Has Gord pulled back on the Ashcroft money?
November 6th, 2007
Party funding proposals “put on hold?
I don’t know whether anybody at Number 10 read yesterday’s thread on the Ashcroft money but one of the big surprises in the Queen’s Speech was the absence of a plan to bring in immediate legislation on party funding.
This is contrary to all the reports over the weekend that suggested the Government would include legislative plans to deal with Ashcroft’s support for Tory marginals between elections.
In fact all we got was a statement that planned legislation in this area was being “put on hold”.
This is very wise because putting a one-sided bill through would have been very controversial and would have diverted attention from other key initiatives.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
So Brown chickens out once again, and lets the Tory millionaires run rampant over our democracy, eh?
There are two sides of the coin, Mike. And both are losers for Brown.
Was there any mention of BJFBW ?
I ask because having seen recent material that we are putting out ,I’m thinking this is something Team Brown is going to keep highlighting.
I dont like it myself but suspect the thinking is something like “tough on crime..” in that they have researched it heavily and feel its a winner even tough most politico’s think its awful.
Any initiative on Part funding has to include something that will harm Labour. If the only proposal put forward is to stop the Tories, it’ll backfire badly. In this instance Brown was right to backtrack, but all the indications are that his team lack a feel for public opinion and can never get out of their adversarial Party political clothes.
Which only shows how trying to recruit the likes of Ashdown to the cabinet was such a sham.
2. I think hearing the Queen using THAT phrase (BJFBW) would have sent shivers down the spines of half the nation.
It’s sensible - the Murdoch papers had certainly turned against it, and despite the likes of Nick P and their valiant attempts to defend the “leak” it would have been bad politics to give a spotlight again to party funding and thence cash for coronets.
Does though add to feeling there is no “vision” just a pick and mix menu. George Pascoe-Watson not impressed “not with a bang but a whimper” (obviously O level English Lit that year had T S Eliot as set book)
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article432372.ece
As I said before, clearly such a restriction would be impossible to actually bring about without draconian restrictions on free speech.
You can try, but you cannot stop ordinary people expressing their dis-satisfaction with their Government; either via backing the official opposition or if necessary by starting a campaign on their own.
Brown made a mistake again. If he wasn’t going to press for a party funding reform, he shouldn’t have let us, and the papers think that he was going to do something, it seems he pulled back again…
Yet more evidence - if any were needed - that Gordo is not driving the agenda. Not a good position for a PM to be in, particularly one without any mandate from the nation or even from within his own party.
In office but not in power.
Were those words ever more fitting? (I don’t agree that Major was entirely thus. Certainly not in comparision with the current shambles..)
How can we believe anything they say? We also have trouble with things they say directly to a camera.
It is getting pointless speculating as to what this Govt is going to do as they seem to lack a mind to make up in the first place.
Since they lost all sense of any core political beliefs, other than “I wanna be elected”, nothing they do or say should surprise us. After all even when they pass laws they later change their mind and don’t enforce them.
“I can never believe a word you tell me” was the mantra Brown had for Blair and is one we all should apply to this Govt.
No, he hasn’t. There is a debate in progress on the wording of the Bill, since until the Tory walkout two weeks ago there was still some hope of a consensus, but there will be a Bill. If the Tories want to engage on spending limits (as opposed to arguing the toss about funding), they still can, as a consensus would clearly be better, but I don’t think they will.
10- How is it going to be?
10. Or conversely Nick - if Labour want to engage on funding as opposed to arguing the toss on spending limits. The fact that the Tories walked out does not necessarily mean they were the ones refusing to compromise.
Gov 2 (at 3): “Any initiative on Part funding has to include something that will harm Labour. If the only proposal put forward is to stop the Tories, it’ll backfire badly.”
Personally, I would rather like to see something that hits both Labour and the Tories, since they are both over-represented in this Parliament and need cutting down to size.
Cutting down on their access to semi-illicit funding might be one route: but introducing STV would be even better.
10. Nick seems rather irritated by this turn of events. Unsurprising, given the many man-hours he spent on this site trying to defend his master’s blatantly partisan proposals.
Nick P - can you have a go at articulating a reasonable moral case in support of a situation whereby you, as a sitting Labour MP in a marginal seat, can spend 5 years mailing your constituents all manner of one-sided bumpf, paid for by the taxpayer, AND receive unlimited financial support from the trade unions - whilst your prospective Tory opponent wishing to turf you out, would be strictly limited in what he or she could spend throughout the entire period of your term in office. With the threat of criminal sanction and being turfed out of office if he beat you.
Talk about David and Goliath.
Isn’t this tantamount to gerrymandering?
13. Unless Brown is a crazed masochist (which i doubt) I would be quite astonished if the proposals that hit Labour and not the Tories.
