Will the loans affair eventually bring Blair down?
October 29th, 2006
-
Why is Cameron going easy with Blair on the succession?
The main political story in the Sunday Times this morning is of developments in the police “loans for peerages” investigation that could blight the final months of Tony Blair’s time at Number 10 and impact on his departure time-table.
According to the paper Labour’s chief fundraiser, Lord Levy, “has implicated Tony Blair as the key figure in the cash-for-honours scandal, a well-placed source has revealed.”
Levy is said to have “told Scotland Yard detectives last month that he was acting on the direct orders of Blair when he secretly obtained £14m in loans from businessmen to fund the party…He has been questioned twice in the past four months after it emerged that four businessmen who lent Labour money were also recommended by Blair for peerages. The honours were blocked by an official watchdog..Levy’s potentially incriminating testimony could prove crucial to the decision to question Blair — the culmination of a seven-month inquiry. Police hope to interview the prime minister within the next five weeks..A prosecution source said: “Levy told the police that everything he did was for the top man. It wasn’t for anybody else, just for Blair. That’s why the PM has to be interviewed.”
All this links to the Blair departure time-table and another issue highlighted in this morning’s papers - why is Cameron not pressing Blair every week over the succession and, in particular, whether Brown has Blair’s support?
As Andrew Rawnsley observes in the Observer Blair had a very poor PMQs a fortnight ago when when Cameron taunted him. Did Blair want Brown or not? ‘Yes or no? - ‘I do, does he?’
Rawnsely writes: “After that squirming moment, Tony Blair was worried that the Tory leader would keep jabbing his finger into this vulnerable spot on a weekly basis. So was Gordon Brown. They are both a bit surprised that Mr Cameron has not asked the Prime Minister whether he endorses the Chancellor every Wednesday.”
For me this raises the question of what is the ideal Tory scenario for Blair’s departure.
-
Has Cameron calculated that him pressing Blair at every PMQs could hasten the departure when it is strategically better for the Tories for the Labour Prime Minister to go at the messy end of the police investigation?
The Tories have been dogged for years by the repercussions of the Hamilton, Aitken and Archer court cases. Are they hoping that this could all be topped by Blair and “loans for peerages”?
In the Blair departure betting the Q2 2007 price has now tightened to 0.8/1.
Mike Smithson
-
Politicalbetting.com - the UK’s most read political blog
MessageSpace Advertising
test
Really, it is Iraq that ought to have brought Blair down. That is the policy for which he will be chiefly remembered, surely.
But if he is finally brought down by something as squalid as the sale of peerages, well so be it. As long as he is brought to book over something. His regime has been not only a disappointment - to those who wished him well when he took over from the last failed Tory Government - but also a total disgrace.
Wouldn’t five weeks bring q1 into play?
And an afterthought….
Just as Blair came in with general support, benevolence and public optimism, surely there is currently the danger that Chameron is set on the same path….
Being all things to all men, he has managed to create high expectations for the next Tory government (whenever that may be). Inevitably, since, if ever he came to public office, Chameron would have to start defining himself, very large sectors of the electorate would be immediately disenchanted. If ever we were to have a Tory Government under Chameron, we could expect the opinion polls to be minus 20 for the Tories within a matter of months.
[OT] when did Miliband get backed down to single figures for next chancellor?
Sorry - you´ve lost me…. Which is Q1, John L?
Tressage - I think Q1 refers to Quarter 1 - 2007 - the Betfair way of defining the Blair departure market
When are the next polls out? I wish we could have them weekly, like the Americans.
In answer to Mike / Rawnsley’s question, perhaps DC isn’t pushing too hard for Tony to go as, just like Blair, Cameron knows his own party is very vulnerable over dodgy loans.
The party funding issue is something of a ’score draw’ and I think they’d both like it to be over as soon as possible before the real fight (Gordon vs The Toff) kicks off properly.
From my party’s perspective, I’ve mentioned before that I’m no fan of Blair but I’m quite happy for him to stick around long enough to clear up his own mess and then leave Gordon with a clean slate.
Worth a read IMO
The simple reason why the Conservatives are not pressing on “loans for peerages” is because there is no need. The police will do their investigation and if it turns up something then they will benefit regardless. I expect that the Conservatives will be fighting a atypically positive election next time - it just doesn’t do a potential “next government” any good to drag the reputation of politicians as a whole further into the gutter, which is the inevitable result of persistent mudslinging. More than any other, the next Conservative govt (if it happens) are going to need a great deal of public trust to become established.
The police have been collecting evidence for 7 months and if Levy is right in saying Blair ordered the donations to be loans and chose the peerages, suggests that all roads in the inquiries will lead to Blair and Blair will be arrested and likely charged IMO.
The claim that Blair is said to be planning to go on the attack against the investigation, perhaps in a Hutton-style Campbell crowing as BBC heads role, came from where?
From Campbell himself as a thinnly veiled threat against the police?
Or by those who want the police investigators to have extra incentive to make sure they have a case that will screw Blair?
I think Cameron has worked out that the last thing he wants to do is anything to prevent a Brown succession. The “new” is dissapearing from Labour fast and we now have the prospect of massive non income related tax rises which will hammer people on moderate incomes. The Mail on Sunday leaks a report from Miliband calling for huge rises in vehicle excise duty (which stupidly forgets that the more it costs to keep a car parked in your drive the more incentive you have to use it and not use public transport), meanwhile the Sunday Telegraph reports that people face council tax bills quadrupling under a new system of calculation that artificially enhances property values if you live in a good area then charges you 0.78% of property value pa. One chap in Belfast has seen his rates go up from £1000 to over £4000 overnight as a result of this. Why would Cameron want to do ANYTHING to impede a government carrying on like this?
Because he cares about British people’s lives?
