Is Glasgow ‘07 being cancelled to help Tony?
October 5th, 2006
-
Does this mean that the change-over is being put back until July?
The above illustrations were taken from the Labour party website which even this afternoon was still promoting the 2007 Spring Party Conference to prospective delegates and corporate sponsors. This is the second biggest event in the party’s annual calender and preparations seem to have been well advanced.
The plan, potential corporate sponsors were being told, was “to incorporate Local Government, women and youth conferences, providing you the opportunity to target these particular audiences.” The event was due to take place place in Glasgow from 16-18th February.
Well that was the plan until this morning’s news that the conference was being cancelled. The official explanation is that instead of weekend gathering attracting 3,000 delegates, the party is to hold a series of smaller “seminars and consultations” across the UK.
-
It was perhaps no coincidence that Glasgow had been chosen for the venue given the Scottish Parliament Elections that take place next May. No doubt the party’s opponents north of the border will try to make political capital out of the cancellation.
The Guardian’s suggestion that the reason for the change might be the party’s budgetary position does not sound plausible. Clearly a lot of money had been spent already and there could well be cancellation charges. On top of that a conference of this scale is an income earner and that will be lost.
Could it be as the leading Labour blogger, Paul Linford, has suggested this afternoon that the Glasgow event has been scrapped to help Tony? Paul argues: “Had the Glasgow gathering taken place as planned, the Prime Minister would have been under enormous pressure to use it to name the precise date on which he plans to leave office..Furthermore, he would have had to make yet another farewell speech to the party faithful, which would inevitably have been something of an anti-climax on top of last week’s tour-de-force in Manchester at which he bade Labour what sounded like his last goodbye…Postponing the Spring conference may give the Prime Minister just that a little bit more legroom to enable him to hang on till the beginning of the summer recess.”
All of this could well have an impact on the Blair departure date betting. I’ve felt for several weeks that it’s going to be later than many have suggested and my money is on Q3 2007. This news reinforces my view.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
test
Or possibly the series of regional seminars are in fact Leadership husting meetings?
It seems clear to me that they are cancelling it to save cash and avoid another round of leadership speculation in the media.
Can Gordon really survive 10 more months of sniping?
Surely the point of the spring conference was to discuss and decide policy so that means they will not do that afterall how can it be discussed at the same time in 6 places?
Neither of the reports on the sept meeting that I have read, mentioned this cancellation. Did the full NEC not discuss it?
http://www.annblack.com/nec_Sept2006.htm
GB tightening to 1.51 on betfair - still a generous price IMHO - the competition is nowhere and you can’t rustle up 44 MPs whilst keeping a low profile.
Could this help Gordon in that it removes a key opportunity for a challenger to shine and appeal to the party members?
5. Judging by the cruddy speech AJ gave at conference I’d of thought he’d be pleased too.
All good stuff. I suspect that it will cause more friction in the party.
It will not only help Tony!Will give some more much needed publicity to the Lib Dem Spring conference ahead of May Locals.
Roger H
3. HF, it’s not in the Campaign Group NEC report either…the BBC piece reports that it’s a NEC’s decision (”Labour’s National Executive Committee said it had decided to take politics “out to the country”).
I wonder when they took this decision and if someone on the NEC opposed it.
TB is not going, I will belive it when I see it.
Of course another reason could be money - it costs a fair bit to do it - a few hundred thousand pounds - and they are also a bit light on staff (having just announced redundancies) so I would not assume that the motivation is to get Tony off the hook. Frankly he would probably have been perfectly able to manage the news agenda in the run up to it as Gordon cannot afford to be seen to undermine him again, the trust thing is hurting his prospects as it is.
Jack Straw comes out with common sense. Well done lad!
Unless of course Labour is so desperate for money that they’ve cancelled the spring conference in order to save a few pennies
Is Paul Linford really a Labour blogger? I don’t read him often but I thought he was pretty impartial.
An interesting and helpful piece, Mike. I’ve long been of the ‘later rather than sooner’ school on Blair Switch, persuaded in no small measure by quite a number of the more perceptive posters on this site. You now add more grist to the mill.
I haven’t actually bet on the date of departure myself because I suspect it may be very close to the borderline between Quarters 3 and 4 but I have layed the other Qs for all I’m worth - and then some.
The price of Q4 2006 has been drifting for a while but there’s little liquidity now and trading is desultory. The Q1 2007 price has been remarkably steady. Perhaps this latest news will shift it.
Q2 2007 has definitely tightened but the Q3 2007 price still looks generous. I’m inclined to agree, Mike, that the value lies there.
Regarding the next Leader market, the predictions Jamie (4 above and numerous others on earlier threads) and I have been making appear to be coming true much quicker than anticipated. We won’t make much money but we will feel ever so smug!
:-)
9. “(”Labour’s National Executive Committee said it had decided to take politics “out to the country”).” Andrea, if it was an NEC decision I think that it was because they are skint.
