Is Cameron making the NHS his Clause 4?
January 5th, 2006
-
The Daily Telegraph is not happy
It was this site in May 2005 that first talked of the Tories having a “clause 4 moment”. Then we used it in the context of choosing Ken Clarke which we thought would have “symbolic importance” because of the long Tory history of splits over the EU.
The way that the new Tory leader has decided to make the NHS the subject of his first major policy pronouncement reflects his desire to make this the first major issue to demonstrate a break from the past - a clause 4 if you like.
For although Margaret Thatcher could declare that “the NHS is safe in our hands” few could quite believe from the way that she said it that she was telling the truth. For even when Labour was at its lowest in the 1980s the one policy area that almost always produced positive polling results was the NHS.
In an analysis in the Times under the headline “Cameron’s smart move on health” Nigel Hawkes observes: “The main victim of his (Cameron’s) new policy is the abandonment of the patient passport, invented by Liam Fox, now Tory Party Chairman. It was defensible, but barely, and John Reid, Labour’s ideological bovver-boy, gave it a hard time at the last election. The idea was to encourage NHS patients to take themselves off to private hospitals by paying half the cost. The Tories said that this would ease queues. Labour argued that it would simply hand money to those who already intended to go private. Electorally it never cut any ice, but gave Mr Reid plenty of fun claiming that the Conservatives were planning to privatise the NHS. The claim was nonsense, but by the end nobody could be bothered to argue the case. Even Dr Fox fell silent.”
While Cameron’s approach might be getting the good headlines and TV coverage it is causing some heart-searching in the Tory press.
The Telegraph’s main leader this morning sets out the dilemma: “….Many say that Mr Cameron’s speech yesterday was part of a sophisticated political game that he has been playing since he took over the Tory leadership from Michael Howard. His aim, they argue, is quite clearly to drive a wedge between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the unreconstructed socialist at the Treasury, by supporting the Prime Minister over every policy that annoys the Chancellor most. This may well be a clever strategy. But we would rather hear honest convictions, bravely stated, than see a grandmaster of the political arts, shuffling pieces on a chess board. After more than eight years of Blairism, we suspect that there is a growing body of opinion in the country that agrees with us.”
The Guardian wonders what will happen when Cameron’s Conservatives start having some polling reverses.
Its leader observes: …”The speech was notable for what it did not contain: no routine bashing of health managers, no declaration that he would extend the market to community health programmes as the government proposed briefly last year and no wriggle room to introduce NHS funding through social insurance. The implications of this will infuriate the right, which wants tax cuts to be a priority and is desperately hoping that Mr Cameron’s message is, as the Daily Telegraph suggested on Monday, “no more than a few cuddly platitudes designed to win back the middle ground. Assuming the new leader is not playing such a cynical game, the yelps of pain from the right can only get louder in the coming months. This will not matter to Mr Cameron for as long as the polls are good and his MPs stay loyal. But if the lustre goes from his poll rating or the May local elections do not prove a triumph or the economy stays strong and does not damage Gordon Brown, he will need the backing of his party. That is when the right will move to make him their captive. He will need to fight them. If he gives in to their exhausted arguments then the dazzle of his early days will seem nothing more than a passing trick of the light.”
On the Betfair betting exchange the Tory General Election price tightened up a notch and is now at 1.14/1.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
One aspect that doesn’t seem to have attracted comment is that the Conservatives, to an even greater extent than Labour, seem to accept that party policy is what the leader this week says it is. If TB proposes some major policy change, he always has a big battle to persuade the party. But here, although there are party members who don’t agree with the new policy, nobody has suggested that there is any way whatever that it can be challenged.
In response to points on the last threrad: Roger accurately describes why I thought the patient passport unethical. It would have diverted money from the most urgent NHS cases to people who had large savings. But as the policy is dead we needn’t worry about it any more.
I take Sean Fear’s point that it’s healthy for democracy if widely-held views have a party to express them. But ideas advance in Britain when parties who have opposed them change their minds (as with the free market vs Clause 4), and if one thinks that a certain idea is unethical it’s reasonable to celebrate the fact that no major party is now supporting it. The victory of (arguably!) civilised ideas is more important than the victory of parties. There are anyway lots of other things we can reasonably disagree about, e.g. grammar schools.
John O is right that candidates usually get on with each other, at least superficially. Partly it’s because it’s unprofessional to be gratuitously nasty to a competitor, but mainly it’s because we’ve got lots in common - we actually care enough what happens to our society that we’re willing to spend 80 hours a week or so on it. Just as most of us here get on all right, don’t we?
[1] If a political Party makes policy “democratically” (and all of them are signed up for some interpretation of “democratic” policy making, if only because Party cards would otherwise be virtually unmarketable) then the evolution of policy is difficult and expensive for the (traditional) media to cover, by comparison with a leader’s speech(es). It’s been so for over 150 years - Peel’s Tamworth Manifesto; Gladstone’s Midlothian Campaign. Ideology is irrelevant.
As to we actually care enough what happens to our society that we’re willing to spend 80 hours a week or so on it it would perhaps be kinder (to my blood pressure at any rate) not to comment. But didn’t Denis Healey have something to say about “hinterland” and isn’t much of Kenneth Clarke’s attraction that he appears to have one?
Good to see The Times knows who the Conservative Party Chairman is! Tut Tut.
I’m not sure Cameron’s speech really rules out an ultimate move toward social insurance. But to get to a continental style system we would first have to have real independence for hospitals and GPs, with them being paid by the NHS to perform their functions, with real contracts and prices. The NHS would be slowly turned into a conduit for public money rather than an integrated system for ‘producing’ health care. The next step would be to fund the NHS via a hypothecated payment by the people (probably a rebranded NIC) with credits given by the government to the unwaged. The last step would be to allow insurance firms to compete to take your rebranded NIC. I think the whole transformation would have to be a careful step by step operation for it to work well, especially given the political risks. So concentrating on the first steps makes sense, in particular because Labour lacks the will to complete even these preliminary moves. So no ’squeals’ from the right here.
I must commend my new leader on his interview with James Naughty on the Today program. Yesterday I was getting worried that he was unfurling too many policy initiatives too quickly but this morning my anxiety was put to rest.
His blandness at this time was exactly what was called for. Sometimes as electors we want to hear about policy direction and at others meaningless platitutes are just as effective. Today was a day for platitudes. and Dave struck just the right note. I was always a great fan of Blair and his ‘Third Ways’ and ‘New Types of Politics’ and I’m now confident that Cameron is chipped off exactly the same block. My only small fear is that after eleven years the electorate might decide it wants a change and it could be tempted by the unsmiling Scot….. But an appearance on Celebrity Big Brother would quickly put paid to that……
Let’s hope his collegues aren’t as short sighted as the Lib Dems who seem to have decided that being ‘the sort of guy you might not mind having a drink with’ is not enough to sustain Charlie as leader of their party. Don’t they use focus groups?
Speaking of Focus groups and the Lib Dems, have they gone too far to the extreme when it comes to young fresh leaders?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/4581716.stm
5. Problem is Roger, it’s not just ‘a drink’, is it?
One month in and the cracks are begining to show!
Actually it is very sensible to get rid of the negatives early on and then point out some minor differences of management, which wont frighten the horses and make the Tories sound reasonable. Cameron made all this clear during his campaign - just as he did with taxes and tuition fees - two areas that will create more problems for him - the former with the “Old” Tories and the latter with the middle class voters whose children have to pay them.
Pleased to see Nick coming out against Grammer Schools - but TB is creating Foundation Schools that will behave like Grammer Schools used to. I thought PPS’s had to toe the party (the leader’s) line.
Cameron’s apporach is very interesting but I don’t think that he is trying to achieve a “Clause IV” moment. Far from it, he’s trying to keep his own troops happy while wedging towards the centre. This is forcing him into some bizarre and I think unsustainable policy contortions. Ironically given the way Tory posters on here regularly condemn the LDs for being all things to all people Cameron appears to be turning the Conservatives into a sort of political pushme-pullu.
Obviously there is a policy review but Cameron is desperately trying to appeal to every conceivable constituency, with totally contradictory messages. Look at what we know far:
1)He is infavour of immigration but wants to reduce the number of immigrants.
2) Opposes dsicrimination against gays but supports a finanical incentive for marriage
3) He wants high public spending but also wants to cut taxes and reduce borrowing
4) He wants to reform public services but doesn’t really want to change the way they are run
5)He plans to stand up to big business but doesn’t want to regulate them
We simply have no idea whether Cameron intends a genuine substantial policy shift to the cnetre ( as with balir in the 1990’s) or whether he is using his first few months as leader to create a moderate mood music to hide a more rightwing set of core beliefs (as with George Bush’s original version of Compassionate Conservatism).
One thing we can be sure of though is that the sort of policy confusion that we are currently seeing cannot last long, when new policy do eventually emerge the Tories will have to have chosen which side of the fence they are on. In the mean time though I am going to enjoy asking, just what are the Tories for?
Just seems to be a silly idea to choose as a “Clause 4″ supporting something that does not work and needs to be totally re-engineered. Ay least Labour chose to ditch an outmoded idea, we are choosing to support one.
Grammar sorry (and I went to Guisborough Grammar School once!)
Roger, I too enjopyed your Leader’s Today programme intervuiew, particularly his assertion that he was offering a distinctive new genda, based on the uyniquely Tory principles “trusting people” and “shared responsibility”.
Inspriational, where do i sign up?
I’m off to find a spell check!
Have just picked up the office FT front page story:
Cameron attacks chocolate oranges (Headline)
David Cameron, Conservative leader, on Wednesday launched an outspoken attack on retailers, singling out WH Smith for offering cut-price chocolate oranges. He accused it of irresponsible marketing that made people fat.
Thats the “little old lady” vote gone then!
6. Milkybar, its good to see that Book Value has been promoted.
“A distinctive new genda”
Quite ;-). Edward Leigh is first on the list to become a eunuch.
