How does this square with Brown’s “no election” statement?
October 22nd, 2007
Will this put the election retreat back on the agenda?
The main lead in the Guardian this morning confirms how serious Labour was about going to the country in late October or early November and could provide further ammunition for the Tories as they seek to attack Brown.
For according to the paper “nearly a million pounds” was spent in the run-up compared with just £200,000 by the Tories.
The report notes that three million letters had been printed and were binned; “hundreds of thousands of pounds” had been spent polling in marginal seats; poster sites had been pre-booked and paid for and many staff had been hired.
In one instance a lorry load of office equipment had to be turned back on the Monday after Brown’s Saturday decision.
A report from Labour’s general secretary is going to the party’s national executive today. One problem for Labour is that it is still £20m in debt and this additional expenditure will add to the overall financial problems.
Interestingly the Tories also had to pre-book billboard advertising and the current EU referendum campaign was apparently devised to use the spaces that had been paid for.
In many ways this report is not really surprising. It simply underlines that an election was being considered very seriously and clearly those charged with running the campaign had to plan and that involved spending money.
A challenge for Brown is that it could call into question some of the statements he was making in the immediate aftermath of the “no election” announcement. In particular what he said at the press conference on the Monday afterwards will be subject to a lot of scrutiny.
No doubt that this will be raised at PMQs on Wednesday.
In my betting I am retaining my position as a seller of Labour seats on the spread markets. My exposure is not on the scale of earlier in the month when I had a £100 a seat commitment - so if there was a drop of 10 seats in the Labour spread I made £1000 but stood to lose the same if it went in the other direction. There hasn’t been much movement over the past week and a half but a clutch of end month polls are due in the next ten days.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Wonder whether spinners here will still try to claim Brown was never that interested in an early election.
Either that, or Brown is so used to wasting our money that he didn’t think twice over blowing a million pounds here.
Lies are Lies. Liars are liars. Shame to have a congenital one as our Prime Minister. Labour MPs must move to remove. Their credibility is now at stake. If they make us sit out two more years like this, thir Party will be finished, and rightly so.
If on the other hand, they hold up their hands and admit that Brown is a mistake, and remove him quickly, then allow the referendum, they will still be in business.
O/T Good news for the housing market - Anatole Kaletsky is now predicting a crash: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article2709694.ece
I have always suspected that the problem for Brown is that he is not as good at lying as Blair.
Blair would shout slogans while Brown rants out statistics. Statistics are easier to disprove.
Saying that, I find it hard to believe Blair would have been caught out in such a blatant lie; but then we think of the Tony Blair with years of experience in the job. Do you remember the F1 scandal in 1997? Blair was given a pass over his lie, Brown was never going to be allowed that.
I still think Brown can recover if he keeps his head down, governs and introduces some policies…wasn’t that supposed to be his strength?
I agree with Tapestry (2) - The problem is, who do we replace him with? The obvious favourite, Milliband is damaged goods now through his association with Brown. I suppose a proper leadership election wouldn’t go amiss.
I don’t like to complain but I think we’re beginning to see the problems in the desire to start so many threads. I could have sworn this topic was discussed a week ago! I suppose at least it’s not aping the newspapers and slapping “Exclusive” on it as well
6 Alex - we need a new thread, simply to cope with demands on the server, when we get to 250-300 comments. All that loading and reloading of 30,000 word discussions uses a lot of bandwidth.
This story is from the front page lead of the most influential Labour leaning quality paper and should be taken seriously.
“hundreds of thousands of pounds” had been spent polling in marginal seats;
There are so many surveys conducted for the Daily’s’ that we take polls for granted but can some one here give me a ball park figure for the cost of such a ‘poll’ from the likes of Mori, yougov etc.
Serves them right. This will have hurt Labour financially, as if the pain of looking at the polls wasn’t bad enough. Having said that, the Conservatives aren’t exactly rolling in cash, despite what Labour would like us to believe about Lord Ashcroft.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
Mike, if you read last night’s thread you’ll see a lot of flaming and counter-flaming.
You promised earlier to introduce a code of conduct. Are you going to lay down some commenting rules, or have you decided not to do this?
I think the site needs broad outlines of what’s acceptable and would be grateful if you can let us know your plans on this one.
I would have said that the hostilities on this site merely reflect the depth of antipathy and the mutual loathings of politically engaged people.
Of course, I sometimes find them distasteful, but so what. I’m merely a somewhat disenchanted voter.
With any story involving money, I always assume the journo’s will have rounded up from in this case - say - £500,001. The fact that the figure just creeps over the £1m mark means that this is a non-event. I suspect it is a gross figure before nome costs are reduced / refunded / not paid. It will have cost all the parties some money.
And just to say with regards yesterday’s thread, that if all that can be found to discuss of polital import is whether the PM should attend a rugby match, people have really lost the plot about the state of the world, and politics has become a version of football.
9. Another thread starts with the usual suspects moaning about other posters. It’s really getting very tiresome.
I doubt there’s much mileage in the Guardian piece, sadly, as everyone and his dog knows already that GB is telling porkies. Everyone knows that his plans were well advanced and he was ready to go for it.
Had we all believed his denials 2 weeks ago and given him the benefit of the doubt, and then this had come out it, then it would be another matter.
Does help to add to the general “lack of trust” issue though by raising it again.
Our host seems to have been very nearly wromg BIG TIME when assuring all that there was going to be no Autumn election. GB caught stating ‘terminologicl inexactitudes’, or Mike Smithson making a poor political forecast. Which is news?
In fairness, I suppose if being nearly wrong is your biggest mistake of the year…..
15 Alternatively our host’s study of Gordon Brown’s character led him to make the right call? He wasn’t wrong, there was no autumn election. Imagine the Smithson pockets benefited from the risks taken.
So that is maybe 30,000 Labour annual memberships at £36 a time peed up against Balls’ wall of spin. I’ll bet those 30,000 are really chuffed they made the effort….
The article reinforces the view that Brown lied and undermines snowflakes assertion in the other thread that there was no evidence that Brown was in favour of an election. Well he must have been because he authorised the £1m expenditure.