(only joking)
3. John L
I agree, it should bring Q1 more into play. In fact its price has relaxed a bit after tightening to about 3.5 during Blair’s recent rough patch. It may tighten again once more details of cash for peerages become known.
If you *disregard* cfp, the price of q2 (about 1.8) is probably fair but if there is any substance in the scandal, it’s a lay.
Ian Blair’s pc police wont arrest Tony Blair. Its just not going to happen.
But there are children guilty of climbing trees and having 2 penguins in their lunchbox. Get the cells ready and break out the DNA extraction kits
Mike, re Barack Obama
Your £77 at 8.8 is still there. I have backed Obama at fifties and am interested in laying off so I have put up £50 at sevens but let me know (by email if you like) if you want to cut a deal.
Perhaps the Tories have become like the Democrats in America. Seemingly unable to grab the victory from a seemingly winnable position.
In answer to your question, Mike. Who knows why Cameron does anything? He is seemingly rather a pointless man politically. He has no policies, he is a different kind of Conservative depending on who he talks to. But luckily for him he has got the PR man’s skill of looking good for the cameras so it’ll probably turn out alright for him.
OTOH perhaps after Howard’s interview with the police, the Tories have been advised that the best policy is to keep their heads down on loans for peerages, and that the only serious contender for PM with clean hands is Brown (or some such narrative).
Another point I would make about these proposed tax rises. My take home pay is £24000, When my fourth Child is born it will put me in the income band for receiving additional child tax credits which means that if I packed up work and worked 2 nights a week in a supermarket stacking shelves for £5000 a year my tax credits would increase to make up approx 70% of the difference in take home pay (I would get approx £10,900 in tax credits in this situation, Plus I would get £653 of my £1300 council tax rebated, giving total net income of 16,553, child benefit excluded)
If, in this situation my council tax went up from £1300 to £3900, then the council tax benefit would go up from £653 to £3252, meanning that the take home difference between a job paying approx £35,000 gross and £5000 gross would be approx £4,800. Exactly what would be the point of me, and millions of others like me, working ful time in a job that pays enough to generate income tax for the Government?(www.entitledto.co.uk gives the figures)
19. Most jobs are pointless when looked from one angle or another. Put it down to self deluding existential angst that any of us are worth whatever it is we do or don’t get paid, and then you won’t worry that someone else may be doing alright as well. Oh and remember that most of your taxes go to benefitting things which disproportionately help the middle-class and not the low paid. Oh well…
I think people have got the wrong end of the stick. I was not suggesting that Cameron raised the loans for peerages issue at PMQs.
The point I was trying to make is that Cameron has an open goal whenever he wants exploiting the Brown-Blair tensions. He is not doing it which seems odd.
Whatever the final outcome on the loans-peerages investigation I think it will hurt Blair much more simply because he’s the Prime Minister.
re 17. It’s not the same bet Peter as I’m sure you realise. The money I’ve got up at the moment is on him getting the Democratic nomination. If in August 2008 he does secure that then I’ll be laying some of the potential winnings on my bets at 50/1 against him going all the way.
With no takers I’ll probably take the £77 off and wait for another opportune moment. I might get a better price.
On the contrary, I disagree. With soon to have four children, my wife could well do with the help at home working two days a week only would give. Add in travel to work costs that peopel pay (commuting to London from where I live costs approx £3000 per year) and you are not far from the point where a person would be BETTER OFF doing the two day a week job. The country would be bankrupt though.
21. Sure, Mike, that’s fine by me. Like you, I’m happy to wait with a pretty warm voucher in my pocket.
I was planning to lay off again if and when he gets the nomination - but no rush.
The proposal to base council tax on house value, including location, seems very sensible from the Nulab point of view.
Tory voters are assumed to be wealthier and live in better areas than Labour ones. Thus, this revaluation should (in theory) uprate Tory areas, and derate Labour ones (assuming that the overall CT take remains unchanged).
This should upset Tory voters (who are unlikely to vote Labour anyway). On the other hand, reducing CT in Labour areas should shore up Labour’s vote in their areas.
Overall, it sounds very canny, very Gordon.
Eeh baa gum, it were easier running a party a century ago - Liberal leaders (for example) just asked half a dozen mill-owners to write large cheques, they obliged, and that was that. None of this transparency nonsense…
As usual, plenty of tax scaremongering here. If some people have large Council tax (or rates, which they still have in Northern Ireland, where the story comes from) increases, others will be paying less. As ever, the former group moan like hell while the latter trouser the dough as of right and express no gratitude whatsoever. “To tax and be popular is given to no man” - can’t source that this early in the morning, doubtless someone else will…
Meanwhile, Cameron has joined Miliband in calling for taxes on flights - when did a Tory leader in opposition last call for a new tax?
Tressage [4] - would that be 20% behind Labour, the Lib Dems or UKIP?
24 - small problem with your theory. You cannot win an election with just “Labour areas” or “Tory areas”. The key is on the impact on the voters in the middle.
18 Labour has a gerrymandered advantage. Scottish over representation is one thing. Then there is the 2005 GE where Labour got the 80 more seats in England but got less votes.
This has led to arrogance. The current barmy loony left policies are because Labour feel they can do literally anything.
10. Interesting post on the Grauniad. Sounds like a Daily Mail reader - it was funny harassing Tories but this goes too far!
First they came…
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
27. Typo - The link to the Grauniad is
27. Typo - The link to the Grauniad is here…
we are experiencing technical difficulties - probably due to Tony Blair trying to bury bad news
26 - And it is those voters in the middle, the lower middle class in the typical west midlands marginal, who are going to be hammered most by increases in non income related taxation. If its hardly worth me working at a wage that almost pays 40% tax, what effect on that west midlands voter?
