Can Gordon’s gang manage the end game?
April 15th, 2007
Will they cope as the pressure builds up?
Yet again Gordon and his team are having their weekend spoilt by a hostile story about a past action by the Chancellor from a part of the media empire that they used to think of as being supportive.
Today in the Sunday Times it’s Gordon’s decision to flog off half of Britain’s gold reserves in 1999 that comes under scrutiny. Unfortunately, as the paper observes, the price of gold has trebled in the intervening period and the Chancellor is said to have pushed for the sale at the bottom of the market.
Like the pensions row before Easter the focus is on the advice that Gordon received prior to the move and what the paper describes as its 18 month battle to get information.
In one potentially damaging piece the paper quotes a senior a senior investment bank director who was present at a key meeting as saying “We were told this was a Brown thing and that the Bank had no say over what was going on. The officials were unhappy.”
The key problem is that these stories, whether accurate or not, eat into the heart of Brown’s claim to be prime minister - his management of the economy over the past ten years. They also associate his name with bad news and controversy just at a time when the opinion polls are going to be critical.
However brave MPs in marginal seats might be about poll ratings in public they would not be human if they weren’t having misgivings in private - after all it’s their jobs, salaries and status that could be on the line.
To my mind the question is whether Brown and his close aides will hold their nerve. If he goes through the next four weeks without doing anything precipitous then he should be home and dry. But under massive pressure he could blow up and then anything can happen.
There’s a good piece describing what the period between Blair’s announcement and the close of nominations next month is likely to be like by Charles Clarke in the Mail on Sunday. The fact that its author is Clarke and that it is in the Mail are hardly going to commend the piece to Labour’s rank and file.
Clarke’s description of that period as being “the longest week of all” for Brown rings very true.
The latest Brown leadership betting price 0.28/1.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I went to bed last night fearful of what might be in the Sunday papers and I was right. This is just going to go on until he’s in thr job and, as you say Mike, Gordon and the party have to hold their nerve. But they will not get to him. All these trials and tribulations will make Gordon stronger and people will respect him even more. Labour has always had to face a hostile Tory press so what’s new?
Apologies for going O/T second post.
And on Friday, a suppressed official poll suggested that the racist Jean-Marie le Pen……., will come second in next week’s presidential ballot. He will be entitled to a run-off against Sarkozy, a repeat of the election he fought five years ago against Jacques Chirac and a sign that liberal and left forces in France are being routed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2057479,00.html
Anyone got any info on this ’suppressed’ poll?
The thing about the anti-Brown campaign is that it’s so glaringly blatant. The Sunday Times is again running on ‘did Brown make the right decision in the right way in 199x?’, and there is only one reason to push that now rather than at any previous time.
It’s objectively clear to mosty people in serious politics that Brown is the most suitable choice and that he will in fact be chosen: if it wasn’t so clear the Tories wouldn’t be bothering to go for him. I agree there’s a question about how to handle the press onslaught and whether or not a contest would be helpful. But the result is not in doubt and MPs in marginal seats and elsewhere behave accordingly - if we panicked every time the Tory press ran a critical story, we’d all have died of heart failure years
ago.
When does the advice on PFI get released?
Actually Nick the thing about the stories is that they are so accurate and that many people have been saying these things for years but it is only now that the papers have decided they are newsworthy.
All sane people knew that Brown’s decision to end tax relief on pension investmets would be a complete disaster - and it was.
All sane people knew that Brown’s decision to sell gold at a low point in the market and in a which which actually helped depress the market further would cost us billions - and it did.
The real question is why the papers have spent years giving Brown an easy ride and supporting his blatently untrue claims that he was a safe pair of hands and a great Chancellor when the man in the street knew he was a disaster.
I really hope Brown does win through to be the next Labour leader. He is the best bet we have that there will not be a Labour government after the next election.
4. Edinburgh University are wokring on that one at the moment
1& 3 There is both danger and opportunity for Brown. If the Welsh, Scots Parliamentary and the English Locals are as dreadful for Labour as some expect he will take over a fractious and unpopular party. Provided there is no great contest though and he holds his nerve and doesn’t go for a triumphalist 100 day launch then the only way is up. Prudence, boring good and honest management would win through.
If he spends the summer outlining some great vision, offering more tinkering with the constitution and institutions he’s likely to be hit hard by the events that always hit governments in difficulty. He has to accept the practicalities of politics, need to keep in with Bush, the issues from Europe, the wider agenda and events he cannot control. In all these he risks disappointing the too many Labour supporters who have made him the vessel of their hopes. Then there is the clunking fist - if Scotland is ruled by an SNP/Lib Dem government will he have the lightness of touch and skill not to try to use Westminster to destroy the SNP? Can he deal with the democratic deficit exposed by possibly Scotland & Wales ruled by opposing parties and the mass of England by Tory local authorities?
3 Not sure whether as a simple Opinionated Voter, I count as a person in “serious politics” - but I do not believe that Brown is “the most suitable choice”. Or rather, I can’t say that with any confidence. I hear and see a lot that I find troubling and unappealling about Brown. Put me down as a skeptic. But if he was in a proper contested election for the role of Prime Minister, where these matters could be measured against at least one other heavyweight Labour politician with a track record, then the case for Brown might be made. I’m sure that you would tell me that Labour was “the most suitable choice” to govern Britain - but would you therefore advocate that the General Election be scrapped and Labour be just re-appointed? [I hope not! Don't have you down as the totalitarian type who would spoil the betting fun...]
