The money goes on Gordon going
August 8th, 2008
What are the chances of him still being there on election day?
Probably the best long-term market where we can plot trends on betting attitudes to Gordon’s survival is the one from Betfair on the line-up of party leaders at the general election.
When it was opened, in June 2007, Ming Campbell was in the mix. He’s now moved on and the “runner” that reflects views on the PM’s survival is the Brown/Cameron price.
Surprisingly this market has not attracted the money that you might have expected - certainly it is nothing like as popular as a similar one with IDS/Blair/Kennedy in the years before the 2005 election.
But the trend is clear - punters now believe that someone other than Mr. Brown will lead Labour at the next general election.
My own soundings bear this out and I am told that the “Gordon must go” positions now being taken by the Guardian columnists, Jackie Ashley and Polly Toynbee have been particularly influential.
What I have not yet heard is a plausible plan as to how his departure could be choreographed. How is a move going to be made and who are going to stick their heads above the parapet?
During his long years at the Treasury the Brown team built up a formidable reputation for their ability to brief against those that were seen as a threat to their boss - the main reason, many believe, why he got his coronation.
Going openly against Gord has never been seen as a good career move - maybe that is now changing?
MessageSpace Advertising
Well, my money is on it, Mike!
I’m suffering from a touch of insomnia this morning! What is your excuse?
My excuse is sleep apnea or apnoea but not apneia.
Who tells Guardian writers to switch their loyalties in unison? Let me guess…..
….The Queen, Father Christmas, Icke’s Lizards or maybe the lovers of Lisbon, trying to engineer safety for their project.
re 1. This is the time every day when I work on the site - my thinking us usually clearer. Also my broadband access is usually faster, you can get a first stab at the papers, and if I make a cock-up in my post I can tidy it up without many people seeing.
Based on Betfair’s matched prices, the odds against Brown leaving office during office during the remainder of this year have actually lengthened over recent days, from 2.2/1 to 3.1/1 for Q4 and from 9/1 to 17.5/1 for Q3, admittedly on tiny amounts of money wagered. Indeed the absence of any meaningful betting activity on these markets itself suggests that there will be no change of Labour leader, at least over the coming months. Meanwhile, Hills have considerably shortened their odds on him seeing out 2008 as Prime Minister.
Who knows what may happen next year? This will probably depend on just how many of the 150 or so Labour MPs most at most risk of losing their seats decide that it has to be their last opportunity to act in a last desperate attempt to save their jobs and on this basis, 2009 certainly looks like the value bet right now, although still somewhat unlikely IMO.
My concerns with the Gordon going story is that it is August and so there is nothing much else to write about in politics terms. The situation could look much different in three weeks time, also evidence suggests that it takes a long time for parties to summon up the courage to ditch a leader. It was clear for a very very long time that IDS was not up to much but he managed to eke out 2 years before the Conservatives knifed him. Likewise Ming, it was pretty clear from before day 1 that he wasn’t going to be much cop but it still took quite a while before the top brass went to Ming with a service revolver and a glass or whisky. I just think that Brown might survive simply because now is too soon really and by the time enough time has elapsed for a coup to look decent there may not be enough time left before the election.
The other point I would make is that it is by no means clear that a new leader would massively improve the fortunes of the Labour party. The match ups in the recent poll suggests that no one would do much better than Brown, indeed some could do profoundly worse. If Gordon makes anything of a struggle to retain his crown then the cost of removing Gordon could significantly outweigh the benefit, and there is no suggestion that there would be much of a benefit at present.
If he is to survive, you keep coming back to the question - how on earth do you sell “Gordon - five more years!” to the electorate? I just don’t see how a Labour election campaign can be constructed around the man. Dogged determination to cling to Number 10 like a limpet is no route to a fourth Labour term when the electorate have come armed with chisels to prise you away. To the extent they ever had any love for Brown before, they have undeniably fallen out of love with him now. I can’t see how that can be repaired in 20 months. He only ever had one thing going for him - “no more Tory boom and bust” - but that has gone. Trying to run that line in 2010 will just lead to mockery. Trying to blame world economic woes for the failing state of the British economy and a refusal to accept any responsibility that prior actions may have been a factor gives voters no comfort that any hard lessons have been learnt.
Political trust is gradually earned and easily destroyed. I am struggling to think of any politician who been rehabilitated after first being reviled. The nearest I can get to is Thatcher surviving the “milk snatcher” tag. But Maggie is the exception to most things. A role as unelected officials in Europe has given a chance for some to stay in the game - Mandelson, Kinnock. Others have developed a degree of respect after they stepped away from power they never had whilst near it - Michael Foot, perhaps; Tony Benn certainly. But none that have come back to wield power. Does anyone here really think Brown is the person to break that mould?
2 - Tapestry. I get paranoid between 4-5 am too. It’s a relief to log on to pb.com and realise I’m not the only one.
6. MM: Churchill managed it, but over a long period, and under very exceptional circumstances.
2: Brown also supports Lisbon though, hence his reneging on the referendum promise.
A new leader would be under intense pressure to call an election, which he/she would very likely lose, and Cameron would very likely hold said referendum, which would very likely result in a r rejection and Lisbon would die.
