What the Sunday papers are saying
March 30th, 2008
Politics in the newspapers as Summer Time begins
The Sunday Times reports that a leaked Home Office memo shows that hundreds of illegal immigrants are working in care homes in the UK, while Brown has been condemned as “stilted and lacking personality” by one of his own Downing Street insiders.
According to The Mail on Sunday, Westminster insiders privately predict that the scale of the expenditure on refurbishing his residence could be the final straw for the beleaguered Speaker, following a leader in Saturday’s Daily Telegraph calling on Michael Martin to step down.
The election in Zimbabwe receives much coverage, with the MDC claiming to have won the poll, amid allegations of widespread vote-rigging, while closer to home, the Independent highlights the long-running investigation into Bertie Ahern’s finances that could bring him down, with his secretary breaking down in the tribunal witness box.
Finally, the Washington Post is reporting Hillary as saying she may challenge Obama all the way to the convention in August, which must surely delight Republicans. “I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan, … and if we don’t resolve it, we’ll resolve it at the convention.”
Guest Editor’s Note
As you know, I’ll be looking after PB while Mike takes a break in the Somme département, although hopefully he’ll be able to play more than a cameo role this week.
If anyone would like to submit an article on UK, US, or international politics, please drop me a line at electiongame@yahoo.co.uk - many thanks.
Paul Maggs “Double Carpet”
Guest Editor
MessageSpace Advertising
Test
What on earth is going on in Downing Street? In the last week I’ve read at least half a dozen stories about feuding inside the bunker - and there’s more in the Sunday papers. Carter has kicked out Livermore. Moses has upset Darling. Carter’s PA is getting paid more than Brown’s longstanding advisors. Carter’s new sidekick has been leaking stories to PA Week. Austin and Watson have been forced out of their offices to make way for the Brunswickistas. Collins has refused a request to return to his old PM speechwriting role, saying ‘Brown needs a magician, not a speechwriter’.
The whole thing has the stench of terminal decline.
yes, for a new pr guy he’s generating lots of bad of.
“Lifeless Gordon Brown”
From today’s Sunday Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3646521.ece
“he was warned that the prime minister’s voice was so monotonous he could turn “the lyrics of Agadoo into a funeral dirge””
THE PRIME MINISTER: Ag-
SPEAKER: Order Order!
THE PRIME MINISTER: There has been a 43.7% increase in the pushing of pineapples…. (shaking) The Treaty Ag-
SPEAKER: Order Order!
THE PRIME MINISTER: As I said, there has been a 43.7% increase in the pushing of pineapples since 1997…. I will take no criticism from the party opposite on the grinding of coffee, which is up 8,378% since they were last in power…for the benefit of all families in Britain….
stability…..stability…..stability…..stability.
(Dancefloor empties….)
THE PRIME MINISTER: Er…its fun to stay at the YMCA…?
[Thought for the Day: Could there be anything more hilariously incongruous than going to a wedding and finding the DJ’s at the reception were Gordon Brown and Alas Darling?]
Interesting story in the Indy.
http://tinyurl.com/3y6cgp
Latest unofficial returns from the Texas County Conventions 72% 0f delegates selected and 47% of Counties reporting in by midnight:
Clinton Delegates 2436 = 44%
Obama Delegates 3107 = 56%
On this basis the original estimate of Obama winning the overall total number of Texas delagates by 5, (Primary and Caucus,) appears being confirmed.)
TOTAL
2,436
3,107
5,543
133
PERCENT
43.95%
56.05%
72.31%
46.13%
With 72% of Texas convention delegates allocated Obama leads Clinton 56%/44%. Reporting has now finished until later today :
http://www.burntorangereport.com/
Re 6. Sorry about the pasting.
End the posting at the close bracket and ignore the rest,
6 dave(s).
So Obama won Texas (eventually).
Now Mr Clinton - what did you say about Hillary having to win both Ohio and Texas to stay in the race?
Of course, we all know that only the English read Sunday newspapers Paul. Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are just little provincial hell-holes, and Scots especially have a great thirst for the wonderful, authoritative, impartial London-based media: we just cannot buy enough Observers - PLEASE send lots more, as a matter of urgency! That the Observer has about 0.00001% of the Scottish Sunday newspaper market has nothing to do with unpopularity, and is all down to medieval Scotch logistics, as England’s gleaming motorways turn in to Caledonian dirt tracks as the truckloads of shiny new Observers cross the border.
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/03/30/labour-leader-wendy-alexander-fights-back-with-a-big-left-hook-78057-20366773/
http://www.dcthomson.co.uk/MAGS/POST/postindex.htm
And Wendy “10-out-of-10″ Alexander admits: “We all know Labour candidates are sometimes chosen by only a handful of activists.” Yesterday she was admitting that not only was Old Labour dead, but that New Labour was also croaking it. She is a wonderful boost for morale for the dwindling band of Labourite activists.
Where there is “one Labour MSP” speaking to a journalist, you can guarantee that at least 20 other Labour MSPs are thinking exactly the same thing, but keeping their mouths shot, for now…
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2157004.0.wendys_answer_to_the_snp_challenge_socialism.php
It would be great if we got a post on how the Italian elections are playing out during the next week. Do any of our Italian correspondents wish to step up to the plate? Please?
I know I have been speculating for a while that Gordon Brown might be replaced before the next GE. This remains unlikely but in my view is Labour’s only hope of avoiding defeat. The public do not warm to him and he lacks the qualities required of a modern PM, the principal one being that you appear good on the telly and comfortable in the role.
I have suggested Jack Straw as the best available alternative. He isn’t brilliant by any means but appears to be the best alternative heavyweight option.
Will Labour MPs faceup to the inevitable choice that now faces them or will they continue to sleepwalk to disaster and defeat?
