Should we now be thinking about the succession?
December 1st, 2007
The Saturday columnists make grim reading for Gordon
After a week in which the parliamentary highlight was Vince Cable’s joke comparing the Prime minister to Mr. Bean it’s the day for the Saturday columnists to get their teeth into the fluid political situation.
By far the most devastating read for Gordon is from Matthew Parris is the Times - an article that would carry even more weight if the writer had not been so consistently hostile to Brown over many years.
In the Independent the normally quite supportive Andrew Grice, under the heading “The succession issue is in play. It’s that bad” observes that the “Under the bus game has begun”.
“Labour MPs are gossiping about who would take over if Gordon Brown resigns before the next election. That is how bad things are after a disastrous week for the Prime Minister dominated by the scandal over Labour’s secret donations..All politicians enjoy guessing who would take over if their leader fell under a bus. But just five months into the Brown premiership, it is ominous that Labour backbenchers discuss the relative merits of Jack Straw, Alan Johnson and David Miliband as they stare gloomily into their beer.”
It’s a bit rich for members of the PLP to be even thinking this - never mind talking about it to journalists. For it was they who only six months ago decided, by not nominating any other candidate, that Gordon should get the job without having the bother of fighting a leadership election.
Gordon’s current position, I believe, and Labour’s would have been substantially better if he had had to fight a proper contest against a credible candidate. The very process of campaigning and getting the movement to vote for him would have made him a much better politician and have given him a substantial platform. The PLP didn’t want this so they can hardly complain about the outcome.
Amongst Labour figures in the “next prime minster” betting Johnson, David Miliband, Straw, Benn and John Denham are all at 5/1. It’s hard to see anybody else coming into the frame. If there was a pre-general election leadership contest, which I very much doubt, my money would be on John Denham.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
As long as Brown returns to moderate left-wing policies there will be enough Labourites to support him. His problem is that if he tries to recover by stealing more Thatcherite clothes he won’t win over any Conservatives but will further disillusion his remaining supporters.
1-The problem is that can’t even think about policies, everytime he makes a speech or begins a “fightback”, something “blows up”…
“By far the most devastating read for Gordon is from Matthew Parris is the Times - an article that would carry even more weight if the writer had not been so consistently hostile to Brown over many years.”
Mike, your subtracting from Matthew Parris’ impact might carry more weight if Parris hadn’t been proven so consistently accurate about Brown over many years. The events of the past couple of months are the best possible vindication Parris could have for such hostility. If only the Labour Party had been half so perceptive. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make Brown their leader.
But you are correct in saying that it is a quite devastating read.
O/T-”Don’t be surprised to see Brown concentrating on global issues, says our Westminster insider”
“With an eye on the flood of opinion polls putting the Tories ten points or more ahead of Labour, the Brown camp believe global issues can lift the PM out of the domestic mire.”
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=9673
4 Unless the “global issues” comprise Brown bringing all British troops home from Iraq before Christmas, then I don’t expect it to work. Easy for his foes to paint him as ignoring the domestic concerns of his people.
Advice to Brown? First - a night of the long knives. Your cabal have got you into this mess - cut them loose. Wee Dougie, both Milibands - and lop off the Balls. Promote lots of new blood. But have a rapprochment with one or two heavy hitters. If Harman has to have a Cabinet position under internal rules, then make her Minister for Watching Paint Dry (St.Kilda).
Then, bring the troops back from Iraq. No half measures - all back and back now. Lead the way on party finance reform. Unilaterally - not because new laws say you have to, but because it is right. Stop looking at every action of Government in terms of its ability to hurt the Tories - that approach has given them a ten point lead in the polls.
So you should scrap ID cards - the idea that your promoting them makes you look strong and the Tories weak on national security is simply risible. Whoever in the Bunker has been peddling that line to you should have his head stuck on a pole on the Downing Street gates.
Oh, and finally, honour the Referendum commitment. No more weasel words about it not being the same as the Constitution - that has about as much credibility as the protestations on how Labour’s funding problems were down to one man.
Do these things and you will get enough people calming down to give you a breathing space - and a chance to just govern for a bit. Then people can judge how well you can do that in May 2010.
Absolutely incredible! Huge problems here in the UK that need fixing, and “Walter Mitty” Brown thinks that the way to make us change our opinion of him is to strut around on the World Stage trying to look important.
It’s enough to make a cat laugh.
He has totally lost the plot. (If he ever had it)
Labour accept bribes from crooks in criminal fashion. No wonder the Police around the country have given up fighting crime when our own government thinks that if crime pays, it must be a good idea.
Cameron should make a clear statement that under a Conservative government criminals will not win.
The effect of high level corruption is not only at the top. It hurts the little guy trying to make an honest living when local thugs can operate by bribe and threat to get into control. Imagine how much power people like Abrahams must have in his community by fixing politicians with bribes. He is typical of how Britain is running now, not an isolated case.
All the emphasis of Donorgate so far is on the government’s staggering incompetence in the last 5 months. The people like Parris might have mentioned it before, that Brown couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery. He’s been around 10 years as Chancellor wrecking our economy.
Or didn’t Parris notice that bit? All the commentators were too frightened of Blair to tell the truth about Labour until now, it seems.
Only now when the price of their houses is falling do they start to get angry. That’s why Brown is so surprised. They’v been doing this kind of things for years under Blair and no one batted an eyelid. That’s why there are no denials prepared. All this kind of thing is regarded as perfectly normal since Blair took his funds from Ecclestone over ten years ago.
No wonder the country’s in such a mess.
Re 7 etc : To be polite - shoe repairers. It is obvious that there is an ongoing, concerted programme to discredit the government Donorgate? Hmm, what about Lord Ashcroft?
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,2208174,00.html
Oh, and this post is from someone leaning to the right these days
8. theoldcodger.
Rowlocks!
Apologists for our crooked politicians who try to make it seem OK by pointing at someone else who might be just as ‘naughty’ remind me of the toddlers who stand in their own mess and scream “You made me wet myself”.
Grow up.
