What should Gordon do about McDonnell?
October 30th, 2006
The illustration, with its imagery of the protests against the Iraq war, is the masthead from the campaign website of the only person so far to declare that he is standing for the Labour Leadership - the Hayes and Harlington MP and former Deputy to Ken Livingstone on the old GLC, John McDonnell. With much less being heard about a Reid or Johnson challenge the chances are that he could be the only alternative to Brown when next year’s race gets under way.
Yesterday he featured on BBC 1’s Sunday AM programme and he came over well. He’s photogenic; his voice is easy on the ear; and he is lucid. If he is the only candidate then he’ll get a lot more exposure and would present Gordon with a big problem when the inevitable calls for TV debates will be made. Should the Chancellor apparently give status to McDonnell by agreeing to take part and how would people compare the two?
-
A big part of McDonnell’s pitch is that he provides a protest vehicle for those large sections of the movement who are sore about NuLab generally and about the Iraq War. Because Brown’s victory is seen as a foregone conclusion many members and trade unionists will give him their votes without the risk of him getting it.
Of course Brown’s eventual victory is assured but a reasonable showing by McDonnell could be highly damaging and could also raise the issue of Gordon’s backing for Blair on Iraq.
McDonnell’s biggest challenge, however, will be getting on the ballot paper in the first place. The rules require him to find 44 fellow Labour MPs to sign his nomination and the signs are that this will be tough. With many colleagues focused on their career prospects under the new leadership there won’t be too many prepared to risk upsetting Gordon.
-
So for Gordon is it better to have a contest than a coronation? Could he, for instance, encourage McDonnell to stand by enouraging others to sign the nomination?
Brown might judge that the best way of starting his leadership would be with an emphatic election victory. The way he had got the job would be seen to have been fair and all the associated publicity of a campaign might help create the succession poll bounce that his team so desperately want.
The alternative, a coronation, could open him and the party up to attacks from the Tories and Lib Dems who have both gone through leadership contrasts in the past year. What does it say about Labour, you can hear it being argued, that there was only one candidate because not enough Labour MPs wanted to risk upsetting their future boss by signing his opponent’s nomination paper?
The more I’ve thought about this the more I am drawn to the view that Gordon will avoid a contest if at all possible. He’s risk averse and a challenge poses the bigger uncertainty. I do believe, however, that McDonnell’s quest for his 44 signatures will become a big story and that he will succeed whether Gordon likes it or not.
In the betting I’ve invested a total of £6 at an average price of 478/1 on McDonnell. I do not think he will win but that price will move dramatically if he is able to run and I should get out at a profit.
Mike Smithson
-
Politicalbetting.com - the UK’s most read political blog
MessageSpace Advertising
A poor choice of phrase from the web site mentioned above:
“Isn’t it time that the Prime Minister admits that the decision to support the US invasion of Iraq was the greatest political misjudgement since the second world war?”
Could McDonnell be for Gordon Brown what IDS was to Portillo in 2001? An outsider, a eurosceptic, a conviction politician, the David who slew Goliath.
Ugh, another ghastly socialist.
Either of these two men is a political gift for David Cameron. Both will frankly look like oiks compared with DC’s smooth, polished approach.
I know it’s old fashioned to say so, but I really do think that David Cameron has the breeding - and that’s important for someone who’s to be our leader.
Just like Macmillan, Thatcher or even Blair, Cameron knows how to carry himself and is a class act in every sense.
Brown (and this McDonnell character) are much more akin to ghastly failures like Callaghan, Wilson or Major.
I’m confident that, when presented with this contrast, the Great British Public will do the right thing.
Breeding?
I was nodding my head at your fitrst sentence until that brought me up short. I am sure you don’t mean actual class and bloodlines, do you?
Brown definitely has a streak of petulance and boorishness that will down dreadfully. At the same time, what is left of his reputation will be in shreds as wards close across the country. He will be a fag-end PM and will never win an election.
It may be better for Labour to take their medicine and elect him, though, since I do not see any Lab politician who will be able to wriggle out of the NHS, immigration, and crime debacle we are seeing. If they elected a possible future leader like Miliband or Benn they would still lose, and then their ‘good’ politician would have been wasted. Better to select Gordon, get the kicking that is coming down the pipe anyway, and then start afresh with a Cameron like figure after the election - rebuild.
I didn’t mean bloodlines as such. Rather it’s a case of good upbringing and indeed his general approach to life. David Cameron knows what’s what. He oozes confidence and is a natural born leader.
Brown, by contrast, comes across as rather chippy and lacking in self-confidence. He doesn’t seem comfortable in his own skin - which no doubt explains his irritability.
I know it’s an unfashionable view, but I really do think much of this is down to education (and I don’t mean just up to the age of 21). Brown has grown up with trade unionists and what’s laughingly referred to as the ‘Labour Culture’. David Cameron has grown up with the countries leaders and captains of industry. And in both cases it shows. The contrast could not be more clear.
5 So Cameron is part of a ruling elite, eh? Sounds like a good reason to vote against him. ho does he represent?
I thought Britain had moved on from such snobbery. Sometimes I wish we applauded the American dream. Brown has achieved more in his life then most of us, off his own back, ever will. I respect that.
America has more of a ruling elite than we do.
5. PS George W Bush has the same background as Cameron.
Thanks Mike for another excellent tip. Like you, I invested £6. I must have been just behind you in the queue because I only got a measly 400-1!