The point is, he holds the aces in parliament with a majority of over 60. He can hit the Tories if he likes, but what happened to the ‘age of consensus’.
While you’re at it Nick, perhaps you could confirm that money removed from dormant bank accounts will be used for good causes, as you implied on the previous thread; and explain why this is not a stealth tax on pretty much everyone in the country…
O/T… the bbc nor the sun dont seem to be very impressed with the queen’s speech. the lacking of vision attack seems to be attaching itself to every brown speech/announcement.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7080560.stm
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article432372.ece
Bob (15), if you are talking about moral cases, you cannot go ignoring the Lib Dems who in 2005 were first or second in over 200 constituencies, IIRC.
How about some of the Ashcroft millions for the Lib Dems too?
Or perhaps just stop talking about moral cases………
19 - it’s a free country (i think, although i have my doubts sometimes). If the Libs can attract a wealthy supporter who wishes to pump some money into said constituencies, then they should go for it with my blessing.
I’m not saying that only the Tories should be able to spend money on winning seats from Labour, just questioning the moral case behind Labour’s entirely partisan proposals that only benefit themselves.
15. Yes it is and it is indefensible.
There is the issue of paid for mailings from MPs of course but that is only part of the incumancy factor on the side of MPs
Funding to equip and staff an office clearly gives MPs like Nick a huge advantage and arguing that your opponent should not be able to win backing of £40,000 as Nick tried to do yesterday while his own expenses for getting the job done amount to £140,000+ is like asking for your opponent to start with both hands tied behind her back.
15: I notice that Labour MPs are trying the ‘well Tory MPs do it too’ card but forgetting to mention that Labour have a lot more sitting MPs, odd that.
14: no, I’m not irritated - I don’t often get very irritated, as regular contributors will tell you, and this is what I was expecting: a commitment to a Bill but no details yet.
15: Bob, I refer tyou to acres of discussion on the previous threads on just that issue.
17: John, I’ve not seen the Bill yet, so I can’t confirm anything, but we’ve been discussing possible good uses for the money for at least two years, and the Conservatives agree with us on using the money, though not on what to use it on - see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4017381.stm
for a 2005 summary and
http://www.bsa.org.uk/mediacentre/press/unc_assets.htm
for a more recent summary. I don’t understand your problem with it:
- The money is not being claimed despite the banks’ efforts to trace the owners
- If the owners later reappear they’ll get their money
- The banks are currently pocketing the interest and paying it out to shareholders
- The Bill would divert the money to a worthier cause than the shareholders of banks.
If your point is that you’d like to be convinced that the cause is worthier, fair enough - let’s see when the Bill is published whether you approve or not, tohugh the BSA’s report suggests innocuous purposes. But you seem to object in principle, and I can’t make out why? You feel that bank shareholders *should* have a first claim on the accounts?
Labour wheel out Stephen Pound MP for Sky interview. He is only used in the direst of situations.
I think Nick P has demonstrated he’s up to a ministerial question time, being faced by the Blue Harpies and Orange Eaglets doesn’t seem to have fazed him, despite the semi u-turn.
Perhaps rather than an “Ask Nick Clegg” session Mike should consider having Mr Clegg on to defend one of his proposals (amnesty for immigrants?) and let the Blues and Reds have a go - good practice for first PMQs of 2008.
There is a bill to reform Political spending, it was not mentioned in the speech but is there on the Number 10 website.
Except, Bob (20), that Labour’s proposals would benefit EVERYBODY who was not a Tory.
Wealthy people (by and large) tend to support the Tories, whose policies consist essentially of preserving and increasing the wealth of the already wealthy.
So your suggestion that Lib Dems (and indeed all other parties who believe in fairness) should somehow attract wealthy benefactors (on a basis of equality with the Tories in their attractiveness = self interest) is pretty spurious, is it not?
Stand by for an explosion of rage from AHMatlock…..
I note Nick Plamer’s comments, but also the fire in the press. They seem to be calling a rat a rat.
Gordon has been caught again in a position of damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t. I feel so sorry for him
My god Tressage - that is the most anti-Tory thing I have ever seen you post!
Is this what Brown plotted these ten long years for? Is this it?
No reform in the NHS or schools or police. No concern about the level of tax and spend. What’s here for the hard pressed voter?
I thought the game plan was to be fresh after the Blair years and to put some hope back into the agenda. Oh well. To quote from Groundhog Day: ‘I’ll give you a winter prediction: It’s gonna be cold, it’s gonna be grey, and it’s gonna last you for the rest of your life’.
You need specs, Red (29) - suggest you do a bit more reading too. When one lives in a Tory part of the country, the only alternative to joining them (caving in) to is stand up to them.
