Former minister comes out for Denham
March 1st, 2007After the suggestions on Paul Lindford’s blog and this site about John Denham being a credible candidate for the Labour leadership there is now backing for the idea in today’s Guardian by the former defence minister, Peter Kilfoyle.
Denham’s great plus point was that he resigned his post as a Home Office minster over the Iraq War - an issue that continues to hang over the Labour party. On Monday I argued that if by any chance that Denham got elected then of the three main party leaders only David Cameron would have supported the war.
The chances of him running at all must be quite remote but there must be just a faint possibility. His latest betting price is 149/1. Brown, meanwhile, has eased a touch to 0.29/1.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
this is getting ridiculous…
Mike- gosh- as said before if Denham does rise to the challenge, you must cut your leader on Monday, frame it, and gloat about it for ever more. You should even think of retiring because you could never better this tip (dwarfs your tips on Cameron, Cruddas, Obama).
Still though a remote possibility, but an intruiging one nevertheless.
What’s Denham’s majority ?
jd is really good and i hope he makes the cabinet, but to suggest he will become labour leader is ridiculous.
Denham might run if no-one else does. But the real significance of this sort of story is that it flags up just how strong Brown’s position is at the moment.
5. Strong within Labour perhaps, but weak without, hence the desperate search for an alternative. Some extreme personal stuff is bound to surface in the coming weeks as efforts to sabotage GB’s candidacy gather strength.
6. But it’s the Labour Party that will be voting. And you’re right - the search is beginning to look desperate, which will not benefit whoever might eventually emerge to be the ‘not Gordon’ candidate.
Just a moment’s reflection should show how weak a Denham candidacy is. OK, he resigned over Iraq - and what else does he have to commend him?
***** Former Minister Comes Out For Denham *****
The JNN can exclusively reveal that former Church of England minister Chris Bryant, the Labour MP for Rhondda, has come out again, this time in the Suffolk village of Denham.
Mr Bryant dressed only in his underpants, as is his usual GAYDAR style, and appearing on the village green said he “felt the time was right to promote Denham as a haven for Suffolk gay lifestyle.” Accordingly he was in the tradition of the local cottages (not public WCs) painting himself pink. Mr Bryant further indicated his intent to send his discarded nether garments to deprived prisioners at Barlinnie jail.
……………………
Source : JNN - Jacobite News Network.
8 - that’s far more believable than mike’s leader
8.
:lol: Post of the week Jack 
:lol:
John Denham is an able man. But to suggest he’s leadership material is lauighable.
7. Agreed David, but desperate times make for desperate measures so GB had better watch out IMHO.
Interesting little footnote if Denham did decide to move. When he was making his resignation speech on March 18th 2003 he was heckled by William Hague. Denham responded:-
“I will not give way to the honourable gentleman - I’ve never made a resignation speech before and I’d rather like to get to the end of this one”, to laughter from the house.
I’m sure that clip will be played again.
I fail to see how anyone could not beat Brown; only one person could defend this governments record and he is being thrown out. The proposition of Brown and (any of the DPM’s candidates) is a dream ticket for the Tory’s. Surely the outside bet is value if hedged with some Lab/Con seat spread.
In reply to Stodge (from the previous thread) - as I think you realised, I was being a little mischievous - I daresay if I lived in Newham, rather than here in West London, I’d view the London Olympics more favourably
O/T French election polls update
for those interested, the Ipsos poll I mentioned in the previous thread is the first installment of a tracking poll (rolling average of three days of fieldwork)that will be published every day on the website of Le point magazine.
Many politicans already complained about “too much polls”, they will get even more furious!
If you check out Tom Watson’s blog you can see his account of what Denham said when asked about the leadership yesterday,likewise Milliband.
Re -tipping Denham, Snowflake brought up the possibility of a Denham challenge several months ago on this and a number of other blogs.
3.”What’s Denham’s majority ? ”
20/21%
17. Yes I saw that Crossland, but Denham’s hardly going to tell Tom Watson if he’s considering standing against Gordon is he. As it is, I don’t think that Denham is showing signs of standing yet. There are circumstances where he would. For example if one or two other credible MPs put their hats in from the ultra Blairites, if neither Meacher or McDonnell could get onto the ballot space would open up, if Brown pledged something on an issue that Denham and other MPs felt very strongly against, or if there was enthusiasm from other MPs like Kilfoyle and the odd trade union leader. He has the least to lose out of anyone. Maybe he’s observed Jon Cruddas’ campaign for Deputy and seen that you don’t have to be in the current cabinet to be a contender. Who knows what will happen in the next 3 or 4 months.
I reckon the person that laid Denham on Betfair at 1000/1 to the tune of £7k (to gain a measly £7) might be getting a little twitchy Mike!
Chris from Paris The very anti Sarko Nouvel Observateur website records that Liberation are digging into Sarko’s patrimoine declarations from previous years seeking out under recording of wealth. It seems to me he’ll have to make a full public declaration sooner or later or this problem will grow.
I’d like to see Denham stand, but he wouldn’t win.
He will be a good addition to Gordon’s cabinet, though.
20. Holy good god…though they are still safe yet…
20. What a way to make a living.
I note the market is @ 105 % to back - bring in the arb bot
In a daft way I think it could be easier to persuade John Denham to stand for leader than the much hyped David Miliband. Denham comes across much more normal on TV than Miliband.