From what little I know of McDonnell I would guess he is the type of maverick who would be likely to run. He has nothing to lose, since no Leader would give him a job anyway, and a huge amount of publicity to gain. GB is unlikely to discourage him because he would be easy to beat but provide the semblance of a proper contest. All the other possible candidates have too much to lose from running and failing, so I reckon it has to be a maverick like McD or nobody.
Good call, Mike. When the contest starts, his price must drop to double figures and we can start laying off by the bucket load.
Now that’s what I call value!
Margaret Thatcher did not grow up with captains of industry; she was born to a grocer in Grantham.
I believe you can be born to lead; an innate confidence, intelligence and charisma; Brown lacks two out of three. But not that who yu mix with as a child dicates your leadership qualities. Thatcher was surrounded by well bred toffs as she attempted to reform our party, and they were all dripping wet and well to the left of Tony Blair today.
3. A bit early for the wind ups to be starting isn’t it?
I think George W Bush kills the breeding argument stone dead.
However, I should say that there are a few figures whose personal wealth has given them independence and the ability to hang on to their integrity. Combine that with someone who likes people and you end up with Roosevelt, Kennedyand Macmillan.
Cameron is not in this class, his attacks on brown are too personal . He has little honour in my book as a result.
Perhaps Mike would care to assure us that this morning’s posts are from the genuine Eleanor - they sound like someone else to me
Surely there are more than 44 Labour MPs who either have no hope or intention of preferment from Brown or who are standing down? I’d be astonished if Brown didn’t regard McDonnell as the ideal candidate - associated with the “loony left” of the 1980s and a London MP to boot (never underestimate the hatred of the “smoke” amongst Labourites - and not only Labourites - once you get more than 100 miles or so away). I daresay even Nick Palmer MP would sign McDonnell’s papers if Gordon asked him to…
Further to 9, I was reading a betting book last night and found out something new which is kind of relevant to the McD punt.
Bookmakers must offer odds on all entries in a contest, even those who have no earthly chance. This explains why they will generally put up the LDs at GE time time, usually at odds of about 150-1. More realistic odds would be about 1,500-1 which used to make me wonder why they bothered at all. I now know. If they didn’t bother, all bets would be declared void becuase the punter has to be offered the chance to bet on all possible outcomes.
They will have to price up McD. It is unlikely to be at odds greater than 100-1, however improbable his success might be.
Eleanor, do policies come into it?
As a result, in part, of skirmishes on pb.com,
I became active in a Labour Clp again. (someones got to help stop Cam&co).
Surprised to find how Blairite the party. 2/3 people into compass, may back a left candidate or Benn mk2. The rest (40+) want Brown. Was genuinely surprised by this.
Suggest brown lets mcdonell get on with it and prove how much of an outsider he is.
re 13. I can confirm that, as far as I know, she is genuine. Her email address matches what a Google search comes up with.
3,5. I’m speechless, but it’s just probably my lack of breeding. But thankfully Mrs T changed everything so how much can I pay you to shut up?
12. Well Kennedy certainly liked women.
3/5 Eleanor. There’s nobody on the site more appreciative of bloodlines, breeding, leadership and character than me. I personify the lot and look what happened to me and my black wool overcoat … bah bah bah !!
Mike Smithson - thank you for that (I think!). It seems remarkable that some people on here are sufficiently intolerant to question my credibility just because they have different views.
I’d wager, however, that my views are rather closer to those of ‘real people’ than those of Labour professional politicians posting on this site.
Mike - this site does get some very ‘interesting’ visitors. Long may it continue!
Jack, I have followed this only obliquely. Are you a Scottish viscount or something?
21. You describe working people as ‘oiks’ but we’re the intolerent ones? The problem with your ‘type’ is that you think good etiquette is the same as good manners.
How much would you like to wager by the way?
O/T Is this a quiet week or the one when Blair is finally interviewed by Insp Knacker?
21. going home now - i’ll leave 100 pounds on the table, though how we determine the outcome of such a subjective question is tricky
“You describe working people as ‘oiks’”
Did she? Where?
23
He pretends that he is.
28. Quite.
“Both will frankly look like oiks compared with DC’s smooth, polished approach.
I know it’s old fashioned to say so, but I really do think that David Cameron has the breeding - and that’s important for someone who’s to be our leader.”
Typical Tory.
She said Brown and McDonnell look like oiks, but the subtext was ‘of an inferior class’.
Well, a remarkably insightful thread so far.
You’re entitled to your views, Eleanor, and my Tory mum had some sympathy with them: she really liked Anthony Eden, and thought Ted Heath and Mrs T were successive declines for much the reasons you suggest. But she was willing to accept that there are alternative weays to become a respected leader, and she liked what she thought of as ‘genuine’ people who had overcome difficulties and proved themselves - she was suspicious of Harold Wilson but thought Callaghan was sound and admired Gordon Brown and David Blunkett. I think the Tory party has moved away from her, though, and, with respect, from you as well: they have been captured by the marketing and sales types.
John McD is a perfectly civil and lucid man who will put his case sensibly, and I think a Brown-McD contest would be quite healthy. Michael Meacher is a more plausible candidate of the left, though, as he adds a strong green element and doesn’t have so much baggage over Northern Ireland. They will be fishing in the same pool for nominations if MM goes for it. The hard left has a limited constituency in the party nowadays - most have resigned over one thing or another. There was a letter in the Sunday Times yesterday from a chap who banged on about the great days of Labour before 1987!
33.”Michael Meacher is a more plausible candidate of the left, though, as he adds a strong green element and doesn’t have so much baggage over Northern Ireland.”