As far as the electorate is concerned (and I don’t believe just down to recent events and press coverage, although they haven’t helped), Brown is an unappealling prospect. Now, he might grow into the job - take off his cloak of invisibility and develop judgment and personality along the way - in which case people might learn to tolerate him as just another politican. Kind of like the courtesy car you get when your own is knackered - it’s not your preferred choice, but it will do for now.
However, if they really don’t take to him, then he could - only could for now - become a laughing stock, a reviled embarrassment. An election rather than a coronation would give Labour the protection of being seen to appoint the best man for the job - even if that election in turn demonstrated just how bare the leadership cupboard had become. And if Brown were to still win, then his stature and his ability to govern would be significantly enhanced.
There seem to be so many positives stacking up for why there should be a contest not a coronation, that those of us looking at Labur Party politics from the outside can only wonder at the insecurity of Brown and his people not to want one - and at the Labour Party’s fear of a rejected Brown if he should be shown not to be the best man for the top job. Again, neither reflects well on your Party with the Opinionated Voter here.
(O/T, Nick, if you’re still around, though I know nuffink about Broxtowe, I’ll take you up on that £5 wager last night about Labour losing more than one seat in May. Looking at the Council website for the 2003 results, I reckon that the one remaining Chilwell West should go blue, and well, the two seats in Eastwood North and Greasley might follow….but what a tiny electorate for a two member ward. Oh, and Amnesty International will be mighty pleased with your unsolicited donation: I’d hazard a guess they might also be the recipient were you to be the unlikely victor ;))
GB will make an adequate PM.
It shouldn’t be just UKIP members who are nervous about what TB will concede at the Euro summit in June. He has been always been a poor negotiator, unintersted in detail, relying on his charm. But a demob happy TB supposedly fighting Britain’s corner: it makes you shudder. GB would do a far better job at that summer summit than TB.
But its not just a question of being good enough—John Major was adequate. Its how good you seem to be that counts at elections. And everything is against GB. His keenness to withold information as long as possible, while unimportant when you are having the run of the ball, will be seen as symptomatic of a feeling of ‘malaise’.
And that is unrescueable by GB.
Brown has backed every single one of Blair’s failed policies, including Iraq. Human suffering is the result in Britain and abroad. He has also run our economy to the ground in terms of debt, pensions black hole and wasted money. Not only that, but he has zero charisma and the demeanour of an undertaker. How can anyone say he is the best man for the job?
[2] So Will Hutton thinks that the reduction of social welfare ought to be part of the “left” project, does he? One of us doesn’t understand the meaning of the term “left”, I’d say.
A pedant writes: Or both of you.
Nick Palmer, when you say “It’s objectively clear to most people in serious politics that Brown is the most suitable choice and that he will in fact be chosen….” are you telling us that you believe it is only the professional politicians that can make this judgement. Not the voters who you work for?
This still looks like Murdoch firing warning shots over the Ofcom Sky investigation.
13,
Thought everyone knew who voted at the general election in 05, that if they voted Blair they would get Brown.
Therefore they might feel cheated if they don`t get GB as PM IN 07.
“It’s objectively clear to most people in serious politics that Brown is the most suitable choice and that he will in fact be chosen….”
On the basis of “least worst option”? Must be seeing as most of the people (aka. Roger, Nick) who claim to be looking forward to a Brown premiership with enthusiasm seem to feature prominently in their advocacy the idea that he’s got lots of ideas up his sleeve that we don’t know about yet.
In other words, his electoral pitch is based simultaneously on his past record and the idea that he’s going to do everything differently in the future.
Bl**dy html
10. But the problem for Labour is that while Brown is not exactly the sort of person you’d come up with if you were designing a person from scratch to lead Labour from mid-2007, neither are any of the alternatives.
Brown has a great deal of experience in government and opposition (though limited by the lack of roles he’s had - 20 years shadowing, then running one department is not unlike Eden’s preparation for the top job), he’s got a lot of support within the Labour party, he clearly wants the job, has an OK record as chancellor and is not tied particularly in the public mind to Labour’s biggest failing - Iraq.
How would Miliband (or AN Other) compare on the same basis? Not very well, I’d suggest. People who support Brown do so because they believe he’s the best man for the job. Most who support Miliband seem to do so because he’s the best to stop Brown. What would he do as PM? Actually, step back here: can anyone seriously imagine David Miliband as Prime Minister in 3 months’ time? Not being someone else is generally no recommendation to be a contender. The only person who is similarly qualified to Brown to lead Labour after the Summer is Tony Blair - and he’s the one that’s got them into their current position.
If Miliband does stand, I’m sure his shortcomings - and there are more than a few - will be exposed by both the Brown team and the media in general.
15 - You mean the 36% of the population that voted Labour?
15 - If you want to look at what the people voted for, Blair stated he would serve a “full third term.”
18 - I think the advantage of a Miliband type alternative, is that he could credibly change track policy wise without it seeming like a crude electoral tactic. Think Major and the poll tax.
13. Witan and Nick P. Its objectively clear to me as a Labour party member that Gordon Brown seeks to deny me a choice over the next leader of the party by attempting to avoid a contest. I am not convinced that most Labour party members have given much thought to who their next leader should be as we have not been expecting to have any say in the matter.
I can see increasing anger arising among many labour and non labour supporters if this lack of choice prevails.
Nick P feels GB is the best man for the job. I don’t.
Give us a choice Nick!
21. But which policy and from what to what? Major could dump the Poll Tax because there was support for him to do so and it was practicable. Labour’s Poll Tax - the Iraq War - can’t be simply legislated away.