So the cash for coronets story today is that Blair ordered his chief fund raiser to get top businessman to donate to the Labour party ……… doh !!! … remind me again what Levy’s remit was ??
Levy hasn’t said “and Blair said we’ll toss in a touch of ermine.”. It not how the system works. It works on Chinese whispers, a nod and a wink and nobody actually says a million for a Lordship because they don’t have to.
The Tories have been just as “guilty” of perpetuating this excellent if somewhat under the counter trade. It’s better than my taxes paying for political parties and is a typical British solution to a thorny problem.
Having said that I draw the line at Alastair Matlock raising the funds to become Lord Beaconsfield by flashing his wears at Kings Cross at 1am.
Postman Roger - you mean that the British Transport Police didn’t say to the guy that his unwillingness to be scanned in itself constituted reasonable grounds for suspicion that he was carrying a knife? Had they said that to him, and had he persisted in his refusal, I think most magistrates (if they wanted to go on serving on the Bench, that is) would have convicted him of obstructing the police in the course of their duties.
What this has to do with who’s in Government I’ve no idea…
With a flash of light…. a clatter of steel…
A five-furled chin under a black plastic mask and tooled leather boots on a white mare. The Loan Arranger!!!
A poof of white dust, and out from under a cloud, there came a cry of: “High ho Gold not Siiiilver…away!!”
Then he disappeared, with: “Out, Trace!”
Come on Mike, we know the only reason that Chamereon is not pushing the boat out on this one is that his own cupboard is not exactly bare. And the Lib Dems are hardly leaping around on the issue, seeming to want to blame their own £2.4 million affair on poor Charlie Kennedy. Talk about hitting a man when he’s down!
Mike
I enjoyed the Oakeshott quote in the Times article:
“The police can hardly conclude their inquiries into the possible sale of Labour peerages without interviewing Blair who is the monopoly supplier.”
31 - How do you know what Levy’s said to the police?
32 - I’m not sure if that was a serious post or not…
Suffice to say I would hope that a magistrate would dismiss such a case out of hand.
The reason that Cameron is not constantly pushing Blair’s lack of endorsement for Brown is that the mission is already accomplished, and now all he needs to do is wait until just before the handover and rub salt in the wound so that the stench of discord lingers on to poison the first days of the Brown-Balls-Darling regime.
The Price is Right for Peerages scandal has a similar cycle. It is not lost on people that Michael Howard is a witness while Levy is arrested. Dave needs to take no action as the police will do it for him. After the revelations today ( of Levy dropping Blair right in it) he has two lines of attack on this but the most damaging is, in the end, for Brown. If he takes over from a PM accused of corruption he must answer a simple question: why, as Chancellor and co-PM and Nulab number 2 did he not stop it.
Well, it certainly is in the Conservative party’s interests for Blairs departure to be drawn out and messy. It will also help if the Labour party look like the party of sleeze, incompetence and the unions. It will prevent Labour using alegeded sleeze as a weapon against us.
38
‘It will also help if the Labour party look like the party of sleeze’
That’s already been achieved thanks to Blair,Blunkett,Prescott, etc.
[37] What do you think the blazing rows between Blair and Brown were about, B2W? No, I don’t know either, which means that I don’t know they weren’t about Brown doing his damnedest to stop it. (And he isn’t Labour’s Deputy Leader either, let alone “co-PM” - as you very well know.)
It will all end in tears, or State Funding - which according to most people is much the same thing. I suggest the annual Income Tax Personal Allowance could be reduced by, oh, £5 - with the same amount of a Party membership subscription treated as a charitable donation, and only let Parties fight Parliamentary seats where they can satisfy the Electoral Commission they have at least 1,000 members
Re 39, John, Yes they are more sleezy that the last Conservative government, but in some peoples eyes they do not look like it. That said Labour do seem keen on fixing that
The bigger the fallout from the cash for peerages the better. As Jack points out it’s going to hit the Tories just as much as Labour and it gives Gordon the chance of a major spring clean. He can then return to us the kind of government we all hoped for in ‘97.
In many ways this is what they’ve already delivered except that Blair insisted in shrouding it in a blue mist of Daily Mailism. Brown can sweep all this away and make the party look more egalitarian and liberal at a stroke and challenge Cameron’s faux liberal leftish instincts in a way a compromised Blair never could.
No wonder Mrs Pritchard’s ratings are going up and up.
Jack Straw is trying to ‘buy off’ MPs (who have this year publised figures shoeing that some of them spent up to £27,000 per year on ‘postage’) with a £10,000 per annum ‘communications allowance’. This will allow incumbents of all political hues to put out a couple of top-notch propaganda sheets each year, thus increasing still further the advantage which they have over all their challengers.
I possess copies of a blanket propaganda mailing to a wide area produced by a government Minister, in a marginal seat, which was sent out in 2004. Does anyone seriously think that a parliament which (remember John Reid?) publicly humiliates its own Standards Commissioner will vote down such largess to present incumbents? Who will speak up against this further coruption of our political system? Norman Baker? Bob Marshall-Andrews? George (Duncan) Smith? But what chance is there of it being voted down?
Was anybody watching this morning’s AM Programme on BBC1? John McDonnell was on and I thought he came over very well. He looks OK and engages and speaks well with a good diction. If he gets 44 MPs to nominate him he’ll do reasonably well. His message would go down well with traditional activists.
Although he clearly does not stand a chance he’ll get a lot of attention during the contest and his Betfair price is bound to tighten from the 460/1 he’s currently at. I’ve just bet £4 at 470/1 which gives lots of room for profit on laying him as the contest gets closer.
If there’s a TV debate between the contenders then he might come out even or possibly on top.
Also on the programme was John Hutton who looks crazier every time I seem him. Not a chance.