So it seems to me very likely your argument is wrong. A change of leader make Lisbon less likely to happen.
Hmm too many likelys but it’s early, sorry
8 I thought about Churchill, but only in the context of his wartime role overcoming his pre-war failings (even during the war if you count coming back after Norway). I didn’t think losing after the war and then being re-elected in the fifties counted, because the post-war election was largely lost in spite of Churchill, rather than because of him.
I am rather hoping that in the next 22 months, Gordon doesn’t get a chance for rehabilitiation based on his wartime leadership against the Nazis….
We are now in the exceptional position of having a Prime Minister faute de mieux. The betting markets accord with my own belief that it would be rational to replace Gordon Brown before the next election, but just because something is rational doesn’t mean that the Labour party will do it. The Labour party is notably loyal to its leaders.
After the David Miliband article and radio show, the Labour party took another look over the cliff and appears to have drawn away from the edge again. Of course, with David Miliband himself on holiday, that might just be a temporary reprieve, but the flow of the mood of the newspaper coverage for the last few days has been not to act just yet.
For what it is worth, my guess is that Gordon Brown’s departure (if it is not at the election) will be precipitated by his own actions: almost all of his fiascos have been so far. On that basis, the next flashpoint could be his Cabinet reshuffle. We have already seen reports that several Cabinet ministers would refuse to move. If Gordon Brown tries to put on a show of strength, might he find that it provokes action where otherwise ministers would have done nothing?
I agree Mike both that he will go and that I don’t know how it will happen. I have used the next PM market which is all green except for Cameron with a strongly green Straw.
Think we will see by the conference. Have not seen much said but think Warwick was a disaster for Brown (despite Nick’s report that he got two standing ovations!) and those who were there were convinced that he hasn’t grasped the seriousness of the problem.
The dithering over stamp duty may cause Darling to side with the plotters though suspect the Treasury is part of the problem. Sometimes you need a politician to tell the civil service - “Thanks for your advice but we are doing this”.
Agree with antifrank (11) that a September reshuffle could prove a serious own goal for the PM.
Not sure what the upside is. It is difficult to see how many of the changes mooted would do much to strengthen the government’s political position.
What if showing you can still wield the powers of the premiership brings on the crisis? A reshuffle could become a ‘put up or shut up’ moment for all of these backbench letters, junior resignations, etc, where the timing never quite seems right to act.
And everybody who is on the hope or half-promise of something great in the future would know it isn’t going to happen, adding to the departed and disappointed on the backbenchers.
For Labour these are uncharted waters, (As its never held power for such an extended period) which of course is why its, ‘All at sea.’
Unlike the Tory Party (Who’ve been here several times in its history) Labour hasn’t perfected the art of political assassination.
Well you’ve gotta start somewhere.
Mike! you can add Martin Kettle to that list.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/08/labour.gordonbrown
He also has some interesting thoughts on the subject.
@15:
Nice one, Kettle. Pretend that not calling an election is “honourable” rather than “craven cowardice”.
There might even be one Guardian reader who’s fick enough to believe that. But I wouldn’t count on it.
You gotta know when to hold ‘em,
know when to fold ‘em,
know when to walk away,
and know when to ruuuuuun…
I can still see him hanging on. If continue to dither and Brown’s briefers manage to destroy those plotting then I can see him hanging on another year. At that point it’s far too late to change leader before an election.
The markets don’t tell us much, and not just because they are illiquid. We have seen in the recent past, not least at the byelections, that the odds reflect no inside information.
9. Lisbon Lizards are frightened of the left wing of the Labour Party. So they promote Milipede as a Lisbonic Lizard - a safe pair of hands to head off any potential collapse of Lisbon-loving New Labour into traditional Labour euroscepticism.
If Milipede won the leadership (which I doubt despite the Guardian and the Beeb being thrown in to shore up his position), he would not call an election. any more than they held a referendum.
This election-calling talk is all nonsense put about to confuse people. Lisbon Lizards will get the Lisbon deal sown up at all costs.
7. Paranoia?
This might help.
20 - Do tell me, are the Lisbon Lizards related to David Icke’s Babylonian Brotherhood of reptilian humanoids who comprise the world-governing illuminati? And do they eat hamsters?
21. You need help mate. Honestly.
These ‘Lisbon Lizards’ are they in any way related to, ‘Livingstone’s Salamanders?’ I think we should be told!
@20:
Tapestry, your entire god-of-the-gaps Euroconspiracy fails the first test: that of Occam’s Razor. Lisbon is *more* at risk, not less, when Gordon falls, so why would the EU want to be encouraging it?
O/T - Interesting piece in the Telegraph about Civil Service contacts with the Conservatives.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/2518435/Civil-servants-preparing-for-Conservative-Government-with-secret-meetings.html
OT, what to make of the invitation for Bill to speak in Denver…just before the VP choice is announced.
Should be a laugh, particularly as his wife may not be the choice.
@22:
I can’t imagine the EU wanting to have anything to do with an organisation as transparent and democratic as the Illuminati.
