Brown’s price tightens to pre-Cameron levels
October 31st, 2006
-
Is the Iraq debate encouraging punters to back the Chancellor?
With Tony Blair preparing to face a difficult session in the House of Commons tonight on calls for an inquiry in Iraq the best betting price on Gordon Brown being Tony Blair’s successor has tightened to 0.35/1 - a level that it has been at only once before since David Cameron’s election as Tory leader on December 6th.
The price has been moving in this direction for the past three weeks when punter sentiment started to change and few were taking rival bids seriously. The scale of the change is best expressed in what a £100 winning Brown bet would produce. In the first week of October you would have come out with £56 - today that’s down to £35.
For punters following this market the big question is whether it will tighten further or will it bottom out. Certainly for today a Government defeat on the Iraq motion should send the price even tighter. What happens after that is hard to say.
Mike Smithson
-
Politicalbetting.com - the UK’s most read political blog
MessageSpace Advertising
When the price for Brown fell there were calls of a conspiracy. Should we considering similar calls now or were the last lot overblown?
“With Tony Blair preparing to face a difficult session in the House of Commons tonight on calls for an inquiry in Iraq”
If Salmond can’t keep his mouth closed, he would just push potential rebels into the government line again making easier for the government to win the vote
Based on some analysis by revolts.co.uk in one of their briefing papers, I don’t think there’ll be any need to get excited tonight. See http://www.revolts.co.uk/Iraq%20Opposition%20Day%20rebellion.pdf
3. The thing is that around 30 MPs has signed an EDM with the same words of today’s motion. If they all back the SNP/Plaid motion today, the vote can be close (probably a win for the government though).
But then MPs usually seem not so keen to vote against the government in Opposition Days (as you show) and
Tightens to pre Cameron levels? What happened, did he give up Weighwatchers?
I think the tightening of Brown’s price has a lot to do with the absence of any obvious challenger. Before the Labour conference people were talking up Johnson, and during the conference all the talk was about Reid. Both Reid and Johnson are now at around 14 to back on Betfair (having previously been around 7). If the second and third favourites drift out, then the favourites price will tighten.
I still have a hunch (and it is nothing more than that), that Gordon will face a challenge from cabinet level. Brown will still be next leader, but he will have to work a bit harder for it than he would like.
Ian@ 6, I think party of the problem is that the speculation on a credible challenger to Brown was always too early. Punters follow the media and absorb it just as much as anyone else.
I have to say I think its 50-50 on a challenger to emerge. Almost certainly they could get the signatures required but selfish interest of possible candiates may now make them reluctant as Gordon’s support appears to be solid.
Memo to Brown, when Northern Ireland politicians come in shortly asking for yet another peace dividend sum of money tell them to go f**k off and get some self respect. They are a disgrace.
Challengers other than the charming Mr McDonnell…
Thanks for the article Mike. So all those who got in at a good price can now lay to lock in profit if they want to.
I don’t think the rebels/opposition will win tonight: I just saw a onetime Labour rebel spouting off about this being a partisan attack on Labour and no one wants to help the Tories.
They disgust me. They totally disgust me. Whatever we think of Iraq, it seems likely that hundreds and hundreds of thousands have died as a direct consequence of the decision to invade.
This is the most serious foreign policy issue of our generation, maybe the most serious since the Second World War. We have to explain why so many hundreds of thousands have died as a result of our actions. We have to explain to the Iraqi people, to the world, and most of all, we have to explain to ourselves just how and why we were led into this war, and why it has turned out the way it has.
This isn’t people ‘having a go’ at Labour, it’s a momentous moral argument, which Labour are cravenly avoiding. I hope history heaps the shame on them that they deserve.
The Americans had several inquiries into Vietnam towards the end of that misadventure. Are we so much feebler? Are we so much more decadent?
Give us an inquiry. Now.
7. Any cabinet level challenger to Gordon would almost certainly be someone with little to lose (e.g. John Hutton). I don’t imagine Gordon reaching out to them once he has won. I agree that it is touch and go on whether a serious challenger will emerge, but as I said, my hunch is that one will. Hence ‘laying’ Gordon on Betfair at the moment is probably worth a small punt, if only to back at a higher price later.
I agree with you re Northern Ireland ‘peace handouts’.
10. “They disgust me. They totally disgust me.”
Ditto. I can only presume those 18 years ingrained such amorality.
I dont think we understand how we got to the mess we are in today. I dont think the british public were aver massiveley in favour of this war and i think the motives which we went to war were unclear at best. An inquiry sounds about right when you consider the impact that this has had in terms of community relations, a certain feeling of frustration with political leaders by the public and the lack of planning post -invasion, so that we can understand what went right and what went wrong. If we just pull out and try to forget about this and walk away without looking hard at ourselves that will be a terrible mistake. There will be wars in future and we need to know how to conduct them and when to get involved and when not to.
