Will this man wield the knife?
August 2nd, 2008
-
What role does John Hutton have yet to play?
It was Michael Heseltine who famously remarked on his own failed bid to become Prime Minister that “He who wields the knife will never wear the crown”. This oft-repeated dictum has since played its part in preventing leadership coups, by tempering the ambition of those who would otherwise seek to overthrown their leader.
This week saw fevered speculation, first Jack Straw posing for photos in the Sunday Papers, then Harriet Harman denying she had said ‘this is my time’, then David Miliband writing that article for the Guardian and holding both a press conference and radio interview which centred on his plans to topple Brown or lack thereof. These three, along with Alan Johnson, are now the frontrunners for any challenge to the PM - the only likely candidates, with the stature and name-recognition from their Cabinet roles, who are considered potential Premiers.
And yet, even with Gordon Brown away on holiday (or perhaps for that very reason) no overt strike was launched. None of them seemed prepared to wield the knife, all offered tepid support of the PM and laughed off claims that they were seeking to replace him. What struck me this week was that unless Brown steps down of his own volition, an executioner will be required and it will not be one of the four ‘candidates’ who want only to pick up the crown once the head falls from the block.
Who might play this role? It would need to be a current Cabinet minister - any other challenger would be dismissed, even (I suspect) former ‘big beasts’ such as Milburn or Charles Clarke. An independently-minded, politically-astute politician, not too scared of standing up to the PM’s legendary fits of rage.
It will be none of the Brownite faction (Balls, Cooper, Ed Miliband, Alexander, Woodward), and will not be one of the young Turks (Purnell, Burnham, Flint). Hoon has reportedly been offered Peter Mandelson’s European Commissioner Role for his loyalty; Benn, Hain, Blears, Ruth Kelly and Des Browne are too weak; Darling and Smith owe their careers to Brown’s patronage. Other than John Denham, who perhaps lacks the stature, there is only one man I could see successfully wielding the knife, and that is the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform: John Hutton.
Hutton is a Cabinet member I actually respect a great deal. Grammar School and Oxford-educated, he was brought into the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and spent two years at Work and Pensions. An arch-Blairite, he was one of few in that faction to be invited to remain in the Cabinet, and it is testament to his political nouse that he survived as difficult a department as the DWP so unscathed.
He is considered highly competant by those who have worked with him, and is certainly not scared to speak his mind, or to stand up to Gordon Brown on occasion. His majority in Barrow & Furness has fallen from 14,497 in 1997 to 6,037 in 2005 - safe if fortunes improve a little, but doomed if nothing changes. If he really was the poet who penned the ‘Man on the Stair’ ditty (with a little help from William Hughes Mearns), suffice it to say his loyalty to Brown is not absolute.
Whilst all the prospective candidates were rushing out policy (Purnell on benefit-system reform, Harman on equality, Miliband’s tour of Britain) John Hutton scored a good win this week, by announcing that waiting staff would no longer see their tips used by their company to top them up to minimum wage - rather minimum would be paid, and tips would be given in full to staff. This has been welcomed by the media, by the public, and most importantly by the Trades Unions who are bankrolling Labour (around 90% of the party’s income).
Hutton has a platform, he is no Brownite, he has never expressed leadership ambitions for himself, he is popular with the paymasters at the moment, and most importantly is one of few in the Cabinet not afraid to face up to the PM. If the likely successor is to be Harman, David Miliband, or Jack Straw, they will need a knife-wielder - who more appropriate than the one of the last true Blairites in government?
Morus
In other news: PoliticalBetting has picked up a couple of awards from The Witangemot Club. PB.com was voted “Best Election Coverage / Polling Blog” and “Best Dicussion / Community”. As if either of those were even in doubt…!
MessageSpace Advertising
test
No-one will. In true Scots, they’re all feart.
(scared).
Or rather, the ones who want to will not cos they ahve no balls, and the ones who have balls don’t want to.
Anyway, since when - apart from when Tony Blair was leader - have Labour been ruthless in wanting power?
Hutton is rumoured to have reached some kind of understanding with Miliband if the latter stood.
OT but Ramps now 95 not out
4 if ever a person deserved the accolade then its ramps. a great batsmen
96 not out…
Ramps does it !!!
100 100’s
Who cares about Hutton when there’s cricket and golf to watch. Take a few hours off guys. The game will be afootsoon enough tomorrow.
Brown should make Milliband Chancellor. That would be revenge;)
3 Johnson is said to be in the Miliband camp as well - possibly as DPM (hell of snub to Harman if so). Miliband would be the person I’d expect Hutton to back, which is why I see him as potential knife-wielder.
That said, the fact that he is the only one I can see taking this role leads me to think that Brown is safe at least until next year, maybe until after the Euro elections in May, where Labour might not even get 20% (they got 21% last time).
Hutton is self-effacing, honest, human. Virtually everything that actors like Blair and Cameron or bullies like Brown are not. He could well emerge as a leader by being drafted as a ’safe pair of hands’. Miliband is all froth. Balls a hollow vessel, Purnell keeps a spare set of teeth in his brain. Straw looks like he spends half of his life pining for Condoleza.
And what would he be up against? Andy Cook from the last topic reminds us of Cameron’s (lack of) judgement.
“I will grudgingly support the government on Iraq and pray that war is short, writes David Cameron MP”
Apparently just because Chameleon does not fancy it he should not be given ‘ownership’ of his unfortunate mistakes. Presumably he wants to be known by his gas-guzzling photo-shoot in the arctic and his bike-riding followed by chauffeurs. Makes up for his total lack of policies I suppose.
