Meet the man who made it happen for Obama
June 4th, 2008
Was it Mark Penn’s strategic failure that sunk Hillary?
Lesson 101 of any course on political gambling would surely be “before risking money on an election make sure that you understand how the electoral process works”
What’s fairly obvious for a punter should also apply many times over if you are devising and implementing the strategy for a multi-million dollar campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for a major figure such as Hillary Clinton.
Yet if reports of his thinking are to be believed then the blame for Hillary’s failure, finally confirmed overnight, must be put on Mark Penn - the boss of one of the world’s leading PR firms who until a couple of months ago was running the show. Quite simply he didn’t understand the rules - Barack Obama did.
Just read this from Time: “…. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state’s 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. “How can it possibly be,” Ickes asked, “that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn’t understand proportional allocation?”
Now the attention will be on Obama’s V-P choice and whether or not he goes for Hillary. This one is going to run because the defeat of Hillary who came within a whisker in the popular vote is going to lead to massive pressure for her to be put on the ticket.
Does Barack show that he’s his own man by rejecting this - or will it be better for party unity to bring Hillary on board? It’s a hard call and, technically it’s not for him to make. The decision on who should be the V-P nominee will, like the President slot, be made by the delegates to the party convention in Denver - a large proportion of whom are fierce supporters of Hillary.
Punters betting in the V-P market need to understand the rules. I am long on Hillary because I believe that party pressure will be such that it’s going to be difficult for him not to offer it to her. Some others disagree strongly.
But that’s what political betting is all about.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
In her speech last night, Hillary urged people to go to her website (in the same way that Benedict White might have a blog, she has a website) because she wanted to hear our voices.
I couldn’t resist
However when I got there, there were two options, to give her some money or to tell her how wonderful she was and pledge my support. Even the blog comments poured abuse on the one or two who dared to question her going on.
I wouldn’t touch the Veep market, although a long position on Hillary is sound. He either risks losing a lot of Hillary supporters across the country by leaving her out, or loses many independent voters and blunts the ‘change you can believe in’ message. Not a nice place to be, some alternative role for her sounds like the best of both.
And the Scapegoating begins.
If Hillary’s looking for reasons for he failure, I suggest she starts by looking in a mirror. She and her husband have behaved in an appalling manner, and carried out an underhanded, obnoxious campaign that represents her personality, politics, thinking and manner perfectly.
She lost because of herself. Because she’s an awful person. Trying to now blame Penn for her own flaws will be merely the latest example of this.
And the Scapegoating begins.
If Hillary’s looking for reasons for he failure, I suggest she starts by looking in a mirror. She and her husband have behaved in an appalling manner, and carried out an underhanded, obnoxious campaign that represents her personality, politics, thinking and manner perfectly.
She lost because of herself. Because she’s an awful person. Trying to now blame Penn for her own flaws will be merely the latest example of this.
Hillary Clinton is the logical choice. The question is whether she wants it.
***** C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S ***** to Barack Obama
HILLARY AS A VP
Personnally, I laid my positions with a profit yesterday on VP.Candidate and VP.Elected on betfair, and sold them on intrade also.
I’m the one offering now at 3.6 here : http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=20790558&ex=1&origin=MRL
4. She said she wanted it yesterday, and some Obama supporters were angry at her for leaking that and treading on his news cycle. He may not wish to be bounced into her demand. His speech indicated he would offer her the Health portfolio in his cabinet. His advisers should bear in mind that the Hillary supporters are really angry. Surely he damages himself if he refuses to take her on board. No guarantee they’ll vote for him otherwise.
7 Hillary as VP isn’t just Hillary, it’s Bill & his baggage, plus the Clinton entourage of supporters, many from the 90’s White House. They would be fighting old battles, with a mindset out of step with the Obama mantra of inclusion, of non-partisanship. There would almost certainly be an alternative Court set up round the VP, not always supportive of Obama and sniping at him for the daily deals a President needs to make to get his main objectives. She hasn’t shown herself to be a team player and the Clintons don’t do supportive.
Proeminent political blogger Ambinder a few hours ago:
–> Clinton’s Surrogate Talking Points Includes VP Point….
“Here are the official Clinton campaign surrogate talking points for Tuesday night. They were distributed to campaign allies by Clinton aide Kris Balderston. Note the very careful inclusion of a mention of vice presidency……”
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/clintons_surrogate_talking_poi.php
9 — The Clinton’s Campaign Talking Point about a VP Slot:
“*Today, Senator Clinton was asked whether she was open to the idea of running as Vice-President and repeated what she has said before: she will do whatever she can to ensure that Democrats take the White House back and defeat John McCain.”
As Obama is narrowly my preference for President, I would be very disappointed if Clinton becomes VP. Can’t abide the woman. Obama needs to show some strength, he has won the contest and doesn’t need to offer her anything. Make a break with the Bush-Clinton dynasty, and strike out on your own man!
Still, well done to Obama. At least we can have a Presidential contest where I really don’t mind who wins, and would be happy with either.
Hopefully it will reduce for a time the amount of US election postings to wade through on here too…
8. all valid points. I can see she’d be a nightmare in the WH. But he has to get to the WH to have that problem. IMO, putting her on the ticket makes it a certainty; alienating her supporters makes the election with McCain far more competitive.
In his place I’d take the easy win and then deal with her afterwards. The President can control the Vice-President if he chooses to. Obama is strong enough to handle Hillary.
OT but
“Labour’s prediction for Henley
A spokesman for the Labour Party was saying earlier this evening that Labour will lose its deposit in the Henley by-election to replace Boris Johnson, which is expected on June 26.”
Red Box in the Times
13- You have to feel for their candidate… In the current climate, to be a Labour candidate there is close to voluntary sacrifice!
Kennedy picked rival Johnson. A good precedent? It’s all about tent pissing and reaching the parts obama cannot. Hillary must be a good bet.
“I compared her before to King Kong near the end. No need to hold the tears back. ‘Twas Clenis killed the beast.”
8. That is true, but to some extent beside the point. The point being that Clinton could probably force herself onto the ballot, even against Obama’s preference, if she was prepared to battle that far. She will go into the convention with a huge proportion of the delegates for a losing candidate. They are likely to stand pretty firm for the Vice-Presidential nomination, and she has various arguments to deploy from equality to electability in key states to the natural justice of picking someone who scored so many votes. With as many superdelegates’ votes available, she may be able to swing enough of Obama’s support behind her as running mate.
Even if she can’t, Obama can’t risk the prospect. It might not do her reputation any favours forcing it that far, but it while it might make her look excessively self-seeking, it would make him look mean and petty not to offer her the post. Even more pertinantly, it would be disasterous if the convention foisted on him a running mate he didn’t want and hadn’t proposed. He simply cannot allow that to happen - so it won’t.
The question is: what is the deal he will offer?
The vice-presidential nomination is one obvious possibility, but it would be a poisoned chalice for both. As you rightly say, he does not want both Clintons in the White House, with no job and a rock-solid post. It is a recipe for her to create trouble. But she’d be doing that because she’d be out of the loop. The vice-presidency is generally only as powerful as a president chooses to make it. Is the office worthwhile or a good move for her? I have serious doubts that it is.
Another possibility speculated on is Health Secretary. There are obvious policy reasons why this might appeal, but it’s a very junior position for her to accept and even if it came with Obama’s wholesale acceptance of her Health policies into his programme, that wouldn’t necessarily translate into actual backing if the election is won. It could be four years - or less - of floundering and persuading without ever really pulling the strings. Even throwing in Education to her portfolio, which might be difficult to do, wouldn’t remove the political reasons to decline.
I think it’s more likely that she’ll remain in the Senate. From there, she could manage the healthcare reforms at least as well as under Obama - providing he signs up to them, and she can demand he does. She may even get offered the Leadership of the Senate as part of the deal, and she’d probably be quite good at the job. It’s the option that looks to give both people the best deal.
Whether having Hillary as VP is a good thing electorally is a debating point.
Can anyone honestly say that it would Be desirable for Obama once he’s in office?
HILLARY RODHAM KING KONG
–>According to Newsweek’s Fineman, a source “very, very close to both Clintons” says HRC doesn’t really want the VP spot (MSNBC).
“[The Clinton people] are not thinking about Barack Obama, they’re thinking about Hillary Clinton. I think it’s a strategic mistake, a terrible mistake.” — Dem strategist Bob Beckel, on Clinton today signaling her willingness to take the VP slot (FNC).
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/06/she_just_wants.html
But if she became the VP she would also have to change the current relationship between P and VP. Scuse my ignorance but I’m not even aware of who Dubya’s VP is. Some time back someone on this blog suggested that she might go for some other position where she could, with some independence, push certain policy issues like health care. Also 4 years of P and VP arguing over who is in charge of policy decisions would not only be unworkable but also not a very attractive prospect for Obama.
Surely if Hillary becomes VP (assuming Obama wins), that scuppers her Presidential ambitions as Obama would seek a second term, and if he wins that, she’s unlikely to be a leading contender in 8 years time. And would the Democrats win three successive elections anyway?
If she’s so convinced only she can beat McCain, far better for her surely to stand clear, hope Obama loses and then have another shot next time round untainted by involvement in the losing campagn?
Obama’s first test: Handling Hillary:
“Barack Obama would like to remind you of something: He won and she didn’t. It’s about him now and not her. He has made history, and she is history.
Not that Hillary Clinton admitted to any of that in her nonconcession concession speech Tuesday night, after Obama attained the delegate votes he needs for the Democratic presidential nomination
For someone giving indications she would like to be Obama’s running mate, Clinton was surprisingly ungracious. …
“Because of you, we won together the swing states necessary to get to 270 electoral votes,” she told the crowd in New York City. “I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible.”
But her fighting words only increased the need for Obama to show that he can be strong, tough and in charge. Clinton’s unwillingness to recognize Obama as the victor only increased the need for Obama to act like a president and not like a doormat. And denying her a vice presidential slot may be a way of doing that.“
Obama/Clinton could become the Blair/Brown combo of the White House – an unstoppable electoral machine in the country, but riven with factions and tensions which will boil over at a later date to the mutual damage of both of them.
20
Everybody is aware of Cheney in the US — even the kids think he’s the Prince of Darkness and the Pinguins of Batman…
OT: First PMQs today since Crewe & Nantwich turned blue.
Hard to say what Cameron will go on. The helicopter debacle (we spent £422m on chinooks that have never flown), Mugabe at a food summit perhaps (he’s shown a tendency to ask serious questions a la Burma first off sometimes) or 42 days.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he went for Mugabe first, had a rest whilst Clegg blames the Conservatives for the country’s ills, and then asks about 42 days.
I’m still amused Nick Robinson hasn’t seen the teensy tiny flaw in the “Smith put in a stellar performance persuading even Gandhi and Jesus that locking people up for six weeks with no evidence is a good thing” idea. Such a pity she did it in private, and has not reiterated her bulletproof argument in public.
If I were Cameron I’d use playing politics as the theme for today. Bribery for C&N didn’t work, and now Labour backbenchers were being bullied by the prospect of a GE and near certain defeat. He could tie in the unfairness of it, eg the police not getting £30m and Britain’s civil liberties being prostituted for the political sake of Labour.
21. It makes no difference. If Obama wins, she can’t realistically run against him in 2012 either way; if he loses, she could have another shot next time.
I can’t believe Hilary is still refusing to quit. She’s making an embarasement of herself now.
Well done to Obama. Obama in the US and David Cameron in the UK will make for an interesting combination. Hopefully these two can restore a little bit of pride and glory to the shattered and battered special relationship?
Are the police allowed to arrest someone, keep them for a set period (currently 28 days), release them, and then arrest them again a day later?
She definately shouldn’t take health Secretary. Its sackable (unlike VP) and is a complete none job.
However powerless VP is you get a limo, Air Force 2 and a bully pulpit as well as being the most senior woman ever. Also historically 1 in 3 VP’s have suceeded/being elected to the Presidency one way or another.
She’d be the most famnous VP ever and what with Bills clout as well she’d quickly become an alternative power source.
If I were her I’d go for the kitchen sink and make Bill filling her vacant Senate seat or taking the first supreme court vacancy as part of the deal
As a confirmed Obamasceptic and Hillaryite, I thought his speech was generous to Hillary as well as powerful and balanced on the broader themes - and overall I think he’s conducted the rivalry much better than some of his overzealous supporters. I’m still sceptical about him as President (and can imagine worse things than McCain, for that matter), but he’s definitely a professional. And of course Hillary shouldn’t concede until there’s a deal - she’d be absolutely dumb to do it, and he won’t be expecting any such thing.
For those who feel chosing Hillary as VP risks trouble later, a point to consider. The obvious alternative is leader of the Senate, and if Obama makes it clear he backs that I don’t think Reid will be able to prevent it. But the position of Senate majority leader is much more powerful than the position of VP, and it doesn’t carry the risk of going doing with a losing ticket if Obama stumbles. It may well make more sense for Hillary. But does it make more sense for Obama? If she’s VP she gets to do as much as he allows her to do. If she’s Senate Leader she can do exactly what she wants.
er, going down, not going doing!