Brown is “Bang to rights”.
It is not one example that will hurt him but the accumulation of many examples of the same type of thing that will eventually destroy his reputation.
He has done more damage to himself through the denial than if he had been honest.
GB didn’t so much plan for an election, as not plan for one, if he had planned for one properly, we would now be in the final stages of the campaign. The money was ground bait, thrown into the pond, to see what would rise.
One of the objections for the campaign being held in late October, was the weather, hasn’t been bad has it? In fact better than July!
9
Rules! what’s the point how could you enforce them anyway? Bit nanny state there test.
re 14 and 15. Yes - I took a biggish gamble that there would not be an early election. But I have just transferred £5000 of profit into my bank account.
I never believed that Brown had the bottle.
15 - my post at 9 mentions no posters at all. Instead it refers to the discussion.
I want to know if there will be guidelines, as Mike said there would, or not.
Yesterday Nick Palmer was called a traitor, the word scum was used of other posters, it went on and on.
As a Tory I don’t want all the good Labour posters run off, I could go to ConHome or Guido for Tory comment. The joy of PB is that it is full of multiple party posters.
18 grumpy-old-man Your point that Brown did not plan for it properly is true.
He spent more than the other parties yet had selected candidates in a lower % of his vacant seats (48% vs Conservatives 90%).
A quite remarkable level of incompetence for someone who controlled whether or not there was going to be a battle.
This is a big story in my view. Agreed nearly everyone accepts that Brown was untruthful in his “non GE” statement. No news there. But if proof emerges that Brown lied to the British public he is in big trouble.
20. Nick Palmer and his assorted chums who keep threatening to stalk off because this site has become ‘a Tory ghetto’ are simply annoyed by the fact that their party has made a fool of itself in recent weeks - something that is being reflected in the standard press and the blogosphere generally.
Dominating sites like this is a part of the propaganda war for them, and they can see they are losing that war. Don’t be deceived into thinking the motives for their constant whining are anything other than partisan.
20
If someone calls you scum or a traitor, then that reflects badly on them. If they have to resort to that sort of abuse, then they have lost the argument. Nick, I’m sure can rise above that sort of thing, as an MP he probably gets, ‘green ink’ letters on a regular basis.
22 I can normally be relied upon to take an uncompromisingly priggish high moral tone when it comes to telling lies, but surely in this case we can make an exception? What was Brown suposed to do? Calling a General Election is his equivalent of the nuclear deterrent - he has to be able to pretend that he is going to use it, even if he does not. In this case, it seems that he changed his mind about going to the country. So what? He threatened, and (for whatever reason) decided not to do it. His reasons are irrelevant. The fact that he wanted to save a bit of face is incidental; and to most voters, not having an election would be thought of as a Good Thing not a Bad Thing.
(But it is amusing to see how much money Labour have wasted! Let’s hope he does it again.)
Final Swiss Elections results: UDC/SVP 62 seats (+7); PS/SPS 43 (-9); PRD/FDP 31 (-5); Greens 20 (+7); PDC/CVP 31 (+3); PLS 4 (u/c), GLP 3 (+3); PEV 2 (-1); UDF 1 (-1); Lega 1 (u/c); PCS 1 (u/c); PST/PdA 1 (-1)
4
As I understand it, the reason why MPs will have more holidays this year and next is the fact that the next 2-3 sessions of Parliament are going to be policy lite.
Personally I think that’s a good thing. We have had so many policy changes introduced which are still unproven (see HIPS/CGT for 2 recent examples), and the NHS/MOD/Prisons/Justice etc are in such a mess - all through the impact of successive changes.. that a periood of trying to make it work is imo called for.
(Not that I expect any real improvement. I listened to Dawn Prim.. and she was helpless.. or is that hopless? If she’s a rising star)
22. Augustus. I’d be inclined to give him a bit of slack on this if he had been caught on the hop in a wide ranging interview. But he KNEW that he would be asked this question. He had the weekend to prepare a plausible response. The best one I have heard suggested goes along the lines of “Sure we considered it and if the polls had stayed where they were we might have gone for it.” But his chosen response demonstrated both a lack of honesty and a lack of judgment.
23: This is ‘a X or Y ghetto’ is the mating call of the Partisanus Uselessi.
On the topic, if the non election cost Labour £1 million then I wonder how much it cost the country.
26- What is really surprising is the huge scores of the UDC/SVP in francophone cantons, especially Genève and Valais. Especially if you have ever listened Blocher talk in French with the heaviest swizzer deutsh accent in the world…
23
We shouldn’t lose a sense of proportion here. In the overall scheme of things, sites like this one and others are very enjoyable. For someone like me, who lives an isolated life, in the sticks, (through choice) a chance to enjoy some political banter.
The next election however will not be decided, on what is said on this site or the others.
Interesting comment in the Telegraph, will a retrospective referendum become Conservative policy at the next GE. I know I’ve just poked the, ‘Beast of Bodmin Moor’ with a very large stick.
http://tinyurl.com/3xx8br
22/28 - and it does show that this episode hasn’t died the death even now. Which is something else Brown would have hoped.
In itself, it ain’t significant enough, but as usual it’s just yet another nibble away at the pillar of confidence in the government. Especially one that self-proclaims its economic competence
19 - Mike, congratulations on your winning bet, I’m sure a win of that scale makes any nervous moments when the price on a 2007 election hit 1/2 all the sweeter…
29: This is a politician’s ghetto. But it is a valuable resource for any voter who entertains the delusion that party politics is beneficial.
That a massive amount of money was spent comes as no surprise to most of us, the question is, does it come as a surprise to the labour posters who were adamant that it was the media who wanted an election and Brown never thought about it?
If it isn’t then they were deliberately spinning (which is unconscionable) but if it is then Brown’s trustworthiness regards his own supporters takes a big hit. The latter may well affect poll figures as you should never lie to your own side, at the very least.