Off Topic but well anyway:
A few people have speculated recently about how many seats the SNP may be able to win at the next GE, and whether they will reach the level for a big breakthrough. This reminds me of an exercise I did in 1999: to get a “weighted average” of the 1997 GE results and the 1999 EP election results, I combined the results for each constituency from 1997 and 1999 - not by weighting them with arbitrary percentages, or taking an average (50/50) but simply by adding up the number of votes in both. This therefore had the effect of giving much more weight to the 1997 GE which had a higher turnout. The most interesting thing I noticed was that the Lib Dems (compared with 1997) would lose all of their seats south of the London/Bristol line, and hold all of the ones to the north.
I am thinking that one might get a similar effect if one were to add up the results from a General Election and a Scottish Parliament Election. The big breakthrough which the SNP got (21 constituency seats) would be outweighed by the fact that the turnout was much lower in 2007 than in 2005.
In other words, the idea that the SNP will make lots of gains at the next GE is unrealistic.
On the subject of Labour’s current travails and how and why they are becoming so damaging, I will repeat a sentiment I have previously expressed on here. Surely the main reason is the complete moral and intellectual vacuousness of the so-called “New Labour” movement in the first place? The creation of this entity by Blair and Brown in the mid-1990s was done purely for electoral purposes, and the current government, when shorn of its veneer of competence, is seen as nothing more than an empty vessel with no philosophical compass to rely upon, no ideological framework to fall back into when things are going wrong. There is no “other” element of the Labour Party than Brown’s economic record; Blair’s only foray into ideology was abroad.
When, in the 1990s, the Conservative Party was tearing itself apart, no-one could doubt what the party stood for at its heart: low taxes, free-market economics, privatisation, deregulation in health and education, non-interference from government, and a smattering of social conservatism. (Before people start trying to poke holes in this with exceptions that prove the rule, I will caveat this with the fact that *of course* no government is ideologically pure - my point is that there were coherent guiding principles which undoubtedly held true even for the moderate side of the party). Europe was the only subject where divisions were occurring, though this did prove to become a major issue.
The point is that when the competence image started to disintegrate, there was still an underlying mission, which saw a core vote retained at c. 30% - which under the circumstances was surely more than some could expect. When you think about quite how low the image of the party had reached, the fact that 30% of the population continued to vote for them is actually quite remarkable. And through all the dark years of Hague and IDS, there was still a genuine, understood ‘purpose’ to the Tories. I would submit though that Labour, stands a much more realistic possibility of sliding into a vote collapse if it all goes wrong (note IF, not WHEN), because there is no ‘other’ purpose to this whole sorry mess. Brown can’t articulate a vision because he doesn’t have one; neither can anyone else.
Ironically I believe this fear is precisely what has kept the Labour back-benches so united in comparison to the Tories before. They have no alternative intellectual work to take solace in now; with an end to governing competence there is literally no other story to be told, and their jobs are on the line. If it ends, there may not be another chance for this current vehicle in its current form. The Tories were willing to break ranks and fight because there were points to be made which transcended (for them) the politics of party, which would always live on. With Blair having finally killed off socialism though (and even ’social democracy’ as Polly Toynbee and others have noted), just where does the like of Nick Palmer go? What is his destination? What, is the point of Labour?
Answers on the post-card. Apologies for the lengthy o/t post.
On the subject of Labour’s current travails and how and why they are becoming so damaging, I will repeat a sentiment I have previously expressed on here. Surely the main reason is the complete moral and intellectual vacuousness of the so-called “New Labour” movement in the first place? The creation of this entity by Blair and Brown in the mid-1990s was done purely for electoral purposes, and the current government, when shorn of its veneer of competence, is seen as nothing more than an empty vessel with no philosophical compass to rely upon, no ideological framework to fall back into when things are going wrong. There is no “other” element of the Labour Party than Brown’s economic record; Blair’s only foray into ideology was abroad.
When, in the 1990s, the Conservative Party was tearing itself apart, no-one could doubt what the party stood for at its heart: low taxes, free-market economics, privatisation, deregulation in health and education, non-interference from government, and a smattering of social conservatism. (Before people start trying to poke holes in this with exceptions that prove the rule, I will caveat this with the fact that *of course* no government is ideologically pure - my point is that there were coherent guiding principles which undoubtedly held true even for the moderate side of the party). Europe was the only subject where divisions were occurring, though this did prove to become a major issue.
The point is that when the competence image started to disintegrate, there was still an underlying mission, which saw a core vote retained at c. 30% - which under the circumstances was surely more than some could expect. When you think about quite how low the image of the party had reached, the fact that 30% of the population continued to vote for them is actually quite remarkable. And through all the dark years of Hague and IDS, there was still a genuine, understood ‘purpose’ to the Tories. I would submit though that Labour, stands a much more realistic possibility of sliding into a vote collapse if it all goes wrong (note IF, not WHEN), because there is no ‘other’ purpose to this whole sorry mess. Brown can’t articulate a vision because he doesn’t have one; neither can anyone else.
Ironically I believe this fear is precisely what has kept the Labour back-benches so united in comparison to the Tories before. They have no alternative intellectual work to take solace in now; with an end to governing competence there is literally no other story to be told, and their jobs are on the line. If it ends, there may not be another chance for this current vehicle in its current form. The Tories were willing to break ranks and fight because there were points to be made which transcended (for them) the politics of party, which would always live on. With Blair having finally killed off socialism though (and even ’social democracy’ as Polly Toynbee and others have noted), just where does the like of Nick Palmer go? What is his destination? What, is the point of Labour?
Answers on the post-card. Apologies for the lengthy o/t post.
On the subject of Labour’s current travails and how and why they are becoming so damaging, I will repeat a sentiment I have previously expressed on here. Surely the main reason is the complete moral and intellectual vacuousness of the so-called “New Labour” movement in the first place? The creation of this entity by Blair and Brown in the mid-1990s was done purely for electoral purposes, and the current government, when shorn of its veneer of competence, is seen as nothing more than an empty vessel with no philosophical compass to rely upon, no ideological framework to fall back into when things are going wrong. There is no “other” element of the Labour Party than Brown’s economic record; Blair’s only foray into ideology was abroad.
