Do the calls for his early exit have public support?
February 2nd, 2007
Would going early be seen as an admission of guilt?
The above are a couple of screen shots that I took of Tony Blair on Sunday during his Davos BBC interview when everybody was commenting on how he looked and his whole demeanour. What we know now but did not not know then was that a couple of days beforehand he had had his second interview with the police and he must have been aware of what was likely to happen in the following few days.
It shows his extraordinary resilience and remarkable fortitude that he has got through the week at all and this is starting to be picked up by the public. Yesterday he received a standing ovation at from the audience of a conference for specialist sports schools.
That’s why those who want him out now have got to be very careful. This might not be in tune with the public mood.
After all his only “crime”, if indeed there was one, was to try to find the resources two years ago so Labour could fight a tough General Election campaign against the Tories and a Lib Dem party that was, temporarily at least, flush with funds.
Is Gordon going to shoulder such a responsibility when he is in the job? The signs are that he isnt’ - fundraising is a dirty job that will be left to others.
In the Times this morning the usually well-informed Peter Riddell, suggests that Blair’s determination to remain until the summer “has been hardened, not weakened, by the latest developments.”
Riddell goes on: “..Having said that he wants to stay until the European summit in late June, an earlier departure would be seen as weakness and a tacit admission of guilt, in the political, if not the legal, sense..Whether or not charges are brought, the lurid stories are inflicting serious damage. The anti-Blair right-wing press is erupting in inflated indignation about being misled by Downing Street. This is peripheral to the issue, but will sour government-media relations..Mr Blair’s last few months are bound to be overshadowed. Any sense of proportion and fairness will be lost in the rush to blame.”
In the Blair leaving date betting the price on this happening before the end of March has tightened to 7-1. It was 50/1 before the Ruth Turner arrest.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
He’ll go with his fingernails dragging in the No. 10 carpet. Unless he is overwhelmed by events. People should remember that Clinton survived two years of intense legal scrutiny in office. Blair can as well. Though it might not please his backbench.
I really do hope not, Mike.
There are so many problems that the country is facing, and we really do need a national leader who can give some thought to and guidance for these problems - not one whose only thoughts are how to fend off the press from the next round of police questioning.
Ming Campberll said the other week that the sooner Blair went, the better. Quite right too. And I see that Young Cameron has now picked up on the theme - a bit late, of course - but then he is only being paid to be the official Leader of the Opposition, not for giving guidance on a national level. Might be better if he decided to do one thing or the other - or even both, of course.
It seems to me more than obvious that Blair needs to be spending more time with his family and with his therapists and other medical consultants. He owes it to his family. Cannot the Labour loyalists see that?
Am I alone in finding a spooky resemblance between the picture on the left and that of a younger George W Bush?
Somewhat o/t I have from a good source that there has been a regional poll done in the SW, apparently for the Tories (possibly by Mori).
It claims that the Tories are heavily DOWN… with UKIP up, and many SW Tories despair of Cameron.
I know many of our Con posters will generally disparage this. I have no particular reason to believe the first, but the second is certainly true.
What are the odds of charges?
(1) Blair. Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code C para 10.1 states “A person whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence … must be cautioned before any questions about an offence … are put to them …” The police therefore had no grounds to suspect Blair of an offence as of last week.
Current odds of Blair being charged with anything? Must be close to 0%
(2) Levy, Turner, Smith and Evans. s.24 of PACE says “Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an arrestable offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting of being guilty of the offence.” As of this week police therefore have reasonable grounds for suspecting Levy etc to be guilty of an offence.
Current odds of any of these four being charged with something? There are statistics on the probability of charges being made. Until 2001, police authorities were supposed to gather the data under the old perfomance indicator BVPI 136. The Metropolitan police never collected these statistics- but other nearby police forces did. Essex charged, summonsed or cautioned 78% of people who they arrested for a notifiable offence in 2000/1. Cambridgeshire charged between 55% and 71% of those arrested over a five year period.
There is therefore a statistically high chance of a charge being brought against at least one of the four.
5. I’m sure that’s true in normal circumstances, but the potential arrest of a prime minister is not normal. To infer odds from whether the police have followed the letter of their guidance on cautions in this case is I think a little dangerous. The police have to be aware of the potential consequences of their actions and I suspect are treading a good deal more carefully where it comes to Blair, which is to be expected.
On topic, I don’t imagine the public cares that much one way or the other about the exact date for departure, but there’s undoubtedly a deep dislike of the man - see the BrandIndex polls amongst others. Besides, there’s a general acceptance that he will be going, so the timing’s not terribly important - though it could have quite an impact on the May elections were he to go beforehand. I used to think there wouldn’t be much of a Brown bounce as the expectation was ‘built in’, but given the developments of the cash for honours inquiry, Labour’s poll rating is now bound to be further depressed while Blair stays in office.
What’s obvious now is that his head is there for the taking, politically. The opposition parties have clearly judged that hounding him is now not going to delay his departure and are therefore aiming for the credit to be gained in removing the most unpopular politician in the country.
He should go now - the government have done nothing substantial since the conference season I expect the There is no direction nor joined up thinking, save surviving the next media storm. Blair’s authority has all but dissolved. It’s the old illusion of being “in government, but not in power”.
Of course he won’t go, unless absolutely forced to. The PLP are emasculated and supine on the whole issue.
