Who’d get it if Harman resigned?
November 27th, 2007
Could supporting Cruddas be a way showing unease about Brown?
My nomination for Iain Dale’s political blogger of the year (won incidentally by Iain Dale himself - funny that given he was the promoter and vote counter) was Paul Linford. To my mind Paul provides the best insights into Labour party matters and this evening he speculates about who would become deputy leader if Harriet finds she cannot carry on because of the donation scandal.
Clearly Harman would be out of it. Those who came in the bottom half of the ballot, Benn, Blears and Hain would, Paul suggests, probably not put their hats into the ring. That leaves Jon Cruddas and Alan Johnson.
Johnson was tipped by Guido last time as the winner and, indeed, the Daily Telegraph reported during the Manchester conference that he had done it. He’s very ambitious and would, surely be there again.
But could Johnson beat Cruddas who turned down a job offer from Brown and, as Linford notes, “..is untainted by association with any of the disasters to strike the government over recent weeks”? Paul thinks he could win.
Other possible contenders suggested by Paul could be Caroline Flint, Ruth Kelly and Jacqui Smith as well as Jack Straw.
The danger for Brown is that such an election could be a means for the movement to register their discontent with his leadership. If it went along that route then Cruddas would be the man.
But before we jump ahead of ourselves Harman has, first, to step down.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
If?
H really wriggled when Nick Robinson asked why, with her husband being party treasurer, she didn’t know about what was going on.
She will be lucky to survive this.
However, the important point is that, if Harman resigns, there is no need for an election in short term. Under the Labour Party rulebook, the Cabinet, in consultation with the NEC, can appoint a Deputy Leader to serve until the next full party conference (or, if they wish, leave the post vacant). Anyone Brown appoints will have the huge advantage of incumbency, and it’s likely to be too close to an election for the grassroots to risk a big anti-leadership demonstration by rejecting the existing leader.
I don’t know. In some respects she may ultimately be the least vulnerable. She seems to be the only person in the whole of the Labour Party who didn’t know that Abrahams had a habit of donating through third parties. So unlikely to be much more damaging stuff to come for her, and her resignation would anyway serve no purpose to the Govt since her situation is peripheral to the central issues.
Presumably she could cause quite a lot of trouble if forced to go - she must know the last resting-places of several bodies, specially considering her husband’s job.
One of the interesting questions over all this (interesting to me!) is how it will impact on the EU Constitution.
The whole argument has gone away, but it ain’t gone away forever. The Treaty returns to parliament next year. Brown is now desperate, truly desperate, for Murdoch support. The only possible way he can “retain” that is by conceding a referendum on the Constitution.
I do not believe he has the political authority or capital to ram this Treaty through parliament. What’s the point in doing that anyway? What’s in it for him? He would be signing his own electoral death certificate by guaranteeing the opposition of all the important papers at a time of maximum weakness.
Brown has to start thinking strategically rather than tactically. A strategic retreat in certain areas - ID cards, Europe - is now urgently required if he is to survive.
Mike comments about Cruddas would seem to support what I posted late on last thread;
214 “There is not sign of the factionalism that bedeviled Major”.
Factionalism will soon (re)appear in the Labour Party if MPs think they may lose their seats - the undercurrents are there locally if you talk to Labour activists who are bitterly dissapointed that having got rid of Blair they see a government where socialim is till a non allowable word AND the gvernment is still unpopular
by ApRhys November 27th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
6 - The sun is in favour of ID cards
I think HH will tough it out - the profile of Deputy Leaders is pretty low, after all - I wonder how many people, other than political geeks, know who she is? If not, Jack Straw as the “unity” candidate - Gord won’t want an election for the job, perish the thought
Not the least sad feature of NuLab is the paucity of talent among its women MPs. None of them are worthy to iron Barbara Castle’s unmentionables…
6
Go for the nuclear option, a referendum on Europe but in or out, put the cat amongst the pigeons.
I think Benn will be pressured to run.
The governments situation is very similar to this.
In aviation’s early days, spins were poorly understood and often fatal. Proper recovery procedures were unknown, and a pilot’s instinct to pull back on the stick served only to make a spin worse. Because of this, the spin earned a reputation as an unpredictable danger that might snatch an aviator’s life at any time, and against which there was no defense.
The spin was initially explored by individual pilots performing ad-hoc experiments (often accidentally) and by aerodynamicists. In August 1912, Lieutenant Wilfred Parke RN became the first aviator to recover from an accidental spin when his Avro biplane entered a spin at 700 feet AGL in the traffic pattern at Larkhill. Parke attempted to recover from the spin by increasing engine speed, pulling back on the stick, and turning into the spin, with no effect. The aircraft descended 450 feet, and horrified observers braced themselves for a fatal crash.
Parke was disabled by centrifugal forces but was still considering a means of escape. In an effort to neutralize the forces pinning him against the right side of the cockpit, he applied full right rudder, and the aircraft leveled out fifty feet[1] above the ground. With the aircraft now under control, Parke climbed, made another approach, and landed safely.
And so is the solution. ‘Don’t pull back on the stick’
I’ve been wondering. It is possible that ‘Team Brown’ did not accept the donation on the basis that they knew the money was tainted and concerned this would come out? Of course all it took was a little scratching by the MoS to find out the answer to what, in retrospect was an obvious anomaly.
Also the irony of the Labour Party being involved in ‘identity theft’ re the contributions make me smile.
