Should Gord have offered Paddy the Foreign Office?
June 22nd, 2007
Was Brown being serious or just playing politics?
Perhaps the element that shows the level of seriousness that Brown attached to his desire to create “a Government of all the talents” is the job that was actually offered to Paddy Ashdown - Northern Ireland secretary. Important? Yes - but not as big a job as it was now the power sharing government at Stormont is operating properly.
Surely given Ashdown’s former role as the international community’s High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina the position that Brown should have put forward was that of Foreign Secretary? This would have been appropriate to the man and would have underlined the seriousness of Gordon’s intent.
Offering the job Foreign Secretary to Ashdown would have put the whole initiative on a different level and would have been a lot harder for Paddy and Ming to turn down. As it was the Northern Ireland post appeared almost an insult.
It was as though the entire strategy was designed to underline that the incoming Prime Minister was trying to become bipartisan in the expectation that the proposal would be refused.
How the so-called “Ashdown snub” will play in the polls is hard to call. But the fact that Brown went ahead with his proposal to Ashdown even after Ming had turned down the whole idea shows a level of bad faith that might not go down very well.
In the long-term it will certainly be recalled by the Lib Dems if Brown’s Labour does not manage to reach the 325 seat mark at the next general election and is looking for partners.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
It was certainly an insult to Peter Hain!
On that basis I’m surprised Nick P has been defending it.
Labour activists online very open about Gordon’s contempt for the LibDems
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2007/6/21/24634/7804
“by lastword on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 05:13:38 PM GMT
Peter Kenyon’s right. Brown never wanted the Libs in the cabinet. He did this to call their bluff. Now he gets to look ‘modern’ and ‘non-tribal’ and the Liberals look pretty silly. What’s the point of them calling for PR when at the first opportunity they have to influence the running and policies of government they run away. Lib Dems? Shafted Dems more like! I wasn’t sure what Brown was up to but he’s played a true blinder on this one!”
and
Re: Brown puts a cat amongst the Lib Dem pigeons! (#2)
by libbysd on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 10:47:27 AM GMT
looks like ming could be in trouble. Maybe we’ll have a leadership contest over the summer?”
and
“Re: Brown puts a cat amongst the Lib Dem pigeons! (#3)
by Peter Kenyon on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 11:00:01 AM GMT
Contempt of cunning. Now that we have a better idea of the sequence of events, I’m inclined to see this as classic political kite-flying.
http://petergkenyon.typepad.com/peterkenyon/
Labour - happy to be inclusive, reaching out. Lib-Dems - Minged it
PLP should be chuckling”
Also - Although offering him NI and undercutting Hain was insulting to both I don’t think the LibDem beef with Gordon is over the fact Gordon offered him a job.
It’s over the fact that he did it AFTER Ming ruled it out, in an attempt to undercut the LD leader’s authority, and that he had been leaking the earlier talks to make himself look “inclusive” and the LDs intransigent if they said no.
If you want people to work with you you cannot treat them with contempt in the press and that “Gordon played a blinder/shafted LibDems” chuckling from the Labour activists will be read with great annoyance in Cowley street.
Also - Although offering him NI and undercutting Hain was insulting to both I don’t think the LibDem beef with Gordon is over the fact Gordon offered him a job.
It’s over the fact that he did it AFTER Ming ruled it out, in an attempt to undercut the LD leader’s authority, and that he had been leaking the earlier talks to make himself look “inclusive” and the LDs intransigent if they said no.
If you want people to work with you you cannot treat them with contempt in the press and that “Gordon played a blinder/shafted LibDems” chuckling from the Labour activists will be read with great annoyance in Cowley street.
I don’t think it will make the slightest difference to what happens after the next election, should no one have a majority.
All that will matter are the numbers.
4. It will make a difference in terms of how much Ming (if he is still there) is prepared to trust Gordon, though as you rightly say, the maths will be the main driver. Even so, as both Scotland and Wales now, and historical UK elections in the past show, there is no necessity to do a coalition deal, and this week’s events make one less likely after the next election should parliament end up hung.
2/3. Hain is obviously on the way out of NI. Whether the job offer to Ashdown was an insult to him depends on what, if anything, he’s been promised once Gordon gets into No 10.
Just happy to see that we are, as Gordon promised, in a new era of transparency in Government, that the age of spin has passed, that it’s substance not presentation that matters now.
Its obvious that, despite Gordon’s attempt at an open and inclusive dialogue with Ming and the LDs, the opposition parties and media commentators cannot get out of the old mindset and are looking for political games where none exist. Gordon asked round and no-one wanted to be NI Secretary now devolution is up and running so he, openly and honestly, looked for someone with the skills and experience necessary. That those untrustworthy and leaky Lib Dems decided to play party politics isn’t his fault, though he should have learnt from his colleagues in Scotland and Wales just how flaky they are.
Or could it be that Gordon isn’t as straight forward and transparent as he says and spin lives on, dirty tricks remain. Could it be that when he announces his government next week that a LD peer or two, perhaps a Tory one as well, will be on board but will have to go against their party line; presented as if they were defections to Gordon’s Labour? Could Gordon be a bit peeved at the LDs failure to support Scots Labour?
David, the BBC yesterday focused on the insult offered to Hain. The commentator on News 24 was chuckling about what an incredible last Cabinet meeting it must have been for him to find his job offered to a LibDem. And no spinner, “source close to” or other leak suggested in any form that Hain had been either consulted or offered an alternative.
Ted, as far as I’m concerned, any Tory peer who takes a job in Brown’s govt will indeed have defected to Labour and I would expect an immediate expulsion from the party.
Where is the evidence that Ming turned Gordon down before Gordon approached Paddy?
It looks to me more like Gordon got a green light from Ming on Monday so went ahead and approached Paddy only to see the chats leaked to the press. (Guardian and BBC).
Ming has NOT come out and condemned Gordon over this. Why not?
British Politics is in a sorry state and the LDs are sorriest of all. The pettiness hear is remarkable.
Imagine a situation in business. Google makes an offer to an ex Microsoft or Apple chief executive (10 years since they left) to sit on its board.
Would this be anything other than a good thing for Google? No
Would old company be up in arms and talk to the press? No
Why do political parties lay claim to peoples soul. The whole thing is pathetic.
If someone as experienced as Ashdown had been in the govt it would have been a good thing.
