Who’d be the “something untoward” favourite?
November 8th, 2007
Why my money would be on John Denham and Ruth Kelly
I hope that it does not appear too morbid to look at how the “next Prime Minister” market would pan out if something untoward happened to Gordon.
So we are talking about leading Labour figures - almost certainly members of the current cabinet. From the list above I would exclude all those who ran for the deputy leadership post in the summer. None of them really shone and the only one with leadership potential, Alan Johnson, probably hurt his chances by failing to clinch that election.
The eventual winner, Harriet Harman and the other ex-candidate on the list, Hilary Benn really don’t have the sparkle.
My long-shot would be Ruth Kelly at 43/1 who is fast establishing herself as the most effective communicator on the Labour front bench.
Amongst the others I’m not convinced by Jacky Smith; Jack Straw is probably too old and although David Miliband was highly tipped some months ago it is much harder to make your presence felt in the foreign secretary slot.
John Denham is my other fancy. In 2003 he resigned as a Home Office minster over Iraq and only returned to the government when Gordon Brown took over four years later. He’s strong, articulate and is one of the few Labour MPs to represent a seat in southern England with a comfortable majority.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Surely the value bets here are William Hague - in the event of something untoward happening to Cameron - and Harriet Harman - who has already proven herself a winner within Labour.
Mike, What on earth makes you think that Ruth Kelly is “… fast establishing herself as the most effective communicator on the Labour front bench”? Have you moved from sunny Bedford to the sumptuous undulating fields of Planet Zog?
Now, John Denham…aye, now you’re back on Earth.
Cameron lacks judgement as evidenced in the commons yesterday. This is what he said yesterday:
“I tell you what, look me in the eye and tell me that you were planning to reform inheritance tax before our party conference. Can the prime minister look across the Dispatch Box and just say it?”
When Brown answered “Yes - unequivocally yes”, the entire tory frontbench erupted into a braying mob. It looked nasty and ugly and today we discover it was entirely unwarranted.
Roof might not be forgotten as an education minister who fouled up SEN provision, and then opts to go private for the education of one of her children. She was also involved in HIPs, and a little bit of recent ‘forgetfulness’ over her expenses which ought to worsen her odds.
That’s a shrewd point about Denham. I’m surprised about Kelly though, she’s been pretty quiet since leaving education but I never thought communication was her strong point.
I’ve long campaigned for Straw as ‘next leader’. I’m pretty sure I saw him listed at 50/1 to be the next Labour leader a couple of weeks ago. He’s experienced and comes across as rational. I’m surprised you’d think he was too old Mike - 61? He carries his age a lot better than Ming did.
4: You fell for the half release of some documents? Really?
Why no Hazel Blears, no John Reid?
Why not Ralph? You are too cynical by half. I am sure the government is thinking about all possible options all the time. Naturally they would have given at least half a thought to reform of inheritance tax from time to time.
Shame it took the Lib Dem proposals - belatedly adopted and exaggerated by the Tories - before these proposals started to bear fruit in terms of government proposals.
Jack Straw is the de facto Deputy Pm and has more ambition than the others. If Gordon croaks, then Jack will make a play.
Denham is I think shorter in height than Jack.
Ed rather than David Miliband is a possibility I’d of thought. Of the Three Witches around Brown Dougie & Ed Balls look unlikely but surely Brown would position one of them in a successor role.
The prospect of Ruth Kelly ever becoming Labour Leader is very very very worrying. I’m trying not to be personal, but we may as well have Gerry Adams as Prime Minister!! I just can’t bear to think of how far NuLab will sink to if they ever allow someone like her to lead their party.
6. What’s your explanation for these documents? Another big conspiracy?
3. How have we discovered “today we discover it was entirely unwarranted.”?
O/T Newsnight poll - details from Con Home
ORB has conducted a poll for tonight’s Newsnight. Here are the main findings from a telephone survey of just over 1,000 people:
24% think the Labour Government is doing a good job in its handling of the immigration issue but 72% think it’s doing a poor job.
44% thought that, overall, immigrants to the UK had helped the country more than they hard harmed it. 41% thought more harm than help.
By 52% to 45% respondents agreed with the contention that “immigrants pose a threat to employment in the UK.”