11: Stuart only you could be so chippy at this time in the morning. Some Scots log on here to get away from the Scottish media and see what the big boys are up to.
13 You are right, of course, StJohn, but I can’t see it happening. Might have been different if they’d had an election and there had been some real opposition to Brown, but having waved him though, it would be very difficult for them to admit a mistake now.
They’re stuck with him, I’m afraid.
15. Peter. Therefore he needs to be persuaded to fall on his sword. Problem is I’m not sure he would respond very well to such advice!
If, as is quite possible, the next series of polls show Labour and Brown’s positions worsening, we could yet hear the unthinkable being voiced.
2: I was at university with Carter. He had no interest what so ever in politics. He was bright but not especially so,vain,and very driven. No matter how much experience one has in business, experience at the coal face of politics is essential. Political hacks dont work the same way as business people.
Things may have changed for Carter but in the early 80s at the height of Thatcherism he could not have cared less about politics. His only focus was on his career after uni.
jacqui smith falling apart on the Marr show. What a hopeless case she makes for the new terror bill. doomed to fail
Guido at his very best…
http://www.order-order.com/2008/03/if-jacqui-has-done-nothing-wrong-she.html
14. His Eminence - “Some Scots log on here to get away from the Scottish media and see what the big boys are up to.”
Thank you for that! You perfectly sum up the problem for Scottish Tories
The media narrative and political environment in Scotland is so profoundly uncomfortable for you that Scottish Tories simply cannot bear to even read the papers, but instead have to resort to explicit escapism. You may consider London to be the playground for “the big boys”, but the mental map of the Scottish National Party sees the direct connections between Scotland and the world.
To use an airport analogy: you can take your feeder flight to the Heathrow hub (unless it is closed for business again that day), while we want to take the direct service. The average Scottish traveller agrees with us, not with you and your Unionist chums in the Lab-Libs.
I had a quick look to see if there was any particularly uncomfortable news for the Tories in the Scottish press today, but they seems to be utterly absent from the headlines. All the talk today is about Scottish independence and/or the Scottish Labour Party conference. Conservatism is simply not on Scots’ agenda.
16. The unthinkable has been voiced for some time, but as PtP rightly says, Labour’s stuck with him.
Brown didn’t wait for as long as he did to get the job just to give it up when things get difficult. His ability as a politician to do the job of PM might be questionable, but his ability as a politician to win the game of internal party politics is unrivalled - witness his unopposed election. He has a vice-like grip on the Labour Party and can’t be forced out: there’s just about no way it could be done without his consent because of the inflexible party rules. Unlike the Conservatives, who can dump a leader when the MPs feel it is time to do so, Labour has to go through conferences and all sorts. It is messy and time-consuming and couldn’t have been designed better if the intent was for the procedure not to be used.
There is also the question of who will follow him. Straw was an adequate Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary, though his involvement in the lead-up to Iraq will count against him, but the best that can be said is that he’s a safe pair of hands. What he is not is the sort of person who can command the Commons. If Brown’s delivery is halting, Straw’s at times sounds like an old car trying to start on a cold, wet morning. PMQs would become something of a mismatch. Like Brown, he’s also been in the cabinet since 1997 - I wonder how much of Brown’s poor performance is simply down to his being a bit worn out. Straw is also five years older than the PM. After that, there really is a cabinet of second-rate and under-experienced ministers. Frankly, it doesn’t look good for Labour after Brown goes. Of course, were Blair still in the Commons it would be a different story, but he’s not.
And that leads to the final point: the division between Blairites and Brownites. I expected this division to heal after Brown won because it was not an ideologial split, but one based on support for the two individuals. Once one of them departed the scene, I expected that there wouldn’t be anything worth arguing about. Obviously, I got that wrong.
Now imagine a scene with not just disenchanted Blairites, but disenchanted Brownites as well, add on a 10-point deficit in the polls and continued problems with ‘events’ (an economic downturn is happening and decisions will need to be made about spending whoever is PM), and it’s difficult to see why things should get better for Labour with a new leader.
Gordon will stay and Gordon will lose.
Meanwhile, heres Clive James with (hopefully) the final word on Bikegate;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7318138.stm
13 - Perhaps if Michael Martin steps down as Speaker he could return to the Labour benches and run for leader.
23, bit like Labour escaping from firing squad by jumping over the wall, only to land in a minefield.
16 stjohn - Admit it, what you’d really like to see happen is for Brown to resign on 1 January 2010 so that you (and I) collect big time and for Mr Straw to then succeed him, immediately offering himself to the country. He is then returned by a grateful and relieved British public.
18. jacqui smith’s always bene useless, god knows why she’s home secretary. I’m just looking forward to harman v hague, I have a feeling hague’s going to wipe the floor with her without even trying.
26, because she isn’t a threat.
Spitting Image/Headcases [think that’s the new name] spoilers:
Apparently Jacqui Smith’s breasts increase in line with the terrorist threat in the new CGI version of Spitting Image:p
I read in one article that it was uncertain whether it was Hague, May or Maude who would face Harman. They’d be nuts to put forward anyone but Hague. May’s not great and Maude is dreary.
11 Given your views Stuart, it seems logical for you to set up
http://www.scottishpoliticalbetting.sc
as a precursor to
http://www.politicalbetting.sco
Scottish politics clearly deserves its own, independent, politicalbetting blog.
25 He would certainly be returned by a grateful and relieved PfP and StJohn!
In their respective forthcoming memoirs, both Tony and Cherie Blair have the ability, some would say opportunity, to cause Brown deep and lasting damage. I very much doubt either will have such a “Howe” moment.
I was genuinely surprised by Brown’s use of obscene language in his blazing rows with Blair, as reported in the biography written by Tom Bower, but this apparently continues to be a problem in his dealings with civil servants according to today’s Sunday Times.