23 - The point is that the shareholders are going to expect the same level of return on their investments whether or not this measure goes through. So if it does go through, that money will have to come from somewhere else, namely the banks’ customers.
If the Libs can attract a wealthy supporter who wishes to pump some money into said constituencies
They did - isn’t he in the clink now, though?
33
31 Hear Hear! Nice work Tressage.
Re 30, Patrick, is taht you from Bournemouth? If so, what with Tyson going ape over Gordon and now you, it does not look good for Labour.
36 Long time no see(read), how’s life?
33 - NO! Surely not! I thought all LibDems were pure little angels.
30. Gordon starts phoning his cabinet colleagues at 6am each morning, wanting to know what they’re up to. He gets his security briefing every morning at 7:15am. I suggest he rather likes being in power.
Re 37, Jonathan, right now a bit more complicated than I would care for, but I am working on simplifying it.
Hows the new addition to the family?
Just for fun I did the maths to apply the French system of public funding to the UK, considering the number of votes and MPs of each party.
Labour would get 22.2 million pounds a year
Conservatives would get 16 million pounds
LD would get 8.9 million pounds
UKIP £700k
SNP £666k
Greens £298k
PC £225k
A total of around 50 million pounds a year, with donations from trade unions and companies forbidden, individual donations capped to around £5k.
I think both Lab and Con would love it, nots so sure about the others!
40. Regards from me also Benedict. Hope you successfully resolve what ever complications you are having to deal at present.
41 - My goodness, Labour, the Tories AND the LibDems would *love* that!
I am still one of Gordons disciples BTW. I am not a fairweather friend. I am loyal!
Good luck with simplifying things. We’ve missed you round here.
My new addition is doing well. Not sleeping through yet. At least now when he wakes up he goes back to sleep quickly so it’s not too bad.
There was a time when he and I made a few ill-judged early morning posts here, if you know what I mean.
Come back when you can and good luck again.
RE state funding. Don’t get me wrong.
The prospect of never again having to do a prize draw letter, not having to spend endless Sunday lunch-times going to ladies lunches pulling raffle tickets and being able to forget the bi-monthly indoor horse-racing/wizz drive/quiz night/fish and chip supper fund raising event is deeply, deeply tempting.
But this temptation doesn’t last long when I remember that state funding of any kind would mean that fringe parties like the BNP could qualify for tax funding, that losing the periphery political engagement of fund raising would mean parties lose even more members, and that any funding formula would almost automatically build in the status quo -with the big parties forever being well funded and the small parties forever losing out - however popular their cause; and there would never again be a movement like the Referendum Party, or UKIP because getting started would be almost impossible.
And under Gordon Browns big idea it would presumably be illegal to spend any money you do raise outside of the strict ’state allowance’ set by the ‘permanent state party of power’ - Labour.
Yes, we are, Red (38)…. Hmmmmmm…
The Tories are obsessive over this one too.
A Con-Man managed to swindle some Tory Magnates out of quite a few millions. Tory multi-millionaires being the innocents in this story, of course…
The said Con-Man then gave a couple of millions to the Lib Dems, who checked up to the best of their ability and found that everything was OK. So they accepted the money.
A few yonks later, after the responsible authorities had spent months and goodness knows how much public money looking into things (which not everybody can do), there started to be doubts cast over the bona fides of the aforementioned Con-Man. Who was duly sent to prison.
How the Lib Dems are supposed to identify a villain who wants to GIVE them money, when a whole host of Tory super-sharp multi-millionaire entrepreneurs allow themselves to be deceived into letting him TAKE the money away from them, is a delicate question that only our Tory PBC posters are still obsessed with.
Still - to show my lack of bias - there was no question of the villain’s ever becoming a member of the House of Lords, was there?
43. Yes, but the current storms we are going through are of Gordon’s own making. Certainly not part of a natural cycle. Any more of this and the Labour Party may have to consider drastic action.
BTW, if you are wondering, I am not new to the site. Just thought I’d choose a new name.
45 - MMmn, a nice fish supper sounds lovely. Get the fryer on Marcus.
41 - Chris what would the BNP receive? While the £298k for us Greens would definitely be put to good use I still think state funding of political parties is unjustifiable.
Gordon does not need a vision.
People with visions tend to get killed (Kennedy, LutherKing, Joan of Arc).
I’d just like competent government.
I shall not be holding my breath.
Is everybody seeing the debate?
50 Of course he doesn’t need a vision. But the problem is he told us he had one. So now he has to say what it is, but vision is such a vague concept that whatever he says it will be derided as inadequate.
50. What worries me is that Brown thinks the most important quality of all is ‘courage’. He can’t stop going on about it. Not only could he be said to have lacked some of that lately, but it is patently wrong. Who really wants courage over common sense?