By 60% to 36% respondents disagreed with the contention that “immigrants pose a threat to public order and people’s safety.”
By 49% to 46% respondents disagreed with the suggestion that “without immigrants coming to the UK our economy would suffer.”
By 62% to 35% there was agreement that “Britain will soon lose its unique identity if immigration continues as it is.”
29% of respondents thought that “David Cameron and the Conservative Party” would do the best job of handling the issue of immigration. That’s slightly more than the 26% who thought that of “Gordon Brown and the Labour Party”.
ORB found that there is a big overlap between those inclined to support the Conservatives on immigration and those who think immigration is largely harmful for Britain.
3
We discovered nothing of the sort. Gordon has his eye on every stealth tax imagine-able all the time (usually to try and squeeze a bit more out of the longsuffering taxpayer), and to suggest that mid parliament that Gordo was going announce IHT reformis delusional. There is no doubt in my mind that the Treasury decision was brought about absolutely as a result of George Osborne’s announcement.
Its the same principle as Gordon saying that the polls bore no weight in his decision not to call an election. No-one believes that , nor will they believe what these documents purport to show
I like Ruth Kelly but doubt she would either run or garner much support if a vacancy arose. Wouldn’t write off Alan Johnson or Jacqui Smith despite events, and Miliband is still seen as the heir-apparent who would command much of the new Labour vote. John Denham would be worth a bet I agree, could appeal across the board in Labour Party terms. Harriet - no way, though she is positioning herself.
Kelly is a non-starter as her Opus Dei membership would be unacceptable in a leader to most Labour members - and even to most Catholics IMO. If Gordon fell under the proverbial bus tomorrow I think Straw would be a strong contender, age notwithstanding.
15 You may as well like Hitler!!
12, 14. Cameron’s challenge was very specific - to dare say that Labour were “planning to reform inheritance tax before our party conference”.
As Nick Robinson put’s it today:
“What it will be impossible to assert, I believe, is that ministers cobbled together an inheritance tax plan when they heard the shadow chancellor’s speech at the Tory conference and then announced their hastily drawn up plans a week later.”
3- Gabble, With the greatest of respect (seriously!), you really should let Nick Palmer, Jonathan, RedFlump, Tyson or even (bless) Roger, take up the Labour cudgels. You certainly score a full 10 for effort, but, I fear, an absolute zero for star quality.
But I would defend to the De’Ath your right to make a complete @!?@ of yourself.
3. Why should Cameron feel foolish? He asked if McBroon was “planning” to include IHT reform in the PBR before the Conservatives came up with the idea. The published material gives no evidence whatsoever that Labour were “planning” to include IHT reform in the PBR before Blackpool. On the best spin for Labour it shows they were “considering” IHT reform. It was dismissed ahead of the March budget (clearly, as it wasnt in there)and it only attracted the Magpie’s attention again 3 days after Osborne raised it in August and then again when it was announced at the Blackpool conference. The fact the politburo did not allow details of the discussions to be published says all we need to know about how supportive to Labour this “evidence” really is.
7: No I know that if Labour had had REAL proof they would have released it just after the PBR and made DC look a complete fool.
All Government departments produce policy ideas most of which sit in a file. What happened here was that one of those proposals was grabbed up because Brown needed a quick counter to the Tory proposals.
Mike your analysis is normally spot on, but Ruth Kelly is a far from convincing performer. She has absolutely no chance.
Yes, Denham is good. I know jacqui smith is at the home office which normally ends more careers than it makes, but she has come across far better than I expected.
I suspect as other have noted, Jack Straw will want to have a go.
All that has been release are dates that IHT was discussed - not any details of what the discussions were.
Gordo was probably discussing new ways to raise revenues from IHT - until he was caught on the hop.
3 What the limited FOI response showed was that the Treasury was costing and considering IHT levels. Without the detailed documents we do not know how seriously or what the recommendations were - so we still don’t know that Brown (note not Darling the cardboard Chancellor) was planning only what the Treasury were considering.
That might sound like sophistry but without the detail it is no clearer. I imagine Brown had ready prepared a few “nuggets” he can drop in if necessary, and there were probably quite a few ready in case of a pre-election PBR None planned though - just considered, and if Osborne hadn’t scared the Brownies the proposal would most probably have stayed just considered.
