non-Labour government less likely to come about.
102 - Labour may well come third in Reading East next time. (I wonder if Rik agrees with that!)
Ploughing through the Sunday Times I’ve just got to a piece by Robert Harris claiming that Brown is autistic.
If this is only the start of the process, god knows what will happen when it heats up!
100. The difficulties of a 2007 Q1 election for Labour - and for Brown particularly - is that it will be difficult to fit it in with the Budget process. Easter is the first full weekend in April next year, so the budget will have to be delivered in March - probably the second or third full week. Unless the election is announced in the few days between then and March 31, the budget would either have to be delivered by a brand new chancellor or by Brown as PM. Either would run big risks politically and administratively.
Even if a new PM is installed right at the end of March, it would mean that the chancellor and senior ministers would be campaigning against each other at the same time as they’re supposed to be dealing with each other in the most important annual domestic political process. Hardly a way to run a government - a point that will no doubt be made repeatedly in such a scenario.
The only way I could see a handover in Q1 would be for it to take place in January before the budget process gets into full swing. This would mean the campaign would have to run over Christmas and New Year, but is just about feasible if pressure on Blair became unbearable during November.
101. The desire for Scottish independence might also play to Tory advantage. If the Scots still want out (or almost out) when the British constitution gives them an extraordinarily advantageous deal, then there’s not a lot more anyone can do. So maybe we should say to the Scots: OK, so be it, enough, we’re just going to crack on with righting all the Constitutional wrongs imposed by Labour.
No more Barnett formula, EVfEL, etc. If the Scots find this too hard to take then what’s the difference, they already want independence. Another upside is that Labour will find it very hard to win another G/E, with a virtually or totally independent Scotland.
I have a feeling Labour are going to spend the next ten years reaping the consequences of the last ten, in so many ways.
110. yes, they can. But the Libdems didn’t have a great local election result in Reading East wards either. So I think it’ll be a Con hold.
107 - Punter
No, no, I wasn’t suggesting that at all, gently or otherwise. In fact, I agree with you in principle although I differ on the critical question of timing. If I was trying to do anything ‘gently’ at all, it was just to caution you that what might appear as value might in fact be a reflection of certain technical difficulties.
I have a natural built-in care and concern for my fellow punters! I was just trying to alert you to something you might not have considered, that’s all. Of course at the end of the day where and how we make our books is nobody’s responsibility but our own. I hope I didn’t imply otherwise.
BPIX. Conservatives 40-Labour 30- Liberal Democrats 14. Mail on Sunday.
112. Thanks David. That is exactly the kind of technical difficulty I had in mind when I posted to Punter at 100.
115. Clarification gracefully accepted, Peter.
113. Indeed, one of my main criticisms with the Blair government has been the constitutional tweaking and dabbling. It has never been confident or strong enough to go the whole way, and as such has opened up a huge can of worms.
For instance, devolution has simply given birth to the West Lothian Question. Lords reform has left the UK with a second chamber in limbo with even more of an opportunity for corruption than was there with the hereditaries. The creation of a supreme court is nothing more than an expensive face-lifting exercise. The Lord Chancellor issue has become a compromise solution that pleases nobody.
Yep, the UK constitution has been left in tatters by NuLab. Reform it all you want, but don’t leave it full of half-hearted ’solutions’ that simply create more problems than were there in the first place.
111. Michael Howard announced straight after the GE that he was standing down and set out the timetable for the leadership contest. He carried on as opposition leader while giving all the leadership contenders a plateform to use in their campaigns. It worked and it had the feel of an “open primary” style contest.
I know that it is much easier while in opposition to do this, but Blair’s “I will be gone in 12 months but on my terms” and the unedifying civil war developing between Blairites and Brownites is going to have the opposite effect with the voters. Everyone keeps talking about an expected “bounce” in the polls once the new Labour leader/PM is in place. I think that if this type of uncertainty continues and the briefings against various candidates increases then the credibility of the Labour party and the candidates will be severely damaged. I just cannot see a bounce in the polls following a messy and bitter contest.
120. Chris, or maybe there’ll be a bounce in the polls, but in the meantime they can go so down that a bounce would still see them trailing the tories.
118. I’m glad. There are so few betting posts on this site nowadays. I certainly don’t want to do anything to discourage them.
What has Blair done to prepare a good succession after his departure?
I think Labour will get a poll bounce, but it’ll only be enough to bring them level with the Tories again. Dependent on the actions of the new Prime Minister over the year or so after their appointment, that poll rating could stay stable or slide again. My money’s on the latter, especially if it’s Brown.
120. There won’t be a “bounce” if and when Brown comes to power, because Labour have already trashed the Brown brand completely.
To reiterate, here are some of the things fellow Labour leaders have said about Brown, in the last few days:
“a deluded control freak” (Charles Clarke)
“he would make a f***ing dreadful prime minister” (anonymous member of Cabinet)
“[he's] absolutely stupid, stupid stupid stupid” (Charles Clarke again)
“I’ll do anything in my power to stop him” (anonymous member of Cabinet)
“Brown? That f***er” (a ‘top Blair aide’).
“The public has been exposed to the dark side of Gordon. We’ve seen in public what a lot of people have had to put up with in private for so many years.” (someone ‘very close to the PM’).
I may have missed some.
119. ‘even more of an opportunity for corruption than was there with the hereditaries. ‘
what corruption was there with the hereditaries, exactly?
Willhill is currently offering 2/5 on a 2007 departure. Seems like good value to me, especially compared to the meager 1/7 Ladbrokes is offering (and Ladbrokes offering 4/1 on 2006 for those wanting to hedge), so I put down £500 yesterday.