Test
I entirely agree. One particular problem sems to be discussion of the EU. Some posters buy into the Sun line that ‘hundreds of years of history’ will disappear if Javier Solana and Benita Ferrero Waldner are replaced by say Carl Bildt or that Socrates, the current EU President, who serves for six months, is replaced by say Jean Claude Juncker who would serve for two and a half years. As the Sun put it ‘this is a danger equal to the danger from the Nazis in 1940′.
When people buy into that kind of thinking they consider British patriots who believe in the EU like Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine, Douglas Hurd and Chris Patten, as despicable scum and traitors. And they feel entirely free to carry that venom onto this site. The anger with which any even moderately pro EU comment is received by a good many posters on this site is quite remarkable.
In fairness, I should add that they are not the only ones who behave like this. One particular LD poster appears here, it seems, purely for the purpose of delivering one line insults aimed at Tory posters.
I hope Mike will make it clear that he will issue yellow cards for egregious abuse of fellow posters and, sadly, that if that doesn’t work, suspensions will have to be considered. It is perfectly possible to engage in vigorous debate here without indulging in such behaviour.
Personally I think a ban on smileys would be nice, too! However, some posters here would be bereft without recourse to two or three smileys every other post post so I suppose I’m doomed to disappointment!
I would be grateful for a comment from Mike. If he considers there’s no problem, like everyone else, I’ll have to accept his ruling.
31 - No!! I get rapidly bored with more talk of Europe, frankly I want a referendum just so that it ceases to become much of an issue.
35. I’m worried about how Snowflake will cope with the shock. Anymore of this and she’ll be voting for the Lib Dems again.
this really is rehashing an old story on a quiet newsday and there is some doubt as to the accuracy of the figures in any case. I know it suits the various tory cheerleaders / brown loathers on here to use this to keep up the the labour bashing comments, but all it illustrates is what was well known ie that the Labour party machine was the main proponent of an early election. Various full time officials were urging Brown to go early as they could see a big financial advantage for the party ( these are the guys responsible for sorting out the big debt and an early election would have been comparatively cheap and would have largely nullified any monetary advantage the tories had ). Consequently they were the ones making the most detailed preparations as they believed they had won the argument and also had the most notice of the supposed strategy. Unfortunately they hadn’t understood that Brown’s preferred timing from the beginning had been May 2008 and with all the overexcitement in Bournemouth this had been rather lost sight of with the consequent mess the following weekend and the effective ruling out of an election until 2009. All this has been rather done to death in the past 2 weeks, I would have thought that the results in Poland and Switzerland were more interesting or even the Clegg/Huhne contest though that could hardly be described as interesting.
36 Well, I have my views on Hesseltine, Hurd et al, but the problem with ranting on a blog is that, in the long run, nobody wants to read it.
FWIW, I don’t think this Treaty amounts to the end of hundreds of years of self-government. I just see it as another turn of the ratchet, away from indpendence and towards supranationalism, and away from democracy towards oligarchy.
39. Yes - how dare Mike publish a lead article which might be construed as being negative for Labour, especially when there was something of major UK interest like the Swiss election to comment on.
Really this is getting too much. Perhaps some of the serial moaners should actually carry out their threats to ‘disappear’, if they dislike things here so much.
36. Agree with you about the smiley - though I think Jack W should be allowed an exemption from any ban.
Another thread on the Swiss election would be interesting. The SVP seem to have done what almost any radical Right party finds impossible - to maintain its support after going into government. Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, and Flanders seem to be the parts of Europe where the radical Right is both popular, and competent. Do they have anything in common?
An analysis of a crucial debate between the GOP contenders last night in Florida. At last Thompson hit his stride but then others did well, too. The funniest line came from McCain. Woodstock came up and he cracked that he wasn’t able to attend beacuse he’d been ‘tied up’. He was a POW at the time.
It brought the house down.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/21/423073.aspx
O/T. Anyone think Lewis Hamilton is now a good Lay bet for BBC Sports Personality of the Year? Currently 1.29 to Buy and 1.32 to Lay.
43 - “Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, and Flanders seem to be the parts of Europe where the radical Right is both popular, and competent. Do they have anything in common?”
Yes they do: North African immigration. Switzerland is a special case, however, in that the flood of labour inward migration it has seen over the past couple of years has been white, skilled and German. Voting SVP is also a risk-free option in that political change at the federal level in Switzerland is glacial and radical change impossible. So I wouldn’t read too much into yesterday’s results.
The main reason for (marginally) rising disquiet is immigration by people with a virtually common culture, which - together with globalisation pressures - is capping wage growth and reducing domestic opportunities for previously protected professions. The new government’s policy on labour-market openness won’t change.
Michael Caine who I always had down as a working class Tory, now describes himself, as both a, ‘communist and a nazi’ hmmmm must mean something.
http://tinyurl.com/33u2wb
31 - “Interesting comment in the Telegraph, will a retrospective referendum become Conservative policy at the next GE?”
No, because that would spoil something beautiful for the Tories. They have a perfect storm right here. Cameron gets to attack Brown for six months for “bottling” both an election and a referendum. He also gets to feed his party’s eurosceptical beast well before an election campaign that he wants to focus on public-service funding and quality. Once it’s done, he promises to honour a ratified international treaty (and maintain increasingly important alliances with France and Germany) but promise the British people will never again be refused a referendum - another risk-free promise we won’t see another EU treaty for a long, long time.
47 - it means he’s an idiot.
I have to say that to a lot of us this is no surprise. Of course there was going to be an early election, if the polls were good, and of course the Conservatives were going to get a bounce after their conference so you would have needed bottle to call one. Brown didn’t and most of us know why that was.
What is new is that we have more evidence to throw in the faces of the poor deluded souls who still trust Gordon Brown, and they have more reasons to doubt. It will cause them some more angst.
What would be quite funny is if the polls are all over the place, some showing that maybe Gordon could have won his own majority. That would cause even more rucktions in Labour.
Re 19, Mike Smithson, “I never believed that Brown had the bottle.”
Neither did I.
47
‘What’s it all about Alfie’
re 25, Augustus Carp “(But it is amusing to see how much money Labour have wasted! Let’s hope he does it again.)”