PBR is an unnecessary thing anyway - it’s just there so Chancellor can re-announce the good stuff ad nauseum in Budget speech downplaying the bad stuff.
Is the Economy going to do for Brown.
Barclays below £5, (486p) - Northern Rock 150.
BoE kept rates on hold - dont they read the papers?
23. The paper under discussion from the beginning of the year was titled: “Workstream H: Measure 1220 - Inheritance tax transferable nil-rate bands”
This is the proposal that was eventually adopted - very different to the tory proposal.
Accept it, tory boys, you got it wrong this time. Your leader should apologise - but he won’t.
So Straw seems the almost universal choice.
The only question to my mind is - Why didn’t Jack stand against Gordon in the first place?
Mike on the table re Next PM a total of £58 has been matched. (£12 of it from me on Jack Straw - does that count as £24!)
If Cameron falls under a bus, Hague will answer the call.
If Brown does, it will be Straw.
Ruth Kelly??? She is only OK with the sound turned down.
Denham would be a safe pair of hands. Johnson has abit of sparkle that the Labour party are lacking at the moment.
O/T The latest Halifax House Price Index, published today, shows a fall of 0.5% across the UK for the month of October 2007. With the economy slowing markedly, this could signal the start of an extended decline, which would inevitably have political repercussions, in terms of the feel good factor, etc.
As I posted last week, both IG and Spreadfair operate a market on this index, in the latter case covering a considerably longer period, based on calendar quarterly periods.
27-Because he would probably lose.
27 I don’t think he really has a personal following in the Party. Had he stood against GB he would have been humiliated and would have emerged from the contest weaker than he went into it. But in the circumstances of a sudden and unexpected vacancy many people would turn to him as a senior figure with lots of experience and a long track record - in which loyalty to previous incumbents would count for quite a lot. Another plus point would be the fact that he was not involved in the non-election debacle.
27 If Jack Straw is the answer Labour needs to seriously reconsider the question.
If Brown falls under that bus it will be Jack (Major II) Straw.
If Cameron does it will be Hague.
Clealry if it gets to a GE then Cameron is the favourite. However,
I’m interested that no one seems to be thinking about the impact of the loss of Brown (prior to a GE) on the Cabinet and whether in the aftermath of such an event there would be a loss of discipline and a bout of in fighting with people’s ambitions becoming the overriding consideration?
Clearly Brown is maintaining strong discipline at the moment but if that discipline is gone what would happen? To me there are no obvious ‘Leaders’ in the cabinet.
It is completely unclear to me who would retain sufficient respect within the Parliamentary Party to come out as the new Prime Minister? After all would there be a factional split within the cabinet and the parliamentary party? Would the ‘young turks’ be turned on or maginalised? What sort of support does Straw actually have and would the Deputy Leader candidates all go for the top job?
Perhaps some of the more informed Labourites might like to speculate?
31. So what? He’s a much warmer figure than Brown and I doubt he could have been shoved aside easily if he’d lost. He ran brown’s campaign and got precious little reward for it. If something did go seriously wrong, I can just imagine Straw standing magnanimously in Downing St declaring ‘Having consulted with colleagues…..for the good of the Party and the Country’ etc…………
In Labour’s case, it would depend on timing - were Brown to leave office within say a year of a GE, I imagine Straw would step in as a caretaker. Were this to happen much earlier - say within the next six months, which I believe is distinctly possible, then Labour may decide to skip at least half a generation.
If Brown cracked up and was forced to resign within the next twelve months then Straw would probably come closest to providing a safe-ish pair of hands for the short term. Looking further out, Denham is clearly the best of a bad bunch by a country mile.
The FOI request for documents on the IHT farrago has not been met, instead a document cobbled together at the Treasury purports to give a narrative.
It clear does not say when the measure was adopted. It talks about planning scenarios but anyone familiar with government planning knows there are lots of those all the time, and often they are not requested by ministers but put together by keen tekkies as I used to be ( but not there).
It is clear that interest in the scenario only came when Osborne raised the issue in August. At that point Darling asked for more work up but was not committed, and such work ups are done for lots of proposals which are never accepted and applied.
