Will the Tories suffer most from Blair’s delayed departure?
October 2nd, 2006-
Are we about to enter the year of limbo?
One of the consequences of Tony Blair’s desire to leave during the summer could be that we won’t see Brown, or whoever, facing Cameron across the dispatch box until October 2007.
For if Blair actually steps down to allow his replacement to be in place at the end of July then the first weeks of the new Prime Ministership will be during the parliamentary vacation.
We will then have next year’s conference season and it could be mid-October 2007 before there’s a proper Prime Minisiter’s Question time with the new leader. The only face-to-face encounter between the two leaders expected to lead their parties at the next General Election will be Opposition Leader’s response to the budget in March.
What this means is that politics could be entering a period of limbo with the Tories not wanting to use their best anti-Brown lines and Gordon being unable to get stuck into Cameron. There’ll be no big political story because what goes on at Westminster will bear little resemblance to the next General Election.
Who wins and who losers in all of this? My guess is the Tories. The last thing they want to be doing is revealing policies ahead of Brown’s arrival yet they’re going to find it hard to continue keeping the policy-lite stance going.
-
Oppositions need things to attack - with Blair still there they are deprived of serious opportunities
So while the next nine months will be frustrating for Brown they’ll probably be harder for Cameron. The main hope for the Tories is that something will emerge to blow up the post-Manchester calm within Labour and, no doubt, they will do what they can to encourage it.
UPDATE 1425. Peter Riddell from the Times has been in contact to say that there will be no Populus poll in the paper tomorrow. To avoid the distorting effects of polling during the conference season the October survey will be carried out next weekend.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Are we about to enter the year of limbo ?
God help us …… Have you seen Nick Soames dance !!!!!!!!!!!
This fight is for The Light Heavyweight Championship of Great Britain.
In the red corner fighting out of Fife Scotland, is Gordo the Dour one.
Ten straight KO`s, and one where his opponent was unable to continue.
In the blue corner fighting out of Notting Hill England, is Charlie the boy Cameron.
One straight KO,and one where his opponent, could not continue due to a severe cut, which was bleeding profusely.
I want a good clean fight, no clashes of heads, or low blows.
If you come too close together, come apart on my call.
Now go to your corners, and coming out fighting at the sound of the bell.
No. I think it’s in the Tories interest that Blair stays as long as possible. Matthew D’Ancona has just said on radio that the Tories ought to fear Gordon Brown. “He’s the most formidable political thinker of his generation”. This was in the context of the Tories troubles starting when they develop policies.
Most serious right-wing commentators seem to fear Brown more than Blair. I think it’s important that he’s in place before the Tories start unveiling any policies
More trouble for Cameron…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2384632,00.html
The question is can they afford to pay it back?
4 - Its strange that comes out on the first day of their conference in the Times…
Yes - the Tories look like they face some pretty serious financial difficulties of their own, so in that sense too it might be in their interests for Blair to delay the handover (and hence push the risk of a snap general election further into the long grass).
O/T: loved this effort by regular contributer to this site Stephen Tall: http://oxfordliberal.blogspot.com/2006/10/new-vidcast-my-take-on-webcameron.html
The Tories do seem to be failing to capitalise on Labour’s problems at the moment. The weekend’s revelations about the sale of the Smith Square freehold (followed by the news that a £2m donor has been questioned in the Loans-for-Peerages investigation is undermining the Tory attempt to break with their ’sleazy’ past.
I think this sort of thing is casting a more general pall across politics at the moment; with all of the leadership changes, both past and ongoing, policy reviews and the whiff of corruption further eroding public trust, I don’t imagine any party is making much of a positive impression. But as Mike correctly identifies, the Conservatives inability to talk about real policy makes this more dangerous for them than for others.
5. Yes - I wonder how that happened ? Rolls eyes..
I think this just shows that like Blunkett said the police are grandstanding. Why does this come out on the first day of their conference? Why the dramatic arrest of Levy? I think the police have some questions to answer. Compare to the Stephens inquiry into football bribery. Of far more public titillation but done discreetly
Intereasting that the Times should lead with the story, but the Indy (which seems to be cosying up to Cameron a bit) did not.
While it is a fairly obvious attempt to rock the conference- a) underlines that Murdoch is not convinced b) there are some genuine problems c)the Tories have some very determined enemies in the press
I disagree MIke. Whilst Cameron can’t attack Brown he can lay into the government will all the lame duck attacks.
It is true we could get on with Brown, but there are opportunities here for attacks, just different ones.
I dsidn’t see this in the times but the BBC are leading their news on it. There are five Tories being questioned.
5,8,9 — is there not a technical reason for these high-profile arrests? I’m no lawyer but once watched The Bill. Does not the Police and Criminal Evidence Act mean the police now have to arrest people who would once have been merely helping with enquiries? Something like that anyway.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5397856.stm
4 - I am sure Rik W and Iain Dale will be pontificating on this sort of behaviour by the Conservative party - not .
No arrests and this all happened in July .. hmm…
14. From the link:
Osborne: “The story is actually something about something that happened many months ago”
well, it seems he has a wide choice of terms on his dictionary…”something about something”
14,
Are the Police using spin, seems like a lot of coincidental timing, when the press find out who has been interviewed.
Today just reaffirms that impression, at the start of the Conservative conference.
Or a political opponent found out at the time and sat on the story.