28 Gwynfa
Given the reputation the Scots have for short arms and deep pockets it is difficult to imagine that very much betting would actually take place on such a Site. One can imagine the posts…
“I think I may have half a groat on young Salmond to retain his seat in the Scottish Parliament - a bit reckless I know, but I’m feeling mighty confident.”
Even if he resigns, Gordon Brown and his side-kick Alas Darling have already embedded Labour as a by-word for failure in the mind of the electorate. I’m torn - from a party position, I’d love Brown to stay and to lead them into an election campaign, because his position is not capable of salvage. But I also fear the damage he will do if he stays until 2010, trying ever more desperate “initiatives” to gain some momentum. (And because in the competition I predicted he would go late June this year, based on the idea he’d be forced to play the “ill health” card after the head of steam created by a truly dreadful set of May locals! But then I also predicted a Cabinet reshuffle for February and for Rudi to be the Republican candidate by now, so that is me blown out the water….)
28. If it relieved us from the endless whining, then great.
30. But Howe only did that because he had an achieveable end in sight - the removal of Margaret Thatcher as PM and party leader. It was not a speech designed to inflict unthinking damage, or even - as Lamont did - to give a brutally honest appraisal of the situation without offering solutions.
Neither Blair would do anything to improve Labour’s situation by damaging Brown, unless they, like Howe, could force him out and replace him with someone better. They can’t do either, and would only damage their own reputations in the process. Of course, once Brown has left the premiership, it becomes a different matter. Bets on a Christmas 2010 publication?
re 11 & 28. We cover Scottish affairs when there are things to bet on or when developments in the country affect other betting outcomes.
Stuart was moaning last week about how we had ignored last year’s Scottish election. I checked and it had been featured in 28 separate articles in April and May.
But betting on on those election was amazingly light and looks set to be swamped 20 or 30 fold by the London Mayoral election or 100 to 1000 fold by the White House race
We can’t get the Scottish Newspapers in London, so you’ll just have to put up with the London press, Stuart.
I doubt even the Scots care what Wendy Alexander says.
First- apologies for writing an obnoxious, drunken rant at the end of the last thread last night . Had a very bruising encounter with some old friends.
21- david- as ever a good post. I think though the prospect of going into an election campaign with Gordon at the helm, with Harriett not far behind, must be a terrifying prospect for Labour MP’s. At least if they get a different leader they can think that they have had their best shot at things, even if they do lose.
Gordon Brown if he stays is going to lead Labour into electoral carnage, and in doing so will bring the party to the abyss. It will be a pathetic sight to see Gordon campaigning as Labour leader, and one that I for one hope (and I am sure many inside the Labour party) not to see
34 “But Howe only did that because he had an achieveable end in sight - the removal of Margaret Thatcher as PM and party leader.”
er…. quite.
David - were there to be a ground swell of opinion over the next 12 months amongst Labour MPs that Brown should go, why do you doubt Blair’s active input might not have a very real part in bringing this about?
People are delusional if they think Brown is the problem.
A change of leader would have one purpose, call an election on the back of a (brief) honeymoon. That is a solution based on exploiting temporary voter shifts when given something new, rather than removing Brown’s negatives.
I think all the evidence you need that Brown has complete mastery of the supine Labour benches is the deafening silence from current MP’s about their plight.
Think back to post Wilson; or the late 1980’s at the end of Thatcher, the end of Major and even the last year or two of Blairs time and in every case their was a string of back benchers prepared to admit their leaders shortcomings on and off the record.
Brown? - the odd past cabinet member and off-the-record mumblings from one or two past Blair favourites - and that is it.
He has got his party by the proverbials.
39 “People are delusional if they think Brown is the problem”
So Alex, in your considered opinion, what is Labour’s problem?
40. Did “post Wilson; or the late 1980’s at the end of Thatcher, the end of Major and even the last year or two of Blairs time” help any of their parties? Or the one who came after?
If the Labour party are smart, they’ll keep united and quiet and lose. Everyone loses eventually, better to lose now and come back stronger later than to condemn yourself to years in the wilderness and infighting.
40
..for now, as there is still the belief by Labour MPs that Labour can make a comeback, lets give it another 6 months of probable double digit Tory leads and Labour hovering under/at 30%, and I think we will start to see a change…
40 Marcus,he’s only been in the job a few months, give’em time, give’em time to admit he’s not up to the job.
25. Peter. That scenario would sit quite nicely with my betting portfolio. The perfect sequence of events would be Brown to go this year,(16/1), be replaced by Straw,(50/1) and for the next GE to be in 2010.
This last outcome is the most important to me from a betting point of view so I probably shouldn’t be hoping to collect on the first two as that could result in an earlier election.
No, Brown’s continued leadership suits my bets fine; including 9/4 Tories to win most seats and 11/4 a hung parliament.
41. Labour is Labour’s problem.
They have no policy that can change the current economic situation - they can only hope to ‘tough it out’.
43 MTF - snap!
39- people are delusional if they think that Brown is not the problem.
The worst part of Brown is that in a matter of weeks he gave credibility to a remarkably lacklustre Tory leadership. One speech by Osborne on IHT, and one by Cameron without notes were enough to derail Brown, and hand the Tories the initiative. All they have to do now is throw mud at Bron until the GE. They do not need to come out with one more policy.
41. I can’t speak for Alex, but Brown is just the repository for the problems that Labour is experiencing. There is a dearth of ideas and experience in the party. Labour party membership is tiny and there isn’t the level of support in order to wage a successful campaign. There is an economic downturn. They have been in government for three terms. Replace Brown and all of those statements will still be true.
Pelosi has said the Super-D’s will make their call as soon as the last Primary has finished on June 3rd - it won’t go to the Convention:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6049736
Uncommited Super-D Bob Mulholland says that whoever is 50 or so ahaead, the Super-D’s will plump for. Well that kills Hillary stone dead. No way does she get that close.