#25
We can all laugh at some of Tapestry’s more outlandish claims, but [s]he could have a point. Few on this site would defer from given Gordon Brown a clean-bill-of-mental-health, so why would the EU take the risk and, as a consequence, not take preventative action…?
22. Ask Polly Toynbee and Jackie Ashley, who have clearly met them. I suspect they dwell in a lake in Central London and communicate via invisible brainwaves.
One month the message is Brown Brown Brown. Then suddenly the message changes to Miliband, Miliband, Milband, and lo and behold the news coverage changes tack in formation, across the spectrum of the media like a flock of starlings.
Of course it’s total coincidence. I was only joking, don’t you realise. It’s obvious that no one could control the media in the UK, isn’t it. Of course I’m not paranoid.
By the way what happened to the missing £300 million from the Millennium Dome Accounts?
Tapestry: do you really, really, really believe that the Guardian just sends an email to its columnists saying “Please change your view. Milliband is in, Brown is out.”
You have no idea whatsoever how a newspaper works.
21 - Tapestry.
Interesting piece on your blog. Thanks for the link.
I’m not saying no-one’s after you. There are more factions than you could possibly imagine out there wanting to control every portion of your life.
I’m just sympathising with you that you’re worrying about it at 5am.
Incidentally, the Lisbon Lizards are deluding themselves if they think they can foist a EuroStooge on the Labour party, let alone the British public. What was all that stuff I was reading on last night’s thread about Miliband being ‘left’? I’d very much like people to think I’m ‘hard’, but the reality is that I’m a middle class healthcare professional who’d probably cry if you punched him on the nose. The truth is, Miliband is TonyBoy, and everyone can see that.
31. The editors I know in the Guardian complain about excessive editorial control. Who knows? Do you? I doubt they use email. Lizards don’t have computers.
20: Whatever
33
Lizards don’t have computers but they do have Monitors (geddit)!
OT: what do people make of the Mail’s lead story?
22 MPs (1 Tory, a mix of Lib Dems and Labour, led by Norman Baker) want to ditch the obligatory oath to the Queen MPs recite when taking their place in the Commons.
Seems bloody silly to me. Plus, there’s a risk they could be lining up an alternative. Who knows, perhaps the EU. I know that might sound a little farfetched, but just yesterday we discussed how the frogs want a ‘unified’ police force, so we could see French police in British cities.
Mike: could we rename politicalbetting.com euroconspiracytheoriesinvolvinglizards.com?
18 Woody
Yes, a year would be too long, but June/July 2009 would be perfectly feasible, nicely timed even.
Miliband isn’t popular with the tories on here but he’s been a good minister in difficult circumstances. He did a good job at Defra responding promptly and effectively to the new level of concern regarding GW and has been a safe pair of hands as For Sec. Shame about a) the disparity in his polling figures when comparing men to women as per an article here a few days back and b) the possibility that he’s unacceptable to Labour more widely as per the last article. He clearly wouldn’t be able to save Labour but he’d potentially prevent the next election being a total rout and ensure that we’ve at least got an opposition.
@36:
If it’s true, it’s pretty sad that a Tory is supporting such treasonous manoeuvrings. Any idea who the Faithless Tory is?
36. Well it would work both ways - we could have British bobbies (armed, preferably) sorting out the French next time they try to burn our lamb exports.
36. Disgraceful, frankly, and depressing. We expect a few Labourites and Lib Dems to feel this way but for a Tory to sign up for it is way out of line. It clearly is a part of an attempt to weaken ties to our institutions and history. Even if there aren’t any lizards in Brussels, the EU project is openly a federalist one, and one of the obstacles in its way is the monarchy. I don’t think there’s a chance in hell of it becoming law, but it’s not nice to hear such things spoken about.
33: “The editors I know in the Guardian complain about excessive editorial control”… so the editors complain about excessive editorial control.
Have you been drinking?
How very convenient for you that The Guardian and indeed the whole euro conspiracy doesn’t understand how to use email. Or, indeed, any communication method that would allow facts to enter this debate.
39.
peter bottomley
@40:
“What do you mean, ‘why did I shoot him?’, he’s French, isn’t it.”
41; why?
Can one not be a eurosceptic republican?
40, we don’t have enough police on our own streets without giving them a holiday in France.
39, Bottomley, I think.
41, I concur. The Queen is head of state, and if you don’t like it you can damn well bugger off. Republicanism is vile.
The other day I spoke to a Mancunian policeman. Here in Bristol! His horse then crapped on the road. Imagine what the French would do.
@45:
Yes. But we are not a republic.
If there is an oath (I’m inclined to favour at least some declaration of support for the existing structure), then it should be taken when a candidate is nominated, not when elected.
45. Mail failed to report the real story, as did all media, that MPs debated in secret whether the crime of Treason could be redefined to include the right to discuss the ending of the monarchy. Refer to my blog for sources (today).
@48:
Would that make any practical difference?
48 - I disagree, Parliament is the law-making body. The oath of allegiance to the crown is in effect a promise to make laws within the ongoing tradition and customs of the realm. It should only apply to those who are in that position.
49, when Straw was Home Secretary he ended the death penalty for treason.
Random fact: for knowing this I received a book on psychological statistics from a lecturer.