Re 15, second para…I meant of course Qs 2 & 3.
Q4 is a definite no-no.
16. Chris D…well, I’m not sure who actually took that decision
I expect the cancellation is purely down to finance as the party struggles on to overcome its huge deficit.
But I anticipate and hope it will open up the way for an earlier announcement about leadership and allow candidates to spend the early spring going around in positive mood flagging up their campaigns - all helpful as we have local elections at that time and little and often showing voters what Labour has achieved will be better than once again exaggerating the “Scottish element” within the Labour Party which so troubles some voters and all the press. Trouble is the Tories are holding their Spring Conference in Nottingham - the East Midlands is the heart of many Labour marginals with good MPs (like your regular correspondent Nick Palmer)- now fighting off Dave and Co in their very backyard just weeks from the May ballot.
To add to Mark’s comments I’ve now totally rethought my choices about Leadership after Jsck Straw’s brave and timely interview regarding Moslem women and the wearing of the veil. Although we should consider respect for other religions he was completely right to say the veil completely prevents communication on a human level. As a woman I always find it extremely uncomfortable when I see a woman in such attire. I wonder whether she is forced to wear the garment or truly adheres to these religious beliefs in full faith. Only her eyes can tell me - but often they cannot be seen either. Battered women hide bruises -do Moslem women hide oppression? Just like Margaret Hodge who has consistently warned of our lack of understanding of BNP tactics for once a Cabinet Minister has made a brave and honest comment which needs far wider debate on topics that are real concerns for many voters in the UK.
‘Labour’s National Executive Committee said it had decided to take politics “out to the country” ‘
Begs the question about where their politics have been before or maybe their making a pitch for the countryside alliance.
re 12. Yes he does. His dissemblings on Iraq still make me seethe but you can just about imagine that he went through it all with a peg firmly affixed to his nose. If only he’d stand for leader - it’s the only way I’d ver vote Labour.
If only more made comments like his. There are more veiled women here (Handsworth, Birmingham) than there are in Marrakech.
14 - Paul Linford seems to have become a Brown blogger rather than an impartial blogger which is a pity as I used to enjoy his insight and analysis.
I am glad that Jack Straw has spoken about this.
Love the idea that Labour are going to “lead an online revolution using the internet, including blogs, to bring in the members into the policy making process”. This is a party that has no money to bring in any expertise at all, with their last effort “the big conversation” being such a resounding triumph.
On a topic from a previous thread, I don’t believe the Conservatives will need anything like what the UNS models say they need because of a disappearance of some of the “biases” in the electoral system, most notably tactical voting. The Cameron appeal (assuming it remains, which the discussion kind of does) will also be disproportionately felt in the marginal seats.
Those of you active in politics, maybe people don’t come to you with concerns about Muslims, but what happens if you ask them about it, do you get a reaction?
As HF implies, it may be that what is described as an NEC decision was taken by a subcommittee, not the full NEC. No doubt the truth will come to light in due course.
22 - Very much agree with you. Paul’s ‘place’ was a must visit until recently
26. Richard, if so, it must be the Organisation Sub-Committee
24. I agree that UNS models are likely to be unhelpful! If there is any degree of core vote shake-off in the so-called heartlands combined with a major swing in the marginals then a small overall swing could see swathes of seats changing. I think that the next election will be quite unpredictable in terms of mechanics even if the broad result distils into sharper focus over the next few years!!
Having returned from holiday - a thank you to this site for keeping me up to date with things. Last week’s by-election defeat in Markinch may have helped the Labour party to cancel their conference.
19
Haven’t yet heard Straw’s comments but the overall situation is becoming absurd.
I took my daughter’s passport for renewal this week via the Post Office service where they check documentation before sending.My daughter’s photo was rejected because her hair covered part of her cheek although eyes etc were clearly visible.However,as per the official ‘Passport Photographs’brochure issued by the Passport service,if my daughtet was a muslim it would be quite acceptable to have her hair,ears and neck completely covered.
On a seperate issue it seems its now ok for a UK muslim policeman to decide what he is or isn’t going to protect,presumably now a christain policemen can now refuse to guard the Sudan embassy, on the moral grounds that he does not approve of the actions of the muslim government in Khartoum to the christain minority.
I’ve got mixed feelings about Jack Straw and the veil. On the one hand I think it is reasonable that people dress appropriately for their surroundings. If someone wants to talk to Jack Straw he’s entitled to ask them to reveal themselves. By the same token going to a restaurant for dinner in swimwear will more than likely get you refused entry. I also think religion is a feeble excuse for anti-social behaviour.
On the other hand I like the idea that people can do and wear what they want with or without a good reason.
….. Anymore fence sitting and I’ll be delivering focus leaflets!
31 john. If you take the “Sun” as your point of reference then you’d be correct. However the officer was correctly, temporarily removed from duties on operational grounds.