40 - I don’t know about that. I’ll bet there were many many Tory MPs in the 90s who would take a completely different attitude (especially with regard to off the record briefings). It’s all to easy to make criticisms, but unless you offer viable, and not speculative, alternative solutions then you get nowhere, and only encourage civil war. That’s why in many respects John Redwood should get more respect that he is often given for standing for the leadership in 1995. Until somebody actually gives the backbenchers a serious viable alternative to Brown, it is admirable IMO the loyalty that they are demonstrating.
I do however agree that those who actively worked to discourage a leadership contest at the time of Blair’s leaving have done the Labour Party a great disservice.
31 LOL!
BTW the reason Scots retain the one pound note is so that when at meetings of Scottish fraternal organisations they take up a paper money collection, they don’t need to put a fiver in.
39. Actually Alex has a point.
Labour thought that Blair was the problem and Brown would fix everything. Now they think Brown is the problem. A Labour friend said that things would have been different under John Smith.
It seems the common factor isnt the leader. Its the policies.
Brown isnt the problem. Labour is the problem. Blair was just better at PR, Spin, Lies and Coverup.
Tyson , if you mean your 376 yesterday: sounds reasonable enough to me!
46. I don’t think any party has a policy that can change the economic situation. But i think the tories are the worst off from a philsophical view. Remember the response to NR, where they kept changing their viewpoint and eventually came up with administration (!). Even the relentlessly free market republicans ended up interfering in the market for the take over of Bear Stearns. I imagine on the other side of the credit crunch our political landscape will have changed completely. The depression gave us keynesian economics, the oil price shock gave us monetarism, we’ll get something new this time.
49- G- though you could say the same about the Tories. All those policy reviews, and for what? IDS rumbling on about social justice. Cameron and Osborne have become good at negative politicking, nothing more.
45 stjohn - Expressed thus, what a wonderful range of bets you have. Little wonder that you have so kindly offered to co-sponsor the inaugural Midlands PB.com party.
For my part, I promise to recite in person the all-time classic Brummie “kipper tie” joke.
15 & 16 Depends on Brown really. We’ll know by within 9 months. Either he’ll have pulled the fat from the fire, he’ll have retreated into a delusion that something will turn up or less likely he’ll bail over the side. I am not at all sure Straw would the candidate to win. Cameron is not Kinnock. Straw strikes you as the “let’s try and keep the score down” candidate. That said he’d probably still do better than Brown
11 With Scotland’s small and dwindling population, including a scotish newspaper is like including the Manchester Post..
Actually anyone picking up a “Scotish Mail” or “Scotish Sun” will know how provincial they are. Scotish this and scotish that. Anyone reading may forget they are in scotland.
Clearly for national issues, national papers are relevent. For devolved issues, devolved papers are of interest.
56. Cameron is everyone’s best friend. He’s a social liberal conservative. He’s an empty vessel which everyone can pour their own hopes into. He’s in favour of every position except the ones you disagree with. He doesn’t need to put forward policies, he just needs to not be Brown and to not be Howard either. And he’s doing that very well.
55 I don’t think any party has a policy that can change the economic situation. But i think the tories are the worst off from a philsophical view.
Clearly a partisan view and clearly not true.
49 - I agree.
To that i would add that for several years THE major factor in Labour’s electoral appeal has been opposition to the Conservatives. Their first term represented their high watermark for attracting support based on their own performance, and that they know that is evident in the list of “achievements” that are cited whenever an opportunity arrives - all first term stuff.
Since then they have received some grudging approbation for taking “tough decisions”, but basically they have survived on people having done well in the economic boom, and being forced to give the Govt credit for it (even if they were slightly doubtful), and the shambles that was the Conservative Party. Hearing Labour ministers hold forth on “competence” is always amusing, and the fact that they try so often to rely on it is proof that the whole thing is a bit of a con trick.
With the economic downturn and people prepared to look at the Conservatives as a viable alternative, it’s no surprise that they are in trouble.
58
Straw (IMHO) is the only possible alternative, but it would need others to stick the knife in, Straw would have to keep his hands clean.
Ironically Brown going would probably be just as damaging as him staying. I think they are knackered whatever they do. Only an economic miracle can save them, and I don’t see one on the horizon.
60 Sounds more like Tony Blair.
Bolted Horse- of course Labour’s popularity is being eroded by being in a third term. And Blair had past his sell by date. And a Tory victory at the next election may well be now inevitable- I am inclined to think so.
But Brown is such an appalling excuse for a leader- on par with IDS. The Tories got decimated at the 2005, but very few were critical of Howard. Labour must do something similar and give themselves a fighting chance. An election campaign spearheaded by Gordon is just unthinkable.
Watch this to see how far Labour has come in 12 years..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW1If1K-kLE
If only he hadn’t died.
63 No they can’t stick the knife in. Brown would have to go voluntarily and yes I mean voluntarily. Anything further would split them apart and make the Tory task which is still a tough one in seat terms to get a cushionable majority very easy
61. The cause of the problem was weak regulation and too much liberalisation of the financial sector. Something the tories are philosophically closer to than Labour.
The problem was exacerbated by Brown’s failure to intervene early enough. The tories from a philosophical viewpoint would not intervene at all. The financial times and the economist, hardly socialist papers praised nationalisation of NR as the least bad option.
The weekly standard has claimed that the credit crunch signals the end of “free market purism”. Something the Tories are philosophically closer to.
That’s my case.
65 - 1992 was the election Cons should have lost. 2005 is the election Lab should have lost.
Brown is indeed dire - as bad, in different ways, as John Major and IDS.
64- exactly- Cameron is a pale imitation of Tony Blair.