There was also Ming there and his manner is not right. He talks OK but he just appears uncomfortable in all of this. Sadly nothing there to worry Gordon or Dave.
I agree with the general thrust of the posts this morning. DC has no need to go onto the attack. The police and the Labour Party are doing the job for him. Why distract the public’s attention?
A long drawn out handover would probably suit him, especially if the Brown takeover is messy and contaminated with sleaze, if only by association. I think DC is playing his hand well.
All this makes it a tricky time for punters on the Blair Switch market. I think you can just about rule out Q4 2006 now, and the odds reflect this. I would be interested in Q1 2007 but for three things:
i) Blair is unlikely to offer resignation earlier than he has to
ii) The procedure for removing him against his will is, I understand, lengthy and cumbersome
iii) A Q1 departure fits in badly with the Parliamentary timetable, and is therefore none too attractive to Brown and supporters
These factors and possibly others may explain why the Q2 price has shortened in recent weeks. Things could change rapidly however. None of us is privy to the contents of Plod’s file. My guess is that it is probably not too damning but I wouldn’t bet the house on it.
Interesting and delicate times - for politicians and punters alike.
innocent A you have forgotten already the 2004/5 line that gordon was the Co-PM then, have you? Or Blair’s repeated talk and walk with Gordon during the GE last year and how he was the one really in charge of the campaign, the campaign that need the 14 million the Price is Right for a Peerage raised?
Perhaps Gordon will claim he tried to stop the corruption. If he does he will be open to the other charge of being at best ineffective at worst disingenuous.
Incidentally if any Tories think their party can produce a satisfactory explanation for why their top twenty or thirty largest financial donors are now life Peers perhaps they could send their explanation to CCO.
Because if any trials of any fundraiser takes place you can be sure that these questions will investigated with a relish not seen since the Witchcraft trials in Salem.
Tony Blair stated that God will be his judge.
Well as a god fearing man, he must now realise the judgement has been made, or did he not really mean those weasel words.
Lightning strikes Blair’s plane
Tony Blair visited a school in Bolton, before returning to London
Prime Minister Tony Blair’s election campaign plane has been struck by lightning during a flight.
BBC Radio Five Live presenter Peter Allen, who was on board, said it was hit as it approached London. The plane was not damaged and landed safely.
Mr Allen said he heard a loud bang but the prime minister, who was talking to a journalist at the time, was apparently “imperturbable”.
44. I watched AM. In my opinion the real star of the show was the legendary Peter Sallis.
As for John McDonnell - he puts me very strongly in mind of Robert Kilroy Silk. Not for his views, of course, but for his manner, speech patterns and appearance.
46 Or perhaps he is just a bully who is too attached to the perks of office to quit as politicians used to do if they government did something they seriously disapproved of.
I agree with every word of that Mike. Hutton looked like Mike Myers doing an impersonation of Dr strangelove-even his eyes moved in different directions! Mcdonnel was impressive if a little too leftish for my taste though he didn’t sound nearly as barking as Tony Benn for example who most cite as their favourite left-winger.
Re 47, Roger the news is that the Police have closed the book on the Conservative side of the investigation.
I suspect the issue is that you do not see the difference between £1 million ofr a peerage and people who have been long term party supporters getting one with out such a direct link.
Benedict. You are a long time Party supporter are you not? Is it just coincidence that the long time party supporters who gave a million get a peerage and those that deliver leaflets at all hours don’t?
As I said earlier it isn’t the police investigation that matters. It’s what the press do with it afterwards. If the difference between a prosecution and not a prosecution comes down to the explicitness of the offer then I expect the press will have a lot to say.
RE 53, Roger, no a long time voter for, only a member since May 2005.
As for the explitness of the offer and what the press will say that will be very interesting. I suspect Labours problem will be that no one wan’ts to attack the Conservatives, and if the do, it does not stick. Witness Mikes excelent picture and headline about what happened to Labours tax attack dog.
Any way I am off to the shops back latter.
Brazil presidential elections runoff today. Polls are indicating a re-election for Lula
Lots of stuff about “green taxation” in the Sunday papers. Looks like both Labour and Tory have decided that the Lib Dems new tax policy is a winner!
27. Scotland is not over-represented after the reduction in seats from 72 to 59. The seats are a comparable size to England’s apart from the 2 Islands constituencies , which have SNP and Lib Dem MPs, so doesn’t help Labour. Wales has 40 seats, though, which is too many for its population.
There’s a very good explanation on Baxter’s election prediction site as to why the Tories would get less seats than Labour on equal votes. Differential turnout and tactical voting are two of the main reasons.
A betting conundrum.
Reading Rawnsley et al., Gordon Brown is now a complete certainty for the Labour leadership. The clock is ticking and we are now a little more than 6 months from the time the market is telling us that Tony Blair will resign as party leader.
Yet, at effectively 5/2 on, the Brown odds are no shorter than they were six months ago, when the future was far more uncertain.
Either we punters are missing the best betting opportunity in years. Or pundits, like Rawnsley, who are paid to know what’s really going on, are hopelessly out of touch.
Interesting.
Roger, et al, this attempt to equate the Tories with Labour on the cash-for-ermine scandal doesn’t quite wash. I am sure the Tories have been doling out coronets, in return for favours, just like every governing party since 1905 or whenever (and that’s a scandal).
But you all forget something. The difference now is that Labour deliberately brought in legislation to clean up the mess - and then they found they were hard-up, so they deliberately evaded their own laws!
Quite an impressive level of hypocrisy and duplicity, even for this government.
Re the irony that Blair and New Labour might come a cropper over this scandal, rather than Iraq - I agree. Of course Iraq is New Labour’s shame and disgrace: it’s the policy by which we will all remember this government, and shudder.
