Would Brown be better off with new Balls?
October 21st, 2007
-
Is his former special advisor out of control?
After all the controversy over the role of schools secretary, Ed Balls in hyping up the early election date speculation there’s an intriguing account of some of the goings on between Number 10 and Number 11 during the final year of Tony Blair.
It comes in a serialisation of a new biography of Blair by Dr Anthony Seldon the first part of which is published in the Sir Paul Dacre’s “Mail on Sunday” today. Dacre, of course is a close friend of Brown’s.
One extract is very revealing about Balls. “..it gives a revealing insight into the tensions in Mr Brown’s inner circle with a series of venomous disclosures about one of the Prime Minister’s closest allies, Schools Secretary Ed Balls..The book claims that Mr Blair protested: “I feel like an abused and bullied wife,” after Mr Balls was “astonishingly rude” to him during talks between the camps last year over when he should leave No 10..According to Dr Seldon, out-spoken Mr Balls also turned his fury on Mr Brown when he refused to step up the pressure on Mr Blair to resign..The book claims that when Mr Brown returned to his office after failing to trigger a full scale revolt against Mr Blair in a radio interview, Mr Balls reportedly told him: “You bottled it.”
Taking the early election speculation a few weeks ago and these extracts you get a sense that one of Brown’s key henchmen might be out of control. To turn on Brown and accuse him of “bottling it” says an awful lot about the two men’s relationship. It’s almost as though Balls was in charge.
Is it any wonder that he felt empowered to act in the way he did during September? For it was the Balls briefings that kept the early election story on the boil.
Since all that went pear-shaped Balls has been singled out by many as a main culprit. Will it stop him in the future? I doubt it even though the consequences for his boss have been quite serious.
Balls is so aggressive that you feel that he could land Gordon in it again at any time.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
A long rant in today MoS by Kate Hoey. Talking about Gordon Brown’s “Ceshire cat grin” and how the EU treaty threatens to split Labour the same way that Europe and Maastrict split the Tories.
She needs to be careful of making an enemy of The Clunking Fist, if you as me.
Interesting also, to read about how Brown has behaved to Tony Blair over the last few years. It all makes me think that Brown is totally unsuitable to a demanding role like PM, and could quite easily psychologically unravel over the next few months and years.
I wonder if he’s actually a slightly manic depressive?
I get the feeling that the main motivation for this thread was Mike dreaming up the headline, and couldn’t resist not letting it go
Balls is so aggressive = He has the right name for a macho testostrone laden pit bull politician!
:lol: 
But maybe it is just all a balls up!
:lol: 
The question is; With so much agression and apparent disdain for his master, if Brown proves to be the electoral liability that I suspect he might be, would Ball’s move against the Clunking One and betray him? I think he would!
Watch this space.
Balls comes across as a pretty vile individual. A classic example of the dark heart of New Labour.
Frankly i think Balls is a much more attractive prospect than Brown. Brown is shit.
6. Shouldn’t that be the other way round?
Nooooo! Save the Binky! He is a fine example to us all of the true heart of New Labour!
Get him on TV often!
Great advert for the Conservative party!
1.
I think the Lib Dems are the only principled main party on Britains membership of the European Union.
They played it straight over Maastrict when for partisan reasons they could have voted against.
Believe they will do the same over this latest treaty, maybe not popular in the short term, but at least it shows integrity, which contrasts with the machiavellian antics of the two main parties over this issue these past 36 years.
9. On this treaty, the only party with any honour, IMO, is the Conservative Party.
Both Labour and Lib’s have gone back on their manifesto promise’s to have a referendum. The Tories are keeping to their commitment.
Seeing as Ed Balls is quite possibly Snowflake, I think this is an unduly rude essay about one of our most beloved posters.
8. As for the rugby last night, it’s just occurred to me that the more Gordon Brown appears on telly, the worse it is for Labour. He is just so awkward and offputting, he looks like a shifty liar - which is no surprise, as that’s what he is.
I now realise this is why Brown shirks publicity so much. It’s not because he’s a coward (or at least not just that) it’s because he’s smart enough to realise he just doesn’t give good TV. He sucks on screen.
This is why he avoids the lights. But as PM you can’t avoid the lights.
The Tories need to entice Gordo out as much as possible, and seek to destabilise his already wobbly psyche. He will blow up all by himself.
10 - so are the Tories traitors by now going back on their manifesto commitment so support ID cards?
12. Did the Tories win the 2005 election then?
Come now SeanT, everyone must know by now I’m not Ed Balls. For one thing, I don’t share his euro-scepticism
and for another I like Gordon Brown’s caution. I think it’s one of his strengths. It’s bad enough when people are reckless in ordinary life, but when they are reckless in government…
FWIW I think Brown was entirely correct in not wielding the knife last September, and allowing Blair to have his farewell tour. It was the gracious thing to do, and Blair’s inteminable good-bye exhausted people so they were glad when the change came.
10,
Hounour
Now I know your taking the piss, or you are on it now.
14,
I was`nt.
12 - what manifesto commitment?
14. It’s bad enough when people are reckless in ordinary life, but when they are reckless in government…
What like saying you are going to have an election and then Chicken out of it? Flying to Iraq - putting soldiers lives on the line to take the spotlight away from the tories or implementing similar policies to the tories a week after the tories announce them?
Brown is shit, as i have always said. I’m sure he is a nice man but PM, no he is not upto it. Bring back Blair or call an election!
