Would accepting this be the end of Ming?
June 20th, 2007
Should the Tories be cheering such a development?
Reproduced above is part of the top political story in the Guardian this morning which, if true and implemented, could change the face of British politics.
For Ming Campbell and the Lib Dems such an offer could appear to be very tempting and for Brown it would be a way of showing from day one that his approach is going to be vastly different from Tony Blair’s.
Yet such an offer if accepted by Ming could tear his party apart. For the last thing that a significant section supporters and a activists want is a move designed to keep Labour in power.
A challenge is that there are too many bad memories of previous efforts by the Lib Dems and the former Liberals of such initiatives. Paddy Ashdown took a major risk in 1997 when he agreed to a relationship with the Blair government and then got stuffed by Labour over PR. In the late 1970s the then Liberal party propped up the ailing Callaghan administration and got next to nothing in return.
Such a move would give a huge amount of ammunition to the Tories in areas where they are fighting with the Lib Dems.
I might be wrong but I cannot see Ming going for this and without the enthusiasm of the leader such a move is not going to go through.
No doubt he will be recalling the reaction to his Harrogate speech in March which was interpreted as him saying that a post election deal with Labour was possible - but not the Tories. That was a debacle and a senior party PR person moved on.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Very damaging. Like the Harrogate speech the mistake is in the allowed perception - whether true or not, Ming cannot continue to be seen cosying up to Gordo.
In the late 1970s the then Liberal party propped up the ailing Callaghan administration and got next to nothing in return.
Enough said - this is all that anyone considering the idea needs to know. The party needs to be much more aggressive in distancing itself from this kind of speculation.
Seems so unlikely that my first thought was that it must be a bit of a Tory plant.
I would stand it if the LDs were there to direct constitutional reform - a referendum on the latest EU power grab and electoral reform.
Otherwise I’d be appalled.
Maybe Ming’s decided that the Lib Dems are screwed however they try to deal with the squeeze - and that pinning their colours to one of the sides is the least worst option
IMHO Ming has long-since put himself before his party and this is the only chance he will ever have of getting his knees under the cabinet table. Dial-in the fact that he is also a personal friend of Gordon Brown and the outcome seems like a foregone conclusion to me.
IMHO Ming has long-since put himself before his party and this is the only chance he will ever have of getting his knees under the cabinet table. Dial-in the fact that he is also a personal friend of Gordon Brown and the outcome seems like a foregone conclusion to me.
A timely example of Labour’s natural inclination towards liberalism:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6767083.stm
Great institution, indeed.
5,6 - got to agree. Ming is coming to the end of his career. He has no chance of being anything in politics but a Cabinet minister position obviously appeals. He will sell the LibDems down the river to obtain it
Good grief though. By even allowing the rumours/impression to be reinforced of Lib Dem=Labour adjunct he hands yet another powerful stick for Conservative PPCs to beat their Liberal Democrat opponents over the head with. What was it they said of the Bourbons that “they had learn’t nothing, and forgotten nothing.” How very apt for Ming it clearly seems
1+7, agreed Julian H. On both perception and reality this would be a real mess - the Tories would be able to squeeze us hard as we’d lose any chance of mopping up anti-Government sentiment (so you’re for the Iraq ware now are you?) On so many issues, the LDs are so far away from Labour I’d consider an unnecessary agreement would have the same effect on the party as David Cameron suddenly announcing that the Tories new policy on Europe is the instant adoption of the Euro.
One devil’s advocate thought though - what if a tearful Ming were to accept the call from Brown though, but acknowledge the ‘heart and soul of his party lay elsewhere’ so stepped down as leader in order to join Gordon’s brave new world?
The Left have been saying they have more support than the right so why can’t they combine and then centre right voters will realise that Lib Dem = Labour, two pro EU federalist parties not interested in England.
If they are offered and then turn down the posts, it begs the question, what on earth is the point of the Lib Dems? If they’re not actually interested in running government departments when given the chance, what are they there for? A protest/pressure group?
12. The point is to get into government with a proportional amount of power as determined by free elections - not to weasel one’s way in by Downing Street cronyism.
12 - The LDs have shown themselves to be a thoroughly unscrupulous shambles in Wales - I doubt the UK party is much different.
Slightly O/T, but can you believe this? The Welsh LDs now say that they will try and get talks back on with Labour if it looks as if Plaid and Labour form a coalition. They cannot understand how they can EVER be left out of government! Rhodri should tell Mike German and his 5 other AMs to take a running jump.
Entirely predictable. Beware an old man in a hurry.
……..and we all know enough about the world to believe everything we read from a “staff reporter”! Can we have a reality check.
10 tpfkar,
“One devil’s advocate thought though - what if a tearful Ming were to accept the call from Brown though, but acknowledge the ‘heart and soul of his party lay elsewhere’ so stepped down as leader in order to join Gordon’s brave new world?”
Brown has no friends, only stepping stones. He doesn’t want Ming ni his Cabinet because Ming is a great leader or Commons performer, he wants him so he can buy off LibDem opposition in Labour/Tory marginals. An increase for the LibDems takes many, many marginals off Labour.
Ming on his own is valueless. Brown is betting Ming can deliver the more leftish and office-minded LibDems, dangling titles before them at the expense of their principles.
What interests me is if Huhne or Clegg would say “Hell, no!” and take Ming on over this.
15. Exactly. Old man in a hurry. Sod the party, it’s all about me.
16. Indeed, but the buffoons from the statist sides will continue to have a field day with it (see above) until such rumours are successfully dismissed.