Apart from Blears, the rest were within 4% of each other on the first round. And of course, a re-run without Harman is difficult to call, since her votes were never re-distributed in June 2007. I suspect the People’s Party would not permit a contest without a woman candidate, so logically there is no reason for any of the original field to pass up on the next contest (if it materialises). Benn may struggle though to get the 45 nominations, as he did in June. The vagaries of AV could give victory to any one of them….
Cruddas was very impressive in the last contest and would be the value bet I think
Would Harriet’s votes go to Hazel?
Nu Labour people don’t resign - they get sacked.
8. But I don’t think ID cards are a do-or-die issue for Murdoch or The Sun, not in the way Europe is. In fact, there’s no comparison.
The problem with ID cards for Labour is that those in favour of the cards tend to be mildly in favour, it’s not a burning positive for many people (except for authoritarian ex communists like Nick Palmer).
By contrast, those against ID cards tend to be virulently against them. Moreover these anti ID card people are often the kind of articulate, liberal voters who (a) have a disproportionate influence in the media and (b) are concentrated in southern swing seats.
ID cards are electoral bad news for Labour, even as the polls indicate they are popular. The fact Brown can’t see this is highly indicative of his strategic myopia.
I think Brown would appoint one of Johnson, Straw or Cruddas. Johnson may become a bit of a threat, which would make Brown pause for thought a little. Jack Straw would steady the internal ship a little, and might reliably ensure there are no nasty surprises in the party machine to come. Cruddas’ mischief-making potential will be limited; but he’d still have the potential to cause a little awkwardness within the big tent. I’d suspect Brown would go for Johnson - but that might change depending on what he sees as his biggest danger.
6 Sean - what makes you think that agreeing to an EU referendum would win over Murdoch’s support? The Digger backs winners and Brown looks like a big time loser - it’s just never going to happen for him.
10. The “in or out” EU referendum option is superficially attractive, until you consider it for more than five seconds.
If Brown did call such a referendum, he would be asked: if you get a No, will you pull us out of Europe?
He would have to say Yes, he would indeed do that - otherwise the referendum is a meaningless and vacuous gimmick.
No Labour prime minister can promise to pull out of Europe. There would be severe business instability. Half his pro European MPs would revolt at the idea. The EU itself would be thrown into turmoil at the prospect of its second largest economy bogging off down the pub. And then there is the very real possibility that the people might actually vote Out.
That’s the nature of referendums. You can’t predict them. Ask the French or the Dutch.
So, sorry, but no. This is a facile, juvenile and ridiculous policy, which is why it has been adopted by the Lib Dems.
18. Fair point. But what I said was Brown needs to neutralise the papers just to get through the next year. The only way he will do this is by ceding a vote on the Treaty. I agree he now looks like a loser and will probably lose and for that reason alone Murdoch will probably dump him in the end. But that doesn’t mean Brown can or should just accept media hostility.
17. Yes, but the wimmin would insist on one of their own, surely?
Perhaps someone relatively sensible like Tessa Jowell or Angela Smith?
I don’t think HH will resign. My brief reasons (and these are my opinions so hopefully not libellous!)
1. Abrahams deal set up before GB became PM… probably agreed by Tony Blair and Gen Sec and known by a few in NEC.
2. Probably GB knew but after he became PM, he was desperate for cash and all other disasters toook mind off funding.
Now if that is the case, IF HH has to go.. and imo it’s fairly obvious she did NOT know about Abrahams (interview, why take illegal donation whne you can get it legally like Benn) ”
she’ll hav elearned by now who does know.
The obvious inequity of being forced to go .. while the guilty remain free will result in leaking of names of those in know.
This would be a disaster.
No doubt her Press Conference was delayed to enable this message to be carefully passed to GB.
Once one resigns, they will all have to go cos a precedent has been set.
So HH is safe.. until the real culprits in the know are exposed.
As the enquiry is by a retired judge and a bishop, I think we can assume it will be a coverup.
So the wrath of Job descends on unpaid local party treasurers who make relatively small transgressions in their monthly donation reporting while Harriet Harman,deputy leader, lawyer and wife of the LP treasurer is allowed to continue in her post and some people on here seek to justify/excuse it - unbelievable.
I don’t think there’ll be time enough in terms of an appointment for the lobby to become serious. Besides, as Brown will be weakened severely by a Harman resignation, he’ll need someone with something resembling an independent base of support within the party to shore him up, and no woman in Labour apart from Harman has one as yet.
19 Sean - are you back in the UK now? By not having physically been here these past three weeks or so, you can have no comprehension of just how terribly and unendingly bad it’s been for Brown.
Seems strange that Abrahams only tried to donate to two of the Deputy Leadership campaigns. Any of the others got any strange names on their donation lists?
HH isn’t going anywhere. The political cost having her brazen it out is far less than throwing her under the bus. Also, while in situ she serves as a useful human shield diverting attention from G-G-G-Gordon.
Sean - brilliant, would never have managed to link the EU constitution to North East based Labour crises.
Only because there is no link - of all the troubles surrounding Gordon the EU and its treaty must be the most minuscule.
19 - the only problem with a referendum on the EU for both Lab and Con is the fact that is will split both parties in two.
The only Juvenile policy is that of the the Cons - a vote against the Constitution is so obviously basically a vote against the EU - and the Constitution would not even be repealed by them. It’s simply an unimplementable policy to try and stave off the UKI and cause trouble for Lab.