At the beginning I thought the same, but then I was reminded of Meacher’s theories about 9/11
33. ‘they have been captured by the marketing and sales types’. Thank goodness that never happened to Labour, eh? still unreformed tankies to a man.
23
More like Walter Mitty with the same imagination.
I think us Conservatives are settled on wanting brown. Nuff said.
We don’t care how he gets it as long as there is infighting.
22 Spartacus. Talking of “interesting visitors” on the site reminds me that two of the nations un-earthly polititians Lembit ‘phone home’ Opik and John ‘Klingon’ Redwood are reputed to scan Mike’s august organ. One might wonder whether providing information to the far side of the galaxy constitutes making PB one of the best out of world experiences going.
And whilst on the theme of political celebrity perhaps Mike might consider some endorsements for the site a la Ian Dales Diary :
Jeffrey Archer .. “PB does wonders for prison palour”
Tony Blair .. “You meet a kinda straight type of guy on PB”
David Cameron .. “I have no plans to green tax PB”
Nick Soames .. “PB, the best slimming aid since famine.”
David Steel .. “Return to your keyboards and prepare for repetative strain injury.”
Margaret Thatcher ..”U turn if you want to ..PB’s not for turning.”
George Galloway .. “I salute Mike Smithson’s indefaticability.”
David Beckham .. “A must read for political academics like me.”
Winston Churchill .. “Never in the field of political conflict has so much be owed by so many to so few.”
George W Bush .. My fellow Americans Political Bet Noir along with Gordo Fawkes and Eon Days Dairy represents an axis of evil that must be confronted at all coasts.”
Incidentally, punters are still predicting a Democrat sweep of at least the House (e.g. Betfair sets Republicans at 3.35 on House conhtrol), but the polls and articles like this
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-2428558,00.html
sound increasingly doubtful. The latest poll shows that 50% would like a Democrat-controlled House, 35% a Rep-controlled one, and 15% aren’t sure or don’t care. Enough to overcome the incumbency factor? A pretty close call, I suspect, and gaining the Snate is looking fairly unlikely.
Well, the class warriors are out early this morning.
I am sure that once Brown has to stand behind that dispatch Box week after week the contrast between an urbane Cameron and a nail biting bully like Brown will become starker and starker.
Starker still because Blair is a smooth operator and he and Cameron look well matched at PMQ. When Blair finally departs the scene it will be suddenly and dramatically clear that the second team have taken over.
And the small part of the electorate that decide elections like a winner.
I wonder when we will get the first ‘Son of Demon Eyes’ poster attacking Cameron?
28/29 john/commentator. It seems that for the two of you irony is something akin to what Baldrick called “bronzy” !!
Nick P, and until late in the day on election day 2004, the Democrats were favourites on all the betting exchanges. Even after Bush was predicted to take FL, he was still being traded to lose the election. Tradesports doesn’t know everything. I hear Rs are gaining confidence and it will be close.
And think of what the betting markets were saying on Dunfermline!
It was not something as transient as the Labour leadership campaign which was at the forefront of Gordon Brown’s thoughts when he spoke in his constituency last night, but rather the Treaty of Union itself. He “… used his introductory remarks to Mr King’s annual Adam Smith lecture to launch a stinging attack on independence.”
That is in itself an excellent piece of news for the Scottish people. It is yet another piece of evidence that independence has firmly lodged itself back at the very top of the political agenda in Scotland, a position it has not dominated in such a sustained manner since the 1970’s. I differentiate here between pseudo-independence - devolution/home rule - which has obviously dominated political debate for most of the past 40 years, and proper national sovereignty, which has nearly always had a secondary or even tertiary role in the public political consciousness. Now it is back to the top again, except this time with a strong, parallel movement for English self-determination too. If Mervyn King is worried, then there must be other bastions of the British state in a bit of a tizzy too.
Bank governor criticised for hailing success of the Union
44. I thought the SNP’s response to King’s speech showed them in a very poor light - petty and narrow in the extreme.
45. PM
Indeed? How so? I thought Salmond hit the nail on the head when he said “In Smith’s terms, Mr Brown is only motivated by enlightened self-interest. In other words, his concern about the Union is only about him becoming PM.”
Gordon’s best shot is stopping McDonnell at the signature stage. This is the type of contest where union and ordinary party members can vote their natural inclination and not be penalized. Vote for McDonnell and they’ll still get a Labour government for another 2-3 years, an end to the war in Iraq and a pretty good shot at a fourth term. Whereas with Brown, you get Blair without the charisma and a microscopic move to the left. If you’re a Blair-hater, which one do you choose?
King’s speech, not Brown’s.
Alright somene appears to have taken the hump with my lkate night postings last night about the far right in Ireland & the UK as they have disappeared.
Any explanations anyone?
50.Yokel, I noticed that as well, I was beginning to wonder if I had posted on a earlier thread by accident, but all posts seem to have disappeared after about 11:30pm.
49 Yokel. Spooky !!
…. see my first para @ 38 for a possible explanation !!
I thought I may have been censored, first time ever anywhere I have to say..except for m mum teling me to shut up when i was a kid…
Ah well, no damage either way.
40 “Nail Biting Bully” Yet another Tory personal attack.
Getting a bit tiresome. It’s a bit rich for you guys to complain about playing the man, when your attacks on Brown have been some of the most relentless, agressive and personal in my memory. Give it a rest boys.
Jack I couldn’t possibly comment on Mr Opik and his possible powers, I know a few people who claim to know him from his days as a youth in Belfast….hasn’t lost the accent too much either, whils i lose mine on a fortnight’s holiday trip to USA.