Miliband’s three other main political problems are firstly, that he’s seen as the Blairite candidate, which would make it harder to drop Blair’s policies, secondly, that (Iraq apart) it’s not so much the policies as the style of government that’s grating with the public - and Miliband is New Labour through and through. It’s all he’s ever worked with and known and I doubt he could change it even if he wanted to. Thirdly, would such a previously junior minister have the authority to carry out the changes? We have a parliamentary, not presidential, system - the other cabinet ministers might fancy getting a bit of autonomy back.
19 Alex yes the 36%, and the voters who vote Lib Dem to stop Conservatives, but who are realy Labour voters who don`t bother wasting it, where they have no chance in seats like Harrogate.
Do we remember what Useless Brown bought with our gold that he flogged off… yes that’s right, Euros!
Useless Useless Useless.
The only silver lining with him as PM is that it will make a Conservative victory next time a certainty.
24 - well if you’re going to include people who didn’t actually vote Labour then I’ll say 22%
25 - Well at least he didn’t leave the sales proceeds in US Dollars. Part of the reason for the sale was reserve diversification, so increasing Euro holdings made sense (The Euro Zone is our biggest trading partner). Whther the timing and the method of the Gold sales was a good idea is another matter.
Why are the press now asking critical questions (about the pension theft, about selling all our gold at car boot sale prices, about the great PFI fiasco, about the Smith Institute, about Brown’s personal habits,etc) that they have consistently failed to ask before?
What amazes me is that there is anyone who still votes Labour; this must be a terrible reflection on the other conventional parties, and explains the continuing rise of “others”
28.
Doesn`t take a lot to amaze you then.
This had crossed my mind too. It has all happened before and G and S recorded it:
“When I was a lad I served a term As office boy to an Attorney’s firm. I cleaned the windows and I swept the floor, And I polished up the handle of the big front door. I polished up that handle so carefullee That now I am the Ruler of the Queen’s Navee! Of legal knowledge I acquired such a grip That they took me into the partnership. And that junior partnership, I ween, Was the only ship that I ever had seen. But that kind of ship so suited me, That now I am the Ruler of the Queen’s Navee! I grew so rich that I was sent By a pocket borough into Parliament. I always voted at my party’s call, And I never thought of thinking for myself at all. I thought so little, they rewarded me By making me the Ruler of the Queen’s Navee!
If that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s uncannily like the curriculum vitae of Defence Secretary Des Browne.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=DOMJ34ARPVOKFQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/04/15/do1504.xml
I read this story last night and could scarcely believe my eyes. This happened in 1999 for heaven’s sake. We’ll be reading next that he was a school bully and stole other kids’ sweets.
This is looking increasingly like a concerted and rather desperate campaign to discredit Brown. It’s getting a bit tedious. So he sold at the bottom of the market. I know the feeling. He’s been Chancellor for ten year’s. If that was his his worst mistake, we should all be relieved and thankful.
23. David Herdson. Being NuLabour wasn’t a problem for the electorate at the last 3 elections and Miliband would continue pretty much along Nulabour lines.
To have a chance of remaining in power Labour don’t have to change all their policies but they need to dump the leadership of their party who the public assosciate with their failures. Iraq, Cash for Honours, Pensions scandal etc.
The leadership of the Labour party in government has been Blair and Brown. The public are now fed up with them. Labour’s only chance at the next election is to be led by a fresh young untainted leader.
Now who could that be? Ah yes. The Miliband.
27. Reserve diversification…hmmm. Firstly, developed countries don’t need to keep large foreign exchange reserves because they have almost unlimited access to international credit. For the same reason the structure of the reserves is rather unimportant too. Secondly, wasn’t the real reason for this move connected with preparation for euro membership? Conclusion - a large balance sheet loss incurred for no good reason.
Apologies for the long link but this in the People brightened up my morning - apparently there’s a startling new computer programme that’s predicting the election results! invented by some guy called Martin Baxter…
http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=exclusive%2D-tories-325-labour-272%26method=full%26objectid=18907005%26siteid=93463-name_page.html
33 “Conclusion - a large balance sheet loss incurred for no good reason.”
Exactly, Blotter - and that’s the worst case scenario. How many large organisations have had to hide such a loss on their Balance Sheet at some time or other? Happens all the time, mate.
Move on.
30 The serious part of the article echos a discussion on an earlier thread about the reduction in the services while demanding more from them:
“Since 1997, defence has been the poor relation among the public services in the eyes of the Treasury. Its share of national income has slid from 3 per cent to little more than 2 per cent, and next year the defence budget will fall still further in real terms. With public attention largely focused on the Army’s role in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Navy has been an irresistibly soft target. Between 1997 and 2006, manpower has been slashed by 13 per cent, the number of frigates by a quarter, the number of destroyers by a third. Last January it emerged that 13 out of the Fleet’s 44 warships are in a state of “reduced readiness”, with another six to be mothballed this year - among them none other than HMS Cornwall. Soon Britain’s active service fleet will be about the same size as Belgium’s.”
35. Sorry Peter it’s quite correct in my view that gross errors of judgement by politicians should be revealed and discussed. As you are a Labour supporter I can quite see why you would like everyone else to ‘move on’, but others may well conclude that now is exactly the moment to reflect on whether GB’s record makes him fit for the highest office.
31 - For the record I think the story (with both this and pensions) is not simply that Brown did it and got it wrong, but the idea that he may or may not have done it for political reasons and against expert advice - for example in this case it appears that the Bank of England wasn’t even consulted (although the Govt subsequently claimed that they were, and even that it was specifically done on their advice).
35 - The true judgement of Brown’s time as Chancellor probably won’t be made for twenty years, the extent to which he has arguably paid today’s costs with tomorrow’s bills. Because of the supposed era of “boom and bust” we have got used to the idea that good economies can be produced from bad ones in a couple of years and wrecked in the same time. While history shows that the state of the underlying fundamentals are decided over decades.