As much as I hate to say it, wasn’t Blair courageous over Iraq?
51. Good stuff by Cameron so far.
49- I think they would not reach the limit defined as at least 1% of the votes in at least 50 constituencies (I ignored this for SNP and PC obviously, just as overseas territories’ parties in France are exempted of the limit).
If there was no such limit they would get around £225k per year.
54-yes, this will hurt…
Well, how is Gordo going to respond to that? A tour de force by Cameron, on any objective analysis.
Even Tony Blair didn’t manage to monster the Opposition in 95-97 to that extent.
GB already waffling away…
He’s trying self-deprecation now. No, it just doesn’t work - only Blair could carry that off…
Get on with it Gordon!
“Cadbury singer”?
BJ4BW. The points Cameron made about Brown quoting BNP and NF slogans are poisonous stuff within Labour. Brown may have forgotten the original use of the slogan, but the MPs on his side that have a few principles left will have not.
aspiration, aspiration…I can’t hear this anymore…
Brown may have forgotten the original use of the slogan
I doubt it.
59 - ah, i’ve just got it. He meant to say “cabaret singer” didn’t he?
Let’s not forget that BJFBW was in a speech he gave. Surely at least one of his team who’d been working on the speech would have known the phrase’ background? Yet another clumsy blunder!
IIRC, Ashcroft spent around £900,000 in marginal seats in the run up to the last election - handy, but hardly decisive. He’ll spend more this time, but Labour incumbents don’t just have the communications allowance, they have wealthy donors of their own, such Lord Paul. So, they can’t really complain about being at a disadvantage.
Salaam, and greetings from a humid Cairo. As I sit in my luxury suite on the banks of the Nile, watching the black hawks wheeling over the dusky minarets of al Azhar (continued page 98) I’d just like to point out that I was one of the FIRST people to note the NF and BNP ancestry of “BJ4BW”.
Indeed I posted a whole list of Googled citations for the phrase, from unsavoury fascistoids, yonks back. A journalistic trick that John Rentoul of the Indy finally got around to copying about three days ago.
Tut tut.
Do you want to know who’s driving the agenda? It’s not Brown, it’s not Cameron, it’s me. Me! ME! ME ME ME ME ME!
ME!!!
Bwahahahahaha!!!!!
*retires to take tiffin and eat ful at the Shepheards Hotel*
65 and Lord Sainsbury - will he be capped?!?!?
66-”Do you want to know who’s driving the agenda? It’s not Brown, it’s not Cameron, it’s me. Me! ME! ME ME ME ME ME!”
Thanks!
Re 42, StJohn and 44 Jonathan, many thanks for teh kind thoughts!
I am also pleased to hear your new addition is doing well!
67 “and Lord Sainsbury - will he be capped?!?!? ”
with McClaren as England manager, you never know
66:
Nice to hear from you seanT. Are you working in Egypt or is that where Nick Palmer decided to exile you?
Brown is doing well, better than I expected…
66. Greetings Sean T. Enjoy your tiffin!
Brown just lied about IHT. Couldn’t look Cameron in the eye.
74. He just can’t get put of the habit, can he? I wonder why.
Dave destroys Brown without even trying
Just one thought, neither of them can speak about policies, only about politics…
Dave’s enjoying himself isn’t he.
Funnily enough, so is Gordon, because he probably thinks he’s doing really well and demolishing the Tories.
But he’s not…
Did you see that massive wave of relief rush across his face when Brown sat down - “Thank God that’s over with”.
Anyway, the Lib Dem bloke’s on now. Better get back to work…
Brown is ranting, stuttering, and now dying on his feet in the Queen’s Speech debate. Even John Pienaar of the BBC is highly, and unaccustomedly, critical.
Now, the same as always, what about Brown’s vision?and what about Cameron’s vision?
71. I am working here. Well, kinda. Writing about barsnacks in stupidly expensive hotels. The usual.
Next week, though, I have to go way down south to the roiled, dangerous and militantly Islamist district of al Minya, to see the remote tomb of the crazy monotheistic pharaoh Akhenaten, in the most haunted corner of the great Nilotic wastes.
But frankly, having read the endless spin of Nick Palmer, and lived to fight another day, a few pharaonic ghouls and homicidal beardies won’t phase me.
Now I am indeed off for tiffin.
Salaam aleikum!
When reading out the Queen’s Speech, did HM the Q have a bad cold? Or was it so dull that she decided to take Phil’s bet that “You daren’t read out the whole bloody volume of sh1t in a comedy voice?”
“One will take that bet - and one will read it in the style of a Punch and Judy show….”
Is there a market on when Brown will be sectioned?
The Tory frontbench looked dreadful during the debate, like over-excited schoolboys, especially GO.