My guess is that this is the work of Andy Coulson. It’s the third story the Guardian or Observer have run in the last few days that sounds nonsensical. If anyone thinks the Lib Dems will be furious it’s nothing compared to Labour. The insult to Brown’s own MP’s so obvious it would likely cause a revolt. I wish some other newspaper group would as guullible. It’s embarrassing that my paper of choice fills itself with these obviously planed stories.
11. “. . .Lib Dem = Labour, two pro EU federalist parties not interested in England.”
You forgot to mention that both parties are led by Scots from neighbouring constituencies. Francis, you’re slipping!
[16] Precisely. If there were a word of truth in it, it would be under Michael White’s by-line. It’s an extraordinary thing how the Grauniad leads on a more or less education-related story on a Tuesday and a more or less social policy related story on a Wednesday, week in, week out. I can’t think for the life of me why that should be so
Not without huge risks for Labour too. If Mr and Mrs Swing-Voter don’t warm to Brown, having some cuddly Lib-Dems in his Cabinet is not going to help defeat the Tories, whose vote at the next election could be significantly increased.
Makes me wonder - what would be the benefit to Brown? Could it be that Labour’s private polling shows that they are more scared of losing their northern/metropolitan heartland seats to the Lib-Dems than the Tories - so they are linking their joint fortunes? There is no political imperative in Brown doing this - he can go for nearly three years with the majority he has. Unless a slab of Blairites are threatening to break away - which would explain his actions. But surely they couldn’t have kept the lid on that?
I honestly don’t believe this rumour. When Gordon said he wanted a cabinet of all the talents, some reporters stupidly thought he meant involving other parties, when it was clear (at least to me!) that he meant all the talents WITHIN LABOUR.
15/17 HF/Test. “Beware an old man in a hurry.”
Beware young whipper-snappers with slow brains !!!!!
Jack W is 104.
21 et al,
Come off it. Respectable papers like the Guardian do not just make things up and say they have internal party sources when they don’t, or their sources are the Tories.
By the way, a major story from a “staff reporter” is a sure sign of a hot potato. It means the writer did not want to put their name to it as it might have led to discovery of the source.
25. “Respectable papers like the Guardian”. Is this the Tory view these days?(!)
I’m puzzled by the “staff reporter” by-line. Clearly the reporter involved is desperate not to be named for whatever reason. Normally journalists like seeing the word “exclusive” above their name.
26. Do educate us further, Sir. Is this how things work? Tell, what does “sources close to” mean? Are journalists supposed to protect sources? Fascinating stuff.
This story is trash, pure and simple.
OT. Alice Miles in the “Times” on why Bernard Manning and Nick Soames had a lot in common.
A lot of flab certainly !! …. but the rest ?!?!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article1957530.ece
This could be the only way Gordo could ever increase his majority.
29. Yes they are. If the writer felt that they are identified strongly with a source, they take “staff reporter” credit to protect the source. Their boss knows who brought the story. And yes Jonathan, the Guardian is a respectable paper. All the red-tops do have basic standards. Inventing a fake source just would not happen. The idea the Guardian would allow itself to be fed a line on Brown and Ming by Coulson without proof is just risible. If they say ‘party source’ they mean it.
31. Wow! A knee in the collective Tory groin if ever I saw one! (Well deserved of course!)
In this case the language about the source is emphatic
“a well-placed source”
My guess is that means Ming. Only a guess. But that is several steps above the generic “sources say”.
Infact if anyone takes the trouble to read the Alice Miles article they will see why there is such a thing as ‘the anti Tory at all costs voter’and why it is difficult to believe that any Party with ‘liberal’ in their title could ever enter coalition with the Tories whatever the electoral arithmatic.
34. Terrible - thank goodness it wasnt at first ministerial level… http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6403831.stm
Roger, there are also people who are “anti Labour at all costs”!
There are also several large Councils, including Birmingham, where the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are currently in coalition.
Wasn’t the Harrogate speech the one where Ming gave five clear reasons why coalition with Labour at Westminster was impossible?
As for the purpose of the Lib Dems: it is to attract the universal detestation which would, but for tribal loyalties, be properly felt for both large parties, and not merely one of them.
I would assume around 30% of the electorate are pretty tribal Tory and also 30% for Labour. How much would you assign to the LDs? 10-12%? Is there such a thing as a tribal LibDem?
There’s a fair bit of Tory-attack spinning on here today from the usual suspects.
For anyone who has actually read the story three things are clear:
1. It’s not about Cabinet, it’s referring to the coming all-party initiative on the future of the British constitution, where Labour will almost certainly be opposed by the Tories as every move; and the future of UK activities in Iraq
2. It probably wouldnt be Ming who was involved.
3. Everything else is denied. To deny stuff now which would be proved anyway in just a couple of weeks would be stupid and very damaging, so lets be just a bit sensible about this.
In other words, this really isnt a big deal, but it makes great rumour news. Rumour news which the Tories love because it helps them if they spin it. It’s just some guff about committee initiatives where Lib and Lab expect to be on the same side being blown up into “Cabinet promotion” stories by an unnamed “reporter”.
Yawn.
31. At least Soames now has a suitable private jet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6768237.stm
36. I first heard that joke used by Jock Stein when manager of Celtic about 20 years ago. Nothing at all offensive about it.
Maybe Ming could have the best of both worlds. He could accept Gord’s offer of cabinet places AND re-open the talks with the Tories about joint support for a Greg Dyke London mayor bid.
Mike Smithson
Mike, I dont think the LDs would want to whore themselves in that way!
Interestingly broad rejection of the idea here, even before it’s clear what it is. Let me play devil’s advocate - but to avoid confusion, let me make it clear that I have no inside knowledge.