Hilary Benn should have stood.
24. I rather shelf-stack for an hour and a half for my £7 and risk nothing!
Denham’s majority is just over 9000.
26. I think if the wheels fall of Gordon’s coronation you could conceivably have Benn, Johnson and Hain pitching for leader too.
As a staunch supporter of Gordon, I would actually welcome that!
29. I’m increasingly confident that is what is going to happen. I have backed all the outsiders as a result, with a massive £10 on Denham at absurd average odds.
19. I agree ,I’m also a big Denham fan but don’t see where the support he would need would come from ?
The education rebellion and alternative white paper certainly helped create a sizeable amount of networking that may have the links to form a faction around him but other than that I know very little about any entrenched support ?
Cruddas is pulling a blinder and working the unions and grassroots well - Denham simply doesnt have the time to get near to that kind of momentum.
I’d have thought Brown already has Denham marked out for a cabinet post, Why do people assume Denham’s preference isn’t Brown?
Denham’s USP is all about him being a ‘critical friend’on his own terms - this doesnt match up with being catapulted into a futile leadership challenge that may benefit the opposition or Blairite loyalists.
21- Blue moon
well he will have to…if it starts to stick but it isn’t the case yet.
if he wins, he will have to declare all anyway.
regarding “tax on fortune” declarations, he may have underestimated the value of his home, but that seems to be the case of Ms Royal as well… Anyway this a general tendency ot undervalue real estate in those declarations. A family I know declared a 7 bedroom 19th century manor with park and woods for less than 300 000 pounds !
26. Am I the only one unimpressed by Benn’s Deputy Campaign so far?
34.Andrea
no
31. Those deputy candidates have campaign teams, websites, fundraising already underway. It wouldn’t take much to go for both and in the past people have run for both positions.
34. I have no idea why he stood. What does he offer that he doesn’t already by being in the Cabinet?
34,37 He’s a sell on this weeks brand index - keep up the negative ramping
36. good point……Ok thats it, I give up ! Resistance is futile I am now willing to join in the speculation.
35/7- I liked him as it’s difficult to dislike someone holding that portfolio (even Clare Short). However his campaign so far has been luckluster. Even Harriet has impressed me more than him.
I think both Cruddas and Johnson has done well so far. Cruddas with his grassroot campaign, whilst Johnson naturally with a more “loyalist” campaign (but I think his strong defence of gay equality has gone down well with the Liberal Left).
Harriet has done ok (maybe because I expected worse), whilst it’s too early to tell for Blears.
That leaves Benn and Hain. Hain has done some really bizarre interviews, so the judgement about him is a bit mixed.
39. I think Alan Johnson could be the one that moves over first.
20 - I very much doubt that they are -£7000 on Denham; in fact it’s much more likely that they were +£7000 on Denham as a result of laying other runners and decided to lay Denham as well (to make £7).
I still think GB is value (declaring my interest, I am on in a biggish way at an average of 1.46). He would [or should] be shorter than that in any head-to-head battle, so the price is either wrong or reflects greater consternation about either (a) skeletons or (b) his health than the world at large is privy to.
40. Andrea have you seen the Hazel Blears ’shop’ on her campaign website? As the Telegraph spotted, the listings are all in German and priced in Euros! Why on Earth anyone would want a Hazel Blears clock (or should I say ‘Wanduhr Tick Tack’) heaven only knows.
http://www.hazelblears.com/?page_id=117
Not really a substitute for tackling policy issues, but pretty all the same.
42. Good point Aaron. Thanks.
43. Henry, oh Dear! The Messenger Bag looks quite good…the rest, well, not (who will go around with a “Nuts about Hazel” shirt?)
My long-shots have a habit of doing well for me. I got on Chris Huhne in the LD contest at 200/1 and found myself laying when he tightened to 0.8/1.
The great worry for GB of a Denham bid is that the election could become a party referendum on the war. You could see many members saying that they knew” Gordon was going to do it but they were voting for JD just to record their feelings over Iraq. My guess is that Gordon would not handle such a challenge very well.
Denham would gets a massive media boost simply because of the novelty and surprise of his bid.
re 43. Maybe Hazel’s online shop Euro pricing is just some gentle UKIP-baiting.
46. I think a lot of people just get bored of the same old faces too. The New Labour ‘brand’ (yuk) is pretty discredited with everything and Brown is tied into this as much as anyone. Denham comes across as likeable in a way that Brown doesn’t do. I’m not saying that’s the most important issue, but it’s got to be a factor. He’s also a little bit older than Cameron which might not be a bad thing.
You have to remember that this is not just about being leader of the party but of the country too. I just don’t think Denham wants that resposibility and will happily take a cabinet or ministerial post instead.
He also reminds me of the bear in Bo Selecta for some reason!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bear_(Bo’_Selecta!)
Should I be hoping for a Denham bid? I’m looking to vote for someone other than Brown but need a proper candidate. As a tory I think we can handle Brown (though not as easily as we might hope) but it would stick in my craw to vote for him. Mind you I find Hain vile and I’m voting for him so maybe I’ll stick with the Goblin King.