I thought Harriet, or her helpers contacted King/Abraham because her husband suggested they were big donors and might be able to help. No problem with the treasurer helping his wife with some inside information surely?
Harman will not resign because NuLab don’t do resignations. Simple as that.
“The EU itself would be thrown into turmoil at the prospect of its second largest economy bogging off down the pub”
lol
Oops, Sorry, I shouldn’t have bothered replying to that - Do you just type “politicalbetting.com” and “Europe” in google everyday or something?
.. and when King /Abrahams say that it was Harriet’s team that asked for the money - Things will really fall apart.
27. Yes, I’m quite proud of that outrageous link. Some might call it obsession, I call it 20/20 foresight.
24. Yeah, back in the UK - just. Flew in a day or two back, but came straight to Scotland. This Harman story is hilarious, coming, as it does, on top of everything else. I see now why Labour people were so annoyingly chirpy during the Major era. Watching your political enemies self destruct is a pure endorphine high.
BTW - I fully agree, the LibDem policy is nonsensical. God knows what possessed Iain Dale to come out in support of it. Further evidence of his ability as a strategical genius I guess.
The LibDem argument seems to be that if you’re in the EU you’ve got to do what ever the EU says. Without ever acknowledging that the UK have a right to object to stuff they don’t like. Bit like their policy on Iraq to say that they’d do whatever the UN said, even if the UN was in favour of war, without ever acknowledging that the UK had a veto to prevent it.
30 - I said that earlier! see 15. I thought I’d get in early. We are both right though.
28 - Er sorry but you must have missed the fact that there is no question of repeal at the moment. The constitution is not in place until it has been ratified.
The question of whether their should be a referendum after ratification is another matter - but then the Conservative leadership know that.
31 Think we are probably fourth behind Germany, France and Italy now, given the strength of the Euro.
35 - “Without ever acknowledging that the UK have a right to object to stuff they don’t like” - Yes, but if we object to the point that our membership is no longer tenable…an in/out in referendum is the only sensible solution.
36. Indeed! I didn’t see 15 in there, I think it’s my giddiness in seeing Labour implode having a reaction!
20. “Eminently sensible?” - Tessa Jowell? The woman who apparently didn’t bother to read her own mortgage agreement (yet somehow we’re supposed to trust her with organising the Olympic Games)? You’re having a laff!
What odds on there being NO Deputy Leader.. does the Labour Party Constitution require one???
34. Eeek. I hate to say it but SeanT is right. There is a link between Abrahams and Europe. He was actively involved in the Britain in Europe campaign & was a serial letter-writer for the EU cause in years gone by.
37 - To want to have a referendum on something you feel so strong about - yet not want to repeal it later…is quite silly. If you feel so strongly about it just say you’ll repeal it. But of course you won’t because the policy is only there to stir up UKIP support and cause Lab some trouble. And it’s the LibDems who are juvenile - Yeah, right.
38. I trust this is said in jest. The euro has only risen marginally against sterling. By basic GDP or even GDP adjusted for PPP the UK is the second largest economy in the EU. Germany is first, France is third, Italy fourth.
The UK has, however, been recently overtaken by China in economic size, but then China will overtake everyone within 30 years.
39 - Rejecting the Constitution does not make our membership “untenable” because the Constitution cannot happen without our support.
Not sure if this has been posted earlier on.
Apologies if has been and roll on PMQ’s tomorrow
See also this from Stephen Pollard at the Speccie website.
“From 1992-95 I worked for the Fabian Society. Our meetings were attended by a variety of people: students and academics, hacks and Labour Party members, politicos and wannabe politicos. The presence of someone such as Gordon Brown at one of these meetings was not in the least bit unusual, nor that of any other senior party figure. As an affiliated part of the Labour Party, our job in opposition was to provoke thought about the party’s policies.
One of the regular - indeed, one of the most assiduous - attendees at those meetings was David Abrahams. He would mix, as would everyone in that milieu, with backbenchers, front benchers, NEC members and Shadow Cabinet members.
Many of those people are now ministers. Others are Cabinet members, some very senior. It is possible - just - that when they say they have no idea who David Abrahams is, or cannot recall ever meeting him, they are telling the truth. It is, after all, possible that there are people in the country who have never heard of, say, Gordon Brown. Possible, yes; but very, very unlikely.
Indeed, far from keeping himself to himself, as is being written, Abrahams was about the pushiest person I ever came across in my time at the Fabians - and in politics, that is saying something. He would ring up the office asking about meetings and contact; at those meetings, he would make a bee-line for the most senior politicians in the room. He was, in short, keen to be noticed.
There are some people who just give off a bad vibe. I recall a number of times when Abrahams offered us a donation. You get a nose for these sort of things (unless, it seems, you are Labour General Secretary or running for office within the party), and we decided at the time to steer well clear. As a member, he was entitled to attend various meetings, but we had no obligation to accept money or offers of work from anyone.
Everything about the current story smells. Abrahams’ explanation of his behaviour makes little sense. Can he really have gone from being one of the pushiest and most self-aggrandising people I came across to being so afraid of publicity that he chanelled donations through other people? I don’t think we have got remotely to the bottom of the Abrahams side of this story.