Labour are really starting to turn in on themselves.
Brown is in trouble when he starts having to govern, soley to “shoot tory foxes”. I think his Parliamentry game on the EU treaty is a very cynical exercise indeed. He is in affect a trogan traitor to the English people, thrust upon us without a democratic election. Labour have raped the english taxpayer and now seek to rape the english way of of life.
18,
Browns, like Steve Mclaren who sat behind Ericsson while he qualifed for every major championship with ease.
The press say your rubbish because you did`t win it.
But when you have gone,the crowd realise, where not even going to be there this time.
12 - I don’t recall that being in the manifesto.
Bottler Brown struck back then shocker?
18. “What like saying you are going to have an election and then Chicken out of it?”
Gordon Brown never once said he wanted an election. People were speculating. As for visiting Iraq - the PM is allowed to visit Iraq anytime he wants. The idea that visits should be banned because they alledgedly put lives at risk is risible. He went to tell the soldiers that their number would be reduced to 2500 by next April. I expect most were glad to hear the news.
Britain is doing rather well under Gordon Brown if the most you can pin on him is a non-story about not calling an un-necessary election that no-one in the public wanted.
20. The great thing about Blair is he is acceptable to people like me. Whilst i think his copy book was blotted by Iraq, I would say Brown and Blair were to sides of the same coin. So, Blair should have stayed - Brown is the same but with all the flaws.
19. The EU treaty will go through on the votes of English MPs. Labour has the majority of MPs in England. When English voters bother elect Tory MPs in sufficient numbers to have a majority in the commons, then and only then you can claim to speak for England. Until then you do not.
12 SBS - here’s the manifesto (with its main points -on cleaner hospitals, immigration control through a points system etc - now recognised as sensible and adopted by Gordon Brown) - find the commitment.
http://www.conservatives.com/pdf/manifesto-uk-2005.pdf
23. “The great thing about Blair is he is acceptable to people like me”
LOL. He was so acceptable to you that you voted Tory in 1997!
22 - Did he tell them all personally? Anyway as i recall he did NOT go announce that they were being reduced by 2500 by next April. He said that 1000 would be home by Christmas, a quarter of which already knew that and a quarter of which were not even there yet!
He left the 2500 announcement until the House of Commons the next week.
22. There is a great deal to pin on Brown.
The last ten years of tax rises, immigration, public sector waste, NHS death factories (Kent Hospitals), British jobs for foriegn workers, the schooling crisis, Northern Rock, bad transport, pension increases alligned to the CPI instead of the RPI, tax credits - overpayment and cynical clawback, the rape of pension funds, the housing crisis etc…..etc ….etc.
24 - No Labour rebels then?
28. yada yada yada. We’ve had ten + years of growth (thanks to the absence of the reckless Tories), low unemployment, stable interest rates and inflation, and a vast increase in wealth. Plus public services have improved beyond recognition.
Why do you think people elected Labour three times Martin? Why do you think people fear the recklessness of the Tories? Because they know that Tory recklessness leads straight to recession. Always does. Always will. Your side does not have the control nor the discipline to run a stable economy. You are Proven Failures.
It’s a truth universally acknowledged that Tories = Two Recessions plus the ERM. Labour = Prosperity and Stability.
22 Snowflake - stop digging. Brown’s closest aides briefed the press on the election, they also said decision would be made on polling evidence. Your man has been revealed as a devious tactician, unable to face the voters, either party or the electorate and unable to tell the truth about his decision. It’s gone, it’s water under the bridge he now has to start again.
Even today “sources close to the PM” (so either Gordon, Blimky Balls or Wee Dougie) are still at it - “Sources close to the prime minister reportedly accused Blair allies of trying to use Seldon’s book as a “crude attempt” to undermine the government.”
At least we get to see what a foul mouthed, self absorbed group the Labour Party leadership are and just what a loathsome “colleague” Brown must have been.
26. Yes, you can be acceptable but not vote for the person. I do not live in his seat and i do not believe that Socialism is superior to Capatilism, i did think it was time for change and the tories needed to lose but not by 179 seats! Maybe your party (Labour)that you protested against in 2005 and voted LD over Iraq but rejoined before Blair departed, has seen the light and now follow the tories instead of leading them under brown?
Gordon Brown never once said he wanted an election.
He did not rule it out and your alter ego (Balls) was going round pumping up the prospect. Brown did not need to go to iraq to mention the withdrawl, he could have done it from here in parliament. Brown has contridicted everything he said he believed in when he first became PM. His chesire cat grin just showed how cynical he is and that is why i do not believe that his visit to Iraq was motivated by anything but political shortermism. Just like all the other naff gimmicks he has involved himself in since becoming PM.
Weird. A little Mike Smithson skit on Ed Balls - then up pops Snowflake to post several meaningless rants about Gordon Brown turning England into Nirvana.
Methinks the “lady” doth protest too much. She is Ed Balls and I claim my five Zimbabwean shillings.
30. Labour wanted to be in the ERM, the first recession was caused by Labour’s dire management of the economy and the tories had the doctors mandate.
The reason why the economy grew for 5 years under the tories and then ten years under Labour was due to the reforms the tories implemented whilst in power. These reforms were accepted by Labour and only then did Labour become a real player for government.