But we all remember Al Capone for the St Valentine’s Day massacre, right? Yet in the end he was busted for tax evasion.
21. Surely it is clear if Blair is there even if in name only as Prime minister on the May Elections Labour will be slaughtered. They will take a hit anyway, but Brown might be able to at least get the activists out enough to staunch the flow of blood. If Balir is there they face the prospect of meltdown even in Scotland and Wales. Thrfore Cameron has the best possible interest for Blair to stay. Of course events couls still turf Blair out rgardless in which case Cameron might benefits just as much anyway by a different route in this instant.
seanT: It’s actually worth remembering that it was an unwritten rule that the owner of the Telegraph got a Tory peerage in short time. That’s how evil kleptocrat Conrad Black got elevated to our noble house - utterly besmirching that chamber in the process. The guy is an idiot and a corporate pillager (see his latest rant in today’s Telegraph for comedy value) and could never conceivably have won a peerage for any other reason than giving the Tories loyal backing in the press. That is what the Telegraph is for! It’s notable though that the new owners havent been enobled - Cameron spotted that there was trouble in that game, and credit to him.
I dont know why Black and his wierd Elvira wife Barbara Amiel havent been questioned as part of the Tory honours scandal…perhaps UK police figured that the Blacks were so enbroiled in their own corporate crimes in both USA and Canada that it would just slow the whole investigation down if they got sucked in.
But the case for being able to evict all the corrupt life-peers (Black, Archer, etc) promoted for various corrupt reasons grows ever stronger. Throw the lot out and start again!
Interesting paragraph in the newspapers:
“Scotland on Sunday understands that the Tory leadership favours a large-scale inquiry into the Iraq imbroglio along the lines of the Franks Inquiry into the Falklands War in 1982.”
This is what I was suggesting last week! Cameron must be an assiduous reader of pb.com.
I think it’s a cracking idea - a proper full public inquiry into the entire tragicomic mess of Iraq, the dossiers, the lies, the planning, the mistakes of the aftermath. Even if it hurts the Tories - and it should - it will hurt New Labour more. It is also morally the right thing to do.
Moreover, calls for a proper inquiry will wrong-foot Brown. Gordon would be hard-pushed to say No, because the public wants an inquiry - yet he will know it can only be bad for him and his party.
Go for it, DC.
63. Will he vote the Plaid/SNP motion to set up a committee to examine the build-up to the war and how decisions were made?
63. It would be very risky for the Tories to make Iraq a big issue. Their support for Saddam’s regime during the 80s would be dragged up.
Andrea - I doubt it. I suspect the Tories would want to come up with their own ideas - and maybe not quite yet.
But I am sure this is the road they will go down - demands for a proper, full, independent inquiry into the entire war. The Americans are bound to have one (didn’t they have a famous one after Vietnam?) and the UK government won’t be able to resist.
And it will mean years of pain for Labour. That’s too delicious to resist for DC, even if it does embarrass the Tories, too.
64. I think the ST says its unlikely. Back to Blair what is he exactly hoping will turn up.
But we all remember Al Capone for the St Valentine’s Day massacre, right? Yet in the end he was busted for tax evasion.
Very very good. I might even buy your latest book if you carry on like this.
65 Why would an enquiry limited to the build up, preparation for war and conduct of the occupation of Iraq look at anything other than recent history? Why do the opposition matter - as Mr Speaker has to remind Tony & Gordon at questions, it’s the conduct of government, those who are responsible, that should be investigated not what those without power say or do.
Faffing about of a Sunday, I just found this quote by John Kerry, in his testimony to the Senate in 1971, regarding the Vietnam War:
“We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
A pretty powerful quote, and so horribly applicable to Iraq. Who’s going to ask the British squaddie to be the last man to die in Iraq? To die purposelessly and pointlessly in a war we shouldn’t have fought?
If there is a public inquiry into Iraq - and I’m sure there will be - that John Kerry quote should be the epigraph.
Gotta go out now, have a nice Sunday everyone…
Mboy The whole honours system is a scandal that all the political classes conspire to keep going.
Senior civil servants only have to toe the line and survive to get their ‘K’. They certainly don’t have to be competent as we have seen recently. Old politicians go to the Lords. Small party backers get a lesser ‘K’ and if they are brown nosed enough or generous enough they go to the Lords, minor players who toe the line get MBE’s and slightly bigger line-toers get OBEs and CBEs.
John Major’s move to make them more appropriate soon fell on stoney ground. Quite a number of really worthy awards do still get through, but the majority are in the same class as all those medals the Keepers of the Kremlin used to display from Lenin’s tomb on revolution day. Your rank was demonstrated by the weight of tin. The pecking order set by the difficulty of keeping your left shoulders’ straight.
Its a tragedy for those who have genuinely earned the awards and a scandal for all the political class that they still thirst after them and perpetuate the system.
It needs to be given back to the Queen advised by an independent board she appoints working to a published rationale. After all that is the benefit of a constitutional monarch: they don’t have to compete to stay there.
59. No conundrum, Arthur.
A number of us on this site have been saying for some while the true odds should be no greater than 1-3 and we have mostly stocked up with value bets at prices up to and including 4-5. There’s little incentive for us to reenter the market at current levels.
Also, at odds lower than 1-3 the interest and opportunity costs start to become prohibitive, especially as nobody is sure how long TB will soldier on.
I agree there is still some value in the current price and you may wish to take it. Since I already have £500 at close to 4-5, I don’t expect to bet again in this market.
Wales on Sunday claiming Labour facing up to Nine losses next May, eight to the Conservatives.
Seat Changes : Tory gains Aberconwy, Cardiff North, Carmarthen West and Pembrokshire South, Newport West, Vale of Clwyd and Vale of Glamorgan.