28 if they have new evidence then I presume yes….
If Obama either chooses or has Hilary Clinton forced upon him, he had better have someone taste every meal from the moment he takes office. She and Bill will just be waiting and probably praying for the hand of the assassin to strike. Don’t believe for a second her Bobby Kennedy remark was either a slip of the tongue or a comment taken out of context.
This woman and her husband want power again and frankly I don’t think she accepts that she has been rejected.
Obama needs to pick a safe pair of preferably white upper middle class hands to run with him, someone the racists and bigots in the Hickie states will be able to support.
Why oh why does any politician in the UK want to copy the United States of America? the most uncivilised, polarised, undemocratic country in the so called Western world where only multi-millionaires can run for high political office and only rich people get healthcare. Where hundreds of thousands of black people were virtually left to rot and still dont have homes to return to in New Orleans yet rich Californians plucked from fire ravaged counties were being offered pilates at 3am!
A decade ago we looked on in incredulity as American schools routinely introduced airport type scanners for knives and guns being carried by kids attending classes and we were shocked at the number of teenagers shooting one another almost routinely in a gang quarrel. Move on a decade and we face the same problems here.
We must stop looking West for our example and instead start looking east, back to our natural constituency of Western Europe where knife crime, gun crime and drunken thuggish behaviour is still far less prevelant than here.
All that said and done, come on Obama, given a chance you might just pull the US back from the brink!
28: in theory I think yes (being released doesn’t mean you suddenly gain immunity from arrest forever - what if you walk out and shoot the first person you see?), but as Stevie implies they’d need new evidence to persuade a judge (who has to reaffirm the need for detention every week throughout the 28 days). Without new evidence it would obviously be sharp tactics and I can’t see a judge accepting it.
30 - let us be very clear here, Nick… are you saying you would support McCain over Obama for the presidency?
Nick Palmer - so recently you’ve backed Hain, Brown and Clinton to become leaders. 1/3 and the 1 was a disaster. Oh dear
At the risk of being shouted down, can we now at last go back to matters closer to home?American primaries- which seem to last years - are extremely boring.
A strong Clinton ally would seem more likley than Clinton herself to me, she doesnt bring much to a ticket with Obama at the top and actually probably would hurt him on the ticket more than help (energising the GOP base and diluting the “change” narrative - and then there’s Bill
)… so I’d expect the likes of Stricklandm, Nelson (Bill) and Rendell to be in with a good shot at VP (Clark might be a runner as well - although I think he’d be a daft choice), then there are folks like Biden and Webb from outside the Clinton camp.
yellow submarine, could Bill go to the Supreme Court after being disbarred in AK?
5 Good to have you back Stephen, albeit briefly!
28. So all the police need to do is drip-drip the evidence into the public domain to be able to hold suspects practically indefinitely.
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face — forever.”
39 I hadn’t thought of that. I don’t know but you may well be right.
Clegg gets top billing at the Coffee House blog
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/751506/the-wacky-world-of-lib-dem-policy.thtml
OT (again, sorry): Dizzy’s highlighted the cost of consultancy incurred by the Home Office from the financial years 2005/6 to 2007/8.
£382,615,960.
Pity they couldn’t afford that £30m pay rise.
37. No ! A generation of political geeks have grown up with the West Wing and this is even more exciting.
I have just checked the simply extortionate cost of a train ticket to Henley and frankly i’d rather squeeze one last day of the primaries out before returning to domestic reality!
32
If the police were to do that, it would look suspicious if evidence had suddenly appeared. A case of victimisation or harassment, a good lawyer would take the police appart.
30 - I have always agreed that Clinton would be much better off going for Senate majority leader than VP. The speculation unsettles me though and I am in a poor position betting-wise if she does get the VP slot as she is the one leading contender I am not in the black with!
36 - As I read Nick’s comments, he is merely saying he is less pro-Obama and less anti-McCain than many on the centre-left in this country. That doesn’t at all mean he is supporting McCain - I assume virtually everyone on the British centre-left (and many on the centre-right) would back Obama over McCain and the only question is how strongly.
As someone just pointed out on Fox News, many feminists bitter at Hillary’s failure to get the nomination will hesitate to express that bitterness by voting for McCain when they remember his opposition to abortion.
Put Hillary on the ticket, and Republicans will turn out in droves.
43. The policy document (if you read it) isn’t that bad. Controversal and in need of a touch up but not that bad.
Wrt re-arrest. How did it work when the limit for detention without charge was 48 (24?) hours?
47. i think in a presidental election personalities come into play as well. You are electing a head of state. If I had a vote i’d be tempted to vote McCain over Obama on thodse grounds. Equally I would have voted Royale I think despite agreeing with most of Sarkosy’s platform.
Its why I think Executive Presidency’s are less thasn ideal.
If Hilary had conceded gracefully last night, then Obama might have had no choice but to select her as VP.
By not conceding, she confirms people’s prejudices about her. She can’t give up and accept she must be second to Obama… imagine that attitude in your VP…
40 Thanks, Peter. I have been lurking.
33 Great post, Easterross. There’s big money to be made laying Hillary right now. Pardon the pun…the thought’s enough to put anyone off sex for a week.
30. “can imagine worse things than McCain, for that matter”
This is what Obama needs to work on. People keep criticising Obama for being sketchy on policies*, but no one knows McCain’s. He’s 100% republican in the mould of Bush, Anti-universal health care, pro-iraq war, pro-torture (now), pro-life, anti-unions, anti-workers rights and now believes the Bush tax cuts were the right thing to do. How can you Nick say he prefers that to a pro-choice, multilateralist and pro-universal health care Democrat, without being a closet Conservative?
48 - I don’t buy this “received wisdom” view that Clinton on the ticket drives massive turnout by Republicans. Yes, she’s associated with the one period of sustained Democrat success of the past forty years and diehard GOPers despise her for it. But they won’t need any encouragement to turnout against any Democrat who might win.
And to every action there is an opposite reaction. A lot of us confidently foresaw a defeat for Bush in 2004 on the basis of a big turnout because Bush is a man who aroses strong feelings amongst Democrats - but he won because we didn’t appreciate that the man also generated turnout from people who had strong feelings the other way.
The key to Hillary is that she balances the ticket quite well. She brings states into play that just aren’t at the moment and helps him with white working class voters in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio which are closer in the Obama/McCain than Clinton/McCain match-ups. As I noted, I still doubt it will happen but there is a compelling case for it in electoral terms (although people like Edwards or Webb also bring a lot to the table).
Morning Campers !!!!
Quite a historic night …. 154 days to another historic night !!
54 - “How can you Nick say he prefers that to a pro-choice, multilateralist and pro-universal health care Democrat, without being a closet Conservative?”
He can’t and more to the point he didn’t! I appreciate Nick posting here under his own name and we should do him the courtesy of not misreporting him.
49. It’s clear that the Spectator was planning to run the “Lib Dems make daft policy” story whatever happened at the briefing. I don’t think Clegg’s intervention was especially strange.
Of course, the more surprising headline would be “the world of Tory policy”. Because there isn’t any.
54. Nick a ‘closet conservative’ - now that’s funny. I don’t think his journey from being a youthful tankie has quite progressed that far…but I suppose you never know…
The longer the VP decision goes on for the less likely it will be Hillary. Her support will naturally die down over time with her out of the limelight. If Obama doesnt want her (and he shouldn’t, for all the reasons already noted) then he should simply keep shtum until she has shrunk in stature over the coming months.
Having Hillary as VP would be worse for Obama than having Gordon was for Blair. Omaba should try at all costs to keep her out.
“How can Nick say he prefers [McCain] to a pro-choice, multilateralist and pro-universal health care Democrat, without being a closet Conservative?”
He’s worse: A NeoConservative.
More bad news for Nick: Hill was a supporter of introducing American ID cards.
More bad news for Brown: Mark Penn still thinks he can win in 2010! I believe the expression is ‘RAOTFLMAO’.
60. Yes. Obama should keep attacking McCain, ignoring questions about the VP choice, and hoping Hillary decides to take a holiday. If she doesn’t - he’s in no worse a position than now. If she does - he can pick someone else.
43. Fantastic. But of course if one has a policy launch fronted by purveyors of conspiracy theories, one shouldn’t be too surprised at the odd strange remark. The real surprise is that any journalists bothered to attend. Presumably they did so purely for the entertainment value - which, it seems, was considerable.
from Iain Dale
‘Labour About to Start Another ‘Envy’ Campaign in Henley?
Iain Dale 8:27 PM
I thought I would do the Labour Party a favour and publish their first Henley by-election campaign press release…
Jim Hood, Labour MP for Lanark & Hamilton East has criticised the Conservatives’ choice of accountant John Howell, a former partner at City accountant Ernst and Young, to fight the Henley by-election.
Mr Hood said, ” Is the Tory Party not running out of super rich male lawyers and accountants yet. What happened to David Cameron’s, ‘I want the Tory Party to be more representative of the whole country and select more women in winnable seats’ pledge?
“Tut, tut, this will not do Mr Cameron.”
So the grammar school boy who has lived in Henley for twenty years and sent his three kids to local state schools isn’t good enough for Mr Hood. It seems that even after the Crewe disaster Labour is persevering with class war attacks. Look at the sneering reference to “former partner at City Accountant Ernst & Young. You can almost hear him spitting the words out. Apart from that, it’s just bizarre to put the phrase ‘tut, tut’ in a press release.’
Sorry if this has been mentioned before.
Hillary can’t afford to quit yet - it’s as simple as that. Incredibly, despite being finished, her website is still pleading for contributions.
I posted on the previous thread that I thought Hillary’s speech last night was very powerful and defiant but ill-judged and graceless.
Her party has now chosen a victor, yet she has failed to acknowledge the fact. She continues to make the case for her own lost candidacy and by her arguments diminishes his. This is a hugely historic moment and she rains on his parade.
She is defiant and angry. Mark Penn may well have lost her the race. She feels cheated by the process, much as Gore must have felt when losing the Presidency to Bush in 2000.
But for Obama to have her as his VP ,moving in along with Bill into his shiny new change administration, still seething with righteous indignation and fired by naked ambition, would hobble his Presidency from the start.
They need to cut a deal and then he needs to cut away.
60 - “Having Hillary as VP would be worse for Obama than having Gordon was for Blair.”
I am interested that you think Brown was bad for Blair. He kept his biggest rival in the tent for a decade, traded on the back of Brown’s reputation for economic competence (if you recall the days when he had one!), won three general elections etc. All political careers end in failure but it was really Iraq that caused that for Blair and that had little or nothing to do with Brown.
But even if I accept that, there are major differences between President/VP compared with PM/Chancellor. In particular, the VP can’t seriously threaten to dethrown the President in mid-term, and the VP has no formal powers whereas the Chancellor’s powers are immense. Additionally, if Blair (implausibly) hadn’t given Brown a job, what was he going to do? Chair of some dreary and powerless select committee? Clinton will be a big political figure in the next decade whether Obama likes it or not - she is a major senator with every chance of leading the Senate or having a very prominant role indeed with huge influence regardless of what Obama does.
55 - I think the argument is that having Hillary on the ticket would undermine Obama’s bipartisan appeal.
63. I don’t usually come out swinging for the party on here but on this occassion I will.
Norman Baker is an exceptional MP, who unlike some of the dross, understands that his role is to hold the executive to account. He’s a worker, a fabulous constituency MP and has taken stances which have not made him popular but are consistant and principled. The Country wouldn’t be in the mess it is in if we had 650 MP’s of Norman’s calibre regardless of the colur of the rossette.
As for conspiracy theories what’s fairly startling is how little ridicule Normans book has recieved. I don’t know what happened to Kelly but very few people have trashed Normans thesis.
Finally just to rally to the flag over the Transport paper. While not to my 100% tastes it’s a thoughtful and detailed contribution to public debate. If we really must we could go nine rounds over the catalouge of Lib Dem ideas that have been taken up by other party’s over the last 20 years.
God, am I turning into Mark Senior ?
64 - For once I agree with you. It is not even as if you inherit jobs at Ernst & Young. Howell may or may not be a good candidate but no doubt he is an intelligent and professional man who has achieved some success based on merit in his career.
Henley by-election on 26 June
64. Labour really are scraping the filthiest dregs from the bottom of the cask now. Great from a partisan perspective, but from a detached perspective it’s depressing to see the governing party resorting to such pitiful tactics. Do we really have to suffer this for another two years?
64 - Cuddles. What do they do to people who get elected as Labour MPs for Scottish constituencies? They can’t all be BORN obnoxious, can they?
69. Yes you are. Go and lie down for a while.
Penn’s job is only to please the Clintons. He successfully told his clients what they wanted to hear. That’s the PR business. Work your client out first. Do they want the truth or a sugar-coated version? He got it right and got hired. The Clintons prefer the sugar. That’s why they lost.