PM
Admittedly I have only had time to skim the relevant articles, but I cannot find a single reported sentence from any SNP spokesman in response to Brown and King’s speeches which could in any way be portrayed as “petty” or “narrow”, let alone “extremely” so. To what exactly are you referring when you make such a bold statement?
These are the relevant reports, so far as I am aware:
Herald: Why a Scot is on English money
Guardian: Adam Smith becomes first Scot to adorn an English banknote
BBC: Row over bank boss’ union speech
… plus the front-page headline Scotsman article I linked to earlier.
53 - All the more shocking given all the nice things our regular Labour posters have had to say about David Cameron and the Conservative Party.
I would be interested to hear Nick or any Labour poster’s view on this question of the 44 signatures for McDonnell. There must be a fair few MPs who have no expectation of advancement and want to protest the Iraq war. They may not number 44, I suppose, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they did.
On the question of the US elections 20 democrat gains look a reasonably likely prospect ( they need 15) but a ’sweep’ say 30-40 far less so. Frankly the Senate is tough to call. 3 democrat gains are all but in the bag; Pennsylvania, Ohio and Rhode Island. Conrad Burns has clambered back to within a few points in Montana but is probably a goner too. That leaves Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia, all of which are very close. The Democrats need two. I personally doubt Harold Ford will take Tennessee; a black challenger in a southern seat probably needs a 5 point lead in the polls to offset ’shy racism’ and he’s just behind. I guess George Allen may just pull it out in Virginia but without any great confidence and I suspect the Democrats might just take Missouri. The x factor are the strong challenges in New Jersey and Maryland; two very blue states. As to the first one southerner talking about corruption in that region said; ‘Thank god for New Jersey’. Menendez is an incumbent with ethical issues with only a small lead and languishing well below 50% in the polls. Tom Kean has a very famous father, much loved in the State although he does come across as pretty green at times. In Maryland the Republicans have a terrific black candidate, Michael Steele, who is giving a rather dull untalented Democrat the fight of his life. His ad responding to Michael Fox’s, in my view tasteless, contribution on stem cell research was devastating. If he can pick up a decent slice of the black vote, fed up that Kwume a black candidate was knocked out in the primaries, he could yet mount an astonishing upset. The odds are against the GOP in both these seats but they do have a real chance in each one. All in all the GOP are favourites to hang on; Real Clear Politics suggest only 4 net losses; but they can’t afford a bad last week.
53. ““Nail Biting Bully” Yet another Tory personal attack.” Jonathan, the biggest problem I have with Brown is his avoidence of tough situations whether it be interviews, answering questions at the despatch box or disappearing when Labour is in trouble. What ever your political allegiance it does worry me that this man will be PM and possible even without a leadership contest within his own party.
I would like to know if like Blair, Cameron or even Campbell he can cope with the rough and tumble of a leadership campaign never mind running the country.
As for “playing the man” you are having a laugh, Dave the chameleon and Sion Simon’s video spring to mind.
I’ve just lost a posting. Have I been ‘censored’? It seemed pretty innoccuous.
57.”I would be interested to hear Nick or any Labour poster’s view on this question of the 44 signatures for McDonnell. There must be a fair few MPs who have no expectation of advancement and want to protest the Iraq war. They may not number 44, I suppose, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they did.”
More than MPs protesting about Iraq, I think there’re MPs who think a contest is needed and if no other candidate emerges they can sign McDonnell’s papers to allow him to stand and have a contest. (Then they can vote for Gordon anyway, I think)
WHat will be interesting will be the difference between the number of public signatures for McDonnell, and the number of private MPs’ votes. It will indicate the number of people who hate Gordon but dont want to upset him for career reasons.
Also, take a look at this comical Telegraph leader today on environmental taxes:
Note all the wriggling on climate change itself too, right out of the Republican book. These people are hillarious - so out of touch with the British people it is untrue. I hope they continue to influence the Tory party!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/30/dl3001.xml
The answer from the Tory right is apparently not behaviour taxes…but instead to privatise the rainforests and extend property-rights to the air and water!
39. Last minute jitters as a result of daring to believe. The Dems have been here before… 25-30 Republican seats are vulnerable. Of these it is practically certain that the Democrats will pick up 7, and another 3 or 4 are probable. That means they only have to win 1/3 of the remaining ‘toss-up’ races. I don’t think that the Democratic majority in the House is going to be as big as some were perhaps predicting a fortnight ago, but I can’t see them failing to take it. On the other hand, Claire McCaskill and Harold Ford both seem to have lost some momentum in their Senate races in Missouri and Tennessee. My hunch is that the GOP will retain both seats and control of the Senate.
As for McDonnell - surely a leadership campaign against him gives Gordon the chance to show how ‘New Labour’ he actually is?
zebidee@59
check the “banned list” first (link on rhs just above “archives”).
it happened to me recently - discussions on the future of the dome were difficult without using words on the list!
55. Thanks for the links. I must say I never thought I would find myself agreeing with the likes of George Foulkes, but his comments seem quite correct to me. To accuse the BoE Governor of making political speeches on behalf of the Labour government is ridiculous rabble rousing.
61.”WHat will be interesting will be the difference between the number of public signatures for McDonnell, and the number of private MPs’ votes”
The MPs vote is public. The list of how all MPs voted is released at the end of the contest
Ah, didnt know that Andrea.
59 zebidee. Take a scan at the banned list opposite. Some commonish words and phrases appear there and you might have trangressed …… or perhaps this is the start of Dubya’s shock and awe as per last para @ 38 !!