As for the politicians, I simply do not believe those ministers and Labour officials who have been round the block for all these years who say they do not know Abrahams. It is inconceivable that they have forgotten him: he has a manner one simply does not forget.
If his status as a donor was anonymous and no one knew who he was, how come he was in the front row of Tony Blair’s farewell speech?
Make up your own minds whether you call that deceit or forgetfulness. I’ve made up mine. They know who he is all right; they must do if they have been at party functions. They just don’t want to admit it.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard/…our-party.thtml
They all knew this Abraham guy (hence Straw’s “Dave” slip)
43 - Who said the Conservatives didn’t want to repeal it later? The question is whether to have a referendum on it. There’s not much point in having a referendum if the views expressed in that referendum can’t be delivered.
41 - To essentially repeat my post 3, Rule 4B.2e (iii) of the Labour Party rulebook could allow Gordon Brown to leave the post empty until the party conference: but one would have to be elected then.
45 - Err, yes it does - we’re not even in the Euro - They’d easily be able to wave us goodbye to us.
Anyway the whole argument for having a referendum NOW, is that it is highly doubtful if the Constitution can be repealed afterwards (without withdrawing from the EU).
Perhaps you should just answer Sean’s question - if you had your referendum and there was a no vote, would you march the UK out of the EU?
47- “Who said the Conservatives didn’t want to repeal it later?”, I did. Because they’ve never said so. DC has been asked this directly and he has been unable to confirm - I guess he just doesn’t feel that strongly about it…
49 - Yep of course. The EU is going to chuck us out. Are you mad?
42. Wayhey! I’m always right. In the end. Probably. Inshallah.
43. You’re not even worth arguing with. The Conservative position is that you should not deceive the people. Every party went into the last election promising a referendum on the Constitution. The Conservatives seek to honour that promise. They are alone in doing this.
Moreover, two countries in Europe have already voted down the Constitution in referendums.
And the EU’s reaction? To change the name of the Constitution, twiddle a few paragraphs, then force the very same document through but this time ignore the people as much as possible. And all this as part of a process which is meant to cure the EU’s democratic deficit.
It is beyond disgraceful. And the Lib Dems are complicit in this grotesque subterfuge, by supporting Brown in his attempt to hoodwink the electorate. Shame on you. Forever.
51 - no. He doesn’t know if it’s possible. Ergo he’s making no commitments.
50 - I’m actually quite undecided on this issue. I was against Sean calling the Lib Dems policy juvenile etc, especially given the facile nature of the Con policy. I think the Lib Dem policy is very sensible.
How can you think the LibDem policy is sensible, but be undecided if you would support leaving the EU after a no vote?
What’s the point of a referendum if one of the two results can’t be delivered?
53 - If you/the Con party, feel so strong about it - say you’ll repeal it. If would be a dignified stance but, not being a Lib Dem you probably wouldn’t know about that kind of thing…
I seem to recall the LibDems were in favour of a referendum on the Maastrict treaty. Was that a “facile” policy?
48 sorry missed your post, there have been so many in the last 24 hrs its hard to keep up with them all.
I have read the full ‘Political Parties, Elections and Referenda Act (2000)’ extrememly carefully, and regretably cannot see how the CPS can avoid bringing charges, now that the Electoral Commission have invited them to investigate. Everyone is making a fuss about section 54, but look at the following:
“Section 39: A person commits an offence if—
(a) he knowingly or recklessly makes a statement to the Commission which is false in any material particular, and
(b) the statement is made, or purports to be made, on behalf of a party for any purpose of this Part of this Act”
…
“Section 61
Offences concerned with evasion of restrictions on donations (1) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) knowingly enters into, or
(b) knowingly does any act in furtherance of,
any arrangement which facilitates or is likely to facilitate, whether by means of any concealment or disguise or otherwise, the making of donations to a registered party by any person or body other than a permissible donor.
(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he knowingly gives the treasurer of a registered party any information relating to—
(i) the amount of any donation made to the party, or
(ii) the person or body making such a donation,
which is false in a material particular; or
(b) with intent to deceive, he withholds from the treasurer of a registered party any material information relating to a matter within paragraph (a)(i) or (ii).”
Peter Watt is almost certainly guilty of false reporting to the Electoral Commission by not mentioning that he knew Abraham was the original donor (section 39), and may be guilty by not telling Dromey (section 61). If he did tell Dromey, Dromey is guilty of false reporting to the Commission. One of them must be guilty of false reporting to the Commission (section 39).
If Jack Dromey did not know Abraham was the donor, Abraham and his donors may also be in trouble, as their donation will legally have been sent to the Treasurer, and they should have disclosed the true identity to him (section 61).
I am no enemy of the Labour Party, and my sorrow at this disgrace is matched only by my anger at the stupidity of allowing our system to be so sullied by this incident. I have tried, genuinely tried, to conjure a series of events in which the law has not been egregiously breached, and I cannot.
Jack Dromey cannot continue in his position, and if he and Peter Watt manage to avoid jail, they should consider themselves extrememly lucky. That Dromey failed to keep abreast of Levy’s more borderline activies was foolish - to claim the same now would imply intolerable ineptitude for somebody in such a prominent position. That he allowed his wife to accept such a dangerous donation implies a degree of negligence that is simply unforgiveable.