O/T
PMQs in a little over an hour and a half.
Shame Ladbrokes abandoned their “First Question” market - they’d have cleaned up on the last two occasions with Dave’s incessant questions on Burma. Surely not again today?
BTW, where is Shadsy these days?
68 - I take that point but bear in mind that a lot of the bipartisan appeal is to the very people who voted for and liked Clinton’s husband. Totally agree that her biggest appeal is to working class Democrats rather than independents and better off, moderate Republicans. But I think people misjudge her if they think the Hillary-haters are key swing voters on the whole.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7435041.stm
bonkers
75 - In fairness to Penn, he is a pretty capable strategist. The 1996 campaign was a fairly masterful demolition job and I suspect he had to have a few pretty tricky chats with Clinton during the second term.
Yes, he got the strategy wrong this time, but it was a curate’s egg of a campaign rather than some kind of shambles. There were key strategic errors (as Mike notes) but also some real successes - a lesser campaign would not have recovered in New Hampshire and held the line in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania against a rival who is an exceptionally capable and charismatic individual who can clearly pull in crowds far more than Hillary.
69 I both agree and disagree. Baker is excellent - we need people like him to shine lights into dark places, and I’m sure his reputation in thew consituency is second to none. But we don’t want 649 others like him in the Commons - his work is essentially negative, it does not acknowledge the difficulties any government faces in managing public services and it makes no allowances for the fact the budgets are not limitless and the people who work in the public sector are not infallible. So a few Bakers are essential in a democratic system, but a parliament full of them would be a receipe for anarchy.
73. mirthios - “What do they do to people who get elected as Labour MPs for Scottish constituencies? They can’t all be BORN obnoxious, can they?”
The problem is that people like Jimmy Hood (one of the famous SLAB “Jimmies”) are absolutely typical of the Lanarkshire Labour mafia who traditionally have controlled the Scottish Labour Party: they are just thick as mince. There is no more accurate way to put it.
78. Well he’s going too far in blaming the BBC for fomenting violence.
But his underlying point is correct. There has been a sustained and mendacious campaign by the left to make people think that the rise in immigration is mostly due to eastern European inflows - in complete defiance of the data. This may at the margin have contributed to bad feeling against east European migrant workers.
I don’t see the point of this candidate bashing in Henley, the tory candidate has deep local roots, is hard working, and isn’t a toff by any stretch of the imagination.
80. You are quite right. I used the phrase “Normans Calibre” rather than exact skill set but in context its perhaps not clear what I ment.
yes 650 Frank Fields, Edward Leighs or Norman Bakers would not make for good government though 650 people of there calibre would.
There’s no denying that Hillary was recovering fast, very fast towards the end of the campaign and that fact must make the final outcome all the more galling for her. She and her team confidently expected to have it all sewn up by Super Tuesday and by the time those votes were cast, it was just too late for her.
53. Stephen Phelps. Welcome back to the Hampton Court Maze, revolving door world of PB.com.
There is no escape!
86 Indeed, StJohn.
‘You may check out any time you like, but you can never leave..’.
did anyone catch the hon. member for Preston on radio 5 this morning explaining why we probably won’t have a black politician to rival Obama any time soon?
Apparently “the job of US president is essentially showbiz”, whereas to be PM of the UK you are subjected to “hostile questions at PMQs” nearly every week. So much more skill is required, its hardly surprising no black guys have ever got there.
87. PtP. Good to see you also. Hope all is well. Your visits here are far too infrequent.
88. Is that another dog whistle by Labour?
64. Cuddles, it’s almost as if the Labour Party are deliberately trying to set a record low vote in Henley, or trying to push all anti-Tory voters into the LD camp.
Maybe we should get Terry Wogan to invoke sympathy for them in the by-election night coverage.
“Oh dear, they’re voting politically for their neighbour, Mr Howell, again. Can’t they see that the Labour entry put in the performance of his life? In the face of such blatant favouritism, Labour were lucky to avoid nul points, when the 14 votes of Henley’s Lanarkshire and Hamilton East Appreciation Society went their way right at the end. It’s a sad night for Labourvision.”
91. Presumably Labour are returning the favour to the Lib Dems for the latter not having tried too hard in Crewe. Only fair.
can anyone clarify the VP selection process? the original thread states that it is decided by the party rather than the candidate; as such, exactly what power does Obama have in the prcess, and could it come down to a delgate vote at the convention? thanks…..
I find the Labour tactic in Henley extraordinary. Identity politics is playing terribly for them at the moment. It might, however, work for them in a couple of years’ time a bit better when it might be linked with other Tory failings. They seem to be deliberately poisoning their own well. Why?
“Apparently “the job of US president is essentially showbiz”, whereas to be PM of the UK you are subjected to “hostile questions at PMQs” nearly every week. So much more skill is required, its hardly surprising no black guys have ever got there.”
Well at least a brown guy got there !
Am I alone in expressing distaste for the post of ed at 88 ?
95. ed was merely quoting someone
47/57: thanks, James, you’re saying exactly what I meant, but putting it better. As a political animal, I prefer Obama to McCain simply because Obama seems closer to my politics. But at a personal level they both seem quite reasonable choices, and American politics is a lot more personal than we sometimes appreciate on this side of the pond. (Incidentally, it’s interesting that stjohn and I are in the same party but, much as I like the style of his posts, we absolutely always disagree!)
But FWIW we seem to have evolved to a sort of consensus on the site - the best outcome may well be Hillary as majority Senate leader strongly behind the Obama ticket, with a different blue-collar-appeal VP. It has possible snags down the road for a President Obama, but not big enough to matter, and I think that a deal like that would re-cement the Democrat coalition well enough.
**
I am not an expert here, but will Obama really risk handicapping his chances for a run at the White House with the Bill and Hillary show ?
After they screwed up their own campaign ? They will hobble his campaign with ‘mis-speaking’, negative campaigning and destructive criticism of the opponent which will reflect badly on them.
Obama would, in my opinion, be literally mad to risk his huge support advantage by taking on the lame duck campaign of Billary Clinton and the ‘fibs and fornicating’ image they will have..
**
96- Are you sure about that ? I am not sure but will continue to checkout the poster concerned.
Maybe someone is aware of his past formlines.
95. Do you express distaste when Tyson regularly makes overt racist remarks?
Watch this space, 100.I wouldn’t put it past me !
I am not normally in the habit of firing off posts every twenty seconds but am not that impressed with racism in whatever form it may take.
99. etc. surely ed was being ironic, wasn’t he?
101. But the casual way that Tyson express it on this forum without an eyebrow raised is most interesting. He has made some grossly offensive about ‘white people needing to get whats coming to them’ and variations of such.
98. If the negatives for the Clintons are as big as you say they are, how come she got so close to winning the nomination?
If you have two heavyweights who have been slugging it out on the same ticket it isn’t a balanced one, it’s a ticket that will snap and break.
If Clinton had signalled earlier that she was scaling down the campaign then she would have stood a chance. That was the risk she took though, all or nothing. Having created so much division it isn’t credible to have the two together and for voters to believe their volte face. I wouldn’t trust Obama to hold the course as president if he couldn’t prevail on a matter such as this.
Someone like Bayh is a possibility but I tend to think that Obama will look to his major weakness, not being able to turn round the blue collar vote, and offer it to someone who can campaign in those areas and create true balance.
Now this has finally ended I can only say that I admire Clinton for her tenacity, unfortunately that tenacity resulted in some disgusting campaigning and, unforgiveably, the creation of a manufactured division which may well scupper the Democrat’s chances later this year. I would like to remember her and her husband for their positive contributions to global politics in the nineties and, like others before them, they have time to seal that legacy.
94: And the Lib dem candidate was saying in April ‘I am settled in Plymouth and I love it’, and now claims he can represent part of Oxfordshire.
89 Thank you StJohn. All is indeed perfectly well but some things are even more important that political betting. I do however lurk a good deal more than you may think…so mind what you say!
I’ve laid McCain. I don’t know about you, but he didn’t look that well last night.
That’s right, I’m effectively betting on a man dying. How low have I sunk?
It would be helpful if ed were to speak for himself.
I do accept that I may have misjudged him……but as I always say……I will monitor his future posts in order to form a more balanced view.
106. The Lib Dems have a rather elastic concept of ‘local’.
97. Nick P, not wanting to have too much of a dig but you’ve obviously now accepted you backed a loser in Hilary. Will you be admitting you backed a loser in Brown any time soon?
Ooopps! Thanks Phillipe. I always thought Cheney was there as an official “Cheney”. However, there’s very little conflict of either personality or policy with Dubya unlike a P-VP relationship between Obama and Clinton. But America is a surprising country in many ways and it might just surprise us again on this occasion.
I should also add that McCain was by far the best choice for the GOP so we have a decent contest to look forward to. I may dislike some of McCain’s policies but he’s not the beast that could have been, someone in hock to the Christian right or the neo-cons for example.
If McCain steers wide of the social conservatives he might even have got my vote against most candidates. As with some of our own parties though, it’s not the guy at the front you have to worry about, it’s the people who are pulling the strings behind them.
103, ahem, I’ve more than raised an eyebrow whenever I’ve read stuff like that from Tyson.
89 We all say aye to that PtP!
Has pb.com gone mad? Look at ed’s post:-
“did anyone catch the hon. member for Preston on radio 5 this morning explaining why we probably won’t have a black politician to rival Obama any time soon?
Apparently “the job of US president is essentially showbiz”, whereas to be PM of the UK you are subjected to “hostile questions at PMQs” nearly every week. So much more skill is required, its hardly surprising no black guys have ever got there.”
He’s quite CLEARLY quoting the MP for Preston. I literally can’t see how you can be confused by this?!
112 - I’ve never been able to take Cheney seriously ever since ‘Bremner, Bird & Fortune’ had the guy who used to play Reg Holdsworth on Coronation Street play him.
95. I was paraphrasing the contribution of the MP for Preston on radio this morning, which to me seemed incredibly ignorant and possibly racist (although maybe just inarticulate).
Their debate was “when will we get a black politician like Obama over here”, to which his answer was, never, because the job is too difficult.
109. URW - we have enough self-appointed ‘witchfinders’ on this site already. It might be better not to join them.
The alleged Michelle Obama tape rumour continues.
Some pretty heavy, possibly libellous, allegations on Hillbuzz
http://hillbuzz.blogspot.com/
the anti-Hillary Larry Johnson is now saying he thinks he can get a copy of the DVD. Take it for what it’s worth, probably nothing, but I think worth knowing about. If a hoax, it’s an elaborate one. The allegations are incredibly specific.
Mrs. Obama is not Sen. Obama, of course.
OT. Hills have got their new market for Labour minister losing their seats up. Odds anot as big as the Speccie article last night but should be some value in their somewhere!
http://www.willhill.com/iibs/EN/buildcoupon.asp?couponchoice=PO2157203
118, it’s staggering that someone so thick should become an MP. (Well, perhaps it isn’t staggering, but it should be).
Last time I checked melanin didn’t reudce someone’s ability to produce coherent arguments, just vitamin D.
Who is the MP for Preston? Did he really say that about black people?
Gordon Brown’s Seat
1.00 To Retain Their Seat 41.00 To Lose Thier Seat
Alistair Darling’s Seat
1.07 To Retain Their Seat 7.50 To Lose Thier Seat
David Miliband’s Seat
1.01 To Retain Their Seat 17.00 To Lose Thier Seat
Jack Straw’s Seat
1.05 To Retain Their Seat 9.00 To Lose Thier Seat
Jacqui Smith’s Seat
3.50 To Retain Their Seat 1.28 To Lose Thier Seat
Alan Johnson’s Seat
1.01 To Retain Their Seat 15.00 To Lose Thier Seat
Douglas Alexander’s Seat
1.01 To Retain Their Seat 15.00 To Lose Thier Seat
John Hutton’s Seat
1.50 To Retain Their Seat 2.50 To Lose Thier Seat
Harriet Harman’s Seat
1.01 To Retain Their Seat 17.00 To Lose Thier Seat
James Purnell’s Seat
1.02 To Retain Their Seat 13.00 To Lose Thier Seat
Ruth Kelly’s Seat
2.75 To Retain Their Seat 1.40 To Lose Thier Seat
Hazel Blears’ Seat
1.01 To Retain Their Seat 15.00 To Lose Thier Seat
Geoff Hoon’s Seat
1.02 To Retain Their Seat 13.00 To Lose Thier Seat
Ed Balls’ Seat
1.01 To Retain Their Seat 15.00 To Lose Thier Seat
John Denham’s Seat
1.03 To Retain Their Seat 11.00 To Lose Thier Seat
Andy Burnham’s Seat
1.01 To Retain Their Seat 17.00 To Lose Thier Seat
Yvette Cooper’s Seat
1.01 To Retain Their Seat 15.00 To Lose Thier Seat
122. more incredible was the touching and far more explicit belief that, while it is easy to become president of the US with a bit of razmatazz, those guys (Obama/McCain/Clinton) could never survive the hostile environment of PMQs.