11. They are a joke Ian, a total joke..and this from a Northern Irelander, we just look like a total bunch of useless beggars.
A proper inquiry is inevitable. The vote today may pass or may fail, but the issue will return (much like Bloody Sunday).
Full credit to the SNP/Plaid and LDs for keeping up the pressure.
My considered analysis for why the Brown price is tightening is that the UK’s premier political betting site, read assidously by the only people in the country who give a monkeys about this kind of thing, has been relentlessly talking Brown up since his (poor and misjudged) labour party conference speech.
I remain of the view that Brown won’t get it. Too many really big factors working against him.
i) too many people hate him with a vengeance - those he has frozen out or left holding the baby over the years.
ii) he is too emotionally unstable - when the pressure of the leadership race on, he WILL throw his toys out of the pram. He wants it too badly to be graceful.
iii) he would be an f*ing dreadful prime minister. Prime Ministers have to be collegiate to survive…
iv) he is a sure fire election loser, as the polls keep telling us.
To quote the PM, Labour needs a leader who is a member of the human race.
The only thing that is lacking now is a CLEAR challenger, but there are a number of credible possibles who, with hype and momentum, could steal the day (miliband, johnson, reid, benn).
The Labour Party must be terrified of the prospect of a defeated Brown - hell hath no fury etc… and this is no doubt stymieing debate on leadership for the time being - but sense will prevail. If not, Labour are up for one hell of a defeat at the next election.
Rough
16. What about the rumour that someone has some blockbuster gossip on GB’s private life ?
16. Nobody is fooled by the Tories’ attempt to divert attention from their enthusiastic support for the Iraq war.
Gordon Hamish Brown ain’t gonna make it to No 10.
Part of the reason is here
BOE - can’t wait for their next inflation fighting missive.
http://www.fxstreet.com/news/forex-news/ar…1b-53f949a372f1
UK Sept M4 money supply up 14.5 pct yr-on-yr, highest in 16 yrs
Mon, Oct 30 2006, 09:00 GMT
http://www.afxnews.com
LONDON (AFX) - The Bank of England said M4 money, a broad measure of money supply, posted its biggest rise in 16 years on an annual basis in September, raising concerns about medium-term demand and inflation pressures.
M4 rose by 1.7 pct in September from August on a seasonally adjusted basis, for a 14.5 pct year-on-year gain, the biggest rise since September 1990.
17. Well Jamie someone is going to need it. Question is, is it really blockbuster in a political future sense?
17. Rumours haven’t ruined leadership bids of other politicians in the past
21. Oaten…Hughes…there is a rumour I have heard that would be a blockbuster for sure but it relates only to ‘a cabinet minister’ and not necessarily to GB.
an interesting thing about the iraq war that strikes me is what would the situation be if it had been a Tory Government which went to war. I recon that they would have been called a bunch of warmongerers and wouldve been chucked out of office by now. One thing that some of the Campaign group have helped labour is by showing it does have a conscience on this issue. but it is interesting how well labour have weathered this considering how i think that the Tories might have.
ps. I dont think that an enquiry will exonorate tories on iraq, it is worth taking a long hard look in the mirror on this issue for both main parties.
Brown is unstoppable at the moment barring any private life allegations which wont happen because they would be out already. he has the support and there is noone capable of challenging him seriously
22. I could say spit it out PM but I won’t….
There is the no smoke without fire school a la Kenenedy etc where rumours abounded for ages and got met with denials.
There are three ways a rumour, if proved, can damage a politician in a ‘I have decided to go and spend time with my family’ manner.
a) It reveals that they are a hypocrite (they are politicians, but there you have it…)
b) It suggests they are not competent to do their job
c) Its illegal
Even a if it is not its such siginificance, how it affecst the average voting Joe’s intention is another matter.
23. Why would an inquiry on Iraq war and its conduct look into the Tories at all never mind exonerate them?
Let me answer that for you..it wouldnt.
22. but that was more than a rumour in the end (and it’s debatable if Hughes would have done better or not without being outed).
If rumours are just rumours, they can not hurt in the end (ex Hague)
RE 23, Jimbo Jones, all the parties wanted us to be in the ERm but it was our incorrect decision and we carried the can.
The same will be true of Iraq in that Labour will carry the can as they made the decision.
If the ‘gossip’ about GB refers to his sexuality, it’ll be interesting to see what the Tories can make of it, perhaps he’s going to run off with a interior decorator: whoops Gordon someones beaten you to that one. Then again perhaps GB had a taste in his youth for class A drugs, but then again DC beat him to that one, allegedly. Great fun this gossip business.