I wonder if there will be speculation in May?
47 - of course, the actual article says nothing of the sort. Just says he hates snobs. Including the words “communist” and “Nazi” in a lighthearted comment doesn’t actually mean he is one (or both).
I always had him down as Old Labour myself.
52 - not with the Tories stubbornly ahead in the polls there won’t….
Simon Carr in the Independent
“We saw something new in Parliament, last week. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that he had always been going to change the rules on inheritance tax, and that his decision had nothing to do with the Tories’ announcement at their conference. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can confidently say that this is a lie.
That’s new. Tony Blair was often called a liar, but you’d be very hard put to recall anything of his so cut and dried that it could be called a lie (no letters, please). Textually, he was a master. And when the facts went against him he would say: “my information at the time was…”.
But Alistair Darling is not so well provided for. A cool, calculated lie on the floor of the House. And we take it without indignation, or even surprise.
That’s a mistake. Because this is new territory.”
The non-election matters because of what it has shown - from Gordon’s denial of the obvious through to the PBR/CSR. Biggest mistake was losing the media - they are now looking sceptically at the government and trying to find other instances - like the non-release of MRSA report blaming too few hospital beds. That, if true, is much more dangerous as it may have cost lives.
52 - Marr effectively bounced him into ruling out May.
This does indicate just how dangerous this is to play this sort of game. In many ways, the most worrying thing for Labour supporters must be, not Brown calling off the whole thing, but allowing the party to commit itself so throughly based on polling figures at the most unpresentative time of the year and with no new policies to put before the electorate.
Re 54, Bob “52 - not with the Tories stubbornly ahead in the polls there won’t…. ;-)”
You never know when Ed balls is on their team!
conservatives are now just 44 pounds away from being equall to labour at 3.25 on betfair for an overall majority. Im sure one of the many tory posters on here cant resist taking it just to wind up the labour posters for a few hours
‘there can be absolutely no doubt that, had it not been for the post Blackpool polls, this weekend would have been the first phase of the GE campaign.’ I don’t think that squares with saying you never believed GB would have the bottle to call one, Mike.
Like everyone else on this site and like all political commentators you changed your mind.
Nothing wrong with that.
Re 56, Tangent/observer “52 - Marr effectively bounced him into ruling out May.”
Well, in June there was no need for an early election at all, so forgive me if I don’t bank on that
“This does indicate just how dangerous this is to play this sort of game. In many ways, the most worrying thing for Labour supporters must be, not Brown calling off the whole thing, but allowing the party to commit itself so throughly based on polling figures at the most unpresentative time of the year and with no new policies to put before the electorate.”
I agree, and it was always going to be thus, which begs the question why the speculation?
Whoever thought it was a good time for an election can’t have any political experience.
Re 59, Blue Moon, “Like everyone else on this site and like all political commentators you changed your mind.
Nothing wrong with that. ”
I didn’t! (Though I came close!
)
Benedict Don’t provoke me into a site search!
Whoever thought it was a good time for an election can’t have any political experience.
Possibly - or alternatively only have experience of a period where Labour has been able to manipulate the media pretty much at will, and the Tories have been unable to put up any kind of resistance. Living in this period has generated a supreme arrogance and ‘born to rule’ mentality among Labour apparatchiks.
63 Both are true I think. The surprising thing is that Brown himself apparently did not see the car crash coming - after all he has long experience, a lot of which was in opposition.
40 Sean Fear.
No it is a change of oligarchy. A Tory oligarchy ruled for 100 years with the tasit assent of the public. We are changing to a European oligarchy with equally tasit assent - as evinced by the low status of the European issue in the popular conciousness DESPITE the best efforts of the top selling mass market newspaper
Politics as we know it is dead - like many other things. The nation state is dead in Europe, as the Saxon state died in 1066. Curiously though the regions live
65 Eh?
66 Indeed. One might argue that a Tory (and Liberal) oligarchy ruled up to 1918, but not subsequently.
[36] As moderator of another site, I know all about the Smileyistas and the Anti-Smileyistas - it’s one debate which can’t be settled democratically IMHO
[40] Sean, if I thought the EU was the only - or even the main - oligrachic threat to democracy, I’d be cheering the Beast of Bodmin Moor to the echo. But it isn’t. For a market system to work (in the sense of providing in the real world the benefits economic theory assigns to it) the inbuilt tendency to monopoly has constantly to be countered by political action. A nation-state the size of Britain isn’t necessarily big enough to do so in to-day’s world.
In reality, we have and will go on having a multi-speed Europe in which cultural factors will predominate over economic ones. We may yet come to see this clearly if there is an economic crash of the size which I and others fear - in my case, because we have economy based on speculation not genuine economic activity (a practice supported by all three main parties) and I have sufficient belief in “liberal” economics to think that this is unsustainable. In such a crash, the Pound may come to be scapegoated on all sides and we could find ourselves facing a choice between the dollar and the euro. That would go to a referendum, and people would vote on cultural affiliation (i.e. language vs geography), not the economic arguments - whatever they might be at the time.
[68] My apologies for the incompetent proof-reading at this end ):
26. How will this affect the make-up of the 7-member Swiss cabinet?
The Radicals and the Christian Democrats have the same number of seats in parliament. Clearly they can’t both be entitled to 2 seats, so they ought to have one each.
Applying De Hondt to the election result, the SVP could claim a third cabinet member, or will the Greens be allowed into the cosy club?
“For a market system to work (in the sense of providing in the real world the benefits economic theory assigns to it) the inbuilt tendency to monopoly has constantly to be countered by political action. ”
I think that’s a fair comment. Big companies will always be tempted to obtain favours from governments in order to stifle competition.
“A nation-state the size of Britain isn’t necessarily big enough to do so in to-day’s world. ”
Well, if you have the fifth largest economy in the World, I’d say you’re big enough to do so.