15 - skip two and a half generations…
Bullseye - apropos to point 2 in your piece, surely, with the introduction of Gay Marriage, this is now a moot point, as he is talking about tax breaks for married couples per se, not specifically for straight married couples - he is endorsing marriage as a whole, and as such any discrimination is against those who live together long term without marrying, be they straight or gay
18 - He’s said marriage specifically, hasn’t he, not civil partnerships?
[4] The full moon really must be getting close - now I find myself agreeing with with Fred [4]…
[12][13] Until you spoilt it, I thought Cameron was offering a “distinctive new gender” - where’s that darkened room?
8.” with the introduction of Gay Marriage”
uhm, but gay marriage hasn’t been introduced. You could argue (like many do) that in the end civil partnerships are a marriage with another name, but in the “eyes of the laws” they’re 2 different institutions.
He has never specified he wants to introduce finanical incentive for civil partners too.
“trusting people” and “shared responsibility”
That’s why they call you Bullseye! You have to go a long way back in Tony’s lexicon to find two pearlers like those! And just like the master himself he used them again and again and again. I kept getting that delightful deja vu feeling……
19 - I suppose, but Civil partnerships is such a mouthful, and technically, unless you marry in a church, civil partnerships are anyone who marries in a registry office - the reason the government backed out of calling CPs marriages was pressure from the church, if I remember rightly.
All semantics, really, as CPs give you identical rights as marriage…. but good point, and I for one would be extremely uncomfortable if this did turn out to be the case (discrimination against CPs that is)
21 - exactly.
“Technically, unless you marry in a church, civil partnerships are anyone who marries in a registry office.”
De facto, perhaps, but not technically - civil marriage is legally distinct from civil partnership.
To be fair to Cameron, I think it is quite likely that he will include civil partnerships in any tax advantages - but I don’t believe he’s confirmed that yet.
25. I think being vague on that matters could have been a tactic to keep everyone happy during the leadership campaign. Otherwise we would have heard John Bercow or Edward Leigh screaming their disgust (depending on waht position he would have taken).
Yep those Chocolate Oranges are a disgrace / a real health risk.
Completely unlike Drugs and Alcohol then ………………….
11 - Icarus, if you only went there once you can be forgiven for not being able to spell “grammar”.
Surely the big issue which has come out of this is that increasingly Labour Policy is what Tony Blair woke up thinking this morning. Tory policy is what David Cameron woke up thinking this morning. Or is it the other way around?
(we all know that Charles Kennedy is thinking about other things this morning!)
16 BV: “Edward Leigh is first on the list to become a eunuch.”
I thought he was always a Powellite?
Bullseye you forgot DC is in favour of environmental protection and the green belt and major roadbuilding too.
Must admit he is starting to sound like a deeply confused LibDem.
Were it not for the Kennedy situation I would be feeling extremely optimistic… I certainly think Nick P can breathe easier even though the betting markets say he is toast!
Here in York - the original home of the Chocolate Orange and just round the corner from the marginal seat of Selby (Labour majority 467) Cameron’s attack could have been a sensistive issue. However Terrys got taken over by a US congolerate and the factory was closed in October 2005 with the loss of hundreds of jobs. We are delighted that Cameron should attack the product of which we were once so proud.
At the rate at which he is going, wouldn’t it be easier and simpler just for David Cameron to tell us which bits of the manifesto he wrote and fought on just a few months ago he still believes in
It seems to me a very risky strategy of his (though perhaps the only one that might work) as the rapidity with which he is changing his views on so many matters leaves the obvious quesiton hanging, “But does he really believe in anything if he can his mind so much, so quickly?”
Jon - See this weeks Private Eye - they already have Cameron as new leader of the Lib Dems.
Give the guy a break! He’s never been out of the papers or off TV and radio. From a PR man you can’t ask for more than that……
Off-topic but regarding comment numbers in IE, could Robert not simply increase the margin in .commentlist li in the css?
[33] We all have to decide if we prefer our politicians to stick to their guns come what may, or to change their minds when circumstances change. I suspect that for many of us our hearts prefer the first (hence, say, the affection for Tony Benn) while our heads tell us that we want to be governed by the latter.
Cameron’s strategy seems sensible to me. If you lose three elections in a row it does n’t seem a good idea to go into the fourth one with just the same policies.
37. yes, IA, but someone could expected that those Uturns could be motivated by something. What has happened in the last few months to make him change his mind about so many issues? Ah, yes, he’s now the party leader.
The first word which passes through my mind at the moment is something beginning with “O”.
Then it’s funny that some of the posters who are now defending DC for his Uturns are the ones who usually criticize John Bercow for his “conversion”.
At leasr JB’s change of mind happened in a moment where he had few to gain by it. Unlike Cameron’s one.
The only policy we had at the last election that really didn’t work on the doorstep was the patients passport. This was a pity because the theory behind it (cut down the ever growing demand on NHS resources by encouraging some to opt out of it) was sound economically but -as I have said before, flawed politically.
It was just too easy for the Labour Party to build on the predjudices that they have already instilled in many peoples minds that the NHS is not safe with the Tories (even though the facts say otherwise, aside from the recent spend-fest the NHS has never had as much extra funding as it got under Thatcher).
Therefore it seems entirely reasonable to me, and I know to most other activsist who tried selling the policy during the election, to drop it.
I hardly think this makes it a ‘clause 4 moment’ and as I have also claimed before I don’t think Cameron needs one because Conservatives are generally a far less truculent lot than the Labour membership.
34 - Icarus, I know we like to stand up for, and offer a home to, repressed minorities (such as left-wing old Etonians), but is it usual to offer them the leadership quite so quickly?
40 - Marcus: “The only policy we had at the last election that really didn’t work on the doorstep was the patients passport.”
So why is Commie-ron going hell for leather to ditch the lot, Marcus? Doesn’t that worry you, that you’re suddenly going to have to go round on a manifesto that isn’t tried and tested on the doorstep as the last one was?
New lab have been keen on ‘Community’ as a call sign , Camerons emphasis on trust ( of the individual ? ) is interesting and may be more of a sign than anything else about what themes he’s planning to pursue.
What little I know of the Cameron set is that they are clearly impressive PR operators and understand how style and packaging affect people.
I’d agree with other comments on this site that its mood music at the moment but would add that while consciously its vague and contradictory in policy (conscious) terms the point may be being made subconsciously (It is after all a hypnotic technique to bombard the conscious mind with too much information )
The repetition of ‘Trust’ and ‘Shared responsibility’ is a clue and it subconsciously creates a difference with Labour.
Instead of banging on about ‘the awfull nanny state’ he creates a positive version - ‘ im not like them over there , i trust you to do the sensible thing’
I also think Brown and many of nu lab are vulnerable to this approach (most govt’s probably are ) because they are in danger of being allowed to be viewed as ‘Puritans’ compared to the ‘Restoration’ that Cameron is offering , even his well publicised ‘did you take drugs at university’ works for him in this way.
[40] The only policy we had at the last election that really didn’t work on the doorstep was the patients passport
Earth to Marcus: You won fewer seats than Michael Foot did in 1983 - come to think of it, substitute “unilateral nuclear disarmament” and it sounds very much like him
41 - Tried, tested and failed Tabman. If you get consistently beaten you have to change and accept its maybe not the electorate who have got it wrong. The Tory party has allways been good at adapting itself to make it relevant to the current period. It’s just taken us a bit longer this time.
As for dumping flagship policies how much longer will the Libs be promoting a 50p top rate of tax?
DC’s NHS conversion is not so much “clause 4″ as independence for the Bank of England and adopting Tory spending plans. The purpose is to neutralise your opponent’s natural advantages.
The irony is that by 1977 the economy did not play well for the Tories but Mandleson & Co’s “project” blamed Smith rather than themselves for the 1992 defeat.
DC has a list of Tory characteristics voters (or focus groups) mistrust or dislike and is systematically working to neutralise them.
40. I’m glad the policy has gone as well. It was not well recieved on the doorstep and was far more trouble than it was worth.
44 - Max, Marcus doesn’t seem to think they failed.
I agree re the 50p rate policy - it’s likely to be ditched. But there is a difference. The policy was there in support of a general principle (progressive taxation to fund social justice). You can change policies in line with specific principles - we still believe in progressive taxation and social justice.
However, Commie-ron seems to be ditching Conservative principles which is a different matter.
47 - and to expand on the last point, DC has moved from a policy that suported the principle that there should be no state monopoly on provision of health services, to one that does believe this.
44. Max, IIRC you’re one of the Bercow’s “dislikers” on this site. why are you ok with Cameron’s unturns and not with Bercow’s ones?
It’s just a matter of “presentation” (Bercow being more aggressive when delivering his ideas)?
Btw, yesterday night you were needed: there were some discussions about Scotland.
In the light of DC’s battle on all fronts and the astonishing publcity he is receiving, I think even the next round of opinion polls are going to be quite important psychologically in the party, either to calm fears if there is a solid lead, or of course to heighten concerns about the direction.
TAbman - that simply ISNT true!
Cameron is not proposing to nationalise all private hospitals and clinics is he?? In fact he is open to the private sector providing more services to the NHS. So your comment is rubbish!
If Cameron is the real deal as Roger says, a genuine third way politician, like Blair and Clinton.
I for one will be happy.
However it seems a very quick conversion, and many will not believe it.
Those on the right of centre might be correct in thinking, that he has picked up the batton, just as this thinking is on its inevetable decline.
Simon Heffer will not be happy, but even the leader in the Telegraph had to admit that New Labour had proofed that they could run the economy.
Can`t see the Daily Mail saying the same, intresting times, a left of centre conservative party surely not.
“Cameron’s strategy seems sensible to me. If you lose three elections in a row it does n’t seem a good idea to go into the fourth one with just the same policies”
But fashions change. The stridency of Thatcherism seemed OK for the selfish 80’s but looked out of place and dated during the ‘cooler’ 90’s. Chasing fashion is a game for mugs which is why in the long run it’s better to set a style and stick to it.