18. “16. Nobody is fooled by the Tories’ attempt to divert attention from their enthusiastic support for the Iraq war.”
Sorry ColinW, It was a Labour government who took us to war and it is a Labour government who has presided over the mess we are in now.
The conservatives supported the war in Iraq but they were not privy to or in control of the military operation or the planning for after the invasion. The conservatives should be shouting even louder than anyone else for this enquiry because they seem to be expected to carry the blame for a foreign adventure they did not plan or carry out.
This thread goes from the sublime to the ridiculous.
On the one hand: War and casulties.
On the other: There is an anonymous rumour x about politician y .
I don’t agree with some in the Iraq debate, but the two extremes of politcal debate interleaved like this feels a bit bad taste, but very typical of the naff state of British politics.
By the way, although GB often gets a bad press from us Tories, I personally give him considerable credit for two major decisions that he made correctly, and apparently against his own natural instincts:
1 - He gave independence to the BofE
2 - He decided to stay out of the Euro.
He’s made a number of other decisions wrongly and piled on the stealth taxes and regulations, the tax credits fiasco has been a shocker, the pensions credit grab - hell, see Benedicts blog for a list- but the two big ones above have been the ones that have kept him (and us) out of serious trouble.
So, credit where it’s due.
I personally couldn’t care less about his private life.
Hmm. Link didn’t work.
How about just simply:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2006/09/that-brown-record-in-full.html
For the Tories to bandwaggon over Iraq is just absurd, they were hot for that war. As far back as 1998 Howard when he was Shadow Foreign Secretary was attacking Clinton and Blair for not taking military action against Iraq. IDS was calling for an invasion, weeks before the dodgy dossier was even printed. For the Tories to try to make political capital out of Iraq will not reflect well on them. If they had elected Kenneth Clarke as leader they could have, they didn’t so they can’t. Howard had a go during the election campaign, one call from the Whitehouse, he soon jumped back into line, he then started sayin he believed in, ‘Regime change plus.’
its not bandwaggoning its an enquiry in to how we got to where we are and what we can learn from it. more concerning is scaremongering saying having this enquiry will cost lives (points at Blair)
34. FFS, it doesn’t matter!! Iraq is so huge, and such a disaster, surely it rises above any petty partisan squabbling. Who cares if placeman B in party C once said D about sweet FA. This is bigger than any of us, bigger than any politician or party.
What matter is that the British people hear a full and proper reckoning of the tragedy and the catastrophe in Iraq. We owe it to the hundreds of British soldiers who have died, and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens that have died.
The inquiry should be charged with finding out the facts, making sure the same errors aren’t made again, and bringing those responsible for these mistakes to account. Whether they are Labour, Lib Dem, Tory or Mebyon bleeding Kernow, doesn’t matter.
It just so happens that those most likely to be indicted ARE Labour, coz this was Labour’s war fought at the behest of Labour’s PM when the Labour party was in power.
But that’s life, that’s what happened. Deal with it.
Seant first class honours degree in appeasment from Neville Chamberlain University.
37. Derr??
I read that wonderful women, a prophet for our time, Melanie Phillips she sees fifth columnists like you for what they are, people like you won’t be happy till the crescent moon of islam is flying above 10 Downing Street, and we spend all day dressed in our pyjamas banging our heads on the ground four times a day.
36 No-one in the UK had the power to stop the Iraq war. To think so is huge vanity on the part of us in the UK. This was a US decsision.
That said 650 MPs certainly had the power to stop UK involvement in the Iraq war. However, 412 MPs voted for it. If you believe in parliamentary democracy they are responsible. Quite a few dear Tories in this motley crew.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/SNSG%2D02109.pdf
The question is, if there had been a majority against, Blair had resigned and the UK did not enter the war: would there be more or less death overall? We’ll never know - but I have my suspicions. I think British soldiers on balance make things better than a US only force. A good question for an after the event inquiry.
If Blair had got his way and this was done multilaterally with a UN flag, would we not have been better off? Again we’ll never know unfortunately.
People should stand-up and be held to account for the choices they make, but let’s be realistic about the limited power the UK has.
Less ego.
Thanks for the link Andy. I have tried to post on the tax credit thing but get blocked
The Iraq war debate begins. It’s shaping up to be a very lively one…
coldstone - it’s a bit off for Labourites to bash Chamberlain and co for not being aggressive enough.
Excerpts from Labour’s 1935 manifesto:
“[The Government]has wrecked the Disarmament Conference by resisting all the constructive proposals made by other States. As regards air armaments, in particular, Lord Londondery has boasted that he succeeded, though with great difficulty, in preventing an agreement for the complete abolition of all national air forces.”