The Polish Liberals will fall short of an overall majority but can easily form a Government. Likely impact:
Withdrawal of 500 Polish troops from Iraq;
Giving up the opt out from the Charter of Rights in the reform Treaty
Preparing for the earliest possible entry date into the Euro
Tax cuts to tempt Polish emigrants home
I’m not sure whether Poland will have a referendum on the Reform Treaty but it seems unlikely that GB can count on them to scupper it, if indeed that is what he wants.
That leaves the Irish referendum likely in May/June 2008 and a possible Danish referendum. In addition I’m not sure about the position of the Czech republic.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071022/ts_afp/polandvote_071022084110;_ylt=AldEBNwNF.7WSl.ycW8LVueFOrgF
Maybe we need Custom Smileys
the inbuilt tendency to monopoly has constantly to be countered by political action.
Old Marxists never die, it seems…they simply reinvent themselves as apostles of World Government…
73. At the risk of getting banned by the anti-smiley puritans….
:) 
:) 
Even Tony Parsons in the Mirror, hitherto an ardent Brownite, now wants a referendum:
http://tinyurl.com/ywl5bb
The amount of press hostility to Brown on this has surprised me. It is, if anything, even fiercer than in 2004. The difference this time it seems to come from columnists and pundits as much as editorials.
The other difference this time is that there is no election in the offing, so Brown can win through.
But even if Brown does win through, and executes his referendum betrayal, he is gonna engender an enormous amount of anger, even loathing, from the commentariat. I don’t think this will all magically disappear in 2009.
76. Hopefully he will though
[74] Henri, I gave up Marxism when I discovered it didn’t prevent wrinkles… actually, it’s far too right-wing for my liking…
If you think this site is rude, go down to October 19th
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/
BTW this is a farewell - I am not sure I want anyone to know that I read this!!
Good times for some people in the US; real estate bargain hunters for foreclosed properties. It’s an ill wind…..
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/us/22auction.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Brown may very well be wrong on this, but …
The commentariat - the vibrant, throbbing centre of British political thought or a bunch of useless, self-regarding gobshites who have never done a useful days work in their lives? Discuss.
80. Oh dear - hell hath no fury, it seems….
OT, but I see Salmond is doing with vigour what we all expected him to do. Now it’s his anti-Trident-mongering:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7054543.stm
He’s out-stunting Gordon at the moment. How much more before the pro-union majority in the Assembly forces a confidence vote and a new election?
Would have thought Labour fancied its chances now Gordo was in charge nationally…
81 No fury at all, just a genuine question. Honest!
On the one hand they - can - be a good read.
On the other, they don’t often have much experience outside politicohackland to make a contribution that is as insightful as it is vocal.
At least seant gets out and about.
71. Being fifth biggest economy is no protection. We may be fifth, but in the sense that Everton or Spurs are fifth.The issue is which economic block you are in - US / Canada or Europe or another. That is the size you have to be to compete if you are an advance mass economy.
It is the combination of “advanced” and “mass” that is crucial. Small niche economies with low overheads can prosper in niche markets - Singapore. Large mass economies with low wage costs can equally survive and prosper - the candidates for this are obvious - India & China. Being “advanced” and “mass” means you must have scale in order to run the business (or in this case economy)
Being stuck in the middle market - not niche and not mass is a disasterous positioning. If you want to see an analogy in the UK it is WHSmith in the High Street. Large business, but stuck in the middle - out priced by Tesco and Amazon and out ranged by Waterstones and Amazon, yet the second biggest book retailer in the UK. That is what being 5th and outside the EU means
82 - It’s a parliament, not an assembly.
And everyone is too broke to go through another election so soon.
oops - the 82 at 88 should be 85 (if that makes sense)
87 I don’t see the World economy as being divided up into competing blocs, though.
It’s similar to arguments of one hundred years ago, that there was really no future for any country outside one of the big Empires of the day, but it turned out not to be so.
test and Blue Moon at 20/36 etc: Thank you. Casino Royale has now directly called me a traitor twice, and seems to think it’s funny. I don’t take the subject of treason as lightly as he does (which seems odd as he poses as a patriot), and I don’t intend to tolerate it. jeff and seanT can interpret it as winning the argument, Yokel can shrug and say OK, shut up and go - that’s their privilege.
We’ve been going round and round this issue for too long. Either posters are allowed to abuse each other or they’re not. If they are, I’m off. That doesn’t have to be a big deal - I’m a minor piece on a big chessboard, some people are happier uncontradicted, and if the site is increasingly Labour-free that’s how some like it. Moreover, there’s a libertarian case for letting people sound off as much as they like. Go for it, have fun, and don’t send me a postcard. I’ll probably wander off to Anthony Wells’ site or the Let’s Be Sensible site.
Conversely, if contributors are not allowed to abuse each other, can we have it clearly stated and enforced, please? If seanT can manage to abuse ideas instead of people, as he’s perfectly reasonably done for the last few days, so can everyone else. And I’ll try to stop whinging about Tory gloatfests - I think they show themselves in a poor light when they do their “X is an idiot, we’re gonna win” stuff, but that’s not something Mike can easily moderate.
85 - The pro-union parties will aim to give Salmond enough rope to hange himself first. The SNP, by themselves, could block an election as things stand and force a unionist grand coalition. There won’t be a move until just before or after the next GE, and it’ll depend on a lot of factors, such as SNP popularity at the time.
90 SF we used to obsess about “ownership” and some still do. This is erroneous. Just because a robber capitalist (to be pejorative) is english, does not make him any less a robber capitalist who will ship his products from any country where it is cheaper. Ownership is rapidly heading eastwards anyway
The key is that your market is attractive to businesses desiring to sell. It is the only true protection. Highly competitive but that is life. In appraising any market, the size of it is number one consideration. It is why you want to be in a block with common rules.
82. Aren’t the Lib Dems opposed to Trident? Salmond could find common ground on that one.
As for Brown’s woes, the media reaction has shocked me aswell. I think there is a lack of faith in people like Balls - discussed in length yesterday - and so journalist wonde what sort of man Brown must be. Brown treats politics like he’s at war, dividing everyone into friends and enemies. His ‘age of consensus act’ has already worn thin. He’s happy for people with gravitas like Ashdown to be in the cabinet - so long as they are not rivals.