I always thought the best advertising that the Conservatives did was for William Hague “You’ve paid the taxes where are the………” The message was a good one the problem was the messenger. The difficulty with the “Are you thinking what we’re thinking….” wasn’t that voters didn’t agree with the message-focus groups said they did-but that it’s presentation made the party look mean and conspiratorial. Which tallied with most voters negative feelings towards the leader
Cameron seems to have taken a different message from the defeat-that people didn’t like the policies-when as a PR man he should have realized that a gentler leadership with slick repackaging would have sufficed and wouldn’t have led to the inevitable problems he will face in the next year or two.
49 - I dislike Bercow because he appears to care more about himself than he does the party. I tend to think that if you’re elected as a Conservative the least you should do is show a bit of loyalty. I don’t see why I should trudge through the pissing rain delivering leaflets to elect MP’s who will actively seek to damage the party.
Cameron on the other hand has been a constructive force within the party and appears to be building the sort of Conservative party I would like to see. The kind of party that can reach out to the traditional supporters who have abandoned us in recent years.
On Scotland the parties are starting to get people in place allready for 2007. Lots of interesting seats to look out for - Perth, Edinburgh Central, Dumfries, Strathkelvin & Bearsden, Inverness etc, TE&L, Ochil and Rox and Berwickshire are some of the ones to look out for.
51 - ooh, Rik, you’re so, so … strident! Good to have the old “impervious to argument” Rik back. Was the new, thoughtful Rik the product of a New year hangover? Whatever, its good to see that regardless of Commie-ron’s pronouncements, leopards tend to retain their spots.
No, my comment is not rubbish. You’re guilty of playing the same semantic contortions that many of your colleagues are doing trying to absorb DC’s policy pronouncements.
Moving to a system of univeral health insurance would be ending state monopoly on health care. DC wants to retain the taxation funded NHS; whether HelathCo PLC actually performs the operatio or not is irrelevant - the Health Service provides the care.
[40] - though there was increased NHS spending under Thatcher/Major, it illustrates what I call the Bottomley fallacy, that figures outweigh experience.
While Virginia Bottomley boasted of increased spending, I walked past the closed wards to my outpatients appointment. Millions attended or visited hospitals (or knew someone who did) and had similar experiences.
She spoke of reduced waits and indeed the nurse did greet us on arrival before we sat down for two or three hours before seeing the doctor.
The increase money went on the internal market: to know how much things cost, hospitals need clerks, accountants and managers. To negotiate separate contracts with every GP, they need clerks, solicitors and managers.
It wasn’t just Bottomley. What mattered about unemployment was not the massaged official total but the real numbers, especially
amongst Tory supporters in the 1990s.
Labour may fall into the same trap with many of their supporters becoming worse off than the figures show (credit card debt, low wages for many workers, student debts for the middle class).
47. Tabman, Ho, ho…nice bit of spin about ditching one of your distinctive flagship policues. Er, will the famed local income tax be that far behind?
Has DC inveighed against those who choose private health rather than the NHS - I don’t think so.
Dear me…don’t you Apollo moonbeamers understand that for most Tories, our first principle is unshamedly being the ‘party of power’ as a means in the words of one B Disraeli IIRC “to elevate the conditions of the people”. And as Max says, meaningful adapatability and profound philosophical flexibility have more than a certain attraction
As for Commie-ron…you sound like Arthur Scargill with his Ronald Ray-Gun and the Plutonium Blonde, the wit of which was rather lost in the Russian translation
54. Max, with all due respect, you’re extremely unfair toward Bercow. He has told you were going in the wrond direction way before DC (who was busy writing your “successfull” manifesto).
If Bercow would care just about himself and his political career, he wouldn’t have had his conversion at the time he did it. He hasn’t gained anything. If he would hace cared just about himself, he would have waited until now. Just like Cameron!
Bercow was chairman of the ‘repatriation committee’ of the Monday Club. I have every sympathy with anyone who views him as an unprincipled opportunist. Most parties would have consigned him to the BNP before his absurd damascene conversion.
Back to the original point, this is nothing like a clause 4 moment for Cameron. With clause 4, Blair had the unions genuinely up in arms, as well as many of his own party, and he took them all on. There’s not been a whisper from the tories about Cameron’s latest pronouncement.
A REAL Clause 4 moment for Cameron would be if he came out and said that he backed the European Social Chapter and he valued the role of trade unions in our society.
I can’t see that happening and, if it did, I would give him five minutes before he was kicked out.
Cameron’s looking very new and glossy, but let’s not forget the press and the party are treating him with kid gloves, largely because he is a kid. It seems unfair to burst his balloon. He looks like he might cry if you did. Give him time, give him an internal row, and he’ll look even more inept than the last four tory leaders.
I won’t get into the debate about Conservative policy changes, as I doubt if I would say anything constructive.
John Bercow, while undoubtedly sincere, is offensive, unpleasant, and disruptive.
49. Roger, what has his gained form his “conversion”?
Nothing. Opportunists do things to gain something, otherwise they’re not opportunists.
Then if you want to so pure, your party could be seen as full of “unprincipled opportunist”. But then considering how many times you change your mind in your posts, maybe it’s the right party for you.
To be fair Roger, that was 22 years ago, and anyone’s views can change over that period. Admittedly it does stick in the throat for people whose views on race and immigration are much more moderate than his once were then to be lectured by him about their supposed bigotry.
62. A Pinko wife
61.”I won’t get into the debate about Conservative policy changes, as I doubt if I would say anything constructive”
Sean Fear, considering that the new version of being “constructive” for tories seem to be not criticizinf DC, you’re probably right of your comments not being seen as “constructive”.
64. Roger, sorry if I’ve been too harsh with you in my previous comment, but sometimes you exsasperate me!
Btw, his wife is too tall for him:
http://www.lifestyle.scotsman.com/pic/0711loveb.jpg
OT but interesting report on the BBC about the SNP and Greens holding talkings about future joint working in the Scottish Parliament.
I recall there was talk about a red/yellow/green coalition following the 2007 elections but this makes it look less likely. Not sure whether getting into bed with an anti-growth party is a wise move on Salmond’s part though. It sounds a little like a DC stunt…
67. They’re in the same group at the EU parliament too.
i think he’s made a few tactical errors already, but then it doesn’t really matter what he does because governments always lose elections and i don’t believe the government has lost the next one (yet).
….too pretty for him too. I can only think he has something larger than his ego that once impressed her.
65 - But Andrea there are many of us in the party who like what he’s doing. Why should I criticise that?
Not all that surprising - the Welsh Greens have worked closely with Plaid Cymru.
I suppose the electoral opportunity for the Greens is to pick up some SSP support now the Sheridan era is past. Any thoughts from Scottish contributors?
60: ‘A REAL Clause 4 moment for Cameron would be if he came out and said that he backed the European Social Chapter and he valued the role of trade unions in our society.’
Actually, I can quite envisage Cameron attempting a bit of bridge building with the unions, though he probably won’t be joining Comrade Crow of the RMT for beer and sandwiches any time soon. In fact, only this morning didn’t he say he was about to have some talks with the NUT?
71. Max, where have I said you’ve to criticize him?
You’re putting in my mouth something I’ve not said.
70-ROger, are you thinking what I’m thinking?
My daughter whose 18, was watching TV the other night, when the nightly BBC love in with Cameron continued apace,
She said he is too slick and slimy, totally unpromted.
However she is a student At University.
Hope this isnt a first initial reaction by many, as I am hoping Cameron is the real thing.
Tabman - I am glad you enjoyed - will you be at the party so I can be strident with you in person?
Incidentally I have to applaud the Labour Party on their tactics towards the new Tory leader. Ignore him. Absolutely the right thing to do whatever the next few polls say. They must give him time to ‘hang’ himself without interference if thats what he’s going to do. It also makes them look good that they’re getting on with government while he just blathers incessantly.
Not so for Charlie……
People want to know why Cameron is making all the running while he stays invisible
77.”Incidentally I have to applaud the Labour Party on their tactics towards the new Tory leader. Ignore him. Absolutely the right thing to do whatever the next few polls say. They must give him time to ‘hang’ himself without interference if thats what he’s going to do.”
but the problem is that DC is not going to self-distruct himself a la Hague. They’re letting him to build a positive image around him and could be fatal for them.
Btw, am I pardoned for my previous comments about you?
77: ‘Incidentally I have to applaud the Labour Party on their tactics towards the new Tory leader. Ignore him’
I don’t think this is a tactic as such, rather they haven’t got a clue how to deal with him.
Andrea, Don’t apologise or seek forgiveness from dear old jolly Roger. He dishes it out himself quite liberally or somewhat laboured, and no one really minds or cares.
Dash it, old chap, only a few days ago, he called we the Tory Chief Whip on this board
If only I could be that lucky….
Of course. I try never to take offense at a comment about something I’ve written. It might well have been stupid/badly written/inconsistent etc!
I’d like to see DC make a policy on special schools. He has special knowledge and interest. It would be hard to attack him.
He has said that he doesn’t think any more should be closed. But where does that leave him on the-last-big-idea-but-one: Localism? If he would allow certain authorities to close their special schools, what would happen to parents who wanted their child to get an ‘out of area’ provision? Some parents would have the (muscular) support of the ’statement of special educational’ need to get what they want. And which LA would pay for it?
Not easy, but he surely he has to answer at least one self-selcted question, to give some idea of his modus operandi for govt?
He seems to be looking around for a ‘big idea’. But if there isn’t one, there isn’t one.
At the end of the day how much of this comes down to the voting public seing cameron as a potentially more efficient manager ?
- That there is broadly a consensus, things are ok in the Uk at the moment,TB wants to go incrementaly to the right but Lab have had enough now and will make it increasingly unlikely, so Cameron adopting New lab policies and nudging them rightwards isnt necessarily a huge betrayal but a realistic pitch for his party.
He’s merely saying he can actually achieve what TB wants to (and a little bit more).
71. Roger, I would have taken offence at my comment, but it’s usually pretty easy for me to be felt offended.
Btw, talking about Bercow, am I the only one who sees a resemblance between him and the witch in “The Wizard of Oz”?
http://pooka.ezri.mine.nu/sfrog/press/witchoz.jpg
http://www.conwayfor.org/forward/images/bercow.jpg
72 - I suspect that SSP support could move to either the SNP or Greens but it will depend on how the SNP portray themselves. As with the Lib Dems, they have a bit of an OB tendency but a lot of the activists seem more ‘Old Labour’ in outlook.