When, in the 1990s, the Conservative Party was tearing itself apart, no-one could doubt what the party stood for at its heart: low taxes, free-market economics, privatisation, deregulation in health and education, non-interference from government, and a smattering of social conservatism. (Before people start trying to poke holes in this with exceptions that prove the rule, I will caveat this with the fact that *of course* no government is ideologically pure - my point is that there were coherent guiding principles which undoubtedly held true even for the moderate side of the party). Europe was the only subject where divisions were occurring, though this did prove to become a major issue.
The point is that when the competence image started to disintegrate, there was still an underlying mission, which saw a core vote retained at c. 30% - which under the circumstances was surely more than some could expect. When you think about quite how low the image of the party had reached, the fact that 30% of the population continued to vote for them is actually quite remarkable. And through all the dark years of Hague and IDS, there was still a genuine, understood ‘purpose’ to the Tories. I would submit though that Labour, stands a much more realistic possibility of sliding into a vote collapse if it all goes wrong (note IF, not WHEN), because there is no ‘other’ purpose to this whole sorry mess. Brown can’t articulate a vision because he doesn’t have one; neither can anyone else.
Ironically I believe this fear is precisely what has kept the Labour back-benches so united in comparison to the Tories before. They have no alternative intellectual work to take solace in now; with an end to governing competence there is literally no other story to be told, and their jobs are on the line. If it ends, there may not be another chance for this current vehicle in its current form. The Tories were willing to break ranks and fight because there were points to be made which transcended (for them) the politics of party, which would always live on. With Blair having finally killed off socialism though (and even ’social democracy’ as Polly Toynbee and others have noted), just where does the like of Nick Palmer go? What is his destination? What, is the point of Labour?
Answers on the post-card. Apologies for the lengthy o/t post.
Best article picture ever.
Sorry about the repeat posts …
10. Probably true, but are the SNP particularly bothered about Westminster these days?
3 - The Irony is that Labour supporters thought that all the attacks on Brown and character assassinations by assumed Conservative sympathisers were all just a ruse because they were scared of him!
The fact that so many of the sources of the attacks came from people on their own side was rather stupidly dismissed.
People don’t like Gordon Brown. He doesn’t seem to be a particularly nice person.
People don’t respect Gordon Brown. He doesn’t seem to be a particularly competent leader.
People don’t trust Gordon Brown. He doesn’t seem to be a particularly honest politician.
Reports suggest that Brown is to push for Hayden Phillips’ full recommendations on party finance in a speech today. This will essentially limit trade unions to donating 50k to the Labour Party. It is a reckless gamble.
The outcome will be to dramatically cut the funding from unions, erode their influence and stretch the histoic link to breaking point. Nick will know that this will alienate many middle of the road MPs in the PLP, many of whom still have strong union ties. It will provoke a huge row with the big unions and will keep party funding in the news for months. This is not a negiotating position for many but an article of faith. If it goes ahead you will definately see unions try and disaffiliate from the party just in time for the general election. And then there’s the risk that the Conservatives won’t actually go along with it, so Brown will have alienated his friends for nothing.
Personally I think this is an outrage - union money is the cleanest and most democratic the Labour Party has. It is not trade union money that has got Labour in this mess so why on Earth bring them into this? Regardless of people’s views on this matter (and many readers on here won’t care or be sympathetic to trade union influence anyway) there is a broader point. And this is what’s worrying me at the moment about Brown - he’s not trying to fix the problem but is merely displacing blame. He is trying to get some quick headlines and momentum at the expense of all those that have supported him.
Look at the treatment of Harriet Harman this week? This is own deputy and he tried to make her the scapegoat. It’s this feeling that he believes in absolutely nothing but saving his own skin that his behind the collapse in his support. It started with the election that never was and ran through to the inheritance tax proposals.
I recently commented how Brown was safe, particularly because there are few alternatives to him. If he pushes ahead with the full Hayden Phillips proposals there will be a lot of people will be having a good hard search for an alternative. This can be as big as Wilson’s In Place of Strife and Callaghan navigated himself into No. 10 largely off the back his opposition to it. Another could do the same. Over to you Jack.
19: thanks for your post HenryG, cutting stuff, and obviously carrying far more weight than anything written by a Tory cheerleader at the moment.
In some ways Brown is weak in the same areas Ming Campbell was; lack of ability to motivate and inspire, and to convince people that he is concerned about the issues that they are facing day by day; as you say party funding in the headlines for months, again, can’t be a smart Government strategy, can it?
Blair always seemed to me to appear more competent than he actually was, Brown the opposite; even the smallest of negative stories (and plenty of significant ones) are drowning out the Government agenda. This is politically ideal; having someone who looks like they’re making a worse mess of things than they really are means they’re likely to be voted out next time, without doing *too* much damage to the country in the meantime. All to play for at the next election.
Anatole - interesting that Cameron’s Conservative Party is trying to become more like New Labour - no mission except to get elected.
The blame for Labour’s woes is not Blair (Augustus Caesar) or Brown (Caligula) but the Senators who have allowed the checks and balances to wither and have even acquiesced in the death of democracy in their party. Policy making in the Labour Party has always seemed strange to outsiders but the NEC has also become a joke - the position of Dromey says it all. That Brown, and Blair before, has his own fund raiser independent of the party is a further example.
Parties need leaders but the leader should serve the party not the other way round.
When the Save Bedford Hospital party registered with the Electoral Commission, it was made absolutely clear to us what the rules are, and what the penalties are for not following them. I (as party treasurer) get a letter every three months reminding me to update our declaration on both donations and loans, and another reminder if we don’t respond to the first one.
The Electoral Commission has a web site which explains all the rules very clearly. The staff, if you phone them, cannot be more helpful.
In summary, it is not possible to get things wrong “by mistake”.
Our party is run by a small bunch of amateurs, and we can get things right without too much bother. If they can’t run the Labour party, can they actually be trusted to run the country?
21. Difference is, we still know what the Tories are about - lower taxes, less government intervention; and now pretty united on Europe too. Does anyone doubt this? Certainly not critics from the left; nor, now, former critics from the right.