Personally, I’m bloody glad he did.
“… it is planning a vast and expensive rearmament programme…”
Good job too, as it turned out.
“Labour will propose to other nations the complete abolition of all national air forces…”
Right. Okay …
“… large reductions by international agreement in naval and military forces; and the abolition of the private manufacture of, and trade in, arms.”
Idealistic, I’ll grant you.
Nope, not convinced that Labour would have been any better in the late 1930’s.
Then again, they weren’t in power, so Chamberlain quite rightly carried the can.
42. yes…the first Labour MP to speak didn’t exactly make a great contribution
44 - and there goes our very own Dr Nick…
Shheesh! I can’t post a link to my latest experiance of the tax credit fiaso. However it is one of the recent articles on my blog
That’s because “- c r e d i t” is banned, and the story title is “tax-cr*dit-fiasco-scary-letter.html”
(”*” instead of “e”)
Andy, Ah I see. Do you see why its a scary letter
Because it’s got no useful information on it at all but it’s supposed to be pretty important?
45. I think some Labour MPs are missing the point of the motion (which isn’t if UK should withdraw the troops now)
Andrea - do you think that’s deliberate (move the goalposts to one where the Government should win and be able to portray votes against them as “treason”)?
RE 49, Andy you assume that if it did have writing on it it would be usefull. Frequently its not.
You do have to wonder why it was sent though.
50 - It is deliberate, Andrea. They are trying to get the proponent of the motion to voice his support for withdrawing the troops now. If they can secure that, they can frame the debate in those terms, thus making it sound like the Tories support withdrawal now. It’s the usual scandalous brinkmanship.
Coldstone, I think regular pb.commers will confirm that I am no friend of your average jihadist - quite the opposite.
Indeed this is one of the reasons I now so fiercely oppose the Iraq adventure. Quite apart from the war’s appalling cost in lives and money and time and goodwill, it has proved a fatal diversion from the very necessary battle with Islamism. Indeed the war has emboldened Muslim terrorists, outraged moderate Muslim opinion, and strengthened odious Muslim regimes in Iran and Syria, not what we want in our war on terror; the Iraqi invasion has done the opposite of what it was meant to do.
53. yes, Eddie, I suspected it was deliberate
Why is Beckett speaking so slowly? Is she in a nanny Patty Hewitt mood?
55 - Hehe. Either that or the longer she speaks, the fewer backbenchers will get a chance to. That would make sense as she’s also taking as many interventions as possible.
55 I’ve heard a lot worse in Parliament.
56. The tory line seems to ask her if an inquiry will take place when the troops leaves Iraq
Ken Clarke is damn good.
Bizarre speech (so far) from Beckett. No wonder people think she’s out of her depth.
57. Do you mean you saw worse attempts to change the subject of the debate or that you saw MPs trying to speak even slower at the dispatch box?
Beckett is shrill, patronising and incoherent. Not a fantastic performance. Also refusing to answer the question: Will they agree to an inquiry ever?
This is unsustainable. We all know there will be an inquiry at some point, Labour are just trying to postpone the pain until Blair goes and he can neatly be blamed.
55 - Probably filibustering to eat up as much time as she can get away with (the debate ends at 7pm).
Searing intervention by our own Nick P. The tenor of the Iraq debate is now changed forever.
Nick P is being very vocal tonight….
60. A funeral oration would be more living than Beckett’s speech
Benedict. I’m with you on the Children’s Tax Cred*ts. I think we achieved 24 letters in one week, 8 on one day, once. Every letter I receive my wife gets the same, everyone with a booklet in it! It wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t a complete waste of time as I get and always have got the basic amount and frankly I don’t need it or deserve it on my income. We both earn a reasonable amount and have made quality of life decisions to work part time. But hey if your a poor sole on £50K plus you need the handout. The classic of course is that everytime I get a letter the calculation of the amount is recalculated and the monthly payment changes with a little boost of a few extra pence this month and a reduction of a few pence in following months resulting in the same amount as we always get at the end of the year!!!! What a waste of effort. My concern is that for me it is just annoying, but what if you really do need this and have to go thru all this paperwork…..
88. I think she’s trying to bore and confuse everyone into submission. This speech is a fiasco.
66 - I think she’s trying to set the tone for the debate completely away from the issue presented by the motion…
Nick P wants a job under Brown, showing what a good lad he is.
69. Her argument seems to be ‘we can’t have an inquiry in London because we are still building toilets in Kirkuk’. Truly bizarre.
Could the woman be more patronising? Has she been taking lessons from our glorious Health secretary?
Re 67, KJH, Its a sad joke is it not. I wonder how much it could cost to run if done properly?
The folks behind her (Kim Howels and one I don’t know) look bored.