I do laugh at all those Brownites who hated John Reid because he couldn’t get on with Brown. Rather forgetting that Blair, Mandelson, Cook, Blunkett and Clarke couldn’t get on with him either. He just can’t deal with people who disagree with him.
Nick thank you for that post. Mike Smithson promised to introduce a code of conduct and since has neither done nor said anything about it. At the very least as a courtesy, I think he needs to announce if he’s going through with it or reneging on his promise, referendum-style.
Without some rules for decency I will join Nick.
Francis calling posters scum, Colin W using the grossest sexual language and writing about killing Conservatives, we do not need that. PB’s USP was the back and forth between Sean Fear, Mark Senior, Tressage, Nick Palmer, Roger, Witan and other intelligent posters across the political spectrum. I’m off if the Labour posters can be insulted with impunity, and then Sean T will say he’s “won the debate” again, etc, because people don’t choose to be insulted on what is meant to be a part of our leisure time. In my view, the actual MPs who post here, Nick Palmer and Stewart Jackson, offer something other posters cannot - an inside view - Jack W’s rudeness to Stewart and the various darts thrown at Nick churlishy drive away experience I like to benefit from.
91 - I agree. I used to learn a lot on this site but it’s becoming less by the day. And anti-EU obsessives seem to dominate the threads - whatever the subject!
Nick Palmer ” Either posters are allowed to abuse each other or they’re not. If they are, I’m off. ”
But it is OK to call me a liar and for you to say you feel free to abuse posters using aliases?
One more point Sean F. All of this is at the margins.
So people will trade with UK - 60m people is a good market. However we, as we are a mature economy running at close to full employment, with limited inflation,will grow at 2-3% a year. We do not have the unused capacity of China or India growing at 10%. This means that marginal losses to other markets count.
Businesses and economies don’t stand still, they either go up or down. The fixed costs of running the economy don’t reduce if it goes into decline - see the early 80’s. MrsT never cut the % of GDP going to the State by more than a smidgeon.
We are driven back to being in a block, and that block being as big as it can be while retaining a degree of homogenaity
In what post did Nick call you a liar?
Nick already corrected himself on the abuse of multiple names, but it is cowardly to get another name to fling an insult so that opprobrium doesn’t land on your main chat name. Scallywag was the ultimate example of this.
(Whilst I’ve had two names I’ve only ever had one at a time)
94 - No the Liberal Democrats are not opposed to Trident renewal, in the same way they didn’t oppose the Iraq War in principle but only without Chirac’s support. The party took the third way: halving the number of warheads and delaying a decision on renewal till 2014.
On the subject of abusive language on this blog, I think we all have a good reason to keep ourselves civil… the danger of libel:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/22/news.blogging
“The next move was to apply for a court order requiring him to reveal the identities of “Halfpint” and the other fans behind what the club’s lawyers described as a “sustained campaign of vilification”. Fans made serious allegations against the club’s chairman, Dave Allen, and directors and shareholders.
The club’s lawyers asked the judge, Richard Parkes QC, to order disclosure about the identity of 11 fans.
But the judge decided some fans, whose postings were merely “abusive” or likely to be understood as jokes, should keep their anonymity.
The judge ordered that three fans whose postings might “reasonably be understood to allege greed, selfishness, untrustworthiness and dishonest behaviour”, should be unmasked. Their right to maintain their anonymity and express themselves freely was outweighed by the directors’ entitlement to take action to protect their reputation, he said. ”
It’s right here in print, people: insults are OK, but nobody had better allege ‘greed, selfishness, untrustworthiness or dishonest behaviour’ on the part of anyone else, lest they incur the wrath of the courts! Not that I have any idea what place such allegations would have on a political blog… ahem.
Does anyone else think it’s about time for reform of our libel laws?
Mike Smithson promised to introduce a code of conduct and since has neither done nor said anything about it.
Mike S presumably has other things to do - not least keeping the site itself running. It’s a shame if he has to spend less time on looking for the site and more time babysitting us; moderation is an intensive and tiresome task. While I can understand your ire and Nick’s, why not simply ignore posts you find personally offensive, and reply to those that are sensible and intelligent? Otherwise, if any new regime clamps down on a particular set of posters, we’ll have some claiming their like-minded faction has “won” which only prolongs the pointlessness. Posts, like these, about the site itself, are very off-putting to the new and occaisonal poster who comes here, and the less we see of them the better.
95. Goodness yet another dig at Mike, and in addition you seem to have made a case for excluding about half the regular posters there. Your preference list seems a little odd though - how can you seriously refer to Roger as an ‘intelligent poster’ and at the same time have a go at Jack W?
Why not set up your own site called ‘we want to discuss serious politics.com’, limiting membership to yourself, Nick and a handful of other chosen ones. That’s the end point of all this. I’m sure it would be a thrilling read.
93 But you are talking about two entirely different things. Being part of a trading bloc is what most people want from EU membership.
If the claimed benefits of ever closer union are as described by its proponents then why would they care if GB was part of them or not? In fact logically it would be better for other countries if GB was specifically excluded.
Are they saying that we would be better off if we had a purely trading relationship and that this isn’t “fair”? The only reason Europe as a nation makes sense is if it can operate as an autarky - it can’t. Therefore the only sensible path is a common approach to WTO negotiations and an acceptance that political union is a matter for individual states.
Test - right.
Just scimming past all the tosh to get the good stuff is a waste of time. In this instance the libertarian arguement does not hold.
Let’s face it chaps and chapesses, is this a private club with rules we all adhere to or a rant line. There are loads of the latter, Sky advertise their rant line daily, but this is a jewel that operates to a different set of rules. But rules they are.
Can Mike please moderate all posts that are about posts, posters and posting? If anything is gonna drive people away, it’s this endless narcissism and self-obsession.
You know, Viz magazine used to make a joke about people always saying “Viz isn’t funny as it used to be” - they actually put it on the masthead - Viz Magazine: Not As Funny As It Used To Be.