118 and others but particularly 118.
How come you chose to section just one part of your original post in quotation marks at 88 ?
The MP for Preston was presumably favourable to the notion of UK having a black PM.
I will not be blown away so easily.Does anyone have a link to the discussion and what was actually said ?
I hav e been wrong before and will definitely be wrong again but on this I ‘want’ your advice.
Two-brains URW.
125 - let’s be fair here. GWB certainly couldn’t.
If McCain wins, Brown has to cosy up to another Republican who, more likely than not, will want the UK to join in military action against Iran.
If Obama wins, Brown has to cosy up to an outspoken critic of the Iraq war.
Looks like lose-lose for Brown.
Well the MP for Preston is Asian, so i suspect his argument has been misinterpreted.
123…and right on cue…
This Labour government must secretly be praying that either Obama does not make it to US President or that if he does he won’t implement his promises (unlikely in a new american administration) because it will leave the detritus of the Blair administration looking very very isolated. Nick Palmer’s claim that his policies are similar to Obama’s is just putting a brave face on the situation.
97. LOL Nick Palmer re our perpetual disagreements!
117 Congrats, ukpaul, on spotting the South Dakota opportunity, possibly the biggest upset in the long round of US primaries. By the time I started to believe it, my tenner on Hillary yielded a profit of just £6 - still, better than a poke with a sharp stick.
Alex at 129. My point is that the MP for Peston may have said what ed QUOTED at 88 but the rest of it was pure ED.
I await confirmation or denial.
126. A bit like Boris’s writings, if you dont pay attention you miss the point.
Ed is clearly paraphrasing and contextualising the absurd ‘liberal bigot’ position of the MP. Black people are seen as passive victims in need of their help, and that it’s the evil white institutions that are holding them back.
120 - I find this bit particularly hard to believe: “The “tape” is a DVD that Trinity United sold on its website, and possibly offered free for download up until March 2008 when Trinity’s site was scrubbed and the DVDs were no longer offered for sale”
Inconceivable, surely, that a tape that was freely available for sale until March of this year has not yet surfaced?
124 - Those don’t strike me as offering anything generous in excess of that which is generally available on seats spreads etc.
129. Asian people cannot be racist? eh?
I am sure some black people would disagree with you on that.
You are stuck in the old marxist multiculturalist mindset, of seeing people as either white or non white, with the assumption that the oppression by the former unites the latter into one homogeneous mass.
134 What Radio station - suggest Listen again on what was said.
URW - I, and most other posters, seem to have read Ed as making an ironic point based on what the MP had said - fair if the MP said what was quoted.
129. Maybe - but many Asians have very racist views about black people.
On The Daily Politcs just now; the BBC again raiding Jeremy Vine’s special effects cowboy computer graphics box, to helpfully portray the opposing candidacies of Obama and McCain.
In terms of political narrative whcih would be the best winner for Cameron/Brown?
For Cameron, the election of a young, charismatic President, would seem to send all the right messages to the UK electorate. On the other hand, McCain is evidently close to Cameron - addressed the Tory Party conference, for instance. On balance, I would say Obama would be better for Cameron.
For Brown? I suspect McCain might prove an easier stablemate. I think he would look uncomfortable with a President Obama who would be everything he isn’t.
So, curiously, the old-time Republican is better for the Labour PM whilst the black liberal Democrat is better for the Old Etonian Tory.
Strange times.
Gaz at 139- Do you have special divination powers ? I doubt it.
So why not just STFU until some concrete evidence arrives.
At the end of this,if I am wrong I will apologise to all concerned including your good self.
124 - Actually, thinking about it Jacqui Smith to retain at 3.5 is not a bad bet. Her profile has risen substantially and whilst she is clearly very vulnerable, making her a rank outsider to win her own seat is a bit excessive.
143. She’ll lose by at least 5000.
137 - lol. Marxist multiculturalist eh? I like it
136 you’d think so, sure. In the end it seemed better to post a link than not report on it.
142. The MP clearly didnt say that black people lack the abiltiy to become PM, the OP was just having fun with the convoluted reasoning given as to why we are unlikely to see a black pm anytime soon.
The phone in i believe was on BBC5Dead, the topic of discussion was ‘how awfully racist britain is, please ring us and tell us how evil whitey has held you back’.
EWR also at 139,sorry,your point may have validity in a different pub but it doesn’t wash with me.
I think I may have divined where YOU are coming from EWR.
141 - No more suprising than MacMillan/Kennedy. I am not sure you are necessarily right about who would be best for whom. Obama winning would play into a Cameron change narrative but Brown would get all the photo opportunities in the early months anyway so swings and roundabouts.
148 - Oh for Christ sake, what a ridiculous debate. Whether ‘ed’ has misinterpreted the MP’s argument or not, it’s pretty obvious that he is completely opposed to the idea that a black person can’t become PM because he lacks the necessary ’skills’. That’s why he posted it - to have it ridiculed!
Perhaps if Jackie Smith releases a recording or download of her famously wonderful and uplifting secret speach to the PLP justifying the extension to 42 days she might save her seat.
145.
… The problem is, for people who arent involved in race relations professionally, or have significant interaction with other cultures (85% of the population), we fall for the old CRE message, of the problem being old whitey.
Racism is about power, and only white people are in a position to oppress thus, only white people are racist. Black people are always a minority and are always the victim of social racism.
Racism expressed by such people can be excused as a reaction against generations of oppression.
*That is marxist multicuturalism’….
Of course, the funny thing is that this is al rot, as you get to know different people you find that the Africans cant stand the “lazy degenerate, feckless unemployable drug dealing Caribbean’s… ” The Indians despise the Pakistanis as uneducated peasants etc etc…
148. Stop digging.
140 - awful! Embarrasing….childish…..oh, now its PMQs…..so no change…..
127. The US presidential election process is far more demanding on the individual over a wider range of debating formats and longer time frame than anything we have, so I am sure that even GW Bush could manage PMQs pretty easily. The suggestion that any presidential candidate could not hack it over here is ridiculous and totally wrong.
126. As that point was his (only) answer to the question “will we have a black UK version of Obama any time soon” then the clear implication is that he has views on the capabilities of black people. That may have been an incorrect implication caused by his own complete incoherence, inarticulacy, or possibly just misunderstanding the clear question.
You are completely misinterpreting my “direct quotation” and paraphrase which was intended to ridicule this point of view. It might in hindsight have benefitted from a little more context to ease the digestion of some of the more trigger-happy conclusion jumpers on this site.
146 IMHO if such a segment existed it would be on YouTube - it isn’t though “the supposition” is referenced. Looks like Dirty Tricks Inc, to me.
152 - Fine speech, but completely irrelevant. This MP was obviously on the programme as a BME representative. It’s pretty obvious that in context “could we have a black PM” was shorthand for “could we have a BME PM”. So as such, if the MP said that the answer was no, then he was arguing that we couldn’t have an Asian PM either.
Trying to suggest that he was playing racist semantics is just silly.
124 those odds are terribly disappointing - they look wide around the right price to me. There is only one that looks like value.
158. Darling and Denham might be worth a punt to lose their seats
Cameron taking Brown apart on his use of dodgy statistics. Very good.
Brown is doing OK today which is odd
161. Are you serious? The man’s falling apart
LOL Cameron is on form “It’s not my backbenchers that are telling me to get on my bike! Maybe he should get out more.”
So ,ed, at 155.Now we have dialogue and I would be pleased to keep it that way.
What part of your post at 88 was a direct quote from the Preston MP,and what part was your own ironic comment ?
I concede fully that I may have jumped the gun.
As I always say,I will continue to monitor your future posts.
URW I fully explained Ed’s post to you, and you ignored it.
164 - What the hell are you accusing him of, aside from misuse of quotation marks?
Cameron saying head of Greenpeace says “this gives green taxes a bad name”
Brown stuttering, his MPs are silent. Gloomy.
Cameron quoting Cabinet ministers “he’s terrible at communication” - calling hi weak. Hhahahahaha! Cameron is asking cabinet ministers to own up to these quotes if they don’t hae the guts to challenge Brown.
oh dear me.
Hate to sound like an identikit Tory on here, but Brown was absolutely skewered today.
164 - U.R.Wideofthemark today, I think, Mr Wochuwyz!
165& 166.I do realise that ‘dialogue’ is a big hard word.Now go and google ‘Shakespeare’ and leave me in peace.
Clegg really hitting the nail on the head there.
Not
Bloody good question from Clegg on Mugabe’s knighthood, I didn’t know he had one
No seriously URW, you’re embarrassing yourself.
rubbish answer from Brown
Anyone notice Cameron used the word ‘crap’ during that. Surprised that was allowed by the speaker.
166. alex. I once got told off here for splitting my infinitives.
No seriously URW, you’re embarrassing yourself.
155 - I’m not sure Bush/Obama/McCain could handle PMQs if dumped in the middle of it tomorrow. It is a very, ahem, specialist skill. But of course the question is “so what”? They don’t have to handle it so haven’t thought about tactics, witnessed it week in week out, practiced it on a smaller stage as a frontbencher etc. It is like saying a showjumper wouldn’t do very well in the Grand National or vice versa.
Cameron doing his best to end punch and judy politics today i see.
172 - are you serious? Clegg’s claims that Britain isn’t seen to be serious about Zimbabwe because they haven’t withdrawn his knighthood is about as ridiculous as you can get.
178. yes by putting Brown out of his misery
Really awful question from the Tory there, they’re making themselves look really stupid.
Personally, think Cameron should have gone on knives, not VED.
Felt on the substance it was score draw - Cameron has an effective attack on an unpopular tax and Brown is right to point out the Tories have proposed higher fuel and VED in the past but is now backing away from it.
Cameron is riding higher at the moment though and I expect that to be reflected in peoples reactions. He appears pretty confident, even arrogant, which repels me, but impresses people whose judgement is well regarded…
178 Jimbo Jones is right, at this stage it’s a coup de grace
174. Fair comment defence, and all that.
Notice no Tories are commenting on that smug, arrogant little question from whoever that moron was asking about the phone calls.
177. so Obama has beaten Hilary Clinton on a number of live televised debates, had every word analysed, and been judged on his performances by the electorate (positively)
but you don’t think he could deadbat 6 Qs from Cameron? Remember that the worst possible result from PMQs is that your opponent’s prepared soundbite is played on the 6 o’clock news not yours.
Brown is going to continue making the right long distance phone calls to the electorate.
The government look so glum!
Gorond Brown and Nick Clegg are woefully underprepared. I don’t usually think PMQs is particularly one-sided (I have a better impression of Brown than many on here) but today has been painful, with some of the worst non-answers I’ve ever seen.
Nick Clegg shouldn’t even be a front bench politician. He is completely out of his league. I can’t believe that, when running through with staff, no-one picked up that Mugabe’s honorary knighthood is the least important thing that he could ask about Zimbabwe.
Speaker cuts of Boris and calls him the “Lord Mayor!”
God this Speaker is rubbish!
185. I’ll bite. i thought it was quite amusing.
190. Asking to be formally congratulated on his actions as mayor is completely ridiculous so he deserves everything he gets.
I would have thanked him for his diligent representation of the people of henley and left it at that.
192. “Asking to be formally congratulated” is what Gordon Brown does every week!
191. But utterly pointless
194. if it destabilises brown and gets him out quicker then it has a point and imho would be of benefit to the country
133 - Well I took a bit of the 10.0 myself before I tried to guide people in the right direction. South Dakota had hardly been polled, and with no independents taking part it looked like a decent wager.
185 – Charlie, have you considered helping NuLabour with the forthcoming Henley By election?
You appear admirably qualified for the job.
Brown totally rattled by rubbish backbench question about unelected prime ministers
179. Alex, I think you will yourself have a problem in being taken seriously if you do not recognise that since the Queen does withdraw honours, the failure to do so with Mugabe is totemic. Nobody (I hope) least of all Clegg, is saying about withdrawl of the knighthood “that’ll larn him!” Britain’s overall approach to Mugabe vis-a-vis sanctions etc is pretty pathetic and some would say hypocritical, especially when compared with ‘our’ Iraqi actions.
I am surprised that there have been no attempts at ‘war crimes’ arrest of Mugabe while he is in Europe. Or do some people think he is not at war with virtually his entire nation?
Now for the good stuff.This should be interesting……
186 - He would need to change his style to cope with PMQs, Ed. Obama has a very easy, even ponderous style in response to questions and his speeches are full of the kind of high-flown rhetoric that simply wouldn’t work in the Commons if he were the one asking questions.
I also think the MP’s comments you report are wrong but for slighty different reasons. The MP simply doesn’t realise that the reason Obama/Bush/McCain wouldn’t necessarily be great at PMQs if transplanted there tomorrow is that it isn’t really a discipline that exists in the US. Equally, the lengthy presidential debates would be a struggle for Brown/Cameron. Actually, of the major Democrats, Hillary would probably do best at PMQs tomorrow because it suits her style - but she is weaker in other areas.