Your dogma is starting to delude you, the economy is not all as rosy as you say. The average person does not credit Labour for the economy, only Labour posters on here or politicians indulging in hubris advocate this. The UK economy is a product of peoples hard work. Governments do not make wealth they manage it!
The reason Labour won was Blair, put at it’s most simple. He is a man and a leader that i have a lot of respect for because he is a political genuis. His product sold in a way that was unpresidented in the modern context. The guy did something in modern politics that was completly unparelleled as a political leader. Now from my viewpoint he may have wasted his political capital but the guy is still one of the most formidable politicians the modern era has seen.
22 “Gordon Brown never once said he wanted an election.”
Yeah right, say that if it makes you happy :lol:. The rest of us saw the real briefings happening by his men like Balls and Wee Dougy, the shifting of policy announcements to clear the deck etc
Visiting Iraq shouldn’t be banned, doing so in a blatant attempt of party partisanship is risible though.
Get rid of Brown and lets have an election!!!
25 - ok, fair cop, backing ID cards was not actually in the manifesto.
33. SeanT, I only popped up because you mentioned me. I couldn’t participate in the previous thread because they were talking about rugby, which I don’t understand, and therefore had nothing to say about.
I personally think Tories like to think I’m Ed Balls simply because I like economics and Tories can’t believe that any woman understands numbers.
Still, I mustn’t complain. A sign that you are having an effect is when you start attracting stalkers (like Roger and Nick Palmer) or people start insisting you are a cabinet minister (my experience). Funny how no-one bothers to stalk Tories or imagine they are anyone senior - says everything about the lack of effect they have.
36. Yes! Yes! Yes!
:lol: 
Labour were Chicken for 2007!
:lol: 
36 - “Get rid of Brown and lets have an election!!!”
you want Labour to get rid of Brown BEFORE the election?
37 - Quite rightly too, because the party has had questions over ID cards all along.
39: Labour are chicken for it 2008 and 2009 too!
40 - no, the election will get rid of him back to the manse, and stop him taking money from us english to pay for Scottish and Welsh spongers!!!!!!
How many years of consecutive growth does a Govt need to preside over to be considered “not reckless”.
38. No i think people think you are ED Balls because your story about turning on Labour and voting LD in 2005 does not add up.
It sounds too artificial as no rational person would vote for the LD for the reason of Iraq and then go back to Labour whist Blair was still the leader. It does not stack up, I had a look at your site back in febuary or march and you said that you had voted ld in 2005 but had now come home to labour.
Frankly i don’t care if you are ed balls or not. You could be Gordon Brown and i could be william hague!
I might be Neil Kinnock…..
I’M ALL - RIGHT!!!!!!!
42. Brown wants to rape the english and milk them for all he can get before he goes down to a landslide defeat!
You can see all the ENGLISH MONEY being taken across the border in buses in the dark ready to give to the scottish layabouts!
Scotland to beat Italy in the football LOL
45. Neil Kinnock!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I bet he is a good laugh when he gets shit faced! I bet he gets really excitable!
:lol: 
Not really on topic, but-
Is there anyone out there who honestly feels Blair has been hard done by? He and Campbell seemed, according to the latter’s diaries, to have an ‘abused wife’ type relationship, but it cut both ways- Campbell treated him with contempt but needed him, Blair treated Campbell with contempt but needed him. I imagine Tony and Gordon were much the same.
No idea how Balls fits into the equation, but I think the Blair/Campbell relationship tells you a lot. I bet anything there weer two sides to that story, too.
All Labour politicians LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Labour and LDs will have so few seats after the next election that they will have to merge with the Greens!!!!!!!!!!!
LOLOLOLO…. etc
47. I have noticed that the times portrays brown as a fatBstard in their cartoons. Maybe this is a hidden reference to the money he has trousored off the english?
If anyone is interested in Swiss elections (Double Carpet) seats projection for Ticino and Grisons at the National Council..Ticino: PLR 3 PPD 2 PS 2 Lega 1 Grisons: UDC 2 PS 1 PPD 1 PLR 1
33. SeanT - there’s quite enough self-importance and egotistical posturing on this site as it is without encouraging some of the more extreme sources of it by speculating that they might be ‘important’. Please desist.
49 - ooh a sensibly constructed post - thats not allowed this afternoon!
Usually two sides to each story……
54 - back to the debate:
LABOUR = SHYTE.
:LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
49. Yes i do think Blair was hard done by but unfortunatly that is life and politics. I am surprised Blair took it as well as he has, it is a mark of the man that he has carried on doing something positive and constructive.
Whilst i never voted for him, i never feared what he would do with power. Brown on the other hand is manipulative and does not seem to understand how to work in the national interest.
I think the interesting factor at the next GE will be Brown visiting marginal English seats. Will English Labour MP’s want the Scotsman pressing the flesh in their seats?
Months ago, i joked that Nick Palmer would get a life sized cardboard cut out of Blair and stick him in his car and drive around waiving the cut out Blairs hand with a piece of sting. Maybe Nick will implement the plan?
43. Alex, Labour’s management of the economy has been cautious. And it’s also clear that the Tory recession of the early 90’s was set in train by recklessness on the part of Nigel Lawson. The thing is George Osborne shares the same character traits - he won’t be able to resist the big gestures that get you into trouble.
Then there is the example of the USA - the stable Clinton years, where taxes went up in 1993. And the unstable Bush years, where taxes were cut savagely, and they look to be heading for the rocks a second time. Labour is like Clinton. Tories are like Bush.