First, it’s silly to get indignant at the very idea of deals between parties. Glance round local government and you see every possible deal except with the BNP, and one or two cases where people get close to that too. The soap opera in Wales shows that all parties are potentially up for anything.
Now, we’re not talking coalition here, but opening the Government to one or two LibDems for specific jobs. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that these were two: Minister for Constitutional Reform and Minister for International Disarmament. The former would have the job of getting Lords reform through and initiating an attempt to get consenus on reform of local government purpose, taxation and electoral representation. The latter would be asked to work with the Foreign Secretary with the specific full-time job of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and encouraging British participation in multilateral disarmament.
These are important jobs with objectives that most Labour and LibDem members would think sensible, though Labour’s recent Scottish experience would make local PR harf for us to swallow. To a large extent, both polls and personal experience show us that we are fishing in the same pool of voters, loosely called ‘progressive’. They’d generally be pleased. It would greatly increase the chance of sitting Labour and LibDem MPs to get tactical support (ah, you see my axe grinding, don’t you?), and it may be that LibDem MPs will need that just as much as Labour in a squeeze year.
And wouldn’t it be good in itself? Supose the two ministers I’ve suggested had even partial success? Wouldn’t that be great? Wouldn’t they be achievements worth a lot of our joint time in politics? More important than X winning 5 seats from Y in Carlisle or the other things we spend most of our time worrying about?
Yeah, so two LibDem ministers is two fewer seats for Labour bums. Yeah, so it’s mildly awkward when the parties are arguing about other stuff, and we’d need to agree that the Ministers would abstain on such issues. But these are relatively piffling matters. The bottom line is that instead of just talking about cross-party cooperation, we’d be doing something about it. Oh, and yeah, the Tories would whinge like mad. Hey, I can live with that too.
At least Ming is being honest, this taken from PA this morning. “There is no prospect of any Liberal Democrat joining the Government.”
I am appalled that such a story could appear in the usually fairly friendly Guardian; if it had been The Times, it would have been in character.
It beggars belief, Ming is not entitled to sell the Party unilaterally and he must know that his position is not strong enough to do anything so outrageous. A huge swathe of the Party didn’t want him as leader; he got nothing like the 2:1 vote Paddy had over Alan Beith.
There was intense anger when Paddy and Ming tried for cabinet seats in Blair’s 1997 government; we must never play the whore again.
Nothing short of a personal refutation of this story,and a promise of no strings with a scheming Brown will do. I am not surprised that Malvolio Brown is looking ahead to try to secure himself another term, but we should have nothing to do with it.
With stories like this it is often instructive to read the by-line. If this were true it would have the by-line of Gaurdian Political Editor, Patrick Wintour, who is rarely wrong about anything to do with the Labour Party. The story is in fact by-lined Staff Reporter, which basically means that no-one in the Guardian Lobby team was prepared to put their names to it.
48. With stories like this it is considered good form to read the previous comments on the thread where your point has already been addressed.
42. Jock Stein is hardly a character reference to use - despicible man… anyway of course Rhhhrodrri wasn’t being racist his joke was at the expense of a white person.
Nick Clegg in a Labour Government!!!!!!!!! I really think not, more likly Rochdale winning the Premier league!
45.”Suppose, for the sake of argument, that these were two: Minister for Constitutional Reform and Minister for International Disarmament. The former would have the job of getting Lords reform through and initiating an attempt to get consenus on reform of local government purpose, taxation and electoral representation.”
Must admit that my first reaction to this was that Brown is manoeuvring to try and change the voting system, Ming Campbell and his team need to do more to distance themselves from these kinds of rumours and headlines at this time. The message being sent out at the since the Libdem conference seems to be that a working relationship with Labour is possible but not with the Conservatives. Could be damaging for Libdems in the long term if this became embedded in the voters mind.
PA reports: Piara Khabra, the Labour MP for Ealing Southall, has died aged 82, his parliamentary researcher Julian Bell said.
I’m very sorry to hear about Piara’s death. He was a nice man, obviously frail but always keen to contribute; I didn’t know him well but I gather he navigated the tricky waters of Southall politics with some skill.
This cabinet thing isnt going to happen as its been reported.At most you’ll get some Lord doing something but the idea of Ming and colleagues in government is unlikely. It may have been talked about but won’t happen.
PtP if you are around, rumours still persist about Eriksson, its not over yet.
54 very sorry to hear that, my thoughts are with his family
48 But Nick Robinson was willing to confirm there had been talks on Radio 4 this morning. So presumably it was unwillingness to identify the source that led to “Staff Reporter” rather than a named individual.
No surprise for me - Harrogate speech indicated way Ming thinks, add in his personal relationship with Brown and the fact the large part of his political career has been the 18 years opposition to the Tory government and its likely he would be open to exploratory talks. Labour already has a LD peer in Lord Carlile providing cover to their security agenda, so culd easily see Brown seeking allies in similar “non party” roles .
I’m reminded of Osborne’s stories about “defection talks” which broadly consisted of him walking into David Laws’ office and saying “wanna defect?” I have no idea what Campbell and Brown talk about when they have conversations but it doesn’t strike me as impossible that Brown mooted some idea to Campbell briefly in the course of one conversation and Campbell, being well brought up and not naturally rude, didn’t completely reject it on the spot (and may not have thought Brown was doing anything more than thinking out loud). Someone in the Brown camp then leaks this in an exaggerated way via a mate in the media to damage the Lib Dems and make Brown look consensual and progressive. Which was probably the plan all along.