I agree with you, zebidee, I thought it was a good question. Lester Piggott lost his knighthood for tax evasion but Mugabe keeps his? It’s symbolic and not attractive. Just like Mugabe going to the UN.
199 - It absolutely should be withdrawn, it absolutely should be the first question that Nick Clegg asks as Lib Dem leader at PMQs. Totemic or not, it is a piece of trivia - ask about sanctions, war crimes, WMDs or whatever, but for Clegg to pull the ‘faux outrage’ face again over who has an honourary knighthood is pretty pathetic.
Another seesion of non answers from Brown on the impact of VED on hard working families. The changes to VED look like a kick in the teeth for Labour’s core and swing voters, it doesn’t look like a sound way to bring back support for Labour.
CMD came out with a couple of good soundbites, I doubt that Broon liked the unattributable quotations.
Plenty of stabbing claws from Broon, but he never looks back at the Tories, he always seems to be facing away from the camera or towards the Speaker. Blair on the other hand would never do that. Clegg wasted his questions, he continued to sound like a spoilt schoolboy. How safe is his seat?
Daniel Kawczynski(spelling !).I just love it when ANYONE attacks the BBC.
re 13 has Boris replaced Peter Mandelson as Steward of the Manor of Northstead then? If he has I seem to have not noticed it in the news. He’ll have to get a move on in taking up the stewardship if they want an election on the 26th.
Ouch. Most devastating PMQs for Brown since the post-conference “only man to in history to flunk an election because he thought he was going to win it.”
Some good thinking on his feet from Cameron (”Don’t know why they’re shouting at me,” etc) and a solid line of questioning.
The Cabinet quotes were pretty damaging too.
Brown was shot to pieces.
Speaker should’ve given Boris a bit more leeway.
158. You only need one price to be value to be in with a good chance of making money.
207. Hardly devastating.
Henley by election 26th June
178, oh come on. He did slap Brown about, but he also addressed a serious issue: retrospective taxes with a green facade hit people already hard pressed and do nothing for the environment.
As a Hillary supporter who now supports Obama - I emailed her website saying you did a good job now give it up for the unity of the party.
Last night we ordered our Obama bumper sticker, are ready to host our Obama yard sign and wear our Obama buttons with pride.
How anyone could support McCain over Obama who was a former Hillary supporter is beyond me - McCain is the opposite of what Hillary stood for and Obama is the mantle to go forward.
Hillary needs to give up the ghost, and not take the VP slot for the good of the party - let him choose someone who can unite the Democrats and win this thing in November which is the number 1 goal.
I am not stumped as CNN closed the do you think the Democrat race will be over by June 3 with the NO option even though Obama was declared the winner on CNN and everyone else knows he won it - why are CNN so stupid in these questions ….
Just seen that it was Gove who the speaker told off for shouting.
Honestly, what is it with Schools secretaries and bad behaviour in front of class? More discipline, that’s what they need…
Cameron’s bad hair day?
204 Please please don’t talk about “hard working families” - this is one of those idiotic phrases used only by politicians who have spent too much time with their spin doctors - like “long term decisions” or “on your side” - utter b*llocks.
212 - I’d be interested to get more of your perspective on why Hillary should not take the VP slot from the perspective of somebody who supported her presidential ambitions.
Do you think it would not be credible (bearing in mind Reagan chose Bush Snr despite “voodoo economics” and I am sure there are other examples)? Do you think she wouldn’t deliver her support base (particularly those who worryingly said in exit polls they would not vote for Obama)? Do you think she would undermine him as President later? And do you think she should pursue Senate leadership even if that may set up clashes with Obama in the White House?
Just to announce to you all i am running in the Henley By-election.
My party is the Nick Clegg is Neil Kinnock party!
I am laying on yellow taxis for supporters to run my campaign!
Think Jeremy Vine will come to size one up for election night 2010! 
203. Just how many questions do you think Clegg is allowed at PMQs? He has drawn attention to the government’s pathetic record with regard to Mugabe. Douglas Alexander interviewed on TV outside the conference all on his own appeared pathetic. Can the UK not get a major walk-out on Mugabe speaking? It did not appear so. Did they even try?
208 charlie The first rule of posting on pb.com on PMQ day is that you must follow the standard line of all the Conservative Cameron pyscophants .
Brown was rubbish and looks ill
Cameron was brilliant incisive and statesmanlike
Clegg was out of his depth
Anyone who posts differently may have actually watched PMQ’s
199 - Not at all. Clegg was arguing that it somehow undermines Britain’s urging for other countries to take (real) action over Zimbabwe. Frankly any other country which uses that as an excuse is, well, just looking for an excuse.
Argue that Britain’s case is undermined by not preventing their companies from trading in Zimbabwe. Fine. Argue that it is undermined by not wanting to cancel sporting events because of the money it will cost. Fine.
But what exactly are people suggesting is the hypocrital stance implied by not taking the (presumably simple) step of not withdrawing his knighthood? If anything taking such a step would simply highlight any other Real action that Britain is not taking.
219, did you watch today?
Cameron did tear him to pieces. Style or substance he was clearly superior.
Clegg asked a decent second question, and we should strip Mugabe of the knighthood.
218. Clegg’s questions were a niche subject - fair enough. Not sure that the government can do much really though on this. What can they do advise the queen to ask for his gong back.
It was really a bad question to ask, for somebody who is suppose to be good at PR and communicating Clegg seems to make one gaffe after another and misses every opportunity to positively promote himself. He is lucky that outside forums like this nobody will really take much notice. Clegg seems to have become stuck with the tag “failed leader” - Like Neil Kinnock i suppose!
219: I thought Cameron was supreme today.
So much so that I can’t wait to get home and actually watch it…
209. I disagree. I usually think Brown is poor, but solid, at PMQs. Cameron is usually better, but rarely lands a knockout blow.
This week he most certainly did. The Labour benches started off quite cheery, but when the “Michael Foot” and “raise your hands” to the Cabinet came off the effect was devestating. The cabinet visibly slumped. They looked dreadful. The backbenches were deathly silent.
This was a very poor PMQs for Brown, one of his worst.
222 - how long before the LDs realise they should have stuck with Charlie all along?
Even if he was half-cut most of the time, at least they were on 23% in the polls.
220. The John Prescott approach is not yet dead, I see. This country not only does not think Mugabe is really too bad, it HONOURS him. The withdrawl of the honour if we are to be taken seriously is neccessary but not sufficient.
Brown is usually poor but avoids being knocked out, Cameron makes some good soundbites and keeps the PM on the ropes, Clegg asks one good question but then wastes the other one by attacking the tories rather than asking a question.
What is “the John Prescott approach”?
228. It includes asking questions such as: “What is “the John Prescott approach”?”
Suit yourself.
Good grief, what a pasting Brown took from David Cameron today. In the early exchanges Cameron was just toying with him like a cat playing with a mouse, but by the end of the exchanges Brown was totally and utterly destroyed. Even the Speaker coming to his rescue couldn’t disguise the total humiliation Brown suffered today. You know I’m no Brown supporter, but even I felt some sympathy for him. He was just rolling around the ring punch drunk by the end. Someone need’s to throw in the towel before real longlasting damage is done to Gordon.
219. Brown is consistently rubbish. Can’t answer planted questions from own side and is ‘rescued’ by Gorbals Mick at least once in PMQs. Lab front bench remain gray, silent and miserable every week, look even worse when tractor output is falling, or when Broon spouts forth more statistics on quotas of ticks and crosses in school homeworks.
Brown makes the right decisions for hard working families for it is the right thing to do in this time of global economic turbulence with inflation of 2%, and the highest employment rates since records began. Has a friend called Alkie Ada, who probably helps him with the placing of post it notes on his sheaf of papers.
Cameron has still to show that he can be statesmanlike, incisive for more than the Six O Clock soundbite. Never has a question answered directly. Still tries hard not to look and sound like Harry Flashman.
Clegg only has two questions, but still ends up sounding like a petulent teenager shouting above the roars from the packed Labour benches.
This is a case of false recall, Bob.
But great to see Clegg attacking the Tories as well as Labour.
225. Yes Kennedy was a good LD leader, the problem with the LD’s was CK made them a player - they all took themselves too seriously got rid of CK and now they are not really even in the game!
The LD’s must be hoping for a win in Henley to try and turn it around. I liked Ashdown as LD leader as well, maybe they should bring paddy back as Clegg’s “minder” to help Clegg grow into the job.
That question today on Mugabe was a wasted oportunity, Clegg could have positioned the question alot better than he did and made him look more statesman like. If i were Clegg i would have linked the Mugabe honour thing to Brown’s moral compass. It would have had far more resinence plus Clegg could have got a “niche issue” for the LD’s to campaign on and a “hit” against Brown. I don’t think Zimabwe is really a good niche issue for the LD’s as a party as it means little to many of the electorate - it would not change my vote whereas Iraq, I seriously considered it.
Is there somewhere online I can watch today’s PMQs. My PVR failed to record it
182: There is all the difference in the world between proposing higher VED for new cars in order to influence future purchasing decisions, and a retrospective tax on cars already purchased.
This is not only morally wrong, but fails utterly in its alleged attempt to be green. Victims of this tax (including several previously apathetic people in my office who are no suddenly reacting very negatively against Labour) suffer doubly - an extra tax, and also a reduced resale value of the vehicle, making it MORE UNLIKELY that they will be able to purchase a greener car even if they wanted to.
In short it is a rubbish idea wrong on several levels. U-turn coming I predict, probably along the lines of the 10p thing, i.e. not a straightforward u-turn but some mish-mash which is wholly inadequate.
236, the BBC iPlayer has Daily Politics shows, though today’s isn’t uploaded yet.
Just go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer and search (top right of the page).
The reason we always get three different views of PMQs is that the three leaders are aiming for very different things, and their supporters are right behind them.
Cameron is usually aiming (superficially) to out-soundbite and embarrass Brown, and he always succeeds. His die-hard supporters love him for it. However, it often comes across to the neutral as a bit lightweight, punch and judy, etc. especially when he is not on a great day. I think it is actually hardest for him when the attack lines are most obvious - there is a real danger in going too far in just attacking Brown.
I would like to see him ask more serious questions more often.
Brown is usually aiming to brush off the questions with statistics. He usually is mostly successful at this limited strategy. I would like to see his opponents unpick his stats a bit more (as Cameron tried today) rather than attacking him personally on the stuttering and so on.
145 - Alex, A Marxist multiculturalist? Feared as much: I blame Malcolm’s bad influence
(Probably perversely) I thought Cameron was at his best in his first three questions on VED, coupled with the witty ripostes to Brown, rather than the final two that had obviously been “Blue Petered” through being prepared earlier.
239. What point would there be in just giving Brown what he wants from Cameron. Some deep issue that Brown can just not awnser the question too. You talk bollocks ed, Tony Blair, Neil Kinnock, William Hague, Michael Howard, Maggie Thatcher etc etc all approached PMQ’s as leader of the opposition in the same way!
I think that today showed that Cameron for the time being is the man of the moment. Clegg was just an irrelavant side show and Brown is very poor indeed. I don’t know why Brown does not just scrap PMQ’s or ask for the questions with a months notice! Mind you he would still probably be shit at that!
After several quite strong performances at PMQs lately, I thought Brown was very rattled and unimpressive today.
It’s noticeable that whilst Cameron addresses him directly with good eye contact, Brown invariably faces the Speaker when replying, which makes him look weak and cowardly.
243. Brown also does that irrating thing holding his hand out at the opposition benches like John Major did. Like all imitations Brown is a dud in comparison to his role model major!
Why are most people pro Obama on this site when all he appears to offer is empty rhetoric( in other words piss & wind)& absolutely no substance.Also his wife appears to loathe “whites”.Cannot see McCain losing this.Take note everybody.
as graceless at the end as dismissive she was at the beginning. Thank God she lost…now can someone please tell her. She will be a ted kennedy-like distracting thorn in the side of Obama’s Presidency..so does he have on the inside pissing out or the outside pissing in??? With team Clinton I suspect he’s going to wet either way.
His escape? Make publicly clear he wants her to be the first ever female leader in the Senate….she’ll quickly make enemies and won’t be anywhere near him.
I can’t see Brown making it to the summer recess.
I pity Jack Straw, the poor sod who’s most likely going to have to take up the cudgels of somehow leading Labour to a moderate defeat as opposed to a humiliation before Miliband takes over the process of renewal in Opposition.
On topic, although Mark Penn strikes me as a slimy, odious pillock, I don’t think you can really blame Hillary’s defeat on him personally.
What got defeated in this election was the conventional wisdom.