45. Sorry why what? Why is it depressing? The monarchy is one of the few things that express our pride in our history and our specific national identity. For me it is of the essence of my nationality. Of course there are a few republicans about on the Labour and Lib Dem benches, but one of the few things I always thought was indubitable about politics was that the Tories would never waver on the monarchy. Of course you can be a eurosceptic republican, but you can’t be a Tory republican (not in my book anyway).
Besides which, on the general issue, the whole point of an oath of allegiance is to express loyalty to your country. We are a constitutional monarchy, swearing an oath to a republic is not swearing an oath to this country. It defeats the whole point of the oath.
I still think Brown is going to be there at the next election. Miliband hasn’t got the guts to stab him in the back and I don’t think any other cabinet member does either. The likes of John McDonnell are irrelevant in this showpiece.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
@49:
If it was a secret, how come you know about it?
RBS announced £691m loss for the first half this year compared with whole year profits of £9bn+ for last year. Now I may be being naif but isn’t this heading for a loss of over £1bn corporation tax revenues from just this one company?
Can I tempt Gabble from hiding to let us know how many schools and hospitals are going to close as a result?
But on topic, if we do believe Gordon will be gone isn’t the best value to be had from laying Cameron on Betfair’s next PM market.
56, so what?
With Brown & Darling our economy will soar like an eagle!
More seriously, the LSDesque predictions of growth in the tattered remains of the Budget are worrying, given that spending is predicated on more money than we have.
Doubtlessly the spineless traitors will borrow merrily away, leaving the next government to reduce spending (and possibly increase taxes).
@57:
That depends on whom you believe will be Gordon’s successor. I’m guessing you’re thinking Miliband.
I don’t think he’s got a chance.
59, of succeeding Gordon or winning the GE?
@59:
Succeeding. He’s a Blairite (no powerbase in the PLP), he’s a wonk (no activist power base) and business-leaning (no Union powerbase).
He just doesn’t have the support where he needs to win it. I think the only people who can seriously expect to win are Hattie, Cruddas and Johnson.
55. Sources as given.
@62:
I don’t want to go into your blog alone. I’m scared.
25. The EU was certainly complicit in the removal of Thatcher, taking the opportunity to replace her with a europhile cabal. Jacques Delors boasted about his achievement in this regard.
This time around, it would be no surprise if the EU - seeing that Brown is finished - worked to ensure that the most pro-EU candidate possible replaces him.
re 59 no it isn’t. The joy of laying Cameron (who is strong favourite) is that it then doesn’t mattter who the brothers choose - you win.
@64:
Now, the revelation that Michael Heseltine was an EC sleeper agent comes a shock to nobody.
Darling’s boob gets serious
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23527841-details/House+sales+start+falling+through+after+Darling+warns+of+a+’stamp+duty+holiday’/article.do
Just a word on Lisbon and the EU - the latest MORI issues index shows that the proportion who care about this has dropped even further.
97% of people do not give a sh*t
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/_assets/pdfs/july%20issues%20index.pdf
Am I delusional?
Or is pb.com full of paranoid insomniacs?
Reads like it this am.
As far as Brown is concerned, watch the unions. They are the paymasters.
All the rest is just froth .
@65:
Hmmm. Yes. Wakey wakey. For a second, it had escaped my attention that whomsoever replaces Gordon whilst he’s in power will be Prime Minister before Dave. At least, in title.
A couple of O/T thoughts, so please bare with me….
+ Is the US Dollar regaining strength, whilst the Euro appears to be weakening?
+ Who will hold the best fire-work display today; Beijing or Georgia…?
Finally,
Tapestry, you are not paranoid. Have you seen Socrates’ fears on the last thread [#178]? I can only assume his handle - like mine - is meant to be translated with a healthy dose of sarcasm…!
66. There were quite a few. You might want to look up how many members of the House of Commons and especially the House of Lords receive part of their income from the EU.
‘nemo potest duobus dominis servire’ - now you see why some of these characters want to abolish the oath of allegiance.
50, 51: Oh well, have it your own way folks. But I don’t see why people should be allowed to stand for a parliament whose authority they do not in some sense accept.
68, a majority of people want to bring back hanging. So what?
Well, if your argument is that the majority are right then we should start bulding gallows.
The EU does matter, and will matter more (as an issue) in the future. Whether 97% or 7% disagree is irrelevant.
@68:
That’s uncharacteristically disingenuous of your, Mr S. Not had your morning coffee yet?
45-I am!
Actually don’t see why we could not have a kingdom without a king/queen. Spain did it mid century. Hungary did it in the inter-war years. Just call the PM, the PM, First Lord of the Treasury, blah blah blah, and Regent.
67 - So predictable. One wonders if this stamp duty mess could be the pretext for Brown replacing Darling.
73 - “But I don’t see why people should be allowed to stand for a parliament whose authority they do not in some sense accept.”
You’d ban UKIP from contesting Euro elections too then?
#68
But compared to Q1, Q1/2 shows an additional support of 200% regarding that issue. Shall we extrapolate…?
68. And on that measure a similar % ‘don’t care’ about pensions, benefits, wages, the council tax, transport, or the countryside. Which I think puts the point in proper perspective.