49. I know what you’re saying. There did use to be a time though when dozens of people wanted to be PM and fancied their chances of doing a much better job. Maybe all this terrorism business and the 24 hours news media is scaring people off.
51. I dont think it is just that, it is a huge responsibilty and beside from charing the HA select committee he hasn’t been involved at high up domestic politics for some time, jumping in to PM would be a big step. for a cabinet member it is a smaller step in terms of pressure and responsibility.
51. Why squabble over a poisoned chalice ? Why go for 2 years as PM when you can go for a full term in 2013 ?? Thats what Miliband is thinking..
52. Yep but Cameron and Blair weren’t even PPSs before they became leaders of their respective parties. So on one level their jump was/would be therefore bigger than say from Minister of State to PM. I think the fact that Denham was regarded as cabinet material before he resigned counts for something, as does the nature of his resignation - Iraq hasn’t gone away, and this is this guy’s main selling point.
Jamie The problem with that analysis is twofold. If Labour lose next time they might find themselves out for a long time. If that happens the Party could go through two or three leaders before it finds someone who gets them back in.
Good old Austin Mitchell on Clarke/Milburn launch, Miliband and other things
http://www.austinmitchell.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=251
Always entertaining
54. Blair had been shadow home sec, and cameron Shadow education sec. so i disagree. and there is adifference between leader of the opposition and PM. Leaders of the opposition make noise, PMs make decisions.
53. a good point
A Denham bid would certainly rock the boat. I even think he could do it. But surely Deputy would be more suitable.
54. I am talking about acclimatisatiohn to the top heights of British politics. using Everest as an analogy, Brown is just below the summit at the last camp where bad weather has prevented him from advancing despite an abortive attempt last September. A few in the shadow cabinet are at the camp a 100 metres below and are considering a bid for the summit but are worried that if they try Gordo will steal their oxygen packs. Denham once travelled half way up Everest but came back down because he didnt like the company he was keeping and has since been training at the base camp but is not sure that he wants to do that long climb to the summit just yet.
McDonnell, has started at base camp but decided to take a controversial route up the left of the mountain, little realising that the further he travels the summit remains unreachable from that point. Meacher hid in his rucksack and jumped out just as he thought he was getting somewhere and now they have to grudgingly share their diminished oxygen supplies.
Chris I’m sure many french families under-declare their wealth in order to reduce the absurd ISF bill. You may have seen the film ‘Diner des cons’ which featured a man removing paintings from the wall before the tax inspector arrived; unfortunately he left pretty obvious marks on the wall! The difference between your friend and Sarkozy is that he’s not running for the Presidency. This is turning into a very dirty campaign with a huge amount of mud already thrown at Sarkozy (eg the theft of his son’s bike being pursued at ‘too great a cost’ by the police, the allegedly suspicious burglary of a Sego aide, the investigation of a Sego aide by a branch of the police, the ‘corrupt’ purchase of two apartments and now the alleged under declaration of wealth). The hope of the Socialists is that at some point the mud will stick even though Sarko has had good answers to all these charges.
According to Wikipedia in the post 2005 election reshuffle there were reports that Denham was offered – and accepted – the cabinet post of Chief Secretary to the Treasury, before being told that the post had been assigned instead to Des Browne. Does anybody know what happened here? Was he screwed by Gordon?
57. Cameron wasn’t Shadow Education for long - a month or two from memory? I think being in the Shadow Cabinet is good for media practice and reading around a brief but not much else. It was our policy to ‘not have a policy’ on a number of issues in the run up to 97, such as health. I don’t see it as comparable with ministerial experience, but I’m sure most do.
Across the Atlantic there’s a similar debate about Barack Obama and his lack of experience. I think increasingly senior politicians in general have such a lousy reputation that I don’t think many think experience makes as much difference as it perhaps used to. A bit of principle would go down well. If Denham hadn’t resigned over Iraq then this conversation wouldn’t be taking place.
But I view this debate from the point of not who fancies the job, but rather who could the party do with to beat Cameron. Whether he steps up to the plate is another matter, but the article from Peter Kilfoyle suggests I’m not alone.
Mike at 46 makes a very good point. When these hares start to run you have no idea where they’ll end up. It could indeed become an election on the Iraq war (and Trident) and the only contender on the right side with integrity and ability would be Denham.
At the time I remember that the respect Denham earned was enormous. He resignation on a point of principle was different from the others (even Cook) in that he didn’t rubbish the government become a rebel. Everyone likes people who do the right thing and Denham did. Compare and contrast with that odious creature Claire Short. Labour respect loyalty.
A worthwhile wager.
62. As Labour have almost no chance of retaining their majority next time, perhaps the better yardsticks might be a) who can best cut a deal with the Lib Dems (assuming some recovery) or b) who can minimise the scale of the upcoming defeat (assuming no recovery or even a deterioration). Any thoughts?
Bets are off. Roger’s backing Denham. Only joking Roger - I can’t remember what he said exactly in his resignation, but I do recall is that number of colleagues from both sides of the argument were full of praise and warmth towards him.