If Gordo does approach Ming with an offer, Ming’s response should be, ‘Show me how serious you are, ask Labour constituency parties to withdraw their candidates from hopless seats in the south and southwest and ask Labour voters in those seats, to vote for the Libdems’ That would put the cat amongst the pigeons.
47. A Lib Dem activists says “we must never play the whore again” - this has made laugh already this morning!
This story is true and has not been denied.
I have been speculating for ages that the Broons have a plan on the constitution as part of the ‘big surprise’ he will need to shore up support after June 27th.
I even speculated that there would be some kind of electoral pact between to two progressive parties and that hopes of a ‘third way’ remained.
Lib dem reaction on here to this story this morning has convinced me I am wrong about this.
Ming may want to do a deal with Brown, but his party clearly don’t.
Thanks for the article Mike. As a Conservative I say bring it on! It would not only cause problems within the Labour and Liberal Democrats but would also make it clear where to cast the anti Labour vote!
Very sad news about the Southall MP.
This was a seat where the Lib Dems did quite well in 2005, second.
If Lib Dems joined the Cabinet I suspect it would probably have a deleterious effect on their local prospects.
The Beeb’s report on Piara Khabra death :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6221158.stm
Yes sad news about the Southall MP and the people that knew him.
A quick look around found no PPCs selected for Lib Dems or Conservatives. Constituency has 43% of its people not born in UK. Notional (05) majority of 12,379 with Wells.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/ealingsouthall
After the late Mr Khabra had said he was standing down at next GE,
the NEC Sub-Committee decided to make it an All Woman Shortlist.
SHame about Piara - he looks like a funny guy:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42401000/jpg/_42401666_khabra_300.jpg
Nightmare scenario by-election for Labour. LDs already in second in an ethnic seat where Tories clearly have no chance. Turnouts low. Boundary changes appear to make it safer Labour but still keep LDs in 2nd.
55 Yokel - I’m around but lurking rather than posting on account of having a little work to do.
I’ve not caught any rumours but I have noticed the price, which has plummeted. I’ve part laid off at very good odds. If I hear anything more, I’ll post but I suspect the next news will be an announcement.
I notice also that in the DL market, Benn and Cruddas are drifting like barges. Most of the money is for Johnson, but Harman has firmed up too and there’s been a few quid for Hain (which makes sense if Benn’s bid is bombing.)
Finally, will all the knockers please note that one of my suggestions for Ascot yesterday trotted up at 20/1. No, I didn’t back it, but if you are going to pillory me for unsuccessful hints (lay Henrythenavigator) you’ve gotta count the successful ones (Miss Andretti 3/1 and Full House 20/1).
Play fair, or you won’t get the benefit of my grade A racing tips anyway.
Just over a year and a month after Eric Forth’s untimely demise.
…my grade A racing tips anyway.
Sorry. Too busy flouncing to spot the typo.
O/T. The decision to hold interest rates this month was made on the tighest of margins 5-4 with 4 member of the MPC voting for a 0.25% increase.
66.PtP, keep the tips coming my dad appreciates them.
…my grade A racing tips anymore.
I gotta go do that work.
My condolensces to Mr Khabra’s friends and colleagues. He had been ill for several months, and failed to nominate GB due to his hospitalisation.
The LibDems scored their second best result in London in Southall and would be favourites I think in the by-election.
On the article, should the Tories be cheering?
I think not, when such moves only make any sense when done in tandem with a change in the voting system….
I am putting the final touches to a probabilistic AV-swingometer, and it produces VERY worrying results for the Tories. (It also does standard FPTP predictions.)
Mike, if I could have a guest slot sometime, I will make the swingometer available to all..
64 - I was in a mate’s car driving through Southall recently. All the old pubs along the main drag were boarded up and empty. Really sad.
61 - as a Conservative you might well say “bring it on”, but as someone with half a brain cell you should be saying “this isn’t about forming a coalition, and it’s clearly a nothing story”
[53 etc] From Anthony Wells’ site:
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 10147 (21.6%)
Labour: 22937 (48.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 11497 (24.4%)
Green: 2175 (4.6%)
Other: 289 (0.6%)
Majority: 11440 (24.3%)
Yes, I know it’s ghoulish… but didn’t PK only stand again last time to prevent a fissiparous contest over the nomination?
Conspiricy theory
Did Labour plant the story knowing there would be a by-election in order to ruin the lib dems chances?
50. What on earth has it got to do with racism?
76: Eh?
Yes very sad news on the death of Piara Khabra.
Re 74, Stonch, many thanks for the advice
66. I think there is tally indications some such coming through and won’t touch the DL market.
The uninitiated always expect a 100% success rate in tipping Peter you know how it goes.
I think this is self-evidently utter nonsense.
I think this is self-evidently utter nonsense. The Guardian should be ashmed for printing this rubbish.
Note there is to be a council byelection in Ealing LBC in Cleveland ward on 19th July . This ward is in the current Southall seat though under the new boundaries it is in Ealing North .
Result last year was Con 1854/1846/1823 LibDem 1735/1514/1513 Lab 896/845/761 Green 446 . The 2002 results were roughly Con 1450 Lab 1000 LibDem 900 .
The LD’s like a failing business. Someone might buy it while it’s going cheap or it will collapse into bankruptcy. Cameron’s tried a few overtures, but it’s been clear all along that Ming hates Tories, and would prefer to get into bed with Gordon Brown.
If Lib and Lab amalgamate or merge, you could add the Lib Dem 14% in the polls to labours 32% and you should have an unbeatable pro-European socialist bloc on 46%. It would be a good time to sell up in the UK and leave.