@67:
I’m overcome with horror at the thought of Darling’s serious boobs.
*shudder*
68. Of course, polls showing support for the EU can’t be found, so now we are told that it doesn’t matter to people. Europhiles are on the back foot at last.
73 - Well they are allowed to stand if they fail to accept that authority they are disbarred from taking their seat. Hence Sinn Fein MP’s when elected are never espoused on the Green benches.
81, Lucy Pinder to be next Chancellor: Gove outraged.
@78:
Hoy, UKIP seem only to happy to take their seats in the EP, vote, make use of its facilities and… generous expense arrangements.
I think UKIP “in some sense accept” the European Parliament just fine, thank you.
73 why’s that? Are people that want a different system debarred from office? Sounds a little fascist to me.
For the purposes of the tape - I am a card carrying monarchist and would swear the oath myself.
50/51: and a Republican party couldn’t stand? Nor, presumably could the Scottish National Party.
The whole idea of enforcing an oath of allegiance to the Crown is ridiculous. It sovereignty of the people, folks. If I am elected on a platform of getting rid of the Queen, isn’t it utterly absurd that I should take an oath of allegiance to her.
78. UKIP’s former leader Alan Sked took exactly that position, on the basis that standing for the European Parliament conferred legitimacy on it and any members elected would likely turn into its creatures. Arguably, this proved pretty accurate.
68: I think Mike is making the perfectly reasonable point that the next election - Tapestry in the Philippines not withstanding - will not be won on the issue of Europe.
It’s not about Mike’s supposed europhilia, it’s about whether it makes a difference to electoral results.
@89:
And yet, the people of the UK are now expected to elect an openly EU-hostile government in 2010.
I hope that’ll settle the question of what the UK actually thinks of the EU once and for all.
New tv channel goes live..
http://number10tv.com/
The idea that Europe has *any* direct influence over our affairs is wildly overdone.
The institutions of the EU have very few legal powers and they are designed purely to ensure that we stick to the agreements we have made with our partners in just the same way that UK civil courts ensure that you maintain any legal agreements you might make such as maintenance payments or finance agreements.
You can break these agreements any time you like, and if you do the court can impose fines on you for breaking them; but there is a very strict limit to their power. If we want to stick two fingers up to the EU in the end the only thing they could do about it ultimately is chuck us out.
People who go on and on about how much of our law ‘originates from Europe’ are completely, utterly ill informed. An EU Directive is not as we are led to believe a law; it is an advice that we are obliged by our membership to incorporate that directive into our law at a convenient point. Thus no law in this country is imposed by the EU it is willingly written into law by our own Government.
Some Governments stick to the letter of the directive, some ‘gold plate’ the directives and some water them down so as to make them totally ineffectual.
SkyNews,
Home repossessions up by 48% on a year ago. What did the Flint bint say about August being a quite month…?
I would have thought an oath to the country and its citizens, might be a better idea.
Of course that could cause the nationalists a problem, as they would only vote for their, ‘bit.’
Of course some members of the Royals have had problems witrh oaths, particularly the, ‘Till death do us part’ clause.
Comment from the Daily Mash on the royals.
http://tinyurl.com/6fpyov
@92:
It was interesting that HM Govt, when asked how much primary legislation in the UK originates from the EU, was unable (or unwilling) to give a straight answer.
74-That was one of the spurious reasons brought forward to ban/curtail fox hunting.
90; I shall probably be voting for Cameron’s Conservatives. But that tells you *nothing* about my views on Europe. Only that I think the Conservatives are the least bad of the available options.
I don’t really care that much about Europe. I complained on a previous thread about the lack of nuance on the issue. A failure to realise that the EU (like all institutions) is a mix of good and bad. If we leave the EU, nothing terrible will happen (except one business of mine will probably have to open a European office, rather than being covered from the UK by the provisions of the Single European Act; but even there, there’ll probably be a decent settlement).
What I do find absurd is the level of conspiracy theories about the EU. Mrs Thatcher was not ditched because she was insufficiently pro-EU for Jacques Delors. She was ditched because Conservative MPs feared she had become an electoral liability post the Poll Tax and the Eastbourne byelection.
I find the idea that the media is controlled by some secretive EU cabal even more absurd. Presumably the management and shareholders of Trinity Mirror, News Corporation and DMGT are happy to be subverted for some shadowy aims. Anyhow. This is a pointless discussion because Tapestry and his ilk have taken Homer Simpson’s “Facts? You can prove anything with facts” at face value.
For me, the key section in Mike’s comments is this:
“What I have not yet heard is a plausible plan as to how his departure could be choreographed. How is a move going to be made and who are going to stick their heads above the parapet? “
Forget about the Guardian commentators. I don’t think they matter: one minute hot and the next cold. All talk. But who is going to take the action of removing Brown. I can’t see it happening. Remember, a botched coup will make matters much, much worse. Whoever acts must be certain they will succeed and not weaken the party. Labour does not like treachery – witness the opprobrium heaped on Macdonald and the Gang of Four.