Abrahams in his own words http://tinyurl.com/yw2qny sounds fair enough to me.
Sorry Anatole - Conservatives are committed to Labours spending plans. Higher tuition fees are higher taxes, actually promised no tax cuts plus green taxes, promises to spend more on defence. United on Europe! - have you found the carpet that it has been hidden under then!
All you folks south of the border who appear uninterested in the shenanigans in the Scottish Labour Party really ought to tune in. Have a look at the blogs of the BBC’s Brian Taylor for example.
I especially liked this bit:
“Charlie Gordon MSP says the Glasgow South donation was also a mistake. He says it will also be returned. Mr Gordon says he acted in good faith on both occasions. To be precise, his statement says he acted “in goof faith”. But let’s not quibble over a letter. Or rather… “
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/
This week’s Economist thinks in some ways Major was better than Brown :
“Yet in other ways Mr Brown’s fate may be worse than Sir John’s. The latter at least won an election (and by a good margin in the popular vote, though not in parliamentary seats). Ever fewer pundits believe Mr Brown will do the same. And Sir John left a tangible legacy. The economic expansion that continues to this day began under him, as did the fall in crime. He introduced market reforms into the public sector, and even his policy towards the European Union (remaining outside the euro but sufficiently involved to push for eastward expansion) has been broadly vindicated.
By contrast, it is hard to know how Britain will be different after Mr Brown’s time in office, though this is partly because he has already served a decade as chancellor of the exchequer. He harbours a few big ideas, such as extending the school-leaving age to 18, but seems disappointingly keen on diluting Mr Blair’s promising public-service reforms. A sense of direction enables governments to stay on their feet when times are tough. Mr Brown must acquire one if his premiership is to recover.”
From Patrick Wintour in the Guardian
“With Brown due to hold a press conference the following morning, and with no option to cancel the event, it was agreed Watt had to go. Brown was furious. His sense of morality is so strong, according to one of his ministerial allies, that he will not even buy a lottery ticket for fear he will be accused of corruption if he won.”
Tight bastard!!
Completely OT but I notice that seanT’s piece in yesterday’s Times, When
sex games go wrong is currently the second most read article on their website.
There is no clash between the two. We are committed to a few years of budgeting - but are you saying you don’t believe the Tories are ultimately morally and intellectually committed to a lower tax burden and reduced spending as a proportion of GDP?
If so then you have little to complain about in terms of “cutting services” &c, do you? I realise you are a Lib Dem and not Labour, but surely for you also it reduces the percieved risks of a Tory government?
However these commitments do not clash with the principles in the long term anyway.
Labour MPs are checking out who will lead them should Brown fail. Why the ’should Brown fail’? Failure’s the only thing he can guarantee.
If Labour revert to pre-New Labour, eurosceptic, left-wing, pro-union, at least they will be an honest party worthy of respect who would enforce the criminal law and not leave society defenceless against immigration, crime, failing schools, hospitals Police and so on.
They should dump all New labour material like Jack Straw, Milliband, Johnson and start again. Not sure about John McDonnell but at least he’d be seen as a genuine person, and not a creator of falseness designed only to make it difficult for the Conservatives to hold power.
Re 24 Icarus - I would also like to see a similar personal statement from Lord Ashcroft but I very much doubt we are going to get it. I refer again ( as “the old codger” did in post 8)to the Guardian piece about him:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,2208174,00.html
I suggest all the Tories indulging in the “hypocritical gloat fest” over Labour’s current misfortunes should beware when the media changes its focus to a closer examination of how they are funded.
Re 32: I am referring to post 8 by the old codger.
Quite right, Tapestry (31), when you say, taking about John McDonnell, “……but at least he’d be seen as a genuine person, and not a creator of falseness designed only to make it difficult for the Conservatives to hold power.”
Now plese tell us what Cameron is doing?
Price on Clegg has tightened to 1.31. Huhne is now beyond 4. Did we get any poll details from YouGov on the race or do we have to wait till tomorrow?
Re 22, Barry “Our party is run by a small bunch of amateurs, and we can get things right without too much bother. If they can’t run the Labour party, can they actually be trusted to run the country?”
I agree.
My agent in the May locals had a very tight grip and she will have been very clear on the rules.
Michael White on R4 Today casting doubt yet again on the seriousness of the donor scandal.
Is he worried about his knighthood? Will Blair be having an honours list?
New Labour brought in an awful lot of MPs who have no great ideological leanings, so no reason to hold the executive to account. Their main interest seems to have been in getting their own snouts in the trough: higher wages, better pensions, shorter hours.
New Labour brought in an awful lot of MPs who have no great ideological leanings, so no reason to hold the executive to account. Their main interest seems to have been in getting their own snouts in the trough: higher wages, better pensions, shorter hours.
36 I went to a LibDem function last night - 100% for Clegg. Several had been Huhnatics until recently but the negative stuff and a rather subtle savaging from our local MEP had changed all their minds.
These were all activists too who I would generally have expected to be sympathetic to Huhne.
Great Picture of Brown with Huhne Mike! Don’t you think Huhne actually looks a lot like Mr Bean?
That should be a reply to 35 now of course. I agree Benedict everyone involveed with party funding even at the lowest levels knows laundering donation is illegal, and everyone else knows it is wrong. There are a lot of people telling obvious lies.
Re 42, Jon, “everyone involveed with party funding even at the lowest levels knows laundering donation is illegal, and everyone else knows it is wrong.”
Stunning isn’t it?
It would be nice to believe someone like Peter Watt, but frankly that is just so hard to do.
Just where did they find these people?
29
Having read seant’s piece, I wonder how he can spare us the time to give us the benefit of his views.
Is this the end of Labour, I’d like a pound for every time I’ve heard that!
The Labour party is the ‘bumble bee’ of politics on paper the bumble bee can’t fly, on paper the Labour Party shouldn’t exist, but it does.
The reason it exists? not for its policies, or its personalities, but a genuine and deeply felt hostility and distrust of the Tory Party.
It is time, and has been for years, for the Labour Party to disappear in its present form,(links to the unions etc) and be replaced by a new party of the centre left.