By virtue of his Lebanese wife and Syrian father, he was clearly more at risk from extremist elements than most other officers. Like any other commander one does not place staff in undue or further danger than is necessary.
Just heard a woman from a Muslim women’s group claiming that Straw had “no right to his opinion”. Way to hit the spot!
34. Yep but that slip of the tongue actually sums up the attitude of many muslims quite well - you must respect our beliefs even if we have no respect for yours.
btw. surely this is a leadership bid by Straw? available at 110 on Betfair…
35. more likely a deputy leadership bid….the deputy race can become too full of people
Every single one of the deputy leadership bids (OK, perhaps not Cruddas’) has the potential to turn into a leadership bid in the right conditions. The deputy contest provides a cover for people to organise and test the water for other things, should something happen to Gordon.
I see that Simon Hughes continues in his tendency to talk even when he has nothing useful to say: “I don’t think it’s the job for somebody who represents the whole community to say to somebody who comes through the door, ‘Do you mind if you dress differently in order to talk to me?”
What Straw addressed is a serious issue…Hughes seems to banalize (does this term exist? I mean making something sound banal) them
37. They also have the potential to fail…because I dount that all the various people mentioned for deputy will reach the ballot considering some of them practically cover more or less the same “territory”
38 Andrea. “Banalize” is a word if you say it is Andrea !
39. Jack, now go and tell it to the Oxford Dictionary
[OT] The Sportsman newspaper has announced its closure.
I would guess that over 80% of people would agree with Jack Straw’s remarks. I would again guess that totally veiled women have less interaction with those not from their faith and are less likely to be intergrated with the native population.
Andrea you must speak french. The verb ‘banaliser’ certainly means to render commonplace. The english noun banal clearly comes from this. I’m not sure about using it as a verb in english but I will bow to the OED.
A facial veil is a physical barrier to communication. It says “Keep out!”
43. Blue Moon, I speak Italian and in Italian “banal” is “banale” and the French “banaliser” is “banalizzare”. Being both neo-latin languages they’ve many similar terms
could we go with ‘banalise’ though as the ‘z’ gives it an American feel and as a European invention it should perhaps have a European feeling to it.
I can’t believe I’m in agreement with Jack Straw on anything. I sometimes think I might start turning up at the bank to pay money in wearing a headscarf and veil. I’m amazed there aren’t hundreds of female bank robbers touring the country avoiding CCTV by the simple expedient of donning some headgear that people are too wary of asking to be removed.
42. Yes and the lack of integration is exactly what they want…the intention is to keep out the ‘unhealthy’ influences of British society. That is what the Liber-Al democrats like Hughes need to understand - the culturally diverse society they dream about is anathema to today’s radical muslims.
Radio 4’s PM had the best interview I’ve heard yet with a representative of a Moslem grouping. He didn’t even have to giver her a rope, she brought her own. I’m convinced I heard the presenter sipping tea and opening a packet of biscuits the interview was that unbelieveably easy.
I have very bad news for those Moslems that wish to live in a permanent, reactionary victim state. The public at large are getting very, very tired of it….
38 and others: was v interested to hear Jack Straw’s comments.
This guy sits for Blackburn of all places, where alienating thee Muslim population is dangerous socially and electorally. However I have respect for him for standing up on an issue, even though it’s likely to be a vote loser for him.
Andrea, I think that in Simon’s press release he also noted that for some people, going to see an MP was hard enough without having a dress code enforced…he has a point.
I personally dislike women being told that they have to cover themselves up so much, for me this impacts on their self-esteem and suppresses their identity, however I respect their right to do so. So while I don’t agree with JS, I at least respect him for daring to go off-message and challenge something he feels strongly about. If only a few more senior Labour people were like that.
Straw’s vapourings are detestable. He’s doing it for pure personal reasons, just as before he grovelled to the Muslim lobby when it suited him.
This is the same man, let it be remembered, who was caught on TV saying - ‘The Prophet Mohammad, Peace Be Upon Him’.
Peace Be Upon Him???
Straw and Labour are incapable of facing the dilemmas of Muslim non-integration, because are all mewling lefties: which means they are forever shackled to the wretched tenets of multiculturalism.
The full, face-concealing veil is repellent. I hate seeing it on British streets. We should not ban it, but we should make anyone who wears it deeply, deeply uncomfortable. We should shame Muslims into abandoning it, and if they cannot abandon it, they should leave the country.
It is no more acceptable than seeing a black man walking the streets in the irons of a slave. So what if the women claim they want to wear it. Firstly I don’t believe it, secondly it doesn’t matter. People into S&M sex like to wear gimp masks, we do not allow those on the street either.
Straw is a twit. The left cannot deal with this issue. We need a fresh deal with our Muslim communities, when we tell them what we expect of them, rather than vice versa.
49.”Andrea, I think that in Simon’s press release he also noted that for some people, going to see an MP was hard enough without having a dress code enforced…he has a point.”