Willhill has been taking this down and putting it up again over the last couple of days, so be quick!
125. Number 4 doesn’t count…you can find anonymous quotes about people trying to stop other politicians
Anyone know if Andrew Rawnsley visits this site?
He’s got a line in his column in today’s Observer, about Brown being the Scottish bass guitarist trying to strangle the lead vocalist.
Spookily like a paragraph of mine, from pb.com, two days ago, when I said Brown was the lead guitarist of Labour and Blair the, yes, ‘lead vocalist”.
Hey, it’s just synchronicity, I’m sure. But if it isn’t, and you are reading this Andrew, I don’t mind you stealing my lines! - I’m flattered - but just puff my book now and again, eh?
Well… I’ve just picked up a linen Italian-style jacket in my local M&S for £15 - does this mean that Labour’s delivering the goods or that the economy’s f*ck*d?
And I’m so glad the Commentator’s given the Scots permission for independence, I’m sure that’s all that was holding them back…
128. No, Andrea, I think they all count. Reputable journalists in Britain are pretty scrupulous with unsourced quotes - that is to say, the quotes are usually true, they just can’t be directly attributed - for obvious reasons. For someone to say that about Brown is a major departure from party unity, you’d have been hard pushed to find Tories being that vituperative during the most bitter moments of Thatcher’s downfall.
Moreover, the locution ’someone very close to the PM’ in the last quote really does mean someone VERY close to the PM. In this case I suspect it is either Blair himself, or, more likely, Cherie.
126. Well, good point.
131. Seant, I meant that if someone want to stop someone else (the “I’ll do anything in my power to stop him”), it doesn’t mean it’s because the other is bad, but it can be for other reasons. It can be Hilary Armstrong realizing that most people find her useless and they’ll throw her directly to the backbenches.
Ann Winterton said they should pass over her dead body before selecting Adam Rickitt for Sir Nicolas’ seat, but it doesn’t mean Rickitt is so bad.
133. Oh, I see what you mean!
In this case again, though, I think the quote’s menacing tone is real. The Blairites want to stop Brown not just because he is seen as a conniving b@stard, but because they genuinely think he is a bit of a nutter - paranoid, arrogant, insecure, monomaniacal - and will be a disastrous PM. Remember Campbell’s ‘psychological flaws’ jibe at Brown. It’s all that stuff, now oozing out of the open Labour wound…
Fantastic.
I’m in the tiny minority of people who thinks that Gordon Brown is actually quite an appealing character but has a rather dodgy record as Chancellor (post BoE independence which was nicked from the LDs anyway).
114 - Yes, I think a Con hold is likely in Reading. Rob Wilson is certainly a very busy MP.
Labour are pretty shafted in Reading and will be losing control of the council in the next year or two. Of course the Reading seats contain many areas outside Reading borough - and in these areas nobody votes Labour.
135 No Jon, not such a tiny minority think GB is a dodgy Chancellor - I would say he may well be the most useless Chancellor ever! If you look at his record, all he has done is create major structural problems for the long term, like the pensions tax grab that has cost pensions £5billion a year. He has been short termist, on the understanding that he will be gone before it falls apart. Hence his terror that Tony will go on and on!
56. The Conservative and Unionist Party is not called that because of our commitment to the Union, but because the three members of the Unionist Party based in Derbyshire who merged with us refused to merge unless we changed the name. It has nothing to do with the Union!
137. Wasn’t the name taken due to the merger with the Liberal Unionists of Joseph Chamberlain?
138 - or the Scottish Unionist party?
Incidentally the story that 10 Cabinet Ministers were now against Brown as appears in the Observer headline is misleading. If you read the article it turns out that five Cabinet Ministers-named- might be against but if they get a really good alternative candidate that number could rise to ten! Big deal!
MORI poll in the Observer pretty good for Brown
To judge Johnson on the basis that a Tory likes him is not too sensible. Most non Tories like Ken Clark but he wasn’t chosen. Johnson for deputy. He’s likable but Brown is a political heavyweight. He’s had ten years to hone his policies and they are going to be interesting. He seems dull because he hasn’t been in the spotlight. After this morning I have no further reservations that when he is he will shine.
That poll was between 31 August and 6 September. As such circumstances have rendered it irrelevant. When you realise that the ’success’ of Brown in the poll was merely to be a bit better than Blair then you realise that he’s on the way out.
“23 per cent believe Brown has ’sound judgment’, 15 per cent think he is ‘down to earth’ and 13 per cent see him as being ‘more honest than most politicians’ ”
These are good figures?!?
138 I don’t think it was, but I may be wrong (it has been known)! I was told off yesterday for making the same assumption!
139 No because the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party are seperate under the Party Constitution. So the whole party wouldn’t have had to change it’s name.
Maybe some googling will reveal the truth behind my claims. Or not.
Sean. You should have heard what Short, Mowlam, Dobson and a hundred anonymous briefers said about Blair!
What Charles Clarke thinks of Brown is completely irrelevant!
None of us can judge how popular Brown will be as PM until he takes on the job. All I can say as an ex-big fan of Blair who had my doubts about Brown is that I’m now positively excited at the prospect. Expect an electrifying speech to Conference!
roger I don’t see how what Chazza thinks of Brown is irrelevant. They have worked together for years, and therefore he has had a chance to observe him more than most! His views therefore carry weight. Not as much as his girth might suggest, but they will impact on the public as well as on Labour supporters.