Plaid Cymru gain, Arfon, Yynys Mon and Ceredigion.
Correction they seem to be Westminster predictions. If anything though that makes it worse for Labour as far as the Assembly goes.
73. I think they mixed together predictions of next GE and next year’s Assembly.
Ceridigion can’t be a Plaid gain next year, because they’re holding it at Assembly level
And I think they’re also just using this week’s ICM poll
74. I’m under the impression they just used unifor swing to predict which seats will fall
76. Even so they seem to be astonishing stuff for the Tories in Wales. Newport West falling into their hand not just obvious ones like Cardiff North. Newport West, last time that happened was 1983 wasn’t it.
73. Winning those six would be a remarkable performance for the Tories.
I think they just took the 39/29/22 ICM poll and run it into Baxter (and so they supposed that Plaid support is static)
77. Labour has performed worse than average in Newport West in both 2001 and 2005. So they now have a majority smaller than in some 1997 gains.
With all the polls swinging Cameron’s way, he wouldn’t want to accelerate Blair’s fall. The question is how will the Cash For Peerages Scandal work out as regards Blair. Most people in Blair’s shoes might decide to resign. But Blair being Blair will probably decide that he would prefer to fight any charges being prepared against him as PM, providing a high profile defence, doing a Bill Clinton. This affair could actually delay his departure date as he will not go down without a fight. Legal procedures being what they are, the bringing of charges could take a long time, and defending against them even longer.
78. Cardiff North, Aberconwy and the Vale wouldn’t be so remarkable, long history of Tories in Wales there. But Newport West! They only list those six but said eight Tory gains. Where else do they have in mind, are the Tories about to storm the Rhonnda?! Still 78 we can judge whatever Labour are doing at Westminster level they will do worse at Assembly level right.
Labour will be in power for a generation, the polls mean nothing as bias in the old dated boundaries strongly favour Labour. NuLabour aren’t afraid of a bit of electoral fraud either, they will buy votes by increasing the public sector, developing their handouts and client state then scaring people in voting for them (no labour = no money), they will also let in as many people as possible as over 80% of migrants traditionally vote Labour.
If you’re not in a Labour area or not one of their basket case demographic then be prepared to be taxed until the pips squeak. The ultimate aim of any quasi-socialist government is to utterly transform the country and remold it in their image, Labour are utterly unopposed in their aims, Cameron will in fact egg them on. They will remake man in man’s image and Engels will be proud.
82.”Where else do they have in mind, are the Tories about to storm the Rhonnda?!”
Don’t get too exicted! The tories won’t win the Rhondda! Newport West is a 15.3% majority, the Rhondda a 52% majority (with the tories in 4th place)
“They only list those six but said eight Tory gains.”
It’s clearly a bad written piece. They mix up GE and Assembly Elections. Then they mention “the party would lose nine seats, eight of them to the Conservatives”. So you should supporse they would lose just 1 seat to not tories. But then they list 2 Plaid gains from Labour
SNP is set to target Polish voters translating the manifesto in Polish and sending out registration cards in Polish.
SNP becomes Szkocha Partia Narodowa in Polish
84, Don’t worry “tongue in cheek” firmly. Assuming they did mean eigh Tory gains, and those are the first six, what would be the next three. Can’t they only vote 85 in LOcal Elections unless they’ve taken citizenship.
Vale of Clwyd and Newport West? That’d be getting into Conservative majority territory…
87. yes, but if you use a 39/29/22 poll, I think it’s pretty sure there would be a Tory majority
86. Well it is the local elections next year…
86. I think that in terms of majorities the next in line are Bridgend and Gower.
However I don’t think that piece is telling us any insights on the situation on the ground.
89. The Sunday Time says that around 50,000 immigrants from Poland are entitled to vote in Holyrood elections
Ah so 90, Devolved count as “locals” but they can’t at Westminster ie UK level.
86. now on reflection, will some polls for Welsh Assembly election be made in the not so distant future? There’re some about Scottish elections, but I didn’t see anything about Wales.
92. Less likely Scotland’s media is very separate. Wales is still dominated by the London press who will obviously be less interested in forking out large wads of cash.
On immigrants and voting. Only those people granted citizenship can vote in a general election. (Well assumming the laws enforced and as so many others aren’t maybe this one won’t be either)
Irish and Commonwealth citizens can vote in the GE. But we’re talking about locals and Holyrood next year anyway.
The article in Wales on sunday referred to above is so badly written its hilarious.
They have taken the ICM poll and applied it to Wales without any great thought. The Tories are not going to make a massive overall gain in seats next year as they did quite well last time. If, and its a big if, they win more seats at constituency level they will lose them from the regional list.
At the moment the only seat they can be confident of gaining is Cardiff North.Local factors make both Clwyd West and Preseli Pembroke three way fights though I think Labour will be third in Clwyd West.
Labour are very unpopular but it has more to do with whats happening in wales than with Blair. Labour have problems motivating their remaining members because of Blair but the public are more focused on issues such as Health whichis bad news for Labour.
96.”The article in Wales on sunday referred to above is so badly written its hilarious. ”
They probably had some space to fill somehow
93. Thanks
94 Benedict it’s wider than that: Only individuals whose name appears on the electoral register are entitled to vote. To vote in UK parliamentary elections a person must also be 18 years of age or over on polling day be a British citizen, or be a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Irish Republic (and resident in the United Kingdom), and not be subject to any legal incapacity to vote (eg be in prison) At local, devolved or European elections all the above plus members of the House of Lords &
European Union citizens.