I was fairly neutral on Huhne v Clegg a fortnight ago, but it is time that the government were held to account, and I confess myself pleased to see that Huhne has recognised his responsibility to take this task upon himself. The cavalier approach to the rules around party funding, epitomised by New Labour, is disgraceful. The LibDems are by no means immune from similar mistakes, but on the back of the warning shot that was Yates’ report, I am aghast that so little has been done to improve the compliance to Electoral Law within the Labour Party machine. This is either corruption or imcompetance - I can forgive either in opposition. Neither are remotely tolerable in government.
This is a sad day for British politics.
Morus
57 - How can one promise to repeal something that you may not have the power to repeal?
Guardian headline tomorrow: “Harman clings on as donation row escalates..”
Apparently they also have story that Northern Rock was using a fake childen’s charity to hide mortgage transaction money (that seemed the gist of it on Sky, anyhow)…
54 - Of course it’s possible - if a country want to leave the EU it would be allowed to. It’s not a dictatorship - it’s democratic - that’s partly why it’s good.
O/T and apologies if posted before.. Ben Brogan
http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/2007/11/a-police-invest.html
Nice one SeanT - within minutes of reappearing on PB you get everyone on to the EU Constitution - how easily we fall pray to the prose poems that pass for your posts
pleased to see you converted to using PPP to measure GDP as when I did that with China’s economy you called me an idiot. I think you were still in love with snowflake’s witterings at the time so in your own twisted inept way you were being chivalrous.
63 - I don’t think you’ve even read what i wrote.
I’m not disputing that the Treaty can be “repealed” post ratification by leaving the EU. But the Conservatives are not in favour of leaving in the EU. For obvious reasons. Rejecting the constitution before ratification does not mean leaving the EU. Hence the policy of having a referendum NOW. Before the constitution is ratified.
56 - The british public seem fairly evenly split on this issue - the Lib Dems believe in democracy, ergo, let the people decide once and fore all.
67 - “If Brown did call such a referendum, he would be asked: if you get a No, will you pull us out of Europe?
He would have to say Yes, he would indeed do that - otherwise the referendum is a meaningless and vacuous gimmick.
No Labour prime minister can promise to pull out of Europe. There would be severe business instability. Half his pro European MPs would revolt at the idea. The EU itself would be thrown into turmoil at the prospect of its second largest economy bogging off down the pub. And then there is the very real possibility that the people might actually vote Out. “
64 - This Janet Dunn thing looks absolutely dreadful.
66 - You admit the treaty can be repealed…Err…if you want to be in the EU but don’t actually want it to be workable - what the hell do you want??
Is this donation business a REALLY big story at the moment? I’m out of the country and the local news here hasn’t touched on it. Are you sure it’s not just another of these PB.Com stories full of sound and fury signifying nothing?
70. Which party do you favour?
68 - If you don’t want to be in the EU then that’s the position you/Con/sean should take. It’s quite simply. The EU without the treaty is unworkable with 26 members.
“Workable” is just another word for saying that the EU should be able to exercise influence over everything regardless of the opinions of individual member states. It’s nonsense.
re 44 Seat T what do you cal marginal. £:€ rate was 1.702 in Oct 2000, currently scraping 1.39 that a hefty devaluation of almost a quarter.
73 - There are any number of provisions within the treaty which have absolutely nothing with making the EU “work smoother” even if you want such a thing.
72 - I am member of the Lib Dems. I would classify myself as more sceptical of the EU than most LDs - but the current policy I can fully agree with given the way the public seem to be split.
70. Democracy.
65. I didn’t intend to get everyone on to the EU. Just venting some spleen. Sorry about the “idiot” thing. Ahem.
69. Yes, Harmangate just gets better and better. ExTREMEly difficult to see how she can survive. As posted upthread, police action now seems inevitable. Where will it end? The Labour party has gone into a nonlinear and chaotic state, mathematically speaking.
Indeed I’m starting to wonder if Brown himself can get through this. Incredible.
71 honestly Roger - it really is a BIG story and it’s not going away, there are just too many unanswered questions and every journalist in Britain is hoping to get the smoking gun.
Janet Dunn - Conservative voter who ‘gave’ 10K to Labour and knows Abraham looks a poisonous story for the Labour party.
74 - Any specifics? If the rest of the EU agrees though it becomes and in or out question. I have seriously have sympathies with the eurosceptic position - but if the eurosceptics cannot even be honest to say that they want out…
78 - Nah, Harman’s a complete irrelevance to the whole thing.
At the risk of taking this thread away from the European Constituion, which is so clearly THE topic of the day…
I don’t think i have ever wanted to be a fly on the wll of number 10 quite as much as I do this evening. Perhaps when the wets lined up to knife Thatcher. Perhaps on May 2 1997 to catch Cherie’s first murderous glance at Humphrey. Who knows. But today is definitely in the top five.
Brown must be utterly devestated. Few men have chased one goal with such single minded determination for so long. For over a decade he will have refined his plans and played these scenes over and over in his head. As the day drew closer he must have allowed himself the odd dream of where he would be now, approaching his first Christmas in charge; a wise, respected leader, who had drawn gasps of admiration for the breadth of his policy platform, for his vision and energy. He’s not naive, he would have known it was not going to be plain sailing, but he must have assumed that at this stage things would be on the up.
And then this.