I can imagine the joy in the Hutton household when they learn that he has been nominated by PBC as the man most likely to assasinate the PM. Wife crying, children clinging to his knees. “Is it true, Daddy? What will the big nasty man do to us now ?”
10. And Purnell apparently.
Talk of a reshuffle seems to be intensifying in the media with more suggestion that it will happen in September rather than August. Johnson is reported to be under consideration as a Deputy PM in that reshuffle as it is.
If there is a Harman vs Miliband battle breaking out, the lady is being outmanouvered so far.
Hutton’s notional majority is actually only 4836 or 12.5% so he looks relatively done for. It is difficult to see any of them wielding the ‘knife’ on Brown but that wont stop the speculation. I just cannot see it happening, they are in collective paralysis, like rabbits frozen in the headlights.
10. All other things being equal, he probably would be safe until next year. Unfortunately (for him) we’ve got this autumn and winter to get through first and political manoeuvrings are likely to look like very small beer compared to the economic squeeze an awful lot of people are going to go through.
In other circumstances he’d survive that too, but fighting on two fronts - ambitious would-be assassins stirring up the PLP plus normally loyal cheerleaders falling away and UK plc falling off a cliff - will finish him.
Well, I guess I’ll have to take my mind off Ramps 100th 100, and Ochoa playind in The Open and deal with this monor irritation. Hutton won’t be the assassin Morus, for the simple reason that he is now Marked by PB. As for Millipede, forget it; what a wally.
Reports earlier this week were that the Trades Unions wanted Hutton’s head as part of the deal to support Brown so not sure even the minimum wage v tips action will have made him the TUCs favourite boy.
Brown obviously saw him as a danger and appointed him despite “he’ll be a f*****g awful PM” and other reported rows with Gordon.
Certainly it is imperative that those who wish him him out need to move or their hesitation may be fatal.
As I mentioned the other day, Brown doesnt have to run away yet because of Miliband’s intervention.
Those engageed against Brown, from whatever angle, see a direct challenge as the last resort. They’d much rather make it next to impossible for Gordon to hang on and try to edge him out first then have a nice race afterwards.
In that context, McDonnell’s words are interesting yes he’s out there with nothing other than a rump of hard left MPs but at least he;s not afraid to see it.
What I’m most interested to see is if there are any other Labour figures with a poison pen in the Sundays.
’say it’ not ’see it’
Hasn’t the Telegraph/YouGov poll killed the idea of Mr Brown being uniquely bad for Labour?
fr @ 12
…….family life is not quite as you imagine.
It seems that Nick Palmer shares the view of a number of his colleagues- let Gordon re-shuffle, wait for 6 months and see how things stack up for next springs polls.
Whilst I do not doubt that this appears to be a safe option, I just think that the Labour party will continue to lose support in the interim period.
The re-shuffle will be underpinned by uncertainty, and the mutterings, briefings, dire polls will continue. What happens when Labour slide below 20, fall blow the LD’s, see the Tories top 50? All these things will happen IMO with Gordon at the helm.
Who really cares what this shower of losers surrounding Brown do? None has the guts to make a move. If Milliband had any backbone he would have moved this week.
Let them keep squabbling while the rest of us in the real world worry about our energy bills and businesses and then see the surprise on their little faces when we not only knock them out but take seats which are as “unloseable” for Labour as many we lost in 1997 were supposedly unloseable for us.
20- Dave B- the reverse. Labour polling 24% with only 50% of Labour voters satisfied with Gordon. That makes Gordon’s satisfaction ratings 12%. Take out the Scottish sub set and it is probably the most horrific poll for a PM in our lifetime.
Most probably less than 10% of people in England are satisfied with Gordon.
11, wage slave,
Come to think of it, your argument on the last thread “But it is true that the Tories as a whole, and Cameron in particular, were more in favour of Blair’s war than the pseudo-Tories of ‘New Labour’ were.” has convinced me. That he must have been the ringleader of those Tories that “Many Tories made it clear at the time that they would have gone to war in Iraq supporting Bush even without the WMD *****ks”.
Cameron should be held at least as responsible as was Blair. His constant warmongering - in his own words “Most of us fence sitters have backed the credible threat of force in order to encourage Saddam to comply with the UN. But most of us would also like something else to be done before that threat becomes reality. More time for the inspectors. Another resolution, with a final, final warning. One more heave from the international community. A delegation from the Arab league to visit Saddam and tell him the game is up.”
How could we stand for such thumping of the war drums? And later, out of his own mouth (or pen, as the case may be), he redoubles his call for bloodshed:
“Politics is rarely about choosing between the very best answer and the very worst one. It is usually about trying to do the least bad thing given all the circumstances, most of which are completely beyond your control. That may sound hard-bitten, pessimistic and depressing, but it’s true.
And now it is decision time. Which way will I go?
Grudgingly, unhappily, unenthusiastically I will back the UK government and support the use of force”
You’re absolutely right with your contention that it is, in every way “Cameron’s War”. He even ended his piece with the stirring cry for bloodshed:
“For those of us who hoped for a different timetable, a different approach and a different outcome this may be deeply unsatisfactory. But I see no alternative to backing our government and our troops - and praying that the war is short”
And, of course, as a backbencher, he had the power to prevent this. He could have stopped it all - which is why he should be held alongside Blair and Brown as one of the three chief architects of the conflict.
Thank you for opening my eyes.
22. Waiting until next Spring is a potentially a dangerous tactic. One year until the General Election. At what point does it become too late to replace Brown?
24
Yes, but dreadful as his numbers are, none of the suggested alternatives improve them. So why would Labour go through all the hoo-haa of replacing Mr Brown (I can’t see him going quietly) when they don’t have the promise of magic fairy dust hitting their polling numbers when the new bod gets the hot-seat?