59 Oh no its the curse of the word C A S I N O isn’t it….
As a part owner of such an online enterprise I think censoring the word is ridculous, I mean I have better things to do than just try to advertise my business in everything I do online, that would be totally unprofessional.
Regards
Yokel
givemeyourhardearnedcashgamesemproium..com
My spelling is terrible…I’d like to apologise…
Yokel
givemeyourhardearnedcashgamesemporium..com
Of course the Tories are playing the man, quite dishonoruably in my opinion. Osbourne has been out saying that Brown is not a nice person. What a sophiticated critque of govt policy.
Face it, Tory attacks are on Brown are very personal and ddo not deal with anything substantial. The nasty party stil up to it’s old tricks, behind a crocodile smile.
As for Sion Simon’s effort, well that was just rubbish. At least the Chameron thing dealt with what little Cam has said on policy. One way or another.
We have had Dave the chameleon, how about the Invisable Brown?
We could list how often he has done a difficult interview, answered questions on tax credits or been around when the PM or other cabinet minister’s have been under pressure to defend the governments policies.
Jonathan
If the British public re so sophisticated then they wont buy the personal attacks but clearly they do on occasion whethe those attacks are delivered by an opposing party or the media.
Some might say (and its just an idea) that the thing that ultimately lost Labour the election in 1992 was that people couldn’t stomach voting for Kinnock the man…
71. Don’t you always remind it here as much as not tories go on and on about Dave, the Chameleon?
I think it’s ok to remind it by tory posters as much as it’s ok for not tories to remind that DC has less policies than McDonnell (who is set to lauch his policy papers soon)
70. At least Labour have steered clear of personal attacks over the past decade eh?
The only question this morning is: Eleanor is that a person or a franchise, if it is a person is it female, if its female is Cameron s******g it, get thee to an igloo woman!
75. ?
57. Oh come on Blue - Michael Steele put up a good show but he’s got no chance. The last three polls put Ben Cardin 5%, 11% and 12% ahead in Maryland - the 11% lead was in a poll with a sample size of over 1000, which is unusual for a state-wide poll and therefore with a smaller margin of error.
Surprisingly Marty O’Malley has opened a lead in the governor’s race, which I wasn’t expecting.
And if New Jersey were any state other than NJ then Menendez would be out on his ear.
As I said earlier, I think MD, NJ, TN, and MO will all be holds.
P.S. Trivial fact: Michael Steele was once Mike Tyson’s brother-in-law.
74 If you list the insults and character assinations on Brown from the Tories in the past months, nothing Labour have done has come close.
They are going for a still-birth for the Brown premiership and are very, very personal. Dishonourable and nasty in my opinion. On pb.com it’s worse sometimes, he’s been called “old one eye” - what’s that supposed to achieve? What a devestating critique.
64. PM “To accuse the BoE Governor of making political speeches on behalf of the Labour government is ridiculous rabble rousing.”
Mmmm… so, a civil servant, indeed the most important civil servant in the United Kingdom, the Governor of the Bank of England, makes a speech in the Labour Chancellor’s consituency in Scotland. The Governor dedicates his speech to attacking the key, founding policy of the Chancellor’s main political opponents: Scottish independence.
Now imagine that instead of Kirkaldy, Mr King had been speaking in Keighley, and dedicated his speech to lambasting the key policy of the government’s main political opponents there: the Conservative Party? Do you not think that, just perhaps, David Cameron may have had a few words to say on the appropriateness of such a speech in the press the following day?
I would love to illustrate my point by providing the “key, founding policy” of the British Conservative Party, but alas I am not aware of one!
79. So the “Shylock posters” at the last GE were acceptable?
… I can’t spell “Kirkcaldy”. I always miss out that flippin “c”.
73. Andrea, I think Brown is trying to steer policy from No11 while Blair is still next door, but I still don’t know what he stands for.
We have been told in the past that he has been behind or vetoed Labour policy, but these stories have usually been briefed by anonymous brownites. But I suppose it has helped build the image that he is a formidable politician, but will an actual Brown PM live up to the myth?
79. Jonathan, I think that it is perfectly reasonable on a political site to question Brown’s abilities as a politician.
82. Stuart, I always have to spell check Dunfermline!
They were not acceptable, but they are mild in comparison to the relentless abuse that’s going on now.
84 I agree. How does the “one eye” thing or “nail biting” fit in to that. It doesn’t - it’s just abuse.
Just thinking out loud here on McDonnell, so if there are any obvious flaws in my reasoning, don’t hold back…
If Gordon continues with his famously cautious approach to politics and seeks to head off a contest, could he conceivably “buy off” McDonnell by offering him a good job? And might that in turn placate the Labour left if they see one of their own (for want of a better expression) given a high-profile role in a Brown administration?
Or could that be more trouble than it’s worth if the Tories make a charge of running scared stick, plus the possible dangers of his party being portrayed as lurching to the left?
Any thoughts?
Just heard GB on the box. He really is a dull speaker, you almost fall asleep. Speaking is definitely not his forte.
Kevin_M: Blair-haters are a small minority in the Labour membership - if you hate the party leader and he keeps winning anyway to your impotent fury, it’s a matter of time before you push off.
I think a contest would be a good thing, and if it were possible to sign nomination papers for someone without it being seen as supporting them, I’d consider it - but it’s not. I’d guess that many MPs who expect Brown to be a good leader are in a similar position.