37,
His record stands upto any previous chancellor who then went to become PM , Callaghan and Major to name two of the most recent ones.
Who had devalution of the pound, and joining the ERM at the wrong rate, on their record, which were seen as significant failures of a greater magnitude for UK plc than anything GB is accused of.
Major went on to gain 43% of the vote a brilliant achievment for a fourth election victory.
What I always find amusing is that no-one ever says: “Hey Gordon, great timing for selling off those 3G lisences…” You win some, you lose some.
41 - Who ultimately paid for those 3G licences, Robert?
Slightly O/T - Opinion Leader Research has been reported to the Market Research Society by the Tories seeking an investigation into whether OLR has put itself in breach of the society’s code. Report in Pendennis in the Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/7days/story/0,,2057372,00.html
Tend to agree with Blotter at 37 that it is a good thing that the media are scrutinising Brown and raising issues - he’s likely to become PM without much opposition and no public scrutiny otherwise. If he survives it, and defends his positions then there is at least some confidence that he has the stuff that leaders are made of. Buggins turn doesn’t tell us much about leadership ability.
Oh Blotter, it’s worth remembering that the inflation adjusted price of gold had been falling for 18 years when Brown made the sale. Of course, he managed to sell at the very bottom of the market, but there were many analysts and economists who made confident predictions of the trend continuing. We don’t elect Gordon Brown to forecast the direction of the gold market, we elect him to manage the government’s finances.
Alex, the 3G firms have had to compete on equal footing with existing 2G licensees and fit within a regulatory framework that pays little or no attention to sunk costs. So, the real “payers” have been the shareholders of Vodafone, Hutchinson Whampoa, Duetsche Telekom, France Telecom, and Telefonica.
44. Incurring a major public sector balance sheet loss is not connected to managing the government’s finances eh? Interesting. I bet you wouldn’t have said the same thing about the similar balance sheet loss incurred when sterling dropped out of the ERM.
Meanwhile another insight into GB’s character here - a smear campaign begins against Milliband..
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,2057562,00.html
45 - so… the Pensions funds then!
Robert - at the time the press asked why Brown had made such a public announcement which had the affect of driving down prices. Had he dribbled out the sales, unannounced, as did other central banks then looses would have been minimal. He ignored that public advice as he did thje BoE private advice. It was hubris ( in its meaning of excessive self confidence if not theft of public property) and is getting it’s just reward.
42 indeed, this was the best stealth tax of all - but that’s not a criticism, Brown monetised something the government owns because it told everyone it owned it - a smart move. Shame he blew all the cash.
As for the gold sales - we all know governments like fiat money because they can print more of it if necessary. The story isn’t whether he made a loss on the sales but that he didn’t let the surprisingly good traders at the BoE do the job. He just dumped it on the market amidst a huge fanfare - idiotic.
As for it being old news, that doesn’t stop Labour when it suits; ministers regularly blame ‘18 years of tory government’ for anything they have cocked up, so it’s a poor whinge that it all happened long ago and we should ‘move on’.
37 Blotter - The relevance, if any, for me is the implications it has for my bets on the Leadership market. In this connection, it may contribute a little to sustaining his price at what I regard as the inflated figure of 1.28 and if I hadn’t already filled my boots, I suppose I would be pleased. As it is, you can see why the matter is of little interest to a political punter.
48 - i don’t think that’s really a fair criticism. The significant ‘losses’ didn’t come about because of the small variations in selling price he may have achieved, but as a result of the subsequent appreciation in the Gold price subsequently.
It really is a bit much to suggest that the UK could sell half its gold reserves without the market noticing!
45 Robert “So, the real “payers” have been the shareholders of Vodafone, Hutchinson Whampoa, Duetsche Telekom, France Telecom, and Telefonica.” So they have allowed their managers to buy the licences knowing they would never recoup from customers the costs of those licences?
I think not.
49 Re your last para, Kingbongo, well maybe. I was just observing that the attacks are started to look orchestrated, rather contrived and lacking in substance; they are losing credibility as a result. It’s for these reasons that I would rather ‘move on’, but if people enjoy them, fine.
They don’t harm my betting. They may even help a little.
50. Peter - beware. Hubris is invariably followed by nemesis.
LOL Blotter!
Thank you, but I’m a punter. I know all about nemesis!
49 - whether it is a criticism or not I suppose depends on your political views. If you think a “low tax economy” is good for political reasons then you will applaud it for raising a lot of money for the govt at no political cost. If you think it is good for economic reasons then you will probably be more circumspect - suppose Gordon tomorrow announced that he was introducing a bill that would allow him to appropriate £100 million pounds (adjust numbers appropriately) off each of Britain’s ten largest companies. The fact that it is done openly, and companies would have no choice but to pay up, would probably not change the basic direct economic consequences.
51. The real issue with the gold sales is not so much whether he could have got a better price on the day (US$10/oz is nice, but not a major amount), but whether his forecasting abilities are up to scratch.
The run up in gold prices (and commodity prices as a whole) is tied into the strong growth in China, East Asia and emerging markets in general. That’s not mentioning the decline in the dollar to bbot. If he didn’t see that coming, says a lot about the man…
53 - the reasons these attacks are all coming in a rush is to do with the Freedom of Information ruling made not very long ago. The media have been building up these requests over a period of years, and they are getting all their answers at once.
Good article, Mike. Interesting that we are covering similar themes on our blogs! (Though I have not as yet hit publish on the gold story)
The short answer is Brown is not in control so can’t manage the media, some of whom have it in for him.