68. What pitiful stuff.
69 - Labour were helped by the ineptness of Kennedy during the campaign. Had Kennedy shown the purpose and determination he did in 2003, it would have cost Labour dear, and set a very high benchmark of support for the LDs next time round.
60. G. I completely agree with that description of Cameron. And it would have described Blair to a tee also prior to 1997 GE, where he needed to not be Major nor Thatcher, nor Kinnock.
An empty vessel, a tabula rasa, a clean sheet, a fresh start. Call it what you will, he is the change candidate and the public mood is ready for change.
65- John Major wasn’t dire- he won an election in 1992, and won it well. His party was dire.
Now Brown- had a united party, a press honeymoon to die for, an opposition in tatters (circa August/ September) and he blew it in matter of weeks through appallingly incompetent leadership. All his own doing.
In fact I would probably have to rate Brown as the most incompetent political leader in memory. I just do not think there are any parallels in the UK or internationally in a mature democracy.
Can anyone here think of a political leader worse than Brown- and remind yourselves of what happened last autumn to remember just how bad Gordon is!
68 No amount of regulation would prevent someone from making a bad decision. The man in Whitehall is just as capable of messing things up as a bank chief executive.
63 Just don’t see Jack Straw as Labour leader or even more PM. He is a Vicar of Bray, changing stance as the wind changes, is a poor public speaker, not a good manager and his record in the Home and Foreign Offices wouldn’t strengthen Labour.
Brown’s problem is that he shared with Blair the reasons for a decline in Labour support to 35% and to expect him to transform Labours prospects was unrealistic. I kept saying in 2005 & 2006 to the pro-Brown Labour posters that he’d disappoint them. 2005 election was a failure for Labour, disguised as Howard failed the Tories even more. Have a look at Polly’s column of Friday May 6 2005 - it recognises how badly Labour did but there is still all that hope that just removing Blair and replacing him with Brown would invigorate Labour again, ending with hope for electoral reform.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/may/06/society.election2005
Brown has never been the answer but neither is he the problem; Labour lost much of its support pre-2005, it has done nothing since to reclaim those voters. The best it could hope for was that the Conservatives would continue to ignore the centre ground and do worse than them.
74 No, John Major was dire - his party were abysmal.
69 If Ken Clarke had been leader 2001-2005, the Tories would have opposed the war in Iraq and have won the election in 2006. The IDS-Howard partnership saved Labour’s bacon.
76 Indeed Labour lost more support pre 2001, than 2001-2005.
68 Well, its true that Cons are fortunate and didnt win 2005. Tough unpopular decisions need to be made. A mess has been made and there is a dirty job to clean it up.
But consider the cost to the economy of Pension fund tax, Blair giving billions to the EU before leaving, European Human Rights in law, Northern Rock, Political Correctness etc
Apart from the waste, leaving Britain without reserves, Lab has chased off wealth generators to emigrate.
75. Yes but it was successive bad decisions by those in the private sector which led to the current problem. The current problem was caused by the market failing to properly price risk. Unfortunately with our modern economy risk can not be priced as it used to, the government can not allow a bank to go under. If NR went under, the problems would not just be confined to those who made the bad decisions they would be experienced by all of us. Privatisation of profits, nationalisation of risk. So risk must be re-priced and a number of our old assumptions no longer hold true. I do not know what the answer is to our current problems, but free market purism isn’t it.
46 - G March 30th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I think that people are being a little hasty about NR. Nationalising it was the (eventual) choice of two Parties - that does not make it the right decision. Only time will determine that.
For my two-pennyworth, the jury is still out. NR may yet lead to Vince Cable and Darling both crashing and burning.
80 Companies go under in a free maket, when their owners/managers make bad decisions. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing. Once the depositors had been protected, NR ought to have been put out of business, like Barings.
74, 77 “Major was bad. No he wasnt. Yes he was. “ Perhaps we should agree to disagree.
One trait Major, IDS and Brown all share - is the inability to know when to leave the dinner party.
They would rather drag their party/country down with them rather than give up the cushy job.
76-Ted- I myself was looking forward to Brown coming in. Obviously Labour were in decline, but the prospect of an unspun, strong, sure footed, no nonsense, weighty, ideologically sound, leader- qualities that I thought Brown possessed, looked appealing.
I didn’t believe the other stuff. Media froth, and malcontent Blairites with their noses put out.
But Brown is non of these. He is weak, vacillitating, calculating, spinning- he is worse than even the most bleak assessments of the Blairites. His announcement of everything, his relegation of the cabinet to a group of pygmies, the way he let’s others take the fall, but is the first to take the praise, his dithering, his changing of his mind, his silly ideas- I could go on.
Brown has long lost any semblance of ideology in an increasingly desperate attempt to pull the initiative back. He is like watching a train wreck in slow motion
Brown is a disaster for the Labour party. I actually feel sorry for the man, but my wish to keep centre left politics at least semi afloat in the next decade completely overrides any personal sympathy for Brown who will leave politics a completely broken man.
82. Yes i agree. But it’s not true for the financial sector which works on expectations and risk. Allowing banks to go under would scare the other banks and drive up the interbank rate putting yet more banks at risk and making the credit crunch that bit more crunchy. Making more people default on mortgages, scaring more consumers and making it that bit harder for businesses to get loans.
85 That is a fundamental basis for a healthy economy. Competence is rewarded. The market will decide.
82- sean fear- how could NR have been put out of business with an 80bn loan book that no other company wanted to touch? The depositers were the least of the worries (in the long run), although a bank run hardly looked good.