Incidentally, the way Tories go on about Brown personally is unpleasant, but simply suggests to me that he worries them (I’m sure you could say the same of Labour people who bang on about Cameron being a toff) - an honest Tory would say he maybe didn’t like him personally, but wasn’t yet sure how well he’d go down with voters as PM. The stuff about his avoiding questions is simply mistaken, and I’ve seen him countless times answering in the House. If he did it as often in the media, he’d be accused of acting as though he were already PM.
79 - On pb.com it’s worse sometimes, he’s been called “old one eye” - what’s that supposed to achieve?
About as much as referring to the Conservative Party as a ‘turd’ Jonathan. Hardly a devastating critique either.
83. Chris, I understand what you’re saying.
What I found amusing at the time was that some Tory posters were complaining about that regarding GB and then they were proposing people (like Benn or Johnsons who made so much u-turns this week) we know even less about
Re 79 Jonathan, what would be more accurate is
If you list the insults and character assinations on Brown from Labour in the past months, nothing Conservatives have done has come close.
87. Andy D…unlikely to see McDonnell in a government job…even if he’s offered a job, he wouldn’t survive long without resigning to rebel about something
Question: If McDonnell is the only challenger what is an emphatic victory margin for Brown over him?
Anything less than a victory against a left winger with (in the public mind) a fairly low profile will just keep causing questions to come up. Thats the way it works, whether people like it or not.
an emphatic victory…..
92. HF
92. yes, and some will stick on him as much as the Theresa May’s “nasty party” tag stick to the tories
Jonathan, I recall that Hague was called a “foetus” by the Late Tony Banks.
Mudslinging always goes on in politics and the key is to make sure it all sticks to your opponents and doesn’t come back on you. e.g some of Osborne’s remarks have come back and hurt him - not so good.
Have a look at the US election for some great examples. it is a different league altogether.
I have not, I think personaly insulted Brown. I doubt him on his record. I note what his coleagues have said about him, and think he would be our easiest opponent.
Particularly if he gets to be viewed as ill tempered at PMQ’s.
If any one feels I have personaly insulted the man please point it out and I will appologise.
Incedently I have moved my blog to beta and added a labels feature. I am updating articles with lables over the next few days. Anyone here you reads my blog, please feel free to let me know if you think it is any good or not.
91. Labour’s problem is that for so long Gordon Brown has been the heir apparent, and even 18 months ago no one would have batted an eyelid if he had simple had a coronation as leader.
Now suddenly they are facing the fact that Gordon is still a certainty to be the next leader of the Labour party, but he is not looking like the election winner he seemed in the polls then.
As many people have commented he is not a risk taker and I have no doubt he will try and avoid any type of real leadership contest. His lack of courage in that aspect is I think his greatest weakness, and it will become a more apparent to the public if there is not a genuine Labour leadership contest.
98. Ah bless the USA and their personaised and negative. Anyone who came across the Democrat advert regarding that guy Foley and his interest in young males will realise that we are lucky in the UK. I nearly caused a car accident when I heard it.
Remember Spitting image, even the Pope did not get an easy ride.
I think to be a British political leader in 2006 you have got to have a thick skin.
79 “If you list the insults and character assinations on Brown from the Tories in the past months, nothing Labour have done has come close.”
Quite so… for example “completely stupid”, “psychologically flawed”, “an effing awful prime minister”.
Isn’t it shocking how people engage in such unwarranted ad hominimem attacks.
or ad hominem I should say
99… surely not McDonnell would be an absolute gift to both the Tories and LDs. His Northern Ireland stuff alone would reduce Labour sub-200.
100. Yes - Labour have choices, but all of a sudden none of them look very attractive. So Brown to win (and then lose) by default.
What should Gordon do about McDonnell?
Nothing?
I think it is legitimate to observe that a leader seems uncharismatic, unpleasant, and dour. He may be the nicest guy in the world, but these are comments on presentation and how he comes across. I have never met GB, so these are observations on his media presence. Furthermore, I think it is not a peronal attack, but an attack on a record, to deplore a combination of shifty briefing against Blair but no courage to actually move against him (and then to disavow your own lieutenants when they do it).
I am becoming ever more hopeful and excited that GB is, as Nick says, a “shoe-in” since I cannot think of a Labour MP more likely to lose the election as Prime Minister.
105 - Have to agree. I think Claire Short has more chance of ending up on the Labour front bench than John McDonnell.
What the media does in comedy is one thing - personal attacks on or off the record by leading politcians are another. I can’t recall such an orchestrated personal attack campaign since Kinnock. A bit of tumour in our body politic.
There is enough to praise/attack Brown for in what he has done or in how he has conducted his politics. There is no need for personal abuse.
The issue of the campaigning unoffical biographer - who is clearly out to get Brown - is one that really intrigues me. He is an intellegent guy and apparently Mike’s personal friend from uni. I can’t see why someone would want to go to the effort of writing a biography - just to spend years slagging them off for what they did or did not do at uni. What’s the motivation here? Why would you cross the road to tell someone you think they’re rubbish? There is at least the whiff of something behind this
108 Commentator
I think you meant to say “shoo-in”, until he gets the “boot-out”…
[80] The Governor of the Bank of England is not a civil servant. Since being nationalised in 1944, the Bank of England is a State Corporation, regulated by a series of Acts of Parliament since it’s foundation in 1694- by a Scotsman, James Patterson.
[3] Astonishing to hear “breeding” being seriously put forward as a reason to support any given politician in the 21st Century. I mean, I know the Conservatives are traditionalists, but this is a somewhat bizzare posting.