Objectively speaking, this is not a huge scandal. At worst (assuming there is not worse to come - dangerous in the present climate) we have one minister who knowingly accepted a disguised donation, almost certainly without having thought about the consequences. More likely we have a minister who failed to undertake due diligence - lets face it, not a first for a party whose ministers are so wealthy they don’t even read mortgage applications/discuss property purchases with their spouse (Jowell/Blair). In a fair world the matter would end with a mea culpa from the guilty minister. A resignation would probably follow, but hey, the heart of Government is pure. Monies repaid, unfortunate incident I say.
But in the present climate there is no scope for objectivity or sympathy. The slow burn of these issues over the last ten years has had a corrosive efect on people’s trust in this government (and sadly, more broadly) and now each straw looks like it might break the camel’s back.
When you add them up, the scandals big and small, it is an unenviable record. What is perhaps most striking is that the scandals have infected almost every aspect of Labour’s record. Perhaps I am misremembering, but it always felt that Tory sleaze fell into two categories; the naughty nocturnal activities (avec chelsea kits, if you believe that to be true) and the dodgy backhanders, but this lot have given us cash for policy/favours scandals (Ecclestone (*unproven), Powderjet (*unproven) and possibly this new chap (*unproven)), improper use of influence (Mandelson, Blunkett), cash for honours, unlawful fund raising, night-time shenanigans (sparingly), postal vote fraud. You can add to this several occasions when ministers have been caught in a lie (or at least it looked very much like they had) while trying to explain away an often trivial misdemeanour (the “sexing up” of the dodgy dossier, the naming of David Kelly, Discgate, problems with immigration statistics etc).
I can’t help but feel Labour have brought it on themselves.
As to the effect… the only way they can avoid meltdown is to avoid any more disclosures of this type before Christmas. If they can survive the next two weeks there will be a reprieve, as people focus elsewhere. But in the New Year Brown will need to demonstrate all of his much vaunted vision to reignite support for Labour. I doubt very much he will be able to.
78 - “Democracy” - fair enough - yet you critise the Lib Dem position…the most honest and democratic policy out of the lot…I honestly don’t think democracy is what you want.
60 Morus, I believe it is Peter Watt who filled the role of “official treasurer” to the electoral commission.
Dromey seems to be as out of touch with what was going on as his dear wife.
Mr and Mrs Dumb and Dumber?
What a fine example of a Labour couple they make, oblivious to what is going on around them, as out as touch as all the rest of the right on crowd.
“If the rest of the EU agrees though it becomes and in or out question”
No it doesn’t. The Constitution cannot happen without UK ratification. It didn’t become an “in/out” question for France when they rejected it.
The senior figures in the party will rally round Harriet, for no other reason than no-one could actually stomach another deputy leadership contest.
78: Well not quite, it diverts attention away from Gordon ‘I’m in charge but knew nothing’ Brown.
I don’t think that HH’s judgement has been brilliant but I can’t really see why she has to resign. On the main question involving the Labour Party I am a bit disillusioned with the NEC because they obviously still haven’t got their supervisory role together -in spite of the enormous fuss that Jack Dromey made when the secret loans came to light. There is a sort of poetic justice in the way political finance issues have come back to haunt the Dromey household.
83 - The LibDem position explicitly rejects the current majority position of the British people. How is that democratic? (whether you think the current majority position is ‘workable’ or not).
75. I’m sure I could choose a date which makes sterling look a lot stronger. Anyway this is irrelevant: my central point is good: that the UK is the 2nd largest economy in the EU whether you judge it by nominal GDP:
http://tinyurl.com/y2pn7u
or by GDP adjusted for PPP:
http://tinyurl.com/usoyd
Oops, sorry people, I know I shouldn’t have responded to an EU thing - I even stated as much earlier on.
Anyway - My take on the current thread is that Benn could be in with a shout - seems very much untainted by the current stuff, can’t remember him being that far behind last time. (P.s, last time I won money on harmen, Go me.)
82-I don’t know why, but this is the second biggest post that I bothered reading and I agree with almost everything you say, except in the end “I doubt very much he will be able to”. I don’t doubt anything in the present.Anyway, I’m glad I bothered reading such a big post!!!
89 - Not really - who said the public don’t want to vote on EU membership? Anyway, I’m bored now - not going to talk about EU.
91 Cruddas would breeze it. He’d have won last time but for GB’s opposition.
38
‘Think we are probably fourth behind Germany, France and Italy now, given the strength of the Euro’.
That’s almost as funny as your fantasy immigration statistics.
92 Yup, Flockers is one of our most promising new posters. Even I bother to read him.
Nite all. Gotta be up early to study the RP.
88 - I agree. I think that Harman is a complete irrelevance to the whole thing (at best a stepping stone scalp for the press) - she DIDN’T KNOW about Abrahams. The real question is who did!
96-”Even I bother to read him”
LOL!
Judging by bodylanguage, Harman is now blatantly and openly lying on BBC News at Ten. Blinking furiously, dropping her gaze, wincing, ducking, and cringing. She might as well have I AM LYING written in glitterpaint on her cleavage.
Alex, Have you seen Harman on the BBC 10 o’clock news - Any jury would convict her.
67
‘The british public seem fairly evenly split on this issue - the Lib Dems believe in democracy, ergo, let the people decide once and fore all. ‘
How on earth can you say that when the Lib Dems promised a referendum on the EU constitution in their 05 GE manifesto,and now for whatever reasons they move the goal posts and propose an in / out referendum,which they know is never going to happen.
How can the Lib Dems expect to be taken seriously when they backslide on such a simple issue?