This may go down well with Tory loyalists but I think it’s a real turn-off for ordinary voters.
84 - go for weeks rather than months…..
85. Of course, the Labour frontbench have always acted like little angels…
85 - Gabble, is that the best party line they can come up with? Dear dear….things have come to a pretty pass in the Bunker.
85. How would you know, sitting as you do in the Brown bunker tapping out pre-prepared spin lines?
85
Gabble
Gordo sounded like a tired old tyrant, IMHO Cameron duffed him up good and proper, as he will tomorrow.
#85 The turn-off for the voters, especially the ladies, is Gordon gnawing his fingernails to the quick - Jacqui Smith had to poke him to get him to stop.
79
I didn’t see the relief but I thought Brown almost lost his composure when he sat down. The hand came up to his mouth as if, physically, to restrain his emotions. The camera cut away very quickly as if to avoid an embarrassing moment.
87,88,89,90. You may all enjoy the juvenile behaviour of the Tory frontbench but don’t kid yourselves that it gains you any votes - quite the opposite.
I wonder whether the media sound-bite of the two speeches will be the direct Brown-Cameron confrontation on IHT, and the former’s categorical assertion that reforms would have been introduced irrespective of the Tory pledge? The obvious question is why Brown has never stated this previously.
92. His hand might have been zeroing in on his nose of course…
93
The disacomforture oF Gordo whenever he has to think on his feet rather than quote from a Kremlin style 5 yr plan gains The Tories oddles of votes. He just cant hack it.
85, 93:
Is there any way of switching that Gabble sentence generator off?
95 - and with all his fingernails gnawed away during the Cameron onslaught, he would have been having a real good root around with nothing with which to gain any purchase!
Would this new Union law allow Trades Unions to expel members who were also members of the Liberal Democrat or Conservative Parties (or for that matter Respect) ?
96. DC is a class act, however, the braying and over-cockiness of those around him was ugly and will only serve to confirm the negative image many people still have of the party.
98.
:) 
:)
100 - More seriously, the incredulous and boisterous reaction was a direct response to Brown’s claim that IHT reforms would have been forthcoming whether the Tories had proposed them or not. Frankly, I think the reaction of most people outside will be equally sceptical.
Not that this matters at all in the great political scheme of things
Sorry Gabble untrue highly unlikely, its the 30 sec news soundbites people zero in on and Gordo was sound(ly) bite(n)
93. I didn’t say I enjoyed it. But do you believe when Labour have a good day they don’t behave like children on the frontbench?
Of course they do. It’s how the Commons has always worked. Not a great advertisement for our democracy but to pretend that one party is worse at the braying than the other is to be hilariously blinkered.
Previous thread… Andy G…
Thank you very much Andy.
93. Well I think it’s something which does well to keep the pressure up on this non-government. The next set of polls will show us - on this side, anyway, as presumably you will be disappearing again for a few days until the next straw to be grasped emerges on the horizon?
Brown is not evil. Brown is not even “wrong”. But this will go down in history as one of the most *pointless* governments to have existed since some of the later administrations of the Victorian era.
91 “..Gordon gnawing his fingernails to the quick - Jacqui Smith had to poke him..”
I doubt he’d ever poke her. Not that I’m casting assertions on his orientation or owt.
106. Yes, it really does look like a caretaker administration now. Completely directionless.
107 - Er, do you mean aspersions or indeed aspirations?
Mike, did you miss the bit where the Queen said, “My Government will bing forward proposals on the regulation of party finance and expenditure”?
106,108. The trouble with your CCHQ attack is that there are genuinely substantial proposals in the Queens Speech.
Your dismissiveness smacks of complacency. It’s no wonder you’re behind in the latest poll.
Oh dear! My reading of the debate is that Cameron was pure bluster, and Brown did a very effective demolition job on him: and then Vince Cable came along and destroyed both of them.
This is not in accordance with the Tory and Labour spin machines of course.
One point in front in just one poll and gabble comes out from the woodwork acting like cock of the walk. Such bravado will evaporate as quickly as it appeared.
113. Actually I’m starting to think he is a spoof (Gabble, not Brown).
112. I agree, there wasn’t a lot of substance to DC in comparison to GB.
This may explain why DC is consistently behind GB in the personal ratings despite the terrible couple of months GB has had.
The self-deluding Tories on this site don’t seem to be able to grasp this fact. I’m almost beginning to feel sorry for them.
Sorry to join this anti-Gordon stream (actually thought that there were a few promising lines of attack from him , though delivery poor and stuttering is getting worse when he’s pressed or angry, but he did at times manage to be measured and authoritative though to many “hope the party opposite”"the party opposite says” etc ) but on one Telergraph blog there is a comment from Christopher Hope on the new Gordy accent ” Estuary Scottish” which I think catches just what has been irritating me about it.