RE 103, Ed, I think you will find that those are mere quotes from Labour sources.
110. Kinnock deserved it, so does Brown.
93 - I knew there was an obvious flaw somewhere in there, thanks Andrea.
The quotes from leading Labour figures on Brown are far more extreme than anything a Tory has said “still had to prove he was fit to govern” and “stupid”(Clarke), “psychologically flawed” (Mandelson), “an effing awful prime minister” (Hutton).
The venom involved is very poisonous.
112 Cicero
Mervyn King most certainly is a civil servant. It is a tad disingenuous to try to claim that the head of a nationalised body is not a servant of the state, ie. a civil servant. Not all civil servants are employed by the UK Civil Service you know. Employees of the Civil Service, executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies (ie. quangoes), public advisory bodies, tribunals and nationalised industries are all civil servants. And Mr King is by far the most important one of the lot.
86, 103 It is disappointing when politicians indulge in abuse & character assassination.
However, far worse is when politicians use their public position to abuse and smear ordinary citizens who cannot defend themselves. New Labour’s record on this is not pleasant (David Kelly, Craig Murray, Rose Addis, to quote just some examples that come quickly to mind).
57. You are joking right? The MD press sees the Republican candidate as vicious in the extreme. I grant you that the D candidate is dull but on for “the fight of his life?” Has to be a D hold in MD.
116 Indeed, they’re all wrong - look what good it did them. Two wrongs don’t make a right…
At least, Labour seems to be getting its house in order after its insanity. Clarke has apologised after all for his post sacking biterness. Mandleson has repented too. The last remark was private.
Parties internal tensions are one thing. The national politcal debate is another. George Osbourne found this out in the commons.
Jonathan The Tories did not describe Brown as a bully, his cabinet colleagues did. And it was his party’s spin master than said he was psychologically flawed, and the present Secretary of State for Pensions that said he would make an ‘effing awful PM’. Charles Clarke, David Blunkett ( until his literary chicken run recently) and others have all been indiscrete enough at times to tell the truth.
So we should take a self denying ordinance to not mention these fairly glaring faults exposed by people who know the man? As PM his role is critical to the nation, not just because of the nuke codes, or the appointment of ministers, or control of the levers of the economy unrestrained by Blair, but because he sets the tone and the path of politics while he is there - sometimes through the law of unintended consequences.
And I admit to being old fashioned and think adults biting their nails as badly as Brown does shows a psychological problem as much as chain smoking or booze. The physical effects are different but the character marker is similar.
Jonathan, yes but G Brown invites it when he chucks stuff over the despatch box in an aggressive and disrespectful way at Osborne. It works both ways. Osborne has been described as various things too by other parties.
Now if you want to talk about wrongs how about asking ministers questions over the despatch box and them not answering them but talking about the oppositions policies which havent been formulated yet. I dont think that helps the national political debate either.
ps. Paul Linford is correct, McDonnell’s candidacy is great for Brown, he can just sit back and appear moderate and more in touch with Britain in comparison.
122 If they asked genuine questions, not of the form “Have you stopped beating your wife?” - they might be happier with their answers. By the way most parliamentary questions are written, direct and straightforward to answer.
121 I wonder what Cameron’s vices are - he is human after all. Let’s keep them under wraps.
Blue2Win-121
Most great people (artists, leaders) are personally or psychologically flawed, usually with a penchant for the dark side. It goes I guess with being remarkable- Clinton, Churchill, Chirac, Mitterand, Thatcher, JFK. Egocentric, obsessive, self destructive.
It is what separates them out from mere mortals and why they get to the positions they reach.
And ordinary people who get over promoted are rapidly found out- Major being a case in point.
Certainly both Blair and Brown are remarkable people. Both are fundamentally flawed but both have more raw talent, intellect, persuasion than Cameron or Osbourne who would struggle to last 5 minutes in government and deal competently with the challenges thrown at them.
5 So hundreds of years of selective breeding produces a PR merchant, one in the eye for eugenics there: Pitt Rivers you should live at this hour.
124. “I have never beaten my wife unlike members of the opposition who up until 1997 beat their wife thrice times a night. I will not take lectures on wife beating from and so and so and so……yada yada, talk tough, vote soft, wave document cheer boo hurrah!
113 Benedict, I think you need to recalibrate your irony detector.
[117] I know it is a fairly trivial point, but a civil servant is an employee of the Crown. Civil servants work (utimately) for ministers. The Bank, like the BBC, is a public corporation and while their employees are public sector,they are still independent of the Crown. We don’t think of Jeremy Paxman as a civil servant, even while he is technically a public employee. The Governor of the Central Bank is in the same position- independent of the Crown.
http://www.civilservant.org.uk/definitions.shtml
This independence is a pretty important difference. Since 1997 the Bank is legally independent and conducts its business without reference to the government, still less the Head Civil Servant, the Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell. You may not like what Mervyn King said, but you can not argue that he is Gordon Brown’s mouth piece.
14 - Peter, there’s no obligation to price up everyone - it just means we get fewer complaints (many of which are “speculative”, to say the least) if the rank outsider does win. An alternative is to put “Others on request” by a market - this is common in goalscorers / correct score betting on football. Most political markets are, by implication if not always explicitly, “others on request”.
There have been a few instances where some bookmakers have refunded bets if an unoffered selection wins but these are increasingly rare.
Occasionally there is trouble where we are wrongly informed that a horse will not run and then it does (and wins) - in this instance the norm is to settle bets on the second placed horse as a winner.