26
It was too late to replace Brown the day he was appointed.
26 - More importantly still, another 6-9 months of tumult in the Labour party. If they don’t move soon, they’ll all be indelibly marked as pusillanimous and treacherous, with the inevitable electoral consequences.
21
Oh! What, his, or in life generally ?
28. Absolutely. I just imagine that it would be difficult to hold a leadership contest as the country goes onto an election footing.
24 I’m not sure it is a ewcord low
June 93 Govt Satisfied 10% Dissatisfied 84%
Major Sat 19% Dis 73%
March 1990 Govt Sat 16% Dis 79%
Thatcher Sat 20% Dis 76%
December 1981 Govt Sat 18% Dis 73%
Thatcher Sat 25% Dis 66%
These seem to be 3 3 most recent record lows
On topic, hello Darling! The very fact that he owes his career to Gordon Brown’s patronage in part would make his intervention more deadly. If he figures that patronage is likely to expire, he might get his retaliation in first.
Whenever I think of Gordon Brown , I think of the film Kind Hearts and Coronets, where Alec Guineiss plays 8 different parts. Dennis Price is the bad guy who murders them all, one of the 8 members of D’Ascoyne family was a Sea Captain, and is seen in the pond standing erect saluting as his boat slips beneath the waves. Classic film/ metaphor for Brown.
25. Nice one, Andy.
Attack 1: Cameron is a nasty right-winger who will eviscerate the poor and sick. Failed, not only because it’s patently untrue, but also because of Brown’s own-goal in entertaining Lady Thatcher to No 10.
Attack 2: He’s a lightweight with no policies. Failed, not only because it’s patently untrue, but also because they keep nicking his policies. In any case it was inconsistent with Attack 1.
Attack 3: He’s a privileged toff who cannot empathise with ordinary people. Failed, even though the first part is true, because (a) the second part is patently untrue, (b) So is Harriet Harman and many of her colleagues, and (c) Who cares in 2008? Class warfare is SO fifties.
Attack 4: All the things we did wrong were his fault. Brilliant! This one will really have Conservative HQ scurrying around in panic. That’s a great line - “Don’t vote for him because he reluctantly supported some of our policies.”
On the main topic, I still wonder whether Miliband has moved too early, without getting enough of his colleagues on side first. It may all fizzle out. But if Brown does go, the outcome of the contest which would ensue is highly unpredictable. It’s common in contests like this for an unexpected candidate to come through the middle (eg IDS, John Major, Cameron on the Conservative side, Harman as Deputy Leader on the Labour side.) Admittedly the dynamics are a bit different when you’re choosing a Prime Minister, and this will favour experienced candidates, but still, given the vote blocks of the Unions and party members, no-one can be sure who would emerge. I’ve always thought that this alone would act as a major obstacle to toppling Brown. Maybe he will drift on after all, or perhaps be ambushed next year. Nick Palmer’s various posts are relevant here, I think.
Insolvencies rocket 130%
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23524950-details/Insolvencies+rocket+130%25+as+credit+crunch+devastates+companies/article.do
The beginning of the nuclear winter is upon us……
Well done Mark Ramprakash.
It is sad that the most consistent 3 county batsmen of the last 20 years all failed to turn into great test batsmen. Ramps, Hick and Crawley.
O/T,but England have just taken another wicket against South Africa-after a flurry of wickets that saw SA decline from 65-0 to 111-4,I felt they were getting within sight of the winning line,but at 178-5,the match is on a real knife-edge! (P.S Many congrats to Mark Ramprakash)
35, just a note on the Harpy: she only won because Cruddas was the only candidate who actually answered the “Who is your second preference?” question. Ironic that she got the job thanks to a man helping her.
I see it looks as though South Africa will be reminding England tomorrow that like the rest of the Home nations it is a mediocre sporting nation
40,Touche from a Scotsman
I greatly dislike socialism but I would make an exception for Hutton. He comes across as decent, intelligent, fair and as honest as a politician can be. How unlike every other member of this incompetent government. As 17 Ted said, and this was also my understanding, the fact that the Trades Unions hate him can only be another reason to make him worth listening to. It will be interesting to see if Brown does fire him as part of the payback to the brothers for their financial support.
40 I hear no fat lady singing ..yet….
But there is a reshuffle in the wind. Who may think that they have to strike first - resign and challenge before they are sackeed? Competence is in short supply in Brown’s Cabinet so I doubt if Hutton or Johnson are at risk. Straw would simply be too dangerous on the back benches, so he is not at risk. But Jaqui Smith and Alastair Darling are at risk for not speaking up for Gordon as well as for their Departments’ performances. Jaqui has the necessary ruthlessness, and the fighting ability in a tight corner. She is realistic enough to know that her own chance of the leadership this time has evaporated. She is my bet for the “executioner.” Once the contest is on, the other candidates will come out of the woodwork swiftly enough.
Who the would-be other candidates are is a list that reminds me of the start of the Democratic primaries, but without a Clinton and probably without an Obama. I think there are ten who have made it reasonably clear that if the occasion arose, they would answer their Party’s call:
Johm Cruddas Alastair Darling John Denham Harriet Harman Alan Johnson John McDonnell
David Miliband Ed Miliband Jaqui Smith (see above)
Jack Straw
and another five who have let their names be mentioned without protest:
Andy Burnham Charles Clarke John Hutton
Alan Milburn James Purnell
There could be an interesting bet, when the executioner has acted, on which sub-set of these would achieve the necessary 45 MP nominations.