No missed it. If i’m wrong and she did know then she will have to resign of course (see “stepping stone scalp above) but i still say she’s on the periphery of the whole thing.
URGENT PAGER MESSAGE: All memebers of the Cabinet will assemble at 10 Drowning Street at 06.00 hours for basic training on “How to lie in front of the TV cameras”. Harmen - you will stay behind for a further eight hours of remedial training.
Some polls suggest that the British people are split on the issue of Capital Punishment. Doesn’t mean the LibDems should promise a referendum on it.
Am I wrong, but doesn’t it seem a case of:
“The cash for honours scam is blown, so let’s do the cash-by-proxy for honours scam instead…”
82 flockers, love the post, like the name.
Quite simply I think you have hit the nail somewhere. Gordo had his dreams, now there is his reality. He is not up to it, very simple.
There again I think Cameron would have floundered witlessly under the onslaught of recent events. The top job deserves someone who is special.
The thing is that since 1979 we have been kinda spoilt with Maggie and Tony, people who are superhuman, one batting for the right one for the erggh, right again, sort of. The Maggie and Tony show.
Now Brown, like Major are showing just what happens when more human people get these jobs.
97. How can you say Harman is an irrelevance? She’s deputy leader of the governing party. It seems very likely she will now proved a liar, and forced to resign, in an engulfing and seemingly never ending scandal of illegal party donations - that will possibly lead to criminal charges against one or more of the most important political figures in the country.
Some irrelevance.
105. Yes, you are wrong.
107 - I don’t think you read Rod’s post as he intended.
105. So Abraham’s is just a harmless eccentric who neither wanted or expected anything in return for his machinations?
OK, so let’s forget about it, then….
Brown and Harman are clearly the victims here..
107 - What i mean is that Harman’s role in all this is limited, quite simply to receiving, perhaps illegally, one £5000 cheque. The Labour Party received upwards of £600,000. That is what i mean by an irrelevance. Nobody is going to be charged with offences relating to a £5000 cheque. £600,000 on the other hand.
There is also the issue of the woman (a Conservative supporter) who appears to have had her name used, WITHOUT HER KNOWLEDGE, as a proxy for one of these donations. That is Fraud.
You’re in danger of letting your blood lust after Harriet Harman make you miss the bigger picture, Sean.
It really beggars belief that the Labour party believe that setting up an enquiry will get them out of this mess. Many people in the Labour party must know Abrahams - Tony Blair, Lord Levy, Watts, Dromey Jay,for certain and probably many, many more -what about Kidd’s MP did he know he had a constituent giving massive cheques to the Labour party?
Whitty is a Labour Party insider -he is not going to dig deeply he is likely just to put the blame on Watts. The Bish. and the Judge - they will be like auditors - sign a bit of paper saying that Whitty has tried his best. The whole thing is pointless and should fail I really think that Gordon will be gone
by Christmas.
108. Perhaps. I have been up for eighteen hours interviewing homeless junkies in Catholic Glasgow. If I have misconstrued then that’s my feeble excuse - tiredness.
But Rob’s meaning is not entirely clear. Is he accusing Labour of switching to a new scam after the old one was blown, or is he accusing Labour’s accusers or switching to a new accusation after the…
Etc etc. Too knacked to even type now.
112 - The former.
106. I wouldn’t say that Brown and Major have done poorly because they’re “more human:” (indeed, I would be loath to say that Brown is “more human” than Blair or Thatcher) but because they came after people who had been long-term leaders who have shaped the public image of their party over a lengthy period. All of a sudden they’re not there anymore and there’s this ‘vacuum’ effect: - replaced by someone who by the law of the ‘pendulum’ will probably not be leader as long as them - so there’s the danger that the successor looks immediately like a ‘caretaker’ or ‘fag end’. Poor Brown just looks like a Jim Callaghan figure - presiding over an increasingly chaotic series of events.
107 seanT- this (cash donors and lost data) is such a small irrelevance, pithy, miniscule, spot of nothingness. Blair and Campbell would have swotted it off, and laughed later. The worst, well, some poor minister ritually executed for our mutual pleasure, and Tony and Campbell happily skipping away.
Now the terrain is different. Instead of a summer stroll in the rolling Cotswolds, the media narrative has changed. The weather has turned. Brown is faced with clambering on an unaided assault on the Eiger, deep winter, middle of the night. Every slip is possibly fatal.
That is politics for you. Brutal, horribly brutal. Nothing has changed though in real terms.
112.
Catholic Glasgow?
Newsnight: Abrahams is connected to Brown’s chief fundraiser….
“we expose the link between abrahams and brown’s head fundraiser” says paxo
Oh dear.
I think the Janet Dunn angle on all this is going to be important in the media narrative: “Donor uses Tory supporter to give money to figures in the Labour Party.” It all looks a bit partisan and murky. It stinks, to be honest.
I can’t think we’ve seen the end of this. Fleet Street must have every journalist on the case now, looking for the smoking gun. And if Sky is right that there’s, I paraphrase, plenty lying around, this next month is going to prove explosive.
I do sometimes wonder if attachment to the EU is the Lib Dem’s Clause 4.
118 - No Paxman or Humphrys interview with the PM for a while then.