63. Rushing to square my position on Denham now…
65. I meant ‘comrades’ rather than ‘colleagues’. How new labour of me.
60- Blue moon
Well this new poll seems to show it is not working for the moment
New poll BVA (fieldwork 27 feb)
first round
sarkozy 31 (-2)
royal 25 (-1)
bayrou 17 (+2)
le pen 14 (+4)
second round
sarkozy 53 (+1)
royal 47 (-1)
Update of my poll of polls
1st round
sarkozy 30.5
royal 26.25
le pen 13.08
bayrou 16.67
2nd round
sarkozy 52.42
royal 47.58
this big surge of le pen is a bit surprising but could be a correction of a previous underestimation (le pen has obtained more than 14% at the 1988, 1995 and 2002 elections).
bayrou is again announced the winner of possible face-offs with the two “big candidates” : 54/46 against sarkozy and 55/45 against royal. So the big atatcks against im are not really efficient for the moment.
62. I think he would be good and a challenge to Cameron yes. but I don’t think that he wants it. Obama clearly does.
being a shadow sec of state is useful for the reasons you stated and these are added to if you then become opposition leader. The trial and scrutiny that opp leader gives is some preparation to becoming PM and your mind is already focussed on becoming PM next time.
I dont think Denham’s mind is that focussed on that goal
GB increasing his popularity..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6408061.stm
69. ‘I dont think Denham’s mind is that focussed on that goal’.
You’re almost certainly right. Doesn’t mean he can’t change his mind - in fact this could be part of his appeal! Everyone knows Gordon’s wanted to be PM since the age of 13.
68- Actually a wager on Bayrou at 8/1 could begin to become attractive… because odds are still quite generous.
But do remind that french politics are very bipolar and something unexpected and serious is needed to lower Ms Royal’s score to a striking distance for Bayrou.
59
brilliant !
Denham is consistently good in interview even when he defends difficult positions. He has got lot’s going for him but I’m still at a loss to see where the support he would need is coming from ?
And where is the evidence that he has enough motive to go against Brown ? ( Presumably Mikes point about the wikipedia entry )
Chris I agree that so far is so good. It seems to me that Sego got a lot more exposure in the few days after her TV performance and this effect has now disappeared. However, you’ll notice that Jack Lang has formally demanded an inquiry into an alleged string of burglaries of those close to Sego so they’re still trying. On the Le Pen vote can you remember how well he was polling before the first round last time? I seem to remember that the big surprise was mainly caused by an underperformance of Jospin rather than a last minute surge by Le Pen. I also understood that pollsters try hard these days to offset for the effect of ’shy’ Le Pen voters. Quoiqu’il en soit the 4% increase in Le Pen’s showing is good news for Sego making it a bit easier for her to play the tactical voting card. By extension it’s unhelpful to Bayrou.
Denham may be some hope, but not much I am afraid. It may mean losing my £10 bet with Mike, but I doubt he will end up running.
73. His support could conceivably be quite broad and could most of the Campaign Group and up to half of the Compass MPs (the rest are Brownite) through to those anti-Brown candidates on the right of the party, Charles Clarke etc. There were speculated figures the other day in one of the papers that suggested up to 200 Labour MPs weren’t regarded as pro-Brown.
It strikes me that Clarke/Milburn and Co are playing a very risky game (especially Clarke considering how marginal Norwich South is). They are striking hard against Brown which is fine, except for the problem that they seem unlikely to topple him with their strikes due to the lack of other plausible candidates and therefore are quite likely to mortally wound him while still enabling him to reach the summit. In effect they are wounding without killing, leaving a potential disastrous situation for the future stability of a Brown government if as seems likely he takes over.
In effect they are creating a situation akin to the last days of IDS with the exception that they are going to end up probably having to keep Brown but having done huge damage in the meantime. It does not bear thinking about from a Tory perspective what would have happened if somehow IDS had survived that period. For Labour they may well discover the effects of simultaenously trashing someone, splitting their party while at the same time putting in the top job.
Brown speaks like the Soviet tractor production manager “the awards come within the inflation target of 2%”
Hmmm so for Gordon he thinks that because he has ordered an inflation rate of 2% that is what will be produced. He ignores the reality of the real inflation rate that these health workers endure.
But inflation is the reality of what people are suffering not what he would like the inflation rate to be.
Utterly bizarre.
74- i think any Jack Lang’s interview won’t convince anybody even die-hard socialists of anything. He is oddly popular as a piece of folklore (the world leader in champagne socialism for the last 20 years)but hes is considered to be one of the less trustworthy of Frenc politicians (quite a big achievement, that)
The problem for Ms Royal is that her regular “bounces”, wildly supported by the media have all failed to give her back the lead she enjoyed in the polls last year…
Just before the first round in 2002, Le Pen was polling quite good, around 15%, so within the margin of error of his score (16.86). Jospin was polling around 18, and got 16.18…
contrary to a French urban legend, some pollsters DID talk about a possibility of Le Pen passing Jospin just before the finish line.
the problem this time is that he is polling a bit less in most polls even if the system to estimate the “shy lepenists” are still very important (some pollsters say they double the raw data to estimate the real le pen vote). Le Pen thinks (or wants to think) that a conspiracy is at work to underestimate him yet again. He boasted yesterday that he would be “over 20%” which sounds an absurdity, bar a catastrophe sinking sarkozy’s campaign.
the fact is bayrou must maintain a commanding lead over le pen and get near Royal’s scores to stay credible… Therefore he needs to maintain his momentum. One poll giving him 20% would be a crucial step in that direction.