You have a NR mortgage right? I have one too. Problem is no one wanted anything to do with these
74. I have to agree.
Brown’s big problem is that he is “too political.” There are certain times a leader has to be political of course, but there are other times a leader has to kind of “rise above it” or at least be seen to rise above it. Brown is incapable of that. The way he stoked up the election fever only to chicken out at the last minute, the way he went to Iraq during the Tory conference, the way he screams and bellows every week at PMQ’s, the way he spent ten years undermining Tony Blair at every turn - are all signs that the guy eats, sleeps and thinks politically. A small matter of running the country comes a poor second to the scheming of Gordon Brown.
So keen is he to get one up over the Tories, he is missing what is right in front of his nose, that he is displaying all the unappealling characteristics of the worse kind of opportunistic, dodgy politican. I don’t believe he can ever win a general election.
82 I read somewhere that N Rock will announce a GBP400m writedown next week as its rubbish assets go bad. It should have been closed upon nationalisation. we now have the worst scenario of public ownership, job losses, losses on the assets and higher costs for nRock mortgage holders. a disaster.
87. Yes, so with its assets effectively worthless, the bank was bust and should have been closed.
77 - If Ken Clarke had been elected in 2001 on the basis of his leadership campaign, it is arguable whether there would have been a Conservative Party to contest the 2005 election.
32 Disagree!
Neue Arbeit [mit Stulpenstiefel]; not Labour
My old Labour was much more fun; we used to row at conferences, heckle the leader and drink beer instead of Chardonay. No wonder its gone to piss. I fcuking hate Tony B Liar, Brownstuff and the rest of the bastards who took over my party. And now, in my dotage, I love the freedom of being independent from parties.
Malcolm
92 “Things can only get better” - “Labour macht frei”
Nobody wanted to do anything with NR in the situation that the government exacerbated and made worse with its meddling and dithering.
Lloyds wanted to take over NR in day 1. Virgin was ready to act. NR should have been allowed to float or sink and be taken at whatever price the market valued the book at.
Only the depositors should have been protected, upto the pre-defined limit. Employees, shareholders and depositors above the limit should have been allowed to sink and fail with the company, same as Barings Bank or any other company such as Rover.
92- Malcolm- I heard that even McCain is older than you! Is this possible?
As a bonefide member of the retired underclass I admire the fact that you can switch on a computer, considering your age. JackW too.
Those glorious Labour conferences- chaired by Heffer, composites and comrades, beer and unions. The leadership sitting at the back looking like sacks of spuds. Thanks for reminding me. Them were the days.
87 Quite easily. It makes no difference to me if a liquidator sells off my mortgage to another lender. There may be financial institutions that are so huge that the government couldn’t let them fail, but NR’s a comparitive minnow. The banking system didn’t collapse when Barings was put out of business, and it wouldn’t have collapsed if NR had been put out of business.
91 IMO Clarke & Heseltine could easily (ideologically at least though not tribally) have sat in a Blair cabinet, that was the Tories problem 1997-2001, they were faced by Tory-lite in presentation (though not in actions). It’s Labour’s problem now, Polly and all the rest believed that Brown was Labour not New Labour, that the battles of the 80’s and 90’s could finally be re-enacted, this time with a Labour victory.
But life has moved on, society has accepted the revolutions of two decades ago, adapted and has new worries, new concerns. Brown, like Clarke, is out of date.
95 - Conferences chaired by Heffer? Wouldn’t you have been about 10 then?
93 Good Point
I went to see TB [dread sickness] speak in Oldham. I was a few feet away from him. I came back and told my friends that the party was being lead by a man who thought he was the second-coming. From that moment I knew. We were all delighted to throw out a corrupt bunch of bastards, but had we all known… had we all known.
By the way, does anybody know how many of the pre-1997 Tories are still in Parliament?
Malcolm
Maybe younger, but I took a real interest in politics in the 70’s. I can remember being distraught about Reagan winning in 80, but mildly amused about Thatcher, a woman becoming PM.
95
Listen, young man, I was around when Frank ‘Typhoon’ Tyson was in short pants and no-one had heard of Northants, and if they had, they probably thought it referred to the area around Basingstoke.
And as for McCain, I’d fought in three world wars before he was born. Remember you are as old as you feel and though I can’t speak for JackW, we feel pretty darned ancient; I guess it was because we worked together on the Rosetta stone [writing it, not translating it.]
Malcolm
88, it’s quite interesting to watch the minor PMQs (ie questions posed by persons other than Cameron and Clegg) because Brown almost always throws in a comparison, criticism or accusation at the COnservative party whatever the question is.
“Does the Prime Minister enjoy socks?”
“Yes, we believe in socks for all, regardless of shoe size, unlike the party opposite.”
He is quite fixated on one-upmanship with the Tories, possibly explaining why he’s so poor at evaluating his own performance and correcting bad habits.
In addition, I agree with what some have said above. The Labour party is the Brown party now, with notable exceptions (Hoey, for example). A change of leader seems impossible. It’s a poisonous combination: Brown’s hated by the country and yet totally dominant in his own party. He must be removed but he can’t be.
The MDC have claimed victory in zimbabwe. Does anyone know if it’s true? Or even if they’re capable of forming a government if it is?
102….long may it remain so!
97 - 97-99 Labour were Tory-lite, or even Tory-heavy, in sticking to spending plans that even Ken Clarke admits the Tories wouldn’t have.
On the Brown v. Labour argument it is a bit of both. Labour are in their 3rd term, they are running out of steam, they are being blamed whenever anything goes wrong. I’ve had this debate before with people and there is no point going over it but taken in the round this government doesn’t have a bad record and I’m sure the history books will show that. But the time comes when people are fed up and want something new. Having saif that Brown is not helping. Quite apart from presentational difficulties he hasn’t done anything. What major policy change has he made? He needed to be bold and use his honeymoon to do something substantial and instead used it to play political games.