40 SA have been the best team in the series and deserve to win it. However anything can happen with only 5 wickets left…….. (I hope)
Prediction: No cricketer after Ramps will ever reach 100 first class centuries. Simply not enough first class cricket played now.
Back in April Matthew Parris suggested that Mr Brown would remain as Labour leader, but be forced into a General Election before 2010.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3818366.ece
Given the whopping majority Labour have in the Commons, is public mockery enough to force Brown/Labour into a GE before 2010?
46. You could be right. Matty Hayden is the current player with the most - 79. Tendlkar has 65.
44. Well there aren’t enough MPs for them all to be nominated (!). But I’d say the favourites were:
David Miliband [the thinking man's Blairite]
Harriet Harman [there will certainly be at least one woman, and she's the strongest woman candidate]
John McDonnell [candidate of the left, liked by many activists]
Alan Johnson [popular and seen as good communicator]
Jack Straw [dull, but a safe pair of hands and generally competent]
What would happen after that is anyone’s guess… Mike Smithson might well be right to tip Harriet, but a lot would depend on the Unions and I don’t know enough about how they might see all this.
What is the meaning of “bottling” in a political sense?
25 Wage slave is out of his depth with you Mr Cooke.
[He DOES understand sarcasm].
25 Wage slave is out of his depth with you Mr Cooke.
[He DOES understand sarcasm].
Latest Gallup Tracker :
McCain 44% .. Obama 44%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109180/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Obama-Remain-Tied.aspx
Bloody Hell Alan sugar on Sky saying how great Gordon is,Gordon must be feeling very insecure, to get a mate to spout that it`s all come from America Just the usual stuff.
Gordon is now trying to finish milliband off, by giving him the Chancellors job, if he has any sense he should resign and go for it.
I think this analysis is wrong. If it were Hutton who wielded the knife, it could help Brown a great deal, and improve his chances of seeing off a challenge.
Hutton is seen as pretty toxic by the unions. The tips announcement doesn’t change that. They call him a CBI Minister. Woodley said the PM should respond to Glasgow East by sacking Hutton, and brining in Cruddas.
Hutton is unpopular well beyond the unions, by the Hattersley/Toynbee social democratic Fabian left. His ‘celebrate wealth’. Even some of the Blairites see him as much more technocratic and less political than eg Milburn. Milburn is seen, even by his internal enemies, as Labour. Hutton less so. (He has admirers outside the party).
Hutton is also very much seen as holding a Blairite grudge against Brown. It is very widely believed that he was the Minister who Nick Robinson quoted as saying he would do f-ing anything to stop Brown. This could particularly damage David Miliband. If David Miliband is the candidate of the Blairite enemies of Gordon, that is the framing for a fight Gordon Brown could win at conference and beyond.
By contrast, Milband needs to be the candidate of a much broader grouping - eg disillusioned people who thought Gordon would do well like the Polly Toynbee column today, the unideological backbenches concluding change couldn’t make it worse, etc).
Possibilities
1. nobody wields the knife: they have a look again after the Spring elections in 2009
2. Straw does it. His offer to be caretaker leader by acclamation, like his offer to be deputy by acclamation in 2007, looks a non-runner. That means he could act (with Hoon?!!!) in somebody else’s interest, or even a broader party interest. If he feels he can’t come through, he may be less inclined.
3. the backbenchers (Charles Clarke et al) or junior ministers have to take the initiative, and act for Miliband. But can they get to 70 without the active participation of half a dozen Cabinet members? If its going to be letters and resignations from PPSs, it could end in a botched coup, which does immense damage.
4. the (favoured?) ‘murder on the orient express’ scenario. This involves 8 or more Cabinet members acting together so there is no assassin. This is a version of the Straw or Straw/Hoon scenario. (That group might include Hutton, Purnell, Burnham, Straw but needs more non-Blairites. Theoretically, Harman could be in such a group if she wanted a Miliband-Harman fight). One issue about this scenario is that D.Miliband now looks like the assassin, when the strategy was understood to be that he wouldn’t bring down the PM (assassins never wear the crown) but is ready to run if a contest is brought about by others.
And the truth is that nobody knows and everyone is guessing/hypothesising. Don’t rule out possibility 1.
53 Sir Alan points out Gordon has only been in the job a year - so who was that masked man in the Treasury the previous 10 years?
Obama prepared to accept drilling as part of a compromise on energy independence:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/obama-attempts.html
54. If it came to a contest, do you think there are any circumstances in which Brown could run? Would he get the nominations, even if he wanted to run?
O/T. Where the Guardian leads, can pb.com be far behind?
This is a comment on Guido:
“Just for your info:
The Guardian Blog site introduced ‘Pre Moderation’ today for the first time (something Matt Seaton said they would never do) and now they are blocking any posts where the author has previously said something which could be taken as ‘anti Labour’
So much for ‘Comment is Free’.”
It’s Polly, of course. The old dear is remarkably deluded today and getting grief from the posters. Mind you, it’s nothing compared to the floods of invective poured over Miliwhatsit and McShane yesterday. I do love it when the peaceful, sharing, caring liberal types start forming lynching parties for their own side. Let’s you know that all is well with the world.
58, surely you have it the wrong way round?
Things written here are mysteriously similar to things written there a few days later, not vice versa.
Indeed, even the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, and Minister for Bigotry, Harriet Harpy, has copied things written here.
55 Was it just me or did look too staged managed
53. His choices in four seasons of The Apprentice have long since cast doubt on Sugar’s judgement of character.
61, I can’t believe he let that ‘good Jewish boy’ he didn’t know the difference between Halal and kosher stay on. Bloody incredible!