I imagine that only charges being brought against Levy *and* Turner will be sufficient to force an early resignation. Even then I expect him to cling to a line that charges are not a conviction. Whilst this may be true, different standards apply when the integrity of the Prime Minister’s office is called into serious doubt.
From a betting perspective, the difficulty remains in predicting the timing of a charges-induced departure. The complicating factor being how long it takes between a file being passed to the CPS and charges being laid. Could be a quick “barn door” decision or could take months.
Many a true word spoken in jest… Your earlier post about these pictures was quite light hearted, but given what we have found out about his police interview, rather insightful.
I’m not sure if the police ‘chat’ was the same day as this interview [Jon Sopel clearly didn't do it on the Sunday it was transmitted] but he clearly had a lot on his mind.
Any other hunches you want to share with us, mikey; you might be bang on the money again !
Righto, I’m just off to take a pre-Humphrys interview look at the betting markets - perhaps you should do a ‘before’ and ‘After’ analysis. Although if he quits on air, DLT style..
I tell you the way I read what is happening.
Two sets of offence: peverting justice and cash payments for honours.
On the first, I think the police have strong evidence that officials at no. 10 who were obliged to “co-operate fully” and hand over to police all notes, emails and docs, and testify about records, of or on meetings where honours were discussed, instead:
a) did not tell police about crucial meetings and damaging discussions
b) did not hand over emails and documents that were damaging
c) deliberately deleted the same.
That will result in charges for Turner, et al.
On cash for honours, by far the more difficult of the two to prove, I actually think the police have something on Levy - that he did actually offer an honour with a price tag to Sir Christopher Evans. I think this because of evidence I read over the last few days suggesting that Powell warned the PM about Levy and called him “an embarassment”. That strongly suggests, to me, that Levy went outside his remit from Blair and sold honours.
And as I said yesterday, Blair - never mind “interviewed without a lawyer present” there is a lawyer present whenever Blair is interviewed, namely, himself. Blair may well know that if Levy has overstepped the mark and lied to police about meetings he has no choice but to drop him in it - that is the law.
Levy will however refuse to go down and if he testifies he was offering inducements under orders, then things could get difficult for the PM.
9 Commentator - I agree.
The distinction between the two offences/lines of enquiry is important. I suspect Levy may be charged under both as he has been cautioned under both, but the consipracy to pevert the course of justice may be the easier to lay.
The police know their place - no charges at all until Blair leaves office. He won’t want to go under a cloud and he will think that to bow now would be an admission of guilt. The moment everything looks a big quiet expect Her Majesty to recieve a letter … he won’t want an “event” to make it look like he’s cutting and running.
Tony Blair is interviewed live on BBC Radio 4 at 8.10 am
Its starting to look like the Parliamentary Labour party is taking a leaf out of the Tories book of ‘only ever panicking in a crisis’ - Radio 4 Today led with a number (Blears, Harman) burbling about ‘corrosive cynicism’ and ‘eroding trust’. This sort of behaviour(in the Tories)is what did for Thatcher - but, the huge difference is that the Tories in the commons could do something about it - their Labour brethern cannot. Clearly some believe Blair has turned from an electoral asset into a liability and the downsides of saying so have disappeared - but whether any of this means Blair will go earlier is far from clear. Its still ‘one man, one vote’. Blair’s.
For those not watching Newsnight last night a ’senior police source’ told Martha Kearney that he thought no-one would be charged and the reason for all the arrests and second interviews is simply so no-one can accuse them of leaving any stone unturned in such a high profile case. In which case it wont even go to the CPS and will likely be wrapped up in the next few weeks.
If true there is likely to be a backlash not just against the police but also those opportunists like the Scottish Nationalists and certain Lib Dems who will be left looking vindictive and in the case of Alex Salmond rather unpleasant.
It’s unlikely to improve Blairs personal popularity much-thanks to Lebanon and Iraq- but it’ll give his party a new confidence and his legacy will be looked at much more favourably.
I missed the first part of the Blair interview, anything good?
Blair is too damn good! I wont forgive him but he’ll certainly be missed. He has to be far and away the most articulate politician probably ever.
16. Pass the sick bucket someone…
Must be a spoof poster.
welcome back roger - I wish you would warn us before making comedy posts though.
I noticed in Blair’s interview he said that he had promsied to serve for the ‘next parliament’ and that he still had lots to do. He didn’t get asked about this by Humphries but I think he should have been; there was no mention of his speech to conference and how he only has a few weeks left.
16 Roger - through gritted teeth, I agree. I thought it was a very good interview - Humphrys tough without hectoring or sneering a la Paxman - and focussing on tough issues - when Blair will go, waste in the NHS and the decline in social mobility. Blair’s self belief continues to shine through, and he sounded pretty relaxed - contrary to many’s perception, perhaps he feels more at home in Co Durham than Davos. We’ve got him until the summer. Get over it.
Re the Martha interview. Sounded to me like spin through a friendly source. I recall Nick Robinson said months ago that this investigation was not going to lead to anything.
Yates must have had reasonable grounds to arrest Levy and Turner otherwise his image and career will be wrecked if no charges are laid.
I think he had Blair interviewed for the 2nd time to cover his bases and minimise the risk of some later revelation from Blair that happened in the Queen/Diana/Burrell affair.
Sounded to me more and more like a Brown debut at Conference with Blair going at end of session.
Blair did well in the circumstances in the Today intereview - much better than most politicians would do. I don’t think it is going to transorm the situation though.
The result last night from the one byelection was a LibDem gain from Residents .