I got the impression that Straw used his surgery example to raise a more general issue about women with a full veil and their interaction with society….so again Hughes levelling it down to just meetings with an MP is IMO making the whole thing looking less serious than it is.
51. and btw, I wasn’t complaining about Hughes having a different opinion on the subject, but about his choice of words/sentences to express it.
50 seanT. Good to see your libertarian credentials on full display.
I dare say you’ll be of to Stamford Hill and Radlett shortly with your scissors to tackle those Jewish guys with long beards and while we’re at it some of those hats at Royal Ascot are a bit much !
53.
(for the signature)
51: Straw probably used his surgery example because he had seen it working and as a safer way to address the subject than directly criticising the wearing of veils in public.
52: sure, I can see where you’re coming from.
55. tpfkar, Agree with first part of your post.
And I’m glad you can see what I was coming from (you never know those days….I’ve already been advised to start a career in the Inquisition today….)
33-JackW
‘john. If you take the “Sun” as your point of reference then you’d be correct. However the officer was correctly, temporarily removed from duties on operational grounds.’
As reported on most TV channels the officer was removed after he had objected to his assignment on moral grounds.
‘By virtue of his Lebanese wife and Syrian father, he was clearly more at risk from extremist elements than most other officers. Like any other commander one does not place staff in undue or further danger than is necessary.’
I didn’t know that the special protection unit published details of the backgrounds,religions and other personal details of their officers.
So if it was a case of ‘undue or further danger’ why was he given the assignment in the first place.
Certainly seems that your own point of reference is the Blair 2 PC spin machine.
53. Nah. This is different. Islam is a religion with misogyny at its heart. In a Muslim court a woman’s word is worth half that a man’s. Etc etc. We all know the gory details.
It is fashionable to laud Islam as one of the great religions, as our beloved David did yesterday.
I disagree. Islam has a poetic and spiritual side worthy of veneration, but morally it is unreformed and medievalistic, and it has intellectually enslaved its adherents for a thousand years. Most particularly it has condemned millions and millions of women to lives of unremitting subjugation, punctuated by childbirth.
If orthodox Muslims wish to follow this ancient creed in their own lands, fair enough. But I do not wish to see their backwardness imported into Britain in the guise of ‘tolerating diversity’.
Would you tolerate a religion which taught, in court, that black men were worth half white men? And which insisted that black men wore hoods?
What’s the difference?
“We need a fresh deal with our Muslim communities, when we tell them what we expect of them, rather than vice versa”
Welcome to ‘Sean’s World. Not a place many of us would want to go but talk about revealing yourself!
Are all the Muslim comments on the news so far from women? I’ve seen one lady from MPAC so far.
48 - I agree the public are sick of it, but what can be done about it? Vote BNP? I don’t think so.
49 - that occurred to me, that for some women just getting to the MP may be hard enough, but I agree with 51. I’m not happy about facial veil, covering the rest is fine by me, but the face is just too much.
50 - you can still see orthodox Jews facial expressions, despite the beards and big hats.
54 - I thought you were too nice to run an inquisition!
59. Yeah yeah yeah. Same old liberal left boilerplate. I ask you, too, Roger, the question I asked Jack:
Would you tolerate a religion which taught, in court, that black men were worth half white men? And which insisted that black men wore hoods in public?
What’s the difference?
58 Thing is SeanT, all the Muslim woman I know don’t wear a veil, yet they are still not eating anything during the day at the moment, and seem quite at ease with their religion.
It’s not as simple to just blame it on Islam, there are other cultural/tribal factors in play.
seanT - what do you make of Judaism and Christianity’s attitudes to women?
61. Without becoming too personal I do just that. I have a sister who is every bit as fundamentalist as those Muslims you complain about. While her husband at prayer says “Thank you God for making me a man” She says “Thank you God for doing your will”.
Incidentally if you are worried about female emancipation there is no difference whatsoever between Jews and Muslims. Just that there are more visible ulta Orthodox Muslims. You should really try to explore your prejudices. They’re prettty out of control.
62. But we are talking about the ones who wear the full-face veil, The Taliban shroud. I see a lot of them in Regent’s Park.
It is repulsive. Again, the only comparison I can see is with black men wearing the symbols of their slavery - leg-irons. Because we know that this shroud is not just for show, it is the emblem of a faith which has the devaluation of women at its heart. A faith where women can be stoned to death for adultery, where women rape victims are often murdered for the shame they bring etc etc.
63. Christianity I believe has reformed itself, and almost completely accepted the equality of women, as is right. Judaism is slightly more complex but is also much more enlightened than Islam.
When did you last hear of a Jewish honour killing? When was the last time a Jewish rape victim was burned to death? Do Jews have forced marriages? Does Israeli law stipulate that a women’s evidence is worth half that of a man? Etc?
Clearly not.