44. Tons of Labour activists voted LibDem in 2005 while still being paid-up Labour members at the time they cast their vote. We knew that if Blair got a majority of over 80 he could consider himself invincible. A lower majority put pressure on him to step down. I’m glad I did it. I heard Blair speak on Iran recently, and all the bile came rushing back. he has many good qualities, but I think lost the plot on foreign policy a while ago. I think 8 years should be the maximum for a prime minister, and Labour will look to Brown to step down in eight years time.
And what about Ken Clarke? Is he a Tory?
And what are these “character traits” that you have so carefully been observing? A tendency when offering tax cuts to actually mean it?
57 - i dont think Brown was appreciated at the rugby yesterday……
The increasing support for English Nationalism is occurring because hard working English people are fed up of subsidising Wales and Scotland
I still think Labour is having a laugh with the tory funding thing.
Can they seriosly say they think the tory party contacting the public imbetween elections is bad for democracy. I should think voters feel more wanted as normally parties only call at election time.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2196066,00.html
Hoon: “That cannot be good for democracy”
:lol: 
So we get to a state where labour lie about having referundums and ban opposition parties from campaigning. Sounds a bit like an african dictorship.
Balls always struck me as a complete pratt although on reading this blog I see he’s a eurosceptic so maybe he does some redeeming features after all!
59. Ken Clarke was chancellor for just four years. It says much about the poor performance of the Tories during their 18 years that they use Clarke’s short term as fig leaf. And then proceeded to tell us what they really thought of him when they chose that dunce IDS over Clarke.
Re tax cuts - they’ll have the same effect as Bush’s tax cuts.
Snowflake, I think people suspect you are not quite who you say you are, because your feminine posturing is just a little over the top. You remind me of the tranny on Little Britain.
Ooh, I’m such a girl, me. Rugby! How can I understand that??! I’m a laydee. I wear skirts and do lots of IRONING. And I look like Audrey Hepburn, so my HUSBAND says! Did I mention that I have FALLOPIAN TUBES? Hey, shall we discuss endogenous growth and celebrity cellulite?
It’s just a bit… weird. No woman talks like that.
If you aren’t Ed Balls you are definitely some MALE Labour apparatchik sent to bore us rigid with your screeds.
62 - It seems to be unclear what the Labour line is.
Are they saying that it is unfair that Tory MPs have money to spend? Or are they accusing Michael Ashcroft of “buying influence”?
63 - Are you opposed to all tax cuts?
Let’s not kid ourselves any longer. Brown’s so-called economic miracle was a debt fuelled ponzi scheme that’s just about to blow up in his face.
Hm. This could be nasty:
http://tinyurl.com/2eerf9
65. Its just plain silly, they degrade the whole of politics by doing this. The Tories can just as easily point to the NOM-DOM Labour Billionaires or even the trade unions. Then there are the comunication allowances that to put generously are to “promote the work of MP’s and raise their profile”. Cash for Peerages is a potent issue that could easily be opened up again.
Labour are doing nothing more than aiming a shot gun at the tories without relising the barrel curves round and the bullet will hit them. But if Labour want a bullet in the head - they should go ahead!
:lol: 
The Turks occupying Iraq could be the solution everyone’s been looking for. After all the whole area hasn’t really recovered stability since the end of the Ottoman empire.
70. Rather unlikely. I was in Turkish Kurdistan last year. It’s a war just waiting to kick off. The Kurds HATE the Turks. And the Kurds feel they have America on their side - and they are probably right. So they are up for the scrap.
Kurdistan is the only place I have been where George W Bush is wildly popular. And I’ve also been to Texas.
I don’t know, I like Balls a little better knowing that he was “astonishingly rude” to Blair.
70- solution? They will occupy the only area with some kind of stability
Are we all excited about Lewis Hamilton?
Or will he BALLS it up????
63 Agree that Lawson was a bad chancellor after a good start - not because of tax cuts but because he and Major were exchange rate monetarists, it was when circumstances forced a reversion to floating exchange ratesfollowed by Kenneth Clarke adopting sensible fiscal policies that Tory economic policy redeemed itself to the point that Brown closely followed it for period to 2002.
Brown has however proved a less prudent chancellor since 2002 - Clinton’s administration used economic growth to turn a deficit into a surplus, Brown has continued to run large deficits in times of moderate growth.
We may find out all too soon the results of his imprudent borrowing if there is a further tightening of credit and stock market fall.
the following quote from the MoS article tells you all you need to know about this particular book
“Dr Seldon interviewed nearly all of Mr Blair’s most loyal Cabinet Ministers including Stephen Byers, Alan Milburn, Tessa Jowell, Patricia Hewitt, Lord Falconer, Charles Clarke and David Blunkett. All have clashed angrily with Mr Brown over the years.
In addition, he was assisted by most of Mr Blair’s key officials such as former political aide Baroness Sally Morgan. More than 30 senior Cabinet and Downing Street figures with close links to Mr Blair are listed in the book as having provided information.”
There is a well of resentment amongst those who were close to Blair over Gordon Brown, the resentment runs very deep and goes back to when Gordon Brown refused to run against John Smith for leader and has festered ever since. Many have never forgiven Ed Balls for his role in allegedly stitching up Peter Mandelson in the Geoffery Robinson loan affair. So we can expect more of this sort of thing and I am sure the papers will be happy to pay handsome sums for the serialisation rights. Its relevance to current day politics is minimal, those involved are yesterday’s men and women even if they still have good friends in the media.