“Watched throughout the world” - I hope not, the actions of the Beckett and her stooges in this debate shows the worst of UK Parliamentary behaviour.
Is she saying that we can’t have an inquiery because its still a shameful mess?
I’m loving the dodging of the actual motion. Wish MPs wouldn’t keep dragging out these “troop morale,” or “undermining the Iraqi govenment” excuses. Sob sob sob. That’s not the issue at all.
I can’t imagine that Beckett’s arrogant and facile arguments persuaded any potential rebels from voting with the government.
I stopped notifying them of changes in circumstances so as to stop the paperwork coming and the consequental changes in the monthly payments. It struck me that as it wasn’t going to change the amount we got paid overall one iota what did it matter.
But why is the threshold set so high. Why waste these funds on people who just don’t need it.
Margaret Beckett - the worst Foreign Secretary we have ever had? Certainly in the last 40-50 years.
It was clear the speech was addressed to the clutch of Labour MPs who are important here. The telling remark came at the end when he key argument was delivered - ‘Don’t support the motion because you’ll be going into the division lobbies with the Enemy!’.
Sometimes democracy really is anything but.
Sorry 79 refers to 73
79,
To try to extend the notion of “payroll vote” to all middle classes.
Of course, while Blair almost certainly win today’s vote, another issue is the inquiry which the House Democrats might hold in the spring if they win. Think of it. Just as Tony is going into his victory lap before stepping down, John Conyers replays all the “greatest hits” from the Iraq war.
Oh Dear, Kitty Ussher!
83 Andy - Can you explain?
Re 79, KJH, yes it seems to confuse their computer systems a bit does it not?
RE 85, Andrea was that the one asking what effect the ammendement not being discussed would have?
Yes, and she was clearly reading from prepared but not updated whips’ instructions…
I think we can assume Jeremy Corbyn is going to rebel. Not front page news, of course.
87. Kitty was the one who said that voting for motion would be interpreted as a support for insurgents (or something similar).
It’s an improvement over the 90 days vote when she said that all MPs voting against would have blood on their hands if something happens.
RE 90 Andrea, So good looking but dumb? or have I got the wrong MP?
RE 88 Many thanks Chrisco
91. I think you got the right one, Benedict
http://www.burnleylabour.org.uk/images/members_kittyussher.jpg
Hague is very good. Infinitely better than Beckett. She is an embarrassment.
All the talented members of the Labour frontbench could fit in a Messerschmidt bubble-car.
Hmm, I get a 403 forbidden error
Blunkett…”not missing an oppurtunity to have a go at the government”….is he talking about his memories?
86,
To make it so that as many people as possible are beholden to the Govt for some form of benefits. So voting against the Govt is both ungrateful and could cause loss of income.
Blunkett seems to have missed point there was a Commission of Enquiry not a “debate” about the Dardenelles - Labour really has some “stars” out for this debate don’t they.
93, Yes, the wonderful Mr Hague towers above the embarrassingly talentless losers on the Labour benches, that’s why he get such a good general election result agaist them… oh, erm…
hague has all the gravitas of one of jeremy corbyn’s farts.
99. Brilliant analysis - you’ll be on “This Week” before you know it.
25. a) yes, b) not necessarily c) yes
99. Hague’s speech was the best of the lot so far.
They couldn’t afford me
103. You have kids at private school too ?
This lib dem guy is boring on an Olympian level. How do you get that boring? He makes Margaret Beckett look like Dorothy Parker.
no kids.
96 Thanks Andy. Thats very cynical, although I can see how that would work on selfish voters particularly those that only see the immediate effects of a change.
Here comes Malcolm ‘Balkans’ Rifkind.
You are on particularly poor form today Eric.
Charles Kennedy! He starts thanking MPs for the support they gave him after his problems.
his voice is very slightly slurred.
Once there is a clear challenge to GB his chances will plummit because
a) he’s upset and backstabbed far too many in the party
b) he’s not a dead cert to win in 2009/10 by any measure
c) it will be a choice of for or against GB rather than for or against any other contender, and a lot of the supporters of different potential candidates will quietly back whichever one comes through to take up the challenge, regardless of any political nuances.
d) McDonnell if he gets the 44 MPs will do a hell of a lot better than people suspect, and will mainly take first choices from GB.
On McDonnell, I don’t think he’ll necessarily get the required nominations until the last minute - but if there isn’t a untiy anti-GB candidate, there will be enough MPs willing to nominate him just to ensure a challenge. On my reckoning McD has about 32-36 nominations likely (depending on if Meacher decides to try and stand…) I don’t think it too unlikely that about 10 anti GB MPs with no future under him will agree to nominate McD if only to win kudos in certain fractious CLPs.