My guess would be that the Greens with their ’second vote green’ strategy should be the main beneficiaries of any SSP defectors as the votes at the second vote stage can make more of a difference that the FPTP voting. I’m not sure that the FPTP SSP votes are really large enough to make a significant impact on anyone elses chances. Not sure if that makes sense so if anyone feels like correcting me, please do so…
Incidentally I think Ron Gibson MSP (SNP) and Eleanor Scott MSP (Green) are ‘real-life’ partners so there is precedent for closer SNP/Green relations!
JohnO. Great minds…..Don’t tell me I pierced that hard-bitten political activist exterior of yours with my ‘Chief Whip quip? You’re far too bright for me to take on in any political argument…..
70/76- To be fair, John, I would see you as the Chief Whip of tories posters here.
Roger, You did…I was desolate, nay inconsolable
Only with Andrea’s return has the world become just that little bit brighter.
Will we ‘take tea’ together at the party next Saturday?
Uhm it seems for the Lidbems Jo Swinson could be seen already too old and on the verge of retirement:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/4581716.stm
87 - Et tu, Brute :(.
I doubt if they do…..
78.”Only with Andrea’s return has the world become just that little bit brighter.”
I note a sense of sarcasm
“Will we ‘take tea’ together at the party next Saturday? ”
In a tearoom?
90 Andrea, Andrea, gentle and kindly-meant teasing is worlds away from sarcasm! You should know that by now
90- John, it isn’t necceserly a bad thing.
92. John, I’m still trying to figure out if your way to address me in your email last night was teasing, sarcars, a way to insult me or just you being to drunk!
76 - Rik, sadly no. My mother warned me about meeting strange men who offered stridency completely unprompted
I have to stay in and wash my hare 
85 - I’d pretty much go along with that. It looks pretty bleak for the SSP and they could well be reduced to 1-2 seats. There was also talk that Tommy Sheridan wont get top spot on the Glasgow list which seems pretty crazy.
The NHS is not Cameron’s clause four. As JohnL, Marcus and Woody662 have remarked, the passport was doorstep poison. So, this is just an incremental move.
After Clinton’s losses in the ‘94 midterms he bought in the wonderful Dick Morris who advised him to make a propitiatory sacrifice to the middle-class swing voters. The result was the ‘Welfare to Workfare’ programme,(”the poor want a help up not a handout &c). Blair, advised by Philip Gould, withdrew from the commanding heights.
A sacrifice is not just an offering; it must involve some real loss. So, what could Cameron do ? Is the lady not for burning ?
sbjme19 “If you lose three elections in a row it doesn’t seem a good idea to go into the fourth one with just the same policies.”
So one man makes all the policies. At least SOMETHING in the Conservative Party has not changed!
Baroness Jenny Tonge has just called Kennedy to resign.
99 - Andrea, are you tapping her phone?
101.
Tabman, but I’m not the only one…Scotland Yard is doing the same fearing for Charlie’s safety 
Tonge, should have left the Lib dems long ago, she was a liability.
Tabman - you have a hare!? And why does it need washing?
73.”And why does it need washing? ”
maybe, becuase it’s not nice not have dirty animals around your house.
Oh Rik, what are you rabbitting on about now?
104 - They’re quite nice animals not dirty at all! - and very, very tasty.
Hehehe
When is Brown, the dour one, going to comment on Saint Dave, and all the sudden policy changes.
Must be great leading the Tory party, as in reality you don`t need a party to change policy,
Autoctratic leadership without democratisation is very straight forward.
However think I would like a say from time to time.
106. well, but if you don’t wash them, they could become a bit dirty. I suppose.
Tonge and Kramer? It’s the Richmond Mafia!
HArdly ‘heavyweights’ really. More stalking Mares.
Nick (at 1). Are you sure that Cameron is in favour of keeping grammar schools? I thought he said the other day that he was against selection? Or do you mean that the Labour Party is now in favour of grammar schools and selection?
In the old days, things were so much clearer………..
200. Tonge recently attended a CND meeting about Trident Replacement with Clare Short, Jeremy Corbyn and some others of that group….it’s their bad influence which led her to call for her leader to resign.
106 - jugged hare, served with Tabber’s special mashed potato and washed down with something robust from the cellar (no, not the Gimp. He’s sleeping
).
More trouble for Labour in Birmigham:
http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost/news/tm_objectid=16549714%26method=full%26siteid=50002%26headline=scandal%2dof%2dpostal%2dvote%2dfraud%2d%2dbrought%2dlabour%2dto%2dits%2dknees%2d-name_page.html
94,
The main new “accusation”(the vote fraud thing was already known) seems to be:
“Mr Tyrrell warned that the imposition of short lists for election candidates against local ward party wishes meant that “popular” Labour councillors were being excluded.”
well, sadly, I certainly don’t believe that sort of things (trying to “impose” the candidate preferred by the leadership) happens only in Birmingham and only in the Labour party.
Rik, are you on the A-List?
116. Tabman, it’s too early to have the A list, but probably your question was a bit tongue in check.
My biggest concern with the A list is that it could end up being a way to get candidates preferred by the leadership getting selected.
Tabman
As Andrea indicated the “A list” has not even begun to be drawn up yet and therefore the criteria are not yet known. I have no idea whether I will be on the A list when it is compiled but we all live in hope
89. Says more about Lib Dem emmbership in the Amber Valley than anything else.
108. It was felt that when the Tories acknowledged New Labour, then that was the ultimate act that accepted labour had changed. Perhaps if the dour one just ignores Cameron, then he’s not accepted that we’ve changed. Wonder if they’ll try the demon eyes on Cameron!
118. RIk, I promise you I’ll eamil Jankins and May to promote your nomination, the “Rik4Alist” campaign…..ok, maybe, it’s better, I won’t email anyone!
114, partly true with regard to the fraud and its impact but his other claim seems to me to be sour grapes .
As somoeone involved in selecting candidates to interview for one of the birmingham council seats the chief problem was the lack of people on the list, and the few candidates that people seemed to know and respect were already spoken for or specified a small number of safer seats to stand in.
With regard to the woman shortlist it was farcical as due to the issues ive stated above we ended up inviting 2 female candidates who we knew were unlikely to accept ( one had already said no ).
For me what the whole process highlighted was the complete lack of involvement in local democracy. There just doesnt seem to be many people out there willing to stand or get involved
119,
If its real change I Welcome it.
Do not think New Labour will try the Demon eyes thing against Cameron.
It did not work against Blair because I believe most people realised he was not Old Labour.
However at this moment in time people are looking at Cameron and giving him the benefit of any doubt.
Nevertheless at some time this will be tested, and all centrist voters will see which way he jumps.
If he goes for the safety blanket of the right, the game will be up.
Then the demon eyes could have a part to play, in reinforcing in the publics mind, it was all superficial.
Why an “A” list - with Willis as his name Rik will be so far down the alphabet that he will be lucky to be on any list.
Will somebody propose doing away with alphabetti descrimination!
(from a fellow “W” )
I must admit I listened to DC speaking to Jim Naughtie with a degree of astonishment. Either he is serious, in which case I find myself to the right of the Conservatives (having allegedly been left of Labour at the last election) without moving my oppinions one jot, or this is just a pile of bull**it spin and does not represent his true views. Personally, if it is the former then the Tories will get themselves into a real ideological muddle; if the latter, the electorate can be just as cynical as he and are hardly likely to substitute Blue Labour for the real thing. Either way- can’t be good for Comrade Cameron.
123.”Will somebody propose doing away with alphabetti descrimination!”
no, infact actions are being already taken to take the party in front of the European Court of Human Rights.
Nick Palmer wrote:
If TB proposes some major policy change, he always has a big battle to persuade the party.
Reply:
More nonsense Mr Palmer.
One day Tony Blair said a referendum on the EU constitution would be a “betrayal of the British national interest.” Then he said he was in favour of a referendum.
Please describe the “big battle” Tony Blair had to persaude YOU and the party.
124. the thing is that the great majority of voters didn’t even know who Commi-ron was until a couple of months ago.
So we could argue for hours about his policies changes, if he really believes what he’s saying or if he’s just a big opportunist, but in the end it won’t matter to the voters, because very few of them really know he helped to write the 2005 manifesto.
For the majority of “middle England” (maybe middle Wales and middle Scotland too!), he’s a new face and he could say wathever he wants.
Clean hit from Mr Printz!!
127 - I see “Commie-ron” is now becoming popular here … how long before it appears in a newspaper?
129. yes, Tabman, after seeing Gordon officially labelled as the “The Dour One” here, I reclaimed an officially nickname for DC too. You’ve satisfied my call!
119. Odds on how long it takes a hack to nick the phrase
commie-rom
tomorrow 1-2
weekend 5-4
next week 4-1
131% overround, Woody !
The season of giving is over, then.
Tabman I know you LibDems are NOT rattled but the orange mist seems to rised quite quickly at the moment.
I say this in sympathy for you in the midst of your civil war. We victims of earlier conflicts know what you are going through.
Charlie Cameron is out then.
123 - Course their not B2W!
135. because the curse could be counter-productive…I wouldn’t like to see it reversing against your party: it’s not that I could take another tory contest next year!
127,
Middle Wales, and Middle Scotland, will not be duped.
However, they do`nt matter.
Its middle England where the power lies.
Thats why the Hugh Grant, will always overcome the Battle hardened Scot.
137.”Thats why the Hugh Grant, will always overcome the Battle hardened Scot. ”
but you know some Scots could become major stars too à la Sean Connery.
Then Hugh Grant’s career doesn’t seem very “up” at the moment……
122. To allow for an inside info coup sero.
137 - I don’t know about that, we’d still need about 15-20 seats alltogether from Wales and Scotland to form another government.
133 - B2W, Orange Mist? Is that some form of perfume?