The Clarke piece was interesting. Not an attack on anyone, more a series of observations on leadership elections per se.
57 - says it would be a good time to get him out of the Treasury and into a less financially oriented job?
Re 3, Nick Palmer “It’s objectively clear to mosty people in serious politics that Brown is the most suitable choice and that he will in fact be chosen: if it wasn’t so clear the Tories wouldn’t be bothering to go for him.”
Sorry, Nick, the Conservative party would rather leave this sort of story until Gordon Brown is safely PM.
We don’t want Labour accidentally picking someone electable!
60 Dog catcher in Dungovernin?
Re. 3 the same could have been said about Curzon, Butler, Healey and many others…
3. Nick, hi there, I’m just curious. If you think Gordon Brown is the most suitable choice and is definitely going to win, why are you thinking of nominating Charles Clarke, who is on record as saying Gordon Brown is a “stupid deluded control freak”?
OT - A very strange story in the Scottish press today: saying that the MoD is considering moving Trident out of Faslane, possibly to Devonport, because of SNP/Scottish hostility to nukes. Is this Labour spinning to get people scared of the SNP? Or a genuine sign that people are beginning to contemplate Scottish secession?
I’m hoping the SNP’s price will drift out again in the light of this, and then I might finally make my first bet. Well, maybe.
I liked the editorial in the Daily Telegraph which said that my local MP Ed Balls was not “fit to run the Commons Coffee Bar never mind give economic advise”.
Re 31, Peter the Punter, “So he sold at the bottom of the market. I know the feeling. He’s been Chancellor for ten year’s. If that was his his worst mistake, we should all be relieved and thankful.”
In terms of financial loses the sale at the bottom of the market and the manner of the sale is estimated to have cost the government a similar amount to the ERM fiasco. Us Conservatives paid heavily for that (and in some quarter still are) where as Gordon has not paid at all. It is also not his only nor most serious offence.
50. Hubris was actually followed by Ate.
Are there no Scottish jobs in having Trident subs based there?
63. True enough, but if everyone believes an outcome to be inevitable, then it if those people have the power to ensure it, it will be inevitable. Brown’s objective is to ensure that scenario; those who don’t want him must do the opposite.
Even so, in the three examples you give, there were either other major players - Callaghan, Jenkins, Crossland vs. Healey in 1976, the three who got it plus Quentin Hogg vs. Butler, or had a serious drawback - Curzon sat in the Lords. Brown doesn’t have opponents of the same stature, and the Scottish question isn’t as significant as Curzon’s problem.
Re 34, Ted,
calculus fiendishly complex? We need better journalists.
44. ‘We don’t elect Gordon Brown to forecast the direction of the gold market, we elect him to manage the government’s finances.’ Robert
Are you trying to support the chancellor or hang him? Large budget deficit at top of the economic cycle, not even counting PFIs and off balance sheet debt. Why do you think public sector workers are getting below inflation pay rises and nurses are being fired. Public finance are a mess and Gordon is desparately trying to balance books. He let public expenditure get of control and now is having to retrench.
35. Peter the Punter: You say “move on” yet this Government has fought the last two general elections ‘refighting’ the 1997 general election and blaming the last Conservative Government for all the Country’s woes.
It is about time Useless Brown came under some real scrutiny for his woeful record as Chancellor. The damage Useless Brown has done to this Country will take decades to recover from.
64 If the SNP win then they could make it hard for MoD continued operation of Faslane; much “progressive” opinion in Scotland, from Labour, SNP & Lib Dems seems very anti-Faslane. Seems only sensible to plan for Devonport. Shows that MoD recognises likelihood of an SNP/LD government in Scotland though.
72. Peter wants us to believe his exhortation is all to do with calm and disinterested betting considerations, but of course it ain’t so…
The area that Brown is being attaced from now is from his own side, people seem to be missing this.
Why? It’s very simple, the opposition would like Brown to get the job so he can be attacked with all of this later, *now is too early*. The labour elements who realise that Brown is not the answer must try, and are trying, to take him out before he gets the job. If he succeeds, however, then their support for labour becomes much less certain. As it appears as though he will take over we should not misinterpret subsequent events; it isn’t that papers etc.have turned against labour *now*, they are trying to get a labour party they will support in the future, but these warning shots are an indication of what would be to come.
attaced = attacked
74 Blotter - IMHO PtP is right to ask how it effects Brown’s chances of becoming PM. I don’t believe it does, only a really catastrophic Scots result would do that (Labour third largest party sort of thing).
It does however make an early UK election seem less likely unless we are in the trough of unpopularity and GB poll bounce is huge. Question remains as it was last week - has Labour past the tipping point at which winning the next election is now beyond them without a seismic external event? Doesn’t mean Tories neccessarily win the next election but will Gordon be able to keep the 2005 voters or is it Labour in the low 30’s from now on?
66 Benedict - I’m not sure the cases are truly comparable but I take your point.
Re 75, UKPaul, I agree. I do hope all this stops, for a while at least
(In fact that is one of the themes of my latest blog article published in the last few minutes, that we want Brown.)
Re 78,Peter the Punter, they are not wholly comparable as two events seldom are, but comparisons can and should be made.
The other thing is that Gordon Brown is standing on his record. Fair enough, lets look at that record.
Lastly, it is true that large companies hide stuff in their balance sheets but when they get found out heads roll.
67 Thought Ate was the action that Hubris led our Hero to commit, doesn’t follow hubris as such but is the product of it (a pedant writes)
A lot of unfair criticism for Brown on this site today. OK, so he blew a few billion on the gold sales, but look at the big picture. Brown has quietly achieved what previous holders of his office could only have dreamed of - making sure that the burden of taxation is greatly reduced for the wealthy class who contribute the lion’s share of our economic welfare.