75. I would probably agree with much of what you say there.
I would say that Lawson implemented some cracking reforms though. Which have helped the UK economy to this day, given the grewl of a policy Labour advocated at the time. I think Lawson was a better chancellour than Brown.
My reason for this is Lawson sort an improvement in the way the economy was taxed and hence worked. Brown did not do this; he just looked at maximising the revenue he could take in taxes for the government to spend. Both Chancellours were succesful but i would say that Lawson has left more of a positive legacy than brown. Both were succesful in implenting their stratgy. Lawson wanted to improve the economies performance through supplyside changes whereas as Brown wanted to increase taxes to spend more via the government.
74. “Are we all excited about Lewis Hamilton?”
Not particularly
78. MSN
Rather, Brown would be better off with no Balls.
It might make Brown’s voice more interesting too!
;o)
About the Rugby/England situation…
I think the real plonker would be the guy who thinks that supporting a team or winning this competition is somehow a patriotic thing to do or something that matters. Which is most of ‘Middle England’, who wouldn’t mind at all if it was a politician they liked ‘participating’ in the event but call it stupid and opportunistic when it’s a politician they don’t like (Gordon Brown).
Rugby is a fun game to watch and to play but let’s be honest, it’s just a hobby like any other, and no better than speculating on election results on pb.com. Let’s not elevate a bunch of overpaid mercenaries to the level of ‘fine Englishmen’ and representatives of the popular consciousness.
Patriotism is good but there are many better things to be patriotic about, starting with things like fixing the educational system or doing something about the millions of people who are permanently or temporarily homeless (nothing new but you won’t ever see the Daily Mail campaigning about it).
Of course John Major’s real name was Ball-Major, then he had the Ball removed, can’t say who removed the other one: Mrs T perhaps?
England played badly anyway, both in this match and the last one. I watch sports to be entertained, and if they play badly and give me a boring match I don’t care what they call themselves representatives of I’m not going to pity them if they lose.
Now France on the other hand did deserve to win the last two matches, England just relied on luck and when the luck ran out they it was all over.
Interesting: a few days ago, this Tory Peer produces a report, saying that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons was not only understandable but advisable, then this appears in the News of the World.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/2110_lord_lewd.shtml
Now who owns that newspaper?
84. So what?
Some unkown opposition peer has an affair? who gives a t*ss?
It’s like the rumours about Chris Hunne - A non story: Who cares what the potential leader of the LD’s did or did not do 30 years ago.
83. absolute rubbish
85. What rumours?
87. sunday times page 9: LSD article plays tricks on Hunne’s mind.
It goes on to detail opiates and heroin.
88. Who cares though? I would probably be more inclined to vote for him as he has experienced things much of the population has not!
90. Anything like affairs, drugs, booze, money etc. Only really become an issue if you are a government minister and do it on the job, so to speak. Otherwise it does not matter, irrelavant. That is unless you have a moral compass!
:lol: 
81. I think the real plonker would be the person who does not know the difference between a sport and a hobby or tries to confuse the two in a transparent and crass way to justify their resentment over the amount sportsman are paid.
As you point out such a misconception does suggest shortfalls in our education system but then Labour have been criticised for their failures on the teaching of English for some time now.
So for those who don’t know the difference between a sport (or game) and a hobby in general terms.
Sports are competitive, hobbies are not.
The result of sporting events is unpredictable. The result of doing a hobby is not.
Sports attract spectators who are willing to pay money for the spectacle. Hobbies do not.
People generally bet on sports but on hobbies they generally do not.
Sports require a considerable level of physical ability and skill. Hobbies rarely do.
Sports are intended to push you to your limits. Hobbies are not.
Swingvoter, I take it you’ve never played Rugby. It is many things but it is rarely ‘fun’.
Rugby is a sport. It is not a hobby and the fact that people get paid for playing Rugby is simply because people want to see them play and are willing to pay for it.
Regarding your final points I would agree. What was Gordon Brown doing there when he clearly has far more pressing issues to deal with and as a Scotsman it was hardly patriotic?
I also agree you probably won’t see the Daily Mail reporting it as Dacre is reportedly a great supporter of Gordon Brown.
Hamilton look like being third English loser of the week….
This thread is a bit of a non-issue IMO, but to respond to alex at 120 in the last thread - yes, £40K*100 is £4 million, where does the £40,000/year for 100 Labour MPs figure that Ashcroft alleged come from?
I also agree you probably won’t see the Daily Mail reporting it as Dacre is reportedly a great supporter of Gordon Brown.
There was a lot of this said previously on this site. I don’t think other than a brief spell in which the mail looked openly on Brown that their is any evidence that the Mail will back Brown. I strongly suspect that Dacre might find himself with more time on his hands if he even tried to change the mail’s political stance. It is just wishful thinking by Labour posters; It is not going to happen!
You would be deluded if you thought the mail would back Brown after reading dome of their front pages and editorials in the last few weeks.
94. That’s not the issue, Labour are saying that the tories should not be campaigning and raising support. The government chief whip thinks that contacting the electorate and communicating with voters is ‘cannot be good for democracy’.
In essence you are wanting to ban the tories from campaing. This is wrong - I thought you wanted to raise turnout and get people engaged in politics not dictate to them and fail to listen to their views.