Tewkesbury DC Brockworth LibDem 639 Con 343 Lab 237 Res 195
2003 result 3 seats Res 830/754/694 Lab 640/555/515 Con 359/293/248 Green 175 .
Mary Ann Sieghart starts to sound a bit too desperate in her attacks to Brown
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2579668,00.html
I think Mary Ann like the rest of us is just letting her slip show more than is appropriate in a respected newspaper. She used to be a devotee of Tony Blair and now has transferred her affections to DC. Perhaps she just likes public school boys? (And speaking as one myself why not? We need all the help we can get!)
That’s a terrible results for Residents. I think their leader should resign at once.
Tressage says: “There are so many problems that the country is facing, and we really do need a national leader who can give some thought to and guidance for these problems - not one whose only thoughts are how to fend off the press from the next round of police questioning.”
But that’s the point about TB: he is quite obviously getting on with the job despite the pressures. He likes doing it; he’s not accused of an offence; nobody outside the usual suspects is urging him to go before June; so he won’t. It’s as simple as that.
Whether the Tories are right to switch fire from GB to TB is an interesting question. I think they’ll regret it for two reasons: there is no real surge of public feeling that DC is preferred to TB (compare their positive approval ratings - much the same), and the target disappears in a few months’ time. It would only make sense if they thought that they could actually get him out early and claim his scalp, and they won’t.
re 23. That’s right Peter. Given everything that he has been going through his performance on the Today programme was impressive. A big danger for the police and those calling for his resignation is that we might reach a stage where he is seen as a victim. The Blair show is going to go on.
Good article Mike. I tend to agree. I can’t see him leaving early of his own accord and another coup attempt would be very bad. They should have finished the job last time instead of bottling it half way through.
On Radio 4 this morning he said it would be wrong to go before the cash for peerages enquiry was over, so anyone who thought he would go soon will be deeply dissappointed.
[9] The only point that occurs to me in addition to Commentator’s excellent analysis is this.
Let’s suppose that the CPS bring one or more of Evans, Levy and Turner into court. Where on earth are they going to find a jury that is going to try the case on its merits, and not on the jurors’ political opinions? A monastery? An ashram? And just imagine Blair in the witness box, as a character witness (why wouldn’t they call him? why wouldn’t he be only too keen to show up?) refreshed by his freedom from the cares of office - the case can hardly come on before the autumn, if it comes on this year - all charm and self-deprecation. And then try to imaging a jury convicting, or a conviction being found safe on appeal.
Blair himself is on record as saying that fund-raising is a tiresome business and then some; I have no doubt that some people said things they shouldn’t have, and that others panicked. And I have no doubt, either, that Blair’s posse won’t be the last people to go through this sort of thing.
The French and the Germans have realised that the only answer is State Funding of the political process. As ever, we Brits like to think we’re special and different. We aren’t.
26. Roger, Sieghart is quite desperate. Ok, she doesn’t like Brown and all her columns should contain an attack to him. However she can think (ok, maybe I’m asking her too much…) about better things to attack GB with than a PPS appointment (then she based all the rest of her thinking on the evidence provided by the PPS appointment).
Anyway, on her 2 main points about why a PPS shouldn’t be an ally of the minster he/she’s serving.. “it is far more useful for him or her to mingle with people to whom the minister would not normally talk” … well, even if the PPS is a Brownite, he can mingle with not Brownite people anyway. So that point is weak
“Also the PPS is meant to pass on criticism and home truths. These are less likely to be offered by backbenchers if, like Mr Austin, the PPS is seen as ideologically inseparable from the boss”…well, if people don’t want to let know a criticism to a minister, they won’t tell it to the minister’s PPS even if he’s ideologically separable from the boss.
Maybe next time Mary Ann will propose John McDonnell as Gordon’s PPS
“Mrs Marr” aka “Labour’s mouthpiece” with veiled threats to Mr Yates.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jackie_ashley/2007/02/it_cant_end_happily_ever_after.html
“While the former commissioner of the Met, Sir John Stevens, was known for protecting his troops at all costs, the current incumbent, Sir Ian Blair, is less predictable. My source tells me that if Inspector Yates is found to have overstepped the mark, he will be left to swing in the wind.”
On a technical note that may be of interest: Mary Ann is partly mistaken about PPSs. For example, TB has never had a PPS who was identifiably from a different wing of the party. The most important characteristic is mutual trust - you need to be able to talk as frankly and freely to your PPS as you would to yourself. There are lots of people who can sound out MPs, etc., and you have special advisers to help with policy - you can use the PPS for either but you don’t need to. But you need someone to talk about your personal strategy, presentation, priorities, and so on.
Ministers do vary enormously in how they use PPSs. Margaret Beckett involved PPSs in Defra in the same way as Ministers in the regular policy discussions, and the test of whether you got listened to was simply whether you had something interesting to say: start to waffle and you’d get curtly cut off (fair enough). But a colleague who has been a PPS for eight years tells me she has never been to a Ministerial meeting at all; on the other hand, she does the ‘eyes and ears’ thing a lot.
The government can’t win on this, no smoke without fire, charges, told you their corrupt, no charges, its a whitwash. British Prime Ministers rarely go willingly, they are either booted out b, the electorate, resign due to ill health, if not those two, dragged out screaming, while being stabbed in the back. The electorates tolerence for a PM is about eight years, then they start to resnt you. I think some posters, take too much notice of what people say, it might be for effect, rather than what people really believe. The last ten years could have been worse without Blair, the next ten could be, we don’t yet know. Whether GB can steady the ship (its metaphor time) we don’t yet know, are the public really, really convinced about Cameron,(suspect not) we have yet to find out.