Until the race got under way, hardly anyone really thought that it would be close to neck-and-neck, or that it would still be wide open after Super Tuesday. Most sensible observers - and the markets - didn’t expect Hillary to come back with a vengenance after Obama’s win in Iowa, then didn’t expect Obama to bounce back after Super Tuesday. Looking at recent history, there were plenty of reasons to think that the strategy that the Clinton team followed made sense.
Hillary ran a traditional campaign. By traditional standards, she ran an exceptionally strong campaign. He defeat comes down to Obama’s team being either exceptionally smart or exceptionally lucky. If it’s the former, McCain is in big trouble.
241. I think Cameron could impress the many undecideds and swing voters a lot better if he led on issues of substance and went for the “I could be doing your job a lot better than you are doing it” approach of naming a policy (of his) and challenging Brown to support it or argue against it. As an example, Cameron could have done a good job today on Zimbabwe, take a strong line, goad Brown into claiming he is doing “everything possible” and then land the knighthood blow. Clegg was unable to but that is partly because of his only having 2 questions.
All very well just trying to rile Brown with soundbites but it persuades noone, i.e. his supporters love it, his opponents aren’t impressed. It also produces no meaningful debate, as Brown comes prepared to bat back the questions.
245. I am not Pro- Obama. I want MaCain to win!
I rate Clinto higher than Obama - the only thing that Obama is good at is speeches. Because Obama is Black i doubt people when going into the polling booths across america will show there support outside of primaries. In many people the racism is uncontious. Some Tobbaco chewing red necks ain’t going to vote for Obama! I can tell you now.
243. I noticed that, he always looks at his own benches or the speaker, rarely at the tories and very rarely at Cameron.
249.
PMQ’s is not about the opposition leader outlining policy. Brown has got into the same trap as major there! Sorry if i irrated you saying you were talking bollocks by the way - rubbish may be a better use of the english language.
PMQ’s is about exposing your opponenents weaknesses - to that end Cameron does a Excellent job.
249. I think swingvoters are more concerned about their car tax being doubled than Zimbabwe. Merits of that can be discussed but it’s a fact of life.
245. Obama’s wife hates whites? I hope you have a citation for this
251. Brown is inward looking and detached that’s why! He probably eats Choclate cake in the No. 10 bunker and watches springtime for Hitler in Germany!
I was a Hillary supporter until she shot herself in the foot too many times to recall.
I know many others think it best for Obama to ‘get rid.’ I agree, in a perfect world, this would be very desireable.
But this has been a tantalisingly close Primary season and almost half of the delegates at the convention are going to be screaming Hillary’s name.
Now - you want to appear like a consensus politician, right? You want to unite your party and your voters.
It would normally make very good sense to have Hillary as the Veep. The problem being for Obama, that it’s Hillary. Who has never been a shrinking violet and who will make his time in the White House incredibly stressful, as Brown did for Blair.
But… if he doesn’t choose Hillary he risks annoying a large proportion of those 49% of delegates or so that are Hillary supporters. Which divides the Party. And leads to McCain sitting back and laughing.
If Hillary is Veep nominee, I’m saying this now - the November election will be won for the Democrats. The Obama supporters and the Clinton supporters combined will make it absolutely toxic for McCain. However, if Hillary is removed from the ticket there’s a problem that she and her supporters start sniping from the sidelines and bring the candidacy down. Hillary has shown she’s capable of being so awkward.
So Obama has a choice - get rid of Hillary and risk a large number of unknowns, which could lead to a McCain victory, or join with Hillary, get an almost certain pass to the White House (IMHO) and then spend the next 4 years in the seventh circle of hell checking for traps in the Oval Office and watching the administration split into two power bases, Blair/Brown style.
All depends on Obama’s outlook - does he value his integrity (and the chance of losing in November due to Hillary Sniping) more than his desire to hold onto the reigns of power (which would be an easier ride if Hillary was the Veep).
I’d be inclined to say he’s the former, but as power comes glaringly close, it could force him into the latter.
Sky News thinks the only important point in PMQs was Brown calling Cameron a used car salesman (Brown central stealing more ideas: “would you buy a used car from this man”. It tends to bite back if the target is more trustworthy than the shooter.)
But then why should I be surprised as at lunch time the station is Brown Central with chief cheerleader K Burley et al. She being the one who loves to interview Brown by covering him in honey and sycophantic smugness.
Sadly she does not wear the proper uniform or carry the necessary pom poms and chant the all important slogan.
250 - America is a rather more diverse country than you recognise, I think. Obama will need to work hard to broaden his appeal, but the “tobacco chewing redneck” community really isn’t a huge one in the states which will be seriously competitive.
By the way, is “MaCain” Michael’s mother?
249. But Cameron has a 20% opinion poll lead, so clearly he’s doing something right?
Were we watching the same thing?
Face it, Browns a total dud and today he was just awful. Did you see the moment Brown accused Cameron of being a used car salesman? This from the guy that tried to con everyone with the 10p tax con. Even Browns pathetic soundbites are made even more rubbish because they simly don’t add up when you look at he guy given them.
Cameron proved today that he can destory Brown at will. HE did address an issue of substance to start of with, over the VED, it was only later on he really went on the attack. And what an attack it was!
256 - It’s the third option which is the best; bring her into the team but not onto the ticket. As the high priestess of triangulation I’m sure that she’d understand.
just for Mark Senior here’s my take on PMQs
“Brown was rubbish and looks ill
Cameron was brilliant incisive and statesmanlike
Clegg was out of his depth”
note: actual opinion may not match publicly stated opinion as poster has neither seen or heard PMQs today.
Mark Senior also wins the kingbongo Neologism Award for Outstanding Contributions to Political Discourse - ‘psycophants’ conjures up images of crazed elephants stomping maniacally around the political arena crushing all in sight. A much more evocative image of the current political climate than boring old ’sycophants’.
245 - Well, there’s a big betting opportunity for you then as McCain is very much the betting outsider. We will have to agree to disagree though.
Perhaps the most worrying sign for McCain is that Obama can easily fill stadiums whereas McCain struggles to fill moderately sized town halls. Of course, enthusiasts only get one vote like the rest of us. But it feeds through into momentum, money, turnout etc.
re 211 I see that Boris’s appointment has now appeared on the HM Treasury’s website
Bob Sykes and others who want to see today’s PMQs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b00c3d7y.shtml?order=date&filter=category%3A100007%2C100009&scope=iplayercategories&start=1&version_pid=b00c3d7d
252, 259. I think he does do a good job of what he is aiming for, however I think he could be doing even better if he aimed for something a bit more interesting.
At the moment the only people who are cheering at PMQs are Con supporters. I’m sure I’m not alone in wanting him to impress me but finding he isn’t really driving the serious questions very well. If he did so, the good soundbites and anger from Brown would surely follow - but at the moment he appears to be aiming for them as the sole end.
To take the example of the VED, this was a curate’s egg today. Brown’s policy does not appear to be watertight, so he should be able to corner him on this. In fact his best moments (for me) were when he dared to challenge the Brown list of statistics. He went for big soundbites a couple of times which, while witty, detracted from the focus. The environmental thing is dodgy ground for him at the moment (he must have known he would get the “car behind with shoes” line) so he should probably have stuck with the number of people who would be worse off. He should not be afraid to counter figures with figures, and then really take the time to explain why the policy is wrong and why Brown should U-turn on some aspect of it - this could be the perfect forum to show that he has the serious oratory and Brown has nothing but stats.
re 256 nice summary. Before betting against Hillary for Veep
1. always bear in mind, as Mike notes, that technically the convention decides. Though it won’t come to a vote, Hillary can effectively declare her candidacy and needs only a fraction of Obama’s delegates to think this is a good idea to make it v hard for Obama to turn her down.
2. check out http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Obama’s still got either to pull in Ohio (he’s a point up) or a state such as Virginia or Missouri which Bush won clearly in 2004. And that assumes Colarado, Iowa are secured. Shouldn’t be a problem this year, but…
265. Countering figures with figures just bogs down the debate, especially as Brown is the master at spinning any figure his way, whether it’s misleading or not. Pluss this isn’t a debate, it’s PMQ’s, he’s meant to ask questions not get stuck into each point, there isn’t time.
267. he needs really damning figures and an authoratitive (specified) source. and to challenge Brown’s figures every time he comes up with them. get on the front foot in the war of stats in other words, rather than getting bogged down.
there must be subjects out there where he can do this (he gets choice of topic) and have a really definitive edge.
Stand by for another U-Turn from our dithering “Sub-Prime Minister”
brought to you in conjunction with Alistair Darling!!!
Engineering giant Smiths Group said it would ‘consider’ moving its UK head quarters overseas because of the government’s proposals on taxing foreign profits.
The company, which has 80% of its business abroad, announced it was closely monitoring the Treasury’s plans to tax passive income from overseas subsidiaries.
‘Whilst there is no current intention to move the domicile of the company from the UK, the board is closely monitoring possible changes to UK tax legislation given the very high percentage of profits generated overseas,’ said chief executive Philip Bowman.
He also announced restructuring of the company with 65 job cuts across the group and relocation of the current headquarters in North London.
The Treasury confirmed it had postponed publication of its consultation document on possible changes from July to the Autumn; a sign it is bowing to lobbying pressure.
The tax proposal changes have worried UK multi-nationals with operations abroad and led to United Business media and Shire Pharmaceuticals relocating their HQ from the UK to Ireland which has a tax friendly regime
254-Charlie-plse refer 120 on current thread - also did she not state recently “that for the first time she felt proud to be an American”-that infers to me at least that “whitey” has not done “blacks” proud.Its called victim culture.
270 - Unpatriotic maybe but not racist. There are plenty of white British people who aren’t especially proud to be British. In any event she claims she was taken out of context. Maybe so - not sure it is entirely fair to judge the exact words used by a politician’s spouse in the same way as the politician as politicians are trained not to make that sort of error (or at least not often).
260. Agreed. I wonder what though?
I suppose there’s the chance of forcing Reid to ‘retire’ as Senate Majority Leader and getting Hillary into the post. That would give her a nice little bit of power and allow her to toy around with a few legislative proposals, without creating a nemesis in the White House.
Aside from that I know there’s been the talk of her in Cabinet:
Health Secretary - no way. Too weak a position for her. She won’t bite.
There’s always Secretary of State but… hmm… not really ‘Hillary’, is it?
Majority leader the best option, I think.
266. Agreed. Unless both Hillary and Obama can reach an agreement before the convention, it’s going to get very messy IMHO. What people have to remember is that Obama has ‘won’ but he’s won very narrowly. There’s not a large gap in delegates between him and his challenger. If a suitable deal has not been reached behind the scenes, Hillary (or her supporters) could cause trouble in Denver.
I don’t believe that Hillary would try and force herself onto the ticket (if it happens, it has to be with the mutual respect and consent of both the teams), but the fact that someone in her position *could* try is worrying.
This is not a regular Primary season - what you have had is two candidates who have both done exceedingly well with their respective demographics, and they’re almost split 50/50 down the middle. As I say about, in *any* other instance the thing to do would be to form a dream ticket. However, the fact that Hillary is the challenger is the awkward part.
Ben Brogan says Gordon is hurting….
http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/2008/06/gordon-browns-m.html
Poor Gordon. He should retire from ill-health. This cannot be fun.
272 - Senate Majority Leader is a FAR more powerful position with FAR more scope to make trouble for the President than VP. What power does the VP have if the President sidelines her? Casting vote in the Senate - whoopee-doo.
275. Point taken. Hmmm… this just gets messier doesn’t it?
The VED line of questioning was very smart and Gordon has now boxed himself in by saying that most people benefit from the tax rises; just like he said nobody lost out on 10p. Backbenchers will be besieged by constituents when these huge rises take place and the value of their vehicles have collapsed in the second hand market.
Another hilarious performance from Brown today, can Labour really fight an election with this man in charge?
269 This is a good example of how everything which now happens to the Brown government is interpreted adversely. The announcement of the intention to reform the taxation of foreign profits was made in the 2007 budget. Opinions were solicited, a process which ended in September 2007. Since then there has been a long period of discussions with companies likely to be affected. None of this is particularly unusual. A similar lengthy process preceded the coming of R&D tax credits.
However, now that the Brown government has lost the ‘mandate of heaven’ this process seems like dithering, and any comparison between the actual legislation which emerges and the scaremongering of tax directors will be interpreted as a U-turn. Those of us who remember the final years of the Major government will see the similarities.
276 - Not sure it is as messy as people make out. Hillary isn’t above fighting low and dirty but she’s not a monster, she does have a legitimate set of political beliefs which are reasonably closely aligned with Obama and she has an eye on her place in history. So she could come back to haunt him but I suspect won’t.
Offer to support her for Senate leadership (which she might well get anyway) and sling her some cash to pay off some campaign debts. But if she has her heart set on VP position, you can hardly deny it her and she adds a lot to the ticket in my view. If not, there are various other VP choices (Edwards is top choice I think) who also bring plenty to the table.
re 172 all foreign leaders generally get a GCB when they come on a state visit. Caeucescu had his stripped - it’s a disgrace that Mugabe has kept his for so long.