Surely if a number of ministers resign then Brown could conceivably be placed in a position where he has to engineer a confidence vote?
There used to be a convention that if a PM “lost” 2 of the great officers of state then his position might be untenable. However given that only Milliband is arguably not a Brown toadie, it is unlikely that either Darling or Smith would resign. Of course if he sacks either or both of them to make way for Balls and one of the other “young turks” then he might unleash a whirlwind. However looking at the sad bunch of lightweights surrounding Brown its hard to imagine any of them generating more than the slightest breeze.
59. True, but we don’t have commenters as deluded as Polly…. oh, I don’t know though.
Apologies - you’re perfectly correct.
Dear me, i’ve just read that Toynbee article. She’s finally gone completely bonkers.
Richard
I can’t see Brown taking part in a contest.
1. The formal rules make it so hard to trigger a contest when Labour is in office that - if a contest is called against your will - politically, you must have been sacked.
2. I can’t see a realistic version where Brown calls a leadership election, so he could stand, and has his supporters call for it in Parliament and at conference. That is the only hypothesis under which he could be a candidate. The case for doing that would be that you expected to be dead under scenario (3) in a fortnight, and you thought you could survive under this one. Could you?
3. That is why it is more plausible that the real mechanism is not that the Labour leader has been formally ‘triggered’ under party rules but that the Prime Minister has lost the confidence of (most of) the Cabinet, ie the British constitution, not the Labour rules. (But this is murky territory: in such circumstances a PM would have the confidence of the House of Commons, because it would be suicide for his party colleagues to act against him if he could test that). This is the grey suits/6-10 threatened resignations (and the will to carry that through scenario).
(The reason he might not get the nominations (in scenario 1) is that - like Margaret Thatcher in 1990 - his closest allies might well at that point be warning him against getting publicly humiliated; that would be an argument for not pursuing option2. ie, I think they could get him the nominations to run, but could he run without a much much much overwhelmingly greater number of nominations than any other candidate when he had almost the whole PLP one year ago?
This should come back to haunt Miliband if he does make his move:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/video/2007/dec/13/eu.treaty.lisbon
Well it would if it worked.
If the Guardian had introduced pre moderation, its an indication that the loathing for Labour is gathering pace. “They dont like it up em Captain Mannering,they dont like it”
As for Toynbee, lecturing us from her holiday villa, pass the sick bag.
66 Thanks, labourite. That makes sense.
Under different cirucumstances, option 2 worked for John Major (luckily for me - I had bet a neighbour, shortly after the 1993 election, that John Major would survive as Tory leader until the next election. As the stake was a magnum of Krug, I was pleased I won it! It was an exciting roller-coaster of a bet.)
44. Jacqui Smith isn’t going to do it because she must know her days as an MP are pretty much numbered come the GE. Hence she will simply want to get along with her Home Office brief, something she has arguably proved to be somewhat* successful at, in order to boost her post-Commons CV.
*I say ’somewhat successful’ because, to my surprise, she has managed to de-politicise the Home Office much more successfully than her predecessors and has managed to give it a lower profile, avoiding a lot less of the tabloid criticisms Clarke, Reid et al faced. There have been problems, but faced with the most difficult government department she’s done surprisingly well.
65. The favourite theory doing the rounds is that as she’s on holiday, the piece was written before Miliwhatsits article got published to a sound kicking from everyone and their cat. Otherwise why claim that it was received with hosannas of praise? Something wrong in the planning. Maybe the YTS lad who makes the tea was acting editor for the day.
UPDATE:-
D Miliband still has not replied to my email.
73.
Give him a chance to get back from watching Arsenal’s friendly home game.
The “Gooners” lost by the way
73. Don’t hold your breath. He’s away for 3 weeks according to the FCO website.
75 That’s if he ever comes back… Hope he’s not gone to Morecambe lol
67 “This video has been removed as the copyright has expired”
How very handy for Miliband.
78 Sorry, that should refer to 68
Comment is Free have closed down the thread for the Polly Toynbee “love in” with Milliband. So much for comment is free. I suspoose it is, but only if you agree with the author.
On poster wrote
The King is dead, Long live the King” I thought it summed it up rather nicely.
In light of the disastrous melt-down and loss of confidence in Brown’s government, perhaps the Queen will sack Brown “for reasons of ill-health” and call upon Polly Toynbee to form an emergency interim provisional government in order to save the nation.
Millipede = Major
Harman = Heseltine
Straw = Hurd
81. How silly and short-sighted it was of the Labour Party not to choose someone of the stature and charisma of Polly Toynbee to be their candidate in Glasgow East. With her, Labour would have held the seat with a majority of 15,000 and the whole of the media and opinion-formers would have swung immediately into a bright new dawn of realising how silly everybody was ever to doubt the wisdom of the Labour government. We would be reading articles in the broadsheet newspapers with headlines like “Shurely Cameron is a complete flop now” and “Glasgow triumph exposes foolishness of Brown’s doubters” and “Salmond defects to New Labour after suiciude attempt” and (continued on page 94)
Alan Sugar very amusing this afternoon on Sky News, I am personally glad because now I realise, thanks to him, that this country has no say or control over its financial destiny - its all to do with what happens over the ocean - there is no regulatory framework here, no tax framework. There is no fiscal policy, no government involvement with, or pressure on, the banking sector. None of it happens here, nothing happens here, Gordon is merely a bystander, Britain is adrift on capricious currents.
Sugar teaches us that we are powerless, Prescott that only one man in the whole of the Labour party has the ability or experience to guide us through it (even though we are utterly defenceless against it)
And the Sky News muppets just nod and pay lip service to him.