Perhaps Mike S could put a similar note at the top of this site “Welcome to Political Betting: A Site in Decline”
Come on guys. Dance or get out the disco. Enuff already!
I’m off to the Groucho for lunch. If I bump into Roger I shall roundly abuse his ideas without actually calling him a knob, as per the new rules. Which I think shows admirable restraint.
106 Too right, it’s a bit of anal gazing. Seant may play fast and loose with terms like traitor, but he does have a bit of integrity and his rhetoric makes you think (which is about the highest praise I think you can give anyone). I can’t bear the tribal point scorers who appear to have no neurological connection between their brain and mouth.
Kingbongo - you can’t have the economics without the politics. This is generally true, not just in the case of the EU. Markets are legislated for not naturally created. There is no such thing as perfect competition.
You can only have the UK system if you conquor Europe, otherwise you have to deal and work with the others. If you are in a minority you either have to like it or lump it. Lumping it would be a disater - see posts above
108. and posts passim….
Nice to see the pro-European ‘case’ expounded in all its simplistic naivety, and at such great length.
Echoing earlier comments; Brown has actually been fairly lucky regarding the news agenda. Despite the Graun’s front page, various other stories have effectively killed off the direct impact of the election story for now. What Brown needs to project now, in the run-up to the Queen’s Speech and afterwards, is the image of a strong, capable adminsitrator with the right blend of continuity and change to keep the anti-Blair people onside without frightening the horses. He’s going to find this increasingly difficult, if not impossible, as the Parliament goes on, so rebuilding trust and goodwill when he has a chance of regaining the agenda is vital.
109. Quite. The argument that you have to have political union if you want a free trade agreement, or an economic bloc, is ludicrous.
Canada and America have NAFTA. Yet I don’t see America legislating for Canadian tourism, or telling Canadians how many migrants to let in, or demanding a say in Canada’s foreign policy, or seeking a share of Canadian fisheries.. etc etc
The fact is Europhiles want Federalism and Union as an end in itself - to create a superpower made up of quasi-autonomous states. They want this because they think Europe would be a force for good in the world, and because they simply like power, and because they think they would get to run this very elitist and bureacratic entity.
Nobody is saying they shouldn’t have these goals. Good luck to ‘em.
But they should admit what they after, stop hiding behind lies and cant, and ask the people their permission. That’s all. If the people vote Yes then I for one would be glad to say goodbye to these tedious arguments.
108. Too true. The people who invoke Switzerland & Norway as paragons of how to exist in free trade agreement with the EU but are not part of it, conveniently forget that to have free trade with the EU they have to comply with EU rules anyway. So UKIPs modus operandi is that outside the EU, we’d have to apply by rules that we have no control over if we still wanted free trade with the EU. It’s bizarre.
Oh & in my opinion/belief as a pro-European, I believe that those who are scared of a European Superstate are missing the point once again. The EU is a partnership, somthing that is completely new & when it reaches it’s final form will not resemble any entity that has come before. I hope when that does come into being it will be with a commission that is no more than a civil service & where the parliament has far more power sharing it with the council of ministers assembled from the heads of government as now.
Test post 220 8th October
On the same day he said ” I can be as rude as I like to pseudonyms”.
He has not withdrawn either remark.
112. Fair enough. Then come out and tell the people where you think Europe is “going” - what the whole point of the project actually is - and then let THEM decide.
Stop trying to create your “superstate/partnership” by stealth.
This is what gets eurosceptics so angry. And justifiably.
113. He did indeed qualify his remark about pseudonyms, either on that thread or the next.
I still can’t work out how to search PB, but he did.
In any event, the ball is now in Mike’s court. Either he puts down rules of conduct or Nick is leaving. I would be disappointed if he valued an MP’s input so little, but accept it as his decision. It’s his site. Equally, I don’t want to be part of something where Colin W’s posts about people’s mother’s and calling public servants (who have devoted their entire lives to the betterment of this country as they see it) traitors is allowed by the admin.
Yet again, a thread about Brown’s election spending turns into a dialogue of the deaf about the European Union.
I agree with Nick Palmer above. Anyone who has actually been involved in politics at either a local or national level should know that mutual respect for each others opinions is the only decent way to conduct yourself. I have councillor friends who are Lib Dems, Labour & Conservatives.
I’ve fought 3 GE campaigns and on the whole I’ve got on well with all of my opponents (even those that I didn’t like I never resorted to any sort of abuse and nor did I receive any).
In particular I’d single out Gwyn Prosser MP and Stephen Timms MP as being very plesant people to deal with. I’ve enjoyed the company candidates from all parties that I have met.
We all have different ideas about where we want our ward/council/country/world to go and what we think works best. We don’t always agree, in fact we rarely do.
Resorting to bad language and insults is the bloggers equivalent of throwing a punch.
If you are members of a political party then really your opinions reflect on your party.
I would go so far a bad insults and bad language (even when losely disguised with ***)
I know that many will not agree with me, probably including my old councillor colleague ColinW, but I do agree that the quality of debate has gone down hill over the last few weeks in particular.
117. correction to above typo..
would go so far TO BAN insults and bad language (even when losely disguised with ***)
116. But before that it degenerated into yet another endless whine about the site ‘going downhill’…a whine which shows no signs of ending.
Perhaps the whiners’ secret plan is to bore everyone else to death so that they get the site to themselves?
108 thanks for your thoughts, but I think you miss the fundamental point. However, as you believe Markets are not naturally created but are legislated for it will be fruitless to try and persuade you of the emptiness of your assertions. Only a socialist could write that sentence and believe it to be true.
The EU can have as much or as little political union as it likes. To claim you either have to ‘conquer’ Europe or accept everything decided by civil servants in Belgium is a fallacy. Since the 50’s the aim has always been to bring peace to Europe via poltical union. A noble ambition but grand claims about economic improvement have always been empty.
Personally I believe we could allow all sorts of state subsidies and ‘economic champions’. If French taxpayers are stupid enough to pour their money into trying to run an electricity company and the upshot is they compete in the UK and I get cheap electricity paid for by the French, why would I worry? UK capital can then be directed into more prfitable activities.