When was that work up delivered? We do not know. But from the time line the Treasury gives I doubt it was much before the Tory conference and that means that the idea was grabbed off the shelf in response.
The only way to be sure is for the Treasury to release the documents which they are very noticeably refusing to do. Wonder why?
Nick Robinson needs to be more cautious and read what is delivered more carefully.
The Treasury text is here: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/D/foi_inheritancetax081107.pdf
36. Perhaps he has some skeleton in the cupboard which has held him back from realising his full potential within the Labour movement.
34 “If Brown falls under that bus it will be Jack (Major II) Straw.”
Labour already have their “Major II”. He’s called Gordon Brown.
38 Voxpop - it bseems that although we were thinking along the same lines, we came up with opposite conclusions!
36-He is a much warmer figure, but I agree with nickc(32). He wouldn’t just lose, he would be humiliated, and as a brilliant political operator, he understood that. He doesn’t have the best cabinet job, but in my opinion, he’s a much more influential figure than D Miliband…
By the way:
“‘Having consulted with colleagues…..for the good of the Party and the Country’ etc………… ”
I love it
42 Having pondered further I now think that your conclusion is perhaps the most likely though who knows what may happen amongst that poison nest of vipers known as the Parliamentary Labour Party?
40
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/10/23/nsecs23.jpg
45. No I wasn’t thinking of that one.
Ruth Kelly as Prime Minister !!!
What with JFK as Foreign Secretary ???
And Elvis as Culture Secretary ???
And Pope John Paul 2 as the Home Secretary ???
Ruth Kelly as Prime Minister !!! Ha ha ha ha ha…
Not all those old rumours again.
Let’s face it. There have been rumours about Gordon for long enough aswell. And anyway, the ‘rumours’ I know of (because they’ve been suggested here more than once) wouldn’t do him much harm at all.
In the event of “something untoward” happening to Gordon, Jack Straw would become Prime Minister, probably without a contest. Age is not an issue. It wasn’t even the issue with Ming (although his perceived age was), but would never be an issue for a Governing Party, especially in the circumstances provided.
48-what rumours?
34. and others. Very surprised Hague is rated so highly. To me he still comes over as a grown-up version of the self-satisfied little squirt who originally impressed Maggie.
David Davis has been consistently good in opposition (e.g. his resignation scalps) and he’s likeable and articulate. Osborne seems much more in command of the issues than Cameron and again I’m surprised that none of you tories mention him.
Apart from that all the other shadow cabinet members seem ludicrous with the possible exception of Lansley who I think is underrated.
51. I think Hague is respected for his good-natured approach to things, but I can’t see him as leader again. If you find David Davis likeable, I’m worried for you. i’m not sure how many Tory MP’s would say that.
Interesting though that Tories are much more keen on Davis or Hague as next leader than Osbourne. Only shows how reluctant they are about the modernisation agenda.
Is the Telegraph officially a Labour paper now?
COMMUNICATOR????? Ruth Kelly??????
Mike where did you get the free ‘E’?
Grateing Excommunicator maybe!!
ok so is *not* going to happen, but surely Mr T Blair coming back if something dreadful happens to Gordon is more likely than Nick Clegg or Charles Kennedy for goodness sake
The IHT issue shows cameron is dictating the agenda, for Brown to release papers now- smacks of weakness!!!
:lol: 
Ruth Kelly - I am sure many Labour MP’s would serve under her!
:lol: 
56. I would serve under Caroline Flint - I would be the rising member for PENIStone!!!
:lol: 
53-why?
because of this:
“Gordon Brown celebrates courage”
“Labour planned to abolish inheritance tax first”
“Courage: the virtue on which so many depend”
57. Make that the up and coming member!!!
55. I assume the Lib Dem candidates odds have to be based on the chance that there was some huge scandal of a Tangentopoli scale that was linked to both major parties and caused a complete vote of disgust in the polls.
60. The Liberal democrats can never win an election - I think that 2005 showed this. They are bit players. Really the LD’s need to be gobbled up by the Labour and Tory party. Three party politics is a bag of bollocks!
Looks like the weather is giving Brown another crisis:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1292155,00.html
61. I’m not sure. In the longer future (10-20 years) I don’t think its out of the question that a realignment of the party system could cause the Lib Dems to be the main left-wing party.