Roger-14- welcome back;
I personally think the investigation will end in a couple of weeks or so with no charges, Blair magnaminous and loyally congragulating the work of Yates as demonstrating the best of British- a scrupulous, independent police force thoroughly committed to the task at hand. The British establishment smells of roses, Yates salvages something of his reputation after the Burrell fiasco, and Blair is able to move into his succession on a positive note and on his terms.
The alternative is quite unthinkable and moreover quite proposporous. If anyone thinks that the Police is going to press criminal charges that more or less implicates the PM in illegal activity must be wacko. It would bring the whole governing class into disrepute, and subject this country to international ridicule. It would sully the name of the country. Noone would win.
The right have always hated Blair- I will look forward to the near future when this whole charade will be put to bed, to seeing Blair emerging victorious with quivering lip, congragulating Yates, and reading the postings from the rightwing idiots and hypocrites that populate this site. Infact it may also be as fun as a general election victory considering the frenzy and hysteria that has been associated to this (non) story within the redundant and hypocritical right- after all your precious Tory leader has just about publicly admitted to snorting cocaine as little as 6 years ago.
Re 14, Roger, ever the optomist. If the police do not find anything it will not necessarily be good for Labour. It won’t be good for the police though.
Having said that, you can’t go around arresting people without good reason. I suspect they had good reason.
28. I’m sure Blair, given his Messiah complex, must dream excitedly of being seen as a ‘victim’…of resurrection after being ‘crucified’ by Procurator Yates. Nevertheless this seems a very unlikely scenario. Even if the investigation comes to nothing I suspect most people will conclude that corruption did occur, but that the police simply lacked the evidence to bring any charges. The stain cannot be washed away so easily.
Sorry Nick but quite a few do accuse Mr Blair of an offence - namely procurring loans and not declaring them as political donations. He also appears to have allowed people working for him to offer peereges to the givers of these loans.
On the first charge Michael Howard and Gordon Brown should also be accused. On the second just about every PM in recent memory should be similarly accused.
But because the police didn’t stop the chap who went through the 30 mph zone at 40mph before you, doesnt mean you should get off - especially as you appear to have been travelling at well over 100!
35 Beyond Astroturfing to hagiography now.
39. Complete with hilarious spelling mistakes…the sweat from the steaming brow/saliva from the foaming mouth must have dripped onto the keyboard during the fevered typing of that message, causing the fingers to fatally slip…
Re 27, Nick Palmer “That’s a terrible results for Residents. I think their leader should resign at once.”
As for the rest of your comments I agree Tony will hang on. And on. And on.
I thought Blair the master was masterful again this morning; he has a superb self-depreciating style which without a trace of arrogance demonstrates almost unimaginable levels of self-confidence.
He is staying until the end of the session, since he isn’t going to be charged with anything and there is no reason for him to go; other than of course to save his Party - but then he has always hated his Party.
And then we have the prospect of the first year or two of Browns ‘new broom’ premiership being acted out against the background of an Old Bailey prosecution for cash for honours with a string of high profile witnesses and revelations about how the New Labour project is funded.
39 apologies for the wild spelling of proposterous in 35- I rush out my postings all too quickly, and this must count as one of my most worsest spelingz eva
32. Interesting HF …..and the shape of things to come. The backlash might have started and IF no charges there is going to be a hell of a witch hunt (more metaphors Coldstone). Like the posters on here who yesterday sounded like Hilda Ogden on speed-even normally sensible ones like Rod Crosby- to-day are sounding more reflective. Imagine the turmoil at the Mail and Telegraph when they have to tell their salivating readers to return to their zimmer frames it was all a false alarm!
[43] I reckon proposporous nutshells Blair exactly, Tyson - porous, prosperous and preposterous all at once - go to the top of the class
44. No Roger, IF charges don’t come then people will assume that there was a cover up/conspiricy and it succeeded.
Of course as a Labour man you can’t see that, but Blair and new Labour have lost too much trust over everything else to be given the benefit of doubt on this.
In my opinion no charges would be even more damaging to the Labour Party than if, say, a Blair aide is charged with something.
Blair now can’t go until the police investigation is over. To do so would be perceived as an admission of guilt, so even if he was planning to go sooner, he won’t.
In the unlikely event that the investigation drags on beyond the May elections, it could actually delay his departure date rather than bring it forward.
Re 35, Tyson, “The alternative is quite unthinkable and moreover quite proposporous. If anyone thinks that the Police is going to press criminal charges that more or less implicates the PM in illegal activity must be wacko. It would bring the whole governing class into disrepute, and subject this country to international ridicule. It would sully the name of the country. Noone would win.”
So if the police do find evidence they believe is strong enough to convict, what do you suggest they do? Shred it?
I meant conspiracy - we are all at the bad spelling this morning.
32 - and with JR bringing up that Yates went to public school I see they have also brought out the bigot card..
36 Benedict- I have no doubt that there were dodgy dealings with peerages, and some possibly half garbled attempt at a cover up that may even stretch to no. 10’s door. But Yates is no Kenneth Starr. The implications of charging those around the PM are simply too seismic, politically. It would be the nuclear option, and extremely damaging for this country.