Why try to replace Brown, a poor prospective leader, with one nobody knows outside the Westminster bubble?
80. ‘Time for a change’ Ralph. It’s a dangerous phrase for any politician but it’s what people are saying. Unless we visibly change in the public’s mind, Cameron will be the change.
76- concievably yes, but im not aware of him having any significant power base to contain or organise an effective campaign against Brown.
It would be like a whirlwind if he got the formal support that we both seem to agree is there on an informal basis.
Which way would it blow him ?
Im not aware of any entrenched support,union links,media support (sustained not feeding frenzy) etc. Denham for all his admirable qualities is not ( as far as I know) hooked into a power base and the people who are (Johnson,Milliband,Reid etc) dont seem to be capable either.
Andrea, do you know the result of the Beverley Holderness Labour selection. It should have concluded by now and can’t find anything on it.
81. HenryG - in your heart you must know it is too late for that now. It’s all about damage limitation from here.
Mike Smithson @ 61 re claim Brown rejected Denham as Chief Secretary.
This Guardian (Patrick Wintour) story http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,,1479554,00.html
specifically denies the Denham claim but strongly implies it was true of Ruth Turner.
82. Yes broad but shallow support.
84. Not necessarily. We all thought the Tories would be stuffed until they chose Major who came across as very different to his predecessor and was quite likeable. I think Cameron is doing quite well because he’s ‘not Brown’. As someone who typically supports Brownite policies I find this quite difficult, but even I recognise that his chances of him beating Cameron aren’t great.
I’ve been other engaged so only just saw this thread. I can give a pretty authoritative comment, having chatted to John yesterday. I asked him about the speculation, and he said yes, wasn’t it bizarre? He’d heard that the original speculation that the press had picked up was on a website about political betting, had I heard of it? He was not even remotely considering standing, and thought the story very funny. (One of John’s charms, rare in Westminster, is that he doesn’t have an exaggerated view of himself.)
Shows how influential the site is, though, if only in starting rumours…
88. Nick - I see your man for deputy lost a scalp to Guido - ouch.
88. One minor point Nick (hopefully not too pedantic) I don’t think that there have been any ‘rumours’. I don’t think anyone has said Denham is actually considering standing or is ordering the telephones. What we’ve discussed is his price and a few different scenarios that could see him offering a plausible appeal to Brown, Miliband, Meacher and McDonnell. As I said yesterday Mike Smithson should be in Guardian’s top-50 most inluential unelected people in Britain!
Sorry should say a a plausible appeal in constrast to Brown, Miliband, Meacher and McDonnell
89. I can’t load up Guido’s site (are all the blogspots down?) - what was the ’scalp’?
92. try http://www.order-order.com
93. Still not working Jamie.
92-94 — Guido’s site works for me. What error do you get?
[70][78] Indeed. Just imagine what Labour in opposition would say about a Tory government which proposed to cut nurses’ pay by 2%.
re 90. ONLY the top 50!!
Get those nominations in
:-)
95. Just a ‘page cannot be displayed’ message John. Can someone give me the gist of it?
re 46, Mike, you are only talking up his chances to get that tenner off me
96…..while doling out lashings of taxpayers money to drones like the one Guido has just prompted to resign.
HenryG @ 98 — Guido’s coup is to have unmasked campaigning (for Hain) by a Special Adviser who is, of course, on the civil service payroll.
I think Nick P MPs comments are probably the ones to bear in mind on this. If he’d never considered standing and thinks its all highly amusing then it’s not going to get very far. Then again, some have greatness thrust upon them.
Personally I think John Denham’s underrated. He sounds more reasonable than most MPs manage. I have a lot of respect for what I hear him say. Specifically, he has an ability to articulate a relatively illiberal view in a way that sounds entirely respectable. Since the Westminster village is a lot more liberal on the whole than the typical voter, that’s a realy important attribute. I might well vote for him if he stood, and not as a protest vote either.
As to the rumour, we do know that Denham was offered a job in a recent reshuffle. If I remember rightly, on Radio 4’s question time, he said it was in the DWP but it wasn’t David Blunkett’s job (Secretary of State). That makes sense, because the attributes I’ve just described make him an ideal pick for that department, and John Denham had previously been MoS rank at the Home Office. Denham said he turned the job down because he didn’t want to lose the influence he had from the outside, by which I understood, primarily as chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
I think a new leader should give him serious consideration for home secretary.
As to what WILL happen, well that’s another story entirely. I’d guess he will at least be offered another ministerial post by the new leader, at MoS rank.
Re 77, AndrewM, interesting obervations
83.”Andrea, do you know the result of the Beverley Holderness Labour selection. It should have concluded by now and can’t find anything on it”
A comment on LabourHome last month suggested that they delayed it because of lack of candidates (the poster implied that they didn’t like the candidates they had).
I don’t know anything more.
I can get Guido fine. Seems Hain’s spad has resigned.
Guido will be pleased he has a scalp.
I always assumed Denham was playing for the succession to Brown, he will definitely be in Brown’s cabinet.
105. Just had it emailed to me - thanks. On one level it’s probably not a huge blow since it’ll allow him more time on the campaign. If it gets picked up in the press (other than the gossip columns) that’s bad. I really hope that whoever dished the dirt to Guido wasn’t in the Labour Party, but I imagine it must have been. Leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth, though the SPADs should know the rules on this sort of stuff.