Did anybody see tonights Lib-Dem party political? What the hell was that sorry excuse for a poppy that Vince Cable was wearing? Is Vince the kind of guy who keeps the same poppy tucked away in a drawer year after year, so he doesn’t have to buy a new one?
Jack Straw must be the value bet. There must be plenty who are ruing his not standing this time.
57. Shurely ‘unruly member for Penistone’.
63. No, i thnk the LD replacing Labour has been and gone. Labour would seem to have reverted back to 1950’s and early 60’s centrerism. I don’t think the LD’s would supplant the tories either.
The 1980’s and then 2005, were the LD’s best chance. That has gone now, i think it is likely the LD’s will just hemrrage support from here on in. They offer nothing distinctive but unpopular policies such as Huhnes flirtation with unilatrilism, which followed skeleton’s flirtation with Unilatralism.
That LD who looks a bit like David Cameron but without the charisma or intelegence will not reep much popularity for the LD’s next time round if he becomes leader. Less face facts the LD’s have one foot in the grave and they have just sacked the best leader they had since Pants down!
Jack Straw for me and I have 50/1 about him being next Labour leader. I agree with many of the assessments here. He made the shrewd judgment that standing against Brown was not a good career move. He has the stature to be a PM, is arguably the best communicator in the Labour front bench, is far and away the most experienced having held two of the major offices of state, is the de facto Deputy Prime Minister and has not personally put a foot wrong since Brown took over.
I think he recognises that he is the heir apparent if “something untoward” were to occur and is quietly biding his time. The party would rally quickly to him in the way the Tories rallied to Howard. He sits alongside Brown at PMQs but his manner seems no more supportive of Brown than Brown’s was towards Blair. He tries to adopt a neutral inscrutable air but as one poster put it he gives the impression of sucking a lemon. I think he looks like one of the vultures in The Jungle Book. Carrion Jack !
66. I just wish we could get Nick Palmer to lobby Caroline Flint to do a nude calander or photoshoot and sell the calander for labour party funds!
68. Quite often he (Straw tells Brown what to say!) Then Brown bollockses it up with some gaffe. Straw is the talent in the cabinet, i rate him more highly than Brown. Brown is all talk and no action. A bit like a man who says his willie is 16 inches long and then flops a prescott (Alledgedly)!
:lol: 
69. I would buy it and i don’t even support the Labour party!
re 62 it’s fortunate that it’s not coinciding with a really high spring tide.
67. Not sure I agree. If you consider there is now a growing localist movement within both the Libdems and the Conservatives it may well be that if this proliferates within the electorate that a centralist Labour movement will be the ones that miss the boat.
Brown being an archetypal centralist could in fact prove to be a facilitator in the eventual decline of Labour. The result Libdem figures increase at the cost of Labour…..
So the Tories have a mole in the treasury. That paints a quite different picture and rather takes the gloss off Georgeous George Oborne . Cameron should watch his hubris. It’s what got Blair into trouble.
72. It’s a similar scenerio to the film “the flood” - i bought this film but did not rate it very highly though!
69. Martin - what time do you start drinking? Seems fairly early today.
68. I wish I’d had the guts to put money on Straw at 50/1 a few weeks ago. Suppose I’m just one of life’s bottlers.
73. Interesting point that, their is merit in what you say. I think that the UK electrate is starting to tire of big government and centralised government.
74. Don’t you think it sounds out a signal of weakness by Brown that he so lacks authority he has too relise papers. Potentially it could all backfire on him!
NB. Of possibly more significance is that Labour seem to be determinedly moving onto the front foot. There briefing on this has been rather smart.
It is being reported that the Tories have a mole in The Treasury.
It is the Tories who stole the IHT policies from Labour.
It is Cameron who was underhand not Brown.
Cameron should apologize for his flagrant dishonesty and theft.
Forgive my poor English. (Not you Martin)
79. Sounds like a lot of (Ed) Balls to me…….
;0)
76.
No booze today! I cannot help but think of Caroline Flint in the nude!
79.This getting ridiculous, are you Gabble or do we now have a Garble as well?