RE 14, 17 and 18, Yes it looks like old news leaked at a particular time. Very unfortunate for the reputation of the Police.
I think it does show the stupidity of those on here and elsewhere who have been making an issue of the Labour troubles in this matter when anyone with half a brain knows that both main parties have been doing exactly the same thing for years.
I think the police have been playing games with both the Tories and Labour - the Levy `arrest’ and now this seem to suggest that they want to create the impression they are being tough on the politicians and taking things seriously but they merely suggest to me a crass investigation.
20 Benedict. The story though isn’t the probity of the police.
Has the boy Osbourne also said this morning that in the short term taxes will have to rise ?? … or is that just my own confusion on this Monday morning ??
20. Not that unfortunate as it raises the profile of the case. Might come in handy if you were an investigating officer who was eyeing a promotion. There is more than one Blair on the way out remember..
23. Not on Sky - he said he would cut the tax burden as soon as possible.
RE 21 Roger, I am not sure we have all been up to exactly the same thing in what appears to be such an overt sense.
The cash for peerages ‘thing’ is going to be difficult to prove. Unless you’ve got a video tape or recording of Tony Blair saying, ‘If you bung us a million quid, the peerage is in the post’ chances are you can’t prove it. After all everyone knows that every single person whose ever been given a peerage, gets it because of all the wonderful things they’ve done for the country, at vast personal cost to themselves: don’t we? The party funding ‘thing’ is much easier to prove, because the do’s and dont’s are clearly set down, much more difficult to wriggle out of.
RE 23, JackW, He did not say taxes would have to rise, but when asked he could not rule it out due to the level of public sector borrowing.
Commiting this far in advance to tax changes would be silly, as we do not know what the books are going to look like if and when we take over.
In the long term he did promise a reduced tax burden in terms of GDP, by “sharing the proceeds of growth”.
25/28 Jamie/Benedict. Thank you for those clarifications.
Mike, the new masthead is a definite improvement – will Sarkozy be making an appearance on there by next spring?
Sorry to go OT, but here’s an update on yesterday’s elections:
In Brazil, which is 100% counted, Lula has missed out on a first round victory after a strong showing by Geraldo Alckmin, with Lula leading the first round by 48.6% to 41.6%. Alckmin won 11 of the 27 states, including São Paulo and every one along Brazil’s southwestern border. There will now be a second round on 29th October.
In Austria, the situation is slightly more complicated. It appears that there is a substantial number of postal/absentee ballots still to be counted (I have seen 242,000 and 400,000 quoted as figures), and that these will not be declared until 9th October. The current standings are as follows (votes/seats): SPÖ 35.7 / 68, ÖVP 34.2 / 66, FPÖ 11.2 / 21, Greens 10.5 / 20, BZÖ 4.2 / 8.
It seems therefore that yesterday’s results are provisional only, and if 2002 is a guide, the parties likely to improve their position after the postal ballots are the ÖVP and the Greens. I wouldn’t be completely surprised if the ÖVP and the Greens gain a seat each after the postal results, at the expense of the SPÖ and the FPÖ. It’s also possible that the BZÖ could slip below the 4% threshold needed to win top-up seats (but still win a direct seat from Carinthia), although the consensus seems to be that they’ll keep their heads above the all-important 4% figure.
The headline on Die Presse is “Bundeskanzler Gusenbauer?” (ie will the SPÖ leader be the new Chancellor) and this seems to be a reasonable summing up of the situation. Clearly, the postal results could change everything, especially if the final seats for the big two parties are 67-67 and the BZÖ “miss the cut”. As things stand, the only feasible coalitions are are a “red-black” grand coalition of the big two parties, or a “black-blue-orange” right + far-right coalition. Despite the Greens getting 10.5%, (a world record score for a Green party in a first-order national election?), it doesn’t look like they will be in the new government.
Although the ÖVP vote share fell about 8%, outgoing Chancellor Schüssel can’t be written off just yet - the SPÖ can’t form a coalition with anyone apart from the ÖVP, so Schüssel could have a veto over this if (and it may be a big if) he a) wants to, and b) can persuade, the two far-right parties to bury their differences and join him in a coalition. If the postal votes change the seat scores to 67-67, this changes everything, as I think Schüssel might get “first go” at forming a new government as sitting Chancellor (I’m not sure that they would take vote percentages into account here). Also, whether or not the BZÖ can stay above 4% also has major knock-on effects for everyone else.
Finally, among the provinces and cities, the SPÖ held Burgenland, Carinthia, Vienna, and the cities of Klagenfurt and Linz, while the ÖVP held Lower Austria, Salzburg (province and city), Tirol, Vorarlberg, and the cities of Graz and Innsbruck (Salzburg city, Graz, Innsbruck are all now “key marginals” with vote leads of under 2,000). Both Styria and Upper Austria are “too close to call” – the SPÖ leads by 2000 votes and 11,000 respectively but postal votes should favour the ÖVP. The BZÖ scored 25% of the vote in Carinthia (better than the Freedom Party there in 2002) but no better than 3% anywhere else – they won 25 communes (villages etc) in Carinthia (compared to eight for the FPÖ in 2002), while the Greens won three districts in Vienna, holding Neubau and gaining Mariahilf and Josefstadt (they were also very close in Alsergrund and Wieden).