What this whole game does throw up is the current control MPs have over giving the party the chance to vote for a candidate - what about MEPs, MSPs and MWAs (or whatever they call themselves)? Why the dominance of just one set of elected reps?
108 I support an inquiry into the Iraq war at the proper time but I wonder whether Rifkind will accept that there should be one for his conduct during the Bosnian conflict. I think not.
Corbyn is a bit over-excited today
We have an answer on Clare Short’s seat! Second to back row, opposition side, extreme right.
115. on the same bench of Rev Paisley…I think there were some Libdems there at the beginning of the debate
Salmond was good. Does he really want to go work in a minuscule Edinburgh parliament, debating bus stops in Forfar? Surely too small a stage for his talents.
She was sitting beside Jo Swinson.
Watching Ingram I am more and more convinced there is something to hide. He is so frenetic.
118. yes…at the beginning of the debate, I think on that bench there was DUP MPs, then Opik, Goldsworthy, Swinson, Teather and Clare Short.
Then some of them went away during the debate
Division…
117 Bus stops will be discussed by Angus Council not AS.
The division bells are ringing… this is (potentially) the closest vote in Parliament since I started here. Mildly exciting, I’ve got to say.
116 - Paisley’s alright with Short now - he’s got his pieces of silver at last
Govt to win the debate on Unionist votes anyone?
122 - I’d like to think so, but I think the Government will win by a majority of between 15-30.
Official prediction:
Government to win by 18.
Interesting debate. Ingram and Beckett were both poor. But they were defending a very dodgy brief.
Govt will win.
125 - I predict majortiy of 20. There’s just not enough for Labour rebels to be convinced that backing the opposition this time is a good idea. Even if it was passed, there’s no obligation for the House to act.
The debate was good, but very brief. Taking away the longer contributions, there were not enough speeches from non-backbench types. It needs a full day’s debate. Unsatisfying, but credit to the Nationalist’s for using their very sparse opportunity to initiate a debate.
the ayes to the right….
Nonetheless it was worthwhile. And it shows the government for the shameful bunch of shysters that they are. Labour are in clinical denial over their grotesque errors in Iraq, and like any depressed person they avoid anything that reminds them of this shame. Check the empty benches on the government side during the bench.
They just can’t handle it.
But they will have to face up to their blood-flecked disgrace in time. When Blair goes the pressure for an inquiry will be intolerable. I expect they will then try and shift all the blame on to Blair, but I’m not sure it will work.
25 majority.
Majority of 25 on the first vote.
25
Close enough to cause embarassment.
133 - i think that’s being a bit optimistic. govt majority is 61 isn’t it? if it was single figures it’d be a different story.
Good. That labour is seen to stymie an enquiry is the best result. As people out here in the wider country are in disagreement it makes the government seem even more out of touch.
More embarrasing votes which back labour into a corner please!
more and more these pathetic excuses of members of parliament that are labour clones make me think we should adopt the congressional style of government, with a president and two houses of congress, then the mps would have to make decisions of their own, and live or die by them at elections, rather than sucking the c–ks of the whips.
hilary benn made it pretty obvious in an interview earlier today that there will be an inquiry once blair has left us all in peace.
So many excuses will be given
- it failed because it was proposed by the Nats
- it failed because it was backed by the Tories
- it failed because too many Opposition MPs weren’t around (I know this for a fact)
But the real reason for its failure is that Labour MPs who are opposed to the war simply have no backbone. There was a contribution just before the end of the debate from a Lab member who boasted of his anti-war credentials and then decided he would back the Govt anyway. The usual sillyness. The usual pretence that our MPs exist in a democratic institution continues.
Brave effort by the Nats to put Iraq back at the top of the agenda. Embarasses both Labour + Conservatives in one go. Still, sad the focus is on Westminster rather than the shambles still out there. Iraq needs to go under UN control fast.
138. “- it failed because it was proposed by the Nats”
I doubt it’ll have passed if proposed by the tories or the Libdems. Yes, many Labourites don’t like the Nats, but it doesn’t seem they love the tories or the Libdems either
“- it failed because it was backed by the Tories”
without the tory backing, we could have probably seen more Labour rebels (because they knew the government would have not lost it), but it would have been almost impossible to win the vote (like the original iraq war vote)
294-264
Did they just lose?
I wonder what N Palmer voted? Not.
Yes. The final vote was on the motion as amended by the PM.
Eddie - it’s called party politics. Hague and Ken Clarke both voted with the government over the Scott Report. Countless Tory MPs voted for Maastricht despite being opposed. They’re all the same.
Never mind. Got mixed up.
142: Government amendment I believe, so no.