Cameron might try another tactic completely though. If the Lib Dem corpse is no longer on the market, he might do a volte face and play as a genuine right winger, and pull in much of the support going into nationalist, anti-immigration and pro-democracy movements. There are as many votes in ‘others’ now as in the Lib Dems. He could go harvesting a different market altogether, and copy Sarkozy’s right turn.
85 - you write such crap. I like this:
“If Lib and Lab amalgamate or merge, you could add the Lib Dem 14% in the polls to labours 32% and you should have an unbeatable pro-European socialist bloc on 46%. It would be a good time to sell up in the UK and leave.”
It just shows you know nothing about politics
It’s surely more a case of Labour running out of talented individuals for cabinet positions and dressing it up as cross party co-operation so they can borrow some Lib Dems.
In any other government incompetents like Beckett,Kelly,Hoon,Reid,Straw et al would have been sacked long ago instead they get promoted.
I think you could be on to something there, Tapestry. The idea of Cameron playing “as a genuine right winger”… Yes, some mileage in that, I think. The country does need a “right wing” party, after all. But what I like best is the word “genuine”. It is time the Tory Party was comfortable with itself.
Ooooh I’m a grumpier than normal sod this morning
Matthew at 83. It is not utter rubbish.
The story has been confirmed this morning by Nick Robinson at the BBC who makes the very valid point that Lib Dem denials of a deal (and note there were no denials of talks) have been qualified such that “No Lib Dem *MP* would end up in a Brown cabinet.” leaving wriggle room for a senior Lib dem peer or two to be appointed.
As I said on my blog (http://www.marcuswood.blogspot.com/) the very fact that formal talks were held is revealing enough and is justification for printing the story.
85, tapestry: Dumbest post on here since Matthew JCG Partridge’s last “Iraq is a vote-winner” spoof.
re 90 Shirley Williams back in a Labour cabinet? Nostalgia,nostalgia. Perhaps the remaining grammars can be steam-rollered away, after all!!
Just wondering: Purely hypothetically, supposing Ming and Gordon decided to go the whole way with an actual electoral pact, with each agreeing to support the other in whatever seats were required to keep out the Tories, what would be the chances of the resulting coalition winning a First-Past-The-Post election?
Would we be looking at the kind of sure-thing-unless-they-screw-up-incredibly-badly landslide you’d get by adding their combined votes together, or would we expect close to half of the LibDem vote to move over to the Tories?
89.91 great insults. content?
Nick Robinson’s take on the sandal brigade putting their feet up on the Cabinet table :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/
Smoke and mirrors and some our Gawd spin … Shirley shum mishtake !!
Is it an insult, Tapestry, to say that you are quite right? Sorry.
90 - utter rubbish clearly spun from Tory Central Office.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/lib-dems-to-join-brown-cabinet-911.html#comments
First comment sums it up…
re 86, Stonch “It just shows you know nothing about politics”
Yes, because the “bloc” would not get all the voters of either part of its constituent parts.
Peter the Punter, any tips for Ascot today?
96 Thanks for the link Jack W
Nick Robinson’s take on the byline evidently exactly the same as my own, oh Pb-ers of little faith
“More fevered speculation is aroused by the byline on the Guardian’s story. It reads “staff reporter” presumably because the identity of the journalist who wrote the story might give away the source.
It’s always worth asking in whose interests this story was? The answer’s clear, I think - Gordon Brown’s. He wants to signal “a new politics” and what better way for this most tribal of Labour figures than to invite his political opponents into the Brown-ite version of the Big Tent.”
So. “Staff Reporter” = ‘Sir’ Michael White and “well-placed source” = Gordon Brown’
Nick Palmer’s reaction as to how great this would be for Labour confirms this one in my opinion
Apart from anything else, Tapestry, the current EU is about as “socialist” as Harold Macmillan, Ted Heath etc were. Frankly, you need to look at facts as they are, not as your world view tells you they “ought to be”. If you think Macmillan and Heath were socialists, there ain’t much hope!
I am sorry to hear the news re Piara Khabra - he was my MP so I shall be voting in the by election.
As to the Lib Dems, this story is disastrous for them.
It will destabilise their southern MPs (the majority)and cause ructions with their northern activist base. They are already in the position where nobobody is listening to them, they have a substandard leader (pace “pinstripe radical”!)and they are being squeezed by Labour and Conservatives.
I always thought of them as like a political spud-u-like - a national franchise which is changeable to suit individual circumstances locally. Now the national brand is disintegrating….
Is 76 by our usual poster Paul Lloyd, who normally talks sense, and what on earth does it menan?
93 Edmund. The received wisdom is that the Lib Dem vote would split 2/1 in Labours favour. With all the usual caveats I’d say a “National Government” of Labour and the Lib Dems would win a landslide of epic proportions, probably of the 1997 range or greater.
Stewart Jackson I agree and if the source for this leak to the Guardian is Brown, as all signs seem to show, imagine the LibDem hierarchy will be VERY angry at being damaged for the sake of the Dour One
101 Stewart J. Oh dear …. clearly a prime contender for the Grand and Most Noble Order of the Cracked Chamber Pot (Wishful Thinking Division).
We on PB live in hope that you might post some reasoned political insight and not the latest claptrap from CCHQ. No collective holding of breath I fear !!
98 Later, Benedict.
Although yesterday’s tips included a couple of very helpful hints, the main account bet went down, so I’m 2pts down starting today. Actually, Cesare ran a decent race and was just edged out of the frame in a blanket finish, so I don’t feel so bad about it now as I did at the time. I got half the puzzle right (George Washington didn’t figure) but missed out on the other half by picking Cesare instead of my ‘next best’, Ramonti.