“I agree, there wasn’t a lot of substance to DC in comparison to GB.”
He was probably distracted - already turning his attentions to the choice of curtains.
Focus, Dave, focus!
115 Might seem like two months (time does drag with Gordon still here, but keep your spirits up) actually it’s only one - dread day it all fell apart was in October
116 - I reckon Gordon could become the Stanley Unwin of British politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Unwin_%28comedian%29
He did at one point refer to Richard Caborn as the member for “Sheffield Century”. And referred to another member as a “former Cadbury singer” (cabaret singer to you and me).
And we had the Severn Barridge the other week.
He really has invented his own language.
The lies are still in English though.
115. Gabble, it’s one thing spinning a line but then quite another to immediately blow your own cover by imbuing significance to the idea that the Tories are “behind in the latest poll”. If you genuinely believe the Tories are behind in the polls, I’ll eat my hat. You are a troll and I claim my £5.
A learned friend of mine points out that the administration I was referring to in my grasping about in the Victorian dark, was that of Lord Rosebery.
I haven’t seen the debate - some of us have real jobs you know - but on the surface rising aspiration seems to be a pretty good summing up of today’s politics - public (and private) services are generally far better than they have ever been in the past, but people still aren’t satisfied with them because their aspirations have risen. I don’t think either party has yet really made clear how it intends to approach this - Labour is IMO not showing enough awareness that more money is not the solution to all problems, but the Tories appear to be offering nothing tangible in terms of a different approach - they offer attacking rhetoric but underneath they seem to be saying that they will actually keep things pretty much as they are. There will be no change in the overall level of public spending, and DC was unable to say last week how much he would reduce the level of immigration, which leads one to believe that in fact he would not reduce it.
Welcome back, SeanT.
As has been noted before, you check out of PB whenever you wish, but you can never leave.
112. You must have watched a different debate to Fraser Nelson
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/330876/advantage-cameron.thtml
122 …And your proof reading never gets any better.
123. from that, Cameron’s comment -
“There is only one black hole in British politics and it is the gap where the prime minister’s credibility used to be”.
Great line!
Well from my new position of neutrality I asked myself this simple question; ‘Looking at the opposition front bench on to-days showing would I want them to be running the country?’
Despite the many excellent posters above who seemed to think they did rather well I’m afraid I don’t share their confidence. Too many looked unattractively supercilious.
126 - Yes, the Government front bench look so much better…
126. Are you hoping for a Balls/Hain/Darling dream team to pull the levers of power anytime soon ?
Brown has condemned his Labour Mps to sit through another 18/19 months of this stuff. I am starting to feel sorrow for them.
121 nickc the only aspiration Brown has is to stay in power.
You’re doing again Gabble - you don’t realise that the 30%-40% of the population who still support Labour are all in the Downing Street bunker! Clearly the only people in the country who have managed to escape Brown’s sinister mind control techniques are the Conservatives on this board.
Clearly the same limit on political spending should apply to one individual billionaire as to organisations containing hundreds of thousands of members each. How on earth could you think otherwise?
126. Fabulous use of the anachronistic “to-day”, there, Roger. I whole-heartedly applaud it.
But surely the best line was
‘Well from my new position of neutrality…’
Hilarious Roger, keep it up.
126, Roger unfortunately we already have to put up with Harperson, the Millipedes, Alas Dourling, wee dougie and Ballsup. Almost any group of people is better than that shower of s***e.
126 Roger
Excuse my bad fluency in English, but what does “supercilious” means?
121 - “rising aspiration seems to be a pretty good summing up of today’s politics - public (and private) services are generally far better than they have ever been in the past”
On what planet do you reside? There isn’t a single public service that I encounter, from local authority bin collections through Royal Mail to my local GP’s absurd appointments system that seems to be designed purely to meet some Nu-Lab target and b*gg*r the patient’s needs, that is a patch on what they were 25 years ago.
As for private services, if they’re not better then I simply find an alternative. I don’t find the need to change supplier that often.
130. Clearly the same limit should apply to one individual billionaire as to each of the hundreds or thousands of individuals that make up an organisation.
“Balls/Hain/Darling dream team”
rotfl……
130. Ha, I love the way that there is at least someone who is actually trying to openly defend the linkage between unions and politics. As I wrote the other day, quite why you think the public would support the idea that “unelected, unrepresentative, self-interested and anachronistic vested interest groups who pursue self-serving and often self-aggrandizing policies, and for whom the public image is still vaguely of Arthur Scargill trying to bring the country to a standstill or Tube drivers going on strike”, should donate to and attempt to dictate policies of a major political party is beyond me.
Here’s a hint: they won’t.