96. Quite well. Their vote share is clearly going to increase. Therefore seats gains are likely. Plaid will no doubt do well in traditional Labour areas. Clwyed West and Preseli Pembrokeshire are highly likely to go Tory, Plaid will be establishing a good base for the future but I just can’t see with your lack of footsoldiers in the South threatening realistically to win. Yor resources will be going into the Llanellis of this world. Perversely of course a better than last time Tory showing in the North would help return Wigley. Seems bizarre Plaid have not sought a safe seat for one of their chief assets. I also think you seriously understimate the Blair factor, if he’s there you can bett turnout will be higher as more Tory and Plaid voters are motivated to turn out, while the Labour base goes AWOL.
83- Nearly all recent immigrants are from Eastern Europes former communist states, places like Poland where the not exactly socialist “Law and Justice Party” currently is in power in coalition with the even less left wing “League of Polish Families”.
What on earth gives you the idea that the mainly very young hard working people from these former communist states, many of whom are socially conservative (with a small C) practicing Roman Catholics, who grew up under the iron hand of socialism and practice their religion despite 40 years of socialist persecution, would consider touching Labour with a bargepole, never mind voting for them? Do not forget also that several cabinet ministers from the last conservative government are second generation eastern Europeans.
96. You seriously think Labour will hold the Vale of Glamorgan and Preseli? Can’t see that.
81 Tapestry
Perhaps this is the explanation for the Q1 2007 price drift. Legal proceedings would be slow and difficult. Blair would have no reason to assist by resigning early.
100 Well it is the actions of the current Labour government that have allowed them to come to Scotland in the first place, who are incidently pulling up the drawbridge behind them. And it’s not as if Scottish Labour and catholicism have a long history .
83 - I agree, do we therefore have a dictatorship?
Is that ultimately what democracy is about? - Hanging on to power by buying votes, bribing voters and manipulating the demographic for political advantage? Not to mention gerrymandering the voting system.
Is democracy, therefore, destined to fail in the long term?
If so will the people accept it forevermore, or will they eventually rise up?
And if they rise up, what would they replace it with?
73 I’d be very suprised if Plaid gained Ceredigion as the Lib Dems have made significant progress there since the last Assembly elections, taking the Westminster seat and also doing well in local elections whilst Plaid have fallen away.
Its the old problem of applying national swings to individual seats without taking account of local organisation and shifting sands between elections.
100. It is the SNP that is targetting them, not Labour. However, it is a huge leap in the dark to say that just because the Polish government is right-wing then Polish young people are going to be similarly minded. After all, most Poles under 30 have little or no memory of life under communism, and communism and socialism are not quite the same thing. We would have to see some Polish opinion poll data to gauge how young Poles are inclined to vote, and then chuck it because the sample is from among Poles who have stayed at home and not those who left the country, who might have an entirely different political outlook. And I hardly think that the fact Michael Howard’s grandfather was Romanian is going to win over a whole lot of Polish or Latvian voters…
104. What do you mean by “It’s not as if Scottish Labour and Catholicism have a long history”? It was my understanding that Irish Catholic communities in Scotland had generally supported the Labour Party since the 1920s.
Actually, on that topic, was there any discussion on here about Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s statement a few weeks ago expressing positive sentiments about Scottish independence? I am not sure this will have much of a causal effect, but it is highly symbolic of two things - the integration of Britain’s biggest ‘ethnic minority’ (Catholics in Scotland) into the mainstream of Scottish society, and I think should be deeply troubling for the Labour leadership, as I think it portends the crumbling of their Catholic base. I can’t see this vote going to the Tories, however, and I guess it will split SNP/LD, possibly on the basis of unionist/nationalist tendencies.
Where’s Max when you need him?
Indeed, to get back to the earlier point, as contrarian as it may seem, if the Poles are as devout Catholics as Paul believes, if they were under the impression that the Catholic hierarchy favoured the Labour Party, then perhaps it is possible that they would have voted that way, if they vote at all (which is actually fairly unlikely).
If Scotland should become independent (which I think is more likely than not) within the next 20 years, when the history books are written I think O’Brien’s comments may go down as a key event.
OK, as Andrea pointed out yesterday - when you are the author of three posts in a row it’s time to shut up.
Damn, that makes four now…
108 - Good to see you about again, Chrisco. I am a recent Roman Catholic convert, and I certainly do not support the Labour Party.
Why do you think there is there such a sense that, in this day and age, Catholics are an automatic Labour-leaning voting bloc?
Hey AHM - I am just about emerging back into the real world (almost…)
Basically, because in Scotland they are and have been since the collapse of the Liberals! Being mostly of Irish stock, the Conservatives were obviously a no-no, and the undercurrent of sectarian-nationalism that ran through the SNP for much of the last century made the Nats an unattractive prospect either. So the Labour Party it was.
Anti-Catholicism has a long and inglorious tradition in Scotland that fed into concepts of Scottish nationalism and is only just being overcome (slowly). I have read that at the turn of the 19th century in Glasgow there were more anti-Catholic societies than there were Catholic residents of the city!
106 - I would have thought it unlikely that Poles who get the vote would choose to support a party that would have blocked them coming in in the first place.
Did the SNP oppose expansion?
Why is it that I still can’t bring myself to take the odds on Brown for leader?
I believe he’ll be elected leader, its way better odds than any bank account and yet….yet something makes me uncomfortable. Instinct or stupidity?
I’ve always said that corruption is the only thing to force Blair out before the stated handover.Bear in mind that Brown either warned, or perhaps threatened Tony, with the claim that this whole loans business would get him into trouble…personally I’m more worried about the money Gordon is borrowing….
Why is it that I still can’t bring myself to take the odds on Brown for leader?
I believe he’ll be elected leader, its way better odds than any bank account and yet….yet something makes me uncomfortable. Instinct or stupidity?