I wrote a guest piece a while ago speculating on the candidates for the Foreign Office and perhaps not surprisingly did not list Paddy Ashdown among the runners. I did list Ming at 150/1 and Neil Kinnock at 200/1. Both might look now to have been on the long side, but there would have been serious practical difficulties giving either the job, and they would be multiplied further for Ashdown.
Having had a day to think about it, I now believe the offer to Ashdown to have been a genuine one - as the earlier offer to Lib Dems in more general terms was. It is absolutely classic Brown, trying to secure the future through deals rather than leaving things to chance; trying to elimitate opposition by getting them on side as early as possible. It’s why he waited 13 years rather than face Blair in 1994, it’s why he went for 300+ nominations rather than face McDonnell and I’m sure it’s why he’s approached the Lib Dems now.
Unfortunately (for him), in offering Ashdown a job after Ming had already turned him down, he’s made future co-operation more difficult. Would he have taken this risk if he knew that Ashdown would turn him down? Possibly, but going back to earlier this week, I’m not sure that the Lib Dem leadership did know that Ashdown would follow the line. A deal might have been possible.
But I agree with Mike - it would have needed a better offer than Northern Ireland. Actually, that might not have been the best appointment anyway as Yokel pointed out yesterday; he may not have been seen as the most even-handed person by all sides, given his military past. That in itself firms up the view that Gordon gives more weight to the internal politics of power bases and less to getting the right person into the right job. Hardly something new of course, but never a positive step.
The thing is that because of his way of working, and desire to keep as many people on board as possible without facing them down directly, he now has to find jobs for a lot of people - Darling, Miliband and Straw can all expect promotions as can whoever wins the deputy leadership - in fact, Benn, Johnson and Harman are likely to come out of the contest with more political credit. If Balls is to move to Chief Sec to the Treasury, then Timms needs another cabinet spot - and so on and so on. Even with Blair, Reid and Prescott stepping down, there are only so many posts to go round.
There are other factors. Although Alec Douglas-Home said that it was easier to be Foreign Secretary in the Lords than in the Commons (and he was the best-placed person to make the judgement having done the job in both), to appoint a peer to such a senior position requires both an oustanding talent and a strong internal political base - which Carrington and Douglas-Home (the only two to have served in a top-four post in the Lords post-War) both had. Ashdown would have had no political base whatsoever had he accepted - a fact Gordon can’t have been unaware of.
Simple practical politics mean that the FO is too big a job to offer to an outsider unless they can deliver something substantial in return (e.g. 60+ votes every division). Ashdown can’t and Ming - rightly - won’t.
The head of the FO can’t be in the Lords in this day and age.
NI needs a good titular head and is an area of cross party agreement. Seems GB had a smart idea.
The moral of the story is never tell and LD anything in confidence
“How the so-called “Ashdown snub” will play in the polls is hard to call. But the fact that Brown went ahead with his proposal to Ashdown even after Ming had turned down the whole idea shows a level of bad faith that might not go down very well.”
Too subtle an argument to affect teh polls much. My guess is that the row is slightly positive for Brown and for Lib Dems. but not about to have much effect. It will probably reinforce the view that Brown is different from Blair (although the “dirty tricks” element has had an airing too), and gives lib dems some (generally helpful) publicity.
The element of this story that few have mentioned is that Brown was trying to get a majority in the House of Lords - the only place he can lose a vote. So part of this is control freakery.
just a brief thought on this, but the LDs can say that they aren’t accepting ministerial limousines without getting their way on red line policy issues - something Simon Hughes was saying in the leadership election last year.
So it’s not thw LDs being shafted - we declined an offer as it was on stinking terms! It would have meant individuals voting with the government on issues they were opposed to. However Labour seem to be painting it as a sign of inclusivity, whereas the Lds can surely use this as a chance to get across the issues of disagreement which prevented the deal happening; should be some good media exposure if handled right.
It’s taken a few days for the dust to settle but now it has the big losers are the Lib Dems. You could say Gordon put them in a difficult position but you could also say he called their bluff. What are they for? If they don’t want a place in government so what do they want?
Perhaps we’ll move into a new era where a third Party not interested in government is replaced by various interest groups like the Greens UKIP Pensioners rights etc. At least it would be clear what they stand for. And if invited into government at lest they would be masters of their brief.
9: Ming made clear that he did turn down Gordon Brown’s offer in his BBC interview - http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6220000/newsid_6228200/6228228.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm
Both the Times and Guardian have summed it up well in the last couple of days. The Lib Dems turn down coalitions in Wales, Scotland and turn down jobs in the Westminster government.
A party clearly more comfortable navel gazing in opposition.
Roger @ 15. This was your comment just 48 hours ago…
14. So why aren’t they saying that? The Lib Dems have got a really poor press this morning over what shouldn’t have been that bad a news story - Labour offers places; Lib Dems say ‘not without a quid pro quo’; Ex-leader follows party line. The Cowley Street media operation has questions to answer.
18. How embarrassing! And thanks for drawing my attention to it!!!
The only thing I can say in my own defence is that the last three days have shown what an extraordinary and unexpected event this was.
(Obviously apologies for misjudging the Guardian)
The story is very much a Westminster one - the only comment I’ve had is from a puzzled LibDem councillor who asked what I made of it. I think the general public reaction to the media reports, insofar as they notice at all, will primarily be mild distaste - “politicians squabbling again, yawn”. But it’ll get blotted out by other stories very shortly.
On Peter Hain’s position, frankly I think without having discussed it with him that after the drama of the peace process it would be a disappointment just to be told “oh, just carry on”. So I wouldn’t think he’ll be much bothered at the thought of someone else doing it. Obviously he and almost everyone else in the Cabinet will be speculating about what the future holds, good or bad, but this aspect isn’t going to be the issue.
19. In fact the press has been very negative for both the LibDems and Labour. You can argue the facts of the offer, but not the press coverage of it. I don’t know why you lot are saying “coverage *will be* positive”, it is there now and it is wholly negative.
Yesterday’s BBC lead was “Brown accused of “dirty tricks and underhand politics”. It also ran the story of LD MPs furious with their leader. There are countless other examples of negative reporting on the story. I linked yesterday to negative Indie, Mail, Times and Guardian reports.