Moreover neither Christianity nor Judaism are violently attacking our society, even in their most fundamental forms.
64. Roger. I ain’t see any fundamentalist christians blowing up anyone in London recently…I ain’t seen them wearing bomb belts at protests againt Jerry Springer The Opera and I sure as hell haven’t seen any of them with placards suggesting beheadings.
Take a hint from Northern Ireland Roger, the indulgence of a victim culture will f**k the country up. It has here. This is direct experience not speculation, now listen to someone who knows.
Why are you listening in to people’s prayers by the way?
65 - Fundamentalist Christianity, in the guise of the White House, is violently attacking other societies.
64. Roger see my answer above.
I admit it. I am prejudiced against prejudice. I am intolerant of intolerance.
Orthodox Judaism has problematic aspects for me, but I am prepared to put up with it. Probably if there were 2 million Orthodox Jews in the UK, 10% of whom approved of attacks on the rest of us, 40% of whom wanted outright Talmudic law, many of whom supported an appalling repression of women - well then yes in that situation I would also be suspicious of Judaism.
But these things are not the case. Thankfully.
Though talking of female emancipstion you didn’t have a problem with that well know womens rights campaigner and serial groper high up in the Labour Party did you.
Pot, kettle, black…
57 john. I use as my point of reference what the principals in the case have said not what some in the media infer.
This officer had previously protected the Israeli Embassy, but as the potential threat level rises so should his allocation to those duties be reviewed. That this was not done reflects on his superiors.
………………….
58/61 seanT. The Muslim religeon is not alone in its misogyny. Not too many female Popes over the past couple of thousand years.
But I no more judge all muslims by the rantings of some of their extremists that I do judge all PBers by the offerings of one of its literary luminaries !
67. Donald Rumsfeld that well known fundamentalist christian…
59-Roger
Which bits of the muslim culture do you admire?
Homophobia,women treated as 3rd class citizens,forced marriages,arranged marriages,child marriages,female circumcision ?
Or maybe its the public executions,amputations and stoneing to death of adulterous women in Saudi Arabia that you admire.
I thought lefties like you were meant to be against these basic infringements of human rights,however, when it comes to muslims your engines go into reverse thrust!
66 Yokel - I believe it’s a standard prayer for an Orthodox Jewish man, to thank God for not making one a woman.
Well you can hardly ban these women from wearing whatever they like in public.
I don’t think hysterical ranting is going to make much difference, other than stir-up ill feeling between communities. I’ll take the long view, but Straw was on the right track today, even if sensible dialogue isn’t as much fun as a diatribe.
72. Roger just likes it because he thinks he’s being rebellious, it gives him a sense of intellectual superiority.
Bless.
73. I’m delighted I’m a man…and?
Straw’s point wasnt about religion in itself it was about interacting with people of different faiths and how some aspects of religion and their practices put up blocks to that interaction.
74. I didn’t say ban them. Read my post. I am a libertarian. I believe people should be able to wear fossilised dodos up their noses if the want.
But we SHOULD disapprove, as a society. Public shaming and disapproval is much more powerful than any law. If you see a woman with her husband, and she’s walking ten paces behind him and she’s wearing some awful death shroud completely covering her face - go up to them and hiss. Make them know that this is Britain, and we don’t do that kind of thing here.
They’ll soon get the picture. Those that don’t like it will leave, the rest will drop the full face body shroud.
We would do the same if we saw a black man earing a chain around his neck, walkig ten paces behind a white man.
I see no difference.
“We would do the same if we saw a black man earing a chain around his neck, walkig ten paces behind a white man.”
Depends upon the context, Sean. I am told there are places where consenting adults can indulge in behaviour like this, and why not if it floats their boat?
seanT - I don’t know about forced marriages, but I’ve heard of the trouble Orthodox women have getting divorced properly so that any future children and their descendants are not declared illegitimate.
76 - you asked why he was listening in to people’s prayers, I was just saying it’s a standard prayer, like knowing a Christian had been saying the Lord’s Prayer.
Sean you`ve really lost the plot - do your publishers know ?
79. If there really are places where black men voluntarily do this - walk ten paces behind white men, wearing a chain - then if it was done in private I find it deeply distasteful, and disturbing, but I wouldn’t intervene either legally or personally.
But if that black man was doing this in public, in Regent’s Park, I think most of us would find it unbearably nauseating, and would make our feelings known.
It’s the same with the full-face veil. We should make our feeling known. We shouldn’t ban it, but we should express our deep, deep disapproval as a society.
It would soon stop. It’s simple. I do I it already. I glare at the smug men I see leading their shrouded wives. To hell with them. It makes them uncomfortable. Good.
The problem lefties have is that they cannot do this, because they are wedded to the main idea of multiculturalism - that all cultures are equal, and equally worthy of respect.
I don’t have that problem. Western liberal democracy is the most noble political culture yet devised by man. I am proud of it, and I consider it superior to all other forms of civilisation, most especially Islam.