Perhaps when the present convulsions have passed, sensible people, from both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party will see an opportunity to create such a party.
Time to end the division, that accident of political history, created in the aftermath of the First World War, and reunite the radical tradition.
I actually think Anatole is spot on - the whole of the Labour party seems to be about partisan power rather than principle these days. There seems to be no abuse, manipulation, change of the rules or general subterfuge that they won’t try to commit and defend provided it benefits them.
Labour party supporters who are regulars on this site include,I think, Tyson, Roger, Henry G, myself, Gabble, Jonathan, Redflump and of course Nick Palmer. That’s eight. The first four of this list are openly questioning Brown’s ability to lead the party. I think that’s a pretty serious indication of the mess that is Brown’s premiership.
Should we now be thinking about the succession? Yes.
Henry G says “over to you Jack”. Clutching at straws? Maybe. I think the camel’s back that is Brown’s premiership is already broken. If Jack were to take over we may draw short but then again we may draw long. Nothing to lose now in my view.
Re 29, David W, “Completely OT but I notice that seanT’s piece in yesterday’s Times, When
sex games go wrong is currently the second most read article on their website.”
Good article. Interesting and thought provoking.
Tyson’s a LD, isn’t he?
47 As posters pointed out yesterday, if you read between the lines it’s clearly about Europe.
Re 48, Jonathan, “Tyson’s a LD, isn’t he?”
He is now, since he decided that Gordon Brown is a cancer in the Labour party that Tony Blair tried but failed to cut out.
Re 49, Jonathan, “As posters pointed out yesterday, if you read between the lines it’s clearly about Europe.”
I missed that.
You sure its not really about Iraq?
48. Jonathan. I’ve just lost an eighth of my electorate.
Are you happy with Brown’s leadership?
HF @ 37 re downplaying donorgate. I did not hear White but he may have a point.
This is, of course, extremely serious but I’m not sure it is playing that way with the public. It is a fast-developing story but there is still no clear narrative. Indeed, this is the problem which faced Cameron at PMQs: what was his target? Who is the target now? Harman, Alexander or Brown? Mendehlson, Abrahams or Kidd?
The public (or that bit of it I’ve been listening to) seems bemused and unconcerned. The sums involved seem trivial and the people are not household names. Some anonymous Scot has resigned over £950: big deal!
Cash-for-honours was far clearer. The motivation was clear, as was the trail to Number Ten.
What donorgate needs to become a major scandal (rather than merely a technical offence) for the public is some evidence of a quid pro quo, like a link to planning permission.
Goupillon The Guardian has banged on about Ashcroft for as long and often as Nick Palmer has, so it is hardly a change of focus.
The fact remains that the only illegal donations to date have been to Labour. only the Labour party have broken the law so clearly that the leader publicly recognises the fact, only Labour have insitutionalised a breach of the law which for so long that at least two general secretaries have known the secret and maintained it.
The Labour defence tactic of trying to pretend this is a common problem and all parties are tarred with the same brush is contemptible. It is the defence of a bully and will result in more damage to the regard for democratic politics and for its own reputation.
Tke it on the chin, show those broad shoulders and earn some respect that you can at least accept your error and can be trusted to rectify your behaviour. That would be the real way to ‘fight back’.
Instead we will have more smear and spin, dissembling and downright lies.
52 I am happy with and have full confidence in the leadership of Gordon Brown.
55. You missed out unassailable!
Re 55, Jonathan “I am happy with and have full confidence in the leadership of Gordon Brown.”
I see. You think it is that bad
54 Typing before the second cuppa is not a good idea.
31. ‘They should dump all New labour material like Jack Straw, Milliband, Johnson and start again.’
Jon Cruddas?!
Getting rid of Brown is a good idea from a Labour perspective but only if it’s done soon, giving the party a chance to recover before 2010.
However, GB won’t step down without an almighty struggle - or until his evident failure becomes abject - so it’s more likely that the greybeards and backbenchers will dither too long and then cull our hapless PM months before an election.
Glad it’s not my mess.
Well said, Coldstone (44). The Labour movement was set up to represent the specific interests of the trade unions (which is why it unfortunately broke away from the Liberal Party); and almost immediately it was hijacked by Socialists.
Since Blair purged the Labour Party of all traces of socialist thought: and now Brown is - apparently - on the point of cutting the Trade Union link, there really does not seem to be very much point in having a Labour Party as such, does there?
The question is whether there will be a formal merger with the Liberal Democrats or not? I think not, because the pattern of Labour’s collapse is not homologous over the entire country.
In some parts of the country, this collapse is virtually complete and their voters have virtually vanished. Even though they still answer “Labour” when opinion polls ask them which party they support, in practice they have being voting Liberal Democrat for twenty years or more.
So the Labour Party will go out as it came in, not so much a bang as a whimper. And the sooner the better.
Brown is a great guy and doing his best to help the process!
This could be of course Labour’s, ‘Suez’ A PM, Eden, who left office under a cloud, who was replaced, by someone who schemed for the job, Macmillan, who then went on to win a landslide victory.
Things must be bad when both Denis NoShame and James ‘Photoshop’ Purnell both have articles in the Telegraph saying all is well and then trying to distract us from certain criminal activities.
Or Denham might work.
37: White was on the Daily Politics on Friday doing the same, when even Kevin Maguire doesn’t think he can get away with it any more.
57: The reason donorgate is having an effect on how people see Brown and Labour is not its depth but its length. If Blair was still in office the story would have lasted a few days not still be going on.
Seriously… I think most of the events have not been caused directly or indirectly by Brown - whatever people say.
In partiuclar I am glad that the PM does not spend his timing dealing with the mechanics of party funding. So I feel that he has been let down very badly by the party machine that is there to support him. He shouldn’t be bothered by this stuff. It’s tragic that he has to waste his time sorting this stuff out.
The only mistake Brown made was the election that never was. He should have handled that much better.
My main gripe is with the generation below the elder statesmen. Where’s the poltical communicator, wheres the streetfighter? Grey machine politicians to a man.