It has made the LDs look weak and dithering and stated that younger LD figures like Clegg think Ming is far too close to Brown, and made Brown look like a contemptuous git who was laughing at the LDs as he tried to undermine Ming - firstly with press leaks of the initial meeting, and second with a Cabinet offer to Paddy once Ming had declared no LD would serve.
19. In fact the press has been very negative for both the LibDems and Labour. You can argue the facts of the offer, but not the press coverage of it. I don’t know why you lot are saying “coverage *will be* positive”, it is there now and it is wholly negative.
Yesterday’s BBC lead was “Brown accused of “dirty tricks and underhand politics”. It also ran the story of LD MPs furious with their leader. There are countless other examples of negative reporting on the story. I linked yesterday to negative Indie, Mail, Times and Guardian reports.
It has made the LDs look weak and dithering and stated that younger LD figures like Clegg think Ming is far too close to Brown, and made Brown look like a contemptuous git who was laughing at the LDs as he tried to undermine Ming - firstly with press leaks of the initial meeting, and second with a Cabinet offer to Paddy once Ming had declared no LD would serve.
Really sorry for the double posting, Mike, my pages are not loading correctly today. Pls delete and I will try another browser.
[5] I agree that the next Parliament, if hung, will at least start off with a minority government formed by whichever party is largest.
The situation has its perils for all three: Labour and the Lib Dems because they will have lost seats (we all suppose) and the Tories because of the “English” question.
Cameron needs to address this - doubtless I’ll be corrected, but I’m not aware he’s said anything about it. Self-interest would suggest that his manifesto includes a commitment to upgrade the Welsh & NI Assemblies to “Holyrood” status and then, following the precedent of the old Stormont, set the electoral quota for non-English Westminster seats half as high again as for English ones. Although how happy his Scottish and Welsh candidates would be is another question - indeed, his silence may indicate that the Tories are by no means sure how to play it.
Sorry for the double posts, browser trouble - pls delete and I’ll try something else
Gordon Brown suffers from a delusion which is surprisingly common amongst highly intelligent people, which is to assume that because he is very smart, everyone else must be very stupid.
We saw it with the famous non tax cut at the budget, where the opposition and the press took all of 5 minutes to see through it as a transparent ruse.
Now GB has made the Lib Dems an offer on terms which are impossible to accept, and has rubbed salt in the wound by then going over Mings head and talking to Ashdown, thus poisoning the atmosphere and making future negotiations extremely difficult.
All to make the Libdems look disorganised, and to make GB look “inclusive”.
Only one problem… it doesn’t make GB look inclusive, it just makes him look like the machine politician he is. The public know and understand this, and all this type of stunt does is confirm public unease about the kind of man GB is.
I think there are areas that the LDs have in common with both bigger parties.
With Labour, a Europhilia and a commitment to higher taxes in exchange for (as they both see it) better services.
With the Tories, a commitment to civil liberties and green politics.
Therefore I would expect the LDs to be offered, by both, a “work with you where we agree” and vote issue by issue. So I can see a minority govt with the LibDems picking what issues to support. LibDems, what do you say to that?
The SNP adminisration look determined to cause as much trouble for Brown as possible and thus increasing the resentment of the English who have to pay for all this. A backlash is on its way.
The reaction to this does not encourage any politician to think out of the partisan box does it.
I’m sure there is still some work to be done in the detail of getting the two sides to work together - real “people” stuff. Ashdown would have been good for that role.
Next time Gordon will stay partisan and say “Why bother”
The reaction to this does not encourage any politician to think out of the partisan box does it.
I’m sure there is still some work to be done in the detail of getting the two sides to work together - real “people” stuff. Ashdown would have been good for that role.
Next time Gordon will stay partisan and say “Why bother”
It’s knocked Cameron off the front pages/our TV screens for a bit. Was that the ultimate aim of this strange offer?
Morning all
It really puzzles me how little some of the so-called “activists” on here understand about politics. This is nothing to do with Gordon Brown or Menzies Campbell - it’s all about Cameron.
This “row” between Labour and the LDs has been created to achieve just one thing - to shoot the old Tory fox of “Vote LD, get Labour”. Anyone viewing such a public row can only reach the conclusion that there is no way the LDs and Labour will form a coalition. Those anti-Labour LDs whom Cameron had been wooing on that premise can now remain in the fold. We won’t side with Labour after the next election - how can we after this ?
It has also had the welcome by-product of keeping Cameron out of the limelight after his big speech on Monday. I’ve tried to help “Dave” understand social responsibility on my blog so we’ll see if he reads it or not
The aim is, as Labour strategists well know, is to shore up the LD vote which they know is their main guarantee of a fourth term in office.
As for those who witter on about the LDs not being interested in Government, our experience of being shafted in coalition by Labour (Scotland under Jim Wallace being a notable exception) makes us naturally wary.
Meaningful coalition politics should be about better governance mot which Ministerial limo you get.
Party leader offers senior Lib Dem a post in his Cabinet :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2108819,00.html
23 It may not be be typical but the front page story in the Brighton Argus today on this was totally negative for GB on this and positive for LibDems . Headline was Red-faced Brown snubbed by senior LibDems or similar .
33 It isn’t about how much or little “activists” understand about politics. It is all about how little those inside the Westminster bubble understand about badly these student-union type high jinks play with the electorate at large.
Granted - GB has been as cunning as a weasel. That’s just the point… do we really want a weasel for PM?
Great PMs have a magical ability to APPEAR to rise above this kind of thing, and keep their backroom politicking out of public sight. Gordon doesn’t have it.
‘In the long-term it will certainly be recalled by the Lib Dems if Brown’s Labour does not manage to reach the 325 seat mark at the next general election and is looking for partners.’
That presumes Ming will still be there.he’s the only one to be undermined and he’s the only leader who wont be there for the next GE unless it’s real soon.GB needs a vibrant LD party to beat the Tories and Ming isn’t part of the plan
You could also see it as an opening gambit.who goes into a negotiation with their best offer straight up.
Hain is a long term paperweight.Who cares?
I think the Lib Dems on this site are getting ideas above their station. Northern Ireland is entirely appropriate for the ex leader of a minor party (which for most of the time he was leader barely had enough MPs to fill a minibus).
I still can’t see what is so wrong in offering someone a job.
I still can’t see what is so wrong in not taking up the offer.