Long post and my apologies but the idea that economic disaster awaits any country not signed up to the European Self Induced Poverty program is laughably insecure.
My predictions.
2/9 Mike issues some guidelines on site behaviour in the next few days.
1/7 Either Sean T or Tyson once again announce their intention to blog less on PBC, before the end of this calendar year. Evens the double.
The point about a single market - any market - is that it has rules. We imposed rules on Scotland in 1707. It has accountancy rules, intellectual copyright rules, fraud rules and these rules are multiplying.
It shows how little you EU sceptics know, that you think it is just about buying and selling. The rules may be complicated or they may be like the Wild West, but there are rules. The rules can be decided by perpetual state to state negotiation or buy a single authority. You takes your pick. State to state cannot (by definition) have a unified set of rules, as Sweden v Norway would be different to UK v Italy. You are left with a single authority for a single market. EU v USA block is not a single market because it is in effect state to state
If you chuck in globalisation you guys really are Knut (as his name should be spelt)
Oh and any referendum about “out” or “in” I am absolutely confident of winning just the same as in 75.
114. It’s going to a point where countries co-operate on issues of common interest but keep governing themselves on areas they don’t want to share responsibilities on. I can’t say exactly where things will end up as I’m not psychic, I know to what extent I would like things to go to but I’m not in a position to implement my vision. I don’t think anyone knows what’s really going to happen, it’s an organic process.
I don’t think that anything that goes on in intergovernmental conferences is by stealth, if they are trying to be stealthy they are doing a terrible job about it seeing as we have the Mail & the Sun screaming about it. Oh & by the way, in case you hadn’t noticed, we’re already in partnership with 26 other countries, that’s how the EU works.
95: If Nick and test want somewhere else to post…
Seriously, there is a fine line and with Mike’s traffic it would be one that was impossible to hold. UKPollingReport used to have only relatively serious and non-partisan discussion without me doing anything, it stated to deteriorate a couple of months ago and I’ve had to spend a load of time moderating and laying the law down.
With the number of posts Mike gets I would not have been able to do that - or at least, not moderate it all AND have a life. When I do there is a serious downside as well, one, it doesn’t create a nice atmostphere, two, you inevitably end up alienating some of the good, helpful, positive posters who leave, while at the same time the swivel-eyed loons ignore whatever rules you put down.
You want to improve things, Mike can’t do it alone. Everyone needs to restrain themselves and not rise to the bait of those who don’t.
91. NickP.
I’m not endeavouring to abuse *you* personally Nick. I’m not interested in insulting you for the sake of it. But I don’t take back a single word of what I said. I couldn’t care less if you’re offended or not. It’s what I think. I’d rather bruise a Labour MPs ego, than stroke it and disguise what I think.
This is a very, VERY serious issue. You seem not to recognise it. You are in a highly priviledged position as an MP. You are our elected representative. Elected to represent us. The powers you have to pass legislation have been lent to you, they are not yours to give away. You have no right to do so. And you certainly have no mandate.
This is not raising taxes, increasing benefits, passing equality legislation, or anything else like that. It’s not British domestic legislation that can be repealed. This is about surrendering further vetoes and powers to a foreign body, which could pass laws against the interests of this country, without our consent, and continue to do so in future, without a treaty - AFTER you explicitly promised a referendum on the surrender of such powers to the British people in your 2005 manifesto.
Your “excuse” on why a referendum treaty is now not needed is laughable.
Hence, I consider your party (and you for not opposing it’s line, as Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey have bravely done) a traitor.
If people want to ban me for saying it, fine, I’ll pack my bags. I couldn’t care less.
This issue is too important for me to say anything else Nick and I am ashamed at how *you* and your party is acting over it.
Test If Nick Palmer did modify his position in regard people using pseudonyms I did not see it. As the original remark was clearly directed towards me then perhaps he might have directed the ‘modification’ in the same direction.
By the next day I had put the whole thing to one side and ignored it, why bother. But these posts from NP threatening to leave the site because of abuse raised the issue again for me.
I don’t want him to stop posting anymore than any of the other sane people here of whatever opinion. I must admit to feeling that the now fairly frequent threats from him to leave the site either for good or for a while have gone on a little too long.
If he means it why not just stop posting? Why the fairly frequent threats to do so?
126. Good question. Presumably he doesn’t post here purely for fun, or he would have carried through on his threats long ago. He must have another reason for trying so hard to bounce Mike into muzzling other posters. For me it looks like a crude attempt to alter the political balance of the site in a pro-Labour direction.
It’s not British domestic legislation that can be repealed.
It could be - if we chose to leave. If we choose to leave, then we can unilaterally choose to denounce the Treaties and repeal the European COmmunities Act 1972 with all its amendments. It may not technically be reocgnised under EU law, but there is nothing practical the EU or its members could do about it.
125. I’ve seen a lot of people complaining how the European TreatyStution would enact new powers to take away various vague parts of our sovereignty, but I’ve never seen someone explain what those powers actually are. For the benefit of the ignorant, could you please explain exactly *what* vetoes and powers Britain would surrender under the new treaty?
Markets are not legislated for.
Markets - I mean every market - has a legislative framework. Once you nationalise something, protect something, require auditing standards, require labelling and health standards, subsidise something,introduce anti- monopoly legislation (particularly that), control the currency even via a Bank - the list is endless. It is rule number 1 in GCSE Economics - there is no perfect competition
Even if it is the Wild West what happens is the participants invent a common set of rules - Guilds in the middle ages for instance
It follows for a single market there are only two options. One very powerful economy bullies the others into submitting to its rules (we used to do this in China in the 19th century. This is what you are proposing as the other EU states by and large do not want our approach or there is an agreement where you win some or you lose some. There is no other way.
You guys would be better understanding the much more important relationship which is the essentially imperial one the European masses have with the rest of the world
113: witan - yes, I was wrong to say I could be as rude as I liked to people using pseudonyms, and if we have a rule against abuse of course it covers that too (as I said on an earlier thread, but you may have missed it). I said that a post quotin