Equally I wouldn’t like to see pictures or stories of the leader of the opposition, a rolled up 50 in hand, his pupils wide open, his veins bulging, engaging in illegal class A drug use. There are simply stories or actions that would bring our establishment into disrepute and are best left put to bed.
51. What about a picture of GB on a rocking horse ?
“In my opinion no charges would be even more damaging to the Labour Party than if, say, a Blair aide is charged with something”
I realize that Tory candidates are likely to see things with a blue tinge but this is a seriously bizarre posting!
48. It’s strange…I would have thought a Marxist would have been thrilled at the prospect of ‘the whole governing class’ being brought ‘into disrepute’…surely that will open the way for the oppressed proletariat to be jolted out of their false conciousness and take to the streets…
O/T but here’s an interesting interview with John Cruddas. I think he’s quite wrong in thinking that amnestying illegal immigrants, and pursuing left wing health and immigration policies will keep the BNP at pay in Dagenham.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200702050028
48 Benedict- the police always have to take a judgement vis a vis prosecution. In this case the judgement will simply fall on the no evidence side, but at least they have shown an earnest commitment to the task at hand. Everyone wins.
Can someone please ask Betfair whether there will be a book opened on whether any charges will be brought in the cash for peerages enquiry, and if so on how many people. Judging by the amount of right wing ideologues who are so blinkered in their enthusiasm to see a Labour prosecution, I think there could be a small fortune to be made.
47 “Blair now can’t go until the police investigation is over. To do so would be perceived as an admission of guilt, so even if he was planning to go sooner, he won’t. ”
Yes but the police can wait him out. Drag the investigation on until the summer and charge Blair rather than PM Blair.
As it’s Friday here’s a fishy story with the Scottish Tories getting battered and a little vinegar in the air. Mushy peas anyone ?? :
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1164882.0.0.php
53
As I said earlier, the government can’t win! If there are no charges, its a cover up, if there are its, told u so. The irony is that this sort of thing has been going on for ever. All governments have been ‘at it’ giving friends and supporters honours. The solution is obvious, scrap the whole silly nonsense. if there is to be a second chamber, the only people to be in it, should be elected by us, we put ‘em in, we kick ‘em out. It has always amzed me, that anyone is prepared to pay good money, to dress up in silly clothes, and call each other silly names. If people want to do that sort of thing, join a club for transvestites, (thats someone who wants to eat, drink and be Mary), lets start thinking 21st century, not 17th.
Jack W- thanks very much. A welcome tonic
Re 51, Tyson, “Benedict- I have no doubt that there were dodgy dealings with peerages, and some possibly half garbled attempt at a cover up that may even stretch to no. 10’s door. But Yates is no Kenneth Starr. The implications of charging those around the PM are simply too seismic, politically. It would be the nuclear option, and extremely damaging for this country.”
Would you say that about Aitkin or Archer?
53. Roger, why bizarre?
If I was Blair, and I was innocent, I would want to get the matter *conclusively* closed and that can only happen in one of two ways.
a) Yates says ‘I have been looking for 10 months and can find no evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever’ chances of that happening - nil.
b) It goes to court and the accused are found not guilty.
If no charges are brought there is no opportunity for closure, the pong of a cover-up will hang over New Labour for ever.
Yup, it’s Bad Spelling Friday, even Sean Fear has the BNP “at pay” [55].
[42] If you ever get elected, you’re going to find government a real doddle, aren’t you, Marcus? Either someone goes down, or else there’s been a cover-up. I take it you were a Trotskyist in your foolish youth, since that’s how they think.
coldstone- it will be in the presentation of the final police report on whether there are cries of whitewash. Something well crafted will put the story to bed.
Since there is little public appetite for this story outside the hacks, and political geaks, my guess is that the public simply wouldn’t care. Now charging those around the PM is a whole different kettle of fish- and in itself would generate huge public voyeuristic interest.
But totally agree the honours system is a nonsense- but hopefully we will see significant reform by Gordo in respect of party funding, honours, the upper house, and PR, a long overdue modernisation to our political system. Brown must be bold!!
Re 59, Coldstone, “If people want to do that sort of thing, join a club for transvestites, (thats someone who wants to eat, drink and be Mary)”
64. Ah yes I’m sure he’ll be bold - just like the time he stood aside for Tone -Lol.
PR - no chance in this parliment.
From Jack’s Scottish fishy story:
“David Mundell, the Shadow Scottish Secretary, was at Holyrood yesterday meeting Ms Goldie. He denied Mr Brocklebank’s departure was a sign his party was still dogged by internal divisions over Europe. He said: “I would rather he had not resigned, but he has. I don’t think it says anything about Annabel Goldie’s leadership.”"
No but it might about Cameron’s eh Mr Mundell?? - Cant wait for the Tories to get some policies out in the open so they can start bickering amongst themselves again!
35&51. Tyson, are you scrapping the barrel today and just resorting to smearing politicians?
62-Marcus really- a politician needs good judgement and yours appears to be hopelessly awry.
Yates would not want to experience the ignominy of another failed court case after the Burrell fiasco- infact strategically he appears to have been the best by far nomination to lead this case because he is also the last person to want to take this case any further, least of all to court.
OT. EU Parliament unpdate. The EU Parliament has elected its committees chairs and vice-chairs yesterday and today.
The positions got by UK MEPs are 2 chairmanships: Arlene McCarthy (Labour) as Chair of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee and Neil Parish (Con) as Chair of the Agricolture and Rural Development Committee.