The fact this is a big deal reflects so badly on British Politics.
Sarkozy does it. They do it in the US. We’re above it?
Stodge. If this was all an elaborate plot to foil Cameron do you think whoever was behind it told Paddy or Ming? Because if they did both deserve Oscars for their subtle performances on TV where they looked quite genuine.
35. No Lib Dem targets is Brighton though are there. Has that Bacardi fog lifted to reveal your thoughts yet
Good morning everyone.
Well, what a week! And next week should trump it.
I am (was) quite excited by this attempt from Gordon to reach accross the divide. What were his motives - honest or “devious”? Who can say, although we can all agree that no one expected this. Gordon was supposed to be a tribalist control-freak - not the type to be handing out jobs to your opponents.
Yes, the LDs have been damaged by this - they have had a very poor few months. Turned down the SNP in Scotland, turned down Cameron over a London Mayor (understandable that one!), turned down Labour in Wales and now turned down Gordon over ministerial posts. What will Ming do if one or two peers decide to join the government? He will have to expell them.
“What will Ming do if one or two peers decide to join the government? He will have to expell them.”
If he does the Lib Dems will be seen as even sillier. Feels like tantrum politics.
Brown cannot do it. He knows that he’s not a real leader. He nicked power by blocking out all others. He’s a 100% force of negativity.
Leadership is the total opposite of Brown. Talking the talk. walking the walk. He needs a.n.other to front up the team. Ashdown’s got the qualities it would take.
Also Brown wants to hide behind smeone else who’ll carry the responsibility for the European sell-out. He’s built the position of a eurosceptic, as a foil to Blair’s europhilia. But Blair’s europhilia was probably as much of an act as Brown’s euroscepticism. They needed each other to build a narrative, and present a storyline as to who they both were. Now Blair’s gone, Brown feels naked before the world. He needs a europhile foreign secretary quickly, so he can look like the one who’s holding things back - while actually caving in all along the way.
Brown’s one half of a double act - a double act he thought he hated, but now he finds he needs to replace. Ashdown would have been a good new Tony.
41 Punter no but the Argus extends to Lewes , Mid Sussex and Worthing . Having to do a bit of proper work this mornibg so will respond this evening .
The Paddy story is certainly an interesting one.
I like to think that Paddy was offered the job for two reasons. Nobody in the Labour party wants it, and Paddy is the best person for the job, regardless of party politics. The NI office is not really a party political job, and in that respect is unique among Cabinet posts (now that Attorney Generalship has become so political under Goldsmith). It is rare to find somebody who actually wants the NI job; Paddy Mayhew was the last one who did, and it was the only Cabinet job he wanted.
I also think Carlile would have been offered a job for the same reasons. I don’t really fall for Purnell’s line that was part of a new sort of politics.
Paddy would have liked the job and would have been good at it. He grew up there, and is heading the parades commission. By all accounts he was an excellent King of Bosnia.
I think it’s a shame he didn’t take the job. If he had taken it, it would not have made a jot to the closeness of the two parties after the next GE.
It is ridiculous for the Tories to pretend that Ashdown turning down the job shows the LDs are Labour lap dogs. When Ming turned down a deal with the Tories over Dyke and the mayoralty, you didn’t hear Labour saying the LDs were Tory lap dogs.
Ming’s authority is neither enhanced or diminished. Somebody who does not come of it well is Clegg, who came across as Mr Angry when interviewed. He was full of false indignation - is he going to be the LD version of Liam Fox? He looks pushy and is turning into a rent-a-quote loose cannon.
Anyway, it’s a great shame for NI and Ashdown. Ashdown is probably the best Cabinet minister Britain hasn’t had in the last 50 years. Ming remains in a shaky position, and Clegg is damaged.
It is difficult to see how this one will affect the outcome of the next election and I suspect that it won’t make that much difference to how a hung parliament works.
What it may do (and I stress MAY) is show how Gordon is going to behave and if the press decide to protray him in a negative light for it then that may knock down his numbers.
Re. an earlier post, Labour and the LDs share Europhilia? I’m not a Europhile, nor (I suspect) is Gordon Brown. And that’s another reason for Ashdown not being a viable option as Foreign Secretary in a Brown government.
I enjoyed seeing the Brothers Hitchens on QT - they should have Christopher on more often.
Nick Palmer The BBC and others seem to have had a different experience to you and found a number of Labour MPs who are annoyed by all this. Some even prepared to do pieces to camera and, according to one report, the annoyed ones were not the ‘usual suspects’.
The NI job could have been a starter for ten in a negotiation - and probably was intended as such. if he’d offered the crown jewels on day one, that might have smacked of weakness. But Ashdown blew the game apart. Brown probably expected him to negotiate for more. (like he would have done himself)
49 - witan, tell us how davis and fox responded to the greg dyke invitation?
39 - “Sarkozy does it. They do it in the US.”
Wasn’t George W Bush’s first Secretary of Labor (or whatever) a Democrat?
48 - “I enjoyed seeing the Brothers Hitchens on QT - they should have Christopher on more often.” They are odious. But because they disagree on everything, you always end up agreeing with one of them.
Anybody think Christopher had been at the whisky before going on?
53. Had Hitchens had a drink? Oh yes, just a little bit! At one stage it looked like he was going to do ‘an Oliver Reed’…a bit of opportunistic casting by the Beeb methinks, especially with his lunatic brother on the panel as well.
54 - Oliver Reed on After Dark! Hit the nail on the head. Just what I was reminded of.
**** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS ****
WIND is reporting to the JNN that following David Cameron’s attempt to lure David Laws to the Conservative Cabinet and PM Elect Brown’s offer to Potentate Paddy to join the Labour Government, political leaders abroad are scrabbling to attract Liberal Democrats to their causes.
President Putin - Charlie Kennedy - Minister for Vodka Productivity
President Chavez - Lord Rennard - Minister for Propaganda.
President Bush - Shirley Williams - Secretary of State For Target Practice in Iraq.
The Pope - Rev Simon Hughes - Papal Nuncio for Innate Modesty.
President Sarkosy - Matthew Taylor - Minister for Thumb Screws.
The North Korean Communist Party - All other Lib Dem MPs.
On Ming again: Why oh why does Ming always say “Gordon Brown is a good friend of mine.” Have you ever heard Gordon say “Ming Campbell is a good friend of mine.”