That’s racing.
97. Dan; it’s easy to only see what you want to see. That Ed Davey is dismissing the story is surely no surprise.
The point you Lib dems overlook is that many in your party think that this is your destiny. In the lead up to 1997 there was a very great deal of excitement over the then likelihood of a ‘third-way’ in British politics.
Part of your partys DNA is a yearning for a new settlement; PR leading to a wholly new style of co-operative Government based on pacts and deals between parties.
Why on earth would the wider membership of Lib dems *not* support what Ming is doing?
97.
“Edward Davey Says:
June 20th, 2007 at 9:09 am
For the record, there is no prospect of any Liberal Democrat joining the Brown Government.”
Not a denial of the story, is it?
93. They wouldn’t have to stand down. They would just have to introduce AV, which is simple as 1,2,3.
103. Not quite that good Jack. My AV estimate for 2005 would be a Labour majority of about 100 with the LibDems on 80 seats, and on the new boundaries AV-2005 would have been a majority of about 77 with LDs again on 80 seats. (Assumptions made about Sinn Fein, SDLP, etc and based on 75% of 2nd preferences actually being used)
The present leadership of the Yellow Peril really can’t do strategy, can they? They are allowing all signs to point to them as the party to keep Labour in power - this story, Campbell’s speech - whatever the non-denial denials say.
Surely, they would maximise their impact in the run-up to the Brown putsch by talking to both sides and setting out the policies they would want from any deal. Just appearing to say, “I’d work with my Scottish neighbour and mate Brown if he deigns to ask, but I’m not crossing the street to find out what the Tories are about, cos they’re Tories”, is plain stupid.
Re 106, Peter, many thanks! I will look forward to them!
109 RodCrosby. I was working on a FPTP analysis of :
National Coalition 52% .. Con 40% .. Others 8%.
Nat 470 seats .. Con 150 .. Others 30.
Lord helps us !!!!
all a scheme to stop people thinking about the treachery brown wants to carry on in Brussels. He needs a sideshow to take our eyes of the ball. He’s about to sell Britain down the river. Draw the curtains please, Guardian. Thank you.
all a scheme to stop people thinking about the treachery brown wants to carry on in Brussels. He needs a sideshow to take our eyes of the ball. He’s about to sell Britain down the river. Draw the curtains please, Guardian. Thank you.
72 Can I humbly second Rod’s request for a guest slot, please? I would love to see this AV-swingometer, and the assumptions built in to it.
I have question for you Rod. I know that you will have built in a good mechanism for distributing the second preferences of the voters of the various parties. How have you handled the fact that a change to the electoral system will have an impact on the way that people approach tactical voting in the first place? e.g. people voting tactically for one party at the last election, would know that it is ’safe’ to vote for their first preference in the knowledge that their vote can still be used tactically in the second preference. This could have quite an impact in some constituencies. It will promote quite a few third-place finishes to second-place-and-challenger, I would think.
Of course Nick Robinson is pushing the Tory spin - why would he break the habit of a lifetime?
It is interesting though, that original aim of this “story” is to benefit Brown. Both Lab & Con know that associating with the LDs helps them but hinders the LDs. Therefore we will see lots more of this in future. Both parties pretending to cosy up to the LDs in order to squeeze them. Generally - like this time - it will be bollox and spin.
Gladstone: And the reverse too. For example, in some seats where the LDs are second and would naturally win with the 3rd party transfers (from either Lab or Con), lots of leakage to the Greens or others could see them drop to 3rd and be eliminated before those transfers can take effect…
Well I feel smug- I predicted that it was time for Labour to do a deal six months ago!
I doubt there will be any official deal, but I think a rapprachement and an opening up of governemtn and policy debate would be an interesting idea, if very uncomfortable for both sides.
But Mboy if the story were spin why has it not been denied - by either side?
Talks did take place, even if no agreement was reached.
117. You are absolutely correct. I just think that we should not fall in to the lazy trap of assuming that these things will “even each other out”.
Just to make things clear, I don’t think that a coalition of Labour and the Lib Dems would win big under first past the post, if at all. It would clarify the debate and in many cases lose the LD’s a lot more votes in the key seats.
tim13 I am not sure how well you know the practicalities of the EU workings. It is difficult to describe the whole union in left and right categories but you can be more accurate if you describe it as largely statist and bureaucratic. It is a system that suits some members like Germany, but not others like the UK. The suitability is a function of culture more than politics.
One example that demonstrates this is the labour legislation of much of the southern EU ( Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal) which is still based on a model first invented by the European dictators club. France and Germany have similar legislative frameworks from the past with similar features.
These all originate from heavily statist and protective philosophies - well protective in most of them as long as you toed the political line at the time it was introduced (in the 30’s and 40’s). The basics are still there and effect their political approaches to market liberalisation. The foundations are strong as the culture matches the concept.
Nothing wrong with that but it does mean that the rhetoric often does not match the reality, and a really free market across the EU is yet to be established. The financial sector is still heavily protected , free movement of people is fine as long as each state takes its slice of the taxpayer’s wealth (some sates still charge import duty - either openly or through surrogate charges- on personal goods of those moving around the EU for work). A look at the EU court case load is quite instructive on this score I should think.
In some states it has been part of the culture to avoid government taxes and controls, and so the imposition of many EU regulations is slow and often difficult to apply. Although this is getting better, slowly. The Scandinavian countries, like the UK, tend to have a different approach to regulation, law and taxes.
And lastly the EU has brought in exchange controls this month although they masquerade as anti-laundering measures. you cannot take out more than €10,000 in cash or paper without completing a form and getting it stamped. A system that can easily be ramped up to much tighter control. It suits most of the EU culture. It applies to UK too.