I’m quite relaxed looking at the way things are panning out. besides, losing one leader might be deemed an unfortunate mistake. Losing four in the same period, however …
May have missed a posting, might not, but see the Cons are in front 36-33 in Canada according to the latest SES poll, taken up to 3.1.06 with what I would have thought was significant, 39 -38 ahead in Ontario. Are we seeing a real change coming through with only 2 or so weeks to go?. Must say it the sought of figures I would have expected a few weeks ago considering the reasons for the election.
replace sought with sort, ugh!
Oh dear:
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/headlines/display.var.669226.0.tory_chief_must_resign.php
144. Rik, Barnet Conservatives are a mess.
Barnet Conservatives are a nightmare.
148,
Yes but for the last few elections they have not become Pm`s.
Blair (English, I know you can argue the point)
Major-English.
Thatcher- English
callaghan-English
wilson- English
Heath- English.
That takes us back to nearly beyond the Television era for Politics
147- Dez, there’s always the exception which confirms the rule
Andrea,
I realy hope im proved wrong.
Linguistic point - the phrase is ‘the exception which proves the rule’. But, the phrase is older than the modern sense of ‘prove’. The ‘prove’ here is used in the sense of test - as in ‘the proof of the pudding’ - so what the phrase really means is ‘the exception that disproves the rule’. Which makes considerably more sense.
If you’re going to count Blair as English because he represents an English constituency - well, didn’t Callaghan represent a Welsh constituency? Or was that the other Jim Callaghan? But statistically, you would expect five out of six PMs to be English. I’d say that it’s easier to argue the over-representation of the ‘other’ nations than the over-representation of the English - for example, there are oodles of Scots in English seats, and there was a time earlier this century when the only parliamentary party with an English leader was Kidderminster Health Concern.
149.Dez, you really worried me about Hugh Grant’s career. What is his last film? The second Bridget Jones movie?
Forward it to CK in his hour of need.
PS For what it’s worth I think Cameron is going a bit mad. The main reason the Tories were so unpopular is that they were in power for 18 years and annoyed a lot of people. I don’t believe it has much to do with a dodgy “nasty” image. On general election day people vote for who they respect not who they like.
So it will be with Labour.
150 - the point is probably that Blair comes across as culturally English, whilst Callaghan didn’t come across as culturally Welsh.
163. BV, what do you have to have to be come across as “culturally English”?
142 - The main fear of the CPC seems to be peaking too soon as they did last time. Having said that they’ve run an excellent campaign whilst the Libs continue to be dogged by allegations of corruption. The CPC have also been helped by not having anyone make any crazy remarks save perhaps for one party worker and blogger calling for an independent Alberta!
Of course the fate of the Reform/Canadian Alliance/Progressive Conservatives is a good example of the compromises right-wing parties have to make with the electorate if they are to win back power.
154 - I don’t know, but I know it when I see it
Perhaps accent is the biggest thing…
156. BV, I’ve a bit more problems to understand some Scots when they’re speaking(for ex Nicola Sturgeon). Some others seem like a foreign trying to speak English (Gorgeous George).
Gordon is pretty clear even with that deep voice.
Well in the (hopefully) unlikely event of England winning the world cup we’ll be able to tell if Blair considers himself English or Scottish. If he gets involved in photo op’s/invites them round for tea at No 10 he’s English. If he drinks a gallon of whisky, cries uncontrollably and makes it his lifes work to prove that the ball didn’t go over the line then he’s probablly Scottish!
!47 - that counds like that “Goodness Gracious Me!” sketch, where everyone is Indian
148. I seem to remember the Rugby world cup and Ashes winners popping round to say hi recently.
(P.S Does anyone know who threw up in the number 10 loo, who relieved themselves in the garden and is there any truth in the rumour that Kevin Pieterson had a long conversation with Cherie Balir before turning round afterwards and saying “who was that then?”.)
156 Book Value Are you seriously reducing my nationality to an accent? What about my language and history, social mores and culture. I know we have given our language to the world and don’t own it anymore, and our culture is going back to the future via the USA, and people seriously think that pubs were invented in Ireland, English kids think Chirchill and Hitler were Allied leaders and that Mel Gibson wapped us in the 1930 war between England and a free Scotland, that we were ‘orrible colonialists (but in truth were misled by Scots and Irish freebooters)and bagpipes are a Scottish invention - but steady on.
I know the English have been told for years to keep quite and not upset the neighbours (drummed into me at school) but surely it has not gone that far!
“156 Book Value Are you seriously reducing my nationality to an accent?”
Er, no.
I am trying to explain the main factors in how politicians’ nationalities are perceived.
151. This should help you http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000424/
151. Not a lot of activities in recent times. The last thing he made is cameo in a French movie with Carole Bouquet!
CK to make a “personal statement” at 5.45pm according to Sky News.
165. what do you think he’ll say? will he ask for a vote of confidence on him?
166 - probably, yes. “Personal statements” often seem to boil down to “back me or sack me”.
Thanks Book Value. Must get some more money on Menzies as his replacement.
Or auto-toast?
167. maybe he could sack someone. It would certainly be an act to show strenght. But I doubt it has enough strenght to do it.
R5Live reporting almost half of Lib Dem shadow cab have written him letter stating no confidence in CK
Surely he’s toast now?
It is surely inevitable that he will go. I am afraid that CK was wounded before Christmas and once wounded the rest of the pack have pulled him down. I am not sure if it is good for the Lib Dems or not - the manner of his going is a mess but may be soon forgotten and Campbell would I think be very good if he can keep the MP’s singing of the same hymn sheet (not an easy task).
Looks like they finally did it
Radio 5 saying “nearly half” of the shadow cabinet have signed a letter of no confidence in CK but that Ming, mark oaten and simon hughes haven’t signed, ergo CK making a personal statement at 1745. No speculation as to what he might say
Which is a blow for those who predicted 35 weeks before Mark Oaten got the job
Come what may, we’re into end-game
I simply don’t know how that extra 5 slipped into my competition prediction about Charlie’s leadership longevity :oops:. I meant just the 2, honestly guv.
Poor Charlie. I liked him
options.
1. resign
2. hold vote of confidence in parliamentry party
3. hold all member ballot
4. issue back me or sack me call daring collegues to hold no condfidence vote in him.
he still holds two strongish cards
(a) lack of agreed successor
(b) bad timming. the party nationally just does NOT want this blood bath running before the local elections
“Kennedy to answer drinking allegations” according to BBC News 24.
BBC now reporting that CK ‘personal statement’ is not directly related to leadership crisis re: 11 frontbenchers signing no-confidence letter. It is actually a preempting serious media reports which will appear tonight regarding his alleged drinking problem.
181. uhm, if it’s just that, it would a bit disappointing…..the tories want some LD blood!
182 - how lucky that journalists are well known for their abstemiousness, and can discuss others’ drinking with a clear conscience…
181. so is it just a pre-emptive defence of a media pience outing him as a “drinker”?
Deaths from liver cirrhosis rising in GB - maybe CK is answering that one too!
more details emerging from 5 live. Hes NOT resigning in the statement. also it seems this letter hasn’t been delivered and was written before christmas. Its existance has been leaked today.
183 - To be fair I think both myself and Sean Fear have said some nice things about him. I think he’s a decent bloke and as I’ve said before - the Libs may regret getting rid of him - if that is what eventually happens.
184 - absolutely…. I think I could have halved my profits when running the bar at uni if the Journo students had been tea-total (the other 50% coming from the rugby team and the nurses!)
An appropriate moment, then to put this up. (From the BBC website)
“During the interview David Cameron was asked whether he would rather be joined in a civil partnership with Tony Blair or Charles Kennedy.
Mr Cameron picked Charles Kennedy because he thought he would be “more fun” than Tony Blair. “
188.Max, I haven’t said you’re wanting to see CK’s blood! Unless you represents the whole tories here.
Today it seems you’re seeing lots of things I’ve never written (see post 71/74)
190. Tabman, but does DC know that St Tony could do it 5 times a night (according to his “lovely” wife)?!
190 - even with the size of TB’s “majority”?
I wouldn’t say “nice” so much as not sharing the automatic contempt that so many Conservatives have for him. I think he’s been okay as leader - not that bad, not that good. I tend to agree with Rik W that the Lib Dems would be better letting him go at a time of his own choosing.
This isn’t looking at all good. Irrespective of what these stories may be, I think we are, as some would say, in the endgame.
We may lack the ruthlessness of the Conservatives - and that’s no bad thing - but I fear the damage is beyond repair.
I’ve supported Charles throughout this and nobody should underestimate the great affection in which he is held by much of the membership. It’s often the case, of course, and had you asked Tory members in 1975, I suspect the vast majority would have chosen Edward Heath over Margaret Thatcher.
The MPs and some senior activists have come to the view, reluctantly or otherwise, that the arrival of Cameron has changed the game and we need a new leader playing by new rules. Charles was an ideal leader against a moaning Right-winger like Howard or Duncan Smith but looks vulnerable against the spin-driven simplicity of Cameron. I genuinely believe the Party owes Charles a huge debt of thanks for what he has achived since 1999 and I hope and believe he still has plenty to offer.
Since we’re on the subject, Andrea, don’t think I didn’t notice your outrageous allegation @94 about my “being too drunk” last night
193. maybe that’s why he prefers Charlie……
This is all very reminiscent of the fall IDS. The single difference is unlike in the tory rules CK can stand in any leadership election even if deposed. There must be a better than evens chance that key contenders wouldn’t stand against him and even if so that he might win anyway.
Well, I was certainly drunk last night…
191 - Sorry Andrea - I don’t mean anything (honest!) by it I just don’t think the Tories/Libs/Labour people on this site all have identical views - although I’m sure this isn’t what you were implying!
“Have just picked up the office FT front page story:
Cameron attacks chocolate oranges (Headline)
David Cameron, Conservative leader, on Wednesday launched an outspoken attack on retailers, singling out WH Smith for offering cut-price chocolate oranges. He accused it of irresponsible marketing that made people fat.
”
Perhaps he’s concerned one of his MPs will asphyxiate himself on one.
196.John, first you’ve not fullfilled the promise you made me last night and then should I recall that you wanted to adress me as “duce” yersterday?