Vice-Chairs got by UK MEPs: John Purvis (Con) in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee; Liz Lynne (LD) in the Employment and Social Affairs Committee; Elseph Attwooll (LD) in the Fisheries Committee; Timothy Kirkhope (Con) in the Constitutional Affairs Committee; Michael Cashman (Lab) in the Petitions Committee; Richard Howitt (Lab) and Sarah Ludford (LD) in the Human Rights Sub-Committee.
As expected the far group didn’t get anything even if entitled of 2 vice-chairs using the De Hondt system. They were nominated for Culture and Transport committees vice-chairs, but a secret ballot was called. In the Culture Committee, their candidate lost (34 votes to 1) to a Conservative MEP from Hungary and in the Transport committee the far right candidate lost 35 to 6 against a Soc*alist MEP.
68. Based on zero facts what so ever - as ever Nulab lose the argument and play the man..
Annabel Goldies leadership of her party is about as relevant to anything (including clearly the price of fish) as the Resident Party Leader Nick Palmer wanted sacked earlier (27).
67 Icarus. It appears that they’ll be no reverse “Rik defection alert” on this one as the local Lib Dem smacked the departing Brocklebank round the chops with a wet haddock stating :
“… he was no great loss … he was ineffective and unsuccessful !!”
68 – Did you really expect anything else Chris.
Some of the posts from Labour supporters on this site are beyond desperate. Imagine if this was happening to the Tory party circa 1996. I wonder if they might have a different take on these recent events?
Slightly OT - and I’m sure no one cares but me - but I think its time for another Official SeanT Apology.
Thinking back on my posts this last week, I reckon I might have been somewhat over the top, a tad too vituperative. No change there, you might say, but nonetheless I think my language in recent days was at times intemperate - I was in love with my own rhetoric, as Nick P pointed out.
My first excuse is that I do like to stretch the linguistic legs, and I do like a punch up. Also, I do get very and genuinely angry about Iraq, and about Labour’s tendency to lie; also I had just got back from Cambodia so my righteous anger about communists and communism was freshly minted - I do despise Marxists, ex Marxists, Marxism, etc etc - but quite frankly I’m sure I made my point some time ago, and didn’t need to harp on it quite so vehemently.
Anyhow, the underlying excuse here is that I am going through some extremely trying and upsetting times domestically. I know this is probably Too Much Information and of no interest to anyone but me - but I just want to get this off my chest. I think because of my personal hassles I vented my angst and spleen on here, vicariously, and that ain’t right. Even if Peter Mandelson is a lying weasel.
So, sorry to anyone who was offended who didn’t deserve to be offended.
Normal service will, I hope, be resumed shortly. Vale, peebles.
ChrisD- sorry hardly smearing Cameron on issues that were openly discussed, put to Cameron, and pretty well admitted to on channel 4 news, or Newsnight.
I wouldn’t like to see Cameron’s career rest solely on his alleged snorting of cocaine, as much as Blair’s now is on these pretty pathetic and inconsequential actions.
On the great scheme of things I am much happier seeing Blair judged on some of his catastrophic decisions/ judgement- i.e Iraq, Lebanon, even his appalling silence following the saddam hanging, ID cards, control orders, talking up being tough, overcrowded prisons- in fact every time Tony has lurched to the right it has kicked him up the backside- probably an indication that rightwing politics are not the most useful.
I am also much happier to see Cameron being challenged on being a policyless, vacuous, PR man lightweight rather than his suggested prior class A drug life.
74 Max. As one of the smaller but fighting fish in the Scottish Tory pond, pray tell us why the junior tartan pirhana are indulging in this aquatic cannabalism ??
Innocent Abroad at 63. “Either someone goes down, or else there’s been a cover-up” In this case, very possibly.
Lord Levy has been arrested on suspicion of conspiring to pervert the course of justice and Ruth Turner has been arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice; so the Police have reason to suspect that there has been an attempt at a cover up.
Tyson. Your post at 69 makes my point for me. “Yates would not want to experience the ignominy of another failed court case” - exactly.
76. Alledged incidents from many moons ago at private party before he was leader vs actual incidents which probably affected the size of the NuLab majority at the last election - hardly the same thing is it.
Perhaps you could also equate rumours of drug taking vs an illegal war in Iraq based on lies which cost the lives of 100s of Uk soldiers and 1000s of Iraqis ?
76. Are you just trying to bore us all to death now Tyson, by repeating yourself endlessly?
78
Surely the word we should be examining here is ’suspicion’ how many people have ever been arrested,charged,successfully prosecuted and found guilty on that charge? I’d like to know. Even though I have no doubt, that the government or its associates have been ‘nudge, nudge, wink, wink, slip a few quid into party funds, there’s a K or a Peerage in it for you, this is nothing new. Perhaps Marcus would like to explain what that well known supporter of the Conservative Party Conrad Black did for our nation, that William Hague nominated him? The sort of man I’m sure the Conservative Party is proud to be associated with!
Mike S
“That’s why those who want him out now have got to be very careful. This might not be in tune with the public mood.”
On yesterday’s thread, I speculated that we might just be reaching the point where a mood swing begins. I was attacked from all sides.
How come you get off so lightly?
And stop pinching my scripts. My daughter’s a lawyer, you know.
It’s something he feels particularly strong about. I think you’ve rather over-hyped the story though Jack. The Herald seems to be the only paper that’s written a decent sized piece on the issues. No one really cares what MSP’s do.
Fishing, unfortunately, isn’t that big a deal to most people now.