90 - Just because it was printed in the Guardian doesn’t make it fact. All the major broadsheets (Times/Indy/Torygraph) print far more speculation than they used to and most of it turns out to be false or wildly exaggerated (the Iraq redeployments are a clear example). This isn’t a problem with journalistic accuracy but the inevitable problems of relying on secondhand information and speculation.
There are simply too many differences between Lib Dems and Labour on PR/Iraq/Criminal Policy to make even an informal coalition viable - even in 1997 it was a nonstarter. Both parties would face revolts from their respective membership if this ever came to pass.
106. We bear with you, Jack W, because you’re 104 and as radical as Ming, but try not to be so rude to an MP. We all know you hate the Tories!
119 - “But Mboy if the story were spin why has it not been denied - by either side?”
It’s been denied that the talks are about a coalition and all the speculation on this thread is that they were.
So in effect it has been denied.
I’m very critical of Nick Robinson, but he’s good on the daily politics today.- saying that Brown brought up offering a job- prob to Ashdown, at a meeting with Campbell.
However, Andrew Neil makes me want to punch him with his “his total focus on the utterly irrelvant and periheral. Only he would get a story about Gordon Brown offering Paddy Ashdown a job- which is what Robinson was saying, and say “oh it’s all spin”, Gah. Who cares, it’s a bloody important story.
125 Where’s the speculation about a coalition? Speculation has been about whether Ming has talked to Gordon about LDs being brought into Gordon’s administration in some form or other. That’s not been denied.
113, 122. Indeed, indeed. I just checked your exchange control story, Witan, and, unbelievably, it’s true. Was there any discussion of this? Did I hear a debate in parliament?
One can argue that this is a good idea - maybe it is a good idea - but the law was made up in Brussels by unelected ommissioners, voted through in Brussels by overpaid non-entities, and now it appears in the UK and applies to us all. It’s almost like magic. Laws from nowhere! That no one asked for! Miraculous!
I’ve had enough.
If this EU Constitution is rammed through the UK without a vote I hereby swear I shall give up caring about politics any more. I will never vote again in an election in the UK or EU. I will stop posting here. I’ll stop reading about politics, I’ll stop writing about it. End of.
Because it will be literally pointless. All the main powers of the British state will have passed to an unelected politburo in a foreign country, aided by a parliament, also in a foreign country, for which hardly anyone votes. Moreover, this foreign political system will have proved itself, in forcing through this Constitution, to be detestably anti-democratic, a crusher of liberty, a vampire that feeds on our freedoms.
To hell with them. Why should I bother wasting my time when my time and opinions mean nothing to these people? When they do what they want anyway, in their big fat offices, paid for by me? I’ll not even give them the figleaf of democracy by participating in supposedly democratic discussions; I’ll certainly not bother voting - when these votes are simply ignored if the Brussels elite don’t like them.
So that’s it. If Brown tries to force through this Treaty, without a vote, and succeeds, you guys will not hear from me again.
I can hear the fervent prayers of Nick Palmer as I write….
The whole story in the Guardian is a classic example of a newspaper creating a huge mountain out of a tiny molehill. It is hardly news that GB is looking at constitutional issues ( an issue that plays for me but one that the electorate is not interested in and is usually a lot more grief than it is worth in electoral and parliamentary terms ). It is also hardly news that politicians talk to each other. So someone mentioned to a Guardian reporter that people in the Brown team have had a conversation ( in all probability three sentences worth ) with “senior” Liberals about whether there is any mileage in talking about constitutional reform and maybe even trying to rerun the scottish experience and if so maybe maybe a senior liberalish person might take a leading role in planning the whole process.
In reality this is not really much of a story but the Guardian has made it one. Nick Robinson then picks it up uses a variety of no comment replies to form the basis of a politics piece on Radio 4 on what would otherwise be a pretty quiet news day ( euro obsessives excepted ). So besides a number of liberal politicians who have got themselves into a tizz ( though to be fair they were all probably trying to say no comment but the journos then subject each reply to detailed textual analysis which then makes them seem deep and meaningful ) this is a non story. When I first saw this at 12:30 this morning, my first thought was that it was a big thing but on seeing the staff reporter tag and the fact that none of the other papers or media outlets were running with it made me realise that it is just the usual overblown media stuff. The media might not have liked what Blair said last week and indeed he has been responsible for to many attempts at media manipulation but this story is a classic example of what he was complaining about. An over analysed non story that only runs because of the need for the news organisations and their journalists to fill air time / columns / blog pages with “news”.
Completely unrelated the betfair prices on the DL make less sense by the hour. Cruddas has drifted out big time though very little money has been added to the market. If there are leaks from the various counts then money would be being put on the perceived likely winner but that is not happening the volume of bets is low with no appreciable surge of cash ( almost the opposite ). Cruddas would seem as good a prospect now as he was last week but now he is at 25 from about 8.
The seat spread on Labour for the GE on spreadfair keeps creeping up ( currently a very narrow spread at 282/283 ), unfortunately my buys were in the mid 270s not the 271 spotted by Mike. Even at the current 283 level are probably still good value. As has been pointed out elsewhere based on the polls at the moment the number of labour seats is well under that suggested by the forecasting programmes ( generally in the 295 - 310 area ). Any thoughts on how high the level will go in the next few weeks?
To answer Mike’s original question:
YES!
122, 128. How can you seriously describe a restriction on travelling with huge amounts of cash as an ‘exchange control’?