Bloke with crap catchphrase backs rubbish PM, great news piece.
All we need now is Kay Burley to do something really in depth with Kerry Katona about Gordon and we will have some real insight.
70. 80.. Pre-Moderation on the Guardian seems like a pretty savage action to me. To attempt to control free speech - so much for CiF - is to behave like the Communist/Fascist’s they really are.
Numbers of registered Democrats dropping:
http://www.qurl.com/z8hn7
84. Everyone has got to realise that Sir Alan is labour by birth. He was born on Hackney in the years when everybody was labour; his family were labour, hence the great Suger has aways been sweet on labour. It shows that while he may be good in business, and a showman on TV, he is a political illiterate.
83. I wonder why anyone actually allows Toynbee a platform anymore.
“Be in no doubt, war is declared. For the first time in ages the Tories hear threatening mortar fire from Labour approaching their barricades. Suddenly serious action in the Labour camp takes shape over the body of a prime minister who has not so much fallen as flung himself under the wheels of the Cameron chariot.”
It sounds like parody. I think Polly has really morphed into a closet Tory and she’s writing all of this for a laugh.
88. Actually, I think I just found a better section:
“This is precisely the time when Labour needs a leader who can make the social democratic case with powerful clarity. In the footsteps of Roosevelt, only a strong state can protect people in bad times. Who best can take the fight to wrongfoot the small state, deregulating, business-bound Tories? David Miliband is called a Blairite - but he has no truck with the Hutton/Milburn strand of contrariness that backs business against Labour policies every time. He would step in and regulate the risk-taking City. He chooses equality over the old Blair “choice” agenda. His espousal of personal carbon trading is the most radical policy any Labour minister ever proposed in a decade, cutting energy use while redistributing wealth - but it was blocked by Brown at the Treasury. Ignore meaningless polls claiming a new leader would do no better - leaders are only known once in post.”
“In the footsteps of Roosevelt”!!!?
“His espousal of personal carbon trading”!!!?
“Ignore meaningless polls”!!!?
Yep, she’s clearly on a windup now!
88. Because she is so very entertaining.
87 its certainly a good job his shar eprice is not dependant on his political judgement.
‘He’s a top bloke guv, you have the Alan Sugar guarantee on that and I don’t bullshit for I am Alan Sugar my old mate’
91. It’s more that probable that his share price will be dependent on his political naivity.
Nah, Hutton has nothing like the required clout. As has been stated repeatedly on PB, removing any Labour leader and especially one who has yearned for the top job all his adult life, is exceedingly difficult. Realistically, it’s impossible unless at least half the Cabinet were to approach him as one demanding his resignation. Not likely, with at least three separate camps already jockeying for position.
Gordon looks safe to me, at least until next year’s local elections and by then it’s all too late isn’t it? Safe that is, unless such overwhelming pressure leads him and his wife to conclude that it just aint worth it.
re 89. “Ignore meaningless polls”!!!?
Like all those before Gordon become PM that showed he would be a disaster.
Why let polling get in the way of a love affair
86 - Untrue - this is a *poll* not a figure of registered democrats.
It is the number of people who *claim* to be Democrats in a poll. As in a UK poll, whether people tell the truth or not about affiliation is unknowable. In any casem, it is not asking about party registration.
We’ll have to wait to see real figures. but Jack’s caveats regarding polling methodology are always a useful reminder.
This article does refer to registration as opposed to declared affiliation.
95 - Whoops, here’s the url -
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_rhodes_cook/a_new_electorate_in_the_making
Note that 21 states don’t report registration figures.
Methinks Sir Alan has one eye on the London Mayoralty elections in 2012.
I’ve just got it! Seen the light and all that. The Great Leader will bring Sir Alan into his Big Tent Government as new Minister of Propagander. Goebbles move over.
90. So very true. How could one not ROTFLMAO when some old trout says this about Miliband:
Suddenly everything changed. The burst of optimism was so startling it dazzled those too long trapped deep in a dungeon. In that one moment it was all over for the old leader who had plunged them into these depths. Suddenly here was the chance of escape everyone was waiting for.
Dunno if she’s noticed, but the old leader is still there and Boy David has buggered off on his hols. Intermission, anyone?
I think it all started to go wrong for Polly when David Cameron praised her in late 2006. This act nearly caused the blessed Simon Heffer to self-combust and gave Pollyanna an even greater sense of her own importance - if that were possible.
100 agree. she is beyond parody . still i bet its lovely in her Italian villa this evening, maybe the cook and servants have put on a good show.
typical socialist idiot.
It struck me that the Guardian really must love her because of the number of comments she attracts. Not quite at PB levels but still a lot
It’s not enough he is SIR Alan Sugar, now he is after an earldom from his sorcerer’s apprentice!
102 she must have generated 3000 comments across the blogosphere today…. all of them negative. still i suppose it makes about 6 quid for the grauniad in advertising revenue….
102. Aye you aint wrong. She gets a lot of comment on here. Have to admit that I’ve never read her stuff at all and dont see any point.
Shes just a columnist after all, like Lorraine Kelly is one in a newspaper as well….
102. Depressing, isn’t it? An economic illiterate and politically naive numpty gets £140,000 pa (unconfirmed but widely accepted) for two columns of drivel a week. Why? Long-term networking, probably.
Dump her and put in someone who makes sense and can write, like Katherine Whitehorn. She’s leftish, used to have a column in the Observer years ago. Always a good read.
Amazing isn’t it - the Foreign Secretary comes out with an article, damning the PM’s approach, followed by press conference & radio interview where he doesn’t express his full confidence and the best Brown, his expensive PR staff & the Murdoch press can find to defend the PM is Sir Alan Sugar.