143. Tankies always toe the party line, however absurd it may be.
the great thing about this is that it shows up the Labour “rebels”. When it comes down to it saving the Labour party is more important to them than starting the process of sorting out the mess we are in in Iraq.
Smart move from Adam price and the SNP. Firmly establishes the Nats as the opposisition to Labour ahead of next Mays elections…
The debate will not be a blood and guts affair because everyone knows it’s a proxy for Brown’s campaign to evict Blair. There is no feeling that Brown is wanted much in evidence, so the Blair/Brown saga will no doubt drag on unaffected. Brown’s odds will sag again.
If anyone is interested, the division list of today’s vote on Nadine Dorries 10 minutes bill to reduce the time limit for abortion from 24 to 21 weeks is out.
It was a free vote, you can see some Lab MPs supporting it, some Con MPs opposing it, some LD MPs in the aye lobby and some in the no lobby.
Majority higher than I expected - puts it in the category of minor rebellions. andrea’s analysis is right at 140 - I talked to several potential rebels, who all ended up abstaining or voting with the Government because they couldn’t stomach Hague’s maneouvre: “Vote for this even if you don’t want it, as it will force the government to give us something else” - one of those lines that is too clever for its own good. Note that 90 or so MPs were missing, including a fair number of Tories - I didn’t see John Bercow or Patrick Cormack, for instance.
152. Nick, I saw Bercow during the debate.
He was certainly present to vote against Dorries’ abortion bill
Where is the link for the Dorries Bill division list?
What pious pontificating here tonight! You can’t have an inquiry till the troops are out of Iraq - the post April 2003 operations will have to be looked at too, and how on earth can you collect evidence from the operations side when the commanders etc are still fighting?
I believe previous inquiries on the Falklands etc, were done when the war was over and the whole thing could be examined properly.
I’m sure everyone knows this, and this vote was just a device for the nationalists and Tories to try to get Labour to humiliate Blair just before he steps down. Would the Tories do something similar if the roles were reversed? I guess it depends on how much they hated their leader and how much they were craving their regular fix of blood-letting! It’s not Labour’s style though.
154. John G. You should go to the Commons website and look at “today in the Commons”.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/03.htm
(the division list should be at the end of the page)
Were there any significant/unexpected rebels on the vote tonight? Or just the usual suspects?
157- Harry Cohen (Leyton & Wanstead)
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)
Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central)
Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Sparkbrook & Small Heath)
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead & Highgate)
John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington)
Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway)
Alan Simpson (Nottingham South)
Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South)
Dr Gavin Strang (Edinburgh East)
Robert Wareing (Liverpool West Derby)
Mike Wood (Batley & Spen)
Godsiff seems very keen to rebellion recently…maybe it’s related to his reselection fight
Even less than the usual suspects, for ex Lynne Jones didn’t rebel.
the argument that we should have an enquiry into when the war in the iraq is over is i believe broken by the fact that the war was over after 3 weeks. since then we have been peacekeeping. i sympathise with Frank Field’s point that the consensus in the house is that their needs to be an enquiry and that the house will force that to happen once soldiers have returned.
I didn’t like the attempt by Labour (which was successful) to brand this debate as opprotunism that was putting troops in danger. Beckett refused to say that there would be an enquiry when the troops were out and refused to answer that question. The labour party closed ranks as they thought this was an attack on them by all those nasty people who just dont understand. stifling debate through fear is a strategy that I have noticed being deployed more and more readily. perhaps it is to do with the current international climate, but i think it is a stance that is deployed a little too readily at times.
How can Gord possibly be thought of as a future P.M.???
In here somewhere?
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Player/Asx.as…mp;isParl=False
You’re ‘avin a laugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Labour have finally got the Tories where we’ve want them. Despite the fact that Cameron really opposed the war (and according to his 2003 Guardian article was at least ’sitting on the fence’) he’s restrained himself (just) enough for Conservative supporters on this site to credibly point out that he’s never explicitly opposed the war. Well tonight that argument no longer applies and I feel that now that he’s revealed his true colors he’ll look very silly in a few months time when the terrorists (both Ba’athist and Al-Quaeda) in Iraq have been defeated and Iraq is well on the road to a prosperous and democratic future (which in many parts of Iraq it already is).
Matt
Firstly, insurgencies on average last a hell of a lot more than a few years. This one has years to run yet at some level whether there are non iraqi miltary forces in the country or not.
Secondly, how exactly are the insurgents going to be defeated and by who according to what timetable?
Thirdly, the fact that parts of Iraq are fairly quiet is not a statement of the defeat of anything. By their very nature insurgencies tend to have focus areas. Bearing in mind that every official US statement on Iraq, by their estimation puts the South Eastern provinces under British control as officially ‘quiet’.