I’d be surprised if Labour get wiped out next time, but a lot depends on the economy and the scrutiny the Tories are put under. Polls are less valuable the further away from the election they are because people aren’t seriously thinking about how they will vote. So Tories are clear favourites to win next time but politics is a funny old thing and chickens shouldn’t be counted before they’ve hatched.
I think Labour are stuck with Brown until they get decimated at the next election. Who will be next? Well it depends upon who still has a seat as much as anything else, I would not be surprised if the next Labour Prime Minister won’t be until a couple of Parliaments time and being somebody (like Cameron and Blair) who hadn’t been really heard of when the party lost power.
106 - next Labour leader - say in 2015, 8 years after Tony - how about a punt on Cherie?
Interesting to note that here we are discussing politics in terms of how bad can it get for Labour, Labour meltdowns and so on yet just five months ago they were teetering on the brink of calling an election because they were so far ahead.
Browns fall from grace is either a mirage or a record.
107
looooooooooooooooooooooooool
108, it’s a record. I remember Kellner, some pollster chap, saying there hadn’t been such a turnaround in the polls since the Falklands.
84 - I thought at the time that your perception of Brown was out of kilter with what I knew of your politics, Tyson. I know I pushed you on it strongly because I didn’t think it fitted.
I would actually prefer a labour party of the Cruddas type, at least it’s honest and I would trust them to have principles. I would even be more prepared to vote for them.
103. Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they. Apparently this is on the basis of ‘early results’. This would suggest results from the urban areas. When the results with 110% support for ZANU come in from the rural areas, expect the position to change.
Wendy Alexander has gone and called Labour a socialist party at their conference.
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2157004.0.wendys_answer_to_the_snp_challenge_socialism.php
Does she seriously think that she can play the “all things to all men” card in the internet age?
The Conservatives will use this in the ‘New Labour’ seats Labour picked up in 1997 to convince the voters who were convinced that they were no longer driven by an ideology. Margaret Thatcher effectively made it an insult for Labour that saw them almost drop the term.
Have they just lost the plot all together?
“Does she seriously think that she can play the “all things to all men” card in the internet age?”
Don’t know. But all the other parties think they can too.
I’ve noticed that Cameron is very adept at attacking not just the current leader of the Labour party but also the most likely person to be next. During the end of Blair’s time in office he was always pointing out failings in the Chancellor during PMQs, pointing out the flaws in his character, and infuriating Brown who couldn’t reply. Nowadays he seems to enjoy having a ‘pop’ at Balls, casting him in the role as an over-eager schoolboy. Does he see the writing on the wall for Brown and therefore has turned his attention to his next opponent.
99 “We were all delighted to throw out a corrupt bunch of bastards, but had we all known… had we all known.”
Glad to see you come around - but ir was clear as early as 1997 with the Formula 1-Tobacco affair.
Others could see from the beginning - but like Cassandra many people didnt listen.
115, hehe, I think he just really dislikes Balls, to be honest. Despite Mike’s teasing thread a while ago, Balls will never be Labour leader. Not unless they want to spend decades in opposition again.
Balls is too closely attached to Brown. He would be favourite to inherit the position of Prime Minister from Brown were he standing down after a few years in the job, still popular. But after a pasting in the polls and Brown leaving a discredited failure who never won a single election - leadership or general? Balls star will be tainted by Brown’s failure.
Its still possible he could become Labour leader. Though far less likely I think now.
116
Advice to Cameron and Obama and Johnson.
Stay in the news. Don’t say anything. Don’t do anything. Keep your surrogates on a short lease. Smile a lot. Don’t look sick. Don’t look tired. Don’t just wear dark suits. Don’t just wear red ties.
Shake a lot of hands. Don’t shout on TV. Don’t talk about winning and losing.
Many thought the new Millenium would bring change; but the new century is about to begin. The two don’t always coincide.
2008-2010 will be the change period; it feels, in a different way, a bit like the 60s [1960s, that is.]
Take my advice and all three will win because all three represent change and the politicians will be congruous with the electorate; it does happen occasionally.
Malcolm
People forget that the favourite at one point to succeed Maggie was… John Moore.
Just because Brown likes Balls now means nothing.
From today’s Sunday Times. Atticus.
“Hillary Clinton’s campaign song is Suddenly I See, by Scottish singer KT Tunstall. Just one problem. Last week Tunstall said she supports Barack Obama. Suddenly I see a problem.”
121 - but she’ll change it to her hubby’s song “Don’t stop”.
113. Scotty - “Have they just lost the plot all together?”
I am not altogether convinced that the Labour Party has a “plot” Scotty. They seem to be totally lacking in strategic planning.
You are quite right about the internet age: it is now bloomin difficult to say one thing to one section of the electorate, but deliver a contrary message to another section. You just get found out immediately. This is going to be a big, and growing, problem for the Liberal Democrats too.
123 - and the SNP if there is an independence referendum?
123 - This is a genuine question. Is the SNP working on a strategy should a referendum reject independence, and the Barnett formula be rejigged?
What would Salmond do? I do think he is probably the most brilliant politician in the UK today, but I would be interestd to know how he could get out of this one.
I’ve just watched the Geert Wilders “Islam” film, Fitna. I expected it to be rabble-rousing rubbish, but… well… it’s not. In fact it’s quite powerful - tendentious, inflammatory, and provocative, but powerful.
See for yourself:
http://tinyurl.com/2hjpn9
117 & 118 Sorry, I was being flippant about Balls. I agree with your comments. I think Brown will hang on till an election defeat in 2010. But then what? The Tories took a couple of decades to overcome the aftermath of Thatcher’s departure. Listening to the remarks of Milburn and Clarke there is no shortage of Blairites out there sighing and saying ‘I told you so’, and there is no shortage of Brownites talking about treachery and stabs in the back. Brown’s brooding presence and poisoned legacy will live on after he goes.
