Will the unions heed Polly’s “sack Brown” call?
January 2nd, 2010
Could Labour’s paymasters wield the knife?
This is the conclusion of Polly Toynbee’s first Guardian column of 2010.
“…Until now the unions have been Brown’s praetorians, whipped in by Charlie Whelan. But it’s time union leaders asked themselves if it’s in their members’ interests to see Labour crash out under Brown. The cabinet is frozen by individual self-interest – shame on all of them. They want Brown gone, but none dares wield the knife without the others. Future contenders be warned: those who fail their party now may face stern questions about their leadership qualities in any future contest. The country doesn’t much like the Conservatives, but voters will throw Gordon Brown out – unless Labour does first…“
This reminds me of some astute comments by the MORI founder, Sir Bob Worcester, during the leadership speculation of July 2008.
He said then in a Radio 4 interview that it wasn’t the men in grey suits “that Brown has to look out for, it’s the men in black suits, from the trade unions, as they are the paymasters now..The party is skint, and if they say he goes, he goes.”
Having lost a packet on Brown going during 2009 I’m loathe to recommend further bets on the subject - but Polly’s suggestion might just resonate.
Even taking account of a couple of recent big donations Labour financial position is still reported to be precarious and if the heads of the half dozen major unions threatened to pull the plug then Brown would have no real alternative.
Maybe I’m being a sucker again but I’ve just put a three figure sum on one of Bet365’s UK 2010 specials. The firm has 8/1 that Gordon Brown will “quit as Prime Minister before the next General Election”.
I got on at 10/1 and even the reduced price seems to be the best Brown going early bet about.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
First?
No, Labour are stuck with Brown.
Do these people who think another PM can just stroll in a few months before an election think that folk will just sit back and let the current house of commons (Rotten den of theives) install another useless PM? No chance! I would laugh my head off if the queen just dissolved parliament and the election was then sprung on Labour in the middle of a leadership nervousbreakdown of the Labour party. What would be the point of another PM if he is a current member of the cabinet? They agree through collective responsibility on all the policies and i cannot see charles clarke having any more appeal than gordon brown in an election.
It is laughable and Brown missed his chance to mitigate Labour defeat by not going in December 2009. Now VAT has gone up and events take an increasingly large driving force on the news agenda Brown has set Labour up for a complete rout!
I firmly believe that Mandelson & Brown had a pact on the election date being in Q4 of 2009 and Brown bottled it.
Its funny how the Brown media promtion stopped in all the papers near the last possible date for the election being called. Obviously they would have switiched to the election gride. It has just started up again, Labour placing stories each day of gordon doing this, Gordon Brown doing that - Scratching his bottom and making mouth expressions like a gorrilia!
Second Post of the Second Thread in the Second Day of the Second Decade
Blurgh Martin
If anyone wants to get rid of him they’ve got 3 weeks. Friday 22 January is the cut-off point.
The reason is that it is inconceivable that Labour could present a Budget (approx 3 weeks before the GE would be called) without a permanent leader in place.
Whatever people say about accelerating the process, including time for nominations at the start and a Special Conference at the end the Leadership election is going to take 5 weeks minimum.
Now guess what Brown has just done? Surprise surprise he’s holding a big summit at the end of January which blocks off the chance of a challenge before then.
Looking back at the last few months he’s been very clever - he spaces out “blocking events” eg Glasgow by-election, Queens Speech, PBR, Copenhagen because he knows nobody can challenge him in the few weeks before a blocking event. So if there is never more than a 4 to 5 week gap he can never be challenged. Now he’s done it again with this summit he’s just called.
He won’t go and nobody in the Labour Party will be able to make him go.
If the unions push him out, then the unions will be behind his replacement. I can’t see that doing Labour many electoral favours.
5. Mike L January 2nd, 2010 at 2:11 am
Yes, he looks to me as though he is after perhaps surpassing Neville Chamberlain.
Gordon Browns succesor will be able to quote churchillian rhetoric on Gordon Brown. “Never before in the field of British Government have so many future generation been forced into writing such a Big I O U!”
7. Should read: “Never before in the field of British Government have so many future generations been forced into writing such a Big I O U!”
I think we can also now rule out the possibility of him voluntarily stepping down.
If he was going to do this he would surely have made an announcement over the holiday period. He’s now given his New Year message and it would be totally farcical to then suddenly step down only 2 or 3 weeks later.
Ditto his interview with Marr on Sunday. Again it would be comical to give a business as usual message one day and step down shortly afterwards.
It would also be much easier to give the health grounds excuse during a holiday period - ie to say he had a check-up over the holiday and had been advised to step down.
6 – Personally I do not see Brown going before the GE, as for the unions, despite their financial backing of the Labour party and college? Vote, I still do not see them calling the shots with regards to who becomes leader. For twelve years the Unions have been played for fools, can’t see it changing now quite honestly.
9. Mike L January 2nd, 2010 at 2:21 am
Knowing Brown when he does announce his resignation whether it is before or after the GE. Brown will say in the same sentence that he is “Getting on with the job!”
10. SimonStClare January 2nd, 2010 at 2:21 am
In the last poll that was on here I am sure that Brown was 3% less unpopular than his party? That is Browns leadership bonus to the Labour party!
There paradox is Brown will drag them down but Brown going now will damage them even more! 
Labour cannot win!
If labour was sub 25 in the polls possibly this would be happening, but sitting at 30 and with a chance to improve they will not rock the boat despite major undercurrents clearly wanting his removal to avoid a potential rout.
That is one of the most honest and hard hitting articles penned by Polly on the subject of getting rid of Brown. I think its particularly interesting that she named and shamed Ed Balls with Brown on their record of economic management. But that last paragraph highlighted by Mike is the most damaging, she is openly bringing Charlie Whelan and his position within Unite and support for Brown and Balls into the equation. Will she be gunning for Brown/Balls and Whelan all the way to the GE?
And as for her attack on the rest of the Cabinet.
“The cabinet is frozen by individual self-interest – shame on all of them. They want Brown gone, but none dares wield the knife without the others. Future contenders be warned: those who fail their party now may face stern questions about their leadership qualities in any future contest.”
Sums up just what a precarious position the Labour party is in before and after the next GE. We all know that Gordon lacks political courage and leadership skills, but after the last two years we now know that the Cabinet are even bigger political cowards with even less combined leadership qualities too. I am really struggling to understand how removing Brown at this late stage will help the party’s electoral prospects because of the genuinely poor calibre of any of the possible successors in such a scenario?
I still think it more likely that Brown will go of his own accord rather than being finally pushed by his colleagues, they have left it far too late. And that is going to be akin to the Labour party being left without a canoe, never mind the paddles.
5.MikeL, excellent point!! You don’t post often enough these days.
Surely getting rid of Brown now will cause more damage than it’s worth for Labour?
And if they do, will it have to be a second coronation in a row?
Or are we going to have hustings and postal votes for a Labour leadership contest less than 15 weeks before the start of an election campaign?
Polly is now gunning for Ed Balls and Charlie Whelan, these two are the main foundation of Brown’s premiership now. And the fact she has turned on the Unions to try and remove Brown shows she has totally given up on anyone in the current Cabinet doing the job. She knew what she was doing when she penned this particular column, she really wants to make some political waves with this one.
9.MikeL, Brown is surrounded by yes men who won’t tell him the truth, and he is still clinging to the notion that he can beat Cameron and Osborne. Like other feuds with colleagues in his own party, he has made it very personal now and will still be trying to claw back some momentum with these up coming set pieces. The danger point now is the weeks just before the GE, can he handle defeat and congratulate Cameron and Osborne? If he can he might stay, if he can’t do that he will go.
16. Andy JS January 2nd, 2010 at 2:34 am
Thats just it - An utter joke the whole thing.
To be honest I thought Labour missed the last chance to get shot of Brown last summer.
Sheerman bottled the PLP challange or discovered he had insufficient backers.
It is interesting that Sheerman and Clarke are in seats which are on the margins of possible defeats. (Before the Lib Dems go ape shit about Norwich South I am thinking of what happened in 1997 where Lib Dem gains tended to be on lower swings than Labour gains.) Mind you Norwich south could i suppose go to the tories as some seats went to a previously third placed Labour party in 1997. That is academic, what i am saying is these grey area seats seem to be the ones who are wanting Brown out. The ones who will have thought that they have had it already probably dont give a flying shit now!
Union leaders: Gordon, we’re not giving your party any more money unless you resign.
Gordon Brown: Bummer. I’m staying. Have a nice decade.
Union leaders: ???
Brown resigns of his own accord or not at all. Probably the latter.
Andy JS @16, I think if they did a leader switch it would be another coronation - or rather, a cabinet / NEC pick. They’re not going to want a couple of months with no effective leader while they organize and election.
Thinking about it that way, you could turn Mike L’s point @5 on its head: If there was a cunning and devious plan to switch out the leader and hope to win an election off the new leader’s bounce, they need to hold off long enough that everyone will agree that they clearly can’t hold a regular leadership election, and the membership will assent to a cabinet / NEC stitch-up.
I think that we sometimes forget what a ditherer Brown is, he usually waits until the very last moment before being finally forced to make a decision one way or the other. Although he usually tends to be equally predictable when he finally does by going for the least best option, that is why even days before that bottled GE when everyone was more or less geared for it to happen I just felt he wouldn’t have the courage. The longer he holds off calling the GE, the more chance he might go before it.
18. ChristinaD - if it goes beyond Friday 22 January then I think it will have to be a Coronation. And that is surely a collosal risk - the electorate could react very adversely to a second unelected leader.
The Budget becomes absolutely key - it 100% has to take place between 10 and 20 March and 100% Labour has to have a permanent leader at the time (and realistically at least 10 days beforehand).
21. Yes but that then means another unelected leader. Everyone knows it was disastrous not having a leadership election last time. Doing the same again will look absolutely terrible - especially as there is no standout candidate.
Been away since mid-afternoon, and reading through what I’ve missed I’m intrigued to spot a poster I’ve never previously encountered called “Aguecheek” referring to me as a “chauvanistic tosser”. (This was on the basis of a fairly uncontroversial comment I made about how the northeast of England is more similar to Scotland than the south is.) Naturally as a semi-veteran of the site, such abuse from the Extended Herd is pretty much water off a duck’s back, but it is worthy of note for one simple reason - yesterday, when another unfamiliar poster referred to ChristinaD as a “liar”, it provoked a spontaneous outpouring of moral outrage not seen since the bombing of Pearl Harbour.
But in this case, not a murmur. Does that indicate that “chauvanistic tosser” is somehow a less offensive term than “liar”? No, I’m thinking it perhaps indicates something else. Just a point worthy of note, I feel.
Also, can’t help but revel in the irony of Ms Plato’s suggestion that I can always feel free to “skip over her posts” if I’m not so keen on the contributions of the ‘non-Tory’ AGW-conspriracy obsessive brigade on this site. Now, here’s the thing - my comment was a direct response to Ms Plato’s own delightful monologue about how she wants the Nats to be “squashed” simply because the SNP posters on this site have supposedly been so beastly. But has it never occurred to Ms Plato that it would be so much simpler (and expend a lot less emotional energy) to forego all these schoolgirl squashing fantasies and instead employ her own ’skip over’ advice - or is there something about SNP posters that makes them, uniquely, un-skip-overable? After all, in spite of all her previous assurances going back months that she’s placed us all on her ‘hmph list’, she does inexplicably always seem to notice what we have to say.
Oh, and as for the stuff about where I got my psychology degree, that brought back some happy memories of where I first encountered the young Ms Plato - she was just finishing up her PhD in Advanced Climate Science.
23 - “Labour has to have a permanent leader at the time”
Mike L, would H Harman not automatically become leader by default, thus constituting a ‘permanent leader..?
Been away since mid-afternoon, and reading through what I’ve missed I’m intrigued to spot a poster I’ve never previously encountered called “Aguecheek” referring to me as a “chauvanistic t*sser”. (This was on the basis of a fairly uncontroversial comment I made about how the northeast of England is more similar to Scotland than the south is.) Naturally as a semi-veteran of the site, such abuse from the Extended Herd is pretty much water off a duck’s back, but it is worthy of note for one simple reason - yesterday, when another unfamiliar poster referred to ChristinaD as a “liar”, it provoked a spontaneous outpouring of moral outrage not seen since the bombing of Pearl Harbour.
But in this case, not a murmur. Does that indicate that “chauvanistic t*sser” is somehow a less offensive term than “liar”? No, I’m thinking it perhaps indicates something else. Just a point worthy of note, I feel.
Also, can’t help but revel in the irony of Ms Plato’s suggestion that I can always feel free to “skip over her posts” if I’m not so keen on the contributions of the ‘non-Tory’ AGW-conspriracy obsessive brigade on this site. Now, here’s the thing - my comment was a direct response to Ms Plato’s own delightful monologue about how she wants the Nats to be “squashed” simply because the SNP posters on this site have supposedly been so beastly. But has it never occurred to Ms Plato that it would be so much simpler (and expend a lot less emotional energy) to forego all these schoolgirl squashing fantasies and instead employ her own ’skip over’ advice - or is there something about SNP posters that makes them, uniquely, un-skip-overable? After all, in spite of all her previous assurances going back months that she’s placed us all on her ‘hmph list’, she does inexplicably always seem to notice what we have to say.
Oh, and as for the stuff about where I got my psychology degree, that brought back some happy memories of where I first encountered the young Ms Plato - she was just finishing up her PhD in Advanced Climate Science.
23.MikeL, I have always been convinced it would have to be a coranation via the Cabinet before a GE even if Brown had gone or been ousted earlier. Brown got that previous coranation because neither the PLP or the Labour party had the courage or stomach to have a proper debate in a leadership contest back in 2007. Yes Brown would have been a formidable enemy to take on with is previous form, but they were also scared to finally open up and properly scrutinise the Blairite/Brownite divide even then. And they will be even less keen before right before a GE.
I had money on Brown going in 2009 one way or another, and I also fancied Straw taking on an interim leadership role with Darling the outside chance. I very much so Ed Milliband as a strong contender, but only after a GE and through a leadership contest. Polly names Balls and Whelan as key players in the Brownite camp in that article, and Mandelson seems to have faded out of the picture recently. I have an awful feeling that the Balls/Cooper team with Whelan also see more chance of Balls managing to emulate his boss by becoming PM in a coranation at the very last minute before a GE because no one else will come forward from the Cabinet at that late stage.
This has got to be one of the best articles ever written by Polly Toynbee. She is on form.
Labour are like a ‘Taliban terrorist cell’ bent on a suicide pact to blow themselves up and destroy the UK economy along with them, so that no future UK government is worth leading.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
We are a global laughing stock right now thanks to Labour. We are the sick economy of the developed world. We have had the lowest decade of economic growth since the 1940’s. Manufacturing contracted year-on-year by nearly -2% each year. Everyone that ever voted Labour must be ruing the day they ever put that fateful x next to a Labour candidate.
No one believes the government’s overall debt figures, which exclude most new debt (the massive bank bailout debt and PFI debt are ‘off-balance sheet’). Despite this even the official deficit is the worst in the world and getting worse. We are bankrupt and heading for collapse.
Is there anyone in Britain that believes inflation is only 2%? A visit to the shops confirms inflation closer to 6-7% year-on-year - eye-watering when wages are static or falling, VAT has gone up, petrol taxes are rocketing, other taxes are rising, interest rates are set to rise.
Here the economic crisis is of epic proportions and we are the worst placed in the developed world to face it.
We are in a surreal prelude to the climax. When senior Labour government ministers say it is ‘normal’ to default on our debt obligations and seek an emergency IMF loan, we know the ultimate humiliation is coming.
A bout of deliberate and intentional asset-inflation is about to cause the most spectacular bust and collapse we have ever experienced. Entire states can go bankrupt and default. The first has already occurred. We will follow.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-dark-side-of-dubai-1664368.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AP1L120091126
26.Sorry, but can you just give it a rest for one thread? Sorry, but to try and compare a comment like that with the post directed at me is completely OTT. If you had been attacked in the manner that I was by that poster on here you would have been in meltdown, so please get it into perspective. You were less than fulsome in your own outrage at that post directed at me, so allow others the same privilege.
I doubt anyone else even remembers that comment directed at you, but why you have to drag these little slights through several threads is beyond me. Forget about it and move on.
And if you continue to keep baiting Plato at every opportunity, don’t be bloody surprised when she snaps back at you.
29. “Sorry, but can you just give it a rest for one thread?…Forget about it and move on. “
Words fail me. Coming you from Christina, I believe that is what is known as rich. Just how much squealing did we hear from you yesterday after GlesgaNat’s post? There are cosmic snails on Saturn who now know all about your indignation. You’re right, what Aguecheek said about me isn’t comparable to what GlesgaNat said about you - it was considerably more offensive.
“And if you continue to keep baiting Plato at every opportunity, don’t be bloody surprised when she snaps back at you.”
Not for the first (or I fear, the last) time, I’ll have to respectfully point out that you need to urgently adjust your glasses - the baiting has been in the opposite direction for months. I actually put up with a hell of a lot of needling from her before I ever responded to her.
FPT. Martin, we shall just have to wait and see, no?
Meanwhile, I suggest you Tories start getting some money on quickly, if you really think that Cameron is going to do all that well….
You won´t of course….
http://middleeast.about.com/b/2009/11/27/is-bubble-bursting-dubai-bankrupt.htm
That article was from the end of November, Will.
A lot has happened since then.
Please try not to be such a doom-monger….
In a group of people i think you can guess best what will happen by trying to identify who the pro-active ones are, as most people just womble along and it’s the handful of pro-actives that drag everyone else with them.
In this case i think you’re looking at McDoom, Herman, Campbell and Manglebum*, and that’s the oddness of this situation - two of the competing pro-actives aren’t primary actors, they’re both backstage bods who prefer to work through pawns they move on the board in their place.
That’s what gives McDoom and the goblins their big advantage imo. The various cabinet contenders aren’t the real competition, Campbell and Manglebum are/is.
So in terms of the proactives offering options to the union money then the choices on offer might be:
a) something from Manglebum (i imagine they’re fed up with him though)
b) something from McDoom and the goblins
c) something from just the goblins
d) something from Campbell
a) and d) seem unlikely to me so my guess is either b) or c) with Campbell joining sides with the goblins.
So if McDoom’s dosage is in the sweet spot at the mo and he goes all out for a purge and a big “New Labour was all Manglebum and Blair’s fault and we’re going back to our roots” then i’d imagine the unions would be up for that. Alternatively the same thing minus McDoom - depending on the current state of play vis a vis dosage.
It wouldn’t be about winning it would be about retaining enough of a core which, combined with the poisoned chalice they leave behind, means they might get to take advantage of an early Cameroon stumble.
Maybe
* I think Byrne is a proactive too but not out of short trousers yet.
34 (cont) meant to add it’s McDoom getting rid of rival proactives like Big Ears earlier on that’s left them in this state.
30.Look, I don’t know about you, but I was embarrassed when Mike felt the need to mention the nocturnal Scottish spats on here. And I for one stick my hand up and plead guilty to contributing to them on occasion, and usually with you a very willing sparring partner. How about just looking at a new thread as a new beginning instead of dragging old arguments through them?
“when another unfamiliar poster referred to ChristinaD as a “liar”, it provoked a spontaneous outpouring of moral outrage not seen since the bombing of Pearl Harbour.”
That was partly down to GlenOrGlendaNat sounding a bit like a doppelganger. Personally i don’t care if people want to slag each other (although it’s boring) but using fake names for slagging is naff.
33.
What has happened in the 1 month since the end of November?
An IMF style emergency loan from Abu Dhabi?!!
Loans are being used to repay loans. The classic cause of all bubbles. It doesn’t alter collapse. Nothing has changed. Dubai is still bankrupt.
33. And curious, I would suggest you take a step into the real world.
Denial doesn’t achieve anything. The facts speak for themselves.
36. “Look, I don’t know about you, but I was embarrassed when Mike felt the need to mention the nocturnal Scottish spats on here.”
As Mrs Thatcher might have said to a Soviet PM, you’re being far too modest there, Christina. No-one who has looked on in reluctant awe as you parade your fearsome array of elaborate anecdotes through PB.com Square could doubt that you have a much higher embarrassment threshold than you give yourself credit for.
“How about just looking at a new thread as a new beginning instead of dragging old arguments through them?”
Christina, I’m reluctant to toy with the word ‘hypocrisy’ here, but it really does need to be observed that your prolonged indignation about GlegaNat’s rather brief “in the style of SeanT” jibe occurred - in its entirety - on the thread after the offending post.
I rest my case, m’lud.
MrJones, you might be saying something interesting in your posts @34 and @35, but I’m having a hard time figuring it out because you’ve substituted the names of the people involved for surreal, barely-decipherable nicknames. Any chance you could repost it with the normal names for the benefit of people in countries with stricter drug laws?
PS. On topic, I think the suggestion of Brown being deposed by goblins is only slightly less unlikely than him being deposed by trade union leaders.
41. No. It’s too depressing to think about unless i dilute the horror.
OK Will. I thought Abu Dhabi had come to the rescue….
Was I wrong?
37. “That was partly down to GlenOrGlendaNat sounding a bit like a doppelganger. Personally i don’t care if people want to slag each other (although it’s boring) but using fake names for slagging is naff.”
That’s a bit weak, isn’t it? If an SNP regular like Stuart or MalcolmG had called Christina a liar (much less a ‘tosser’ - or female equivalent) do you seriously suppose the outrage would have been any the less?
For what it’s worth, by the way, I have a sneaking suspicion I know who GlesgaNat is (from the writing style and also the content of what he said), and if I’m right he actually isn’t a current poster on this site using a different name. I won’t say anymore in case I’m wrong, but a bell rang in my head straight away yesterday.
37. “That was partly down to GlenOrGlendaNat sounding a bit like a doppelganger. Personally i don’t care if people want to slag each other (although it’s boring) but using fake names for slagging is naff.”
That’s a bit weak, isn’t it? If an SNP regular like Stuart or MalcolmG had called Christina a liar (much less a ‘t*sser’ - or female equivalent) do you seriously suppose the outrage would have been any the less?
For what it’s worth, by the way, I have a sneaking suspicion I know who GlesgaNat is (from the writing style and also the content of what he said), and if I’m right he actually isn’t a current poster on this site using a different name. I won’t say anymore in case I’m wrong, but a bell rang in my head straight away yesterday.
43. Curious you are just repeating part of what I said in post 38, and ignoring the rest.
Have you been drinking?!!
Of course, Will.
In times of doom and despair, what else can one do?
43. CNBC. Last week. The crisis gets worse.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1368289784
41.”No-one who has looked on in reluctant awe as you parade your fearsome array of elaborate anecdotes through PB.com Square could doubt that you have a much higher embarrassment threshold than you give yourself credit for.”
Why the hell some of my posts on this site should warrant such heat and personal abuse from you, Stuart Dickson, Glesganat and Tim is bordering on the bizarre to be quite honest.
50 In terms of playing interweb personality issue battleships two things that stick out about you are:
a) female
b) mention kids a lot (relatively speaking)
Both together those spell “mommie”.
Think Norman Bates.
50. “Why the hell some of my posts on this site should warrant such heat and personal abuse from you, Stuart Dickson, Glesganat and Tim is bordering on the bizarre to be quite honest.”
At which point I’ll have to do a Plato and require you to provide a link to this personal abuse that I’ve supposedly been directing at you. Hint - robust comments I make in direct response to personal comments you’ve made about me do not count.
But I’m particularly baffled as to why Stuart’s on that list, given that he’s shown the patience of a saint with you, certainly more than I’ve done. All that I’ve ever noticed him saying about you is that you’re “chippy”. I think he’d get away rather easily on a “fair comment” defence if you took him to court on that basis, but in any case accusing other posters of being ‘chippy’ is a long-established feature of your own debating repertoire on this site - indeed, it’s one of your particular favourites. So I think I can safely say you haven’t got a leg to stand on when it comes to your indignation towards Stuart.
Actually, I think it’s what he said about you over at Jeff’s blog that really got under your skin. Caution, folks - I’ve long suspected Christina may be the same person as that notorious Tory poster “Fitalass” from SNP Tactical Voting.
52 – JK, this mid-night routine of yours is becoming embarrassing.
47. According to senior economists, we are facing epic debt default, through massive currency devaluation (in simple language inflation).
There is no way of repaying the current levels of debt. The debt ratios are so high that it is impossible for governments to repay. The debt interest levels are unsustainable. As default is anticipated so these rates rise - which we are seeing across the world.
The effect of massive currency devaluation is to wipe out the value of all nominal savings held in the form of nominal assets such as pensions, trusts held in the form of bonds - private and public, and all bank savings which pay a nominal (non-indexed) return. In effect it is epic debt default, achieved through inflation rather than simple refusal to repay.
60% of all pension money is held in nominal form. So 60% of all pension assets will be destroyed as a result. ‘Real’ money cannot be created through the printing press. It can only be transferred.
Interestingly the Pension Fund of the Bank of England switched COMPLETELY into index-linked (devaluation protected) assets in 2007. Did they see what was coming that early? Is there a deliberate policy to default through inflation?
The evidence is quite strong that there was.
Why else would the B of E print £200 billion of new currency this year?
Counterfeiting is one of the most serious crimes punishable under law, as it is an act of theft against everyone that holds the currency in nominal form.
Yet the B of E is guilty of exactly this on an epic scale. The effect is exactly the same. The B of E is hiding the truth from the public. They say it will cause a panic, but the panic is wholly of their own making. Many people face ruin as a result of this policy. Some still don’t know what is coming.
So if you are holding any money in bank savings or nominal form such as nominal treasury backed pensions you are strongly advised to withdraw it. The holders of the debt, i.e. savers, will lose everything.
Most savings are held in nominal form because they are paid a return of nominal interest only, or they are invested in government ‘treasuries’ which pay only a nominal return. These are the worst forms of investment under inflation. All savings held in treasuries will be lost.
Also if the debt is wiped out through currency devaluation nominal assets become worthless - so all bonds which pay nominal returns become worthless.
This has actually happened before.
E.g. in Germany during the 1919-1923 inflationary crisis.
In Hungary in 1946.
In France under De Gaul.
In Zimbabwe 2008.
Russia 1992.
In the USA under every ‘central bank’. They all caused inflation, resulting in there abolition on numerous occasions to bring the inflation to an end. The central banks always began printing money to fund the government. The current central bank - the Federal Reserve was re-created in 1919. It is the cause of US inflation running at 98% since it’s creation! Only the abolition of the Federal Reserve will bring US inflation/devaluation to an end. This is now the majority view in the US.
Under devaluation all nominal savings are wiped out, and everyone holding nominal assets loses everything.
You heard it first here.
51. “In terms of playing interweb personality issue battleships two things that stick out about you are:
a) female
b) mention kids a lot (relatively speaking)”
Personally, I think you’ve hit on precisely the reasons why Christina (and to some extent one or two others) get away with absolute murder on this site. Add in a bullet-point c) that she’s a dyed-in-the-wool Tory and you’ve pretty much covered it. If Tim or Gabble came out with a similar array of bluster, home-brewed anecdotes and highly dubious factual claims as Christina, they would - let me put this politely - come under considerably more hostile and persistent scrutiny than she does.
I noticed Peter the Punter (I think it was) going out of his way to congratulate Plato and ChristinaD on their performance in the poll a few days ago. Evidently male gallantry is alive and well on this site and I wouldn’t criticise him or anyone else for that (it’s probably a reflection of how - unfortunately - few female posters we have), but it does have its considerable downsides.
53. “JK, this mid-night routine of yours is becoming embarrassing.”
Simon, you’ve nailed your colours firmly to the mast in exchanges I’ve been involved in with other posters before, so please don’t insult my or anyone else’s intelligence by pretending you’re observing all this from some Olympian height and have in some objective way concluded that my posts are tiresome where Christina’s (for instance) are not. OK, you’re in Christina’s and Plato’s gang - I get the message. Further snide one-line interjections are not required. If you dislike the content (or timing) of my posts so much, the Plato ’skip over’ option is naturally open to you, and I look forward to you using it in future.
56 – “you’ve nailed your colours firmly to the mast”
Oh grow up
57. Further friendly hint, Simon - the smiley does not render these pointless interjections with any greater meaning. I got the message of where you’re coming from yesterday, I get the message now. If you’ve actually got something meaningful to say to me in more than three syllables, I’m happy to listen. But I suspect you don’t.
54 Will L
Edmund Conway suggested that HMG deliberately inflating the debt away was unlikely, because it wouldn’t work. The debt is index linked.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100002782/a-dose-of-double-digit-inflation-might-be-wishful-thinking/
59 - Its private sector debt which will be inflated away. The problem isnt the Govt debt but the private sector, especially the banks. They hold assets which are currently valued way below what they are on the books for, by inflating the assets through QE the BoE is “restoring” the banks.
Then you create general inflation to try and get general prices up to restore the ratio between assets and the economy and the banks are just fine.
Savers and debt holders are screwed over but house owners win big time and the next generation of house buyers will see much much higher interest rates thus find it even harder to buy a house. The whole policy is heading for stagflation on a massive scale.
Bang on topic: You picked a plum there, OGH. 10-1 for Brown to depart was a tremendous *trading* price and 8-1 is not too shabby either.
Here’s why. Since Thursday but mainly on Friday, I was fortunate enogh to be able to Back Cameron for next PM at 1.34 and even more fortunate to Back the Cameron/Brown combo for Party Leaders next GE at a whopping 1.31.
If we could share the bets we would both be laughing. I am now all green on this issue but still massively holding shares (that I don’t want) in a defenestration.
On the Scottish issue….The irony is that to my eyes, most of those involved in the late-night line up are decent posters- and certainly the main players.
My attitude is that it is perfectly ok for them to be slagging each other off in the wee small hours at the bottom of an almost dead thread but NOT to disrupt the new thread and certainly NOT when it is a Betting topic.
Having a sitting Prime Minister deposed by the unions would look like a return to the worst days of Old Labour, which is not going to win votes.
The major unions probably do want Brown gone, but they don’t want to be seen as Labour’s puppetmasters. They’ll wait until after the election when, if Cameron has an overall majority, the wider public won’t care what;s happening inside the Labour party.
Off topic: Another issue which has hotted up of late is Brighton Pavilion.
It looks as though the Sharp Minds have finally cottoned on to the fact that it is just a two and a half horse race.
Labour are now a 5.1 shot at BP and the Greens are firm favourite in a flabby market. The estimable Shadsy goes 8-11 NO and 1-1 YES for the Greens to win ANY Seat.
60 IJ
Cameron has spoken against that approach:
“So we have three choices.
Option one: we can just default on the debt. Not pay it. Other countries have done that in the past. But I don’t think anyone in this country wants to go down that road.
Option two: we could encourage inflation, which would wipe out the value of the debt, making it easier to pay off. But that’s not just an economic disaster – it’s a social disaster too. It doesn’t just wipe out debts, it wipes out people’s hard-earned savings.
So we have the third option - for me the only option. We must pay down this deficit. The longer we leave it, the worse it will be for all of us.”
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/10/David_Cameron_Putting_Britain_back_on_her_feet.aspx
All Cameron’s and Osborne’s speeches seem to stress low interest rates as being key to our economic recovery. I don’t see how that’s compatible with high-inflation.
The anticipated spending cuts, and tax rises of the next (responsible) British government, must surely be deflationary in effect?
Edmund, u’ve been on here posting in style a long time, and giving advices during the presidential elections that proved to be prescient and thus lucrative. Forgive my curiosity: what r u doing in tokyo? Do u enjoy japan? I’ll go in April to help a friend organise a conference about junk dna.
61. URW, I’m terribly sorry if you think I’ve disrupted a new thread, but if going off-topic by post 25 is considered to be hi-jacking a thread, that’s something 90% of regular posters have been guilty of, almost certainly including yourself.
My main point before Christina came back at me was to draw attention to the myopia that exists here, when a supposedly highly offensive post directed against one of the site’s Tory Treasures attracts such extraordinary and prolonged holier-than-thou criticism (indeed, even recommendations of banning the poster concerned) but other equally offensive remarks are treated as routine banter, barely even warranting the batting of an eyelid. But I’m clearly whistling in the wind in pointing this stuff out.
Ezio (formerly of this parish) strongly suggested to me a few weeks ago that this site had recently become just so belligerently right-wing and intolerant of alternative viewpoints that all the few remaining left-of-centre posters were actually achieving was to give the site a thin veneer of credibility as still being the ‘broad church’ it once was. I was inclined to agree with him at the time, but unfortunately posting here is so addictive that I found myself drifting back. But as it’s the New Year, perhaps I can stick to the (belated) resolution this time.
Maybe Mike and Morus are right that the now overwhelming Tory bias here will be reversed after the election, although personally I have my doubts. I could say this site is, to coin a phrase, a ‘cold house for nationalists’, but in truth the real problem is that it’s become a cold house for the Left - of all types.
Doubtless my exchange with Christina early in the thread may yet provoke a few further provocative (and predictably one-sided) comments down-thread, but I’ll try to resist the temptation to come back to rebut them this time. All things being equal, I should however be back on the day after polling day to settle my ‘Tory majority’ bet with SeanT whichever way it goes. Until then, I can be found on my own blog - best wishes to all, and a Happy New Year.
In particular, I wish Nick Palmer all the best - I don’t share his political affiliation, but I think he deserves a medal for what he voluntarily puts himself through here!
66. Oh dear, I seem to have signed off with a complete mess - only the word ’so’ was supposed to be in bold. Ah well, can’t be helped!
There is not the faintest single chance of Labour ditching Brown before the GE. You’re flushing away your money Mike … once again.
Polly has become a Cameron-luvvie and this is just mischief making of the worst order. The GE battle begins.
Could our Scottish friends adopt the approach of remembering the compliments and forgetting the insults? Or limit themselves to, say, no more than 15 posts on the same subject? The person who gets the last word isn’t by definition the most convincing. If you have nothing new to say, don’t waste our eyeball time repeating yourselves.
ON TOPIC, Gordon Brown won’t go now. It’s astonishing that Polly Toynbee thinks it’s worth one last attempt to stir things up. It tells you everything you need to know about what she thinks of Labour’s chances. William Hill had 4/7 on Gordon Brown leading Labour into the election, which was a fantastic bet - gone now though.
James Kelly’s post 52 explains a lot that’s been going on over thelast few months.
69. “James Kelly’s post 52 explains a lot that’s been going on over the last few months.”
OK, absolute final point for the sake of clarification - no it doesn’t. Stuart and Christina have both posted at Jeff’s blog (Christina under the name ‘Fitalass’), and Stuart clearly didn’t realise that Christina was being open about her identity, and superfluously ‘outed’ her. That’s all.
James Kelly, some of the most respected posters on here are SNP posters. Pretty much by definition on a UK wide site, the SNP posters will always be in a minority.
With my own idiosyncratic views, I’m usually in a minority of one, and I always enjoy that experience. I appreciate that you and I agree about next to nothing politically, but rather than retreating to an SNP ghetto, shouldn’t you be evangelising? Remember, a statistically far higher than average number of apostles got stoned.
69, yes it does. Keep your feuds where they originated; don’t bring them here.
“Remember, a statistically far higher than average number of apostles got stoned.”
Magic mushrooms ? Far out,man !
re 61. URW. Your post has got me thinking about my own positions on Brown going early. Yes you are right and I should do some trading.
I’m nicely in the green on the Betfair party leaders market but nobody can get a look in there URW - you are so damned good. Certainly I’d be happy to put up a fair bit on Brown/Cameron at the current 1.29 if you wanted to lay off some of your positions.
Drop me an email if you want to arrange something.
72. LS, I can only suggest you re-read my post 70 - it was Stuart’s and Fitalass’s feud - I was never involved. Anyway, most of the feuds on this site have their origins far, far away, in case you haven’t noticed…
No need for an email, Mike. Just to clarify, I am a Backer of Cameron/Brown at 1.29 and have just added £153 at that price.
I am also a Backer of Cameron Next PM, but here I ask for 1.38 which is off the money.
I much prefer to do my business on Betfair as it is much neater and I hate writing cheques !
75. James Kelly.
You seem to have missed the point: I don’t care about the details.
77. You seem terribly exercised about it for a man who claims not to care. Anyway, discipline! I will not retort again, I will be strong!
Toynbee finally realises her beloved Party is rotten to the core.time for the apologies,madam.
The neighbours have been very noisy during the night.
78. Only because you’ve forced it down my throat.
I fear my William Hill account may be going the same way as my Victor Chandler account. I was allowed the princely sum of £5 on whether Fabio Capello would be knighted (brilliant spot, Peter from Putney). This is the third time in four days that William Hill have restricted a bet of mine.
81. In that case, my apologies. If I’d known your throat was in front of me I would certainly have taken prompt evasive action for both our sakes. Oh, God, maybe if I go for a morning walk or something…
Interesting betting fact: Of all the monies wagered on Conservative Seats, 45.7% has been bet on CON 400+ Seats, in a trading range of 3.50 to 6.0.
73 - What else do you think caused the Revelations of St John?
Morning all,
To answer Mikes question. Nope the unions will not wield the knife. Basically, time ran out on ousting Brown in the summer. If they aren’t going to throw him out when Labour poll sub 20% in national election then they are never going to.
My own assumption is that Brown knows where sufficient bodies are buried so that no one seriously would attempt to overthrow him.
As for the Dead Parrot’s article I’ll give her her due. She has been one of the more realistic analysts of Labour’s position. It’s just a pity that she suffers from hysterical delusions and paranoia when it comes to the other parties positions.
82. antifrank - URW BOOKMAKERS “Prompt payment,service and civility ” will never ban or restrict you !
We were discussing a possible march on Wooton Bassett[sp] yesterday, and the cartoons were raised. Then a Muslim lunatic tried killing the cartoonist. How charming. Happily the nutcase got shot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8437433.stm
84. URW - Any thoughts on why that might have happened then?
87 - Yes, my concern there is that the bookie is too good!
I was interested, incidentally, to see that Richard Nabavi is up with every bookie but Ladbrokes. I also find it harder to take money off Ladbrokes than other bookies. Shadsy’s win as pundit of 2009 is no surprise.
Am with Will L on the gloom ahead. Hard to see how Cameron and Osborne can communicate this without repelling people.
Ref Polly’s concern for the future of the unions, this is an interesting point. It was always going to be the paymaster that called the tune, and with Charlie Whelan in place, GB was fairly safe. However, the public sector (= unions) knows it is looking at very tough times very soon. Members will not be impressed with having paid for “5 more years of Brown”.
The future funding scenario then is that DC cuts off public sector union funding (more democracy in unions, make the political levy really opt-in) and labour are then totally dependent on Sainsbury. In terms of the ferrets in a sack on policy, that is just going to obliterate all of them.
Polly makes an imprtant point: the Blairites have nothing to offer:
The Blairite remnants rumble on about “public service reform”, as if Labour hadn’t wasted too much time on meaningless ideological institutional change that never engaged voters. They have learned nothing from the destructive plethora of pointless NHS reorganisations, leaving feeble primary care trusts as linchpin commissioners in a muddled market; the same applies to foundation hospitals, academies and other totems, none worth the upheaval. Money and good managers are what make the best councils, schools and hospitals.
So if not Brown, and not a Blairite, then who?
I do understand why English posters are puzzled and upset by the ferocity of some of the exchanges between my fellow Scots.
But the fact is that very strong passions are involved, about the whole future of the Scottish nation. Should it be an independent nation state, or should it remain part of the United Kingdom? There is no viable compromise between the holders of these sincerely held but diametrically opposed views. Civil wars are always the most bitter, whether ideological, political or religious. The Wars of the Roses come to mind, and the Spanish Civil War is an example of ideological struggle between right and left, Catholicism and atheism, with the admixture of Basque and Catalan nationalism just to complicate matters even further. And on the Nationalist side there were divisions between Carlists and Falangist, while on the Republican side the Anarchists and the Communists hated each other almost more than they hated Franco supporters.
If a person believes that his/her position is the patriotic one, then, by definition, opposing views are treachery and treason. Fortunately, the opposing views in Scotland now have not spilled over into violence, and please God they will not. But the passions and the anger are still there.
I used to live in North East England, and the visceral hatred between Newcastle and Sunderland was something to see. I remember someone being badly beaten up in a Newcastle pub for wearing a red and white sweater. I believe that Newcastle was Royalist during the English Civil War, and Sunderland was Parliamentarian. I wonder if the mutual hostility predated or stemmed from that? Or it might just be something about nearby cities - no matter the future of Scotland, I don’t see Edinburgh and Glasgow contemplating each other without mutual incomprehension and suspicion …
In any case, this is very much a UK-wide, and indeed world-wide site. It would be dipolomatic if we Scots could keep our disagreements here on a polite level (as Punter and I did last night - he might not be Scots, but we were discussing Scottish history, which he certainly feels strongly about, as do I). Even if we do it through gritted teath. It is also the personal site of Mike Smithson, and we owe it to him to treat other posters with respect
Philippe Magnan @65: Thanks, kind of you to say so, and congratulations on your Obama approval rating bet last week.
I moved to Japan to do a short-term English teaching job and now have a little educational technology company here. It’s a very nice country to live in, and a surprisingly easy place to run a business. And definitely worth visiting. Drop me an e-mail if you’re free to get a beer or something when you’re over here. edmundintokyo at edochan.com
Politics / technology blog here, if anyone’s interested.
http://edmundintokyo.wordpress.com/
I’m non-committal on whether anything will happen about the leadership this month, as it comes down to a few people in the Cabinet whose intentions I don’t know. It’s too late for a backbench move and the “unions=paymasters” idea is too simplistic: the unions don’t think with one mind, and the outcome will not be decided by central funding anyway (Labour campaigns are heavily decentralised in both funding and organisation - I’ve never had much central help of any kind). I’d think the answer will be clear in a couple of weeks: if nothing hpapens by mid-January, then nothing will happen.
I’m sorry to see James Kelly thinking of dropping off the forum - his perspective of left-wing SNP isn’t that common here and it adds value. I agree the site has a Tory claque who don’t add much with their repetitious “I can’t believe how bad Labour is” chant, but there aren’t many places on the web where even the level of cross-party discussion here is possible. I’ve not followed the spat with ChristinaD closely, but surely you can both survive each others’ scorn?
Incidentally, in the hope of tempting you back, James, can you explain the mystery of your posting hours? You seem to post most at around 3am. Chr…someone might suggest you are a vampire, but there may be a more prosaic explanation?
oldnat, thanks for the interesting post last night. I don’t feel happy with the US system of checks and balances, which tends to block systematic reform on the domestic scene (Presidents can always have wars when they want them as the Constitution is pretty silent on that and Congress will always rally round a war) - as we’re currently seeing with the health bill. The Swiss system is more subtle than it’s given credit for (you need a LOT of signatures to force a referendum, especially if it’s against a Bill passed by Parliament). It helps that the Swiss culture is in general unusually resistant to populist spasms (the minarets might be a counter-example), but most people in Britain pay comparatively little attention to politics. Swiss families will commonly set aside an evening before a group of referendums to go through the material and discuss it - do you see that happening much here? And if it doesn’t, do you want to rely on the electorate to decide on detailed and complex issues, as opposed to a general expression of support for one party or another?
Morning all,
The You Gov poll hasnt helped the “get rid of Brown” plotters. By the time its absolutely clear to Labour MP’s that the Party should have removed him, it will be too late.
jsfl @ 89 - CON 400+ Seats is a glamour option. I myself Backed it with antifrank at 6.0 (5-1) but purely as a trade.
At that time the Tories were riding slightly higher in the polls and people were fighting to Back 400+ at slightly higher than 4.0 (3-1).I have Layed an average of 4.34.
The thinking of the Backers must be that there is an Ave It-like scenario where the Tories win every Seat in the Midlands and South outside the big cities and it’s Taxi for Brown and a minicab for Clegg.
Mike I have thought for the last few years that any bet on Brown going has been burning money, however having been over exposed on the seat markets haven’t put my money where my mouth is.
However, I still think the seat markets price in the chance of Brown going and hence producing a smaller Tory majority than would be the case should Brown stay. In early March this year I expect this pricing to be removed from the seat spreads and I think we will see a move away from Labour on the markets unrelated to the polls.
I personally think it is a fundamental part of Browns personality issues that he will not give up power. He will be dragged kicking and screaming out of Downing Street, clinging on to the door frame by his fingernails.
In Browns mind, he is the only man for the job.
If Labour didn’t knife him last summer, when Purnell went, then they will never have the guts to remove Brown.
And why should the Union heads be any different? Gordo is doing exactly what they ask for.
No, only some totally unforeseen event like a heart attack or some tragic accident will remove him from office before the election.
97 URW
Didn’t Labour get their worst ever result at the local elections last year?
100 DaveB. Yes,but what has that got to do with me ?
Has anyone been listening to Sky News this morning? It’s as if they are stuck in a time warp and have been thrown back a few weeks - narrowing polls (er no), Labour have outside chance of winning(ROFLMAO), hung parliament, hung parliament, hung parliament…
FFS is the primary requirement to work for Sky News a frontal lobotomy?
What’s this pap Sky news are dishing out this morning on the Conservatives; “Narrow lead” “Polls narrowed significantly” “Labour in with a chance of winning”
95 “I’m non-committal on whether anything will happen about the leadership this month, as it comes down to a few people in the Cabinet whose intentions I don’t know.”
We’ll take that as a “Yes” then Nick! No, only kidding.
For me, the surprise was not so much the Gang of Five story itself, but rather that it ever saw the light of day, only 3 months possibly before a GE.
97. URW - thanks for that - is there new money going on or is this all money from when you laid out or can’t you tell?
95 - Every now and then a post comes along that completely jolts my complacency and makes me rethink. That is one of those posts. Thank you.
105 jsfl - Good question. A few weeks ago about 60% of the money wagered had been placed on 400+ and now it is a mere 45.7% so you could say that enthusiasm is waning.
I predict that the next dramatic uptick in Tory fortunes will see renewed Backing for 400+.
The strange thing is that even on a predominantly Right-Wing site such as this, fewer than one in eight would make such a prediction.
103. As has been noted the polls follow the narrative. The cuurent narrative is that a 10% lead in the New Year will be reduced by 5% Lib Dems returning to labour and 3% from others, enabling a Labour victory.
It is quite clear to all that this result is unlikely to result from genuine voting.
This result will be achieved by managing expectations in the media first of all, and then by postal vote and ballot box management.
100 constituencies are going to do the count on a Friday. This will likely be the marginals.
We do not live in a democracy. It is likely that the 2005 election result was rigged. You are merely watching the state propaganda organisation at work, as it gets ready to pull off its second rigged election.
102/103. You may be unaware the Labour have risen approximately 9 points in seven months…
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/hp/kalman.png
Nick Palmer @95: “Swiss families will commonly set aside an evening before a group of referendums to go through the material and discuss it - do you see that happening much here? And if it doesn’t, do you want to rely on the electorate to decide on detailed and complex issues, as opposed to a general expression of support for one party or another?”
There should be a middle way between the two crap choices of either expecting everyone to express an opinion on everything even if they don’t understand it and giving away all their choices to a single person every 5 years and having no say in between, even when they know and care a lot.
At the risk of boring everyone with my hobby-horse, this is the problem we should solve with direct democracy with delegation. Voters have the ultimate right to weigh in on whatever they want to, but they can also delegate their vote to someone else who understands it better than them. A voter who likes things the way they are could just do what they do now and delegate their vote wholesale to the local representative of their favourite party. Whereas someone who wants to take the time to think about issues and make up their own minds should be able to do that too.
The Nat-spat aside, an interesting thread. I particularly liked Martin Day’s point about collective Cabinet responsibility - any replacement (especially by coronation) will have ZERO credibiity if they try the “blame Gordon” escape route.
98 “In Browns mind” Wow, that must be a strange place to wander within. He must know he is deeply loathed. He is openly mocked by cartoonists and satirists; the broadsheets are home to plenty of “Gordon: just go!” pieces. Any
sanesentient being would long ago have had findamental doubts about what they were doing, if not to the country, then to their Party.And yet - Brown just appears to see this as failings in his opponents. And he has a point - his opponents are crap at being his opponents. Now we know they hate Gordon, can’t believe that the election will be fought on “Gordon Brown: Five More Years!!” - yet are either spineless or clueless.
You do have to wonder what is going to happen to the mass of Labour activists, when they see the great bulk of their own senior politicians are lined up with the Tories in deriding Labour’s central election narrative.
‘Will he stay or will he go’ all previous predictions of Brown’s demise have been a little wide of the mark, including my own. Still it would make life more interesting if he did.
Cameron’s, ‘lovebombing’ of the Libdems, not toooo successful.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-still-the-nasty-party-say-liberal-democrats-1855389.html
NPMP at 95: “Swiss families will commonly set aside an evening before a group of referendums to go through the material and discuss it - do you see that happening much here?”
Er, there’s a reason you don’t see it happening here: you flip-flopped on your manifesto commitment to the Euro-Constitreaty, and robbed us of the chance…
95. I agree the site has a Tory claque who don’t add much with their repetitious “I can’t believe how bad Labour is”
…………..Nick Palmer MP January 2nd, 2010 at 8:53 am
I think you are very wrong there Nick. It’s true that there are many Tory supporters on the site at present, but that doesn’t make them all Tories.
Right Wing, yes, and desperately wanting to get rid of your Labour Party, yes. However I would agree with the premise that attitudes at PB will shift radically once a Tory government is elected, and a pro left bias will start to grow.
If Polly is willing publicly to acknowledge a 30+ Conservative majority as the most likely GE result, what does she think it will be really?
Also, who has motivated her to write such an outspoken article - the dark Lord?
Those wishing to back a May election should note that you can get 4/9 with Coral, a better price than is currently available on Betfair.
One interesting bet in this market is to back 20/1 on June - available with Coral and Victor Chandler (for those with Victor Chandler accounts, anyway). As time marches on, these odds are likely to shorten, so it should be a decent trading bet.