Its all over really isn’t it? What matters now is when. Agree with PfP and PtP and others that its more likely in 2009 than this Autumn but thats dependent on Brown playing it clever in a months time…. Brown being politically adroit?
The obsession with Toynbee from Tories (and seemingly Mike) is bizarre. She loves the Labour party. Get over it.
107 apparently its not only Sugar - the NoW (now who owns that?) has Harriet, Alistair and John Denham trying to dismiss speculation over the leadership. That should close down the story.
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jdQayney2EzqrRg-h5LNWeXLekUA
35.
Richard Natavi is so pathetically pompous with all his made-up attacks on Cameron that he then knocks-back. Who makes these up? Not me.
Cameron is a middle of the road Tory with a glib narcissistic manner, almost identical to Blair. His responsibility for Iraq is identical, no more or less than that of a large number of MPs. Each of them was as responsible as each other. They are each equally responsible and do not escape that individual responsibility simply by dint of being among a number of others. As for the ‘reluctantly’ twaddle, plese do us all a favour. I am sure Chameleon is equally ‘reluctant’ when he decides to brush his teeth in the morning.
So you say that Cameron has some ideas about what should be done differently to Blair/Brown (most of whose ideas and policies, including digging our public finances deep into the doo-doo he has (sometimes, when it suits him) talked against but basically backed so far, not surprising really because they are basically Tory ones. Care to name anything significant? No one ever does.
If Cameron succeeds it will be entirely because of the public’s negative perception of Brown’s performance, short memory about Blair (who Cameron mimicks shamelessly) and collective laziness in not realising that real Tories will be worse than pseudo-Tories in being totally unprepared for the harsh realities of the 21st century.
As a matter of interest, how are the Guardian’s circulation figures? Are they dropping as New Labour disappears up its own arse? I bought it once, felt I had to as they had just interviewed me. They managed to print my name correctly unlike our “national daily” The Press and Journal two weeks ago.
Remind me anyone, how much cash has Sur Alan given to The Great Leader to assist with the party accounts.
On the subject of the Labour party accounts, how much has been taken off the accounts. They still owe 17 million but where did the rest go. Is this like all the PFI stuff, out of sight out of mind.
100: ‘I think it all started to go wrong for Polly when David Cameron praised her in late 2006.’
Did Cameron himself praise her or is that just political folklore? My recollection is that some unknown Tory back-bencher in an obscure pamphlet just happened to praise a metaphor of Toynbee’s concerning the Welfare State. However, that didn’t stop the Mail and ConHome contributors wailing about Dave’s great betrayal of Conservatism.
100. Although, ironically enough, she is the left-wing mirror of Simon Heffer. And they feed off each other.
They are two peas from the same pod, they are cut from the same cloth, two side of the same coin etc.
Maybe they should have an affair or something…
105
“Shes just a columnist after all”
Sorry that’s plain wrong.
She’s a deluded silly woman wittering.. Mind you Simon Heffer does that as well and he’s male…
On second thoughts, you were right after all
108 - She loves the Labour party so much that she was a big booster of the SDP and stood as a candidate for them.
25.
“I see no alternative to backing our government and our troops - and praying that the war is short”” - D Cameron
Pathetic. Of course there was an alternative but the dithering man was not wise or brave enough to grasp it. Unlike Ken Clarke.
Andy you seem incapable of differentiating between what Tory MPs do when they are in opposition as compared to what they do when in government on the same issues with the same options.
A Tory government at the time Bush offered the Iraq war option would have bitten Bush’s hand off to back him - no faffing about with WMD pretences. Likewise a Tory government’s only slight hesitancy against ID cards (with the odd exception) would have been the worry about the uproar from ‘the libertarian left’. Otherwise they would have dived in, to hell with the expense, anything to keep the proles in order.
109. For the moment anyway. But I suppose its their job to deny a vacancy.
25, 35. The “Cameron is more New Labour than New Labour” line is a rubbish one for Labour to play, but a great one for Nick Clegg.
Lining up behind the United States in the Middle East.
Kowtowing to Saudi autocrats over BAe.
Signing up to new nuclear power stations.
Riding roughshod over local objections to planning proposals.
Treating local government like an appendage to Whitehall.
Turning higher education into a marketable commodity.
Taxing the poor at a greater marginal rate than the rich.
And it’s going to be just the same under a Conservative government.
117 looks very much like we’ll have a chance to find out if your views of the Tory Party are correct. Lets review in 2014 just before/after Cameron is re-elected.
On thread - I can’t really see John Hutton as Labour leader, but he’d make a pretty good Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not quite in Vince Cable’s league, but close.
116. Since she has been a columnist for the Guardian, she has supported the Labour Party.
And yes, she supported the SDP. Any true believer in social democracy should have, against the appallingly left-wing Labour Party of the time. She actually did the right thing by rejecting the merger with the Liberals.
122. Yeah, you wouldn’t want Labour getting messed up with all that liberty crap!
So Alan Sugar is the latest target for you Tory boo boys.Whooze next I wonder?
123. That’s right, I wouldn’t!
120.
Peter Hitchens already has it pretty well-stated. He suggests that the time when it would be necessary to review Cameron’s performance would occur after a rather shorter honeymoon than Gordon Brown enjoyed, and in seriously worse circumstances:
“Mr Cameron will let down those who now wish to be deluded by him. He will do so at a time of growing economic difficulty and discontent, and at a time when disorder and incivility are making us a tenser and more volatile country than we have been in a century.