129. You undetestimate the capacity of SNP fanatics for constructing ‘anti-Scottish’ conspiracy theories from the flimsiest of threads.
131
Ho hum. So, that is to be the level of discourse is it?
So no one can actually give an estmate of what an ‘emphastic’ victory for Brown vs McDonnell in a head to head vote off would be…
coldstone- you know Eleanour’s post at 5 underpins my hostility for the Tories under Cameron and his Eton clique. The arrogance of privilege and elitism.
People just don’t get it- why should we even be considering an Eton elitist, surrounded by a white male public school clique, whose lives have been dominated by the insular interests of the upper middle classes to run this country?? Have we moved on at all ??
What experience, knowledge, life skills do they have- other than the sectional, insular experiences of their narrow elitis group. ??
Cameron brings with him the trades of clever marketing- using deception and deceit to con people to buy something they do not want. There are no principle or values here other than the ambition for power which they feel they deserve by birthright alone.
Tyson
So what, they got lucky to born into families that had worked hard over god knows how long and became privelaged. They got to go to Eton, they got to positions of leadership.
Whats the problem? What do you want them to do, feel guilty about it?
To add, I have a big problem with people who went to elitist schools who currently run the country today. I also have a problem with a postman running education, I have a problem with people with no private industry running the DETI and so on and on, totally unqualified…
Cuts both ways.
135 There is no proof whatsoever that anyone worked especially hard in Cameron’s family to deserve this wealth. Certainly, there’s no more proof of hard work than any other poorer politician’s family.
Either way, the school of hard knocks is much easier to deal with if you have a few million quid to fall back on.
Jonathan
Where did they get the wealth from? Business, the professions, slavery? Where?
138. By oppressing the workers! by exploiting the class divisions inherent within our society! and err…um….
Yokel 135 and 136
Read Eleanour’s post 5. It is the arrogance of the upper classes that I object to. They still believe they should be running the country by birthright alone.
I would respect Cameron and Osbourne and co far more if they joined political parties that took them away from their sectional interests- Greens, LD, Labour.
The fact that they are Tories merely says to me they are only motivated in enhancing the interests of the people who need it least- the wealthy, and privileged.
Your point about a postman running education- at least the guy has had experience of sending his kids to state schools; his friends and peers likewise. These are the same schools that 90% of the population knows. What the hell do Cameron, Osbourne and co know about the concerns of Mr Ordinary UK. Answer- nothing.
Tyson you didn’t really answer the question because the answer is unpalatable.
Chrisco and Chris Took The Cook Political report rate both Maryland and New Jersey as toss ups; actually I wouldn’t go as far I rate the Dems favourite in both. However, I don’t think they are the foregone conclusions you both do. I don’t think Chuck Schumer visited New Jersey by accident last week so the Dems don’t agree with you either. The polls are very close here. As for Maryland the real Clear Politics.com average shows only a 5.3% average lead for Cardin which is a remarkable performance by a Republican in such a tough year in a very blue state. I also wonder whether the black turn out won’t be badly affected by the bitter primary loss of a black candidate Mfume and that there may be some under recording of Steele’s vote because of ’shy black votes’who don’t want to admit supporting a GOP candidate. Most observers credit Williams with running an extremely effective campaign. Obviously I personally hope he wins given my politics; it would be good for the GOP to elect such an able african american senator.
140. I think Eleanor was spot on. This country has been going downhill ever since middle class oiks were given the franchise in 1832. What on earth do the labouring classes know about running a great country - nothing. The ignorant masses should be kept well away from the levers of power or mob rule and the dissolution of property will be the certain result.
And secondly, what do you know about the concerns of Mr Ordinary on a sink estate? Whats does anyone know.
Another unpalatable possibility is that the one Labour plotician tha I’ve seen getting anywhere near the views of Joe Average on a sink estate is John Reid and his kick arse, be tough rhetoric ..even if he doesn’t follow through.
Anyone know how to clean keyboard thats sticky underneath?
Too many working class sticky jam sandwiches have been eaten over it..
145. Get your butler to do it.
Are we due a final mid term prediction thread before the big day?
134 - Sorry Big T, people DO get it: they, unlike you, have moved on, and care less about someone’s background and far more about what they seek to achieve, and thus far, they like what they see. Get used to it, mate.
The idea that because someone has had a privileged upbringing will make that person a better person or a more capable person is absurd. Before the war much of the British aristocracy, entirely public schoo educated, supported the Fascists and the Nazis. Post war all the major British traitors were ex-public schoolboys. After all could you find a more capable or patriotic man then Ernie Bevin, who had very little formal education, virtually ran the country as Minister of Labour during the second world war.After the war Bevin as Foreign Secretary, was a major player in the setting up of the Marshall plan and the setting up of NATO, not bad for someone who left school at twelve. Many of the people on this site who are telling us that an Eton education and all that it means, equips someone to be a ‘brilliant’ PM are the same people who a few years ago where telling us that John Major would be wonderful PM because he had none of those advantages.
Someones background education etc, may not be good guides as to what makes a successful politician, only when someone has done the job for sometime will we as voters be able to form a judgement!
146. Surely one of the housemaids…that would be a task somewhat below what would be expected for a butler.
Apologies Re post 142 the name of the GOP candidate for Maryland is Steele, not Williams.
149 - C’mon. Let’s be serious: I’m pretty confident that Eleanor is a minority of one - of course, she’s fully entitled to express her views - among the Tory regulars here.
130. Aaron, thanks for your comment.
I’m not sure we are disagreeing. Obviously you are not obliged to price up every contender but I think