193 - But isn’t his ‘majority’ increasingly liable to act unpredictably as well as having shrunk considerably from its former impressive size?
203 - I suppose it has completely deserted him once, and Hilary Armstrong didn’t see it coming…
204. but that’s just why Clare Short hasn’t written her….
I have to say if he doesn’t resign knowing half the front bench don’t want him he’s more priggish than even Mrs Thatcher in November 1990.
We’re in the office totally bemused by this latest twist.
SURELY he’s going to resign he’s making the Lib Dems look ridiculous.
202 - Now you’re revealing private correspondence - is nothing sacred
? I still have a few hours to keep my promise…but I’m not sure that’s ’safe’ anymore 
Has anyone picked up on the story that Clarke will reclassify cannabis back to being a class B drug next week? Does anyone think this is a ploy to wrong-foot Cameron who said he was happy with cannabis being class C? It comes to somthing when the Tories are the ones with the more liberal drugs policy.
If this needs to be done then it should be done (a) in june after the council elections (b) properly not with this awful back stage briefing which makes the party look like a nasty bunch of S****
its just bonkers to proced in this appaling way.
ps. five live just read out a text saying CK was going to use his statement to announce he was going into Big Brother
200. Max, that comment about the tories was just because they’re LD main opponents here (considering the lack of regular Labour posters). I wasn’t implying anything.
207.John O, sacred? No way. I’m going to release my diaries with them!
129 How about Oliver Letuswin ?
212. I thought it was Oliver LeftWing?
SkyNews: Kennedy will confess he’ll go under treatment for alcoholism
If there is a letter from half the Lib Dem front bench as has been reported, it’s difficult to see any realistic prospect of Kennedy staying on at all with half his most senior colleagues clearly expressing non-confidence in him. Surely he will have to resign for the good of the party in very short order?
214 - that’ll be a good opportunity for him to meet some journalists.
214. a little correction: he will confess he has been treated for alcoholism.
Charlie making a statement at 1745.
Wasnt that when his hero Bonnie Prince Charlie got his comeuppence too!!!
So what he’s going to say is
“I have lied to you every three months directly for the last 6 years. I am perfectly suited to being leader of the Liberal Democrats.”
Excellent
I’d like to see his next interview with Paxman.
Where’s Mike? Has he cracked open the Champers yet?
Let’s face it, it’s now all over. If he admits he’s had any form of treatment for the booze, it will prove the denials given by senior lib dems in response to previous rumours about his drinking problem were lies.
Looks like ‘orange juices all round’ for the LibDem contingent at the pbc party next Saturday in solidarity. BV, a touch of ice for you, sir?
122.” Looks like ‘orange juices all round’ for the LibDem contingent at the pbc party next Saturday in solidarity. BV, a touch of ice for you, sir? ”
Max, when with that comment about the tories wanting some LD blood, I was meaning this!
222 - You’ll get more than a touch of ice from me if you carry on like that John O
I was just thinking I needed a drink…
KENNEDY DRINKING SHOCK
by Lunchtime O’Booze
There I was, minding my own business at Gnome’s Dryoutodrome, when who should I see but Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy. I was shocked - shocked! (cont p.94).
Drink!
223 - Hold on, my Milan mate, back in Decemebr, I was arguing (seriously) that the LibDems should keep CK as the alternatives were likely to be worse. I agree that’s probably not the case now.
225 - YEs PLeaSe. Hic.
Funny old game……………
The most respected Prime Minister the Country ever had was well known for quite often enjoying a dram or two too many
“That may be so Madam, but in the morning I won’t still be ugly”
Don’t see why people are getting so stressed out on this narrow point personally.
It’s not as if he’s OD’ing on Chocolate Orange for God sake.
226. but you are teasing poor Book Value about the misadventures of his leader
Then he could be in line for a place in Celebrities Big Brother (CK, not BV!).
229 Then he could be in line for a place in Celebrities Big Brother (CK, not BV!).
No, sadly I am not famous - although, to be fair, neither are quite a few contestants on “celebrity” shows.
On May 2nd or 3rd - just before the General election - I posted a comment here wondering what we would have to talk about on PB.C after the election.
Names: Hunhe, George, Laws, Davey, Teather, Gidley and (I think) Cable.
I can’t remember the other 4.
228 - absolutely. And we are supposed to be the party which believes in rehabilitation over punishment.
230 But you are celebrity here and that’s all that matters… Off to hear Charlie. Hope he’s calmed his nerves beforehand with a stiff….
232 - Moore was another.
230- Book Value, I meant Charles Kennedy, not you!
Don’t you recall the Venerable Helen proposed to do a politicians versions of Big Brother? It was her main contribution in 8 years in Commons!
Add: Lamb, Baker, Moore.
Cable was to present the letter to Charles on first day back later in the month (Sky News).
236 - yes I know.
Who else would have been on HC’s show - the Fugitive I hope!
If Kennedy does end up going and a new leadership election - how does it work - does he stay on until a successor is chosen, or if he stands again who is acting leader?
If so does that mean in the prediction league we count when he is forced to resign or when a new leader takes over?
Interesting times…
238. The Fugitive wanted to be Davina. Micheal Fabricant wanted to take part. Hanky Dunky thought it was the stupidiest idea he has ever heard. He prefers to do nude calendar.
I must admit - at the end of the day, the man likes a drink. Is that such a problem ? I like chinese takeaway, if I was found with a couple of aluminium trays and a pancake roll, would that be enough to cost me my job ?
Yeah but the suggestion isn’t that he likes a drink it’s that he’s an alcoholic. There is a significant difference.
Could we see a split in the Liberal Democracts? Surely no one - other than Campbell could hold together the two wings.
E.G - IF Hughes won, surely the liberals modernisors would hate it. If a liberal moderniser won, surely the members will leave in droves?
Huhne signing that letter - the guy only just got elected and has a low majority - wonder if that will help him in the constituency with the activists?!
241 - the press might keep it quiet for you. I’m not sure about Chinese but it seems to work if you can’t keep your hands off Currie, for example.
NEWS FLASH - KENNEDY CALLS FOR LEADERSHIP CONTEST!!
CK to call a leadership contest according to Sky News.
Sky: Kennedy will call leadership contest. He will be a candidate!
Sky: “Personal statement will now merge with a political statement”
What a farce!
Is that 12-year-old local chairman eligible to apply?
Ah but stodge you dont deny your passion for a chinese takeaway. If you stand up and tell us you want to be PM and stress that you dont eat chinese food for years then are found with alluminium trays and a pancake roll you will have missled us, would you be a fit person to be pm? (or even Lib Dem leader!)
146-147. Will the members vote, right?
251 - yes.
So who is now leader of the party? Does CK stay as acting leader?
248. come on, it’s not the first politicians to merge political life with personal life.
253 - yes, like John Major was (to all effects) acting leader of the Tories in 1995.
By calling for a vote amongst members does that improve his chances? Indeed can someone in the know tell me how the lib dem system works and how long it will take?
Surely this improves his chances of survival as he avoids a vote of no confidence by the MPs.
As Kennedy’s done a Major, who will be the first to announce his candidature? Ming has to stand, or he’s a busted flush.
255: As a matter of fact, Ian Lang was acting leader of the Conservative Party during the 1995 contest. But CK has called a leadership election, not resigned.
So it’s put up or such up. He’s trying to sideline MPs because he isn’t sure they’ll support him. If Lib Dem MPs let him get away with it they must have a death wish. Campbell has to stand. By the way was he drinking during the GE? It certainly sounded like it at times. If he was what does that say for his sense of responsibility towards his Party?
256 - candidates need the nomination of 7 MPs. The ballot is of all members and counted by Alternative Vote.
259 - “As a matter of fact, Ian Lang was acting leader of the Conservative Party during the 1995 contest. ”
Thanks, I stand corrected. Was this any more than a formality?
This is barmy - if he wins the election vote (unlikely) how the heck can he run the party with a lack of Parliamentary backing?!
Oaten will NOT stand!
I thought CK did very well. He presented himself well and his move is very smart politically.
It’s a hard call knowing what the Lib Dem membership will do. A lot depends on the media in the coming week or so and who puts them forward.
My guess is that there will be a united front behind Menzies Campbell.
There’s an excellent column in the Guardian over the last day or two, making another point I first read here. The problem with Labour before Blair was that the public backed its heart but not its head. For the Tories it’s the other way round. Voters like policies until they hear that they’re Tory policies, when they suddenly decide they don’t like them any more.
Cameron’s equivalent of Clause 4 needs to reflect this. He’s got to spend money, in large amounts, on poor people rather than rich people, or all these fine words will come to nothing. It will need to be something like tax cuts but only by increasing tax allowances for poor people; or spending several billion more on the basic state pension without finding some sneaky other way to get it back. And then, yes, just like Blair, he needs to have a big and very public row with his right wing and preferably kick a few people out of the party or something.
Much as the BBC are failing to go for the jugular at the moment, Cameron also needs a convincing explanation as to why the manifesto that he not just stood on, but actually wrote, just six months ago, was so wildly wrong that he’s now ditching all the policies.
Betfair firing into action.
Oaten drifting - just been matched at 24-1!
262 - No: he was also Major’s campaign manager, so Major still ran the party to all intents and purposes.
Sorry I am on a roll of questions now - can CK muster 7 votes to be a candidate?
What a shocker.
Charlie boy’s statement of his “drink problem” and as Nick Robertson says he has lied when asked if he had sought professional help.
However, I am sure he will get the sympathy vote and will be applauded for his frankness and his personal standing in the polls will no doubt go up.
Come on - Kennedy is toast. We all know that he’ll probably drink again in the future and the media will find out about it.
Simon Hughes will run and win. Ming is simply too old and Oaten is too unpopular.
The Party should now unite around Simon.
Now Campbell is drifting fast. Just matched at 1.74-1!
On more important matters. Has there been a discussion on Cameron deciding he doesn’t want the votes of the young?
What will this do for the Lib Dems in the polls? Will soft Liberal voters now revert to Labour or the Conservatives as the “sensible” option regardless of who wins? Or does it depend on who emerges as leader?