113. Scotty - “The Conservatives will use this in the ‘New Labour’ seats Labour picked up in 1997.”
Note: there have been massive boundary changes since 1997. The biggest change is that Scottish constituencies are an awful lot bigger since the number of Scottish Westminster seats was reduced from 72 to 59. But here were Labour’s gains from the Tories in 1997:
- Aberdeen South (the new AbS looks pretty safe for Anne Begg, and her main challenger is now the SNP, not the Tories)
- Ayr (exactly the same scenario as AbS in the new Ayrshire North & Arran seat - Katy Clark)
- Dumfries (Tories could easily take the new Dumfries & Galloway seat from Russell Brown - he looks like a sitting duck)
- Eastwood (a bit more tricky, but the Tories could feasibly take Renfrewshire East from Jim Murphy)
- Edinburgh Pentlands (now the much bigger Edinburgh South West. Alistair Darling may hold on due to the SNP and Tories both being strong challengers here)
- Stirling (Anne McGuire is much more likely to be kicked out by the SNP than by the Tories)
So, to summarise, Wendy “10-out-of-10″ Alexander’s new-found “Socialism” may just help the Tories to gain back a couple of Scottish seats they lost in 1997.
128.
Correction: Ayr is in the new Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock seat (NOT Ayrshire North & Arran). AC&C (Sandra Osborne) could quite conceivably be a 3-way Lab/SNP/Con marginal.
3rd time trying to post this
http://tinyurl.com/2za9bd
an article in the Sunday Herald re Labour’s Scottish Conference by Iain McWhirter
128 - if the SNP are main challengers in Aberdeen South, why did they get only 4000 votes there in 2005 - about 10% of the vote.
In the old seat, still used by Holyrood, they did better, I admit, but they were still 2,700 votes adrift of the LDs who won.
How can you write an “analysis” of the prospects of Aberdeen South without even referring to the LDs?
This is toxic for the Labour party:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/30/nmoses130.xml
Why should an individual whoose wife is employed by Brown get “special access” to voice concern over failing economic policy?
124. SBS - “and the SNP if there is an independence referendum?”
Not a problem there SBS: the SNP has never, ever hidden its light under a bushel
Just ask any Scottish voter what does the SNP stand for? Answer: Scottish independence. No other political party in Britain has such a crystal clear message, universally understood by the electorate. Like independence or loathe independece: your choice. But do not say that the SNP deliver mixed messages!
Labour would quite openly use the word socialist during their time in Government in the 70’s and right up to the disaster that was 1983. After that Margaret Thatcher would bait them with the word as if it was an insult.
It then progressively became less and less used until it became social…ism under Blair. Since then it’s hardly been uttered by a leading Labour member.
I can see it used by the Conservatives in the seats Labour won in 1997 to paint the Labour party as a leopard that doesn’t change its spots, one wedded to an ideology rather than pragmatic government.
It’s a god send for the Conservatives. Not only is Wendy Alexander an asset for the nationalists, she has become one for the Conservatives with this appeal to the core activists.
When a party’s message has to appeal to its activists rather than the voters its in trouble.
133 - fair enough. But I guess Salmond has plans given my scenario in 125. If independence is rejected, then does the SNP disappear in a puff of smoke? Surely not - so what would the next message be?
131 - the Aberdeen South Westminster and Holyrood seat are being confused here. The SNP polled very well last year much to everyones surprise. Anne Begg has a personal vote that may see her offset the dip in Labour’s support. The LD are polling far less than what they did in 2005 and it will be swimming against the tide to win the Westminster seat. I know a few who tactically (including some SNP member)last time to oust Labour and it didn’t work. I think she will hold on.
134 - old school liberals used to refer to Labour as “the Socialists” well into the 1990s. I remember canvass cards marked DEF, PROB, CON, SOC, DK and WS.
136 - thank you Marcia for your very full and clear explanation. It is a pleasure to have an SNP supporter on this site who can offer this. Your contributions are always thoughtful and interesting. I largely agree with them too.
Cameron is playing it exactly right - patience is all that is needed for the time being,however galling. .The election is 2 years away - it would be ludicrous for the party to reveal its hand now.It seems to be forgotten that a manifesto has to be published 4 weeks before the election, probably just after the Lab publication, impossible for their ideas to be stolen - it may already be partly written. Let Lab destroy itself first- they seem to be doing a good job of it.
137.
The Tories still used the term “the Socialists” to describe Labour in 2001!!! Not on computer software but in speaking to activists!
Why not, Martin (140)? Everybody refers to the Conservatives as “Tories” - even you!
131. SBS - “How can you write an “analysis” of the prospects of Aberdeen South without even referring to the LDs?”
Fair call. Sorry, but I was not really trying to provide a comprehensive “analysis”, just a very brief taster.
I was basing my mini-”analysis” (such as it was) on Baxter’s Scottish seat calculator. I do not believe that the SNP support is really as high as all the polls, so I pumped in the following figures: Lab 35%; SNP 31%; Con 19%; LD 11%. This gives all 3 Unionist parties the benefit of the MOE doubt.
On such a Baxter calculation, AbS gives:
Lab 32%
SNP 25%
Con 21%
LD 20%
So, you are quite right that we cannot ignore the Lib Dem influence on Aberdeen South, especially as their Scottish Leader - Nicol Stephen - just held on to the Holyrood seat by the skin of his teeth in May 2007, with one of the largest LD to SNP swings in the whole country!
Note: the Scottish National Party won the regional vote in AbS in May 2007.
133 Stuart - asked in all innocence - is there any realistic chance of some local pacts between the SNP and the Tories at the next GE? Say the Tories stand aside in Stirling and the SNP in Edinburgh SW? And would it work?
141. True! It just made me laugh! It sounds like a disease - Socialism!!!