Last week, in the Indy, Ming was quotes as saying “Eric Forth was a good friend of mine.” It seems a stock answer to everything.
That said, I know a Tory source that heard Nick Soames say at a Tory Association dinner that his closest friend in Parliament was - Ming Campbell!
54 - Ooh, he had a right go at St Shirley, didn’t he? She deserved it as well IMHO.
44 - what utter balls! Gordon has nore leadership ability in his little finger than Mong has in his entire skeletal frame! Dream on.
In any case, we must remember that everyone one this site is obsessed by politics - most people won’t pay any attention to this at all and the majority of the ones that do will think “so what”. Many things have happened over the past year that has had people on this site up in arms - but the public have remained in their usual ignorant state. So let’s just calm down.
46 - SBS, he might well have done a good job but I simply don’t believe you can be a parliamentarian or member of any kind of an opposition party (the Lib Dems) which has to mean taking that party’s whip, and a member of the government of another party (Labour) with ministerial collective responsibility. If Ashdown (or any other Lib Dem peer) took the job he would have to resign from the party first. (This could possibly have been done in a non-acrimonious way, with Ming’s blessing, in the same way as you leave the party if you become Speaker.)
That is different from Carlile’s job as an independent monitor of counter-terrorism legislation which I see as a bit like being a select committee chair. You do the job in a non-partisan way but it doesn’t force you to vote in a particular way.
There would have been all sorts of issues. What would have happened if Ashdown had put forward legislation the party disagreed with? I am a huge fan of Ashdown’s abilities. But it is a mistake to think of any ministerial post as primarily managerial. You are part of a team and you need to argue for the government’s other policies too.
Coalitions are different. Then you agree a joint programme where both parties agree to settle for less than 100% of what they want. There was no joint programme on offer here, nor will there be while Labour have a majority. Ashdown would have been expected to administer Labour government policies with, in practice, no more flexibility to deviate than any other cabinet minister.
Well we know one thing, Hain is outta Northern Ireland next week by the looks of it.
Out of cabinet though? I think Gordon should release him from such responsiblities so Peter’s undoubted peace making abilities can be put into print ‘Peter Hain - I’m a World Class fixer of Everything’. Chapter 1: How I single handedly brought down Apartheid. Chapter 2: How I single handedly brought peace to the chaos of Northern Ireland, Chapter 3: Er…….
Difficult to know if Gordon will put him anywhere else thanks to a lack fo smoke signals but anything else is a promotion from Northern Ireland, because it just is.
Can we have Paul Murphy back?
O/T (But surely the EU summmit is the main topic of the day not has been liberals??)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6229300.stm
The one good thing about the EU is the single market and all that it implies. Seems like the protectionists have the upper hand though. I would then struggle to see why we should remain in the EU if this goes ahead. quite depressing
59 - I take your point. Perhaps Ashdown should have resigned the party, and taken the job, but not the Labour whip.
This would have been hugely embarrassing for Ming and would certainly have finished him off. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Anyway, after Clegg’s interview on R4, I don’t at the moment feel he should be next leader. Laws was more measured in the Guardian. I would like to know what Featherstone and Huhne have said. If they have any sense - nothing! I suggest that the next leadership contest draws slightly nearer.
DEFECTION ALERT! SBS to defect… finally
It is after a great deal of thought and soul-searching, that I have decided to defect. After many years, unhappily toiling through the private sector, I have finally left it behind, as of yesterday, for a future in the public sector.
60 - On a (vaguely) serious note Yokel - if you could have your pick of Labour MP’s for NI - who would you choose and why? With devolution it does seem to be a bit of a poisoned chalice - if it goes well then that’s because of devolution, if it goes tits up then its your fault.
59. Re. the collective responsibility point…did anyone see the pathetic attempt by a Labour minister on Newsnight last night to explain how this arrangement might work? The idiot simply grinned inanely and repeated the same lame slogans over and over again.
Two things sprang to mind - 1) perhaps there really is a massive talent deficit in the Labour Party that requires Brown to turn to the Lib Dems 2) was this fool actually Roger?
46. Good post SBS. I agree that Paddy would have been an ideal minister for NI and also that it can be treated separately as can the attourney general’s job. It was an ideal opportunity to dip our collective toes into a new type of politics. Just a shame that the so called ‘progressive party’ chose to leave their progressiveness at home
Meanwhile …. Michael White in the “Gruntfutock” on the Paddygate affair :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2108890,00.html
65. Scallywag. The Labour Minister wasn’t good last night. I didn’t understand why they chose him (Parnell?) to explain why Gordon invited the Lib dems into Cabinet when on his own admission he knew nothing about it.
And No I’m not that fool!
Meanwhile II …. Mary Anne Sieg-Heil of the “Times” on the shafting of Ming :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/mary_ann_sieghart/article1969009.ece
67 - Pretty stinging rebuke for the Lib Dems in the Times leader piece as well - “As it stands, voters may decide that their hearts might be in the right place but their brains are mislocated”.
Re 68 and 65 that minister was James Purnell Minister of State (Pensions Reform), rumuored to be in line for promotion along with Mrs Balls… scraping the bottom of the proverbial barrel anyone? Time for Jack W’s A.R.S.E. report?
Seriously it is the same in USA where the 2nd term staff are generally weaker than the first. Being in Office just consumes talent because of the pressure and political minefields.
Meanwhile III …. The “Daily HateMail” just luvs Paddygate !! :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=463265&in_page_id=1770
Just a quick roll over from yesterday’s debate on ID cards. Some tories were trying to portray support for id cards within the conservative party as rare. Others have already made the point that their leader at the last election gave id cards a huge push up the political agenda.
But I wanted to say, can we not forget Margaret Thatcher’s lunatic proposal that all football supporters should be made to carry ID cards and the support she got from other tories on this. I can remember pictures for the tory annual conference with delegates (sorry, representatives, no-one votes at tory conference!) holding up home made ID cards to show their enthusiasm!
64. Frank Field is alright, bloke seems to be willing to think for himself….
To be honest I have no idea. I would guess that it will now go to either a Lord who has been there done that or an up and coming type who they fancy throwing in and seeing if he or she sinks pr floats.