121 Benedict. Don’t forget that most marginals are Lab-Con. These discussions are less about LibDem gains and losses and more about squeezing the LibDem vote in places like Broxtowe, the presumption being that Lib Dem voters split in favour of Labour. A coalition/voting pact whatever would probably get a landslide.
(Interesting from Rod’s analysis that after the fact, Labour would have a majority on their own and thus could revert to ignoring the LDs again, having used them to save the Lab-Con marginals)
Agree with JGC on this.
Brown has already alluded to his wish to create a new constitutional settlement - maybe even a written constitution - with Cross-party support. I imagine he will seek to involve the lib dems as a senior partner.
This will probably involve a adminstration post (unlikely) or co-chair of a grand committee of some sort (more likely) for the lib dems.
The lib dems should be mindful of the example of Jenkins and the review of the voting system, which strung them along for many years and little gain. Also Brown should tie in some moderate tories helping to diffuse the EVFEL issue.
131. Because according to this “Directive” - how I love that word - if you travel with more than that - in cash, gems, travellers cheques, bank drafts, or whatever - all your money may be seized pending an investigation.
By whom? Jose Bafeckingrosso?
It certainly sounds like a bit of a control to me.
Anyway, I’m not saying this is a bad law. I’m not saying it’s a good law. I don’t care. All i’m saying is that this is yet another EU law, another restriction on our freedom, which seems to have materialised out of thin air, like a ghost on the rectory staircase. A ghoulish apparition, materialising ex nihilo.
Who makes this f*cking laws up? When does it happen? How? Why can’t they just stop? Why does the EU have to decide how much cas I can take from the UK to America? What’s it got to do with Brussels??
Etc etc
As I said, you will be free from my rants quite soon, if this Treaty goes through unvoted. I shall retire to tend my tomatoes. Democracy will be dead and debates like this will be choral laments sung over its grave.
Re 132, Paul M, When push comes to shove, if voters are faced with a straight choice they will split a lot more evenly than people would now think. Well that is my view anyway!
I don’t believe that there is any prospect of LibDems in Brown’s first Cabinet- as Mike says it would split the LibDems asunder. However, there are though some hovering around the leadership who would dearly love to revive 1990’s ‘the project’ of a united centre-left anti-Tory coalition.
I wonder whether this Guardian piece might be a flyer from some of them to test the water? Maybe there is some preliminary work going on to lay the ground for later co-operation. Not Ming or Cable in teh Cabinet but as Nick Robinson suggested perhaps a high profile job for Ashdown as a pre-cursor to something bigger after the election?
Whatever, this is dangerous stuff, after 10 years of Labour there is less than zero support in the wider party beyond of few grandees for closer co-op with a Brown-led Govt. Those pushing this sort of nonsense should take heed from the rank & file reaction to the shenanigans in Wales.
The vast majority of LibDems don’t want to prop up this disredited, tired, shambolic, authoritarian govt, they want to get rid of it!
I don’t believe that there is any prospect of LibDems in Brown’s first Cabinet- as Mike says it would split the LibDems asunder. However, there are though some hovering around the leadership who would dearly love to revive 1990’s ‘the project’ of a united centre-left anti-Tory coalition.
I wonder whether this Guardian piece might be a flyer from some of them to test the water? Maybe there is some preliminary work going on to lay the ground for later co-operation. Not Ming or Cable in teh Cabinet but as Nick Robinson suggested perhaps a high profile job for Ashdown as a pre-cursor to something bigger after the election?
Whatever, this is dangerous stuff, after 10 years of Labour there is less than zero support in the wider party beyond of few grandees for closer co-op with a Brown-led Govt. Those pushing this sort of nonsense should take heed from the rank & file reaction to the shenanigans in Wales.
The vast majority of LibDems don’t want to prop up this disredited, tired, shambolic, authoritarian govt, they want to get rid of it!
122 - I think we would be right to be suspicious of anyone carrying over €10,000 in cash over borders.
It is nothing like exchange control unless transfers, cheques, etc., to non-EU countries start getting restricted, which isn’t happening.
134-seanT- I am really looking froward to the day when we are fully intergrated with Europe, politically and economically. A common currency, legal framework, common social, defence and economic policies with our European cousins. Utopia. Common sense would prevail. Our national elections would become completely irrelevant, a bit like the local elections as councils have had virtually all their powers stripped from them.
Of course culturally I will still enjoy the odd spat in football, and contending the Eurovision song contest.
134 - Sean, never give up the fight, mate. People have fought on in circumstances far, far worse than this. eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tianasquare.jpg
Re 139, Tyson, ah I see, making elections irrelevent? You old trot!
135 Benedict. I think not. In LibDem/Con marginals the remaining Labour vote would split disproportionately to the yellow peril 3 or 4/1 making holds and gains much more likely. Further the polling evidence is that Lib Dems prefer Labour to the Tories 2/1.
I’d also suggest swing voters prefer parties working together than not.
Having said that I feel a pre-election pact unlikely. Post election coalition of LibDems with Conservatives or Labour would depend on the arithmetic. IMO either is possible.
What fun on PB !!!!!!
re 72. The way to ask for a guest slot is to raise it with me by email first.
124 Test. I’ll be as rude to an MP as I like !!!!!!!
I don’t do deference, least of all to career hacks.
So Mr Test you fawn if you want to, this poster is not for brown-nosing !!
The LibDems really did not need this. Ming should have kept this in check.
Here is the front page to Anthony Wells’ ace new election guide. It lists all the polls. On the front page there is a graph. I think most LibDems could look at the steady decline shown on the graph and seriously wonder if they shouldn’t dump their leader.
http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/
Was there not some sort of R