79. bluster bluster apologise at once bluster bluster
underhand bluster disgraceful bluster bluster opportunist
bluster lightweight bluster
(repeat ad nauseam)
Garble and Gabble. Are you one and the same? If so I think your post is over the top. There is no direct evidence that Osborne stole the policy and it was widely touted so it wasn’t a surprise for them to mention it at their conference. The Tories mistake was to bring it up yesterday. They’d got the cudos of getting it out first but look like they’ve now blown it by gilding the lilly. Another example of poor judgement by Cameron-but no more than that.
Just seen the list for Question time tonight. Heseltine’s putting in an appearance, along with Vince Cable and that lunatic Douglas Murray.
78
Labour seem to be determinedly moving onto the front foot
79
Since when has “reported ” become “fact”.
(After WMD of course?)
79: Is that really the best you can come up with?
Very good fr!
78. Brilliant stuff Roger. These whippersnappers like Garble/Gabble are a poor substitute indeed for a class spoof act like yourself.
74.Roger, this may sound daft, but I wondered if there had been some sort of leak from the Treasury when I heard Cameron throw the gauntlet down to Brown in the HoC. This row seems to be escalating, but what the Treasury released today was not the unequivocal evidence I expected after all the hype.
I’m curious to know why the many tory posters on this site are the slightest bit interested in who is the next prime minister. After all, if we are to believe them, Brussels runs everything anyway and the UK is a powerless joke. A bit of consistency please!
85 - Not only did the Tories use a Treasury spy to steal Labour’s IHT policies but they then accused Labour of stealing these policies.
It was a shameful act for which Cameron should apologize.
It was a shameful act which reflects very badly on Cameron’s fitness to be Prime Minister.
The Tories have been found out. They acted underhandedly and without honour.
94
Looking at the weather forcast, ‘voice of the fens’ if we don’t hear from u again, it was nice knowing you!
Hmmm see we’re having a ‘disaster’ a chance for Gordo to shine?
See the Thames Barrier is being raised or lowered, can’t remember which. You all remember the Thames barrier, Red Ken’s brainchild, that all the Tories on the GLC opposed: thanks Ken for saving London once again!
96. The gibberish quotient is very high this evening…
88. At least he had the ‘courage’ to go on the attack rather than just ‘bottling it’ on the crease.
Remember Mrs T’s comment about not ducking any bouncers? Hitting the bowling all round the ground. Not long afterwards she was back in the pavilion (permenantly).
98. Well lets hope your point is prophetic and another Prime Minister is soon back in the pavilion…….
New thread - The PBC Hustings: Nick Clegg - Friday 9am
100
A cricketing metaphor was just developing nicely the rain stops play.
I see odds on Biggest Party are approaching the flip point.
Labour is trly repugnent. What they have done to the country, how they ignore responsibility & culpability, corrupt politics & judiciary, they are turning Britain into a Banana Republic that only Mugabe would envy. Labour fails to support our troops dying in foreign lands. They permit uncontrolled immigration during wartime and expose Britain to ‘7/7′ attacks. During time of conflict, when any competent administration would increase support & effort, Labour cut the Defence Budget from 3 to 2% GDP. Our wounded combatants suffer abuse in NHS wards after Labour close Military Hospitals. Horifically injured troops are awarded peanuts while grinning ‘Ladies’ are awarded 1/2 million for a broken ankle and sprained thumb. It is no surprise Labour removed the Death Penalty for Treason.
Labour are repugnant.
But if we find out Gordon Brown does indeed have Parkinsons, you may feel tempted to feel ashamed at holding him to account. Dont.
for those of you who missed it, see Guido’s clip of Gordon with the shakes
http://www.guynews.tv/2007/11/is-gordon-cracking-up.html
80 - “It is being reported that the Tories have a mole in The Treasury.”
Wouldn’t surprise me. Many Tories are creatures of the night. And rodents too!
97 mmm see we’re having a ‘disaster’ a chance for Gordo to shine?
Labour supporters are hoping for a disaster so that Gordon Brown can benefit in the polls.
While Conservatives accept the Ebb and Flow of Democracy, Labour lusts only for power. Nothing else matters to them.
98 Remember Mrs T’s comment about not ducking any bouncers? Hitting the bowling all round the ground. Not long afterwards she was back in the pavilion (permenantly).