The film tax breaks scam, CGT relief, and the non-domicile rules have allowed the real movers and shakers to keep their hard earned cash - and ensured that the annoying inconvenience of income tax is only borne by those who are anyway unfit to spend too much of their own money. If only the proposal to allow main residences to be made tax-free pension assets hadn’t been rumbled, the picture would have been complete.
80 Benedict - Some on this site seem obsessed with his record but I can’t say many of the judgements strike me as particularly balanced or well informed. I worked in the City throughout much of the Brown era and was for a while part of a group lobbying for the abolition of ACT and the replacement of the semi-imputational system of Corporation Tax with the current classical system. Naturally the abilities of the Chancellor were regularly discussed amongst my colleagues and business acquaintences and I have had plenty of time to form my own evaluation. Not surprisingly, my own view is a fairly conventional one, widely shared by those colleagues etc - the record is far from unblemished, but a long way from the disaster which his political opponents attempt to protray.
82 - You’ve got that a little wrong it would seem, according to the always readable Mark Steel -
“It turns out that last year the richest 54 people in Britain had an estimated income of £126bn. Which, in layman’s language, is one hundred and twenty-six arseing bloody billion pounds. That’s billion, not million. They’ve probably got a jug on the mantlepiece for those odd millions that turn up behind cushions and under the car seat. But even better, the amount of this paid in tax was 0.14 per cent. That’s nought point one four arseing bloody per cent. ”
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/mark_steel/article2439509.ece
What you’re actually praising is a government that has been a good friend of the super rich. If that’s what you like then please carry on….
83 - I agree. £30,000,000,000 in interest to finance the national debt and the pensions black hole is “a long way from disaster.” It is an absolute shambles. At least those poor Labour MPs who will be booted out at the next election have the best pension scheme in the country.
Whether it’s a rather blatent and unfair campaign to discredit Brown or not, mud sticks and these last few weeks of hatchet jobs will stay in the public’s consciousness and contribute to a long-term feeling that Brown is untrustworthy or unfit to be PM. Whether the criticism is legitimate or not, it’s going to count for something and that’s not good for a Brown-led Labour.
Re 83, Peter the Punter, you half make my point for me. The fact is that many people think Gordon is brilliant and without flaws and has never made a mistake.
It is also in some ways the image Gordon Brown likes to portray. It is wrong. You make that point for me.
Re 84,UKPaul, I think he was being a bit tongue in cheek! Thanks for the link though, I will blog that later.
Blair on the politics show now BBC1 - looking desparate about the SNP.
87 Yup, that’s fair enough Benedict.
He is of course widely respected by numerous international financial institutions and in the unlikely event he does not become PM, he will surely take a top job with one of them.
Doesn’t make him flawless of course but it does put some of the sillier name calling on this site in its proper perspective.
And nemesis leads to emesis.
Ted, I think ate is the vengeance that follows hubris but not sure.
90 - He is of course widely respected by numerous international financial institutions and in the unlikely event he does not become PM, he will surely take a top job with one of them.
So you are saying he is more interested in his career in finance than in public service and in helping people, unless he becomes PM. If so, it might suggest what motivates him. Making the rich richer at the expense of the poorest?
Mark Steel, from a socialist perspective, and Mark Thomas, from a more anarchist perspective, are some of the most entertaining and hard hitting opponents of the government (any government I would imagine). Satire is alive and well, thankfully.
93 I don’t know. Do you?
84. Ukpaul. “They’ve probably got a jug on the mantlepiece for those odd millions that turn up behind cushions and under the car seat”.
Very funny!
93. International institutions are generally full of ‘buy high, sell low’ people who would be dismal failures in a trading environment, so Brown would no doubt slot into one very well.
84 - and all Mark Steel would achieve by higher taxes is to drive those wealthy people out of the country altogether, thereby losing their spending and investment. I wonder how much more they pay in VAT, CGT and other taxes? Quite a lot I would imagine!
What needs to happen is a reduction in middle income taxation and a move to make the whole system less complicated!
John Curtice has a pereceptive piece in today’s ST, if someone has a link. I can’t help but wonder if Blair is now as big a threat to Labour as he was an asset. Getting knocked by the Tories in the South and Midlands in one thing, as it was for the Tories by Labour in the 1990’s but he is bringing the heartlands Scotland, Wales and the North of England under threat from others, SNP,PC and Liberal Democrats. It seems like a giant pincer is about to slam down trapping hundreds of Labour AMs, MSPs and Councillors and wrecking party machine and organisation.
98. CGT? very little indeed. Easiest tax in the world to avoid.
..and as this is a betting site, we also ought to remember what Gordon did for us punters. You used to have to pay betting tax on your winnings until 2001. Then all the main bookmakers were setting up online off-shore operations in Gibraltar. What did Gordon do? - he abolished the general betting duty and came to a deal with the bookies whereby they would pay more tax on their profits. Very pragmatic and good for all of us like a bet.
He’s also put in a regime on capital gains tax so that those who invest in start up companies creating jobs pay only at the 10% rate rather than 40%. I’ve got a little investment in a firm that now employs more than 50 people which might be coming to market in the next year or so. Gordon’s tax treatment will make me a little richer - provided those spoil-sports in the Lib Dems don’t get in and abolish this relief.
On pensions Gordon has also kept full tax relief on contributions by higher rate tax payers - again something my party wants to abolish. Having lost out big time when a company I used to work for went bust taking its pension scheme with it the continuation of full tax relief has made a big difference to me as I’ve tried to build up a reasonable sum for my retirement.
So thanks Gordon for all your help.