82. Oh dear. What are you gonna do, ring up my publishers and tell them I disapprove of fundamentalist Islam?
It’s not news.
78 seanT. Your libertarian credentials are in tatters !
seanT @ 50. “if they cannot abandon it, (the veil) they should leave the country.”
Your intollerance is only surpassed your effrontery !!
Well, according to a muslim representative on Sky News just now, the veil is a liberating mechanism enabling women to avoid “objectification” by men……
85. I think it should be ‘no-one escapes Andrea’s Inquisition’
But I think I prefer Andrea’s form of inquisition to that which fundamentalist Islam would impose on us, given the chance.
85. Jack, get a grip. I don’t tolerate slavery. That doesn’t make me intolerant.
I don’t tolerate wifebeating. Does that make me intolerant?
I would ban forced marriages. Does that make me authoritarian?
It’s a dilemma faced by all societies - and all lovers of liberty. Do you tolerate intolerance, do you let repression run free in the name of freedom? Think before you write.
It seems obvious to me that with radical and orthodox Islam we are teetering on the edge of tolerating too much.
Incidentally, I see more full-face veils in some parts of London than I saw in Istanbul last week. Something is happening to OUR Muslim communities, and it isn’t good.
89. In a minute I’m gonna watch Question Time. But one more thing for the record.
I take back my too-fierce remarks about Jack Straw. I still think his ‘Peace Be Upon Him’ Remarks were grovelling, inept, and rebarbative. However I think he IS quite brave in bringing up this subject, in the necessarily politic way he has.
With a quarter of his constituency Muslim, this can’t have been easy. Nonetheless he did it, and it had to be done.
Credit to J Straw, Esq.
I have read stories from all over Western Europe of Muslims attacking western society. I read in the Telegraph today about French “civil war”, I read in the Times a while ago that it’s not so easy to be gay in Amsterdam anymore.
87. No-one expect’s Andrea’s Inquisition! His chief weapon is fear….. fear and surprise… etc
I think Jack Straw is right to raise the issue and I think he’s done it as diplomatically as possible. I won’t be taking the 100-1 on betfair though. After seeing him on Question Time last week I don’t think any Labourite in their right mind would want to get rid of Tony Blair only to replace him with the other person most associated with the Iraq war.
87. “But I think I prefer Andrea’s form of inquisition to that which fundamentalist Islam would impose on us, given the chance. ”
Still not sure what I’ve done.
91. Oh dear… a stray apostrophe.
88 seanT. Pure chutzpah !
You’ve been quacking and waddling like one all evening !
You are Donald Duck and I claim shooting rights over central London !
81. Got ya.
test
A woman may well choose to wear the full facial covering, but why choose to block communication? It seems a hostile, anti-social thing to do.
I’m completely with SeanT (Despite my LibDem credentials). It’s not as if veil wearing is part of the Muslim religion anyway. It isn’t. It’s a fundamentalist perversion, just as much as it would be if we told all the women commenting here to shut up becuase they can’t have an opinion. Perhaps some fundamentalist Christians do think like that but I think that we’d pretty much all agree that they’re a bit loony and living in the past. It’s exactly the same with the fundamentalist Muslims.
I agree with Jack Straw, and I think he is brave to raise this issue. I don’t, however, feel we should go the way of the French where so much insignia is banned.
Hat, or indeed veils, off to Jack Straw.
re 88. Same in my part of Birmingham. Marrakech looks more like a liberal western city than round here.
What the Tory line on the veil issue? By the way, Simon Hughes is talking bollocks about it…
100 - ditto Beirut.
Question Time is interesting tonight.
98 Chris A. Some odd bods in the Lib Dems clearly !!
As a you are a Liberal I profer the view to you that you shouldn’t give a toss what people wear !
How often does Shirley Williams appear on Question Time, she seems to be on it every week.
So, Jack, you wouldn’t mind seeing a black man in loincloth and leg-irons, shuffling through the park?
Or a naked man walking through a children’s playground?
Your views here are surprisingly juvenile for one so senior in years. You can take that as a compliment if you like…
There’s some liveblogging of QT here - http://www.willhowells.org.uk/blog/ - in rhyme, of course, as befits National Poetry Day.
106 seanT. Unlike your good self I’m not a member of the fashion police ! …. nor do I trawl through Clapham Common or Hampstead Heath for book research purposes ….. but each to their own.
Hey I wear a pleated skirt with animal appendages a front with underneath only my meat and two veg for company !! Shocking, I’m sure …. should I leave the country ??
108.”Hey I wear a pleated skirt with animal appendages a front with underneath only my meat and two veg for company !! Shocking, I’m sure …. should I leave the country ?? ”
yes, for a crime agaisnt fashion!
108 - Jack: OOLALA!