To sum up then, the postal votes are key, “Gusi” is probably favourite for Chancellor but Schüssel isn’t yet completely out of the game, and with a combined score of 15%, the far-right is still alive and kicking in Austria. In answer to my article question “Will Austria finally say ‘Wiedersehen’ to Jörg Haider?” the answer appears to be “Nein” – but wait for the final results. If the BZÖ can finish with about 7-8 seats, Haider’s party may yet hold the balance of power, and a new government could well be quite a few weeks away.
23.”Has the boy Osbourne also said this morning that in the short term taxes will have to rise ??”
Jack, it was strange that nasty George was talking about taxes and not just attacking Brown’s personality. It’s already an improvement
RE 29, I can’t say I much care for your new signature bearing in mind where I live and who my MP is
Yobbish element back again
UMMM This company that Francis Maud has shares in, UMMMMMM Y’know the adult educational one, UMMMMMMM its products UMMMMMMM if you join the Tory Party do you get a discount, only asking for a friend.
30. Double Carpet, can’t the postal ballots follow the same trend registered in “normal” votes (so OVP down and so on)? If so, how strong was OVP’s lead last time among postal votes?
re 30 Thanks to you and others for the comments on the new mast-head - Sarkozy should certainly be on next time we revise it.
32 Benedict. The food mountain for Sussex Mid remains one of my favourite MPs !!
BTW , whilst on the theme of gargantuan humans and Conservative politicians, the two come together on the idiot box tonight on the Channel4 show “Celebrity Wife Swap”, when racing pundit John McCririck’s wife, the “Booby”, is replaced with Eggwina Currie !!!!!!
I remain in a state of shock having seen a trailer for the show with a topless McCririck in full view !!
Whatever next…… Nick Soames sumo wrestling with Gwyneth Dunwoody !!!!!!!
10 - Times v Indy etc.
I thought it was pretty obvious why from Cameron’s speech. he couldn’t have delivered anything that was so antithetical to Murdich’s worldview. He even pointed it out in massive capital letters by praising the BBC!
One of the main things that struck me from the speech was the way it didn’t pander to the populist press, I think that Cameron may well be positioning to take on the Murdoch empire, the way that he treats Sky as opposed to the Beeb also suggests he’s much more amenable to the latter.
As a Labour man can I please make an appeal for much, much more George Osborne on the radio and tv please. Reckon he’s potentially worth 2-3% for us in the long run
RE 26 JackW, Perish the thought!
RE 37, UKPaul, I also despise the Murdoch empire.
Cameron to take on the Murdoch Empire, odds on whose going to win that one. Know who I’ll be putting my money on! Rupert thanks for the holiday.
37. “I think that Cameron may well be positioning to take on the Murdoch empire, the way that he treats Sky as opposed to the Beeb”
Good point ukpaul, I was thinking the same thing this weekend, also think that is one of the reasons they have launched the WebCameron project?
38. I was just saying to Andrea that he needs to learn to stop pushing his chin back into his neck, which gives the impression he has a double-chin in spite of being quite skinny. I’m sure that also doesn’t help his voice which still needs work. Don’t they have people that specialise in this stuff any more?
42. I should clarify that by “he” I of course mean Osbourne; not our Statistico Mastero.
40 - The Sky commentators after the speech was spitting feathers over the BBC reference, compounded by the fact that John Redwood on their panel(wearing a polo neck sweater for some unknown reason) was relentlessly on message and not giving them any juicy rifts. I get the impression that Adam Boulton treats Cameron with some contempt (leakege from his wife?). Anyone else registered this?
The Beeb at least has Marr going at it from the left whilst Robinson (third place in an Eric Morecambe lookalike contest) does the opposite, giving a sort of balance.
leakage not leakege of course…..
44. Eric Morecambe after a crash diet, possibly.
44, 45. ‘Leakage from his wife’.
Are you sure you don’t want to rephrase that, ukpaul?
40,
Coldstone very true,
at 1000 Sky News was leading on the alledged Conservative donors scandal,BBC News 24 was`n even on the pecking order at the same time.
However we all know once the Murdoch empire runs with something, the BBC have to eventually follow.
Cameron is too media savy to take on Murdoch, he has`nt got a death wish just yet.
44. “I get the impression that Adam Boulton treats Cameron with some contempt” From the way all the sky newsreaders/political journalists were behaving this weekend it was obvious that a “editorial line” had been agreed.
48 - I think it depends on what Murdoch decides; leaders such as Kinnock just let themselves be walked all over without a fight, it didn’t do him any favours and maybe a more robust response would help in that situation.
Sorry perhaps I spent the 1980’s on Planet Zarg basking on its green beaches beside its orange sea topping up my suntan under its twin suns spick and span. I seem to remember a time when the Murdoch press and the then Tory government worked hand in glove. Remind me why did Larry the Lamb editor of the Sun get a knighthood. Why did Lord Young spend his time down in Wapping sitting with Murdoch executives planning out the Tory campaign. Why did Norman Tebbitt go on television defending page three girls from left wing harridans, like Claire Short, ‘There is a lot to be said for tits-n-toryism,’ isn’t that what George Gardiner MP said! Perhaps all of those vicious attacks on Neil (put that light out) Kinnock, Red Ken Livingstone, loony left councils, none of that happened. All of that was ok of course, the Murdoch evil empire was on board then. Now Dave (OOOOh I do like a laff missus) Cameron is going to take on Murdoch.Grow up ukpaul, that will never happen, if Murdoch was to even smile in Dave’s direction the entire Tory Party would soon be grovelling at his feet.