92. I see we haven’t entirely disposed of the ‘don’t worry chaps, these continentals make a lot of grand speeches but it doesn’t amount to much’ type of Tory MPs or (at least prospective ones).
Remember all those plummy-voiced old duffers lining up outside the HoC saying ‘Maastricht puts the brake on Federalism’?
Nevertheless it’s true to say the EU’s indirect power is much greater than its direct power. It has a small army of little helpers (witting and unwitting) embedded in the UK political, media, and administrative elite.
89-Affect it it does. TO what extent who knows.
How many seats did the Referendum Party vote make the difference in in 1997. Then assume x% of that would have gone to the Tories otherwise. Ditto UKIP in 2001 and 2005.
Enough to swing an election? No - or at least not yet. To alter the number of seats won, yes.
I give up.
I make the mild suggestion that candidates, who so far dissent from accepting the authority of parliament as to decline to take whatever initial ceremony of assent is in place, should make or decline to make that assent at nomination.
For this I am labelled “fascist”.
92
OoooH dear Marcus! I do hope seant, (The Beast of Bodmin Moor) doesn’t read your post, he’ll be rubbing his Joan-the-Wad and putting a curse on you.
p.s.
Stay this side of the Tamar!!
101 Never mind, Agingjb; you just gotta accept that if you stick your head above the parapet on PB, you are going to get called names. You should see some of the names I’ve been called.
And I only come here for the betting.
101 no you are not, I stated that the action of barring people from standing for parliament on an anti-royalist ticket because they will not swear a loyal oath ’sounds a bit fascist’ - which it does to me. It is not labelling you, so don’t twist things.
Once elected they should then refuse to swear the oath and if enough are elected the natural course of events will change things, or the populace will rise up.
99. My point is the same as yours, blaming Europe is easy but the facts are that it is supine UK MP’s who have given us loads of legislation and regulations we don’t want from Europe; not the EU or Strasbourg (which has virtually no power of its own at all).
To her eternal credit Mrs Thatcher understood better than any subsequent PM how the European machine actually works in practice. The sheer power of peer pressure is enormous in politics - not wanting the be ‘left out’ and the fear of being the odd man out are amazingly just as powerful a force on heads of state as it is with kids in the playground.
Mrs T was -along with De Gaulle - almost immune to this pressure it was her ministers and the UK press (it has to be said, at the time more closely representing majority public opinion) who weren’t.
103 as he hasn’t been called a fascist there really is no problem.
101. In the 1970s anyone expressing even mildly centre-right views was routinely labelled as such by the trots, some of whom now sit as Labour MPs.
101
never mind, it’s character building.
Wait till you get a blast from S T.. then you KNOW you have been flamed:-)
107 One must remember Foot’s Law
Left = glorious victims, the righteous, the chosen, intellectually superior, altrusitic, wonderous, smell of rose petals
Right = baby eating Hitler fetishists who enjoy human suffering almost as much as they enjoy killing innocent foxes and drinking of the sweat of the noble workers, whom they oppress
105. But once we joined the EU, all that was inevitable. To suggest we could avoid this by ignoring EU laws or watering them down to nothing (which amounts to same thing) is ridiculous.
We made EU law supreme and emasculated our own parliament.
Small wonder it has increasingly become full of time-servers and professional greasy pole-climbers whose talents lie in buck-passing and blame shifting rather than concrete achievements.
Nottingham - relative turnout ~ 83%.
Conservative 62.2% +16.6%
Labour 23.4% +3.1%
Lib Dem 9.5% -4.2%
UKIP 4.9% -4.1%
Green - -9.2%
Ind - -2.1%
Swing Lab to Con 6¾% since May 2007.
Con vote up 300 since average of May 2007, Labour vote down 50, Lib Dem down 300 whilst no Green who polled 500 and no Ind (100)
What’s the point of an oath anyway? seems to me they’re irrelevant.
After all if Prince Charles, (Future head of the Church) can stand before an altar, before No1 vicar, in the sight of God, the same God that oneday will make him King, (Now there’s a sense of humour) and swear an oath, and not believe in a word of it! Then whats the f***ing point?
If I may respectfully suggest getting back on-topic, some PBers may have missed a late contribution from Hopi Sen (no less) at 1.38am last night (previous thread 209).
A ‘must-read’, I think
Maldon district council: Maldon North ward
Tory 339
Green 200
IND 115
BNP 107
IND UKIP? 69
111. Farewell, Mr.Palmer.
114. No Lib or Lab !
An oath seems silly to me. Surely the whole point is that the MP’s electorate has determined that a person with his or her views are what they wish to have represent them in Parliament.
It would be a much better idea to have entry qualifications to be an MP. At present some MPs are great big boobies who know nothing about nothing. Plenty more are willing to expatiate on subjects about which they know nothing at the drop of a hat. Shouldn’t there be some entry examination?
If, for example, you want to become a trustee of a pension scheme, you are required to meet minimum knowledge and understanding requirements (and yes, many pension scheme trustees are elected, so that argument doesn’t work either). Parliament seemed to think that was important, despite the fact that they do a job of much more general importance without any need for qualifications. So isn’t it about time that we had law-making tests for prospective MPs?