“You used to have to pay betting tax on your winnings until 2001″
Technically I think you had the choice between paying tax on your winnings after the bet came in, or on your stake in anticipation of your bet coming in.
102 Sorry, Alex, that’s technically wrong. If you ‘paid the tax’, all you were doing was increasing the stake. Curiously, many punters were taken in by that little ruse.
An extremely funny gaffe by Blair on the politics show today:
When asked by John Soppel-
Are people right to think it is criminal that you receive a pension worth over £4 million and when many occupational schemes have gone under?
Blair answered –Yes, (pause) but………………………………………………….
He actually told the truth! For once!!!
103 - You’re right, it was a bookmaker’s invention rather than the Govt’s. However, far from being “a little ruse”, it seem to me that it was mutually beneficial to both punter and bookie. Bookie makes more money on the basis that they win money on every bet laid, so want the stake as high as possible. Punter gets more for his winnings.
103 Eh?! If he wins, he does. If he loses, he loses more.
Sorry, that’s 105 Alex. The ‘pay the tax’ lark was helpful only to successful punters. A successful punter won more, an unsuccessful one lost more.
Blair Gaffe on his taxpayer “Gold Plated” pension:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6557439.stm
Ok 2 billion, lot of money but the NHS drops that ina week probably so the issue isnt the cash, its the judgement. Even then its not exactly a big issue but part of the contant kick the shins attempts of Gordon’s opponents.
On other hand the government as a whole may continue have an issue over its botching of its PR effort of a bunch of captured naval personnel. Someone is going to get their teeth into this and someone is going to find out things that will make for an uncomfortable time for No.10 in particular.
107 - You’re not thinking psychology. eg. if a punter wants to put a £10 bet on at 10-1:
a) “pay the tax” = winnin return of £99 (assuming 10% tax)
b) don’t pay = return of £90.
Your average (ie. losing) punter doesn’t notice the extra £1 on the 10+ times that his horse doesn’t come in. He does notice the £10 lost when he wins. I didn’t mean “mutually beneficial” in strict monetary terms as if bookie and punter were somehow conniving to diddle the treasury out of their money.
108. Can you link to this Curtice piece.
Re 90,Peter the Punter, fair enough.
Re 94, UKPaul, yes they are and I have to say I both like and respect them for it. I liked Mark Thomas who organised a couple of hundred individually licensed demonstrations in Parliament Square about restrictions on demonstrations.
Then someone came up to argue against him. He asked if he was expressing his right to protest? Yes. Have you got a license? No.Oh dear. Very funny!
Re 98, RikW, the point is not that these people should be taxed until their pips squeak, but that they should be taxed like everyone else.
In fact many of these people pay no CGT or any other taxes either, though they probably don’t avoid all there VAT.
2 - Brummie Bounder
Yes, I have information on this secret French poll cited by Will Hutton. There isn’t one and he ought to do a little fack-checking before he types.
There was a magazine story last week that one of the government’s intelligence agencies - the Renseignements Généraux - had carried out such a survey. The RG responded immediately to say they have had no right to carry out such a survey since July 2004 and denounced the story as “manipulation rather than information”.
A new JDD poll out today shows a slight gain for Royal, Bayrou clearly back below 20% and Le Pen at 13%. I just don’t believe for a second Le Pen is going to overturn Royal and Bayrou. The only remaining risk next weekend is Bayrou and Le Pen is a red herring.
In terms of it being linked to the Curtice piece. A tangebile loss by Brown playing the markets with Tax payer money. Brown like Blair if he succeeds to number 10 will have huge pensions despite some huge cock-up’s that have meant higher taxes on Occupational schemes to pay for them. Whether you can directly link the two is an interesting point as we don’t really have hypothecated taxes in this country at this time.
Here is the link if that is what you meant?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1654931.ece
116. Its in the Sunday Telegraph.
No showing for Hills today on Oddschecker - I do not think they will still be offering 8 for Milliband tomorrow! It would surprise me now if Miliband did not let it be known of his attention to stand after 3 May - I think most of the Labour Party should realise by now that a genuine contest for their leadership and who is to be the new PM is a necessity if they do not want to decrease their chances of winning the next General Election even further.
115 - Apart from anything else, it wouldn’t make any sense for the French Govt to suppress such a poll - unless of course they want Sarkozy to be President (or perhaps if they want the electoral system to be changed in future). As long as left wing voters aren’t particularly impressed by any candidate, but can be confident that Royale or Bayrou will finish in the final two, they will likely fracture all over again.
The last election showed that Le Pen can’t win if he reaches the final two, so there can be no real worry of a “bandwagon effect” helping him.
84 et al “It turns out that last year the richest 54 people in Britain had an estimated income of £126bn.”
Not true - that was there total wealth, not there annual incomes. The 0.14% quoted is meaningless as a comparison to effective income tax rates. (That said, I’m sure Mark Steel would want a wealth tax as well)
31 - Peter the Punter. If that is what you really think, Peter, than listening to Blair drone on about what went on before 1997 at PMQ every week must be absolutely excruciating for you, unless of course your Labour sympathies get in the way of fair-mindedness on this issue?
120 Ooops! “their” not “there” ! (The nuns at my old school would have a fit
)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/15/nblair215.xml
Found another one in the sunday telegraph:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/15/nblair15.xml
Interesting, I once drove around sedgefield about 2/3 years ago. I would say driving round it i thought Blair had done very well for his seat in terms of Public spending!!!
123. Brilliant. Any thoughts.
BTW For your amusement the English Democrats are standing in the Welsh Assembly Elections. In Monmouth anyway. Their platform is to overturn the 1284 Treaty of Rhuddlan, and transfer Monmouthshire back to England…………
My view is definatly the game is up for Labour.