When that hope fails – as fail it will – what rough beast, now waiting for its chance, will gobble up the votes of the disappointed millions?”
@124:
Come now. Sugar has shown his judgment to be impaired time and time again when it comes to differentiating between genuine talent and chancers and idiots.
Does it come as any surprise that he’s a Labour supporter?
Wah wah waaaaah.
@123:
They were my favorite Girl Band.
Though Liberty Crap weren’t the same after Shaznay left.
‘Come now. Sugar has shown his judgment to be impaired time and time again when it comes to differentiating between genuine talent and chancers and idiots.’
Perhaps you should come back in this thread when you’ve been one-hundredth as successful as him.
117,
Of course they would, wage slave. Of course. You keep on thinking that - it’s probably the only straw of comfort you’ve got left. It would be mean of me to deny it to you.
What we do know is that many backbenchers at the time (including Cameron) agonised over the decision that hindsight (and sight of information deliberately denied to them) has made so much easier for the rest of us.
In power, Cameron will rip off the disguise, pick up the handbag and stand revealed as the lovechild of Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit. Here’s an idea - why don’t Labour try a poster with Cameron on it, but eyes replaced by demon eyes and the slogan “New Tories - new danger”. I’m sure that will work.
Wage slave, in all seriousness, my annoyance with you was that you seriously overstated the war-support of Cameron (placing him equal in responsibility with Blair and Brown, when Brown’s responsibility is arguably far less than that of Blair in any case) despite him being a backbencher at the time with serious reservations (on record) about the issue. And then claimed that he, in particular, was far more eager than most of the others. When pulled up about it, you then deliberately tried to use my words out of context (and I’ll freely admit that Rudyard Kipling would probably not accept me as “being a Man, my son”), which tends to demonstrate that you:
a - Haven’t got a leg to stand on; and
b - Are fully aware of that fact and deliberately attempting to muddy the issue. Indeed, you’re now throwing more things into the pot of your bile.
119.
“it’s going to be just the same under a Conservative government.”
Of course it is - because we already have a Conservative government, just one with a different label.
@129:
Charlie dearest. Is it your assertion that one’s cash assets are the soul useful measure of a man’s worth?
I can understand why you’re a Labour supporter.
Me, I think there are more important things in life than money.
129 lol, we don’t live in an oligarchy - Sugar’s cash-making abilities do not make him a political expert. Perhaps Sugar should come on this thread and debate without the protection of his celebrity and see how his ‘Gordon is great’ mantra goes
@131:
SATIRE, Ladies and Gentlemen.
132. Considering you don’t know Sugar personally, what else can you base it upon, apart from his success?
123. I don’t think the Lib Dems have a monopoly on Liberty.
135 on what he says? Usually a good place to start in a debate
133 didn’t go down too well with R5Live respondents from the bit I caught while making coffee.
@135:
Well, the fact that he donates money to the Labour Party (WRONG 1), the fact that almost every company he’s ever founded has been run into the ground by more able competitors (WRONG 2), and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the fact that he fired Lucinda Ledgerwood. (WRONGITY x 612)
138 I daresay not, it doesn’t really blend in with the public perception. Foertunately, despite his wallet he only gets one vote like the rest of us.
130.
Andy, you obviously have no experience of anything.
Tory governments ALWAYS behave more liberally in opposition than in government. Labour governments ALWAYS develop a more Conservative approach to virtually everything when in government. The only exception really has been Blair who managed to attack Major both from the right and the left simulataneously and was allowed to get away with it. Since he is and always has been a Tory (albeit one who would join CND to get what he wanted) he reverted to form once elected, much to the chagrin of the left who deluded themselves that it was all just a ’show’ to win over a few million midddle-class voters, a charade which has continued through three general elections and left New Labour financially as well as intellectually bankrupt.
For all my dislike of his flagrant dishonesty, I always accepted that Blair had a certain managerial competence. With Cameron, on the other hand, I wonder whether he could be trusted to empty frozen peas out of a packet without them all ending up on the floor. His recent bike-loss circumstances seems to sum the man up.
@136:
They don’t really have a monopoly on anything. That, after all, would require the Yellow Peril to be consistent on something.
Chortle.
Interesting take from US on Gordon’s problems and how Cameron could teach McCain something
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/31/AR2008073102821.html
142. SATIRE, ladies and gentlemen.
@141:
you obviously have no experience of anything.
Is that even physically possible?
I tell you what, unless and until Dave begins to carry on in a way even a fraction as loathsomely as Labour when it comes to tyrannical leanings, I’m prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
What struck me, that for years Sugar has been held up as some capitalist paragon, loved by all those on the right, and now he has been outed as a socialist(well labour) he is suddenly berated by those same people.
Quite honestly until very recently I had no idea of his labour leanings and disliked him as much for what he seemed to stand for, as much you Tories seem to now.
Funny old world, isn’t it?
@144:
Bang to rights.
@146:
I like his pube-head, and the way he says “I don’t give a shit!”.
Does that count?
136. I’d agree, but Labour haven’t even entered the market!
146 - Always disliked him, doesn’t matter who he supports he’s still the same person.
141. You calling everyone to the right of you “Tory” is as ridiculous as Bill O’Reilly calling everyone to the left of him “far Left”.
ENGLAND CRICKETERS = LABOUR
Worst cricket result of all time.
no pride. Cun**
Total humiliation. I hold Labour responsible as they hate England being successful.
Labour are cun**.
@149:
Nonsense. What about all these new freedoms you have courtesy Gordon?
Freedom from Habeas Corpus.
Freedom from not having an identity.
Shit. I just done a SATIRE again, didn’t I? Whoops.