Mrs T is Britain’s longest serving PM.
I should think Ruth Kelly is likely to lose her seat come next election anyway, but even if she weren’t, - really! That’s one of the most extraordinary leaders you’ve come up with for a while.
106. Roof Kelly for further promotion, it must have been spoof posting.
Mike, I think the site’s great value and your touch pretty sound but Ruth Kelly! Are you drunk?
105. I’ve never disputed she had a very long innings. How many she scored is more open to debate.
105 - “Mrs T is Britain’s longest serving PM.”
No she’s not!
Can I just point out that on one of Mike’s three categories of next PM (’present Labour’, ‘future Labour’ and ‘Tories’) will operate slightly differently than we are assuming. The ‘future Labour’ PM will be elected by the PLP (D Milliband perhaps?), and the future Tory PM (Cameron, Osborne, maybe Hague?) will be elected by the Tory Party and the country at large.
However, if the PM were to go suddenly (ie not stay on to oversee the election of his successor), then a PM would be invited by Her Majesty the Queen to form a government. There would be no waiting around for a PLP leadership election - she would invite whomsoever had the wherewithall to command a majority immediately. That person might then seek the leadership of the Labour Party to legitimate them, but they would already be PM without that election.
Under such circumstances, I agree that Jack Straw (as Lord Chancellor, having held all major offices except Chancellor and PM) would be Her Majesty’s most likely choice, but she may try to act as democratically as possible, and in such circumstances, might follow precedent that has the leader of the largest party invited to Buckingham Palace. As we remember from the untimely death of John Smith, the Deputy Leader (Margeret Beckett) took over as Acting Leader. If Gordon Brown were to be hit by the proverbial bus, Jack Straw is the favourite to be invited by the Queen, but Harriet Harman’s odds should perhaps be shorter than they are at present.
What think the punters?
MORUS
SBS - didn’t you know - she never resigned, the last 18 years have been a “Bobby in the Shower” (Dallas not another Met Police scandal) episode. She’s still here and celebrating 28 glorious years!
112 - of course! It all makes so much sense. All that Major / Blair / Brown stuff was just a lucid dream.
Treasury latest.
“Here are a list of dates when we discussed the Conservatives plans on IHT”.
Or did I get that wrong?
Morus - the Labour party’s rules are that the deputy leader takes over when the party is in opposition. When the party are in power the cabinet meet and chose one from amongst themselves to be acting leader, so there’s no guarantee that Harman would be interim leader (Straw obviously looks most likely)
oh great, brown has just chaired another bloody Cobra meeting. Has our PM got nothing better to do?!
re 96 if the Thames barrier really does have to be used in anger then I can’t imagine the people of Canning Town and Woolwich thanking Red Ken. He’s not Canute and the water’s got to go somewhere and if it can’t flow up river it’ll just inundate those two localities.
Thank you Anthony - that is very interesting, I did not know that.
The final decision would still remain with the Queen, but I still imagine she would go with the Acting Leader, so the choice would essentially be that of the cabinet. That still means it is a very different set of factors than the other (party & general election) modes of choosing the next PM.
Although we all believe Straw would be the most likely, would the Cabinet necessarily support him in that? Might they not think consider the electoral implications, and go for a next-generation MP? Or is there a more conciliatory present-generation candidate?
110 No she’s not!
yes she is.
110 & 119 This is a definitional argument.
If you consider all PM’s since Walpole to have been ‘Prime Minister’, than Thatcher comes fourth or fifth I think (Walpole, Earl of Liverpool, Pitt the Younger and maybe one or two others)
If you consider that the term PM was only officially used from Disraeli onwards, then she is the longest serving, but I think this is a bit of a stretch in meaning.
Garble is a spoof, although I have to admit it’s difficult to tell the difference.
119 - panto season started early?
120. Being pedantic about this, the first PM to be officially titled as such was Henry Campbell-Bannerman in the early 20th century, so Margaret Thatcher would take the laurels. However, unofficially and more importantly, in practice and recognised by the political class, prime ministers have been around continuously since the time of Walpole and it’s arguable that from time to time there were others before the Hanoverian period - though they are not included in the official lists.