As for the response of his Lib Dem colleague it pretty much sums up why h (Ian Smith)e is not terribly popular with most other MSP’s.
The significant thing about the Tewkesbury result is that the Lib Dems got their act in order and fielded a candidate (and of course then won the seat). Can anybody tell us (without an enormous amount of reseach) whether the Lib Dems have a good track record in this particular ward? And why they didn´t stand last time?
It is no more than a straw in the wind, of course (yet another one!), but this result does fit in with the three recent opinion polls which show the Lib Dems making significant advances.
Is there any more information about the regional poll mentioned by Jon (4), where the Tories are despairing of Cameron? I´m not surprised by the finding, mind you.
Worth a look at Iain Dale’s site today…the opening ppgh caught my eye…
‘Over the last few days the comment sections of this blog have been dominated by New Labour trolls who are making all sorts of ridiculous accusations. It’s when I read this sort of rubbish that I know it’s hitting home.’
Indeed.
roger: You’re exuberance seems to have gone a bit too far on this I think. Lack of evidence doesnt not innocence prove. Even if there are no charges for anyone on any crime (and I suspect there will be on loans and deleting emails during an investigation), the details of the case will eventually come out and people will draw their own conclusions as to whether asking if a big donor wants “A big K” is selling an honour. Just because the CPS doesnt think the evidence would convict in court doesnt mean Labour will come out smelling of roses and there will be a backlash. Um, anyone remember dear old innocent O J Simpson?…
It may well be that Blairites try to engineer a “backlash” in a couple of weeks - indeed they would be wise to try before the elections. But it will depend on events. What has caught out the Blairites again and again on this is that they were so detached from reality they thought it would all blow over and come to nothing. They have been proved wrong again and again on this.
PS To all you bad spellers I repeat again: install Mozilla Tunderbird and you will have your mistakes underlined in the box as you type!
“The anti-Blair right-wing press is erupting in inflated indignation about being misled by Downing Street.” So well put
And talking of getting off lightly, I was surprised nobody else commented on the posters who consider themselves so well educated that they are entitled to criticise the spelling of others.
Posts with spelling errors are a problem only when they impede understanding. Bad manners are always a problem.
PS
Seant I for one wouldn’t want u any other way, sorry about the domestics, hope it works out ok!
83 Max. Moi “over-hype” a story !!!!!!!!!!
IMO this story crushes all hope the Scottish Tories have of any representation in the Scottish parliament let alone the wider world !! …. indeed David Cameron will likely resign as the story unfolds this afternoon and he concedes that he’s been snorting deep fried sea salt and using uber gerkins as an enema ….. all with the assistance of Miss Whiplash Goldie !!
I think I need some drugs …. Nurse !!
88. Was it race horses or high horses that are your speciality?
86 “PS To all you bad spellers I repeat again: install Mozilla Tunderbird and you will have your mistakes underlined in the box as you type!”
OK, MBoy, that’s sorted out the bad spelling. Now, do we have a piece of software that will sort out the bad manners?
91 Both.
Tressage at 84. There is no survey.
75 Sean T - I’m perplexed. I followed yesterday’s thread closely and noticed nothing worthy of apology - and as Que just pointed, I’m quicker than most to get on my high horse.
Anybody not familiar with your slugging style should note that you take it as well as you dish it out.
I don’t see a problem.
95. ‘I don’t see a problem’
That may be the reaction the Cornishman was hoping for.
95
If your the sort of person, whose offended by a rattling good argument robustly persued, (sometimes with tongue firmly in cheek) you shouldn’t be on this site anyway.
76.”ChrisD- sorry hardly smearing Cameron on issues that were openly discussed, put to Cameron, and pretty well admitted to on channel 4 news, or Newsnight.”
No Tyson, that is not a fact, just a smearing spin on your own interpretation of the interviews.
77. JackW, I agree with Max’s comments on this although he has now reached the dizzy heights of hero status on ConHom as a result!
MBoy writes: Even if there are no charges for anyone on any crime (and I suspect there will be on loans and deleting emails during an investigation), the details of the case will eventually come out and people will draw their own conclusions as to whether asking if a big donor wants “A big K” is selling an honour.
How on earth do you know whether that’s true or not?
96 So?
Ta guys. Just feeling a bit bruised right now, and regretful. But enough of the sobbing violins. I’m sure I shall bounce back anon.
Riddell is right. Blair will superglue himself to the Number 10 door. They’ll have to steam him off, like old blu tack, before he quits.
New thread on “….meanwhile this was CONhome’s big story of yesterday”.
101 Yes, back to business….and you are indeed correct, you scabrous old Cornishman.
And I am glad to note that due to yesterday’s excitement there is once again the opportunity to dutch Qs 2 & 3 in Betfair’s Blair Switch market.
Pile in. I already have.
Very odd, Marcus (94). I wonder why Jon thought that the West Country Tories were so very disillusioned with Cameron´s leadership?
ballyeric: Are you suggesting that the leaked letter containing the quote “A big K” is a forgery?
PtP: No, even the might Mozilla cant give us a manners checker yet!
98 It is amazing how many Conservatives who would normally consider Class A drug usage as a serious crime can suddenly find tolerance if the alleged user is rich or went to a public school or is leader of their party .