The key is that we don’t need dramatics, we need a calm capable administrator who will know when to say no, let the local politicians get on with it and not answer the phone when they come whinging and demand intervention which will happen soon enough. Most importantly someone who is prepared to grasp the nettle of criminality and the violence that still goes on from paramilitaries but just doesn’t carry their names. That last one is probably too much to ask as its currently government policy to turn a blind eye to certain actions by certain people.
71. He was pitiful and I thought Paxman gave him a very easy ride given how pathetic his performance was.
Result of Davenham and Moulton Ward by election, Vale Royal Council yesterday:
“Gaskill-Jones, Alicia Liberal Democrat 525
Green, Mark Richard Labour 489
Harben, Iain Anthony Liberal Democrat 479
Kerruish-Jones, Matthew Conservative 680 e
Mashlan, Jan Conservative 642 e
Ravenscroft, John David Independent 412
Thorp, Howard Geoffrey Green 168
Wood, Arthur Robert Liberal Democrat 758 e
Woodhouse, Bob Conservative 612
In 2003 Lib Dem top with 771, next two places Con 734 and 672, second Lib dem 576, Labour had 552 and 433
NO CHANGE.
48/58 Williams deserved the mauling she got from c hitchens, her answer about rushdie was a shockingly weak appeasement of religious extremists, and considering it was about the freedom to write novels, not very liberal to boot
I don’t think anyone should see the NI job as an insult.
I would have thought it would have suited Ashdown and would have be a good appointment?
I would have thought he could have ‘resigned’ LD whip in the Lords without needing to leave the party?
I would have thought something could have been sorted to the benefit of NI/UK?
I would have thought LDs could have covered their position by making clear that, at present, no LD MP would consider a govt job but that peers and other might do, and might equally do under a Cameron-led Tory govt if this were to be in the best interest of the country?
All in all underlines why I am no LD!
77 - agree - I usually like Shirley, but she was wrong, very wrong!
Watching Pantsdown on the BBC News last night reminded me how little he is missed from the political mainstream. Came out with some obscure quote instead of giving a simple answer, doing his bit to milk his brief moment in the limelight for all it was worth, and that ‘closed-eyes’ thing that so irritated me in the 1990s.
Such a great political heavyweight that he led the Lib Dems to as many as, what was it, 20 MPs? Yet all he ever wanted was to jump into bed with Labour that was true in 1992, 1997 and again this week. How disappointed he clearly was to have been told by Ming to forget it. I wonder why he couldn’t just have defected to Labour, he has been Labour for years in all but name.
One of life’s great losers, I have always thought that and still do. A lightweight. I cannot understand why so many on here have been so effusive in praise for his (lack of) achievements.
79. She is clearly pretty gaga now…her comments about how the UK was in Iraq due to our ‘economic dependence’ on the US were bizarre. She revealed herself as a kind of polar opposite of a UKIP conspiracy theorist.
Next week Gordon Brown takes over as Prime Minister, and many of us will be fascinated to see who takes over from Patsy Hewitt at health. He has already said that it will be his number one domestic priority, which is hardly surprising given the mess that Patsy, Reid and Milburn have created in the last five years.
Brown is obviously not terribly impressed by the talent he has available in his own party, as judged by the stories of his offering a number of posts to prominent Lib-Dem peers (such as Paddy Ashdown and Lord Carlile); according to press reports he was also keen to offer the health portfolio to the Lib-Dem peeress Rabbi Julia Neuberger. She is already the Lib-Dem health spoke(wo)man in the Lords, has been the Chairman of an NHS Trust and ran the King’s Fund, so she clearly knows something about the subject.
I suspect that Gordon also saw another virtue, namely that as a rabbi she clearly understands the power of prayer, and given the present state of the NHS, that may be a commodity we will all be needing.
Oxfordshirre CC Carterton South West yesterday
Cons 934,
Lib Dem 348
Labour 102
No change
District election Carterton North East,
Con 427
Ind 133
Lab 50
Now await Suffolk CC by election, only 6% bewteeen Conservative and Labour in 2005
80. Its the 1000 yard stare Bob. Many old soldiers have it.
Probably got that from his time in the ‘Nam..Cheltenham
Interesting prediction from Peter Riddell in the Times with possible betting opportunities:
http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/peter_riddell/article1969255.ece
“If Alan Johnson or Hilary Benn win, they will have a claim on one of the big jobs, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary, with Alistair Darling and Jack Straw getting the other post or the Treasury.”
Are the 8/1 Ladbrokes are offering on AJ being Home Secretary and the 5/1 on Straw being Chancellor worth a punt?
82. I’ve heard as part of Gordon’s wish for inclusiveness and desire to cast the net wide for talent, yet wanting to maintain a sense of smooth and undramatic change that Patsy Hewitt will be replaced by Patsy Kensit.
Currently 10000/1 with Ladbrokes..free money I swear…..
80 - I know Paddy did not get the LDs many seats in 1992. But the vote held up at 20% - remarkable since the polls were down to 5% at one stage. Had Kennedy or Ming been leader, the LDs would have been lucky to get 10%. After the Alliance collapses - and it was always going to - Paddy did a miracle!
Once the Tories imploded, and Blair became Labour leader, it was inevitable that the LDs would leak votes, but 1997 was still a reasonable result in terms of vote share.
Paddy’s weakness was that under him the party was bit policy light. He was also seen as a one man band because under his leadership initially there were very few MPs with whom he could share the limelight. And some of them - Alton, Cyril Smith / Liz Lynne were utter fruitcakes. He didn’t really have a talented front bench to promote. Even in 1997 - no Laws, Huhne, Clegg, Featherstone…
No - he was a very good leader, and left the party in goodish shape that Kennedy then squandered by leaving a total lack of organisation and not much more policy. The Kennedy damage has been repaired, but seeing Ashdown again does make me think what difference such a person would make now.
86. Not if you believe the weight of rumour about who is going where.
AJ for Home Secretary I suppose is possible, though how possible I have no idea, but Darling is apparently the man for the Treasury and has been for ages.
87. For an even cheekier bet, Gabriela Irimia to be next Lib Dem leader is available at 500/1.
80 Your’e crazy. Paddy nearly tripled the LD MPs from the shakiest of shaky starts. Lest we forget.
90. Yeah but how do we know its her and not her sister?
A couple of other brief results from last night .