129 Of course, that is not something for which he should be criticized. DC’s aspiration is to gain power, and that is not a matter for criticism either. But I don’t really feel that we know enough about what either of them actually intend to do with power. Beneath the rhetoric I’m not sure what difference DC would actually make.
134 - haughtily disdainful, contemptuous and/or arrogant. Coming from a NuLab supporter, that’s pretty rich, tbh.
134. Chris(from Paris). Supercilious. Literal meaning from the Latin, super meaning raised and cilia meaning eyebrow. So a facial expression or look where the eyebrow is raised in haughty disdain.
140- thanks for the definition.
138 - you know a lot of people get irked by trade union action, and curse Bob Crow and the RMT when there’s a tube strike. However most of those people don’t oppose the very existence of effective trade unions like so many Tories do. Laying into the already neutered union movement in this country probably isn’t a good idea for a Tory party led by a bunch of toffs.
141 - thanks stjohn
119 It was the Sevrern Barridge (echoes of Venus in Furs by the Velvet Underground)
Before the anti-Gordons get too over-excited, this wasn’t an exciting, visionary speech but that’s actually an improvement, there will not be the same post speech discovery it was all a con. Supporters and media seem to have accepted he’s a bad performer so that if he doesn’t get smashed and reduced to angry stuttering then he’s done OK as Lower expectations means that even a reasonable performance becomes a triumph.
He took one big gamble - his sureness that the economy will not be hurt by any downturn in US or wider world economy. That quote will hurt him even more than the actual impact of low growth etc. because it can be presented as arrogance.
145 - “He took one big gamble - his sureness that the economy will not be hurt by any downturn in US or wider world economy. That quote will hurt him even more than the actual impact of low growth etc. because it can be presented as arrogance.”
I doubt it. It doesn’t pay for the Prime Minister to stand up and say the economy is going to nosedive - it makes things worse. Politics is a game, economics is slightly more real.
143. If it were such a neutered movement, it shouldn’t have such an inherent power over a government should it? The less powerful it is, the more of a disjuncture emerges in people’s minds, as to why this (to most people) pointless and irrelevant anachronism is a major source of funding for the party of government. Prior to the 1980s, you could make the (tenuous) argument that the Unions in some way represented the “people”; since their being neutered, even that argument falls away.
This whole issue was dropped because it would highlight this disjuncture - the danger was that people would think, if this party wants to be funded by a fringe group, the party itself will be treated as one. Rightly so.
147 - oh STOP it you silly boy. Why is trade union money so bad but rich men’s wallets fine? Because you’ve moved the argument onto that ground now.
146 “It doesn’t pay for the Prime Minister to stand up and say the economy is going to nosedive”
It doesn’t pay to tip off the markets that you are going to sell half your gold reserves either - but that didn’t stop Gordon….
146 It was the way he said it - confidence is one thing, over confidence another.
145, and my 119: I’ve worked out how GB managed to mangle Caborn’s constituency into “Sheffield Century”. He will have had it written down in his laborious notes as “Sheff Cent” won’t he (in case he forgets)? But this will be the same shorthand he uses for “century” and his poor little brain got confused. Not being the quickest of thinkers, he just read out what was on the sheet. And said “Century” - before he quickly corrected himself when the House descended into hysterics.
Numpty…
146
I am old enough to recall “you’ve never had it so good” and remember “the pound in your pocket etc”.
Saying on the economy do tend to come back… like greasy chips:-)
Just listened to a radio interview with Harriet Harpic,she was raving about the new format for the Queen’s speech and that most of it had been pre-announced by Gordo in July to allow widespread consultation in the regions,Scotland and Wales.
Obviously a very popular move as Harpic had received 50 emails on the subject and the Scottish office 3.
(141 St John-very interesting. You must be a scholar?)
Anatole. I don’t see anything odd in a group of working people freely choosing to give money to the Labour party through their union. It it so different from Conservative associations throughout middle England collecting money from their members-who more than likely only joined to find a partner-and their executive passing a large part of to Central Office? It is worth noting that over 25% of the working population belong to a union.
Slightly off topic, I thought Jack Straw did a tremendous job at presenting the speech and the subsequent walking backwards (even though, I believe, the Lord Chancellor doesn’t have to do that anymore…). He looked slightly bemused by it all though!!
154 Roger - people don’t join Trades Unions to give money to the Labour Party, they join the Labour Party for that (probably not to meet their future partner though). They have to opt out of the political fund, and as Nick Palmer admitted most don’t because they can’t be bothered.
151. Did I miss something- I thought Cameron was the one who got Central and Century mixed up? Came up with a line like “but of course his speech didn’t seem to last a century” to cover it up. Not that it matters, just wondered if I missed something.