Thinking about this.
Surely we have to rule out any of those who signed the letter from running - that would be a tactical blunder as they would be classed as a traitor. So that is Davey, Laws, Huhne out etc.
If CK is going to run then the best way of beating him is surely to unite behind a candidate. But can people unite behind Hughes or Oaten and is Campbell capable - indeed where does he stand on the party’s left or right?
FWIW, I thought CK did very well in his statement. I imagine the public will be overwhelmingly sympathetic to him personally.
But the political crisis - and the demonstrable lack of support within the Parliamentary party remains and will likely not be silenced even if CK is re-elected by the members. And let’s not forget, John Major actually didn’t really enhance his authority in 1995.
But surely the onus is now with the MPs, and particularly Campbell to demonstrate the courage of their convictions and stand openly, rather than continue as shadowy and, yes cowardly, assassins.
At least Charles has not been involved in any dog-shooting?
If Kennedy was to win, he might have some short term authority restored, but he would soon become even more unpopular and a figure of fun with the tabloids.
What a shame Simon Hughes wasn’t Lib Dem leader a long time ago. He is head and shoulders above all the other possible leadership candidates and that goes for Labour and Lib Dems.
Mike How can you say he did well? His statement had nothing to do with courage since he was about to be outed and he had no choice. What he’s admitted is that he was at varying times incapable of leading the Party, probably including during the GE, and that he repeatedly lied about it. Tories will be praying he wins, narrowly.
Kennedy has lied on numerous occasions. Five Live has just played a clip of him denying to a caller during election campaign that he never had a drink problem. He cannot survive this.
Since when have lies stopped Blair from winning? Most MPs can’t help but tell lies and I despise their lies. Charlie will look courageous to many and his lies won’t matter.
Yes, but he hasn’t lied on such a fundamental character issue. The media will not let him forget his denials. I know of one occasion when a story about his problem was dropped because of a strong denial from his office.
Nick Robinson put the boot in as much as was possible without seeming “nasty” on BBC News at 6…Tory roots showing through. I think it’s clear from this that a lot will depend on how the media react - the Tory media will go for him full-blood of course because they know a change of leadership now will harm the LD local elections and thereby hand a May victory to Cameron - possibly setting in motion an unstoppable Cameron bandwagon. Dont know how the progressive press will handle it, but was surprised that Guardian was so anti in the last few days.
Apart from CK, Hughes is the only one who doesn’t take himself seriously, which is what makes him likeable. Good for The Daily Politics, ridiculous for PM.
Quite right, blue moon. I’ve listened to Lembit Opik praising CK’s ‘courage’ on TV. This man has lied and lied. He’s let down every Liberal Democrat who trusted him. He’s been a boozer for years. He’s known for ages that he simply isn’t up to the job of leading a major political party. Yet his ego has led him to brazen it out - until now. The truth has caught up with him and now, true to form, he’s trying to turn it to his advantage with a performance that would have been a smash hit on Oprah.
Enough already. It’s over.
Re: lies about personal life; I think the public generally interpret that as the questions shouldnt have been asked in the first place - c.f. Clinton.
This is a tough call I think. Watching the BBC 6 O’clock the reporting presented it as being very couragous and brave (even though we know he was forced to make the statement- they didn’t mention that). Also, it helped gloss over the letter with 11 frontbenchers- Kennedy cleverly linked the drinking to the ballot directly (very well done).
As for leadership- I think it may be a rerun of Hughes v Kennedy, and I really don’t know the mood. Grassroots round here we annoyed at the backstabbing of a few weeks ago and the bad behaviour of Campbell, and were very loyal but are they willing to give Kennedy the benefit of the doubt? We are a very compassionate and caring lot- this drinking thing could go down better that expected.
Finally, I wonder how it will play in the public? The press will help decide how it ends up- will they run simply on the problem and how he overcame it, or that he was forced to do so by the media and that he lied for 18 months.
PS: Bloody Sarah Teather sticking the knife in after Kennedy worked VERY hard in her by-election, and won her re-election with his good call over the war. Desperate to be in the limelight I suspect.
As a LibDem supporter, the prospect of Hughes winning terrifies me. I’d back Campbell to lead us to the 09/10 General Election.
Also, what’s all this about having to get parliamentary support to stand as a candidate? How does that work?
Chaos and carnage ensueth. But great fun for the rest of us! Seriously, CK has lied continually about his personal flaw. I don’t see how he can survive. But perhaps Oaten may want to see a split decision in the first round, have CK stand down and then stand himself when nominations reopen?
quite seriously all this stuff about CK “lying” seems a bit unfair. Because he has denied he has a drink problem in the past, but now says he does, is not necessarily lying. He may have just come to terms with it, or accepted that what he personally didn’t see as a drink problem clearly is to others or whatever. Be a little bit more fair, Tory boys!
176-”But surely the onus is now with the MPs, and particularly Campbell to demonstrate the courage of their convictions and stand openly, rather than continue as shadowy and, yes cowardly, assassins. ”
John, yes. The behind the scenes plotters practically leaked all the saga to the press. So in the end it would have been more correct to speak openly….instead of an “anonymous senior LD said…” we would have “X has said…”. At least they would have not passed as “cowardly assassins” as you called them.
Tom - why does Hughes terrify you?
I’ve thought, from the beginning of this crisis, that, whatever happens to the LDs, the other two parties win as the LDs are left with a legacy of division in any case. These events just rub the lesson in. It’s worth watching for polls showing the LDs heading south of 17%.
Sky suggest that Oaten wont stand. But he could be playing a tactically adept performance as suggested above.
Works as CK’s campaign manager - in the hope no one stands - gets praise to use at a later date. Or someone stands against CK, CK realises he cannot win - then backs Oaten as his successor.
Could be a plan - but a risky one.
292 - He wouldn’t modernise the party is the obvious answer. I see my liberalism as one far more towards the like of Laws and Oaten rather than Hughes. Simon is popular amongst the members but I think he would find it difficult if Cameron stuck to his guns and things went well for the Tories.
One candidate who may be able to unify the party - Ed Davey? 11’s at Betfair. Campbell’s odds flying around; 1 minute 2.28, then 2.66, now 2.32!!
Stonch He admitted that he had been getting professional help over a long period so he must have known he had a problem during that period. I would like him to answer whether he was drinking during the GE. How responsible was that?
No one likes Oaten - he’s ridiculously ambitious. Simon Hughes is decent, idealistic and practical. He’s unspun and a refreshing alternative to Blair, Brown and Cameron.
“Bloody Sarah Teather sticking the knife in after Kennedy worked VERY hard in her by-election, and won her re-election with his good call over the war. Desperate to be in the limelight I suspect. ”
Like always is when previosly loyal figures betray you that you’re finished. So in the end pay attention to who’s smiling to you, not to your openly declared “enemies”.
So could someone re-cap who’re the 11 “assassins”?
ITV News takes full credit for Charles Kennedy’s announcement.
Kennedy was “forced” to make the announcement say ITV.
“Within an hour of ITV confronting Charles Kennedy,” he made his admission.
“Four senior Lib Dems confronted Kennedy before therapy.”
ITV say colleagues have said he is “destroying the party and bringing the party down.”
Eleven senior colleagues sent Kennedy a letter asking him to resign.
Oaten has ruled himself out and Limpik Opik says he backs Kennedy and says the matter makes him an “ordinary human being.”
The real division in the Lib Dems is between those who publicly say they want CK to go, and those who only say so privately. Almost all the MPs brief against him - off the record - allegedly. The ideological divide is less pronounced.
He has appeared ineffectual for sometime. The GE election result is irrelevant. With the disarray in the other two parties, Mickey Mouse could have mustered more than 62 seats as Lib Dem leader. It was such a missed opportunity. 62 was not a triumph for him.
He’s gone, surely now. Yes, there will be a short term drop in the polls; but better this than him staying there. There are rumours about his drinking that are really scary, and way beyond the current media stories, or his own admissions.
He’s only been dry for two months; if he lapsed again, it would be a disaster for the party.
Feel genuinely sorry for the man - good luck to him. But - as a Lib Dem - rejoice, rejoice, rejoice! Time for a drink!
So has he admitted that he was drunk before the budget statement?
I don’t believe this will go as far as Kennedy standing. I expect him to have resigned by the weekend. It has that smell about it, of events moving too fast for him.
Who heard about Kofi Annan’s vist to CK?
What’s Galloway up to now?
Celeb big brother?
AT. Speculations are that Gorgeous George is appearing on Celebrity Big Brother tonight.
Surely, unless CK is bluffing about standing this is a sort of rerun of the Major theory?
No one is going to want to ‘beat’ him, risk causing a rift in the party and suffer a debilitating set back in the forthcoming LE’s ?
There must surely be a behind the scene negotiation on this between the real players that necessitates a ‘united’ front being fronted up between now and May with a mutual agreement of what happens afterwards depending on the outcome.
If CK is as popular amoung Orange activists as those in the know tell us, anyone moving prematurely is signing their own death warrant.
Cable, davey, lamb, Moore, Baker, Laws, Hunhe, Gidley, Teather, George.
Don’t know 11th.
Just speaking to mother on phone- quite un-political but said that she didn’t care about the drinking and felt it should be a private matter if he wished it to be. The backstabbing may be a far bigger problem that the alcoholism in my view.
Also, any chance nobody will stand against him?
336. GG’s political aides said: “You’ll have to wait and see.”
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=ELAOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED05%20Jan%202006%2017%3A19%3A36%3A060
Just closed out some of my Campbell lay on betfair. Too confused to have a really big position though my initial response is to join like minded ex-PPCs in backing CK again.
The apparent backing of Oaten, Opik and Baker I think is a very good sign for CK. My slightly befuddled view suggests that he will win pretty easily.
310. Ok, I got the comments’ numbers wrong
Tim, thanks for the names.
Galloway wouldn’t last a day on Celeb big brother.
Careful Alex - remember the disclaimer !
313- his ego would be too large for the house?