98 ChrisD. Max … a hero on ConHome ????
“Mad McMax beyond the ConHome Dome” …. a re-released film starring a young Conservative accountant struggling in post apocalpyptic Edinburgh
“Pure Filth” - The Scottish Daily Mail
“Pure Filth ..We luv it” - Channel4
“Princess Di would have loved it” - Scottish Daily Express
“Blogged here” - Benedict
105 - sorry, what letter? can you send me a link to it please? have you seen it?
Well let again the tories have egg on their face after hypeing up this pityful farce about cash for honors that, as many of us knew, would come to nothing…
Now ‘inspector’ Yeats has concluded his ‘investigation’ there have been no charges, no trial, no court case, nothing :- nothing for Tony Blair to answer for at all in fact .
Message to the prime minister: Tony, you have proven yourself to be whiter than white as you promised us all those years ago (and it has been so) - it is the tories (many of them to be seen on this site) who grope around politic’s gutter sullying the name of good women and men. Tony take a bow! You can hang your head high!
As for the tories (many of them posting on this site) you have caused massive distress to good and innocent folk in your persuit of unexisting labour sleaze. You have caused distress and distracted ministers from the job in hand - the job of government. If you have a shred of decency left in your bodies tories (and I have little reason to think so) apolgies and apolgies now!!
105 LOL MBoy
I understand however that Mike is working on a drivel-filter. Ah well, looks like my days here are numbered.
106. In the same way as Lib Dem anger about corruption mysteriously vanishes if the crook in question happens to be a major donor to their party?
Re 107, JackW
I have just doen a short piece on droping the SFO investigation though.
84 Re Tewkesbury Brockhurst , a little research shows the LibDems have no track record in Brockhurst ward at all . The ward previously split in 2 different wards used to be fairly strongly Labour overall . The 2005 CC result which included the smaller LibDem ward of Hucclecote was Res 1169 Con 1035 Lab 948 LibDem 456 Green 209 . Most of the LibDem’s 456 votes must have come from Hucclecote .
90 - Jack – please don’t use the phrase ‘deep fried’. It’s still a couple of hours till lunch and I’m starving already.
As you’ve been away a quick update on the election in Edinburgh. Electioneering is fairly low key even at this – relatively – late stage. Even in Central where I currently reside. It’s the only seat I can see changing hands. I’m told that Labour expect to hold North and East with reduced majorities and the Tories and Lib Dems expect to hold South and Pentlands with increased majorities.
And very good to have you back and fighting fit again. Just in time to put on your shorts for a run out at Twickers!
Re 35, Tyson said “The alternative is quite unthinkable and moreover quite proposporous. If anyone thinks that the Police is going to press criminal charges that more or less implicates the PM in illegal activity must be wacko. It would bring the whole governing class into disrepute, and subject this country to international ridicule. It would sully the name of the country. Noone would win.”
Tyson, you may be right but I hope not.
To give a slightly different take on this whole saga, I’m a Brit living in Kenya, where I have been off and on for the last 10 years.
Kenya is, to put it politely, not noted for the cleanliness of its politics or public financial governance.
Quite recently, I have had many conversations with various Kenyan pals who have told me that the Brits are a bunch of hypocrites to lecture Africans about corruption when we have a PM under police investigation, SFO enquiries into an air traffic control system sold to the Tanzanians, what about the Saudis?, etc etc.
My response to these entirely reasonable points is to say “Look, you are quite right, but can you imagine the Kenyan police ever interviewing a president about a corribtion allegation? No, of course not. That is the difference between a transparent democracy and what we have here [in Kenya]. This is what we should all be working to achieve - a system where no-one is above the law”.
If the police let this one quietly vaporize, as Tyson suggest they will, then Britain will have taken a small but significant step on the road to becoming a banana republic.
sp. “corribtion” = corruption. My typing somehow got corribted. Dang there I go again
114 Max.
116 Ed B - Nice to have a post from Kenya, for which I have a very soft spot.
I was there recently to negotiate a tax settlement with the KRA. I feared the worst but was very pleasantly surprised to find them highly professional and manifestly straight-dealing. The only indication that corruption was a problem in their country was in the extreme measures they took to demonstrate openness. This in itself is a bit of a handicap in making business more efficient. What would have been settled on the spot here had to be approved by two Departments in Nairobi so that neither Department could be accused of fiddling.
Kenya is crucial. Those of us who love Africa watch it closely. I reckon it could go either way. I remain optimistic however, not least because of my happy experience with the KRA.
Good luck.
We probably need to take a step back on the who will get charged with what because its impossible to tell.
What is more critical from a political landscape and betting point of view is what damage this is doing a) to Blair and the knock on affect on his leaving, b) the wider party & c) The electorate
On a) I still believe that if there a possible knock on affect here. Probable, no but possible yes.
On b) Despite Nick Palmers denials, many PLP members do think this is a poisonous episode (whether or not they are panicking) and its draining. And yes Nick I’m stating you many do think its poisonous, we’ll just have to differ on that.
On c) I don’t think its really going to switch too many votes over this issue.
If there are charges, all bets are off but we have no idea at this time. If anyoe cares to comment on points a) to c) please do.
107.
Good to have you back keeping us on our toes JackW.
Will you be campaigning for the return of unreconstructed Jacobite policies in the May elections to save us from Alex “braveheart” Salmond presiding over Holyrood?
119. poor grammar…I believe there is a possible knock on affect.
120 ChrisD. I have “sleepers” in all the parties !! …. the trouble is I can’t wake the buggers up.
121 Yes, wotchit Yokel. The Spelling Police were around earlier. Can The Grammarians be far behind?