154 Roger dear boy what on earth have you been smoking?? If you knew anything about TU political funds or COnservative associations you would kow this is in the top 10 of your funniest ever posts, and that takes some doing.
157. They made the identical mistake.
159. oh, I thought Brown had been slightly teasing Cameron!
156, 159,- Yet another example of Brown stealing from the Tories. Has the man no shame?
102. Weren’t you aware that The Times learnt that the £700,000 IHT threshold for couples, which Darling announced in the PBR had been considered by Brown for the last Budget.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/pbr_2007/article2774356.ece
From the off, I had a gut instinct that the changes announced by Darling in the PBR had been considered by Brown, albeit not enacted, long before Osborne made his proposals re-IHT.
Personally, however, on reflection, there was nowt that could not have waited until the Budget proper by which time the hype, and it was hype, that accompanied Osborne’s proposals may well have passed.
Of course, Tories are going to big-up their man Cameron and they are perfectly entitled to do so. But I suspect should he ever become PM, he’ll be seen in his full ineffectual glory because once his party’s reactionary tendency start puting the squeeze on this so-called ‘moderniser’, he’ll capitulate.
Tony Blair, on the other hand, was made of sterner stuff. Blair knew where he wanted to take the Labour Party and by Jove, that’s where he took it. Brown, too, will be a tough boot facing challenges as and when they come. That is leadership.
And in all fairness, rest assured Gordon Brown and Labour will get a rollicking off yours truly as and when I feel they deserve it, which is why I voiced strong reservations in respect of proposed changes to CGT, non-doms and that putrid ‘flight tax’.
162 John Pienaar, not a noted Tory fan, talked of Cameron’s substance at the despatch box and him being a formidable performer before going on to compare him to Muhammed Ali. Poor Gordon was left to be Joe Frazier, OK himself a world champion, but viewed as a bit clunking and heavy on his feet.
The media judgement is currently Cameron leading on points, with no knockout but having floored Brown at first PMQ session. Fights not over but it’s getting quite entertaining now.
Excuse the long post, but this is my take on the various measures on the Queens speech, as summarised on the BBC website.
BTW, it is amusing that the BBC seem to have been able to identify bills which won’t apply to Scotland, and which would therefore be eligible for an English Grand Committee.
Good
*** Apprenticeships (draft) Bill
*** Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
- CSA reform is long overdue
*** Human Tissues and Embryos Bill
- A nettle that needed grasping
Bad
*** Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
- Altering the punishment of those who breach the terms of their early release from serving the rest of their sentence to serving only 28 days doesn’t string me as being “Tough on crime”
*** Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill
- Allows the government to use money held in bank and building society accounts which have not been used for 15 years
My God! Raiding the piggy banks now?
*** Constitutional Renewal (draft) Bill
- Lame
*** Counter-Terrorism Bill
- Part of the Governments War on Civil Liberties
*** EU Reform Treaty Bill
- Well we all know it should be a referendum
*** Local Transport Bill
- Another assault on the motorist (and before you start I personally hate driving)
*** National Insurance Contributions Bill
- More tax for the Government to waste
*** Pensions Bill
- Forcing people to pay into a fund which Gordon will then raid - Oh Yes! He’s got previous on this!
For me a nothing special or suprising queen speech which will have no effect on the political landscape generally.
Personally the two things I pulled out that I found of interest. The good, Brown appearing to be finally moving on allowing new neuclear plants, as someone who works for an Energy company this is desperately needed very soon if we are serious in meeting emmissions targets in the future, which is not a bad aim, regardless of your view on the wider climate change issue.
The bad, the legisalation to keep more people at school longer. The best thing for many of these children would be to get out into the workplace and learn a trade or how business or office based organisations operate. Most of these children he is talking about do not want to be in school for two more years. Like the University expansion and silly 50% target, this is a measure that is in my view a sadly missed opportunity, more education for more people who don’t want or won’t greatly benefit from it is a step in the wrong direction, and very lazy thinking from the Government.
re 126/131 whilst I wouldn’t go that far I often think I’m the only person still writing “all together”
“Gordon Brown’s flexible working plan attacked”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=QOB5OKSITQXO5QFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/11/06/nqueen1406.xml
166 - “altogether” is tolerable; “alright” is inexcusable.
166 Different uses surely:
We are all together today, we all together for George Brown’s speech
It’s altogether a good thing, altogether Gordon Brown is an awful speaker
The BBC’s always astute Nick Assinder gets it absolutely spot on yet again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7081423.stm
“Mr Brown glowered and ploughed on through his programme like a tractor pulling a large heffer out of a muddy ditch - it groaned and stalled but eventually got there.”
I thought it was spelt “heifer”. Maybe he meant Simon Heffer?
Anyway, I think it’s a qualified win to Cameron from Mr Assinder.
Re: