Are the Cleggies having second thoughts?
December 5th, 2007
-
Does the odds-on favourite need to do more than look good?
With only nine to to go before voting ends in the Lib Dem leadership there’s been a lot of questioning in the Lib Dem blogsphere over whether the odds-on and strong polling favourite, Nick Clegg is the right choice. He is also the candidate on whom I have bet £900.
One factor that has sparked off the concern was his lacklustre performance on Tuesday’s Today Programme on Radio 4. This was from prominent Lib Dem blogger James Graham and, up until then a strong Cleggie.
“I’ve just been listening to Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne’s head-to-head on the Today Programme. For a Cleggite, it made for pretty uncomfortable listening..the broadcast media is the real battleground in the struggle to win the hearts and minds of the public. And once again, Clegg came off as dramatically weaker than Huhne..The difference was obvious. Huhne trotted off a series of clear and concise soundbites while Clegg waffled. It isn’t as if this problem hasn’t been remarked upon before; why hasn’t Clegg sorted it out?
This provoked this comment on Graham’s site:-
“I now have serious misgivings about the possibility of young Mr Clegg being eaten alive if he does emerge victorious by whim of the nice-minded Lib Dem electorate. As one who had serious misgivings about the wisdom of electing Ming last time out (and therefore supported Chris Huhne then as well), I hope and pray I won’t have a second cause to go round moaning: “I told you so”.
Here on PBC Rob C made the following observation:-
I bet Clegg is glad most Lib Dem members voted straight away because imo Huhne has been the more impressive figure in the campaign, even before the revealing interview with the candidates on this morning’s Today programme. I have a feeling we have been spun a line, that docile and nice Lib Dem members have possibly swallowed, that Clegg is the one with potential and voter appeal while Huhne only speaks to the faithful. Well sorry what is required is someone who really knows his brief, can think on his feet, be combative if necessary and can deal with the media. Huhne has these qualities. Clegg by contrast comes across as pleasant but woolly and waffly.
Saturday’s YouGov poll of party members had Clegg with a reasonable lead but found that Huhne was rated significantly higher on competance and policy while Clegg was said to have “more voter appeal” whatever that means.
To command media attention you need the skills that Huhne has been showing. Many in the party think it’s simply about looking good which betrays a woeful ignorance about how the media works.
My guess is that these second thoughts are probably too late to affect the outcome and that my £900 is safe.
Help PBC. If you are buying political books this Christmas please use the link to Politicos below. Their prices are very competitive and the site gets a commission on each sale.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I’m pretty astonished that Clegg is still such an overwhelming favourite. From my vantage point outside the Lib Dems, he’s been pretty much invisible throughout the campaign, whereas Huhne is never off TV or out of the papers.
Plus Huhne at least has some views that are at odds with Labour and the Tories, most importantly on Trident. He’s not the most inspiring person in the world, but in a boring contest like this he ought to be a shoo-in. Clegg would just be a waste of everyone’s time.
How did Clegg ever become the “favourite” in the first place? I only “know” that he “is” the favourite, because the-media-said-so at the start of the campaign.
You need to bear in mind that 2 of the comments you quote in your piece are from people on Chris Huhne’s campaign team so they are not without bias!
James Graham obviously isn’t - but you need to read his full piece to put that comment in context.
It looks increasingly likely that we are set for the second Cathcart by-election in less than 3 years.
Result last time:
Glasgow Cathcart, Result: May 2007
1. Lab 39% (n/c)
2. SNP 29% (+13%)
3. Ind 13% (n/a)
4. Con 10% (-2%)
5. LD 8% (n/c)
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1896542007
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1881095.0.0.php
4. The SNP must be in with a good shout this time. Surely the voters of Cathcart are getting a bit sick of their Labour MSPs ending up in jail?
Any idea if the SNP candidate will be the same one from May, James Dornan? I only ask because he used to be my boss. If he gets in, my dreams of having an insider in the corridors of power will be one step closer to fruition. Mwa ha ha.
Who was the independent in Cathcart last time, by the way? If even half his/her vote transfers to the SNP, it starts to look very juicy indeed. The Labour deficit at Holyrood up to 3?
Hmmm. If Wendy Alexander had emails predating the scandal, why didn’t she just say so?
7 - Good question.
Well, I hope whoever wins the Liberal Democrats’ leadership election gets the Party to clean up their act.
Older readers will recall that I was recently involved in a successful local health-care campaign. Our friendly neighbourhood Focus Team have now put out a leaflet (or perhaps a little while back, I don’t live in the “target” ward) in which a member of the Team expresses her pleasure at this outcome. Pity they were all too busy to dirty their hands with actually helping us to do it. It would have been nice to say that our Action Group contained supporters of all major parties.
Fact. There are no Liberal Democrats on the local Council (Westminster City). AFAIK, they’ve never managed to elect even one since it was formed over forty years ago.
“Are the Cleggies have second thoughts?”
Too late… All your votes are belong to Clegg.
10 - yes, like Peter Welch pointed out in the Liberal Review”, most of those who will vote have probably already cast their vote.
As a Conservative I’d be more worried about Huhne than Clegg. Clegg is just a pale imitation of Cameron and offers nothing new, whereas Huhne strikes me as a staunch liberal with the oratory strength to make a real impact.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
A fine precis on the work of the hapless James Graham! They recently introduced a rule into film reviewing where “This film is the most spectacular garbage I have ever seen” cannot be abbreviated for publicity purposes into “This film is the most spectacular I have ever seen”
Obviously this rule has not yet been introduced into political betting!
Just to go O/T but a reply to what Nick Palmer said last night at comment 259 he stated. “Witan: if so, then to what do you attribute the fact that the Shadow Leader of the House welcomed the Hayden Phillips proposals when they were first made last spring? ”
If we look at what Theresa May actually said
We welcome the publication of Sir Hayden Phillips’ report. We accept his main recommendations. We want to have cleaner and cheaper politics, and we want to work with the other parties to achieve that goal. However, if cleaner and cheaper politics is the goal, we start a long way from that point. The cash for peerages scandal has pushed the public’s estimation of politicians to a new low. This issue is not just about our vanity, nor is it just a joke that can be easily written off. Public cynicism about our political process is deeply damaging to our democracy, so will the Leader of the House agree to hold cross-party talks on Sir Hayden’s recommendations as soon as possible?
There is much to welcome in Sir Hayden’s report. We support the moves towards a long-term cap on donations to political parties and a reduction in the general election campaigning cap, and we are happy to discuss spending caps on all year round non-election campaigning and proposals for tighter controls on third-party expenditure, greater transparency on donations, such as those by unincorporated associations, and new powers for the Electoral Commission. Does the Leader of the House share our support for those proposals?
Sir Hayden suggests that it might be desirable to control local campaign spending outside election times, but he rightly notes the difficulties in putting that into practice, such as the variance of constituency boundaries according to the type of election, the practice of targeting marginal constituencies which is inevitable in our electoral system, and the fact that local party officers tend to be volunteers. Despite our scepticism about the need for local limits, in order to secure agreement we are prepared to consider them, but subject to one condition: that any caps imposed at local level do not entrench incumbency. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree to that?
It has long been the position of the Conservative party that in order to restore public trust we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors, regardless of whether they are individuals, businesses or trade unions. I am glad that Sir Hayden has reached the same conclusion. Does the Leader of the House agree with Sir Hayden’s proposal that caps on donations should apply across the board—to individuals, businesses and trade unions?
Sir Hayden’s report suggests that, despite the cap on donations, trade union affiliation fees could count as individual donations on the condition that
“it is possible to trace payments back to identifiable individuals”.
Does the Leader of the House agree that any such system must be free from abuse? Does he agree that if affiliation fees are to count as individual donations it is imperative that individual trade union members are able each year to opt in to political funds, rather than being left to opt out, as is currently the case? Given that more than half of all union members who pay affiliation fees do not vote Labour, should not members who opt in to political funds be able to choose annually to which party their fees should go?
These are very important questions because it is, of course, Labour’s financial links to the trade unions that have prevented reform until now. [Interruption.] The party’s national executive committee recently pledged to “vigorously oppose plans” for an across-the-board cap on donations, saying that
“the Labour Party cannot accept a statutory uniform donation cap…It would also undermine the Labour Party federal structure and seek to amend a system of Trade Union contributions”.
However, as Sir Hayden says,
“a limit on donations need not…challenge the Party’s constitutional relationship with the trade unions”.
See here for more details.
Typical Labour spin!
Couldn’t you find a link to spare us pages of Theresa May at this time of the morning?
Maginally o/t
Last week it emerged that Northern Rock had raised £71bn through a Jersey-registered trust called Granite, which issued a prospectus that told potential investors: “Any profits … will be paid for the benefit of the Down’s Syndrome North East Association (UK) and for other charitable purposes.”
Down’s Syndrome North East, a small charity run by volunteers from a semi-detached house on the outskirts of Newcastle, was told nothing about this and did not receive any money. During the period that Northern Rock was using its name to raise billions of pounds, volunteers were raising a few hundred pounds through sponsored slimming and cycling tours, and primary school children donating similarly small sums.
Alistair Darling needs to seek assurances that all is well with Northern Wreck,I’m so sorry Northern Rock
I’m not all that concerned about the prospect of Clegg as leader to be honest. I don’t see anything that he says that will differentiate him that much from the Lab or Tory, to get noticed in the media. That together with the pressure and expectation of taking over from the effective Vince Cable will make his 100 days tricky than some new leaders.
Fitaloon. Ending your post-which you thoughtfully posted last night as well-with the words “typical Labour spin” was presumably ironic?
3 - Well I’m not on his campaign team, in fact I’d have been unhappy if Huhne won last time but, now, if Clegg is elected I can foresee a real problem.
I realised this at the beginning of the campaign, my only concern is that it took people so long to figure out they were being misled.
18) I’m sure if you look at your comment 13) you will see that Nick’s comment was a very fine precis of what Theresa May had to say.
Will today see another PMQs with neither Huhne nor Clegg getting onto their hind legs?
The obviously solution is to make the Libdem leadership a, ‘Jobshare’ Alternate days Nick on Monday, Chris on Tuesday and so on. The advantage would also be you could split up the public holidays, ‘Ok Chris I’ll do Xmas day this year, you have Boxing day, next year the other way around’ It could catch on!!
Ahem early morning finger trouble, (washed my hands last night, can’t do a thing with ‘em) The obvious solution!!
James Graham is usually right about these things….
It’s not just the Lib Dem members that have bought the line about Clegg being the better media performer, though. Most of the media also seem to have bought it, which demonstrates a fairly shallow understanding of how their own profession works.
You at least Mike will have the satisfaction of knowing that you said all of this right at the start of the campaign in the post about the party being saddled with another problematical leader which I seem to remember was rather criticised at the time.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz………..
Last time round the Tories were making out that whoever leads the LDs was utterly irrelevant and would make no difference at all.
This time, on this site, they are discussin the merits of Huhne v Clegg. Why the change?
I have long thought that the Lib Dems best move was Huhne now and Clegg later. Later may be as soon as 2010 after the next GE.
The odds indicate that the Lib Dems are going to lose seat at the next GE. That is a brutal reality of the squeeze that has gone on with Cameron and Brown.
Could Clegg survive as Leader the loss of a 1/3rd of his MPs? 2010 could see Clegg gone and Huhne regarded as too old/failed candidate so he gets passed over for someone else.
Clegg clearly requires more parliamentary and media experience but according to the betting is going to get the Leadership now, which is too soon. Just like Hague, the Lib Dems look like wasting a potentially good Leader.
21, 22, No, it’s not going to happen. Vince is enjoying himself too much!
15. 18. Roger’s a bit batey again today. Wonder why?
Apart from concern at Mikes £900 - not much we can do about it all now. Nick has a sensible letter rubbishing Jackie Ashley in today’s Guardian.
http://tinyurl.com/2g97pq
I am confident that Nick will be good but one problem is that the result doesn’t come out until 15th December. I am not even sure that there are any PMQs before January after that so whoever wins will disappear until the new year.
Anyway what will Cameron (and Cable) lead on at PMQs?
Blair, Brown, Cameron, Campbell, Cable and now Clegg- all lends support to the theory that those higher in the alphabet have an unfair advantage in life. Icarus’s surname starts with a “W”!
O/T Good News for first time buyers. . .maybe.
“House prices dip 1.1% in November”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7128308.stm
“At the same time, the Bank of England has revealed that the number of mortgage approvals has fallen to a near three-year low.
The Bank’s latest report showed 88,000 new mortgages for home buyers were approved in October, 12% lower than in September and down 31% from October 2006. “
31. 1% lower prices don’t mean much if you can’t get a mortgage.
Well if even the excellent Paul Linford has only bothered to read Mike’s precis I better fill James Graham’s missing line
“While I think Clegg was significantly better than Huhne at the hustings last week……”
For what it’s worth as the early leader I don’t find Clegg’s reticence at all surprising and neither should Paul Linford with his history in marketing. Remember Avis’s famous slogan knowing they could never compete with Hertz “We try harder”? The market leader should never make a splash.
Interesting article Mike. I do hope Clegge wins and lives down to my expectations
Perhaps they will ditch him qucik and have a proper contest between Cable and Huhne? They have after all developed a keen talent for regicide.
Rather off topic perhaps, but that photo of Huhne is the image of Mr Bean
Poor Clegg. He has the support of Woger
I’ve supported Huhne from the start and only seen things to re-inforce that decision as time as gone by.
However, if Clegg does win my hope is that he can build a team around him that is seen to be solid and united so that he has support as he grows into the role.
In the last few weeks Clegg and Huhne have had more media time than they can probably expect as leader during a similar timespan. Hopefully Clegg can learn from his mistakes and become a more polished performer rather than a “waffler”.
Both Cameron and Brown were pretty poor in their first weeks as leaders, but have improved.
It’s going to be close, and if Clegg wins I can’t see him getting more that 55% of the votes.
John L @ 21.
Two points there John. Firstly Mr Cable is Acting Leader and is thus called by the Speaker. Secondly, it’s likely that both Mr Huhne and mr Clegg entered a period of PMQs purdah to avoid giving either an advantage. Of course they might have asked a question on alternate weeks.
On the main thread. I think it likely that Mr Clegg has played a safe hand and has felt he didn’t need to take undue risks. In contrast Mr Huhne, has it would appear, taken a more robust line as the challenger in the hope of gaining some traction.
However I believe, as appears likely, that the Liberal Democrats have made the correct decision in electing Mr Clegg and fear he will chip into our lead in the polls.
38 - Peter, it is very good to read an alternative view such as yours, rather than the usual “Gordon / Harriet / Ming / Clegg / Huhne will be an absolute disaster” that we often get presented with here.
33. Because complacency and a quiet sense of superiority are the key ingredients in being the leader of the third-biggest party, when you can’t get heard on the news!
Clegg might be the biggest fish in the small pond, and his laid-back ‘enjoying-being-the-favourite’ act might work to beat Huhne, but it is the precise opposite of what the LDs need when they go up against the big parties.
Mike for a man that has been banging on since day one about Clegg the article does not surprise me. Your selective picking on certain blogs is also no surprise, and while Nick may not have done so well on radio 4(I did not listen) he took Huhne apart on Newsnight and at the London hustings last week….I see not articles about that Mike….how very strange.
You would fit quite well in to the Labour spin machine, only half or less of a story hoping to turn a story…which frankly is while Chris may(and I say may) be more “policy heavy” is that what a leader should be.
Blair, Cameroon not really policy wonks and have done & are doing very nicely thank you very much. While some in the political village may want someone who is a walking policy booklet the average person does not.
I suggest you and all those bloggers get off your arses and actually talk to real people, you may find that they don’t give a stuff about either candidate but Chris being more intellectual means sweat fa.
Nick will win and he will do a good job, lets hope people like yourself Mike don’t spin against him for your own personal grudges(although that grudge does not extend to you betting on him…are you sure your in the right party??!)
32
As someone who tied himself to a large mortgage for all of his working life, and who went through the last crash, lets hope reality is at last returning.
One of the myths of the property owning democracy is that it makes you richer, really! makes you feel richer perhaps, the reality can be different.
Interesting article by Larry Elliot, on the property market.
http://tinyurl.com/yrtdlq
SBS @ 39.
I see no need to be a noisy cheerleader for my party. No party is short of them here!
Both Liberal Democrat candidates appear capable but Mr Clegg does appear to have the X factor that may see him propel his party forward. Clearly my hope is that the Conservtaive cause is not unduly damaged by such an advance and in due course the nation rejects this wretched government and is replaced by Prime Minister Cameron.
Re 9, Innocent “Older readers will recall that I was recently involved in a successful local health-care campaign. Our friendly neighbourhood Focus Team have now put out a leaflet (or perhaps a little while back, I don’t live in the “target” ward) in which a member of the Team expresses her pleasure at this outcome. Pity they were all too busy to dirty their hands with actually helping us to do it. It would have been nice to say that our Action Group contained supporters of all major parties.”
They do the same with our local save the hospital campaign. That is when they put it on their leaflets they try and make it look like their effort when it is a cross party one primarily organised by the Conservative party simply because we have more resource but including Labour as well as many people not alligned in any party.
I’m not a LibDem, but as a casual observer I thought it was at least traditional to let the guy get his feet behind the Leader’s desk before the knives came out? It looks as though the next Stab-fest has started before the leader is even declared!
Maybe the LibDems should push for another knife amnesty…..
It is fair comment to say that Huhne is a finished article in terms of what you see is what you will get and that would make a good leader . Clegg is not yet a finished article but even so would be a good leader . What he has IMHO is the potential to quickly use the confidence that his new position will give him and develop and mature into a great leader .
The more Conservative posters such as Benedict and HF keep saying we are making a mistake , the more confident I am that we are making the correct choice .
And Mike - that title? “Are the Cleggies have second thoughts?”? Have you been replaced by a minimum-wage Eastern European with a strong work ethic but somewhat dodgy grasp of English? Has Stanislav the Young Polish Plumber transferred over from Guido perhaps?
Rereading Mike’s article after Big Mak’s go at him, I am afraid that the answer to the original question is probably no. But if Nick can look good the wider audience might warm to him and give him a chance to get our message across.
What does Abrahams think now that it looks like he wont get his money back? I hope that he wont be so p!ssed off at the incompetence of the Labour Party that he will feel obliged to talk about his meetings with Lord Levy and Tony and maybe even Gordon.
An interesting idea if they were to become joint leaders and alternate weeks at PMQs…a policy the Greens have just decided to abolish.
I’m in Germany all week, so to ensure it got there in time, my vote went in the post near Stansted airport, and in the end it was a straightforward choice for Huhne; it really came down to the fact that Huhne seems to want to take on the Government at every opportunity, and has campaigned well over the past few weeks, whereas Clegg seems to want to expose Cameron as much as anything.
However I was one of those calling for Ming to go (admittedly not on here) so cannot complain if Clegg makes it; I hope that Huhne will be promoted to one of the top positions (LD Shadow Home Sec?) and that Kennedy returns to the front bench. And if Clegg proves as good a leader as his fanbase believes, then he will take the party forward and make the Liberal case more strongly than ever.
I began this process leaning towards Clegg, I ended up casting my vote for Huhne. I do not think Clegg will be bad, I would just prefer someone who has such substantial life experience and who has demonstrated a clear policy narrative and a good level of political courage. As many have remarked, both are able, both intelligent, and both are reasonably media savvy: its just Chris in this campaign has been better.
Frankly it is also safer to go for the older guy, rather than risking doing a Hague and “skipping the generation” too soon. For those who say “Cameron seems to work”, I can only say that he and others of his generation have yet to be tested- and the various rumours around some members of his shadow cabinet suggest that “youthful indiscretions” may, of course, be not that long ago (not that I think Clegg has a skeleton in his cupboard, but there are others who may).
Re 26, SBS “This time, on this site, they are discussin the merits of Huhne v Clegg. Why the change?”
We can make out we are not rubber necking the car crash that is Labour, and enjoying it
43. “…..is replaced by Prime Minister Cameron”
It’s got a sort of Quasimodo ring to it
I don’t understand the need to send out voting papers before the campaign has ended. Surely this makes less relevant the efforts of Huhne and Clegg in the last few days. Why not state a date before which members are discouraged from voting, or send all the papers out on one date and tell Huhne and Clegg to stop campaigning on the next? The same applies to General Elections.
Second point - I think Huhne would have less chance of instant shouting down and ridicule from the Tory & Labour benches, during PMQs. At least he’s got something to say for himself and he’s achieved things in the real world.
Blimey Mike, based on the posters here - can you afford £900. The expected dividend from Peter’s Ten To Follow is not due until the Spring!
52. I’d get used to it, Roger. You’ll be hearing it a lot more in future.
One for Stuart and Marcia: Coffee House Blog reports:
“The Jersey based businessmen whose donation to Wendy Alexander’s leadership bid should not have been accepted, has revealed more about his contacts with the Alexander campaign. He alleges that Charlie Gordon, MSP assured him that he was allowed to donate the money despite not being on the electoral roll.”
Oh dear.
46 Mark Senior, go ahead choose Clegg, the betting market says that he will preside over a major loss of seats at the next GE. So he gets replaced in 2010 and Huhne will be overlooked = two more Leaders removed from the field of political combat.
52. If anyone is only ‘almost like’ a man, it’s surely baggy-eyed, slack-jowled, wrinkly, nose-picking Brown.
Re 46, Mark Senior “The more Conservative posters such as Benedict and HF keep saying we are making a mistake , the more confident I am that we are making the correct choice .”
We said the same about Gordon Brown and look at how wrong we were about that
58 - when Michael Portillo said that Ming was the right choice, I knew we were all DOOMED!
How have LibDem members that are regular posters here, voted?
I think SBS, Mark Senior, Icarus have all voted Clegg.
Big Mak I presume is also a member and Clegg voter?
Tpfkar and presumably Mike Smithson will have voted Huhne? Is Mike Sole a member and a Huhne voter?
Augustus Carp and others? It would be interesting to complete this poll of PBC LibDem members. Can anyone expand and amend the above?
HF @ 56.
The present spread for the Liberal Democrats is 47-50 seats. So this far out from a general election I would caution Conservatives against undue hyperbole.
Re 59, SBS “58 - when Michael Portillo said that Ming was the right choice, I knew we were all DOOMED!”
58 and yet despite people thinking Brown is tained by sleaze , they still think him more capable as PM than Cameron .
50/60. Cicero one more for Huhne. Looking close here?
Re 63, Mark Senior, “58 and yet despite people thinking Brown is tained by sleaze , they still think him more capable as PM than Cameron .”
Only just and only for the moment.
61 the H in HF stands for hyperbole .
60. I voted for Huhne. As I said at the beginning of the campaign, I wanted to vote for the anti-establishment choice.
I am only an occasional poster: I voted Huhne, like all sensible members. I agree with #49: ‘ . . it really came down to the fact that Huhne seems to want to take on the Government at every opportunity, and has campaigned well over the past few weeks, . . ‘ That is the job and he is clearly up for it: why can’t our members see it? Perhaps as well as being ‘docile and nice’ they are a bit dim.
I voted for Huhne.
It’s a two horse race!!!!!
63: But Mark you forget that people in office have a built in advantage with that question. How well did Vince do?
The leader of the Lib Dems doesn’t have to be strong on policy - in fact, being so could actually a negative. Those endless discussions about the detail of income tax thresholds make the party seem like a self-obsessed joke.
Even if they were to form part of a coalition government, that level of detail is irrelevant. The party does has a huge opportunity to influence the direction of politics in the medium term - but I’m convinced that to do so it needs a) to concentrate on one or two broad issues, and, b) pick a capable “communicator” as leader.
The trouble with the current contest is that both Clegg and Huhne have roughly the same level of communication skills. Huhne is an effective attack dog, but he seems to lack any sort of planned strategy. Clegg is better at the mood music, but I fear that he’ll always be overshadowed by Cameron in this respect.
I’m not an LD member - if I was, I’d still be dithering over my vote.
60 I have voted Clegg. I reckon he has the contest in the bag. I also think he has run the best campaign. he was a clear winner at the London hustings, took on Huhne and Paxman successfully on Newsnight, and he has produced the best literature. So no second thoughts.
61. Down to 47-50 seats would be a ‘major loss’. About a quarter!
Mark Senior may be a Clegg supporter and a Lib Dem member but, emotionally, he’s first and foremost a Tory hater, to judge by the content of his posts.
Re 69, Augustus Carp, “It’s a two horse race!!!!!”
I thought it was a straight choice?
75. That was the Labour leadership election.
75 Er, Benedict, I think you missed off - “Liberal Democrat Winning Here!!”
After all, they don’t get much chance to use that slogan these days - outside of their annual Leadership contest!
Grind those knives boys, grind those knives….
68
I’m not a LibDem supporter and have no idea of whom I want to win.. I don’t care.:-)
But Huhne seems to speak well and raise his party’s profile. Clegg? Noticeable by his absence.
Since LibDems prefer being an ineffective opposition I expect whomever they choose will be the worst choice: their membership reminds me of the Conservative Party when it voted for IDS.. (who says turkeys don’t vote for Christmas?). They do not appear hungry to win. (ditto Labour and Michael Foot)
So if Clegg is elected, I shall be surprised if he is the “best” choice.
Albeit that I am only a very occasional contributor, the following perspective may help in terms of understanding how northern Lib Dems are thinking. LD/Liberal leaders since the war have emerged from celtic and rural outposts and, to a certain extent, may have been perceived as semi-detached from the day-to-day lives of the urban majority. Whilst our family of three LD members ( middle son is an anarchist!) appreciates he is not the finished article, Clegg is notionally ‘northern’, given his constituency base,whilst still being sufficiently posh that he won’t frighten the horses in crucial tory/LD battlegrounds. I have met a number of fellow LDs who have met Clegg and heard him speak on a wide range of bread-and-butter issues and have been seriously impressed, particularly as he sets his observations within the context of Sheffield constituency. The Observer leader on the Leadership election, link below, resonates well with northern LDs and given all other factors this household has gone with Clegg. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,2220541,00.html
Benedict @75: ‘Only Chris Huhne or the Lib Dem’s man can win here!’
And Marquee Mark at 77, I read yesterday that all Labour MSPs were ‘right behind’ Wendy Alexander. I wonder if they are all carrying a variety of kitchen implements
Baskerville @ 73.
In the current market and political landscape I suspect most Liberals would settle for 50 seats or so and not look at it as a major loss. Historically it is also a very respectable score for a third party. It would also imply that the Conservatives would struggle to reach a majority.
I may be doing HF a disservice but I think the implication from his post today and on previous occasions was a scale of loss of around 30-40 seats for the Liberal Democrats.
Update Clegg: SBS, Mark Senior, Icarus, Big Mak, Peter Welch
Huhne: tpfkar, Mike Smithson, Mike Sole, Cicero, Cristo, Augustus Carp, (Khunanup).
This last name in brackets as I don’t recognise as a regular poster. Apologies if you are a regular here.
Tally Clegg 5.
Huhne 6. (7)
I am not a member, although considered it in order to get a vote. If I had done - would have been for Huhne - but happy with either as long the other is given a sensibly high profile role to continue doing the things they do best.
60. I’m an undecided, but I’m leaning towards Huhne - but I can’t yet commit to putting the cross on the ballot paper!!!!
82: Khunanup is a regular, stick him in the total!
Re 76, Harry, “75. That was the Labour leadership election.”
No, it was the Bermondsy by election against Peter Tatchell… and a joke.
Re 77, Marquee Mark “75 Er, Benedict, I think you missed off - “Liberal Democrat Winning Here!!””
re 80, tpfkar “And Marquee Mark at 77, I read yesterday that all Labour MSPs were ‘right behind’ Wendy Alexander. I wonder if they are all carrying a variety of kitchen implements :)”
85. Will do. Clegg 6. including Frank at 79. but not all his family. Huhne 7.
Lennon - just send a donation, say £600,000.
No answer to my question about PMQ’s - what does Cameron do to keep things going?
And Vince too of course. Sorry cannot find yesterdays Guardian cartoon of the family gathered round the Vince Cable Christmas special on the telly.
#48 What does Abrahams think now that it looks like he won’t get his money back.
As reported on the BBC it looks like this money will be forfeit to the Electoral Commission/Treasury.
…and it looks like Labour officials may be looking for terms to repay the £663,975!
Brown promised to return the money to Mr. Abrahams, so presumeably the Labour Party will be writing another cheque for £663,975, as Gordon is an honourable man.
88. I hope Cameron moves on to other government failings, including our latest plunge down educational league tables.
He is the Prime Minister in waiting and we have policy to attack on as well
89 “is an honourable man”
Shades of Mark Antony’s funeral oration there methinks
“and so they are, all honourable men…”
82 Khunanup is from Portsmouth so pretty local to Huhne , you should add Goupillon to the Huhne total to .
Re 81, Peter Jacques, a loss of a quarter of their MPs would be a major loss for any party, including the LDs that have become used to growth in each GE.
Clegg has said that his aim is to get into the 150+ MPs within 2 elections.
63 to 100 (2010) to 150 (2014) is the progress envisaged.
However if LDs fall to 47 then trebling it to 150 in one GE becomes a near impossibility.
But Clegg has promised growth. Hughes also promised a doubling in members and presided over a circa 30% drop.
For what it’s worth, this is the personal view of a Tory activist:
I would rather Clegg than Huhne won.
Huhne seems the sort of politician who would become known for a couple of headline policies/campaigns - say Trident and taxing all flights, doesn’t really matter. This would allow him to draw back all those LD voters who are fundamentally anti-establishment, pro-environment and none-of the-above types. This lot are currently being tempted by Cameron taking on a clearly discredited and incompetent administration. Huhne would reduce Tory chances in Lab-Con key marginals as past LD voters could say ‘plague on both their houses, I’m voting for something I care about’.
Clegg would be attractive and appealing, but bland, aiming to cover a lot of bases and not coming across as distinctive on any. This would mean all those LibDem voters who want a change would have little reason to coalesce around him. This would help the Tories in key Lab-Con marginals where LD voters would vote to get Labour out.
My estimate - totally unscientific - is that Huhne could deprive Cameron of 15-20 seats, not by winning them, but by preventing a Conservative victory.
Clegg as leader would allow Cameron to pick up an extra 15-20 seats as LD voters vote Conservative to ditch their Labour MP.
Overall, whoever they choose, the LDs will pick up between 38 and 50 seats.
That’s my view, based on TV and radio performances of the two men over the past three years, and my reading of voter behaviour.
If it’s of any relevance, I am a former councillor, former PPC and former spin doctor.
I have no money on the outcome.
92. Clegg 6, Huhne 8, including Goupillon.
Re post 3 from ‘Anthony’ I am not part of Huhne’s campaign team and never have been either in this or the previous leadership election.
Re 60 My vote has gone to Huhne as you might expect!
Incidentally it has been said Huhne is more of a threat to Labour and Clegg to the Tories. I don’t see it quite that way. It seems that many Tories prefer Huhne’s combative style and appreciate his background in business while many disillusioned Labour supporters could well be attracted to Clegg and vote Lib Dem as their way of rejecting the government while not having to go quite as far as voting for the Tories whom they still mistrust. Interesting times to come.
HF @ 93.
Neither should we be taken in by Liberal Democrat leadership candidate hyperbole!
Baskerville @ 94.
Thank you for that thoughtful insight.
95. I voted for Clegg, though I’m not a prolific poster.
Remember pb.c is not a reliable sample of the voting population - it is overwhelmingly male for a start.
46 - “The more Conservative posters such as Benedict and HF keep saying we are making a mistake , the more confident I am that we are making the correct choice . ”
If only labour had realised that, with Brown, they weren’t lying either.
Even in Wales the Conservatives gain new Councillors - http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/display.var.1881728.0.two_join_tories_on_council.php
Clegg 7. Huhne 9. Including Rob C and Alan J.
99. Point taken. I know this little poll is flawed but interesting nonetheless? I think it does indicate it will be quite close. I predict Clegg 54% Huhne 46% in the final ballot.
Alan J @ 99.
Are you sure? I seem to recall Jack W stating that he felt confident that most PB posters were transvestites. There was talk of Michelle Smithson and Patricia the Punter!
86
Peter Tatchell, Ah yes! when he was being slaughtered by the Tabloids for being gay, wouldn’t it have been nice if some politicians had the guts to come out of the closet to support him. Matthew Parris, has a lot to say for himself, funny! he was pretty quiet at that time
103
Transvestite, def. Someone who likes to eat, drink and be Mary, boom boom!!
Re 101, Defection, So now we have 12 councilors to Labour’s 30? Not so long ago we had considerably less on Crawley Council and now run it having decimated Labour.
Newport to be a Conservative gain?
99: good point Alan J, and I’d guess that posters on this site are following the developing media narrative/the contest itself more closely than many voters.
O/T but I welcome the ruling that Mark Thompson/Auntie can’t be prosecuted for blasphemy over screening Jerry Springer. While clearly offensive to many, it would have been a dangerous dent on free speech had a prosecution gone ahead, and empowers Christians/member sof other faith groups and minorities to protest when their own free speech is threatened.
Re 104, Coldstone “Peter Tatchell, Ah yes! when he was being slaughtered by the Tabloids for being gay, wouldn’t it have been nice if some politicians had the guts to come out of the closet to support him. Matthew Parris, has a lot to say for himself, funny! he was pretty quiet at that time”
Quite right. He should have been bashed for being an Aussie instead. Disgusting
Re your 105, “Transvestite, def. Someone who likes to eat, drink and be Mary, boom boom!!”
If the Lib Dems want to make their “Hague” mistake so be it. It is a pity that they have not drawn up a clear job specification of the type of candidate they need to see them though this difficult period. I would suggest it requires:-
1. A strong campaigner able to seize the headlines.
2. A person with a clear understanding of what policies they want to pursue.
3. Someone with a range of experience in the public and private sectors.
4. Someone with a strong understanding of economics to capitalise on the downturn in the economy.
5. Someone with a strong understanding of our liberties.
6. Someone with energy.
Of these Huhne has the advantage in the first 4 and Clegg on the 5th. Both have the 6th point.
108
I may be wrong but think he’s a Kiwi!!
I concur with Peter’s Jacques’ view at 38 - I think Clegg has been playing it safe while Huhne has been trying to shake it up - I’d have done the same in both cases, and it’s not necessarily a guide to future behaviour. Too early to predict what impact he’ll have on either of the other parties, though.
65: Not your most powerful post ever, Benedict!
fitaloon: as your reprint shows, Teresa May welcomed all the main Hayden recommendations while still calling for opt-ins for union contributions. However, the Conservatives no longer accept year-round spending limits, which was a central Hayden recommendation - unless they’ve changed their minds again. And it’s not just Labour that have noticed - see Roger Heath’s speech in the Commons yesterday, and Ken Clarke is also being constructive.
We try not to debate the pros and cons here, but we do debate public mood, and insofar as the public have noticed the issue at all, I don’t think they buy the Tory holier-than-thou position - they think we’re all sleazy and a clean-up is needed to limit all parties’ spending. If there is a poll soon I think we will see a dip back from the double-figures lead.
Test (Mike was accused of getting Testy yesterday - did he?) - Cameron can’t mention Education (Grammar Schools) just as he cant mention Europe, Defence (need higher taxes) or any sort of tax or even Wind Mills these days.
Better to stick to Northern Rock (where he hasn’t any suggestions) or Labour Party Funding (Lord Ashcroft).
Oh dear - The weather, Foot and Mouth, Nick’s cats perhaps are all that is left.
The Lib Dems always claim they suffer because of lack of media attention,Huhne has demonstrated throughout the campaign and particularly over the last week, his ability to grab media attention and yet it would appear that Clegg,who has been invisible for parts of the campaign is going to win.
106 I doubt it, Benedict, but enjoy the “irony” of the situation. The defector represents Llanwern, which was the site of the largest steel rolling mill in South Wales a few years ago - the sort of heavy industrial place where the Labour vote was weighed, not counted.
112 lol let’s see shall we?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, a commenter on Guido’s blog says city rumours state that Branson’s bid is falling apart and “a big wave of —- is heading Darling’s way”.
Whatever can it all mean?
Nick
“If there is a poll soon I think we will see a dip back from the double-figures lead.”
Well we could hardly get the lead into treble figures, could we?
Yes, you are at a low point and the only way is up. Personally, if I were a Labour Mp in a marginal I would find that cold comfort.
112: Icarus, my first question today would be: ‘Does the Prime Minister believe that individuals who break the law due to their ignorance of it should be released from responsibility?’
If yes, then hit hard on illegal funding in Labour.
If no, then aim towards not sending criminals to prison because the cells are too full.
Mike - I think you’re in danger of confusing the way you act in an internal selection with external profile.
Nick has done an exceptionally good job of improving the Lib Dems’ image on home affairs issues because he is good at attacking the other parties with a human face.
In an internal selection process he has been understandably reluctant to attack Chris - not least because they’ll have to work together in future. If you look at Nick’s performance against the other parties he has been successful in raising Lib Dem profile as the pre leadership list of media mentions below shows:
http://www.libdemvoice.org/top-lib-dem-media-tarts-of-the-year-1264.html
111: ‘I don’t think they buy the Tory holier-than-thou position’
And this from a member of a party that promised to be ‘whiter than white’.
Why not tell Gordon to stop trying to tar everyone with the same brush and do something about the sleaze in your party? If you keep telling everyone that all parties are sleazy it make believing that Harman, Hain, and Alexander acted honestly very hard to accept.
108. I’m watching you, White.
103 Look, what I wear whilst sitting here posting is my business, Jacques.
Whoever wins, getting airtime and the Libdem message into mainstream media will be key. The more that the Tories and Labour slug it out, the more risk there is that the new leader will make it hard to get his voice heard. It will be about policies, style and soundbites. Cable’s Mr Bean comment got more coverage than anything Ming did (other than resign).
Re transvestitism I am afraid Guido puts his finger on it: Re Huhne: “He has positioned himself on the cl!toris of the activist base, painted Clegg as inept, lightweight and Cameron-in-yellow. He has also smartly jumped on Donorgate”
Re 110, Coldstone “108
I may be wrong but think he’s a Kiwi!!”
You are wrong, he is an Aussie. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tatchell
Re 114, Augustus, May be so, but then we are also making inroads into Millwall somewhere where we have never had anyone elected before.
test - “Well we could hardly get the lead into treble figures, could we?”
121. PtP. I think PJ’s slip is showing.
116 “If there is a poll soon I think we will see a dip back from the double-figures lead.”
Well we could hardly get the lead into treble figures, could we?”
You have just sent out the high-frequency signal which is guaranteed to summon the beast that is Ave It 07….
111 Nick Palmer
Your party is trying to spin that reform is the answer to your party’s illegal behaviour, and that negotiations for such reform were stopped by the evil Tories, where in fact they ground to a halt because of Labour’s intransigence in refusing to countenance any changes in union donations at all.
Now you spin that you will accept the 50k limit Cameron urged but only if you are allowed to distort the concept with a scheme that allows the unions to keep on giving in the same old way at the same old level of far more than the 50k limit for everyone else.
You would have more credibility if the Labour party were to propose that:
1 All union members could opt into (not out of) political subscriptions
2 that those that did could chose the party their subscriptions went to support.
3 the resulting money would be transfered directly to the parties concerned and not be put into a union political fund that is used to create clout for the union bosses in Labourland.
In reality you want to ensure that there is only an opt out and that the only party to get support through the unions is the Labour party.
102. St John - did you include Tim13 as a huhnatic?
126 Yes, StJohn. He’s got himself in a tight spot, and could face suspension.
Btw, StJohn, how’s the crossword going? I mentioned it to Mike the other day and he was keen.
129. Goupillon. No I didn’t. Clegg 7 Huhne 10. The Huhnites seem to be better at identfying their vote here.
I don’t think the tories are doing a holier than thou stance, in fact I don’t think they’ve made much of a stance, just let the press rip labour apart over the entire issue. The fact that labour want a 50k cap, just not for the unions (who just happy to be their biggest supporter) makes them look even worse.
Jenny Scott is looking rather hot in that short skirt today. Think I’d struggle to concentrate on the questions if I was David Ruffley.
131. I’d better get cracking!
Patricia the Punter? @ 121.
Just for the sake of clarity I hold no candle for Hattie Jacques!
This article today on Bloomberg paints a pretty disastrous short to mid-term future for both the UK economy, sterling, and Brown’s government. The pound is clearly overvalued and a major sterling crisis is in the offing for next year IMO.
Well worth reading in full even by you rose-tinted spec wearing Brownites:
Brown’s Future as Prime Minister Hangs on Pound: Matthew Lynn
By Matthew Lynn
Dec. 5 (Bloomberg) — It may become the most calamitous premiership for at least 100 years. Less than six months after taking over from Tony Blair as U.K. prime minister, Gordon Brown has already stumbled through a series of disasters. He is, to use a popular word in the financial markets, a subprime minister and he leads a subprime economy…..SNIP
…….It might well be the fragility of Brown’s government that provides the trigger for an attack on sterling. Brown’s problems are only just starting. It will be the foreign-exchange markets that finish him off.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aoyU9AlR.YKI&refer=home
128 Useless partisan post.
If people want to club together to back a political party they should be able to. End of story. How they do that is essentially their business. The fact that working people in unions want to back a political party is a very good thing.
* No one is compelled to join a union.
* No one is compelled to contribute to a political fund.
If people want to act individually they are free to do so, but people should have the right to act together if they so wish.
Ree 120, Alexander “108. I’m watching you, White.”
Bugger cought out by an Aussie
Robert Preston indicating that Nationalisation seems the most likely prospect for Northern Rock.
He cites huge problems in a commercial deal among which:
(1) Who is deciding the future of NRK, the Board or the Treasury?
(2) Prospects for the UK housing market looking poor.
(3) Banks have made no firm commitment to provide the £11Bn to a potential suitor.
(4) The provision of £11Bn in funds will require security against the prime assets the BoE (Taxpayer) is holding, leaving the BoE (Taxpayer) outstanding £16-19Bn against poorer security.
(5) The removal of a further £11Bn in liquidity from the market to fund any proposal will complicate existing liquidity in the banking sector.
How about this scenario:
Clegg wins and poll ratings don’t move. Poor PMQs and lambasted for poor media presentation and lacks gravitas. This carries until May 08 and a dreadful set of council election results. With Libdems losing seats to the Tories and Labour. Mark Senior even calling the results “Average” on the influential PB.com website.
Simon Hughes and Vince Cable pick up the knife and plunge it in the back of Clegg. Another leadership contest is held between the fragrant Lynne Featherstone and the pugnacious Chris Huhne. Featherstone wins. Clegg defects…
Huhne becomes the David Davies of the Liberals -destined never to be leader.
It seems that on Sunday Cameron said that all the names of the members of MIC had been made public . Since then it has been revealed that entrepeneur David Grove had been a secret member for the last 3 months . Now if a Labour politician had made an incorrect statement such as that , Conservative posters on here would be howling liar in their faux outrage .
136 You hold what you like, Sweetie.
Any odds available just before the off(PMQ’S) that Our Prime Minister will be referred to as Mr Bean?
Go on Dr Cable,rattle Gord for the second week running.
139 Should have known better, Benedict. They’re everywhere.
111) Theresa said and we are happy to discuss spending caps on all year round non-election campaigning and proposals for tighter controls on third-party expenditure… Not quite the same as agreed!
The point I am making is that Jack Straw said Theresa had welcomed the Hayden Report which is true up to the point that these were the first words in a rather longer statement which then pointed out the problems. It is exactly this sort of statement which causes the public not to trust Politicians.
Nick,
The public understand the Labour broke the law. Accept it and move on. Stop trying to spin your way out of trouble - the public like that less.
As a Tory, I started the Lib Dem campaign thinking that Clegg would be more of a threat. However at this point I am beginning to think that Huhne might be, for the simple reason that he is the only candidate possessing the characteristic that everyone else, including Cameron and most of all, Brown, lack: courage. Maybe it’s because he has had his back against the wall from day one but he seems always willing to make the “brave” call on issues. The thing is, that the Lib Dems in general will also be in this positon come the next GE; Clegg may be fine in good times, but when you are in a fight I think you know which one you would rather have leading the troops.
148 Interesting viewpoint , I think General Custer had the sort of qualities you seem to admire but none of his troops were left alive after the Battle Of the Little Big Horn .
Re 145 Peter the Punter “139 Should have known better, Benedict. They’re everywhere.”
I had not realised I was posting in Earls Court
150 LOL
128
For the sake of fairness the Labour party should either cancel the £10 million per annum of taxpayers money which is given by the government to the Unions under the guise of the ‘union modernisation fund’,or alternatively offer similar amounts of taxpayers money to the CBI & IOD,I am sure that they could also do with modernisation funds.
Anthony Bailey
I’m still undecided - at the moment Cable gets my vote…
Binley - Seriously, where did they find him?
155. That did make him look a little like a nutter
155. His heart is in the right place….bless him
As a “Cleggie” I do not share James Graham’s analysis of Today. Both candidates came across well, but to my ears Huhne sounded a tad arrogant. As political anoraks we are all very good at chatting to ourselves, and Chris does come across very well to the highly interested and motivated activists. However, he will lose a lot of disinterested and unmotivated amongst the electorate. I took my daughter to the hustings in Cambridge. For me she summed it up, “Chris was speaking to the audience, I felt Nick was speaking to me”. On the way home she commented that if she was to take Chris to meet some of the families she knows, unemployed, living hand to mouth, where as she says, they think Jeremy Kyle can do more for them than politicians, they would eat him alive. But that she could see them relating and warming to Nick. At the end of the day, however good we are at talking to ourselves, rather like the church, it is only when we venture outside the hallowed halls we have any chance of converting anyone!
PS: And no, I am not having second thoughts. We have a mountain to climb politically, we need a Joshua not a Moses, however talented that Moses is!
Low key PMQs
All the debates I’ve seen have suggested Huhne as the winner. He looks very much the stronger.
But he’s a bit aggressive at times and Clegg’s more phlegmatic approach may be more appealing. Hard Choice to make.
Don’t often post in here, but just to let you know I voted Clegg. Linda’s comments @ 158 are a pretty good explanation as to why.
Re 160, Jonathan, Yes a bit dull. No blood on the floor.
I note that Gordon managed to get Vince back for last week though..
161. Frank - IMO in election times a more aggressive approach is necessary and Nick has not shown he is very good at that yet! If he wins I hope for the sake of the Party he adapts and learns quickly.
158 162
So Nick appeals to people who traditionally support Labour and are less likely to vote?
I hope he wins!
I see that Labour’s ‘fight back’ is based on blaming everything on the Conservatives…
I feel that this will backfire as it has ‘no vision’ at all and will rub the electorate up the wrong way and increase the anti-Labour mood.
Cameron useless, Cable OK Brown wins. Glad Cable took my advice about no funnies. When Northern Rock disintegrates, as it will, he can blame Brown.
163 to be fair to Brown, he didn’t make any serious mistakes, but its interesting he can remember facts about things that happened 10 or 15 yrs ago , but has no memory of what happened when he was Cancellor. Just as DC pointed out like “the man in the canoe”.
I scored it out of 10 Brown 6 Cameron 7 Cable 4 I thought DC just edged it.
Matt “I see that Labour’s ‘fight back’ is based on blaming everything on the Conservatives…”
Anyone would think the Conservatives were in power!
Brown’s line about Cable being “better at jokes than economics” was a bit strange - Cable played it straight today!
167. Slighty biased view there. Let’s see how it plays out in the news. The conoe line should see Cameron is leading on the report.
Cameron’s question selection odd today. Think he should have gone on more subtantial questions than Des Browne and Alistair graham.
On the Lib Dems, I’ve blogged on this (cough, cough) but I have to say I find Huhne a spectacularly unattractive political personality. On all the TV appearences I’ve seen, his sanctimony has been exceeded only by his gracelessness. Clegg’s not been better though- his vagueness hasn’t been exceeded by anything!
PMQs a bit dull.
At what point on Ncrock when it will have to be nationalised?
If UKplc has loaned £30bn so far, is the breaking point when it reaches £40bn (about xmas time) or £50bn in mid-Jan?
PMQ dull, but Brown is definitely getting better, relaxing into the role I’d say. Cameron a bit incoherent today, canoe line cheap but maybe good enough for the telly. Surprised he didn’t go on education.
Out of 10 : Brown 5 Cameron 5 Cable 3
Last week : Brown 5 Cameron 6 Cable 10
Tories cant go on education (grammar schools)
has Darling been cast into the outer darkness being 5 seats removed from Broon today.
It does worry me that Cameron doesn’t ever really respond to the content of Brown’s resplies.
For example, take today’s exchange about the part time Defence Secretary issue. Brown stated that the Tories had been the first to propose combining Defence and Scottish Office roles in 2000.
Surely Cameron’s response should have been “but we weren’t engaged in two major wars at that time”?
Instead, he simply plowed on with his pre-planned line of attack.
Okay, I realise that he doesn’t want to get sidetracked en route to his soundbite of the day (and today’s “man in the canoe” one was great), but doesn’t it merely reinforce his image as a bit of a lightweight?
170. GB needs to work on his timing. That retort was a week late.
176. Who was sitting on Brown’s immediate left? Was it Duggie Alexander?
Look I know I am biased but Cameron was useless - His question on a new chairman was answered - It will be announced this afternoon, collapse of Cameron.
His other questions rambled about. Who is telling him what questions to ask? It may Cameron himself on this showing!
re 104 how do you know he was quiet?
So apart from Icarus we are broadly agreed it was a bit naff and we will have to see how it plays in the news if at all?
it was . IIRC it was from left to right
Straw, Harperson, Broon, wee Dougie, Jacqui Smith, Alan Johnson, Ruth Kelly and then Darling.
Silly old Icarus is still bitter and twisted over his humiliating by-election defeat by the Tories some time ago ;).
Didn’t see PMQs but the comments here get me wondering. There has been quite a lot of comment in the press in the last few days about the Cameron overdoing it at PMQs and coming across as a Flashman type public school bully. Maybe he is trying to tone it down bit.
Also, I wonder if the Conservatives have concluded that it is in their strategic interest that Brown stays in office until the next GE, and that excessive Brown-baiting might actually send him over the edge and force the leadership issue.
174. Because as Cameron as said before its PM questions, not opposition questions. The moment you start responding to the PM’s replies is the moment you lose the impetus. He’s there to ask questions and dig at the PM, not defend himself, or else it descends into a slanging match.
180. why is it the collapse of Cameron? The question still stands, why has it taken 7 months to appoint someone? Appointing someone now doesn’t cover up the extended period where no-one was appointed.
That GB comment shows how long it takes for him to come up with something ‘witty’, mainly because he doesn’t have his script writers with him. Lame in the extreme.
185. DC was still in Flashman mode but he’s entered the realm of diminishing returns.
183. Thanks for that. Had wondered if wee Duggie had been holed up in hotel for his own protection. Have been wondering if he has been asked any questions about the reversal of the planning permission decision on the A1.
Not greatly impressed by Cameron today, he allowed Brown to repeat more lists of tractor production and such like. No signs of the great shaking fist or temper tantrums. Brown sounded more relaxed and confident, but perhaps he was let off the hook somewhat by Cameron’s odd line in questions.
Hand’s comments about the police investigations of Labour figures and Brown being a conviction politican was better than Cameron’s comment on the canoeist.
I think it was the Heath victory in 1970 -that really got me going John O!!
Benedict it was all a bit naff but Brown won. Cameron’s canoe joke was just an attempt to “do a Vince” on that basis, like others, he looked as if he was following the Liberals.
Flashman, Fotherington Thomas…. Dave should really make his mind up who he is!
128: we can go round the debate endlessly, witan, without convincing each other. But it’s not what pb.com is for, so let’s not bother. What pb.com is for is commenting on political trends, and as yesterday’s debate and today’s PMQ showed, the Conservatives are increasingly on the defensive in rejecting year-round campaign spending limits. They’ve locked themselves into the Ashcroft strategy and can’t bear the thought of not being able to spend all that lovely money. But the public really doesn’t support unlimited spending.
The Tory response to this is that, hey, they are willing to support limits so long as Labour agrees to wreck itself by abolishing union element of the party’s structure. That is a demand designed to be rejected, and the Conservatives find themselves isolated on the issue, which is presumably why Cameron kept diverting into other topics today. Oddly, a theme that started as damaging for Labour is turning increasingly toxic for the Conservatives.
Cameron having a wild go at Brown during PMQ’s hasn’t really had much of an effect in the last few weeks, apart from making Gordon look angry and some people whine that cameron is being a’ big horrible bully’. Better to look a bit more statesmanlike, and ask a variety of questions.
137 - Most calamitous for 100 years?
That would mean a bigger calamity than the first world war, the great depression, appeasment of Hitler and the loss of the largest empire the world has ever known.
Let’s all hope that the prediction is an example of journalistic hyperbole eh?
191. you wish, every news programme and paper says the same thing ‘labour took illegal donations.’ The Ashcroft money issue never gets beyond the political pages or newsnight, and not even then sometimes. Attacking the tories over the Ashcroft money could itself become a stupid thing to do, especially if the tories go ‘ok, we’ll stop taking it’ which they could well do, not being in anywhere near as much debt as the labour party. That plus labour intransigence over the union issue doesn’t make them look much better.
191 Marvellous picee of spin from you Nick. I’m still dizzy from reading it……………….
the daily politics, think I’m right to be very worried about the activities of this anthony bailey
191. Do you actually believe any of that Nick?
Never mind, question for you on the mechanics. You’re a directly affected MP in a marginal and complain about your opponent’s fundraising success. How soon do you anticipate that it will be law that she cannot counter your communications allowance? When do you think you can get it passed, in the face of Tory protest? And what sort of between cycles limits per annum are you proposing? Given that Labour MPs have 11k for their red and yellow branded taxpayer funded “I’m great” leaflets. (Not you, but you are an honourable exception as the Ruth Kelly thing showed)
196 Somebody at the Daily Politics reads PB, Labour Humanist!
185. My thought exactly. I am very concerned and want a “Save the Gordon” campaign. All new PMs get a honeymoon, we must make sure the fatal wound to Gordon is not delivered until election day
I too thought Cable was poor today, not helped by the nervously flapping piece of paper in his hands. Why can’t he ask a question without having it written down?
As Bilko said in the studio afterwards, a pretty flat affair all round.
Nick P @ 12:56
Nick, although you are a Labourite, I normally think you are a reasonable chap and your comments ‘add value’ to this site. However, on the party funding issue you are seriously deluding yourself if you think the Conservatives are “increasingly on the defensive”.
The Ashcroft situation has been completely overshadowed by the events of the last few weeks. Party funding is not an issue that anyone other than the politically obsessed worries about anyway (none of my constituents has mentioned it to me as an area of concern - housing, health, transport and education are the concerns of ‘normal’ people)
What does resonate however, as it has hardly been off our TV screens or out of the newspapers for the past 10 days is that the Labour Party brought in laws which they have systematically broken, either through deliberate concealment of donor origins or general incompetence, and which has resulted in a Police investigation.
I would suggest that it is in fact YOUR party which is on the defensive!
191. Clever use of the word ‘unlimited’, Nick.
A bit like those on the other side of the political fence who oppose ‘unlimited immigration’ but never get round to actually proposing a specific limit.
197 Of course Conservative MP’s have 11k for their blue and green branded taxpayer funded ” I’m great ” leaflets and LibDem MP’s 11k for their leaflets too . The Conservatives in addition have Bearcroft/Ashcroft and MIC money much of which is secretively donated by we don’t know who and therefore have no idea whether it is legal or not .
200. There’s something smelly about the Tories refusal to come clean about Ashcroft’s tax position.
It may still turn into a stink!
Re 202, Mark Senior, “Conservatives in addition have Bearcroft/Ashcroft and MIC money”
Where as Labour have Union money, the Muslim council (I think that is its name), that from non doms, Ronnie Cohen, Lord Paul and possibly Mittal as well. The LD’s have the Rowntree fund.
So your point is what?
202 Mark Senior keeps up his posting pattern of finishing each post with a dig at the Conservatives!
Dear Mark, ever thought of joining Labour as you seem to rarely criticise anything they do?
Afterall they are the one’s in Govt. Not that you seem to have noticed.
200: let’s agree to disagree, Graeme. I think Labour was on the defensive (for obvious reasons) but it’s shifted. But I agree the issue hasn’t been setting the prairies alight either way.
test: I anticipate a limit on national and local spending to be passed with Labour and LibDem support by the summer. As for the details, I don’t know - it depends to some extent on whether the Tories are willing to compromise, as I’d settle for a higher limit in exchange for a consensus, and I expect others feel the same way. My preference would be for the limit to be the same as applies during election campaigns (roughly £11K in the case of Broxtowe), since that’s a well-established precedent. When elections take place, spending related to those should be exempt from the annual total, so if you had a year with a GE, you could spend £11K on general campaigning and another £11K on the election. But that’s just my personal view.
Gabble @ 1:13pm
You’re going to have to do better than that Gabble! Either make a claim and substantiate it, or say nothing, otherwise you are just indulging your well known anti-Tory prejudices….
205 yes Mark will alas never defect to us.
Our donations are legal and passed by the Electoral Commission, that’s all there is to it.
And yes of course all MPs have the unfair Communications Allowance but it entrenches incumbency, and therefore Labour. The spending limits Labour want so desperately do not apply to their own Communications Allowance, of course.
201: see 206!
Good soundbites for David Cameron on BBC Radio 4’s 1 PM news.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2222193,00.html
The government today offered a £20,000 reward for the safe return of two missing CDs containing personal details of half the British population.
The Metropolitan police, which has been heading the search for the data, has asked thousands of government workers to check their desks and homes “in case the package or discs have turned up”.
I see that the always reliable, always spot-on Nick Assinder calls it right again re PMQs. Unlike the deluded Labour spinmeisters on here, he thought the canoe reference did resonate:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7128671.stm
Nick thank you. So effectively, Tory challengers would have 11k per annum, and Labour MPs would have 22k per annum (11 + 11 of CA cash) plus a taxpayer funded office and staff.
We’re still going to win the next election, however many sandbags you tie around our legs.
However, we should press our MPs to retaliate in government. Since our consent will not be required to entrenching Labour, the principle is established that a majority can be used for narrow party advantage. Individual opt-ins for Unions must be enacted by the Conservatives immediately. Furthermore we should make sure that when opting in, union members may choose which party to donate to. It would be fascinating to see what portion of union levies goes to the Tories and LibDems.
205 and why should Conservatives ( or LibDems for that matter ) be immune from criticism when it is justified .
No I have never thought of joining Labour though I did give a personal vote to Des Turner in Kemptown in 2001 .
Nick
That is a laughable bit of spin and you usually show more class than that. The media narrative is still labour donorgate not Tory Ashcroftgate.
Mark Senior @ 1:12pm
“The Conservatives in addition have Bearcroft/Ashcroft and MIC money much of which is secretively donated by we don’t know who and therefore have no idea whether it is legal or not.”
However Mark, we do know that the £2.4m your party received from disgraced stockbroker, Michael Brown, WAS illegal - and the Lib Dems haven’t returned the moeny.
How many dodgy bar charts and ‘Out of Focus’ leaflets were financed through an illegal donation to the Liberals??
Glass houses and stones…..
208 but are they legal - how can we know that if in the case of MIC we do not know who has actually given them . The electoral commission may decide otherwise if it investigates this shadowy organisation properly .
216 No the Brown money has not been declared illegal - can you point us to the ruling that said it was .
Mark, the EC has given the MiC a clean bill of health as a body permitted to donate.
Graeme, you may believe that the Brown donation was illegal, but those who have the responsibility for interpreting the law have a different, and more importantly, definitive view.
“The Electoral Commission has previously made clear its view that it was reasonable for the Liberal Democrats - based on the information available to them at the time - to regard the donations they received from 5th Avenue Partners Ltd in 2005, totalling just over £2.4m, as permissible.
“It remains the Commission’s view that the Liberal Democrats acted in good faith at that time, and the Commission is not re-opening the question of whether the party or its officers failed to carry out sufficient checks into the permissibility of the donations.”
Mark,
So because the electoral commision investigates and comes to answer you don’t like, the commision is wrong and your correct?
Thats great from the party who took £2.4million illegally.
Re 218, Mark Senior “216 No the Brown money has not been declared illegal - can you point us to the ruling that said it was .”
Correct. It may have been obtained by Mr Brown through fraud, but there is no eveidence that the Liberal Democrats could or should have known that.
I see you still dodge questions and comments on where Labour and the LD’s get their money from though.
206 so Nick P a £11k limit means that a full time agent cannot be employed as that is less than the minimum wage?
174 Even the Speaker had to remind Labour MPs today that it is not Cameron’s job to answer questions but to ask them. It is PM questions after all.
Of course if Brown wants to be in a position to demand answers from Cameron, all he has to do is call an election and move himself into the role of Leader of the Opposition.
Graeme @ 216.
It does our Conservative case no good when you deviate from the acuality. The Electoral Commission cleared the Liberals of any wrong doing over that donation and said they had acted in good faith.
203. His tax position is surely a matter between him and the Taxman, just like every other person. I’m no supporter of the Tories, but there is really too much nonsense spouted about Ashcroft…
223 They could not include agent’s wages in that, could they?
221. See 220 london, London. If you want to make serious allegations I suggest you invest in a good lawyer.
185 - before Brown became leader I was thinking and saying (I can do both at the same time, rarely do though) that Cameron and Osborne would eventually come unstuck if they persisted with this “playground bullying” approach to Brown.
I still think that’s the case.
So with Mark Brown the EC is correct because it suits us, but wrong with Ashcroft because it doesn’t.
Who would have thought it - a liberal who wants it both ways.
Re 230, London London “Who would have thought it - a liberal who wants it both ways.”
A strange turn of events surely
228
See 230.
Nick Palmer “The Tory response to this is that, hey, they are willing to support limits so long as Labour agrees to wreck itself by abolishing union element of the party’s structure.”
I am pleased we agree that the Labour party have no intention of limiting union donations to a real maximum of 50k as other organisations would be if your version of reform were accepted.
217: Mark you know that the Electoral Commission ruled that the Tory donations from the MIC were legal and no law had been broken. To imply otherwise is dishonest and possibly puts Mike in risk of legal action.
Please stop it.
He should follow Khunanups advice and get a good lawyer apparently as there is no difference between the two cases.
230. Did I mention Ashcroft at all?! No thought not…
234 - as if they Tory party would sue because someone said something on a website… grow up people.
Mark Senior @ 218
Frank @ 220
Peter Jacques @225
The point is that Mark Senior et al are trying to discredit Conservative donors when there is no shred of evidence that anything improper or illegal has been done. Whereas the Liberals took £2.4m from someone subsequently convicted of fraud, which (Electoral Commission notwithstanding) proves they took money from someone without proper due diligence.
You can’t throw mud an the Conservatives and claim donations are dodgy or inappropriate when the the Liberals’ own donor has been convicted of a crime which the Tory donors haven’t.
It’s just a typical Mark Senior post, which as has been pointed out above, is never complete without an anti-Conservative flourish at the end of it.
The funding debate is getting rather tiresome. It was quite easy to just skip over Nick P’s continuing ranting over the “injustice” of Ashcroft’s money unseating him in 2010, but now everyone’s at it.
Is there any way of filtering out funding posts?
Perhaps we could have a separate “daily funding rant” thread?
I see Guido claims “Non-domicile backing for Labour from Lakshmi Mittal, Ronnie Cohen and Swarj Paul totals nearly £10 million, which is more than they have paid in UK taxes.”
http://www.order-order.com/2007/12/purnell-was-telling-porkies.html
Has anyone commented on this nutter yet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7128500.stm
The religious right comes to Britain…
I like the way he adopts the standard right wing “straw man” tactic - a bit like racists/homophobes who decry what they “call political correctness” as a way of blowing a dog whistle to like minded idiots.
140. The problem with NR being nationalised is that the geordie pikeys will immediately stop paying their mortgages when it becomes apparent, as it will, that a government owned bank will find it politically impossible repossess the homes of ‘hard working families’. Particularly in the NuLab satrapy of the North East.
240 - if Ronnie Corbett wants to donate money to Labour I think that’s fine. He worked hard for it, telling all those long winded jokes
Stonch @ 229. Yes, it would be an offence to natural justice if Brown were to be carted off to the loony bin before the economy tanks. Helpful soundbite from Matthew Lynn on Bloomberg: “A sub prime Minister and he leads a sub prime economy”. Ouch!
242 - urgh what a horrible, horrible man. I hope you contract an incurable disease that rots your testes.
170.
“Brown’s line about Cable being “better at jokes than economics” was a bit strange ”
Perhaps it was a nose-picking joke?
Cable airi was the chief economist at Shell, a company which does not appear to have gone down the pan (yet?)
Mark Senior did. He claims the Ashcroft/Bearwood donations are illegal. Whats the difference between claim and a counter claim that Mark Browns were? None..
It was Mark who brought the claims of the probity of the EC as well. To quote “If it decides to investigate properly.” Does he mean it did not last time? If so what is the evidence it did not?
243.
“He worked hard for it, telling all those long winded jokes ”
and now he wants to financially support them?
244 - dream on.
One thing that always amuses me about a lot of the Tory boys here is that none of them have two tanners to rub together, they work in jobs paid by the state (i.e. parliamentary researchers, think tanks etc) and therefore wouldn’t really be harmed by an economic crash. Therefore they cream themselves with excitement, their pimply faces flushing with joy, whenever economic hardship for the rest of us is predicted - simply because their set of crooks can take power in place of the current lot. Despicable, really.
248 - wasn’t the Queen’s Speech a long winded joke boom boom
241. Indeed. As a Christian myself I find his ‘I speak for all Christians’ inference insulting & his claims frankly ludicrous. But then he is a right wing Tory…
Re 238, Graeme, I am a Conservative but can’t let you get away with this:
“Whereas the Liberals took £2.4m from someone subsequently convicted of fraud, which (Electoral Commission notwithstanding) proves they took money from someone without proper due diligence.”
It proves nothing of the sort. Michael Brown is a convicted and presumably convincing fraudster. Just how much due dilligence do you think there would have needed to be to find out 5th Avenue partners was a sham organisation? Does someone need to look through a companies confidential accounts? Come off it!
Graeme @ 228.
I am happy that the Electoral Commission investigated the Liberal donation and Lord Ashcroft’s refered activities and cleared both.
You should have the good grace to do likewise and not traduce our opponents inappropriately. There is, I beleive, plenty of scope to dispute the merits of the Liberals without resorting to distortion. We may safely leave that to the Socialists.
Nick Assinder is struck by Cameron’s image of Brown at PMQs. This is how his sketch starts:
Now here is an image to conjure with - Mr Bean (played by Gordon Brown) in a canoe, suffering from amnesia and up the creek without a paddle.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7128671.stm
254 - I learned what a Witan is the other day, incidentally. I wonder where I’d heard the word before - the answer being your rather big-headed screen name.
247 I did NOT claim they or the the MIC donations were illegal . I did state that both Bearwood and MIC are shadowy organisations and it is unclear as to who is funding them with how much and from where . I also stated earlier that Cameron on Sunday said all the members of MIC were known a statement that was shown to be untrue less than 2 days later .
It is amazing how Conservative posters on here do not like their parties finances being scrutinised .
251 - Genuine Christians should watch out for the hard right trying to steal their religion and misuse it.
241 - Indeed, and I think we might all be shocked by the number of creationists sitting in the Commons. Creationism in schools has become the official policy of the DUP and I know some tory back benchers badly fumbled a survey by a science lobby seeking to keep fundie religion out of science classes.
257. It’s the eternal struggle for us liberal non-conformists.
Scrutinise away.
In the meantime cap all donations to £50K, individual/coporate and union. No state funding of any form. Taxpayers have got better things to pay for than ANY parties propagander.
Only permissible to donate if:
1. Registered to vote here and
2. Pay tax here.
Please can Nick/Benedict/Mark tell me whats wrong with those very clear simple rules that anyone could understand.
Benedict White @ 252
Peter Jacques @ 253
Guys, the point of the post is that @ post 202, Mark Senior stated that some Conservative money was “donated by we don’t know who and therefore have no idea whether it is legal or not”. If I want to split hairs, (I believe you are a lawyer Benedict?)I might as well say that “because I haven’t seen my neighbour for two weeks I have no way of knowing whether he/she has run-off without paying the rent” It is ‘guilt by innuendo’.
However, the source of the Liberal donation is a convicted fraudster, which Mark conveniently overlooks. Whilst Benedict is correct that due diligence is not easy, I would have expected someone offering £2.4m to have been checked out to the extent that afterwards the Liberals could have said “here is the evidence that we made some checks on this guy, we have been above board, but as the monies have been obtained through fraud, we will return the money”
london @ 260
Would, I wonder, the Tories be willing to accept a nationwide spending cap? Say £6 million a year - or £3m excluding salaries & capital expenditure?
That would prevent anyone from “buying” an election, but would still allow for effective targetting of marginal seats.
261 - Correction - the donor was not convicted fraud, but of perjury and a false declaration to obtain a passport and was branded ‘dishonest’ by the judge.
260: The ‘pay tax here’ requirement will just launch us into how much tax do you have to pay here to count.
If you are registered to vote you become part of the British electoral system and you should be able to donate money to the parties in that system.
260 At first sight there is nothing wrong with those simple rules but what happens when Union A splits into 56 sub unions each of which can then donate £ 50K and Company Z sets up 50 subsidiary shell companies each of which then donates £ 50K ?
241 You think thats disturbing, to me this is far more sinsiter. It defies credulity……………
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/27213/Nurses-told-to-turn-Muslims-beds-to-Mecca
Re 260, london london,
“Only permissible to donate if:
1. Registered to vote here and
2. Pay tax here.
Please can Nick/Benedict/Mark tell me whats wrong with those very clear simple rules that anyone could understand.”
What about companies?
How much tax? Does that mean you want people to be domiciled in the UK for tax purposes?
What about organisations like the Joseph Rowntree trust?
Graeme @ 261.
I dare say the Electoral Commission took all those factors into account and pronounced the Liberal donation within the rules. Further, it appears you are guilty of accepting the Commissions Ashcroft verdict and not the Liberal one !
I am happy to allow to the independent Electoral Commission to investigate and determine these issues. They have done so and there is an end to the matter as far as I’m concerned.
257/259: sure is!
Creationism vs Party funding. Something there to get everyone’s hackles up…
Simplify it further then:
Only allow personal donations to maximum of £50K a year and ban any corporate or union donation.Better also include charities in there else we will end up with “Friends of the conservatives” or “labour in need” sprouting up like they do in the states.
Cannot split people now can we?
Re 261 Graeme “(I believe you are a lawyer Benedict?)”
No. I do know a bit about the law though.
“However, the source of the Liberal donation is a convicted fraudster, which Mark conveniently overlooks. Whilst Benedict is correct that due diligence is not easy, I would have expected someone offering £2.4m to have been checked out to the extent that afterwards the Liberals could have said “here is the evidence that we made some checks on this guy, we have been above board, but as the monies have been obtained through fraud, we will return the money””
Whilst taking your point about Mark’s inuendo and throwing it back in his face (fair enough) the point is they were in a position to say “here are the due dilligence checks we carried out” and the EC were happy.
As for returning the money, to whom? In what proportion?
A court would have to work that one out and may be doing so now.
However having accepted the money in good faith they have “changed their position” and may be unable to pay it back as they have already spent it. Most parties would have some trouble returning a chunk that large.
Still it does give us some stones to throw back at their glass house when they are throwing them at ours
270 Live people only presumably - bequests not allowed .
267,
I’d ban charities as well. And yes, domiciled for tax purposes.
Ban bequests as well. Simple personal donations of £50K.
As I have been saying from the start of this contest it would be
wrong to buy into the Clegg will appeal to Conservatives vs Huhne will appeal to Labour argument. The leader of the Libdems has to do both as well as picking up the protest vote. They have to be able to not only use the media time they are automatically allotted effectively, they have also got to be able to pick certain issues which will see them being pushed to the forefront of the media story. That is exactly what Huhne has done.
Clegg has played it so safe with the grass roots and disappeared into the ether on the media front, he has been almost invisible and the irony that the Libdems could elect their David Davis despite the Leadership contest showing up some serious flaws beggars belief.
Nick Clegg does not have that X factor so desperately needed by the
Libdems, they have had nice and understated with Ming and it got them nowhere.
I cannot see how having a Cameron lite figure come along 2 years later when the real Cameron is setting the political agenda is going to revive the party in the way needed at this time.
Most politicians who aspire to be leader of their party have ambition, but it is not enough. You have to have hunger, passion, cunning and confidence in bucket loads, Huhne has, but Clegg doesn’t. Huhne has some of that X factor we attributed to Blair and now Cameron, not the natural charisma, but even in that department he is showing more promise than Clegg as the contest draws to a close.
Right at the start of this contest Mike made the most pertinent point, Huhne had the courage to go for it last time and Clegg didn’t preferring to wait until it was handed to him. Looking at the more successful leaders in all the main parties over the last 30 years, it has been the risk takers who grab the chance first time that have gone onto be the more successful leaders.
262.
I would not have a limit. If you’ve not been able to raise the money, then you cannot spend it.
270: How about anyone registered to vote, or organisation registered in the UK can donate up to £50k each year.
271 - Benedict my guess is that you probably know next to nowt about the law.
This party funding thing is well boring. Bad for Labour. Labour sleaze.
277
only if the organisation is registered to vote!
I’d better qualify that for a vote in General election.
279: If a company, charity, or other body like a union is registered in this country why should it not have the ability to fund a political party?
256 - Surely the whole point of MIC is to be a dodgy front? What other purpose do they serve?
Why - they cannot vote in the GE. If a MD or union leader wants to support a party donate personally. It would remove a lot of influence that companies and unions have over the parties.
It would bring the parties closer to the people (sorry to sound like a commie…) as they would need support from a much larger number of people. Plus they would hopefully have less money to spend on crap TV ads/billboards and literature through the letterbox.
On the topic of PMQ’s, Brown didn’t bomb and put in a workmanlike performance.
Cameron played it safe, ignored several open goal issues and did not shine.
Vince after playing a blinder last week was always going to struggle to match that performance.
Labour supporters will be relieved whilst Conservatives and Libdems will be a bit disappointed. All in all a damp squid after the recent roller coaster of politics, if you had to vote for who just pipped it at the finish, it will be who ever gets the better sound bite on the news channels.
I really don’t want to get drawn into this increasingly tedious debate, but it is a matter of fact that no Charity in the UK is allowed to be “political.” it cannot make donations to political parties, and its efforts to change the law of the land are severely circumscribed.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is NOT a charity, by the way.
If anyone is still counting the pbc lib dem vote - I voted for Huhne. I may not be regular but I have had my face on the front page!
285. Actually it is.
“Joseph Rowntree Foundation is a social policy research and development charity”
“Please note that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is a completely separate organisation from the other two Trusts set up by Joseph Rowntree in 1904, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd (which is not a charity). See also: http://www.josephrowntree.org.uk“
285
Tell that to the Smith institute.
But I was trying to point out that we could make donations really transparent but all parties what some shades of grey in there.
287 OK, Whelan, point made, but the fact is that the Rowntree outfit that funds research analysts for the Lib Dems (the so-called “Chocolate Soldiers”) is not a charity.
60 I voted for Chris
RE: PMQs
We all know that no-one really cares…even the Daily Politics were “meh”.
Brown - his normal performance - not as bad as some people make out. As a non-labour person I’m still so much happier to watch him rather than Blair’s grinning loon thing.
Cameron - needs to cut down on the sneering face. I think people have mentioned it on here. It’s not a good look.
Cable - normal performance - shaky hands as ever.
New thread - What do you need to be a good PM?
289. True, I am a little pedantic at times.
60. Clegg
RE: Lib Dems
I really wanted to vote for Clegg - his supposed voter appeal is exactly what you want in a leader . He won the hustings I was at. But he simply did not perform as well as Huhne on tv which is the ONLY thing that counts nowadays. Looks like he’s won it though - not so bad, he may very well turn out to be an excellent leader and his supposed x factor may grow and start shining through.
Re 278, Stonch, “271 - Benedict my guess is that you probably know next to nowt about the law”
And that is based on a survey of your ARSE presumably, or did it just come from there?
Try me on secure and assured tenancies, and the rights of tenants.
Why do Tory posters get so rattled and defensive when talking about moneybags ashcroft ?
zzzzzzzz
The point is that it is wrong in a so called democracy that one amn can spend his own millions changing the results.
Incumbents communication allowances are also wrong as it promotes incumbency.
Each party in each seat should be given by the state the same amount of money and then it’s up to the parties how they use it.
No money should be given for national campaigning. Any money not used should be paid back based on proof of expenditure. That would give a level playing field and enable people to really make up their minds based on equal access. It would show up what odious people UKIP and BNP are and the more anti libertarian people in the Tories and New Labour. STV would also level the playing field.
I’ll duck before the first reply :o)
Also Huhne and Clegg will both be good leaders. I voted for Huhne partly because Clegg is clearly the party’s establishment choice and they chose Ming :o( Also because Huhne is clearly better on environment, social justice and europe….my three “hot buttons”.
Re 297 Big tall Tim, “The point is that it is wrong in a so called democracy that one amn can spend his own millions changing the results.”
He donates less than the top 3 labour donors, and less than the LD’s largest ever donor.
Could I suggest you complain about them first?
60 Haven’t yet voted, but now intend to vote Huhne. I never thought about voting Clegg, but I had considered non-voting or a spoilt / write-in ballot.
298 I didn’t say those weren’t wrong.
I’m just saying what Ashcroft is doing is wrong as well.
299 Vote is the first thing - even a spoilt ballot. Our opponents will make hay with a low turnout. My wife didn’t accept that argument as she abstained as she doesn’t like either of them
Glad you’re voting for Chris.
Re 300, Big Tall Tim, “298 I didn’t say those weren’t wrong.
I’m just saying what Ashcroft is doing is wrong as well. ”
Not illegal though is it?