Mid Devon DC Lower Culm was Con gain from Ind
Ryedale DC Pickering East was Liberal gain from Ind
The above 2 results were in wards where there were insufficient candidates in May to fill all seats
Cannock Chase DC Hednesford South was Labour hold - a good result as Conservatives won comfortably in 2004
80 Bob. You are absolutely correct, apart from the facts !!
In 1983 winning Yeovil from the Tories was the only time that election night that Maggie thought there might be trouble. Later after the SDP break up shambles he had by 1997 and despite the Labour landslide led the Lib Dems to the best performance in seat terms by a third party in over 60 years ! Almost by common consent he managed the Balkans disaster pretty well.
Ashdown is certainly an acquired taste but to suggest he’s been a failure is IMO wide of the mark.
89. Price on Straw for Chancellor has come in a bit on Betfair. If you believe its definitely him or Darling (though odds on Darling), there’s a small arb backing Straw at 5/1 and Darling at 0.4/1.
Assuming Darling takes Chancellor, where will Straw go? Peter Riddell seems to imply that if HB wins DPM, then he’s best suited to Foreign Secretary, if AJ then he’s best as Home Secretary. Will Straw just take the left overs?
94. But you are also hiding the fact that the LD vote share consistently fell under his reign, as opposed to Kennedy’s.
93 Suffolk CC Stowmarket North and Stowupland was Con hold with LibDems moving into 2nd Con 628 LibDem 431 Lab 317 Green 296 UKIP 185 Ind 172 - 2005 result Con 1743 Lab 1468 LibDem 804 Green 400
Oswestry Llanyblodwel/Pant Con gain from Ind in another ward where there were insufficient candidates in May .
96 Anatole. Seats matter in FPTP not vote share. Something it took the Liberals/Lib Dems a long time to learn !!
95 It’s in exceedingly thin trading, Caveman. I don’t think it’s significant in itself. I wouldn’t take the supposed arb. Imo, there are many others who could yet be Chancellor. It is definitely not a two-horse race, although Darling is a worthy favorite.
Benn is unlikely to win the DL. I’m not even taking the 7/1 currently available, despite him being the only loser on my book. Johnson should win, and Home Secretary for him makes sense, especially since the Department has been revamped and slimmed down.
If Darling then becomes Chancellor, Straw becomes Foreign Secretary and Balls goes to the DTI or Cabinet Office. That’s all the main bits in place without surprises or problems.
97. Labour’s disintegration in Suffolk continues.
South Staffs DC Featherstone/Sharehill was 1 x Ind hold 1 x Ind gain from Lab - Ind 557/383 Con 310/211 Lab 242/168 UKIP 132 - 2003 result Lab 429/368 Ind 412/170 Con 312/277 .
99 I think this is an unlikely set up, I believe that GB will try to ensure that as many women as possible get jobs and that includes senior posts.
Ladbrokes next permanent Lib Dem leader - 25/1 Lynne Featherstone strikes me as value.
99. I agree. I got on Darling at 5/1 with Hills months ago anyway. I was more interested in the 8/1 on Johnson for Home Sec as it appears he’s tied up the DPM now. However I remember him saying he wanted to stay at Education and everyone seems to think Straw as Foreign Sec causes problems with the Americans, even though it looks like his favourite job. I also got on AJ as Home Sec earlier at 10/1 with Hills, but may top up now with Ladbrokes.
102 - With comments like that you’ll be suggesting Prawn Dimarolo for Chancellor next…
103 agreed but don’t tell gladstone .
Straw becomes Foreign Secretary! Now what will the Whitehouse say!
Has anyone seen the 4/6 that Hills said yesterday they would offer for Ming to be gone before the next election?
98. But ultimately you have to aim for both. Clearly tactics and targetting improved but he also benefitted from circumstances. In the meantime however he was not persuading any more of the country of the benefits of liberalism. Kennedy, notwithstanding benefiting from Iraq, did this more successfully.
103, 106 - squeeky voice and all, I thought that a good value offer as well
107. She died some years ago, do keep up old chap.
99 I agree Peter. While Darling is a reasonable favourite (though not value at the current price of around 1.4-1.5 on Betfair), Brown could well yet surprise us. I’ve seen some value for small bets on two other candidates, here’s my reasoning:
The Scottish issue could be one factor affecting whether Brown chooses Alistair Darling as chancellor. Brown’s other challenge is his likely desire to want to maintain a reasonable profile of women in senior posts in the cabinet. If we assume Margaret Beckett ceases to be Foreign Secretary (likely, in my view) then this becomes something of a difficulty.
There is a choice could solve both these problems at one stroke - Ruth Kelly. Although she’s not exactly flavour of the month at the moment, she is quite possibly the member of the current cabinet best qualified intellectually for the job? MSc in economics from LSE (following PPE at Oxford), economics reporter for the Guardian, deputy editor of the quarterly inflation report at the Bank of England. In Government she’s twice worked for Brown as economic secretary to the Treasury and subsequently financial secretary to the Treasury.
I would put Kelly as a shorter than 12/1 shot to be chancellor, given my analysis above, and certainly value at over 100/1 which I backed her at.
If you want a real long shot there’s Geoff Hoon - if Brown decides he wants a chancellor who will be steady and reasonably competent, but in no danger of eclipsing his own chancellorship, Hoon is very close to Brown these days, and would make a reliable ally. And also nice and English. Not something to put the house on, but I thought worth a small bet at the 770/1 I was able to get (I’d put Hoon at perhaps 50/1).
Geoff Hoon - ’steady and reasonably competent’. ‘Competent’? Now that really is a long shot.
85 Yokel,
good to see the spirit of Ted Chippington is alive and well…
Roughly speaking.
104 Caveman
I didn’t know Johnson wanted to stay at Education but I still think 8/1 Home Office is a reasonable punt.
I’m not sure I buy this Straw/FO/Whithehouse issue. Even if there is some history there, it might suit Brown to send a small message and of the big offices of State, it’s the only one I should think Straw would really want. He could be Chancellor but there are so many others better qualified.
Given the rumours about Sugar, Coe etc does anybody think the 14/1 at Will Hills on a non-Lab cabinet member might be worth a punt…?
Final result from yesterday Gravesham BC Meopham North 2 x Con hold , LibDems 2nd in a normally barren council for them
Con 681/662 LibDem 200/178 Green 104 Lab 59/57 OMRLP 31
2003 result Con 892/887 Lab 243/216 Green 190
Barry - Brown said that education was his number one priority, not health. Just how many number one priorities does he have?