94. I think it is gross hypocrisy to talk of Tories buying seats nick, maybe you should moderate your language on this issue. Given politicians want to engage the public and raise turnout, it seems a funny thing to complain about a political party engaging with the electorate. If Labour continue to “go” on this; the Tories can engage in a negative strategy similar to the sleaze agenda of the 90’s and cause Labour catastrophic damage. Cash for peerages has tainted the Labour brand, to rape the electoral system and rig it would not do the Labour party any good at all. What sort of country do Labour want us to live in - a totalitarian communist regime? Instead of moaning about the Tories: Why don’t Labour MP’s and the Labour party reconnect with the electorate? Labour are locked into a “loses” strategy, which is completely defensive. Further tampering with the electoral system will just show how out of touch Labour are, instead of engaging in modernising Britain and looking to the future Labour MP’s will seem only to be working in their own self interest.
I think you are on a hiding to nothing with the “Ashcroft money”. If i were you i would just shut up about it and grin and bare it.
I think most people would find it staggering for MP’s to complain about a political party engaging with the electorate. I know you work your patch hard from what you have said. This is the only way you are going to keep your seat - not moaning about the tories outspending you in the intervening periods between GE’s.
The Ashcroft money is raised by the political party, it is not state money or short money. Some Labour folks said about the autumn GE - be careful what you wish for. I would say the same to you - trying to prevent the tories from campaining is not going to do the Labour party any good at all. In fact it just reinforces the opinion of people like me that Labour are moving away from their democratic roots and are not engaing with the people.
94 - Well the £4m comes from the calculation that i stated. I don’t know where the quote comes from. Maybe you imagined it?
Sorry Major-Ball, actually it works better that way around.
86
Your obviously missing the point, how long had the News of the World had that story, why did they release it when the Peer in question, defended the right of Iran to develop nuclear weapons?
94. where does the £40,000/year for 100 Labour MPs
I would guess the 4 years in a “average” parliament 4 x 10k = 40k.
Because i have respect for you i am not going to make a joke at your expense and the fact you have a PHD in maths!
99 Agree - very suspicious that NoW published the story now, but that’s how politics works unfortunately.
99. I see you think that it is some sort of anti - Muslim crusade by Ruppi - popie.
94.Nick Palmer
Here is an extract from the article from the Telegraph
‘In April, the Commons introduced a taxpayer-funded communications allowance of £10,000 for each MP to spend on promoting himself to his constituents (though Tory MPs voted against the proposal). In addition, MPs can transfer 10 per cent of their £90,505 staffing allowance to their communications budget, and spend £7,000 a year on postage.
Then they can dip into an extra £21,339 each in “incidental expenses provision” (IEP), which can be used to cover constituency office costs, websites and other means of helping to get their message out. In fact, MPs can transfer their entire IEP to their communications allowance or postage costs – meaning that MPs can each spend some £40,000 a year of public money’
The full article is here.
http://tinyurl.com/2gxx8n
Lord Ashcroft acknowledges that it applies to all MP’s but that this will always benefit the ruling party. As Labour have well in excess of 100 more MP’s than any other party I suggest that is where he gets his figure from.
The total works out in excess of £40k and therefore a figure of £4 million seems quite reserved.
Sport & politics is interesting as there is a definite connection with national mood. I think it goes both ways, when a country wins something it improves the mood and, if it loses, vice versa (obviously the bigger the audience the better). I feel it also works the other way, however. Either in the sense that, if a country is down then even a win doesn’t matter but also that the final psychological boost coming from being supported by a resurgent nation never appears.
102
I would say that someone in the security services, (after that report came out)handed the story to one of Rupe’s gang.
94. 100. Sorry to Nick Palmer MP, looks like the joke is on me!
I did not see the 40K a year! I thought it was just 40K, having said that good news for nick he can look at JSFL and implement a 40k p/y strategy!
105. That’s the problem with politics, interesting thought though!
I would hate to be in the spotlight like that. Funny i am a very open person but i would not like to end up in the papers or be a public figure.
106. Maybe it was a mistake that Lord Ashcroft wrote this. I wonder how many Labour MP’s didn’t know they could do this?
;o)
Your article makes Balls sounds seriously unpleasant. The more I see of politics at the top this year, the more unpleasant it looks to me.
On the funding issue last thread. Democratically, no-one should have the power to have that kind of influence on political parties. There should be limits on spending between elections too - the Tories are looking like adding about 30 seats every election just by outspending for the entire Parliament. And that’s so not democratic.
Certainly rich individuals shouldn’t be able to have that much influence on politics. Nor should businesses, because although they represent shareholders, it’s their job top make money not campaign. Unions is more debatable. At least unions are representing people in a very large part of their lives; whereas company shareholders mostly hold shares in a lot of other things as well.
Still, all in all, I’d ban large donations - even 50,000 is far too high - and up state funding instead. I know it’s unpopular, but it’s the right thing to do to make the democracy work. People would get used to it, and it’s a tiny tiny amount of taxpayers money, and its a lot better than people having influence purely because they are rich. It’s supposed to be a democracy, not a plutocracy (rule by the rich btw).
Of course MPs have an incumbency advantage. But there’s not really any way around it - you can hardly fund ALL parties the same as the one holding the seat. You could fund the local party that came second a much smaller amount than the one that came first - that would probably be a good way of replacing the funding lost from donations. And at least MPs have an incumbency advantage because they were elected, and not because their supporters happen to be richer than everyone else’s.