112. Personally i think an oath of should be made to the British people but not the Queen! It does seem pointless swearing alliagiance to the Monachy in this day and age. It is the people who are the elected representitives masters not the queeen! The people can tell the MP’s to sling their hook! The queen is just a technical arbitor of the process.
Geesh,
Just seen Tessa Jowell on SkyNews. She does not look well. Bye-election in Sarf’ Lundun in the next few months methinks…!
97 - “I shall probably be voting for Cameron’s Conservatives…2
Any chance of persuading dad? Although he’s perhaps too right-wing for them….
Labour’s european Socialist allies blood trail:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4481353.ece
Let’s remember the Labour party is in the Socialist grouping in the EP.
117 and what happens if the electorate want a representative that has failed the test? Its not about the MPs knowledge, its about the will of the people surely?
For example - should Martin Bell have been disbarred from parliament if he had failed the test when he was overwhelmingly returned in one of the safest Tory seats in the country?
122 - So you’re happy to have incompetent lawmakers?
Richmondshire result Con hold Con 295 LibDem 130 Ind 72
Miracle they held this with the recent controversies over rubbish collection and the fact the previous councillor was sacked for being incompetent… and i say that as a tory!
101. it’s a coded message from CCHQ: you aren’t “on message”, so shut up.
123 I am far from happy about it, but I am saying, what if the majority vote that way?
Sorry guys, I know 95% of you voted for him but he is thick (and by extension..!)
121- tessa jowell never looks well! She was the colour of hospital floor linoleum on election night in may.
Good grief this is dramatic news:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4481373.ece
I am really very surpised at this - the SNP may have been infiltrated by Islamic terrorist simpathises.
This bloke should be sent to Quantamino Bay and interrogated!
123 - No-one wants legislators who are not up to the task but at the same time having entry qualifications would unfairly limit the pool. I can guarantee that any test you can devise would mean that some of our best ever Parliamentarians would never be allowed entry.
128 - Exactly the same point could be made about member-nominated pension scheme trustees. Yet they have to meet the necessary minimum standard. Yet the far more important job of being an MP has no minimum standard at all.
127 no, it isn’t. He wasn’t called a fascist as is explained above in 106.
131. why not go back to the good old days and limit prospective PPCs to those schooled at Eton, Harrow, and Westminster?
123 - MPs are not there to draft the minutiae of the laws - that’s part of what civil servants are there for.
The only real virtue of a democratically elected legislature is that (in theory) it should act as a bulwark against tyrannical government; it is certainly not that it is a system that will emulate the Platonic Philosopher King ideal.
MPs, in theory, should need only to understand the intent of the law - ultimately, a judge will look to Hansard to establish interpretation.
@133:
Yeah, because there’s a huge difference between being called a Fascist and being told you ’sound like’ a fascist, isn’t there?
Tum te tum.
132 - It depends on your viewpoint, MP is important but highly generalist. Pension trustees whilst also important is much more specific. So consequently you want someone with the specific knowledege, what specific knowledge would be a minimum for an MP?
132. no, the problem is with the scope of the job - MPs barely even have a job description, let alone any required knowledge.
113. Thanks, Richard, for drawing my attention to Hopi’s piece, which is very illuminating. It also adds ammunition to my self denying ordinance - do not bet on internal political party contests unless you are a paid up, longstanding member of said party.
Which, in turn forces me to take issue with Hopi on one point, which is in danger of becoming a dangerous canard for lefties out there… he says:
“Finally, the media coverage attendent on a leadership election will be transformative. Look at David Davis, humbled not by a poor speech but by journalists who fell in love with his opponent. I’ve no doubt that the support of the media classes would tilt the result quite substantially.”
I was there at Blackpool in 2005, in an advisory capacity for several leadership campaigns, and can tell you this is not the truth. Davis was sunk by the clear demonstration of his lack of leadership qualities.
When he walked into the hall to make his keynote address - a day (or maybe two) after Cameron’s, he was still the favourite with the bookies and considered so by the mediarati. The mood in the hall was, ‘Come on David, show us what you’ve got’ and very upbeat after a series of impressive performances, particularly from Rifkind and Cameron.
Within a minute of Davis starting his speech, eyebrows began to rise, after two minutes, people started to look at each other, and after five minutes the mood had totally changed. They knew. He didn’t have what it took.
The journalists also realised it was a poor speech, but it was only over the next hour or so, when they talked to activists and each other that they cottoned on to what the audience had felt instinctively. DD was not up to the job.
It was one of the most remarkable political events in recent years, one of the few political turning points that can be pinpointed to the very minute. (Brown’s fall from grace is much more difficult to date precisely - everyone has his own moment of dawning realisation.)
Hopi’s problem with this is that he is not a Tory. Only a Tory could understand what DD was lacking as a Tory leader. Just as I cannot conceive of how Labour picked Foot or Kinnock, or could elect Harriet as Deputy, so Hopi fails to understand the mindset of his opponents. But to blame the media is wrong and will lead the left in the wrong direction… on the other hand, go on Hopi, lead them up the garden path.
132 this is true. I just feel a little uncomfortable about exams for MPs - are we stopping the criminally stupid or those of low IQ/bad at tests?