(Operation Osborne: Leave Alone, Liability Assured)
109 Andrea.
… a bit rich coming from the nipple piercing king of Milan !! 
111. Jack, do you want to end up under my Inquisition’s powers?
Get a room!
113. who?
110 Tabman. I answered your question two threads back @ 152.
112 Andrea. Jack under Andrea
115 - I’ll go and check …
… thanks for the info! Do you ever use the sleeper yourself, or is the A8 equipped with bunks
I used to visit Inverness for work - lovely city and region.
Shirley Williams has appeared on QT more than anyone else. For someone who who was defeated as far back as 1983 her friendship with the Dimbleby clan must counct for an awful lot.
116 Tabman. I haven’t used the sleeper for ages. The service used to be excellent. Perhaps Stephen B has used the service more recently.
I’ve ordered a new A8 for next March !! 4.0tdi …. no bunks but plenty of scope for a bunk up !! ….. those were the days.
Diane Abbott just trotted out that same canard we discussed here - that there are 15 Old Etonians in the Shadow Cabinet.
Am I misremembering? We did discuss this here, didn’t we? And it was comprehensively debunked, wasn’t it?
Presuming I haven’t lost my mind, where is this fabulation coming from? This urban myth?
Or maybe there ARE 15 OEs in the Cabinet? Someone de-confuse me, please.
Shirley Williams is always good on QT and gets a good reception, even from those who disagree with her. Why, even Rik W was singing her praises a couple of weeks ago on this site. She was pretty good on QT again tonight. Didn’t always agree with her, though. She tends to be more SDP than Liberal - it still shows! Letwin and Hislop were also good value for money.
Hazel Blears is one of the sharper members of the Cabinet. And very annoying. She represents everything I hate about Labour. Soooo patronising!
Poor Sandra Howard. So nervous. Still, a better performance than Adam Rickett. Had Rickett found a seat yet? Thought not!
Jacob Rees-Mogg was in the paper today saying something about the Cameron being anti-public school and anti-Oxbridge.
118 - especially with your “easy access skirt” on
“The Hitch” is good value - splits required in the Tory party!
119. I think there’re 15 Etonians in the front-bench, not in the Shadow Cabinet (and the majority are fron the Lord frontbench)
120. No, Adam R hasn’t found a seat yet.
119. There was a piece in the Observer a while back which counted 15 OEs, but it stretched to all shadow appointees in the Lords and Commons.
fwiw, there are 20 Old Etonian MPs, 18 of them Conservative.
Just as I was finding myself agreeing with most of the QT panel up pops Hitchens to make me realise that there are still some people who deserve to be boiled in oil. What a waste of a human life……
122 Tabman. Those were the days …. in my old Rover …. sigh
Tabman. Thanks for the tip earlier!
123. Grazie, Andrea, but I’m still slightly unclear - do you mean there are 15 Etonian Tory shadow spokesmen of every kind, taking the Lords and Commons into account? And most of them are in the Lords, right?
IIRC Someone here claimed there were only 3 OEs in the Shadow Cabinet- Cameron, Letwin, and, er, another one.
124.”fwiw, there are 20 Old Etonian MPs, 18 of them Conservative”
the 2 not tories…I know one is Mark Fisher, who’s the second one?
128. Seant:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1843008,00.html
128. More than one is over representation.
130. Fascinating. The canard is unmasked. It came from a stupid lying Guardian subhead.
There are NOT 15 Old Etonian members of the Shadow Cabinet, there are 3. As the article makes clear. There are many more on the Tory spokesmen payroll, but that is not the Shadow Cabinet.
But ‘3 Old Etonians’ doesn’t make such a good headline, does it?
Stupid lying Guardian.
But at least we know where this myth comes from. Tut tut Diane Abbott for reheating it.
129: Just a guess, but John Thurso?
Since David Rendell lost his seat, I don’t think the LDs have any old Etonians. However, in Lembit, we do have a young Estonian. I also believe that Lembit’s predecessor in Montgomeryshire, Alex Carlile, has roots in Estonia.
133. Aidan Thomson, spot on. I just checked and he went to Eton
SeanT@128: Boris? (or is he frontbench rather than shadow cabinet?). Besides, he is a somewhat special case as he was a Kings Scholar (though whether his family had the resource to send him there anyway I have no idea).
Speaking of whom, he’s on ThisWeek as I type…
133 Aidan. Correct. Our Viscount was at Eton !!
128. I think the other one is Hugo (who he?) Swire.
129. Andrea, I took the numbers from Butler & Kavanagh’s election series. Fisher is the only Labourite, I don’t know who the Lib Dem is, they had two before Rendel lost Newbury. My guess is thw Viscount.
Back in 1970, one sixth (at least) of all Liberal MPs went to Eton. His name was Jeremy Thorpe.