I’ve always said that corruption is the only thing to force Blair out before the stated handover.Bear in mind that Brown either warned, or perhaps threatened Tony, with the claim that this whole loans business would get him into trouble…personally I’m more worried about the money Gordon is borrowing….
Why am i so thick as to post twice….
113 - I was referring to the Tories. I think the SNP are just anti-English; I think the Poles perhaps would count as surrogate aulde alliance.
How does the substantial ethnic Italian vote go in Scotland?
102. Blair is more susceptible to flattery than accusation and allegation. The more Brown resorts to strategies like the Watson resignations, encouraging or at least not blocking his acolyte Paul Dacre’s publishing General Dannatt’s views on Iraq and now clearly taking pleasure in Blair’s discomfiture over the Loans For Peerages enquiry, the less like a leader he seems, and the less likely he is to get a clear run at the leadership.
In fact the more dirt he throws around inside the tent, the less successful Labour seem as they plummet in the polls. On the other hand, if Brown offered Blair a deification Caesar style from a grateful Senate, Blair might be tempted. As it is, Brown wants not just the leadership but also a Blair humiliation. Blair will not buy into it, and will cling on with every claw. As the war of the Blair Succession gets nastier by the month, it becomes more and more likely that Blair and Brown will go down together in a vortex of bitterness, just as surely as they ruled supreme together for nearly a decade.
115 Yokel
I don’t think you are wrong, Yokel. As I said earlier (72) there is a little value in the current price but only a very little. There must be better opportunities elsewhere.
“In the Blair departure betting the Q2 2007 price has now tightened to 0.8/1.”
Blair has always shown every intention of staying until the very end of his self-imposed 12 month departure timescale - presumably in the vain hope that someone credible would emerge to take on Brown, which appears increasingly unlikely.
Bearing in mind that this is a three horse race between Quarters 1, 2 & 3 next year, Q3 currently available at 6.6/1 on Betfair looks like the best value bet.
113 et al - I can’t remember if I’ve posted this before so apologies if I am repeating myself.
A side issue to SNP, catholicism etc is that there is a significant element of the SNP that is actually quite socially conservative as can be seen by the (to my mind) surprising number of SNP MSPs that voted against the ‘gay adoption law’ (see here for details).
Indeed, one member is on record saying “I know that it is not politically correct—I was trying to make that point—but I cannot see how, to be frank, overturning tens of thousands of years of nature’s design will move us forward in society.”
However, in time honoured fashion, I’m not sure how this will play with the polish electorate.
Quite a canny move by the SNP, appealing to a people who have historically been ruled over by more powerful neighbours. There’s a clear resonance which they can hope to play on.
121. “Nationalist party in socially conservative shocker!”
3 Nays and 5 Abstentions from the SNP out of 27. To be honest I am almost surprised that there weren’t more.
121. Their MSP breakdown in the gay adoption vote seems to be: 16 in favour, 3 againt, 5 abstentions
I think they’re quite mixed in terms of being socially liberal or socially conservative
Chrisco - I’ll have to intevene to stop you posting three times in a row again…
I was surprised as the SNP follow a broadly social democrat line on most matters and (perhaps naively) I expected them to vote along with Labour and the Lib dems on this issue.
126. In a free vote about those issues, you’ll always get some MPs/MSPs stepping out of line…I’m not surprised at all seeing Fergus Ewing voting against
It’s like in the Westminster vote where you got some Labour and Libdem MPs voting against in the adoption bill
127 - Indeed, Fergus does have ‘previous’ in this kind of area.
From some accounts, the Lib Dem machine is limbering up to deliver a ’shock and awe’ campaign of dodgy bar charts and disingenuous claims in an effort to lay waste to his chances of re-election in May.
Civilian casualties might well occur, with those scarred by the battle left to wander the streets, murmuring “It’s a two horse race” and “only the Lib Dems can win here” quietly and piteously to themselves.
120 Peter from Putney
I’ve looked long and hard at this for some months but the trouble is that the quarters fall badly from a betting viewpoint.
May and June are the most likely resignations months but you can’t easily rule out July so ideally you want something that straddles the two quarters. I can’t find a value way of doing this so I have taken the next best option of laying all the other quarters.
The SNP courting the polish vote is quite a sensible idea- particularly in their target seats of Glasgow-Govan and (i am surprised at this one) Linlithgow, both marginal seats with a higher than average polish population! Although will the Poles vote- im not sure??? Still its getting the party some headlines and wont do any harm sending out leaflets in polish/ english!
Re 107 to 110, Chrisco and A H Matlock, I am Roman Catholic from a Roman Catholic family and we would never ever dream of voting Labour.
Re 116, Yokel, Can i refuce to answer?
131. Can I count as a Roman Catholic even if the last time I attended a mass was last Christmas?
131 - Good man, Benedict.
133 - Heathen!!!
134/35. I had to look at the dictionary to see if Alastair’s comment was an insult!
Yes Benedict - but are you Scottish?
131/134 Sad, your politics is just tribal.
So if a decent candidate came along who had integrity and with whom you agreed, but was Labour… you would abstain.
136 - Insult you, Andrea? Never!
138 - Full marks! And how likely is it that you would vote for a Conservative who fit that description, Jonathan?
Re 137, Chrisco, no but of Irish decent.
Re 138, Jonathan, if you are asking if in principle I would vote Labour the answer is no, because socialism does not work, and this lot are past masters at breaking things they do not understand. Would I vote for someone like Dennis Skinner if I were his constituant? Can’t answer that.
133 It’s OK Andrea.
Ego te absolvo.
Pietro
Papists for Dave
There was a study for the Tablet at the last general election suggesting that Catholics were more inclined to Labour than most:
http://www.mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml
143 - Excellent. I’m hedging my bets, you see. If I don’t get any ermine, perhaps I’ll get a red hat!