Plus the will of the people being sacresanct and all - even if it isn’t
re my 68 and the posts that followed.
This question has been asked in the same way by MORI face to face for more than thirty years. What makes it unique is that there are no prompts - people say what comes into their minds.
The first question asks for the single most important issue - the second asks for other important issue - WITHOUT LIMITATION.
Question one normally gets 1%. Question 2 has been as high as 7% this year but has steadily got smaller and is now 3%.
In electoral terms it barely rates and that is what I point out every month or so when people go over the top on the matter.
It’s not important - it’s as simple as that.
131 - Because you’d be eliminating jolly good candidates from the other 3 great public schools.
OT
Whilst I am away I intend to pursue my research into the vexing question - Is socialism a mental illness or a personality defect - nature or nurture? Also having established an upper limit _ “A socialist intellectual is a Labour supporter with an IQ of 81″ and that Gorbals Mick’s IQ is approximately zero, the search is now on for the first negative IQ and how to measure it.
Borrowed from the telegraph comments section.
131 - I’m sure there are some wonderful would-be HGV drivers who just can’t get the licence, but I’m not sure I’d want them driving a petrol tanker.
I also read Hopi’s long comment, and found it very insightful. I visit his blog when I can, but it would be nice to see him back here a bit more often.
143. misses the point entirely. it is clear what skills are required to be an HGV driver.
what skills are required to be an MP? “it depends”.
re 139 Absolutely right - On the Betfair betting exchange the Davis price opened at 0.78/1 when he started his speech - within an hour of him sitting down the price had slumped to 1.08/1.
See chart here -
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2005/10/06/is-it-premature-to-write-off-davis/
136 yes there is
quote:
‘Are people that want a different system debarred from office? Sounds a little fascist to me.’
‘You are a fascist’
Completely different things. Although I suppose I could say ’sounds a little social democratic to me’ - that would be a lie though as the proposal to debar people from standing in an election because they will not swear an oath to something that they do not believe in is rather mofre draconian than your run of the mill social democracy.
I’ll be clear though - I do not think agingjb is a fascist or that he holds fascist views, I do think that his proposal can be seen as fascistic in its outcome even though I do not believe for one moment he intended it so.
143 - Yes but when talking about steering the ship of state, it is a metaphor, not a means of disqualifying anyone who isn’t a qualified ship’s pilot!
139
I watched the speeches on TV so am not up in the background .. but I agree 100%.
DD lost because his speech demonstrated unequivocally he was not a leader. And his subsequent behaviour confirms that decision of the Conservatives was correct.
HopiSen appears to be in the mindset prevalent on labourHome that 1. It’s Gordon’s fault 2. It’s the media fault 3. No-one understands us.
139 - Yes, but in a way I think what you say supports what Hopi Sen was saying. His point seemed to be that ‘electability’ counts a lot, and so just looking at the political profile of a candidate is not enough. OK, it may have been DD’s poor speech itself rather than the media reaction which had the effect, but the point is that the speeches made people realise that Cameron was more likely to be an election winner. Even today, I suspect that a large proportion (probably a majority) of the party would prefer DD’s brand of Conservatism to Cameron’s. But they’ve (at last!) realised that winning elections is rather important, so his position is secure as long as he seems to be delivering the goods.
The question is: how will such factors play in the Labour party?
126. As one who lives in the Richmondshire district I can also attest that it is the epitomy of a Rotten Borough. Hence the Conservatives don’t have overall control of a council that is within the confines of their safest parliamentary seat.
The choice was between a relatively unknown but charismastic new chap, or an older but more ’sound’ and experienced chap. They chose the unknown quantity.
145 - Oh but that’s just rubbish. I used the phrase “minimum standards” and you interpreted it as a job description. MPs can branch out in given directions, whether it is to warn about asteroid strikes, investigate the deaths of previously-obscure civil servants, act as court jesters or become a recognised expert on obscure financial instruments. But all of them need to participate in the legislative and deliberative process and all of them should be administering to their constituents’ needs.
re 150 ..and the Tories have also realised that they do themselves no favours by droning on about the EU all the time. Look at the mess that Hague made of the 2001 general election.
And, dare I say it here, there has hardly been any reaction to Lisbon. For most people it is just boring.
Much guff has been talked about oaths of allegiance.
The UK is a constitutional monarchy.
Secession from the Union is not contitutionally impossible.
A secessionist party (such as the SDLP) can take the oath of allegiance, because they intend to seek secession by means of the same constitution as they were elected.
Sinn Fein do not, and therefore can not.
What Peter Bottomley has in mind I cannot say.
‘What Peter Bottomley has in mind I cannot say’
Very little.
155. but Sinn Fein should at least be allowed to stand (as they do now) which would not be allowed if they had to take the oath before standing.
155 - “Sinn Fein do not”
They do now though.
153. ok, so name a single thing that an MP “needs” to be able to do.
bearing in mind that they may be PM, speaker, SDLP, “save xxxshire hospital” - i can’t see a single thing that these people need have in common, other than approval from their respective electorate.
155 “What Peter Bottomley has in mind I cannot say.”<