105. I should have asked you to put it onto your blog Benedict - it would have boosted your numbers by one at least.
107. Just re-read my post and it sounds like it’s only bad if people find out about it! It is wrong in a moral/ethical sense, but politically it’s bad if a wider political audience hears about it.
Give Denham a pipe and a Gannex and who does he remind you of?
An emollient leader is what New Labour need, not a ‘psychologically flawed’ ‘bully’ (not my words.. but those of his colleagues).
A consultant would surely tell the Labour party that to compete with Dave the Modern Dad the new leader has to be really new, clearly different, generating trust, not distrust of the old, old, co-Prime Minister who steered the government into all its current problems, the bad actor, son of the manse (whatever that is - not English that is for sure) and as miserable as sin without the fun of sinning, spouting earnest politicobabble about policies and distrusted statistics.
109. I did wonder….that said, Hain’s negatives are really mounting up. Looks like Nick Palmer backed the wrong horse haha
Austin Mitchell is a lad, isn’t he. On his blog he says: “The Clarke/Millward meeting in the City Inn wasn`t a Labour Party meeting at all but a media-fest. Britain`s Best and Brightest crowded the front 15 rows and asked all the questions. About 20 lower IQ politicians huddled at the back. I, as photographer, sat in the middle.”
Who is Millward? An incubus of Charlie Clarke?
Where was Nick Palmer sitting in the audience? At the front I trust.
Re 108, I have now
See here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
Re 109, Yes it is bad that it goes on. If there is wrong doing it is good that it is exposed.
87. “We all thought the Tories would be stuffed until they chose Major who came across as very different to his predecessor and was quite likeable”. This is a different situation in at least three important ways though.
The big change Major made was to promise to scrap the Poll Tax - by far the most unpopular policy the Conservative government had at the time. Labour’s Poll Tax is Iraq and can’t be legislated away in the same way.
Secondly, Labour was lead by Kinnock who had done a fine job in making the Labour Party as a whole electable again, but was not particularly popular personally with swing voters. As has been mentioned on the site a number of times, the Conservative share now seems to increase when Cameron’s name is mentioned.
Finally, there was no established successor to Thatcher, so no-one who was seen to be denied their inheritance (even if one of the candidates might have thought it personally). Were Brown not given the job that would create a legacy almost as large and bitter as the removal of Thatcher.
If Labour can find a Major-like figure (and remember that while he was newish, he was also chancellor of the exchequer - a senior minister in his own right), they still have the same issues to deal with. This has more in common with the problems the Conservatives faced in the 1992 parliament, not the 1987 one. That said, Labour had 100 or so more MPs then than the Tories have now.
114 - “Were Brown not given the job that would create a legacy almost as large and bitter as the removal of Thatcher.”
Yes, should have mentioned this earlier as well (in my post @ 42). All those suggesting how Denham / Milliband / Reid / Clarke would “renew” the party overlook, possibly wilfully, both the bitterness from the Brownites and the shadow that GB himself would cast.
Brown has to mess this up himself; someone standing against him won’t be enough, regardless of their qualities.
David H Major had not been anointed as ‘Co-Premier” and “joint architect” for 10 years.
Brown’s problem is not the dirt that is still to be discovered but the record of the government as a whole for the last ten years. He owns it all.
Major did not have that level of baggage.
114 - The difference now is surely that whoever takes over from Blair has a huge mountain to climb - due to a particular set of circumstances Labour won the last election in terms of seats with only 36% of the votes. Major’s share of votes cast was slightly down on the 87 election despite the new face and abolition of poll tax. A new Labour leader in all probability has to substantially increase the Labour share of the vote to retain power, unless a pact with Lib Dems is possible.
Cameron has a bigger task in winning a majority but I cannot really see Labour retaining a seat majority in next election unless the new leadership is startlingly different and regains the 97 swing voters.
81. “Unless we visibly change in the public mind, Cameron will be the change”
I think you are seriously overrating the Conservative chances Henry. It’s true that recently Labour have looked a mess and not a very attractive one. But you seriously underestimate the residual ill feeling towards the Tories which will take longer than a few years to eradicate whoever their leader.
You also don’t allow for all Labours spending in education and health to come good at the exactly right time. I actually believe that if there was an election now with the electorate forced to make a serious choice Labour would win an overall majority.
In two years time with Brown’s innovatory genius coupled with his genuine belief in helping the less fortunate he will be a shoo-in. It’s too easy to come on here and forget that outside this Tory clique they really aren’t loved at all.
17. I asked John Denham last September if he would stand (as I am a Southampton person), and he said he was flattered but “I do not have any attention of letting my name go forward.” Which was pretty unequivocal. I haven’t heard anything to change that (but what would I know?!).
117. Common feeling is that the Cons can’t overturn huge majority in one election - however this must be balanced by the fact that Nu Labs support is very wide but very shallow. If the tipping point is reached a Con majority starts to mount quickly with each 0.1 % swing.
Aaron “Brown has to mess this up himself”
Well he has been doing a good job at this over the last couple of years. His standing has sunk remorselessly. The harder he tries the worse it gets.