“Camerons speech didn’t pander to the poplist press?” Of course not. It said nothing! The delegates were completely bemused.
Ive been to a thousand client meetings where an account exec has got up and spent a long time saying absolutely nothing. The theory being that this gives us the greatest amount of latitude.
An American client from Elida Gibbs at the end of one of these meetings said he hadn’t understood a word “perhaps you feel more comfortable putting it in writing?” At which point the meeting closed and we had no idea what to shoot! I felt like clapping
I admired the Tory delegates yesterday not even pretending to comprehend such drivel.
51. Tad harsh - in the last week UKPaul has been accused of being a “nationalist” and now some kind of Tory 80s-denier.
Maybe Murdoch is Dave’s Clause 4 - but then I suppose we’re all getting bored of suspecting everything as a potential Clause 4.
NEW BANNER!
51. Why should “the entire Tory Party would soon be grovelling at his feet.?” You mention the 80’s but we live in a different media era now and I don’t think that politicians are as beholden to media moguls with their own agenda.
52. Roger you should really consider taking your postings to ConHome, where you would be much more in line with the prevailing tone.
55
When I finally get round to fixing the tele-transporter, (can’t get the parts y’know) I’ll take you off to Planet Zarg Chris, you’ll feel at home there.
Sorry ‘Suggestion’ (I don’t know why you should feel uncomfortable using your usual username) but anyone who has seen the film “Being there” will be familiar with the ‘thoughts’ of ‘Chance the Gardiner’. If that stuff about building a house didn’t ring any bells then they haven’t seen the film!
52.”I admired the Tory delegates yesterday not even pretending to comprehend such drivel.” I don’t know about that Roger, they seemed to understand and enjoy David Cameron’s comments about the graveyard of Labour iniatives!
57.”When I finally get round to fixing the tele-transporter” Coldstone you should maybe copy David Cameron and start building your own trasporter rather than relying on others to provide you with the parts. :D:
58. On second thoughts, perhaps ‘Pseuds Corner’ might be a better location.
59
Once upon a time Chris, the printed media was controlled by press Lords Northcliffe/Rothermere/Beaverbrooke, they could be guaranteed to deliver just about the whole of Fleet Street for the Tory Party. Look at it today, The Mail supports the Tory Party, still but some of its columnists have been given licence to go for Dave. The Telegraph a paper that is going down hill faster than shit can go through a goose, sort of does. One of its columnists Simon Heffer, hates Camerons guts and goes out of his way to say so. The Express does, but its irrelvant ‘cos no one reads it anyway. The Sun, still gives its support to Nulabour despite itself. The Times has misgivings about Cameron, as todays edition shows. Read Jackie Ashley in the Guardian today, one of the two Left/Liberal papers, the other being the Independent who have given broad support to Cameron. Murdoch’s evil empire was a Tory creation, and just like Mary Shelley’s monster has turned on its creator. Cameron needs a war with Murdoch, like he needs a hole in the head! A war he won’t win, and what’s he going to do, beat Rupert to death with one of his lavendar scented paper hankies. TB has won three GE’s because he’s a realist, ‘this is the world we’ve got, its not the one we want’ and Cameron ‘aint going to change it.
Its ironic isn’t it that Murdoch’s staunch backing of Labour is about Tony and “A war he won’t win”
“just like Mary Shelley’s monster has turned on its creator”
I don’t think it’s fair to compare Murdoch with Frankenstein’s monster. The monster was quite innocent from day one and was provoked by the irrational and scare-mongering humans such as Frankenstein, who didn’t take responsibility for his innovation. All the monster wanted was a girlfriend and a bit of understanding - not a dodgy media empire.
Whether the Tories share Frankenstein’s traits is up for debate.
63. “All the monster wanted was a girlfriend and a bit of understanding ”
that was Simon Hughes
64. Are you suggesting Frankenstein’s monster was gay?
I wonder if there mightn’t be scope for a guest column here on the political significance of newspapers in the 21st century. There seems to be a lot of heat generated both by pro- and anti-internet forces on the subject - surely I can’t be the only Peebie who’d appreciate a - presumably anonymous - take on it from a Party manager (which Party is much less relevant).
As for the Murdoch press, hasn’t he himself said that he regards the print media as less influential to-day than they were in (say) 1992 (to pluck a date out of thin air
) - old Fleet Street taught Rupert Murdoch much of his trade and when he’s gone - to a better place, no doubt - I’d expect whichever of his family takes over to adopt the Rothermere view - support for a Party is just another means to sales and profits - indeed isn’t that what the Murdoch press is doing now anyway?
65
I always though he was a bit camp, that business with the flower, mind u he wanted a girlfriend, he ended up with Elsa Lanchester who was married to Charles Laughton who was ga……perhaps there was a sub plot.
Wildly OT (but that’s never stopped me before) - I’ve been languishing at home with a cold, and reading Clive Bloom’s Violent London, a history of murder, riots, mayhem and carnage, to cheer myself up.
There’s a fascinating chapter on Enoch Powell and the River of Blood Speech. I’ve never read the speech in detail before - it’s nicely phrased, deft and sweeping, yet studded with grotesque, bizarre and inflammatory statements. V strange.