Colstone Odd reading of history. Eden was the man who schemed for years for the top job and constantly tried to ease out a successful election winning leader. And when at last he got the top job he went into an unnecessary crisis and left office fairly quickly as his health had broken down.
67. ‘My main gripe is with the generation below the elder statesmen. Where’s the poltical communicator, wheres the streetfighter? Grey machine politicians to a man.’
That’s right. Where we once had John Reid, we now have Geoff Hoon.
Jonathan - my point exactly on here:
http://www.marcuswood.blogspot.com
“The Young Ones”
Ralph @ 57 re donorgate: “If Blair was still in office the story would have lasted a few days not still be going on.”
Don’t swallow the Tory line that Tony was a PR mastermind who’d have buried the story and moved on. Cash for honours dragged on for years (and that is betting without Iraq and WMD).
Re 54: Witan - perhaps you can explain to me the “moral” of logic why it is illegal for a Labour politician to accept a donation of £950 from a businessman that resides in the Channel Islands and “legal” for the Tory party to accept £20 million from another “businessman who resides in Belize”?
62
I support much of what you say.
The lack of cash for Labour could force it into doing something I have often advocated. Not running candidates in areas, where it has no chance, particularly in the South and South West of England, far better to let the Libdems have a free run there.
At that point, a sort of electoral pact would develop. Once the two parties get used to an association, there would then be calls for a merger, to present a united front against the Tories.
When the Tories take power, calls for independence in Scotland, would grow stronger. A Labour Party shorn of its Celtic wing, would be a totally different animal, much more amenable to a merger with the Libdems.
The next few years will be an exiting time in British politics,
hopefully it will produce political parties fit for the 21st century and not mired in the 19th.
72 Two errors, we have never acceped £20m from anyone. We don’t have any donors living in Belize.
70 They have a similar problem in the Tory party, Hague Osbourne and Cameron are all production line politicians. Except they have been harderned and made more acute by opposition. They sort of have been forced the hard way to “get it” in a way their Labour peers haven’t. If I was Brown, in January I’d sack the lot of em, with 1 or 2 exceptions.
FWIW Hills have much better prices for most of the names Mike mentions in his post if you go for their Next Permanent Labour Leader rather than next PM market, where you have to factor in David Cameron as well.
D Miliband 1/1
D Alexander 6/1
H Benn 8/1
E Balls 10/1
E Miliband 12/1
A Johnson 14/1
R Kelly 16/1
Y Cooper 20/1
J Parnell 20/1
J Straw 25/1
J Smith 25/1
J Denham 25/1
D Browne 25/1
A Darling 25/1
H Harman 33/1
A Milburn 33/1
C Clarke 50/1
Jonathan Are you telling us that a PM who calls a COBRA meeting whenever the Downing Street carpet needs cleaning, who is almost universally recognised as a micro-manager - not to say control freak - did not have regular meetings with his Election Co-ordinator (Duggie) and his fundraiser (Mendelsohn) in the build up to the Election-that-never-was?
Of course he did.
And you further want us to believe that one of the biggest donors who attended annual conferences and any other party event available, who had his photo taken with Mendelsohn, had met Brown and other party big wigs, was never spoken of? And this despite a special criminal system for dealing with his donations maintained by the last two Secretary Generals of the Labour party?
This is not a small matter. Ignore the dissembling and contempt for the truth.
It is about criminality at the top of our governing party. And you cannot get more serious than that.
67: Though you do have a point, the ‘bad advisors’ excuse has been used by bad leaders for millenia.
Brown chose his team on the basis that they weren’t going to be a threat and now he is suffering because of it. His actions, his choices, his mess.
68
Not odd at all, Macmillan, supported the Suez operation, when it went sour, he switched, and put in the knife.
Churchill, held on because he doubted Eden’s character. Churchill when it came to sexual matters was very puritanical due in no small part to the behaviour of his parents. Eden had several affairs and it was rumoured he was bi-sexual.
I don’t wish to generalise, but people on the ‘right’ do seem to be more sexually errrm, ‘liberal’ until reading seant’s piece, I didn’t realise just how errrm ‘liberal,’
Churchill in truth, was always really a Whig.
73. Ah if only the Labour party would see the light and bring you on board as their chief strategist - victory assured! How can they have overlooked your wisdom for so long?
The inflated opinions of themselves some posters on this site have…!
67. Jonathan. “The only mistake Brown made was the election that never was”. Which one? The Labour leadership or the General Election? Not too keen on seeking a personal mandate is he. Wonder why?
Perhaps 72 should read Ashcrofts book. He is a businessman who donates to a political party, completely above board. His donations are substantially less, for instance, than those of Lord Sainsbury’s to Labour.
His book is clear that a dirty tricks camapaign was organised against him by the Labour Governemnt and promoted by Tom Baldwin of The Times, who was/is a permanent mouthpiece of Campbell. The Labour Government apparently used underhand methods to gain inaccurate information both about belize and other issues.
Ashcroft sued and The Times settled. The book is clear, had it gone to court and Baldwin had given evidence, his well documented cocaine habit would have been examined in minute detail.
The book is a fascinating read as to how NuLab attempted to use any methods to surpress opposition.
Witan @ 77 re did micro-manager Brown know? After cash for honours, it would be astonishing if any party leader were allowed anywhere near fundraising. Plausible deniability, as the Americans say.
74
So can you confirm that Ashcroft actually, has his main domicile in the UK?
i.e. He lives and pays his taxes here.
72 Goupillon Why ask me? It is a Labour law. But it is fairly clear.
To contribute to a UK political party you have to meet the criteria for, and be registered, to vote in the Uk parliamentary elections.
Despite this clear requirement which party accepted donations from such sources.
Tell me which is the only political party to claim not to know the requirements for those donations.
Which political party continued a private,illegal but institutionalised arrangement with an individual donor?
I think you will find in all cases so far the answer is Labour.
Meanwhile Labour’s police state ambitions continue, with the happy side effect of dealing another blow at rural life…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=IE5A0OKETOTW1QFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/12/01/ndrink101.xml
..and a fine example of Roger’s point the other day about the civilising impact of immigrants
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2980432.ece
79 Coldstone “Churchill, held on because he doubted Eden’s character.”
Eden seems a fairly good parallel then to Blair and Brown.