If you’re not convinced that donation limits are a good idea, look at the States. One of the major reasons why they’re so much more right-wing than any other democracy is, donations are much more important. And rich people, surprise surprise, tend to be right-wing. Obviously parties have to put much more effort in to fundraising from rich people than from everyone else, so rich interested people get far more than their fair share of influence. I think it perverts the US political system to the extent that it’s a serious defect in their democracy. It’s almost a plutocracy. And unless you’re very rich or right-wing, or don’t really believe in democracy, that can’t be a good thing.
Excuse the lengthy rant, but I really think this is so important and has to be sorted out.
PS not that me posting on pbc is likely to have any influence on the powers that be!
93 re grand prix. Since as it stands Raikkonen will win the drivers championship if he wins the race, will Massa get team isntructions to let Raikkonnen win ? If so Raikkonen could be value to back at the moment..
111 - I thought team orders were forbidden? Raikknonnen would probably be chucked out!
109. Ashcroft is not that wealthy compared to some Labour supporters who are worth £10’s of billions. Still he is a succesfully business man and has campaigned hard for things he has felt passionate about such as supporting Crimstoppers, East anglia univerity and even getting countries to prevent whaling.
Don’t let Labour MP’s pull the wool over your eyes. The only inflience Ashcroft has is that he helps candidates to ruthlessly target voters. Did Labour not do this to get a majority of 179 in 1997? Of course they did, they did the same upto 2001 as well.
Labour are massively over-represented in parliament, if you look at the numbers of votes and seat. How Hoon can say this is undemocratic with a straight face - I shudder to think! 55% of the seats on 35% of the vote - now that’s undemocratic!
On state funding.
If at the election, on the ballot paper there was an option:-
Do you wish to make a payment via the exchequer of £2.00 to the party of your choice, a tick box yes or no.
That money would not go directly to the party, but would be held in an account (administered by an independent body) rather like a bank. Withdrawals would have to be justified, and accompanied by invoices etc. There would be fully audited, annual accounts showing all ins and outs.
109. I know Brown does not like elections or consulting the people but banning oppositions from campaining is goin a bit far!
Brown’s dictatorship is on the way!
Interesting that Lord Sainsbury, Lakshmi Mittal or Bernie Ecclestone
don’t come up in these discussions?
Also interested to know why the money given to (some might say laundered through, for Labour) the Trade Unions is not considered?
114. Don’t you think it misses the point that if parties cannot raise sufficient funds that they are not offering the public what they want?
All public funding does is excuse the political parties from being receptive to the electorates views. If political parties are not popular and able to raise funds they must be doing something wrong.
I keep warning Labour that all they are doing is putting off the inevitable and it is going to get worse the more they try to stack things in there “favour”.
It blows my mind to see Labour MP’s trying to ban opposition parties from campaining. Maybe Labour should spend more time reconnecting with the electrate rather than taking them for granted.
116. Yes, Labour are walking into a mine field with this and all that will happen is the political sytem will suffer.
Lord Paul said he would bankroll the Labour parties election, maybe this is why Labour have been so lothed to tax non-doms?
I mean how many Labour Billoinaires are non dom for tax purposes?
Cap donations by all means but also:-
Reduce MP’s spending on communications, post and IEP.
Scrap all state funding to trade unions
Scrap all other state subsidies for political parties.
But of course Labour would then go broke. Oh dear, what a shame, never mind…….
133 - Labour agree with FPTP, and target seats ruthlessly to make the best of it.
Tories agree with FPTP, and target seats ruthlessly to make the best of it.
LDs disagree with FPTP, and target seats ruthlessly to make the best of it.
I don’t see how we can complain about the Ashcroft money. I really can’t see an unhypocritical argument. Unfortunately. OK, so he’s a tax exile, but he’s certainly not like Michael “in prison” Browne.
117. But that’s the point isn’t it Labour are not interested in the electorate they are only interested in retaining power. It’s far easier to load the political dice while in Government than persuade the electorate after 10 years of failure.
119.
I still don’t think Labour have relised how bad it makes them look by attempting to ban the opposition from campaining. If i were the tories i would say it just shows how out of touch Labour are that they don’t communicate with the electorate and want to ban freedom of expression, freedom of communication and freedom of political affilation for their own party political ends.
Labour are turning into Christmas Turkey’s
:lol: 
They were chicken for October and will now be doing this be in effect turkey’s voting for christmas!
:lol: 
122. Christmas Turkey’s or is it that ‘There goose is cooked’?
121. Sad but true - All Labour are doing is giving the political grim reaper a bigger cyth. Bonkers, absolutly bonkers!
123. Well given the champaigne socialists tastes both! I’m sure sainsbury’s will do a deal for them?
:lol: 
109-Your issues does not seem to be about donations but rather about donations to right wing parties. I get the impression that if trade unions were right wing and there were lots of rich left wing private donors you would have no issue with the latter.
Is this the first time a government has in effect raised the prospect of Banning the official opposition from campaining?
127. This refers to a UK government.
I cannot believe Labour MP’s are seriously wanting to ban the official opposition from campaining.
119 - exactly
What do they need these lavish amounts of money for? OK, my local campaign has been on a rather modest scale, but we have had ample coverage in the local newspapers, radio, TV, and on the web, as well as national TV, national radio and national press, as well as public meetings. Total expenditure to date is less than £500 (of which £150 was to register with the electoral commission).