But there’s another bit about Powell’s predictions. In the mid 60s, Powell predicted that, at then-present rates of immgration, there would be 3.5m British residents from an ethnic minority by 1988, and 5-7m by 2000.
He was shouted down for being absurd and provocative. Yet - I’ve just checked the figures - he was right.
Dunno what that means. Interesting man, anyway, albeit rather sad.
I’ll go back to bed now.
Tongue-in-cheek jest coming up-I live on the northern outskirts of Bournemouth-after an long,long dry spell,hey presto,the Tory conference arrives in my home town,and it is raining cats and dogs-coincidence?:lol:
You suggest me for Pseuds corner when you use the username “Suggestion1 and Suggestion2″!!
Chris D. When we have wars going on in Afghanistan-where he himself had visited- and Iraq dont you think the leader of the opposition should at least mention them in his speech and couldn’t he then think of a of more appropriate solution than “Let Sunshine win the day”!!
” No arrests and this all happened in July .. hmm… ”
Just goes to show how much of a threat someone feel the Conservatives are.
Doesn’t the Beeb have to be balanced and not show political bias? You can excuse the tabloids.
Bias can be shown in many ways… It seems that by leading with a deliberately timed release of information should make alarm bells ring at the BBC.
Surely, THAT is the story to really investigate, not the story itself… I’m sure we’ve not heard the last of this.
It calls into question what influences the government has on the media.
Matt.
I see that the Autistics are very angry indeed that George Osbourne compared them to Gordon Brown.
Front page of the Standard- the media are severely disgruntled with the Tories… could it be that this conference has the makings of a fiasco?
SeanT I’m surprised you didn’t mention the Tories holding their conference on Yom Kippur! If there is only one day in the year that Jewish people observe this is it. Either look for the empty chairs or for the very lapsed ones some hungry looking delegates!
68. Most of Powell’s projections have indeed proved eerily accurate. But he ruined his argument by including the peculiar anecdotes you cite about ‘piccaninnies’ etc. in that speech - those references allowed him to be written off as a bigot.
A particularly prescient Powell quote given recent events is this one -
“the massive shift in the composition of the population of the inner metropolis and of major towns and cities of England will produce, not fortuitously or avoidably, but by the sheer inevitabilities of human nature in society, ever increasing and more dangerous alienation”
Read this:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/
Now there’s a switched on, sensible bloke…
Matt.
73. No, I didn’t know that. Why should I? Whaddaya think I am, obsessed with Jews or something??? Oy vay!
Interestingly (to me) Enoch Powell was quite Philosemitic, it seems. He could also speak Urdu. And in 1964 he said: ‘I have set and will always set my face like flint against making any difference between one citizen of this country and another on grounds of his origin’.
Which is not what we usually suppose of him. So why did he deliberately make that stupid speech in ‘68?
The Conservative conference has just voted to introduce a law banning advertising junk food to children. Interesting.
The BBC runs in tabloid format. Questions of balance are irrelevant due to the BBC’s need to compete with other 24hr news channels. The peerages question will need to be answered, but the timining of the release is in keeping with the BBC’s sensational style of reporting. Cherie Blair’s comment at the labour conference was really a rubbish story. Who could care less if the PM’s wife dislikes the chancellor? Why is she given so much air time as the PM’s wife? The BBC has taken the wrong option and should concentrate on reporting news and facts.
They also need to stop bringing in ‘experts’. I see these people too often on our screens, and they offer the same responses. I’ve not been overly concerned about the licence fee and what i pay. Over the past few years, with the advent of commercial financing to fund all of the BBC’s channel expansion, the BBC has lost and may not recover it’s unbias image with the public. To be honest, i prefer to watch Adam Boulton on Sky. Although i don’t dislike Andrew Neil, Nick Robinson and Andrew Marr, they very obviously have certain political opinions. I really only have to put up with Boulton, and the rest of the news i can switch off.
70. Roger, as you say David Cameron visited Afghanistan and I hope to hear more from him and Liam Fox regarding the situation there and in Iraq.
I hope that they will be very vocal about the continued MOD budget cuts which this government is continuing to impose while demanding more of our soldiers by expanding their commitments abroad. If we can’t deliver the basics in adequate resources, troop numbers and equipment we should not be putting them into places like Afghanistan.
Most of all I would like to see the government answer these questions in Parliment when it resumes!
75. NRs analysis is by far the best on this topic. Some of the “why no tax cuts” questioning is just mindnumbingly boring - Boulton made a tit of himself this morning - he knows, we know, the Cons know - why bother asking the question 10 times - it makes for rubbish telly !
72 - osborne, he’s my main man, just keep it coming george, keep it coming
BTW Labour leader on b/f
Gordo 1.5 (back in from 1.55)
JR 7.6 (steady for a day or 2)
AJ 11.5 (drifting)
Benn 50
Hutton 60
76. Because he was concerned that high levels of immigration would create a racially polarised society such as he had seen in the United States. In such a society, the possibility of ‘treating people equally regardless of their origins’ would recede as communalism became the dominant political force. His intention was to shock British society into seeing the long-term risks resulting from mass immigration.
and D Milliband 34
An interesting BBC report on that Cameron speech here.
http://www.cafepress.com/palshirts.69786362
I thought I recognised the Tory tree. It is the emblem of Lebanon! Just been spotted by Andrew Neil.