84 “So can you confirm that Ashcroft blah blah blah…Ashcroft blah blah blah…”
Before you can start to point fingers at others, you need to sort out your own house.
87 Is it not true that 50% of the British Prison population are Labour’s immigrants?
88 So is Straw Macmillan and Cameron Gaitskill?
Re Ashcroft (Goupillion and others).
There is an company called Bearwood Corporate Services Ltd (Bearwood as in “Do Bears shit in the Woods” presumably)ultimate holding company registered in Belize
I have written to the Electoral commission complaining that they, Bearwood, which has given more than £900,000 to The Conservative Party since 31st December 2006, is merely a front to hide the identity of the real donor. The company issued shares in the last published accounts at a £4,678,000 premium and seems to be giving this money to the Conservative party.
Interestingly in the last accounts of Bearwood (year to end March 2006) there is no mention of any political donations, but the Electoral Commission lists gifts from them in that period to The Conservative Party of over £250,000.
Should the Labour party succeed in limiting donations to £50,000 watch Individuals or Unions, that want to give more, create “independent” offshoots or companies which will each be able to donate £50,000. I have no doubt that the Labour Party whilst nodding as Gordon proposes a new clean system will be planning how to get round it. Which as long as no one tells the leader (who promises not to lift any stones to look) will be OK.
83 John L You might think so, but that assumes there is a learning process. If there were such a process in the government and Labour party then surely they would have cleaned up the Abrahams situation sharpish when Cash for Coronets was investigated and made sure that all declarations were squeaky clean.
But no! The crooked arrangement continued, Hain and Harman cannot make a straight declaration to the Electoral Commission, Brown’s campaign manager tells his party’s deputy leader about a dodgy donor source to help he out of her financial hole, Brown appoints a fundraiser with a history as a lobbyist and the Party Treasurer still says he knows nothing.
The Labour party was not concerned, after all they were in charge and 2005 proved they could get out of any hole with enough spin and bare faced effrontery and, with a good dose of finger pointing at everyone else, get away with anything - wars, corruption, incompetence, constitutional cockupss, broken promises.
Power corrupts. Absolute power, as Labour have had for ten years…………
84: If Labour had been able to prove that what Ashcroft has done was illegal they would have. All they are left with is innuendo that gets published in the Dependent and the Guardian.
Brown’s pushing 57. Not a good age to be a isolated, frustrated, Scottish control-freak. I think there’s a good chance health may determine the outcome before the voters do…
And as for the ability to learn, it seems rather lacking in the Treasury too:
Details of 9m people’s investments worth a total of £60bn are being sent insecurely through the post, despite recent data scandals, because HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) requires these discs to be unencrypted
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml;jsessionid=BRQF1EHPVZPQRQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/money/2007/12/01/cndata101.xml
84. Once again, Coldstone - because obviously you missed my post to you earlier in the week Lord Ashcroft lives in my old constituency; pays UK taxes and is a UK resident and voter.
Independent says:
“Labour is likely to ban secret “third party” donations when it brings in another law to clear up the mess created by the latest crisis.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/andrew_grice/article3212993.ece
Dont be fooled. Secret “third party” donations are illegal already.
Where is your old constituency Marcus?
95 - “Brown’s pushing 57. Not a good age to be a isolated, frustrated, Scottish control-freak”
In certain parts of Glasgow, Brown at aged 57 would be on borrowed time. In the Calton, the average life expectancy of a male is just 53.9 years…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1691741,00.html
100. Smith keeled over at 55, Cook 59…
Re 94 and other postings on the same subject: I am still waiting for a Tory to explain the moral and not the “legal” justification of Lord Ashcroft’s activities and their attitude to Labour’s current difficulties.
101 And Donald Dewar was only 63. Seems to be a very high-risk occupation, Scottish politician.
97 Marcus, for clarity - is he also domiciled in the UK - you can be resident in the UK & pay UK taxes - on your UK only income - if you are a non-dom……funnily enough, in these circumstances most non-dom’s income is off-shore - and not subject to UK tax.
Why go for Ashcroft the lolipop lady is an easier target!
102 The same as Lord Sainsbury’s moral justification - he has made a lot of money and chooses to spend it in a lawful manner - and in a way which directly assists the British economy, rather than that of, say, Belize.
“Lawful” is everything here, mind you.
How’s life Marcus? You must be working hard not to get too excisted at the moment. It’s been a hell of a year fof ppcs in marginals. There will be a lot fo baldies in the HoC next time.
97 - if you don’t know - his Wikipedia entry says he’s domiciled in Belize:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Ashcroft
So he may be paying some UK income tax - but as a canny businessman, I doubt its much.
All this third-party proxy nonsense has got me thinking. Wouldn’t it be better, if we are going to continue to allow political donating per se, that in future ALL donation must be made through an independent third-party, say, the Electoral Commission. They would hold the money in an escrow account, until the bona fides of the donor are checked, before releasing it to the intended party recipient…
107- jonathan- Marcus has an excellent head of hair, I have just been on his site and seen his picture. Unless of course it has recently fallen off with the excitement of all these events
109 RodCrosby, you would need some figure below which the Electoral Commission didn’t get involved, but if the limit was £5k or £10k, then maybe.
Although I doubt they will thank you for the task!
108: ‘his Wikipedia entry says he’s domiciled in Belize’
ROFLMAO
Well, Witan, seeing as how it’s “contemptible” and a “bully’s defence’ to say ‘all the others are the same’, what do you think Major’s Govt, and the Tory Party did for many years to try to escape from their sleaze trap? The stench of hypocrisy can be smelt even from this remote spot!
Meanwhile the odious Denis MacShane writes in the Telegraph QUOTE- Talk to any Tory MP and as one of them put it: “It’s your turn now, but we all know that the Conservative Party has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lord Ashcroft.” -UNQUOTE
And makes another demand for taxpayers to fund political parties.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/01/do0103.xml
40 Jon - I am surprised you found that. Yes, I have found some have moved Huhne to Clegg, but I have found (probably slightly more) gone the other way, mainly for the reason rehearsed by Ukpaul and others on here, ie that Huhne has more energy to get out and take on others, a feature lacking from Lib Dem leadership these last 18 months(or more, depending on your take).