Sorry about the frequent posting, but for a view of the public response:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=711&&edition=1&ttl=20060105185142
Interesting how positive they are about the drinking issue.
Jon if Baker is backing CK then I hate to see what those opposing him are saying! On Sky News he is refusing to back CK now, just saying its time for a democratic decision.
Is anyone offering odds on the election as opposed to the next leader i.e. with CK potentially in?
I said I was confused… the remarks I have seen were very positive! Fair to say I would not consider myself an idealogical soulmate of NB anyway.
PS I did have money on Ed Davey but now believe he has little chance having signed the letter… unless of course he backs CK now and then wins next time.
To those who wonder if CK can do it I would point to the example of one Bob Hawke, who was an alcoholic, an adulterer and a had a daughter who was a heroin addict… and who served as Aussie PM for 10 years with this widely known.
Do you think CK will be like Fun Bobby in friends?
Well, he’s finished now. That’s my first prediction for 2006 shot to pieces.
319 - probably not the best role model
I’ll be supporting Charles Kennedy as leader.
I don’t see anyone else keeping those 1,000,000 (or so) votes gained from Labour from the last GE.
Campbell says he wont stand again CK - will anyone?!
324 - “The Search for Spock”
I presume CK cannot now successfully sue the papers for defamation about any drink-related incidents. If so, tomorrow’s front pages should be fun see.
Sky: Campbell won’t stand
Maybe not Campbell, Oaten… how about Matthew Taylor - fairly high profile - and not even a front bencher now - so nothing to lose.
Simon Hughes calling for election to be delayed until after locals - makes sense. It’s pretty idiotic to have one in advance.
Is this going to turn into a farce? Maybe Kennedy goes unopposed, and we have exactly the same position- a large number of Lib Dem MPs unhappy with the leadership, anonymous briefing etc and nobody speaking out.
I guess the problem is that if someone stands and publicly states Kennedy is unfit as leader, 7 other MPs will have to say that to. If Kennedy wins, they will not exactly be popular with the leadership or the grassroots (and I know Kennedy has held grudges against one or two people who voted for Hughes at the last leadership election).
328 - nothing to offer, either.
Those saying “his drinking doesn’t matter” are being somewhat disingenuous. It is only his drink problem that is maintaining his apparent support among colleagues - they are all citing his “bravery” as the reason to rally round him; even though it was for other reasons that there has been near open revolt since Christmas.
328 - agreed - but neither did Anthony Meyer - and he did for Thatcher (although it took a year).
331. The reason I asked about the odds at 317 was precisely because I think CK stands a good chance of winning any election (though perhaps not quite as good as if it was first past the post). Party memberships tend to be more loyal than the parliamentary party, and as you say - who would do a better job? It is not CK’s fault that we now have a potential PM as leader of the Conservative Party.
Stonch
‘quite seriously all this stuff about CK “lying” seems a bit unfair. Because he has denied he has a drink problem in the past, but now says he does, is not necessarily lying. He may have just come to terms with it, or accepted that what he personally didn’t see as a drink problem clearly is to others or whatever. Be a little bit more fair, Tory boys’
What else would you call it!?
The only reason that he has gone public on it, is due to various well sourced reports that are due to be published in the newspapers tomorrow and clearly the deception could not continue.
BBC just went through a long list of the many times he was asked on this issue over the past 12 months & each and every time he denied it.
Also doesn’t say much for some of his colleagues that knew about it, and had no problems backing him as a potential prime minister only 6 months ago at the election.Speaks volumes about their judgement or total lack of it.
Clearly the whiter than white mantle the Liberals have paraded behind for so long is now shredded.
Finally,I assume that now CK intends to offer himself for election again,the 11 front bench spokesmen who signed the no confidence letter with either resign or be sacked by CK?
Andrew George and Norman Baker saying they have great respect, great leader, won’t stand, should stay, blah, blah…
have they read the letter they signed?!!!
Bolton on Sky sating that MPs rallying round after speech is remarkable, and to me it seems Kennedy looks fairly safe in the very short term after looking finished an hour ago.
Sky also saying emails in to them are generally supportive and in praise.
136. I heard George on Sky. He didn’t impress me at all. He was very on the defensive.
At the moment you can back everyone on Betfair as the implied probabilities add up to less than 100% - never seen that before.
337 - overflowing with the milk of human kindness, I see…
Btw, I’m not sure mantles can be paraded behind, let alone shredded.
339. Me or Andrew George?
Tim
‘Is this going to turn into a farce? Maybe Kennedy goes unopposed, and we have exactly the same position- a large number of Lib Dem MPs unhappy with the leadership, anonymous briefing etc and nobody speaking out’.
Could well do for the reasons that you mention,plus the fact that if he does win again then the 11 front bench spokesmen (that signed the no confidence letter) who are some of their most experienced MP’s, will presumably be demoted to the backbenches.
Could end up with a very lightweight front bench team.
I think most of the 11 would stay… part of the critical friend angle we have been trying to sell without luck on Europe.
Or as JM would say “Better to have the bastards on inside etc etc”
Since Oaten and Campbell have ruled themselves out of the race, does anyone think that CK will be oppose and if so by whom?
338 - there’s still the time value aspect of course. If there’s no leader change for a few years then you’re forgoing interest on the stake.
340 - apologies, Andrea… I meant John at 335 (blame it on the margins!).
BV… interesting point (I guess if the market were narrower you could infer the expected time until the next leader using interest rates!)
Actually off that the probabilities still should be 100% as the same would apply to the lay side.
345- I was a bit worried that you were an Andrew George’s relative or something of that sort!
Stephen Tall
‘337 - overflowing with the milk of human kindness, I see’
Just don’t like serial deception!
I know you may want to put a spin on it and try to minimise it,but this guy was being put forward only 6 months ago by his party as a potential PM,when it was known (assuming that the variuous press reports are correct) that he had a condition that could seriously affect his judgement.
Not exactly overflowing with human kindness towards the electorate,I suppose they just thought that the truth would never come out.
347 - yes, sorry, you’re right. The time value acts like an (albeit uncertain) exchange fee because neither side of the bet can capture it. So it should widen the spread rather than distort the absolute level.
349 - heaven forbid anybody on this board should ever indulge in spin… no more would I.
I think most reasonable people will understand (even if they don’t agree with) a lie which aims to keep a personal problem private. The response to the BBC messageboards etc bear that out.
As for his drinking problem, I think there’s a big and important difference between under-performing and mis-judgement. He’s sometimes been guilty of the former; very rarely of the latter.
If you castigate CK for lying, yov’e got to remember that such lies are common across the political world, and the whole political world, not just the LDs, collude in keeping them from publci view. Remember, when Paxman probed Kennedy about his drink problem, people from all major parties condemned him, even though they were quite happy to gossip about it to Paxman and others off the record.
There seems to be an odd definition of lying being put forward by some LibDem posters that rather varies from the dictionary definition: To present false information with the intention of deceiving. To convey a false image or impression
The evidence seems to support this description of Charles Kennedy in regard his drink problem.
As in all other scandals, be it Watergate or Blunkett, it is not the action itself that is so damaging it is the cover-up. And that is what CK has been into for 18 months it seems.
Charlie has blown it trying to cover up and he admitted as much in his statement. It increasingly looks like his party is going to blow it too. Its a personal tradegy and I sympathise with him. It is also a political mess in the making.
Rivals have check mated themselves, demands for Kennedy to go from his ’shadow cabinet’ are withdrawn at the first whiff of gunshot, and there is every prospect of a leader already declared useless by his senior colleagues winning by default.
And that would be disaster (good for me but not for politics)
Re-election - or even the prospect of it - will put the press into overdrive. Watergateitis means they fell compelled to not leave his deception alone, more and more ‘investigators’ will be set on the trail, leader writers will ask, ‘What is an alcoholic’, and the agony aunts will pontificate about the chances of recidivism. Worthy nonentities will proffer advice of varying degrees of usefulness but universally good only to keep the story going.
LibDems will go on Newsnight to say that their demand for CK to go was misunderstood and he is alright really - and they may well mean it but it will simply trigger new ‘investigations’ by Michael Crick. Then someone will try to defend CK by saying that anyway Churchill was a boozer. This will lead to more articles that ridicule CK for likening his rather ‘feeble’ self to the great man who, in any case, should not be slurred like that: he was after all a social drinker during the war and who can blame him. It was just that there was a lot of society about in those days.
Paparazzi will crawl all over CK to get a shot of him drinking. The Guardian will talk about the ethics of lying in such circumstances and say its OK if you are not a Tory. Private Eye will launch the Redmayne MacBottle page to widespread condemnation making it required reading by the chattering classes.
His political opponents in other parties will carefully but obviously not intrude on his private grief ( or, the kiss of death, praise his valour and grit) and consequently the third estate will have to do the job of the opposition (as they see it) and dig deeper and deeper. The blood lust is up by then and anything goes.
More and more will be built on the original story and other trivial but distasteful stuff will be found about CK, his family stress and his misleading the party and making a mess generally. If it is not available the material will be manufactured. The circus will be a nightmare without end.
The frustration of the people who are trying to win elections will become massive and disruptive, and they will leak like a drain and briefings will fly like rumours at a wedding reception. And that means the struggle will go on and on and on as will the damage.
What a world we live in. I hate the way these things go. But its the reality.
The grown-ups better get a grip soon or meltdown approaches.
What a wonderful headline in the Indy:
‘Aggressive’ Kennedy fails to scotch calls for a vote of confidence
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article336554.ece
Had to chuckle!
Very funny Rik!.
I think you’re right B2W except that I don’t agree that politicians should be obliged to answer such personal questions. And if they are asked them they should be allowed to evade by all means including lying
Roger
‘I think you’re right B2W except that I don’t agree that politicians should be obliged to answer such personal questions. And if they are asked them they should be allowed to evade by all means including lying’
Obviously CK shares your view that lying is quite accetable only problem is he got caught out.
Who will arbitrate whether it is a private or public issue?
So in future if someone is caught lying they can always claim that as far as they are concerned they thought it was a private issue?
We’ll see…
Es ist nett, eine andere Quelle der Yorkies Informationen zu haben.