77,
Consider a new law, a big difference, gives the impression, but does nothing, so keeps big business on board.
85. That makes the chameleon PPBs look like a good idea.
72 If Osbourne used “Autistic” as a term of abuse he should resign.
51 - Hit a nerve there, very glad to do so.
For your information, if you could ever be bothered to find out, I voted for Kinnock in 92.
In the light of that the rest of your post makes no real sense, misguided as it was regarding my intent. Be on Murdoch’s side if you want to, as you obviously think was right for both tories and now labour, but I prefer to remain independent rather than kowtow to someone like that.
89. He didn’t.
83. Yes, but that stuff about excreta and picaninnies was just loathsome - and suicidal (in career terms). Being such a smart guy, Powell must have known this. The speech was political seppuku.
Or was he really deep down a violent racist? (I doubt this very much). Maybe he was so smart he encountered the Wykehamist Fallacy. Or maybe he actually wanted to lose his job.
All Very Curious. Might read a proper biography of him.
92. I’m not sure he was that bothered about his career, although equally I think he was surprised to be sacked from the Shadow Cabinet - he didn’t think Heath would have the guts to do that.
Robert Shepherd’s biography is not bad - it is written from a slightly disapproving perspective, yet Powell comes out of it pretty well. The section on how Powell engineered Heath’s defeat in 1974 is very uplifting.
I’m beginning to the think that the Tories are `throwing’ this one to ensure that Gordon Brown gets the Labour leadership!
89&91. Saw George Osborne interviewed by Adam Boulton and he corrected that inaccurate report.
I just posted a posting which of course won’t be posted because it included some “blocked” words. Agghhhhh!
I’d like to suggest a discussion about the US ruling on online betting and how that might change things………..
Sean T - have you read Nick Jones’ “Sultans of Spin”? The beginning recounts how his parents fell out with Enoch Powell over “Rivers of Blood”.
93. If he hadn’t been such a twit he could have hung around and been a proper and trenchant critic of multiculturalism. And Lord knows we need people to do that, then and now. Even more now.
But he blew it by being, at best, extremely stupid. Hm.
I wonder when British politics will throw up another clever, attractive and populist figure on the right. Someone like Pim Fortuyn, prepared to say the unsayable about immigration etc. I think someone like that could prosper in present circs, esp with DC tacking to the centre. UKIP come across as well-meaning buffoons. Kilroy-Silk is a prat.
Labour and the New Tories are lucky that the British right tends to produce self-destructive nitwits.
Re 86, No it is not Roger, the Lebanon is represented by a Lebanon Cedar, and the Conservaitive logo looks nothing like that at all.
71 - Matt “Just goes to show how much of a threat someone feel the Conservatives are.”
Ah just like the Oatan and Hughes stories only broke during the leadership campaign, all parties get it so please don’t complain. You Tories loved it back in Jan when the Lid Dems got bad press day after day, no sense of fair play then.
Good to see that the BBC is not just letting things go because Cameron is the new white hope, he’s as dirty as every other politcian or “smarmy” as a couple of people put it today…enjoy.
98. Arguably his stand was not entirely unsuccessful. The governments of the 1970s and early 1980s did introduce measures which significantly curbed immigration. It is only since 1997 that the tap has been turned on again, with the resulting re-inflamation of the debate on immigration.
86 - Please do not sully the national symbol of Lebanon with that crap scribble of the Tory party, you may need glasses my friend!
[77] So it really is the ToryLabour Party. What exactly is the difference anymore?
They will probably insist on compulsory nannying (not in the Old Etonian, real nanny, sense)to cross the road.
If this is what we can expect when the Tories get round to “doing” policy then they will get creamed.
100 - “Good to see that the BBC is not just letting things go” - actually the story seems to be disappearing off the BBC radar pretty rapidly. Strange that.
Re 103, Cicero, if you want to know where the battle ground is between the Conservatives and Labour look here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2006/09/where-is-battleground.html
[105] Thank you, Benedict. I accept that this is what many Conservatives would like the differences to be.
However, I am increasingly sceptical that the Conservative leadership are wholly in touch with their membership on quite a variety of issues.
Are you at Bournemouth? It would be interesting to get some colour to either confirm or refute the fairly poor media coverage so far.
RE 106, Unfortunatley not no.
As for the banning of junk food ads, whilst it may appear iliberal, previous Conservative governments did the same with tabaco surely? Can’t see much of the problem.
If people want to eat junk food fine, by industry carefuly targeting a particular segment may be something that needs looking at from time to time.
O/T but re 107. Anyone seen an update as to whether the smoking ban in pubs etc will be in the queens speech ?
108 - 1 July 2007 I think and I believe this will include banning smoking in bus stops
O/T again I’m afraid. The Conhome survey, with its very low support for the A-list etc., has been quoted on the World at One as a survey of “members”. Of course anyone could have responded to it and as has been pointed out before the questions were very narrowly drawn, not allowing for any nuances of opinion.
OSBOURNE JIBES ABOUT BROWN:
There is no point in anyone saying Osbourne should resign about the autistic “jibe” at Brown - what was actually said doesn’t warrant it.
However, that combined with his rather petty sounding complaint about being hung up on earlier are yet more examples of the student politics approach the man adopts. He is astonishingly childish and it is only a matter of time before he becomes an intolerable liability.