Finally, Labour don’t have the Tories anywhere at all. The idea that the Tories approach to this debate is going to change many voting intentions come General Election time is plain bollocks.
162 - “he’ll look very silly in a few months time when the terrorists (both Ba’athist and Al-Quaeda) in Iraq have been defeated”
The mayhem in Iraq is getting worse, not better, so where does the idea that the terrorists will be defeated in a few months?
Or was your comment intended to mock those that live in cuckoo land?
164…..the cordite in the air from Halloween fireworks..it gives you a very strange psychedelic high.
Yokel, you claim that, ‘Finally, Labour don’t have the Tories anywhere at all. The idea that the Tories approach to this debate is going to change many voting intentions come General Election time is plain bollocks’. However, even if Iraq per se is not an issue Cameron’s stance(s) on this issues reinforce two things (1) his continuity with the isolationism of the Howard years and with the Conservative history of appeasing dictators (2) his inability to make tough decisions and show leadership when times demand it.
Any politican can gain points in the short run by photo-ops with Huskies and such gimmicks as the ‘Webcameron’ but voters will ultimately, at the ballot box, choose a leader and a party which is prepared to court temporary unpopularity to do what is in the long term interests of democractic values. Even if the Conservatives do manage to maintain their lead in the opinion polls I feel confident that we’ll have another ‘Dewey beats Truman’ (or Cameron beats Reid) moment come 2009.
andrea: I gather that John Bercow, although he was around earlier, was among those who decided to abstain.
yokel/Matthew: personally I don’t think Iraq will be a major factor in the next GE either way. Whether it is ultimately seen as a success or not, it will be seen as less relevant to the 2009-2014 period. But of course terrorism will probably still be a live issue, and a record of inconsistency on that may be a handicap.
167. I could not disagree more Nick. Iraq/Afghanistan will be an issue at the next election if our troops are still there and casualties/deaths continue to rise. I think the situation in both countries has got worse since the last GE, and I think that looking at the polls it has become a very prominent issue again amongst voter’s.
Matt
Let me repeat again. The current Tory approach on this debeat is not going to shift many votes either way come the next gerneral election.
Its one thing to express a part political opinion but its another to disregard reality to attempt to score a point. There were 4 points that I made and not one of them has been directly responded to.
What you are really saying is that Cameron’s apparent opportunism will cost him. Maybe so, maybe not. You might not like the man or his party but that doesnt relate in any way to the initial post that you made regarding the a) situation in Iraq and b) that Labour ‘have the Tories where they want them’ as if they had somehow manufactured this as a grand plan.
I could have lived with the post ‘Cameron is an opportunistic git’…….just as I can live with a post saying Brown is a useless bollocks but you just ignored reality.
158 - very surprised to se Bob Marshall Andrews amongst the little list. I know he’s anti-war and anti-Blair, but I’d have thought he’d be keeping his nose clean for a Brownite govt.
ChrisD at 168: Well, yes, if we’re still there in 2009 and casualties are still going up, it certainly will be an issue. But I very much doubt it.
170: I don’t often take the ‘I’m a professional, you lot don’t know what you’re talking about’ line, but there is too much cynicism here about how MPs vote: lots of posters here apparently think that anyone who disagrees with them must have an ulterior motive. Whatever one thinks of BMA, the idea that he’s a careerist opportunist is simply absurd. And I’m not expecting any promotion either (to respond to earlier posts) - I simply support the effort in Iraq and think an enquiry would change no minds on anything.
The Conservatives just lost a safe seat ….
…… on “Mrs Pritchard”
Snowflake5,
There is a lot that can be investigated prior to withdrawal of the troops. Although I fully agree that all later activity should be within the remit as well.
If we were to stay in Iraq indefinitely, this would not mean that no inquiry could ever be held.
If we don’t look back as to how we got into this mess, any lessons indicated will not be taken up until too late to help at the moment. How we got here, where exactly we went wrong, why things didn’t go to plan, what we could have done better - all these pieces of information could be of great use to getting out of this mess without just abandoning the situation.
Matthew Partridge,
Wanting an inquiry to find out what went wrong and how to learn from it is the same as “isolationism” and “appeasing dictators“, is it? Are you Rebekah Wade’s pseudonym?
(That will obviously be the Sun’s line tomorrow: “These people want to know what went wrong! Don’t they realise that is tantamount to spitting in the face of Our Boys and shooting them in the back at the same time (some physical contortions necessary)?!? Learning from our mistakes is the same as aiding and abetting the enemy!” )
Except, of course, we don’t need to learn from any mistakes in your worldview, because everything will be right as rain in a few months. I guess we don’t need to learn any lessons if we did everything right this time …
(Apologies if your comment was a spoof - on rereading it, it must be. Isn’t it?)
&n