I feel that we would be better served if MPs went back to the days before they were paid; when elected, it is my intention not to draw the parliamentary salary, and only to claim such expenses as I could justify as being essential and submit receipts for. Others will be invited to follow the example.
Being a politician is NOT a career, it is a vocation to serve others.
The other more pertinent question is how could the Liberal Democrats tatically vote for the Labour party knowing that the Labour party had banned campaining for the official opposition - it strikes me as not very Liberal and i would indeed be worried if i were a LD as Brown has already said that he wishes to curtail civil liberies in making people have ID cards etc.
I’m all in favour of state funding
provided
it is accompanied by a law jailing every MP and Minister who makes any statement which was knowingly not the truth at the time it was made..
(note the careful choice of wording.)
Penalty: immediate loss of office and all (ALL) personal receipts due from that office - i.e pension, etc.
That I suspect would concentrate minds.
Otrherwise I object to taxation being paid to [politicians of any persuasion who clearly do not tell the truth.
129.
Being a politician is NOT a career, it is a vocation to serve others.
I agree with those sentiments.
Earlier on the previous thread , someone posted about being in a pub in London and Gordo being booed. It seems it was not just in one pub…
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/280721/backs-against-the-wall-stuff.thtml
133. It does not surprise me - People HATE Brown, absolutly HATE him. They think he is a cnut who is a lier and would steal from his own grandmother.
134.and would steal from his own grandmother.
Given the PBS and the contents of it, along with Brown’s self satisfied chesire cat grin. Not an exgeration.
133: But they did that to Thatcher, Major, and the Liar.
129 “Being a politician is NOT a career, it is a vocation to serve others.”
Barry, I agree, but for too many MPs in job-for-life safe seats, it’s more vacation than vocation.
It’s pretty daft that MPs in certain seats have to work so much harder, and spend so much more, than other MPs in safe seats.
I think Labour needs defeating, they cannot be allowed to ban the opposition form campaining. This is wrong, undemocratic and lacks British fair play.
The difference is that with Gordo, you know the reasoninbg behind it is all about kudos for Gordo, you could hardly say that about the Iron Lady
103: Thanks, jsfl - that makes mathematical sense but is practical nonsense - the IEP is overstretched as it is, and deeming that it can be transferred to the communications allowance would mean that MPs would work without an office, or a computer, or a filing system, or electric lights, or telephones… It’s a daft diversionary argument. Note though in response to several comments above that the issue is not donations - it’s spending wildly in excess of the normal campaign limits at non-campaign times. A colleague calculates that his opponent spent £25,000 in a single week when they thought the election was due - double the constituency limit for the entire campaign.
While we’re at it, perhaps we should review why the Conservatives and LibDems receive central financing from the taxpayer under the Short money while Labour does not?
Meanwhile, the early Swiss returns show the far-right party making only modest gains (2%) to around 28%, but the socialists are losing ground heavily to the further-left greens.
134 - do people really HATE Brown? What polling evidence is there that the public at large HATE him? You may HATE him, but is he more HATED than Thatcher?
137. That’s my only problem with PR, funnily enough the present system allows parties like the LD to keep MP’s of the two main parties on their toes. I feel this function would be lost if PR was implemented.
There is no such thing in about 600 seats for idol MP’s. Parodixically it is the Labour seats that allow this but the incumbants are usually driven by a desire to serve rather than a career. This has been the case previously anyway. Could the advance of young apparatchiks into Labour safe seats change this - well it’s a possibility.
140 - “While we’re at it, perhaps we should review why the Conservatives and LibDems receive central financing from the taxpayer under the Short money while Labour does not?”
Not with you on this Nick. My understanding is that the entire civil service works for the government in power, and the taxpayer pays for this. Short money is to do the sort of research for the opposition that the civil service does for the government, or have I got it totally wrong?
141. No not yet! It’s just the reaction that people have said to me.
140. I still cannot believe that you are advocating banning the opposition from campaining. What are you going to advocate next ban voting? Ban the opposition?
Labour are out of touch, you will do no favours by banning the oppisition from campaining.
Im sure people despised Maggie, but she ( from memory) didn’t turn up to many sporting events, and the ones she did, I feel pretty sure it had zero to do with personal kudos. More likely out of duty, thats the difference . IMHO
143. I think the Labour party would be knackered without Conservative and Liberal Democrat research!
:lol: 
Where would they get theri policies from?
140. Nick P Thanks for responding.
Unfortunately I do not believe that there is anything for the Government to gain in further interfering in our democratic system.
Unfortunately your leaders have already abused it far too often over the last 10 years for the likes of myself to trust Labour on such issues.
Say what you like, its falling on deaf ears…..
Happy to listen on Education Health and so forth but don’t talk to me about democracy it is clearly not on your leader’s agenda!
145 - yes, but do you remember her on Saturday Superstore sitting on the Pop Panel? Or a clip of her filmed for the Brit awards saying what her favourite music was? Or the Yes Minister special where she had a part? Cringe, cringe and cringe again.
It is interesting that John Major when PM was perceived as the “Grey Man”, but has turned into what I see as a respected figure, You couldn’t see that happening to Gordo. To me he suffers from a complete and utter charisma bypass…..its going to be a one way street for Gordo, bit by bit the electorate will suss out what he’s really like. (the latest book is a perfect example of what’s coming)