Cameron should reshuffle him down the pack as soon as he can. The problem with Osbourne is that many of the jibes people would LIKE to stick on Cameron DO stick on Osbourne, and the former therefore takes flak by association.
Which party was it that advocated banning sales of goldfish not so long ago?
112. Were you watching the West Wing last night ?
98 - seanT, you never cease to amaze.
Basically reading between the lines - what you are saying is “when will a smiling fascist with enough wit to fool people into believing he isn’t a danger break into the mainstream”
No - was the emancipation of our fishy friends featured?
114. That happened in 1997.
115. Kind of..
http://www.pepperidgefarm.com/fun_snacks_goldfish.asp
I note young Matlock has been arrested climbing over the fence at 10 Downing Street !! …. and at his age !!
Jack W is 103 …. last seen attempting to scale Nick Soames midriff …. unsuccessfully !!
110 - I went through the conhome questionnaire just to see what the questions were but didn’t actually submit it.
It occurred to me then that I could use up my isp’s quota of email addresses, log on with different ip addresses (weasy enough) and submit twenty answers to see if I could skew the result!
It’s about as reliable as those things you got (get?) on teletext!
114. Yep, that’s about the size of it. And?
UPDATE 1425. Peter Riddell from the Times has been in contact to say that there will be no Populus poll in the paper tomorrow. To avoid the distorting effects of polling during the conference season the October survey will be carried out next weekend.
Mike Smithson
121. Thanks. It looks like a wise decision
111,I take my hat off to Boy George-24 hours into the conference,and he’s hit a banana skin-lol!(FWIW,I could’nt agree more r.e his being over-promoted;I’ve just remembered the Spitting Image portrayal in the 1980s of the then-Cabinet,and Colin Moynihan being shown as a toddler with his playbricks..seems quite apt for someone else
It does seem that George Osborne seems to inspire a particular type of hatred in Labour types.
120 - are you joking???
124 - maybe so, much as Cameron does.
However big difference is that I think Osbourne will also attract the same kind of hatred from the general public - which Cameron clearly doesn’t.
124. He doesn’t help himself
124 I bear no hatred whatever towards the member for Tatton-I’m sure he’s a terrific human being-I do however feel the post of Shadow Chancellor would be more appropriately given to a ‘big hitter’,such as David Willets,whose intellect and personality I have much respect for.And what is ‘ a Labour type’,pray I ask? I’m a lower middle-class home owner in Bournemouth-I suspect you need to update your views,my friend!
Does anyone know what Osbourne actualy said about Brown?
Unwet your gussets HYSTERICAL, at no point did I say ‘hey I hope a rightwing demagogue comes along and we have race riots’ - did I?
I merely pointed out an interesting fact. That Britain, almost alone among the European polities, has not seen the rise of a populist rightwinger to go with the increase in immigration etc. France has le Pen, Austria has Haider, Holland had Fortuyn, Italy had the Northern League guy, Denmark has… etc etc.
Is it because our political system is more sophisticated? Is it cause Brits are more tolerant? Is it cause FPTP militates against new parties? I’m not sure. It’s difficult to believe Britain is more sophisticated or tolerant than Holland, say, yet they had Fortuyn (who, I hasten to add, was a much more intelligent and interesting character than someone like Jorg Haider).
Maybe it’s because New Labour is to the right of Oswald Mosley.
Who knows?
Osborne is the Conservative Prescott ?
My post at 123 was satirical,is not good-natured banter a great feature of this site?
It is undoubtedly the Tories who will benefit most from the period of uncertainty. Labour’s support is being understated at the moment for the simple reason that, because people don’t know who will be leading them into the next election, they can’t say whether they will vote for them or not. The danger for Labour is that while they are fannying around choosing a new leader and soothing the old one’s ego, Cameron establishes the kind of polling lead that cannot easily be clawed back in the course of an election campaign (as Thatcher did pre-1979.) Why is basically the biggest single reason why Blair should go now.
131 - yes but worse. Because Labour always has the sense to put Prescott in a position where he’d have all the perks and no power. Not so Osbourne. Osbourne is about the level of Alan Duncan and this should be represented in his position in shadow cabinet. I accept Cameron needs to have him round the table, but can’t they give him something less important than shadow chancellor??
129. From BBC online:
“Mr Osborne had been recalling his ability to retain odd facts, when the journalist hosting the event joked he might have been “faintly autistic”.
In reply, Mr Osborne said: “We’re not getting on to Gordon Brown yet.”
Then he said that his relationship with Brown is pretty not existant and that GB once hung up the phone on him
There’re also clips of it (I saw it yesterday night on Sky).
134. Not true - the ODPM was massive with sweeping powers. Only when Prezza failed to deliver was he dispatched.
The only similarity is that GO winds up the opposition because of their hatred of a stereotype - as does JP.
129 Apparently,when George Osborne was asked last night if he was faintly autistic,he quipped ‘We’re not onto Gordon Brown yet’
I’m quite prepared to forgive George Osborne’s relative youth,naivety etc -I do reiterate my point that it may be a more substantial figure in the medium term would better serve as Shadow Chancellor-I do not doubt that in time,George Osborne will mature into a statesmanlike figure
Sean, I’ve finally read the posts from yesterday and provided it isn’t bad form to carry on from a previous thread and also be off topic I would like to respond:
Re our discussion on the various evil people who commit mass murder I would like you to think for a moment that no religion existed. Ridiculous I know, but stick with me on this. I think it is reasonable to assume that the Nazis, Pol pot, Maoist, Stalin, etc would have all still existed. Their regimes were not dependent upon atheism. However you can not have religous fundamentalists without religion.