New Henley be election thread perchance?
271-Come on James- she’s been around long enough to recognise the difference.
282 - I am sure if I followed you around for six months recording every word you said, I would pick up a few classic quotes to attack you with. Likewise if you trailed around after me.
That’s also, incidentally, why reality TV is such a success (except the people on it really are idiots so come up with something absurd three or four times a day rather than two or three times a month).
273. I didn’t see PMQs, what with my being in the jungle and all*, but Brogan knows his oats, and is very fairminded. If he says it was bad for Gordo, it was bad.
*I really am in the jungle. I have just had to move villa due to a swarm of Sumatran killer bees coming through my thatched roof. Thahsands of ‘em. Ugh!
Back ontopic, there was an interesting voxpop on CNN just now: An interview with a blue collarish, punchy, 30-something white woman in New York’s Penn Station.
Interviewer: “Who did you vote for?”
Blue Collar Woman: “Hillary!”
“So… Will you vote for Obama now?”
“No way! I’m voting McCain!”
“Why not Obama?”
“Because I don’t think America is ready for a black man as president.”
Interviewer (sounding perplexed): “But why should that affect the way YOU vote?”
Woman, pausing, and looking slightly uncomfortable:
“It’s just my personal choice. OK?!”
It’s a bizarre argument. “I’m not voting for a black man as president… because America is not ready for a black man as president”.
Basically she’s saying I PERSONALLY am not ready for a black man as prez.
Obama has a tough fight ahead.
We’ve discussed the VP thing plenty before, but it’s not clear to me that Clinton brings a lot of benefits to the ticket that someone like Edwards wouldn’t, whereas she clearly brings a bunch of drawbacks that someone else wouldn’t.
The only was in which making Hillary VP would be a net positive for Obama would be if Clinton was determined to try to blow up his campaign unless she got the job. She’d only do that if the most negative caricature of her painted by her opponents turns out to be accurate. In which case the question for Obama is whether he wants the risk of putting someone like that on his ticket, or whether he’d rather pick a team-player.
277. Note that the VED changes don’t take effect until April 2009. Then they will only affect each individual when they renew their tax disc - so it will hit people in stages from April 2009 to March 2010.
I’m sure Brown will back down but if he doesn’t it’s going to be hitting people with almost perfect timing in the run up to the GE!
Just watched PMQ’s again.
Cameron was really very good indeed, it was a crushing blow for Brown.
Nick Clegg had less impact than a can of rotting cat food. His cotribution to parlaiment is as appatising to MP’s as rotting cat food
Latest Rasmussen Presidential Tracker :
McCain 45% .. Obama 47%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Looking at PMQs for the second time I must say Brogan is right. Most of Brown’s answers were gibberish or non sequiturs.
The collapse, political and emotional, seems to be gathering pace as shown by Brown’s face when he was asked about early morning cold calling.
Can someone in such pain and turmoil do the job properly? Can his judgment be unaffected? It is not just the totemic nuclear button, but more importantly the daily decisions he can make that put the lives of so many on the line - soldiers, security and police personnel to mention only a few.
47.
I think supporting McCain over Obama isn’t inconsistant with being (slightly) left of centre. Fighting against despotism, defending Israel, spreading democracy and preventing genocide are deeply progressive principles. Similarly, Obama has done nothing about the environment, nothing to reform US education, nothing to reform immigration and gorges himself on every wasteful spending programme and earmark. I’d probably guess that McCain has spoken more about poverty over the past four years than Obama has.
Of course, I’d prefer it if McCain hadn’t capitulted to the right on tax cuts and was a bit more socially liberal. However, abortion and gay marriage are irrelevant when Iran (and Syria) might shortly have the capacity to nuke Israel. Similarly, the exact rate of capital gains tax will be irrelvant if a rush to protectionism turns a mild downturn into a recession or something worse. I also think that the direction of the post-2006 Democratic congress does not inspire any confidence in terms of getting domestic legislation passed.
I’ve been a member of the Labour party since the age of 14 and I (in a moral sense since I’m obviously not a US citizen) support McCain, and I guess that whoever is in Number 10 on November 8th won’t be sorry to see the inevitable McCain victory.
285. Dunno, but my feeling is that if she makes the conscious decision she’s going to go for it (the Veep slot), she’ll put absolutely everything into securing it.
I do not think Hillary is an evil woman like a lot of people think. But I do think, having seen her over the course of these primaries, she can be very ruthless. And this streak in her can sometimes make her and her team a little blind to etiquette and reason.
As such, I’m not sure she would snipe on the sidelines in order to bring down Obama; but she may, inadvertently, snipe of the sidelines because she thinks she’s speaking for a lot of Democrats and as such she’s being self-publicising (with the adverse effect of harming Obama as she does so).
I think Hillary has to take a long, hard look at herself over the next few days, and ask herself is she still sees herself as President. If she still wants to be President at some point in her lifetime, there are largely no negatives in campaigning to be veep:
1) If the Obama/Clinton ticket loses in November, she can say she would have done better at the top of the ticket and have a good go at 2012.
2) If Obama turns out to be a 1 term wonder with Hillary as Veep (possible, but unlikely), she herself has a shot at 2016 due to the experience of being veep.
3) If Obama serves two terms, she becomes nominee presumptive due to being Veep.
Now, if 2 or 3 occur, she’d be 68 by the time of the 2016 Presidential election. That’s only 3 years younger than McCain and one year younger than Ronald Reagan in 1980. She’d have to ask herself if she has the energy for such a run.
But if she still wants to be President, it’s worth campaigning to get herself on the ticket.
285 - I guess it’s not unreasonable to argue that whilst Edwards and Clinton both bring white working class voters to the ticket, the evidence of the primary season is that Clinton is significantly more appealing to such voters than Edwards. She also has unique appeal to female voters and some appeal to blue-collar pensioners (Edwards had an anti-trade, pro-union thing going on which was not so relevant to OAPs whereas Clinton had quite a broad appeal to working class voters of all ages because of how she comes across as a gutsy fighter).
All that said, I think Edwards would be strong on the ticket.
289.. only Brown cannot make a decision, it has to be dragged out of him. its usually the wrong one too. Hence the state Labour are in. The man is a complete liability.
H Rodham Clinton would be a very dangerous choice as nominee for Veep. She brings such a huge amount of baggage including her husband; additionally she would be a total repudiation of Obama’s message of bringing change to the party and to DC.
There are enough talents in the party from which to choose.
H Rodham Clinton’s most enthusiastic supporters have been white women of a certain age; these feminists are aware that by contributing in any way to the election of McCain will mean that they will lose a chance to reverse the drift to the right of the Supreme Court. These women are smart enough to recognise that and thus, I believe, only the most bitter will sit on their hands.
Malcolm
278 Very true. Every action Brown takes is now viewed negatively - Labour can never get back on the front foot under him now.
It’s interesting to compare his plight with the fair wind being given to Bojo, our new mayor, who can do no wrong at present in the media’s eyes. But if you look in detail at what’s going on it’s one cock-up after another - at least as incompetent as Brown -if I was a tory I think I’d be more than a bit concerned at how his mayoralty will progress.
89. He shuld cetainly get some profssional help going through difficulttimes n the public eye must be tough. Brown should be removed asap, it did no work out - somejobs are like that.
On the subject of personalities in politics I watched Mark Oaten on the Newspaper review one evening earlier this week. He was very good at it, he really does need to forget the past though and stop thinking about “it” - he should adopt the Alan Clark approach - so what!
295 - “But if you look in detail at what’s going on it’s one cock-up after another”
Could you be more specific pls?
295. what mistakes has he made?
295: ‘…it’s one cock-up after another…’
Could you elaborate?
295. What cock up’s?
Great minds think alike!
290. Matthew JGC Partridge calls the McCain victory in November “inevitable” !!
Yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Obama wins in a landslide!!
295:
Cripes! 295 prompted some swift reponses from us Borisista!
290 - I did say “virtually” everyone on the centre-left would back Obama over McCain. I don’t doubt the sincerity of your beliefs but strongly suspect you are in a tiny minority of centre-left people in the UK.
There are some senses in which I like McCain too - he has a compelling personal story showing strength of character and I prefer the Republican approach to free trade. The McCain approach to Iran really hasn’t got many friends on the centre-left though and his approach on social issues is really quite alien to the centre-left. So, as I say, I suspect you are in a small minority on this one.
295 Boris is taking quick clear-cut decisions. Not the same kind of animal at all as the Hesitator.
ED. 249, The tax issue is one of substance. Bear in mind Cameron’s strategy is to press Brown on the new road license fees, with “retrospective” impact, which Brown cannot meaningfully defend. Cameron gets much more credit when Brown does his “U turn” later. He also makes life more difficult for some Labour back benchers who will now be more likely to create a fuss on this issue. I think this was by far Cameron’s most effective attack on Brown since last October.
Cameron has previously asked many serious questions on Burma, Zimbabwa, Iraq etc but he does not primarily do it for short term political gain but to demonstrate he is statesmanlike and PM material.
284.
The argument that ‘America is not ready for a X’ is usually a eumphamism for saying ‘I don’t want to vote for a X’. However, there have been a few cases when it means what it says, especially in that older members of certain communities may fear a backlash if a candidate from that community is elected (eg 2000 and 2004).
296. And the tragedy of this is that whilst some jobs don’t work out and most people shrug their shoulders and try something else, Brown has been wanting this job all his life. And now he’s got it, everyone is telling him he’s absolutely rubbish at it.
It will be very difficult for Brown not to see his whole career (and therefore, if we believe biographers, basically his life) as a failure if viewed through the spectrum of being terrible at the job he so wanted.
It is sad. Because Brown was a formidible politician as Chancellor. We can sit and argue all day at how successful he actually was, but lets face it, the perception is that from the early 90s to 2007 he was viewed as a political mastermind and brilliant talent. He must remember this when he shortly leaves office - he did have many ‘great years,’ and those are the ones he should reflect on. If he does, I have no doubt he will be very respected in his retirement and could become a powerful elder statesman of the Labour party and academic.
I doubt he will see it as anything but a complete failure of his whole life, however, which I think is particularly sad.
Witan, I agree - and Brogan was exceptionally hard on Brown. How much of this can one man take? You almost had to wince as David struck home time after time.
306. for me, he should not have allowed Brown to draw him onto the environment as a topic, it is a potential weakness for him.
See Hills have cut Jacqui Smith to 12-1. She was 50-1 a couple of weeks ago. Interesting, perhaps those on here who were talking her up yesterday are behind this.
308 - It would be sad because he has a lot to contribute after he goes if he can stomach it. Not a supporter of his, but he is extremely sincere about third world development and has put a lot of energy very effectively into the issue over the past decade. I can see him contributing there if he does not withdraw even further into himself.
310. Brown was taken part by Cameron - You cannot spin Brown’s failure. The Bloke really should resign and lecture the world on non-enegernous growth theory!
This could be the tipping point into recesion:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article4065410.ece
308 Indeed, there are only a handful of politicians alive who can claim to have had more influential political careers than Brown. Maybe only three. In the long view, he should be pretty pleased with himself.
Who amongst us can can claim to have reached as high in our professions? Probably not one of us.
311 - I don’t think Smith is a serious candidate at the minute, she is in a very marginal constituency, she could very easily lose her seat at the next election. If she survives the election and Brown goes after the election, then she could be in with a shout.
OK I just saw PMQs (didn’t realise you could stream it abroad).
Cameron just eviscerates Brown. It’s not so much that Cammo is good (he’s quite good, but he’s no better than Early Blair, at best) it’s that Brown is so pathetically easy to duff up.
The PM just looks frit. White-faced, nervy, halting, sad. At some points he sounds like he is actually pleading with Cameron to stop being so beastly, like the unpopular runt in the schoolyard surrounded by Flashman and his gang.
It’s the first time I’ve seen a prime minister visibly out of his depth. Major was considerably better than this.
314 thanks Martin Day, from your link
“Despite the City’s conviction that base rates will be pegged tomorrow, the CIPS figures will fuel fears that the economy is rapidly sliding into a serious downturn.”
depressing.
If he hadn’t become prime minister there would have been books written about him as a lost talent like Healey or Butler. The comparison with Butler could be apt. I wonder if the sensitive Butler would actually have made a good premier. He has always appeared to me an academic manqué, rather like Brown.
PMQ’s is largely irrelevant. If Blair was still in power, he’d be making Cameron look stupid every week, but the Tories would still be ahead (though not by as much I feel) in the polls. People just don’t care about PMQ’s, it’s for the benefit of political anoraks like us.
320 – Charlie, I think you are missing the point, Brown does not inspire his back benchers, the lobby or the MSN, to say “PMQ’s is largely irrelevant” is pure wishful thinking on your part.
317 Didn’t know it escaped these fair isles. Would love to be a fly on the wall at a showing to a US politics class. They must think we’re mad.