Since 1721, when Walpole’s term is generally accepted as starting, there have been six PM’s to have served longer than Thatcher’s eleven and a half years:
Walpole - 20 years, 10 months
Pitt the younger - 18 years, 11 months
Earl of Liverpool - 14 years, 10 months
Marquess of Salisbury - 13 years, 10 months
William Gladstone - 12 years, 5 months
Lord North - 12 years, 2 months
There seems to be an overwhelming consensus that Jack Straw would be the man to beat, and I agree with Morus (111) that he would be the person invited by the Queen to form a caretaker administration while Labour organised a leadership election. Clearly Straw would then be a candidate in that election but unless we were literally within a few months of a GE I don’t agree with Alex (50) that he would be the only candidate. Johnson would certainly stand, and I think Miliband would find it hard not to having been so relentlessly hyped up by the Blairites. Denham would also come under pressure to stand from the soft left and neither would I rule out a challenge from Alan Milburn, particularly if Miliband stepped aside again.
On the wider question of whether any of this is at all likely, however, it does seem to me that some elements in the Tory blogosphere are attempting to spread the wholly baseless and mischievous idea that Gordon Brown is cracking up, citing the fact that his hand was wobbling around a bit during the Queen’s Speech debate. They seem to be missing the rather vital point that to have managed to remain heir apparent to the Labour leadership for 13 years, and then succeed to the job unchallenged, he must be a pretty tough character. So unless Gordon literally does fall under a bus, this sort of thread will remain no more than entertaining speculation.
124
GB may be a tough nut.. but he has proven by his actions that when the going gets tough, the tough are nowhere to be found.
124. Despite what you say, Brown, genuinly does not look like a man in good health. We might all be wrong, it maybe just the theatre of Parliament that gets him wound up, I suspect situations like PMQs, with the ferocity of the house is amongst the most intimidating political encounter in the world.
Some people can do it with ease, such as Hague and Blair, but their slickness hides just how difficult it is.
For Labour supporters on here, your hope is that this really is a case of nerves around parliament, and out of Parliament he is confident and assured, with none of these kind of ticks.
He isnt calling up journalists at 3.00 in the morning, he isnt on any antidepression medication, he isnt having mood swings….
Our system is fortunate, in that he doesnt really have his finger on the buzzer, he acts with the authority of her majesty and if needed, his orders can be ignored.
He might grow into the job, but at present he isnt coping well.
re 124 we don’t have caretaker prime ministers. Once having been appointed Straw could only be removed by HM, so it would be possible under your scenario that there would be a party leader who wasn’t PM.
127. But if he had been appointed with that commission (or indeed, if someone else had - and Harman is an outside possibility to fill that role), he or she could then be replaced when a new leader of the Labour Party had been elected. After all, the leader of a party with an overall majority in parliament is in an unassailable position, especially immediately after having just won a party election.
The potential problems HM could face would be (1) if the cabinet was split on who to nominate, or if the cabinet nominated someone who the PLP was unhappy with, and (2) if the person nominated was a candidate in a contested election - especially if they were not starting as favourite. If both situations presented themselves, it could make a temporary appointment an attractive option.
re 128 but what say in this scenario Straw had been appointed and then in the leadership election he won say 80% of the MPs’ votes but still lost the leadership election. HM is only interested in who can from a majority in the HoC, would she really turn to someone rejected by at least four-fifths of his colleagues?
129. Pretty much impossible with the electoral college set-up Labour have: 80% of the MPs would mean a quarter of the electoral college was sown up with two-thirds still to play for. With the Labour Party as it is at the moment, I just don’t see that kind of disparity.
It’s actually a good deal more likely in the other two big parties which have varying degrees of OMOV - filtered down to two candidates by MPs in the case of the Tories, a straight election in the Lib Dems (though still filtered by the requirement for quite a high number of nominees).
re 130 but not entirely impossible, and I was exaggerating for effect. It would be ludicrous for a PM to take office immediately knowing that a majority of his MPs don’t want him.
roger - you asked who governator 2 was, my educated guess is the labour tubthumper ‘The Reverend Doctor’.
now 125cm above prediction in Walton but those of you in London can sleep soundly as they seem to have shut the barrier.