On your comparision between your mechanic and Dawkins and their role in pontifcating on religion; I would argue that if I expressed wonder that my mteal box could magically travel at 70 mph and therefore there must be divine intervention, then it would not be unreasonable for my mechanic to use his expertise to explain the workings of the internal combustion engine to dispel my misguided views. Surely that is what Dawkins is doing when giving his views and with the misunderstood way evolution works by a large number of people and in particular with the recent developments and discussions on intelligent design I would be gobsmaked if he didn’t make his views known.
Whether you agree with him or not or are an atheist or not much of the discussion is focused in his realm of expertise.
137. No guarantee of that of course - just look at Prescott who is a great deal older but still sometimes behaves like a teenager smashed on scrumpy. Still, that didn’t stop him becoming Deputy PM.
I suspect Prezza will never change,in fact I’d put money on it! I suspect he reached office a few decades after his working-class Labour world ceased to exist-I often think myself I wish I could turn the clock back-just far enough for Callaghan to have called the election six months earlier than he did…ah,well!
I was looking again at the odds for outright Conservative majority (on the grounds that they might narrow this week, and was trying to assess the true probability of the Conservatives winning 325+ seats. Can someone help me with this admittedly back of the envelope logic? In 1992 the Conservatives won 336 seats - therefore there are roughly 136 seats which were won in 1992 that are not currently Conservative. Cameron would need to win all but 9 of these back to have a majority of 1. Therefore not much margin for error. Looking at the details of these constituencies, most are competitive and arguably winnable with the right candidate and a good tailwind. However, seats such as Brighton Pavillion, Croydon North, Oldham East etc would seem to be a stretch. Again not saying they aren’t winnnable but you would basically be on a big accumulator where almost all of them have to come in, which leads me to be minded to be sceptical about the Con maj chances unless a) boundary changes have net favoured the Conservatives since 1992, or b) there are winnable seats for the Conservatives out there that did not elect a Conservative in 1992. Thoughts ?
141. You need to factor boundary changes into your calculations.
The Osborne business. Some journos were commenting that Osbourne was so good at spitting out facts that he must be ‘autistic’ Osbourne replied that ‘ are you talking about Gordon Brown here’ or words to that affect. Not much of a story really, Stephen Pound MP who is usually a good laugh was on the TV treating it with a gravity it did not deserve. KJH 138 I was the one who was involved in the discussion with sean t. If I’ve got to get information on where life comes from etc. I prefer Richard Dawkins to the Pope the Archbishop of Canterbury some Mad Mullah etc Oh and I’ll throw in Steve Jones as well. Jesus will not be wanting me for a sunbeam!
Baring legal challenges pushing the boundary changes back beyond the next election there will have been two sets of boundary changes since 1992, both favour the Tories (as boundary changes always will unless trend in population movement change).
141. Brighton Pav will fall on a 6% swing only. Mind you, the 2005 margin was probably narrowed by there being a whole crowd of left wing candidates to choose from. Next time it could be a Tory win with the Greens second!
141- “b) there are winnable seats for the Conservatives out there that did not elect a Conservative in 1992. ”
If you look just in terms of % majorities some Labour seats in 1992 are more marginal than some 1992 Con seats. It can probably due to boundaries changes or new demographic trends.
For ex Pendle, Halifax and Rossendale & Darwen have majorities under 10%, but they elected Labour MPs in 1992 (Halifax even in 1987)
On the specific examples, there are certainly enough seats for the Conservatives to get a majority without seats like Brighton Pavillion, Croydon North and Oldham East. Brighton Pavillion is the sort of seat they would need to looking at winning to get a healthy majority, rather than scraping in by the skin of their teeth (on straight percentage majorities they need to overturn it would be something like target seat 135). Oldham East and Croydon North wouldn’t even be in their top 200 target seats these days.
Oh yes - OT, but does anyone know if there is an online list of selected Lib Dem PPCs for the next election?
Tim Montgomerie has one of Conservative PPCs at Conservative Home, there don’t yet seem to be any Labour ones judging by the timetables that have been announced by Alex Hilton on Labour home. While I’ve tracked down around 10 Lib Dem PPCs who’ve been selected, I can’t find a list of them anywhere online.
146. Not sure there have been any boundary changes in Pendle at all Andrea, just a long-term erosion of Prentice’s vote. There is a demographic factor at work though - the shift of the (growing) muslim vote away from Labour.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5399562.stm
Meanwhile Maude is hissed over the A list.
Any colour from anyone actually at Bournemouth?
The media looks awful though…
150. Repetition.
Sounds like the media are hacked off at nothing much to report on the division front - must seem awfully tame after new labs gladiator contest last week.
The Labour leader isnt important.
When we grant amnesty to the migrants in England, the number of Labour voters will rise by 10%.
If racist English dont like it, they can emigrate and Tory vote will drop further.
Labour will be in power for 50years.
Beat that Tory boy!
153 - “Labour will be in power for 50years”
You understimate them, they plan to be (and will be) in power for at least a 1,000 years…
153. Labour haven’t been in power since 1979 - bwaahahahah.
155. Hi Jamie. How was the Arc?