315. Very true, Brown created the New Labou projects in Social Security, financial framework - Even if you do not agree with them he has had much impact since going into No.11. Problem for Brown is he is not the right personality for PM.
[320] - For sure, and yet it’s a standard environment repeated many times a year, so gives us a chance to view how the individual participants are faring. If Brown were doing better otherwise, he’d probably be in better spirits and shape in PMQs.
Right now I’d be seriously worried if Brown improved markedly in PMQs, as it would probably take him so long to prepare for it that he wouldn’t have the time to sort himself out in more important ways.
321. Wishful thinking? I’d love to see the back of Brown. My point was that PMQ’s is not going to affect the way people vote. Internal party politics is a completely different matter.
320, 321. As Simon says, PMQs is important for parliamentary morale. If Brown had given a rousing performance today, he’d have sent his MPs home in a more combative mood, which would possibly feed into a wider sense of recovery. Or at least an end to Labour’s headlong descent.
Brown’s uselessness at MPs, which is what it is, instead reinforces a sense of hapless doom in his MPs, which rattles Brown still further - and so on and so forth.
Negative feedback is the phrase, innit?
320,321 Normaally, I’d say PMQ matters little. Hague was good at it, but it didn’t help him. But Brown is obviously not up to the cut and thrust of this. In the past, Blair would make a joke to deflect a tricky question, but Brown has no idea how to do this. Rabitt and headlights come to mind.
It’s the image of Lab MPs not being happy with their boss being unable to cope with PMQs which means that on this occasion it’s relevant.
326. I meant “Brown’s uselessness at PMQs”. But you knew that.
Jacqui Smith as PM, theonly thing she has going for her are her churns, she has a nice pair of Lungs but that won’t make her PM. Not unless the Sun run a campaign as they say in yes Minister - “the paper does not care who is PM s long as she has big tits!”
I thought that Smith got a fair press and even the comment about looking as though sh had someones arse down her shirt was not negative. eresa May has had that look for years! :LOL:
Having just come to PB for the first time today, I haven’t read all of the posts, but see there is a vigorous debate about Hillary’s VP prospects. While Mike is correct that it is technically the delegates, elected and super, who will choose not only the presidential nominee but also the VP nominee, it must be added that Hillary’s delegates will not act against her will.
If Hillary wants to demand the VP slot, either by suggesting she was the “real” winner of the primaries or because she’s somehow earned it, she can’t do so quietly. She must send the signal to her delegates that she wants them to act accordingly. It would inevitably be a public spectacle and would be a real nightmare for her party. Can you imagine the scene of Hillary figuratively screaming and crying for the sought-after bauble, and then having indulgent papa Obama finally give in to the spoiled brat? It would make Hillary look terrible and Obama look weak. This would not create a dream team; in fact, it might be the best way for Obama to lose in November.
Her other option is to play nice and send the signal to her delegates that Obama is the nominee and it is his choice to make. If she does this, she can’t later renege on this sentiment and make demands at the convention. Having a free hand, why would he choose a VP so ill-suited to him?
308: ‘It is sad. Because Brown was a formidible politician as Chancellor.’
Really?
Forgetting about his poor choices in the job, like selling gold at its lowest level for years, he was always given a benign press but still had to play silly games like black out sections of the budget he used to give the opposition parties.
Brown was lucky that when he was Chancellor the world economy was reasonable, the press were biased, and the public didn’t care.
315. I’m sorry but Brown’s will not go down in history as a very successful politician. Determined - yes. Hard working - yes. For a left-wing politician, you could not hope to come to power at a more fortunate time. Economy okay, opposition in disarray. Brown’s economic leagcy is passable at best and he’s shown himself to be a pretty hopeless manager. Not surprising for a guy with no such previous experience.
Quote of the Day…
“Of all the talents bestowed upon men and women, none is as precious as the gift of oratory. Abandoned by his party, betrayed by his friends, stripped of his office, whoever can command this power is still formidable. Winston Churchill
Explains: Brown, Clinton, Obama, and Cameron. Oh and Jacqui Smith!
[331] - Ah, but politically, in the Mandelsonian sense, he was “formidable”. How many other heir-apparents have survived a decade in waiting? How many others have forced their own boss to give up cherished dreams (eg Euro entry)?
In an economic sense, your points would be the basis of a reasonable case to claim that his record was mediocre, though Britain’s performance over the period of Brown’s chancellorship is creditable compared to other OECD countries, I believe. The person you quoted said he was a formidable “politician”, however.
333, and Galloway. I find his views repugnant on many things but he’s a damn good speaker.
Interesting exchange on the Daily Politics. All four major climatological agencies in the world have now recorded a ten year fall in global temperatures. By 0.3 degrees a year.
Ten years of FALLING temperatures? This starts to look ominous for the Hezbollah of Hemispherical Heating.
The worm has turned.
OT
Barclays today hit my 340p target.. -well actually 343p
and the economy? Anyone who thinks we will achieve 1.6% GDP growth this year is an optimist…
June 4 (Bloomberg) — U.K. services from banks to airlines unexpectedly contracted for the first time in five years and consumer confidence fell to the lowest level since at least 2004, as the economy edged closer to a recession.
An index based on replies from about 700 service companies fell to 49.8 in May, the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply said today in London. A reading below 50 shows contraction. Nationwide Building Society’s consumer sentiment index dropped 1 point to 69, the lowest since the survey began in May 2004.
The pound declined against the euro after the reports, which showed services companies shed jobs at the fastest pace since 1996. While the Bank of England decides on rates tomorrow and Governor Mervyn King says the U.K. may face a recession, faster inflation is making it harder to cut borrowing costs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=amlLH.odVCrw&refer=uk
I will not touch banks for 2-3 years. A vat of radioactive toxic waste makes a better home for an investment than a bank. Expect a raft of takeovers and mergers in 2 years’ time when bankshare prices have fallen another 25%?
Thi looks like bad news for HBOS, they are really starting to creak. I know of people drawing balances above £35,000 just in case.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4064343.ece
Nothern Rock will ook like a picnic if B & B ad HBOS go under at the same time.
Obama is giving a very good speech right now to AIPAC.
336, didn’t see that bit. Be amusing to watch how widely it isn’t reported.
I wonder how the Bishop of Stafford is feeling.
337 Just wait for Gordon to start cutting spending as tax receipts collapse and his wildly hopeful GDP forecasts come unstuck. Thats when Labour poll sub 20%
320. You may be partly right. A good performance at PMQ’s is not generally recognised by the Public. It is however a powerful tool for motivating your MP colleagues and party acrtivists many
of whom regularly watch PMQ’s. On the other hand bad performances can be very harmful as happened with Ming who lost the support of many of his collegues partly because of his initial bad PMQ performances. There is now more pressure on Brown to avoid bad performances at PMQ’s because morale in the Labour Party is very low. PMQs are currently very relevant and Browns performances may well influence how long he remains PM.
[336] - Would be if it had happened, but it hasn’t. It’s possible that the May 2008 temperature was 3 degrees lower than the May 1998 temperature, but that’s simply internal variability.
The last ten years have certainly been warmer than the ten years before. It is on those timescales that the climate system operates, not cherrypicking data from individual months.
342, I’d add Vince Cable’s example to that. He’s elevated his media profile and is probably well-recognised (for a Lib Dem) amongst the public due to his performances as temporary leader.
Isn’t that a nice picture of Boris!
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23490142-details/Boris%3A+children+must+have+more+time+for+art/article.do
Don’t they make a nice couple?
New thread now up.
Thanks
Double Carpet
344. Agreed
331. It was clear from my post at 308 that I meant in the political sense. I followed up that statement with a “we can argue all day about how successful he actually was.”
But no-one can deny Brown as Chancellor was a formidable politician. Whether you think he did a good job with the economics or not.
Same with Thatcher - you can disagree with just about everything she did, but you wouldn’t deny she was a formidable politician as PM.
344. I was very disappoined to see Cable being much less trusted on the economy than Osborne and Darling from a recent poll. Clearly the tribal British public still doesn’t take the Lib Dems too seriously
340. I actually find it hard to believe. I think Andrew Neil may have got his facts wrong (or I misheard). 0.3 degrees a year for ten years? That’s a huge drop in temperatures. Don’t buy it.
Nonetheless it is clear that we have now had a decade of flatlining or falling temperatures worldwide: a fact which doesn’t comfortably fit with the AGW hypothesis, no matter what the Believers say.
I’m not saying Climate Change ain’t happening. Just that this is no longer such a one-sided debate. Cameron take note!
OK I’m off to my mosquito net. Gnite.
332. he clearly will go down as a successful chancellor, if only because he was so long serving as the right hand man of an historic prime minister.
I’m sorry to pursue this but for Christ’s sake she is a CORPORATE LAWYER who is supposed to be intelligent-they put themselves in the frame & will be judged accordingly-remove the scales from your eyes.
352 for 283.
[336] - I’ve checked the HadCRUT3 data to find out what you are talking about and it turns out that the 1998 anomaly was +0.515 and the 2008 anomaly (up to the end of April) is +0.220 which is nearly 0.3 degrees lower.
However, the year isn’t even half done yet, so it’s bizarre to start using it as evidence of a trend. Furthermore, the anomaly for 2000 was only +0.238, which shows how much the temperature can bounce about from year to year.
The important thing to look at is the long-term trend. 1990 was the earliest year in the record to have an anomaly greater than +0.2 There has been a La-Nina, and yet the year is still on course to be the 14th warmest on record. That’s quite exceptional.
When the next strongish El-Nino arrives, it will surpass the 1998 temperature with ease.
HadCRUT3 data on the Met Office website http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/HadCRUT3.html and links therein.
351. What was historic about Blair? The PR machine? Iraq? If he was so historic, why don’t people care about him now he’s gone. Thatcher IMO has got to be considered far more historic than Blair.
Maybe if Blair had undone a lot of her damage - but he didn’t.
295 Well, for a start he announced that he’d chair both TfL and the MPA. Then, a few days later, he announced that Tim Parker would chair TfL (from September - in addition to being deputy mayor and chief executive of the GLA). A few days after that he announced that he also wouldn’t chair the MPA - and reappointed Len Duvall, the Labour GLA member who was Ken’s appointee!
Then he went on to say that, despite promising during the campaign to be a full-time mayor, he would also continue to write a column in the Telegraph, for which he is allegedly paid £250,000 a year.
Then we have the 4th plinth in Trafalgar Square, which Ken had been using for temporary displays of contemporary art. Boris promised that he would ensure it became a memorial to a Keith Park, a WW2 RAF commander. However, after his election he promptly went back on that and announced that displays of contemporary art would continue. Naturally the Keith Park lobby was a bit miffed about this, and so now it seems that one of the temporary displays on the plinth will be a memorial to Keith Park!
And finally - for now - we have the saga of his advisers - he seemed not to realise there would be a conflict on interest in appointing Simon Milton, former Chair of Westminster Planning Committee, as his chief adviser on planning. There is also a rather less obvious, but still strange, conflict in the position of Kit Malthouse, an assembly member who he appointed Deputy Mayor - Policing.
Had Ken done all this he would have benn ridiculed on the front page of the Standard for days.
335 - And Hitler, for that matter.
354. I think this global cooling is being given too much credence ATM but I have to say that the warming camp haven’t helped themselves by refusing to admit that temperatures have not kept increasing since 2000.
245.
“all he appears to offer is empty rhetoric( in other words piss & wind)”
Personally I do not see this level of continuity with Bush, Reagan and Bush
A commentary on the USA elections:
Right about now many Republicans’ asking themselves how, what and where did this man Obama end up becoming the Democratic candidate for the presidency. Some might be foolish enough to believe that this victory is sign of greatness. Ah, alias, if the world was so simple.
It times to unzip the dismantling toolkit from the loft and have a look at the bits and pieces the toy everyone in USA is being asked to buy! There is uncannily familiar about Obama mannerisms, personality and projection in the media. I’m sure many people have this feeling about him, but can’t quite put their finger on this feeling of familiarity, which is manifestly stronger the younger you are.
Yes, as everyone has guessed: it is all those Hollywood films portraying a dreamlike President that Hollywood writers wished won elections like in Deep Impact, Independence Day, etc. Of course, these films are not about Barack Obama, it the reverse process that has occurred. Barack Obama has, like many British politicians watched and have copies of Yes, Minister, watched the portrayals of politicians in Hollywood films and modelled his mannerism, personality and projection to the media as being the “Hollywood Cliché”. Image all that free, indirect and instant connection with the electorate by being something they recognise – manipulation of masses without judgement of merit!
This begs the greater question: If a man devotes energies and time to becoming a cliché, can have devoted any energy and time to being a great leader? Men are very bad at multi-tasking, which I guess answers that question! I’d guess the Republicans must destroy the Hollywood Cliché, which must surely lead defeat the copycat candidate to win the Whitehouse for another 4 years, as well as the normal stuff down in elections.
345. Yes they do make a nice couple.