112 We pretty much agree there, Martin T. I don’t really get the Scottish thing but some people seem to think it’s important. If I were looking for a reason to oppose Darling as chancellor - and I agree the odds are too short - I would suggest he might be better deployed elsewhere. Health maybe? Or the Foreign Office, if Straw is truly unacceptable there, which I doubt.
Kelly is definitely value, as are Johnson and Timms, but we have to accept that Darling is the probable answer - just not worth backing at 2/1 on.
The idea of Hoon appals me but you couldn’t rule him out, for the reason you gave.
115.
http://www.epolitix.com/EN/Interviews/200706/a2c2c706-5d68-460e-8649-517a7c4fe948.htm
Johnson on the reshuffle
Question: Do you think that ministers risk being reshuffled before getting to grips with their briefs?
Alan Johnson: I have had three different cabinet jobs in three years and if you try to keep people in the same post regardless of what else is happening you will fail as a government but equally if you move people around for the sake of it you will fail as a government.
I would like to stay here at education regardless of what happens with the deputy leadership because I want to see through the introduction of diplomas, the introduction of personalised learning. I would like to see us get closer to our target of 3,500 Sure Start centres for children and I want to take through legislation to raise the leaving age to 18.
Don’t know if I believe him though! Sounds like BS for the DPM campaign….
120 I believe him but if GB offers him HS, it would be hard to turn down, especially if he would lose education anyway.
Just out of interest how many times has Shirley Williams been on Question Time? She literally seems to be on it every other week. If not her then it’s Tony Benn or Ken Clarke.
The EU’s new draft treaty has exchanged the phrase “free and undistorted competition” to a “social market economy with full employment”! The main reason the British public joined the EU in the first place was access to a significant free market and now it seems the EU is abolishing this for old-style socialism! If this wording goes through Brown will have a very hard time explaining this away without granting a referendum. It also shows the sad state of French politics that a supposedly right-wing leader is committed to left-wing economics.
116 - I think it is worth a nibble at those odds (I’ve stuck a small amount on it myself). Though I would be extremely surprised if it was Coe as that would really not go down well with Labour people. Someone less, well, Tory might be considered though.
122 - or Sir Menzies, whom I note is on next week AGAIN!
Does he actually think he will BOOST his popularity by appearing on the telly?
SBS at 52 - it was Norman Mineta, kept on from the Clinton administration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Mineta
Also William Cohen was Clinton’s Defense Secretary for the second term and was a Republican.
124 - if any of these “rumours” prove to be correct, it would suggest Brown has lost the plot completely. This is government, not some celebrity reality show.
Has he made such bitter enemies out of his potential pool of Cabinet ministers that he really has to consider appointments from outside of the Party?
I’d be livid right now if I was a Labour MP, activist, donor or voter.
This does all go to show what a very thin pool of talent is available to GB from the present parliamentary Labour party. Whatever one’s political affiliations this must be of grave concern.
123. Yes, this is quite extraordinary. Here we are, all looking one way - to see if Britain’s alleged “red lines” have been crossed, or Polish pleas ignored - then with a casual flick of the wrist the French change the basic economic philosophy of the entire Common Market we joined - enshrining for all time a commitment to a “social market economy dedicated to full employment”. This means centrist social democracy is now the official economic policy of the EU - the only policy of the EU.
Thatcherism, for one, would have been impossible under this regime. Thatcher saw temporary mass unemployment as a high but acceptable price to pay to really free up the market. This would not have been allowed under the Constitution - I imagine the ECJ could have ruled it unlawful.
The idea that our government can sign up to this ridiculous document, without giving us a referendum first, has just gone from being immoral, to being immoral, laughable and patently absurd.
129 Wahey you’re back! And right on target with the BIG story of the day. What a mess the EU has become.
I agree that Paddy Ashdown was a fine leader of the Lib Dems but when considering the reason for the party’s inexorable rise in the polls from 1990 onwards I don’t think you need look any further than their outstanding Party Political broadcast of 1989!
re 128 Doesn’t show that at all. There’s quite a lot of talent in terms of brain power (Miliband, Miliband, Balls, Cooper, Timms, Hutton, Kelly, without even mentiong Deputy candidates or established players like Straw and Darling or very sound and capable but not startling brilliant like Denham).
However, a fairer critique, I think, is lack of emerging ‘big beasts’ in political terms and some emerging ‘thinness’ at junior ministerial ranks.
129. Given that tacit acceptance of mass unemployment (albeit cushioned with significant welfare payments) has been a key part of the ’social’ European economic model for many years, this wording looks very strange.
129 - I don’t usually comment on Europe but I’ve got to say that I agree. I dislike any attempts at centralisation and this is the ultimate.
Is this something with cross party agreement for once?
(note to Brown, please put Alan Sugar in government, he’s a nasty obstreporous little man who might be watchable in a horrific accident type of way but who will further lower the image of the government in the eyes of voters)
128. Maybe Gordon will call you in Barry to give the Cabinet backbone? You certainly don’t lack ambition and a belief in your own ability!
95 & 99.
The stories about Darling refuse to go away. when his odds did a dramatic contraction a few months what sstruck me qwas how his name was bandied about without fanfare it was Darling for Chancellor and that was it., No big headlines, simply tucked away in the middle of many an article. It had a ring of the unspectacular and reasonably solid about the way it was being reported. That reporting has constinued on. Ok I wouldnt back him now but thats because I got in reasonably on him and did very nicely.
I’d have to agree on Straw for the FO as the most likely outcome. I’m aware of this idea that the US will hate him the US administration is indifferent. Fact. People tend to forget also that because some people believe this story about the US possibly being upset that its a great chance for Gordon to show his credentials as his own man…and a chance for Straw to go back to a job he really liked. Not a bad situation all round.
I’ve heard the Balls to Cabinet OFfice story as well peter though I’m not sure how that one pans out. I assume that Gordon will beef up the Minsitry and Balls will sit at the top of the pile.
129. I doubt the Poles will. The Polish PM went for the throat with his statemenets saying Poland’s population would have been larger apart from mass killings by the Nazis.
Interesting way to argue your case to keep the good voting deal