Much of this is to do with his own past errors ( devolution being asymmetrical, poor decisions on tax, war and centralising chaos) but also his clearly weak grasp of what sells and what does not. His Britishness thing is embarrassing.
But why should the Labour party have to throw itself on the flames of Brown’s Phyrric end.
118. I have to admire your optimism roger ! You obviously don’t put much stock in opinion polls.
We shall see come May if NuLab are on the way back….
New supporters for Blears:
Rosie Cooper, Sharon Hodgsons, Meg Hillier, Andrew Gwynne.
So far she has 14 MPs and 1 MEPs
116. That’s true. I was trying to compare Major’s position against a non-Brown replacement for Blair - apologies if I was unclear.
117. I partly agree with that. Major did win 14m+ votes (more than any other party at any other election in history) and it still got him only a 21 majority so his own mountain to climb was a pretty sizable one. But your point does illustrate another similarity between this parliament and the 1992-7 one.
117 Ted I believe that Major got more votes in 92 than the tories did in 87, and more than Blair got in 97 (14 million against 13.7 in 87 and 13.5 in 97)
118 - Roger, I do admire your optimism:-)
So at next election the opposition remind OAPs of Gordon’s last pre-election bribe - £300 for help with council tax in response to Howard’s 50% of fCouncil tax proposal. Disapperaed after the election. Education? lotteries for school places. Health? todays PR pamphlet on redefining closures,. bed reductions and staff losses. The electorate are tired of Labour, its had its three terms. Why give them another chance to get things right? Nice Mr Cameron is trustworthy, new face, no threat. (though I also doubt a Conservative majority)
124/125 Share of votes not absolute votes cast. I agree he gained the most votes on a great turnout but share dropped. I just cannot see the circumstances in 2008-2010 would deliver a Labour majority on 36% again or why Labour’s share would increase.
Re 115, Aaron, I have been making the point that Brown would sulk so hard that it would split the party if he didn’t get the job many times in the past on here!
Re 125, Witan that is true, Major was the most popular PM is history. However he got a lesser share of the vote than the Conservatives in 1987.
A rule that has yet to be broken is that once a government’s share of the vote starts to drop, it keeps dropping until they are out of power which sets the ceiling on Labour next time at 36%.
I can’t see them hanging on to a majority in those circumstances or having any sort of mandate in the country if they did.
118,
Roger, Brown v Cameron currently looks a no brainer to me.
Unless Cameron shoots a stag in full view of the media whilst blowing and snorting through his nose at the same time, he looks a winner.
Your man would need to do a full frontal attack on class warfare and policies for months to have an effect.
Something like the tories did with Labours tax bombshell from Jan 92 to Apr 92, long nasty deep attrition political warfare.
Ted I understand your point, but the raw totals show a large coalition of support was there and was subsequently lost after the bickering and condescending assumption of eternal support and office. Something Tories must always bear in mind.
I can announce that the latest Labour Leader candidate is Simon Hughes MP. With a carefully timed defection from the Lib Dems and the surrounding publicity, Hughes will announce his 2nd leadership bid in as many years this Friday. Already 38 MPs have indicated a willingness to nominate him as long as he promises not to bring Lembit ‘kiss of death’ Opik with him.
118. I hope so Roger, I truly hope so.
re 20 - there’s also the tying up of £7k for months with no return. You’d almost do better in a bank current account.
Right O/T Wells is saying the Beeb poll did have voting question asked in Wales. But the only thing revealed thus far is that Labour’s vote rises 7% if Blair resigns. Nothing else so far.
134. You’d definately do better in a bank account. 999/1 represents a 0.1% return - you could get that in an instant access high-interest account in a couple of weeks. I’ve never really understood why people lay at such long odds over more than a few days maximum.
135. Maybe BBC Wales is keeping them for tomorrow
Henry and Dez. Look at the MORI polls in 80 and 81 (the only pollster operating then and now that I can find) when Michael Foot was leader and the party was falling apart. He had regular leads of 15% and I didn’t even know any lefties who wanted him to win!
Governments always become unpopular mid term-except for the last few Labour governments because the Tories really were a joke-and always get popular again when a real choice has to be made. I know Labour are unpopular but I don’t believe it has anything to do with the Tories or even Cameron other than he isn’t Hague IDS or Howard
re 129 Benedict “yet to be broken”? How about
Whig 1859 65.7% maj 58
Lib 1865 59,5% maj 80
according to the rule their vote share should have reduced in 1868, yet
Lib 1868 61.5%, maj 116
they did lose the 1874 election despite polling 52.0%
138,
Very true Roger.
I know things can change quickly from 81 - 83 was a massive change.
The depths of feeling is no way comparable with those mass unemployment, `Im the one in ten ub40 grounghog days.
But many think its bad out there now, don`t buy it myself.
However Brown needs to hit the ground running especially over social housing, and go and tell them theres no land luddites to piss right off.
As many right up to the affluent middle classes are concerned their children will not be able to afford a home.
So he should enable a huge increase in building affordable homes, that would be a vote winner for many.
138 - As always a quote from the backside. In Oct 1980 there was a Labour lead of 16% and November 14%. During 1981 the high was 10% and the low 0%. The latter was November 1981 when the Alliance recorded 44%.