People know longer like the Labour product and they are changing one feature the leader for an even worse one. Sorry to be one of the Brown Knockers down people but the bloke is an electoral liability! He makes Gearald Kaufman look electable!!!
121 Of course it’s what I think, AHM. Why would it not be?
Naturally I like to think of myself as fair-minded, especially in relation to betting matters, where being excessively partisan can prove expensive.
I haven’t watched many PMQs. They strike me as the kind of yah-boo politics that I deplore, which you would know as a site regular.
For the record, I stand to win £1k if Brown is next PM, and lose £3.3k if he isn’t. Perhaps that’s what’s affecting my judgement, rather than any political ’sympathies’. Either way, I’m the one that pays if I’m wrong.
126. Yes but more specific. Refer you to 99.
125. English democrats - I like the idea but i would not vote for it! I don’t think taking Monmouthshire back into England is a good idea! It just creates tension for nothing! Wales is unlikely to go independent but it is a good nation. I love the mountains!
108 - Blair is clearly deluded if he thinks his legacy is going to be a good one. I believe he can no longer tell his truth from his lies.
Pointless to keep on listing his hundreds of failings, but everyone can see that he leaves Britain in a far worse state, a far more dangerous and violent state, and his lasting record will always be in fabricating the case for a needless war that has resulted in over 650,000 dead and counting, bringing great danger and disrepute to Britain.
His legacy will be summed up like this: he was only in office for ten years, but for generations the people will be left to pick up the pieces.
More ammunition for those who dislike “Crash Gordon”
GORDON Brown is being forced to come clean over a “stealth tax” that will saddle every man, woman and child in Britain with a debt of £1,700.
For 10 years the Chancellor has kept billions of pounds’ worth of borrowing “off the books” – hiding the true scale of debt burdening Britain’s workers.
But the true costs of Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) – branded a “stealth tax on the future” – will soon be forced into the open by changes being imposed on the Treasury’s accounts.
The reforms may reveal the full extent of the debt legacy the Chancellor has left Britain after a decade in office.
IT’S HIGH TIME THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PUT THE BOOT IN !!!!!
27 - Not to worry, Peter. I want Brown to be PM as much as you do, but for different reasons I gather. Whether or not he will be Prime Minister is not in question - it iss the length of his tenure that I am more interested in.
Whilst all other Chancellors inherit the problems caused by their immediate predecessors, Gordon Brown is in a unique position in British politics - he’s the first Chancellor in modern history who’s got stuck in the job long enough to inherit his own mistakes.
That’s his main credibility problem, IMHO
128. I would say you are correct. This has always been my view since about 1998 - I did not come on forums like this though!
The problem with Blairism is it is construed to have deserted Socialism. This means a lot of the Backbone of the Labour party the poor, the industrial communities, the miners, inner cities and the like feel deserted.
Hence, when the labour party is chucked out, which it will they will be in problems! There will be a pincer movement because obviously political support is more fluid. Maybe this is why Labour MP’s such as NP want Brown, because he appeals to the part of the Labour party that will keep it going - the celts!
The other interesting thing is anti-tory tatical voting, it has ensured that the tories stayed out. There must be a point though, when this becomes ineffective. I.e. Tory support rises above a point where this is works! The LD’s could actually cost Labour more seats at the next election. So the quid pro quo of taticacal voting may actually break down between Labour and LD leading to a very different political map!
Re 127 Peter at present you could halve your exposure to a Gordon defeat by laying at an average of around 1.3 - if and when Milliband announces he is running I suspect GB will lengthen to around 1.5. But I am sure I do not need to yell you this!
134 Mr Smithson has already prophesied Tories in hopeless seats tactically voting Lib Dem. I think he is right. We have all seen a consistent narrowing of the pro Labour gap among Lib Dem supporters. So two things spring from this. Labour can be under threat in constituencies the Tories could never threaten. Second there could even be tactical voting against them for the first time ever.
Re 133, Steven, Yes that is about the size of it
Re 135 Sorry Freudian typo - “tell” not “yell” unless of course if you are hard of hearing.
132 Well I’m not so selfish as to wish on the British public an incompetent and conceited Prime Minister just for my own minor financial gain, but since it strikes me as blindingly obvious that he will be next PM I see no reason why I shouldn’t profit pesonally from it.
What I think of him as a potential leader is something I try to dissociate from my evaluation of his correct odds. Again for the record, I think that the 1/10 offered by the traditional bookmakers is about right; the 1/4 and better offered by Betfair is therefore value.
My political judgement is, as I have stressed, a different matter. For what very little it is worth, I think he has been a good Chancellor. I suspect he will be a good PM but we won’t know until he’s in office.
134 - It will certainly be interesting to see what happens when Labour loses power. For all that the Tories’ “core vote strategy” was derided it is my view that its adoption in 2001 may well have saved the Tory Party from oblivion. They were appealing to the only people prepared to countenance voting for them.
I’m not sure that the Labour party has an obvious core to appeal to anymore, should the same thing become necessary for them.
135 Goupillon - At current Betfair prices, I am a buyer - for reasons which are now boringly obvious. I have no wish to lay off - yet. From a betting viewpoint, it would suit me if Miliband stood, but I think it is unlikely.
136 - I think it’s pretty unlikely to happen on any significant scale. If it didn’t happen significantly in 1997, then i don’t see why it should happen in 2010.
142. I’m not sure what you mean about 1997. Then the tide was overwhelmingly anti Tory. Do you mean Lib Dems voting tactically against Labour, or Conservatives tactically voting Liberal Democrat.