Sean. Try wandering around Soho. You’ll see the most extraordinary people wearing the most extraordinary things. Women dressed as men. Men dressed as women. Men and women in full bondage gear, transvestites, transsexuals, people pierced from head to toe. How strange to think from this most liberal part of London famous for it’s free thinkers artists writers and libertines there are still people out there who would like to force conformity.
139 SBS.
140. ZZZZZ. That’s not really an agument, is it? It’s just drooling, isn’t it? Just feelgood drivel dressed up as a thesis. Tut.
Come on, Roger, this is pb.com, we have standards. Buck up.
Here’s an arguement, see if you can handle it:
When western women go to live in a very orthodox Muslim country, they wear a veil over their heads because they know that not doing so offends local sensibilities. And this is how it should be. It’s just polite to respond to the host culture that way.
Islamic women should be told when they come here, or grow up here, that the full-face veil offends OUR majority sensibilities, and they should desist for that reason.
The fact that they don’t leave off the veil is because they have contempt for our values, and they do not feel the disapproval of the host community. Because we are too polite to express it.
Thank God that is now beginning to change.
141 - actually, Jo Grimond was an Etonian - so at least a third. Checking on the other MPs then (Steele, Johnston, Hooson - no) - who was the other one? Pardoe - don’t think he was Etonian - or Estonian.
142 - “When western women go to live in a very orthodox Muslim country, they wear a veil over their heads because they know that not doing so offends local sensibilities. And this is how it should be. It’s just polite to respond to the host culture that way.”
Just like bloody vegetarians! You cook a nice lentil stew for them. And when you go to their house, do you get steak? No, you get their lentil stew too.
144. LOL. G’nite all…
Sean T. You talk a lot of sense.
Why on earth should we tiptoe around and walk on eggshells when discussing anything with an Islamic connection????
We hear so much about “hearts and minds” and yet this is only a one way street. What about our hearts and minds?
I’d like to see Roger’s Soho in some certain Countries. It would just never be allowed to happen.
This site is losing credibility. In the last two weeks we have seen the odds on Jon Cruddas winning the Labour deputy leadership shorten from 100/1 to 8/1. Not a word here. Other sites are reporting this in full. Anyone coming here for the first time might conclude that this site is not an objective overview of political betting markets, rather an attempt to set a particular agenda and make news.
147- Maybe Straw’s comments have the Deputy Leadership in mind?
Just noticed Labour now out to 6/4 to win the next election AND the Libdems out to 100/1. They were 11/8 and 80/1. The post conference Cameron bounce is on it’s way!
In the last hour or so we have also seen the price of 2.44 matched on Betfair for Labour to win the next election.
This is the longest price matched since this market was opened.
And yet some people try to pretend that Cameron’s speech did not go down well. I think the punters are the best judge.
re 147. Kevin L - Where do you get your odds from? I am aware of the move in the Deputy Leadership but there is no betting market available online. I’ve just gone through the sites of all the leading online bookmakers to see if this is being missed by the odds search engines and I cannot find one of the 18 that is taking bets on the deputy leadership. The general policy here is to only feature markets where you can bet online.
Most serious political betting is done through Betfair where you can back and lay and this tends to dominate this site. I know that a number of people have called for this market but, so far at least, the betting exchange has not responded.
I don´t think it matters very much who is in Chameron´s shadow cabinet. After all, the entire Tory Party (including its front benchers) just have to sit back and accept whatever line Chameron happens to impose on any particular day.
Far more important are the people who tell Chameron what he ought to be saying - ie those who really determine the Tory line. And I think most of these are Old Etonians and akin.
Obviously Frank Luntz is an exception here. He is just an influential foreigner.
By calling me a “Labour blogger” I don’t think Mike intended to imply that I was a slavish adherent to the Labour Party line, just that he thinks my blog is a particularly good source of insight and analysis about Labour Party matters. That’s what it aims to be anyway!
Voice from the South West (22) and John O (27) are obviously unhappy with the amount of pro-Brown coverage I’ve been giving recently, suggesting this has detracted from the blog’s impartiality, but the truth is that my admiration for Gordon transcends party politics. I like politicians like Gordon Brown, Charles Kennedy and David Davis because they strike me as genuine. I dislike politicians like Tony Blair, Nick Clegg and David Cameron because I think they are essentially PR men. My analysis of the current state of British politics is that I think the public are tiring of the latter breed, and that Labour would be extremely silly to overlook Gordon because he lacks Blair’s showmanship. I very much agree with the analysis of Matthew d’Ancona last weekend that, in a style v substance election, Brown would destroy Cameron.
Anyway hope this clarifies things a bit, and hope to see VftSW and John back at my place soon!
Your piece is interesting Paul, though I suspect the decision has more to do with the sensible use of money than any grand schemes to do with the leadership (though there are undoubtedly side benefits for Blair if he wants to hang on until next summer).
We’ve got a bit of an inside track on how the decision got taken:
http://thedaily.wordpress.com/2006/10/06/spring-conference-the-full-story/