114: ‘It’s your turn now, but we all know that the Conservative Party has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lord Ashcroft’
If MacShane is going to make quotes up they need to sound like they’re not.
The Electoral Commission cost £26m p.a. already. Achievements to date;
Donations in a mess
Postal votes in a mess (would disgrace a banana republic)
Registration very poor
Scottish Election farcical.
Not sure they are worth £26m
103. One of the brightest and best, John Mackintosh, was only 48….
There seem to be only two sensible ways of looking at the whole funding issue to me.
1) That actually Britain has too tight a set of laws which actually force all - particularly the two main parties - to have to find ways of channeling money into their campaigns. Regardless of what Mirthios at 9 says, there is no doubt that the Tories are equally guilty of finding ways of funneling cash into their coffers and campaigns that are, if not illegal, definitely against the ’spirit of the law’ (Icurus’ Bearwood company being a good example), which was intended to make sure that donations were transparent and therefore supposed to make policy making / promotion of people within parties a matter of principle rather than influence. The unintended consequence of such tight laws is therefore, that all major donations to all parties end up looking ‘dirty’ or suspicious, and as a result all politicians have to defend themselves, merely reinforcing that impression.
or
2. The laws have been too loose for too long as fear - particulary from the ‘big 2′ - of making the laws tighter will lead to a loss of revenue and thus a serious impact on their ability to outshout other smaller parties. Labour have perhaps more to lose on this front, as they have a larger challenger on the centre left than the Tories have on the centre right.
The question is, therefore, what do the different parties want, and why? Do any of them want to sort the situation out to ensure that politics in Britain remains as corruption free as is possible in any country, or do they just want to ensure that their relative financial power is maintained or even increased? These are questions for all parties, but particularly Labour and the Conservatives. Because what is clear, is that the present state of party funding is merely going to lead to these situations happening over and over - because ok, this week it is Labour caught with their hand in the till, but we all know that, if we are honest, that next week it could be any of the others.
And so if this is the case, are there any Tories or Labour supporters here, in the current climate, who are going to make a case for loosening the rules as point 1 in order to make it easier for large donors to ‘legitimately’ give over the cash they obviously want to, with all the baggage of appearing to want to buy elections and exert undue influence on the political system that that approach implies?
If not, and the only viable option is to move to the state funding of political parties, limitations on campaing funding etc. what is the long term impact on the current political make up? With a more ‘level playing field’ for the smaller parties, will their influence grow?
110 It’s a syrup.
We often forget the human dimension of politics. Must have been the most topsy-turvey year for those in marginal seats.
Ashcroft - my old constituency was Windsor which includes bits of Maidenhead and the good Lord was a constituent, IIRC of my Ward (Bray).
I wouldn’t wish to guess his tax details, £700m is a lot of cash and I have no idea where he keeps it, nor do I care.
Be in no doubt whatsoever; he is a British citizen, who built his fortune here, fully entitled under the law to give as much money as he likes to the cause he chooses to support.
The fear that Labour activists have of him is -I suspect- a source of great satisfaction to a man who is completely self made and has enjoyed cocking a snook at the authorities on several occasions in his career.
What is funny is that I doubt Ashcroft intends to give the party another penny; IIRC he has hardly given any money this parliament (he doesn’t need to, there is no shortage of income at the moment) and he didn’t give the party very much last time - his big support came when we were really in trouble back in the early 2000’s under Hague and IDS when he was treasurer and lent a million or tow I think.
As I keep pointing out he doesn’t bankroll anyone, he is managing our target seat campaign which is just making sure resources we already have are sent to the ‘front line’ and used for campaigning and not frittered away by Associations in safe seats on thinks like swanky offices and committee members car park spaces, which used to happen.
113 Tim13. “The stench of hypocrisy can be smelt even from this remote spot!”
You mean like the “stench of hypocrisy” of NuLabour who attacked so-called “Tory sleaze” while in opposition, but promised to be “whiter than white” when taking power.
Since then of course, they have been an order of magnitude worse than the Tories ever were.
If a poll was taken now asking if you think the Conservative party is clean on donations.
I belief the public would say a resounding yes, then they would go and ask for god to forgive them.
Hi Jonathan just seen your post, tthings are fine here, keeping my nose to the grindstone and taking nothing for granted.
I have been opposing Lib dems for long enough to know that you can’t relax for a moment where they are concerned.
I also know that public memories are short, two and a half years is a long time in politics, we need to win over 130 seats to take a majority, and New Labour can and will do anything legal (oh alright then, possibly illegal too if necessary!!) to cling on to power so it’s far from game over.
122 An order of magnitude - hardly. The chariman of the Tory party (Archer) and the Cheif secretary to the the treasurery (Aitken) were sent to prison for petes sake! Until that happens, Labour’s current woes aren’t even close. If a member of the cabinet does time then there is parity.
And look I din’t even mention the Hamiltons.
On the subject of lawfulness, why is it acceptable that a foreigner domiciled overseas dominates the British media and has appears to have admitted promoting his personal views through his frequent interventions to “influence” the journalists he employs?
104 - If this is the case, then what is your objection?
114 - Denis McShane is digging himself a hole. All Ashcroft has to do is make a press release saying that “In order to return political parties to control by the widest spectrum of its members and to add transparency to the political system, neither myself nor any of the corporate entites over which I have control will be making any donations to any political party in the UK. I trust that to add to this transparency, Lord Sainsbury and the trade union movement will make a similar declaration.”
Of more interest in the short term is how is Labour going to make up the £1m it has spent on the Election That Never Was and the £0.65m and rising it has pledged to return. Who is plugging that £1.65m gap? And what evidence is Labour going to make publically available that the £0.65m has been returned - and to whom?
113 Tim13 Thank you, you have just proved my point.
Of course archer was a deputy chairman
126: Remove “has”
bTW - “Capping Union donations” - does this include
1) donations to indivi