117. Poor old McCavity. I’m beginning to feel a bit sorry for him, in the same way that I felt sorry for Callaghan and Major. People who were so obviously going to lose that it became a bit sad to see their career unravel before your eyes. Of course, that Brown is incredibly more dislikeable than the other two makes it a little less sad, but still..
113. Correct, isn’t it blindingly obvious? Interesting Zionist connection in both cases, allegedly - or is that just a coincidence / conspiracy “theory” ?
115/122 - Blair had a very consistent strategy in situations like this. He put himself up for interview and took all the flak himself. Because nobody could ever make anything stick to him, his actions inevitably often got ministers off the hook.
I must say that the threads on pbCOM are so much more pleasant in the late evening. Maybe people are a bit more mellow, but maybe some of the strange creatures who inhabit pbCOM during working hours have gone home.
So what are the socialists in the Labour party focused on? Do they have an active plan to reclaim their party?
er not really….The latest issue of Socialist Campaign Group has lots of articles on Abortion and Foreign matters, but nothing on 28 days detention, 0 on Democracy in the Labour party, 0 on improving workers rights, 0 on ID cards, 0 on the European Treaty and no proposals to nationalise Northern Rock (have to go to Lib Dems for that!)
http://www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/
Newsnight: the Man in the White Suit is holding his head in his hands. We are WORSE OFF NOW THAN WE WERE THEN…….
124 - it does seem very strange that there has been almost no focus on the fact that Abrahams had been giving money in this way for years, long before Brown and long before Watt.
I have heard that Harman will resign tomorrow.
Is Marin bell on suicide watch. Seen cheerier looking chief mourners!!
130 Why that late?
128. Yes, Martin Bell oddly convincing on Newsnight. Like a sad old spaniel, shaking his disappointed jowls. If he thinks this is worse than Major’s sleaze then this is serious stuff.
Cool!
131 - Wouldn’t you be depressed if you’d managed to get yourself in a position where you couldn’t appear in public without that white suit?
130 - So BBC News was that bad then?
132. Doing a Mclaren and sorting out Compensation maybe.
Labour party is finished for 5000 years
wee dougie in the frame!
Harman ain’t going to go, I don’t think. She’s got stickability, and unless something else comes out she’s not going to be holed by this.
“Harriet Harman may pay price for leaving her leader in lurch
Senior No 10 aides are privately furious at the ‘incompetence’ of Brown’s deputy in accepting gifts that others had declined”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2957667.ece
If Harman goes then there’s a lot of jobs up for grabs
Is it four or five at the last count?
130-Can Douglas Alexander, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper and the Miliband brothers please disappear as well? Please. Harriett Harman is harmless. These others are pretty horrible.
126 BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
141 you are moving over to con! N1 tyson
Theresa May; apparently White Suits are in fashion at the moment. I’m expecting Marty Hopkirk to pop up next…..
139 - Frankly it has to be said it was a pathetic effort by Gordon Brown today. Blair would never have left Harman out to dry like that.
91. Benn came 4th out of 6 despite being hot favourite for most of the contest. He only received sufficient nominations from MPs on the last day with the help of his Dad. He finished far behind what was expected of him.
I don’t think Harman will go, but it the spirit of the thread Alan Johnson would be a strong favourite if he decided to run, but I doubt he would go for it. He seemed to lose interest as the contest went on and it became clear it was not going to come with the DPM tag. Linford’s tip of Caroline Flint is a canny one. If Cruddas did run, I think he would pick up many more MPs than last time - an antidote to ‘the tufty club’ inner circle - and would be pretty tough to beat.
I really hope there isn’t another deputy leadership election, but Harriet’s News at Ten performance was awful and she looked empty of confidence.
What’s Paxman playing at tonight? Perhaps he has a disdain for the feral press pack.
Ah, Brown’s chief fund raiser kicked Abrahams out of “labour friends of israel”. So he’s an enemy - not really “linked” in the way newsnight implied
When the opportunity arose for Martin Bell to stand on a anti-sleaze platform against Mandleson, he went for an anti-Conservative seat - and lost.
Martin Bell’s judgment is worthless.
Martin Bell is a bell-end.
141 - Tyson - hear hear.
Why did Harriet Harman say she knew about the problem (as she rather quaintly put it) on Friday, but Gordon only knew about it on Saturday night?
On camera HH said:
We had no reason to believe it was anything other than a genuine donation to our campaign and when we discovered the problem on Friday night we notified the Electoral Comission and we made arrangements today to return the cheque.
Earlier GB said
I knew nothing of these donations, I had no knowledge until Saturday night
Stories straight?
148-Brown must be relieved!
151 - Well Gordon Brown was in Uganda. Pigeon Post isn’t great these days.
150 - is this SeanT or Rik in disguise???????
Can I please start a save our poor Duchess Harriett pbCOM support group?
Geoff Hoon. Geoff bloody Hoon. Jeez Louise.
155 - count me in. I’m in love with HH.
155-Of course you can, but I’m not sure who would join! =)
157 - maybe not seanT or rik
Is it falchikov????
“So what are the socialists in the Labour party focused on? Do they have an active plan to reclaim their party?
er not really….The latest issue of Socialist Campaign Group ”
The future of Labour Left is not the Campaign Group. The SCG is actually dieing. They’re 24. 6 are retiring at next GE, 1 has been deselected, another 1 is on the verge of being deselected and another couple are in marginal seats. And almost all remaining ones will be over 60 in the next term (Katy Clark being the notable exception)