139 -agree it isn’t a Law of politics - the case is drwan from the 80’s: Thatcher’s vote share dropped from 79 to 83 to 87 and then again in 92 though Major won. Think best you can say is that in most cases a government doesn’t recover vote shares.
I cannot though see where Labour is going to regain the lost votes from 97 and 2001 - 36% was their share in 92. So Blair won with much the same support that Kinnock gained at his best. Can Brown really do that much better?
20,134,136 re long odds lays — remember that in most cases the layer will be laying not just Denham but all the rags (outsiders). Since only one of them can possibly win, no additional funds are tied up when new lays are added. The mathematics is not as bad as appears at first glance. The liability of £2,000 (say) for £2 staked on Denham is unchanged while we lay £2 on each of Galloway, Blears, Blunkett and Clarke. Now we have a liability of £2,000 against a stake of £10. Lay another five candidates at £2 a throw and now it is £2,000 against £20.
That is 100/1 against one of a group of ten no-hopers. You might still not want to lay the bet but you would want a lot better than 100/1 that the next Labour leader and Prime Minister will come from a group of ten outsiders including Galloway who is not in the party and Kinnock who is not in the Commons.
I see Channel 4 News have just reported on some ‘leaked’ emails about how George Osbourne’s iron hand will rein in any of his colleagues making reckless spending commitments. Strangely enough this leak appears to coincide with his speech on a similar theme to the City today. Bit of a coincidence, eh? You’d almost think old Ozzy leaked them himself.
Re 138, Roger as has been discussed at length here in the past, polls without weighting are valueless. So the only polls that are of any note are ICM post 1992 adjusted and other adjusted ones. The rest are a joke.
141,I often ask myself:What if-
(a)Denis Healy had led the Labour Party instead of Michael Foot
and (b)The SDP had not split away.
It is a reasonable hypothesis that the history of 1945 would have recurred-then Churchill won the war,but lost the peace to Attlee-it is perfectly possible,as a World War II veteran,Denis Healy would have won the peace,in the election that followed the Falklands-food for thought!
Re 139, ChrisA I forgot to say since the war, but also point out that the party changed names.
145,Earlier this week,I had the pleasure of visiting Bournemouth University’s library,where I had the pleasure of perusing many of the WONDERFUL Butler-Kavanagh guides to British geneal elections.I recall the polls of 1979,1983 and 1987 were very accurate- 1992’s banana skin is too well documented already to merit further discussion!(Even 1970’s late swing was quite discernible) (I can’t wait to re-visit the uni’s library ! :lol:)
146. Fat chance.
146. More interesting, what if Wilson hadn’t won in 64. Would the Labour pary have split twenty years early.
134, 136 - but you might have made profits trading in and out of this market, which you can’t get out of Betfair until it settles. So there is no alternative of putting the money in the bank. That said, I still wouldn’t lay at 999/1.
149 One united oppositon party,against a govt that had presided over a trebling of unemployment,the loss of one fifth of our manufacturing industry (a moderate Tory source asserts half the rise in unemployment was avoidable )-it is perfectly plausible that after one term,Mrs.T would have lost by the same margin that John Major lost by in 1997
150,I would guess that had Wilson lost in 1964,it would have been a narrow defeat,with a small swing to Labour from 1959,and that he would have won the subsequent election after that
152. No, it isn’t kiddo. I am old enough to remember 1979 and 1983 and no-one but the furthest left wanted Labour back in 1983, Foot, Healey or whoever was in charge.
154, I can just rememeber 1979,and quite clearly rememebr 1983-the longest suicide note,the Bennite Left.What if that mad swing to the communist extreme had not occured-what if the Bennite near-takeover had not happened,with the SDP not breaking away?
(FWIW,as an adolescent in 1983,I did NOT want Michael Foot to win-I remember the image of an old man and his dog,unilateral nuclear disarmament,and just thinking ‘No,that rabble should’nt win’
-all posters note -Patrick did NOT want the Labour Party to win in 1983
Interesting that news about Osborne’ iron fist.
Suppose the Tories win the next election in 2010; any guesses as to which of the Tory front bench (if you can name them) will have been ditched by then and won’t make it to the Cabinet.
I feel that Liam Fox is a bit of a liability to Cameron. He is gaffe prone, and his recent comment about Tory voters sympathising with UKIP is the sort of thing Cameron can do without.
I would also Frank Maude to be sacked; Letwin will go the backbenches - and the city… any others?
Roger et al, by the time of the next election, Labour will probably have fewer than 20% of Britain’s councillors, an even lower share than the Conservatives had in 1997. As far as I’m aware, no government has recovered from such attrition at local level to win an overall majority.
Ah well,remembering what happened to the Tories in their 4th term,perhaps it would be kinder for Labour to narrowly lose next time,give Cameron enough rope and I’m aure he’ll hang himself in office-could be a giggle
155 - what if Tony Benn had become deputy leader of the party? Didn’t he nearly get it once?
Healey would have left the party, surely. Would it have been the end of the Labour party?
157. Don’t tax the great man with such trivial detail, Sean.
159 - re Healey / Benn for deputyship
“The contest distracted the Labour Party over the summer of 1981 and ended with Healey winning by 50.426% to Benn’s 49.574% on 27 September 1981.”
154: Absolutely. The idea that Foot alone deprived Labour