95. Nick Palmer. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between theory and practice in political decision-making. One of the problems I have noticed in US politics is that there are many on the right who want the Constition interpreted literally, and those on the left who don’t. Peter Schiff, for example, says that the compromise to give a couple of states a different take on abortion under the health proposals is in breach of the constitutional obligation that all states should be treated alike. This argument seems to cut no ice with Democrats.
What struck me in your post was your suggestion that detailed and complex questions are best dealt with in Parliament, rather than directly by the electorate. But are they in practice? How much legislation is passed on the nod, without detailed scrutiny (perhaps due to lack of time), or through a motion to adopt European Union Directives, and how many measures are passed under Orders in Council?
I am not saying you are wrong in your concept of how matters should be dealt with, just that I am not sure it actually works. Perhaps the only solution is for Parliaments to be less frenetic, and do fewer things rather better.
107. URW
The strange thing is that even on a predominantly Right-Wing site such as this, fewer than one in eight would make such a prediction.
I don’t think so because I think we likely throw around polling scenarios far more than the average. To get 400+ seats requires the Conservatives to have something like a 17 point lead or better and/or a vote share of 44% or better with the rest of the vote suitably spread between the parties.
Achieving any or all of these will take some going especially from the low level the Conservatives were at in 2005. The fact they could come reasonably close to 400 seats (my reckoning I suspect the ceiling is around 375) is a testament to the progress they have made.
114
However I would agree with the premise that attitudes at PB will shift radically once a Tory government is elected, and a pro left bias will start to grow.
Perhaps! more likely we will see the rightwing posters disgusted by Scameron’s betrayal, moving even further to the right, (led by Seant of course) calling for his removal and replacement by Redwood or someother, ‘hero’
It looks as though the cellars of Chianti Classico have been drained dry at Villa Toynbee and Polly is going cold turkey.
Her remarks are directed at the Unions and they are hardly likely to listen to the distant voice from the ivory towers of the Graunburble - not when cheerful Charlie Wheelan is there, on the spot, dripping sweet soporific words into their ears.
114. WeatherC.
I think it would be the case that the Cameroons (and no Pbers jump to mind particularly) and perhaps some moderate Conservatives and swing voters will be getting it from all sides.
On the left labour and the Libdems will be more secure in the familiar opposition surrounds and on the right there will be those attempting to drag the party and the country to where it needs to be….
It lends to interesting times and an interesting debate. Of course there will be the intriguing distraction of seeing the Labour factions bare down on each other post a Brown defeat. It’ll all make for good sport!
86 Realistic analysis? One of te comments on CiF repeas a section of one of Polly’s articles in 2006:
“Twice a year Gordon Brown fills his party’s sails with pride. His tornado of facts and figures magics up images of untold national wealth and success. Sixty per cent more personal wealth! Most chancellors sound as if chunks of their speech are penned by officials, not quite convincing in their grasp of macro or micro details. But here is the man who studies everything, consuming documents with the speed of a shredder. Standing at the dispatch box, the towering superiority of his brain makes intellectual pygmies of his opponents.”
Unconsciously she gets to the nub “Magics up images”; that’s what it was, sleights of hand, mirrors, smoke but like the wizard in Oz the curtain has fallen and we see the rather smaller figure still recycling his old tricks.
Its too late now Polly, he won’t go willingly so it’ll have to be the men in the black suits but where is the Saviour? Who is the man or woman that Simpson, Woodley, Prentis, Kenny et al want to lead their party? Is it someone the PLP would unite behind or Labour party members?
No use just throwing out the incompetent Brown if there’s no-one competent, with leadership abilities, to take over. Where is he or she? certainly not in Cabinet, as Polly says they are “frozen by individual self-interest”, none willing to take the risk for the sake of country or party, none brave enough to risk the stiletto knives of press leaks and rumour with which Brown guards his position. Each has been pressed in last few months by Marr or Robinson and each has responded with fulsome loyalty to Gordon.
121
Of course there will be the intriguing distraction of seeing the Labour factions bare down on each other post a Brown defeat. It’ll all make for good sport!
I remember Tories saying the same thing in ‘92, five years later Labour won by a massive landslide and the Tories were reduced to 160 seats.
Anyone who followed me in laying Gordon Brown exiting as Labour leader on Betfair in April-June 2010 should note that Paddy Power offer 1/2 on him being Labour party leader on 1 July. Some might find the 7/4 offered on him being a backbencher a decent way of closing off the lay (I don’t intend to do so).
122. Ted.
I see I should have put a ‘recently’ at the end of the sentence. I agree, there was nothing realistic about any Labour mouth-piece’s views in 2006.
None of the poor dears had had the delusions scrubbed from their eyes. They had to wait until October 2007 for that when it became clear that with a coward for a leader there was not one senior member of the party with the gumption or balls to take the helm and so it has proved ever since. The Labour party is filled with shabby shuffling little functionaries with a propensity to whine and chunter periodically about their nasty leader and his ‘claque’ (hat-tip Nick Palmer for the word) and wish he was gone but lack the wherewithal to do anything about it.
It’s a sad but inevitable example of socialism at work.
125
Good ol’ Ted.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239930/How-Prime-Minister-Ted-Heath-nearly-went-International-Monetary-Fund-loan-1974.html
That’s what I say.
126
Moderation, Why?
95
NPMP
Thank you for a very carefully worded first paragraph. You should become Foreign Minister. More diplomacy in you pen hand than in the whole of the current incumbent’s body.
On Topic.
To remove a Leader requires leadership, bravery and a plan and a degree of competence amongst any plotters. Which means Harman or Mandelson. All the rest are nobodies.
Maybe these so-called gutless Labour politicians who refuse to wield the axe actually believe in Gordon Brown, and genuinely understand he’s the best man to lead them into the next election? I refuse to believe they all want him gone as Polly Toynbee wrote. If that were the case, he would be gone. It would absolutely impossible for Brown to survive and lead the party forward.
The opinion polls continue to improve for Labour while these journalists write nonsensical articles such as the one quoted at the top of this thread. But if Polly truly wants the Tories to win the next election she should keep churning out these damaging articles. Maybe Murdoch and The Tory Sun could even offer her a job. Clearly she’s not Guardian material anymore.
Continuing yesterday’s Dr Who theme, a nice picture of the former Deputy PM…
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Tb80zV4TFI0/SgVvsodfwTI/AAAAAAAAArA/IJoWZsYIdas/s400/sontaran.jpg
Re 121 I forgot to say as it goes without saying really, even after a Cameron victory, but I still expect the right to regularly ‘rip a new one’ out of the left’s views considering the inherent weaknesses and fallability of left of centre thinking and in particular socialism.
122. Ted see 128. Now you can see why I consider the Dead Parrot as one of the more realistic of the lefts commentators now!
95 I would just like to say for the benefit of Nick that
“I can’t believe how bad Labour is”:-)
Seriously though, did you ever think that possibly going into denial about what a disasterous situation Labour have left the country in forces the reaction of “I can’t believe how bad Labour is”. The majority of people in this country want you to tackle the disaster not to deny it, and that is why you will lose.
5 MikeL
I think the “blocking event” theory is brilliant and bang on the money.
Everyone else: I think the site at its best achieves about what PMQs achieves at its best -a mixture of intelligent argument, not so intelligent argument and slapstick. The tories here have come here for intelligent political debate, and they are tories so, yes, any left-wing idea put forward is scrutinised rather closely. However, the ball is usually played rather than the man except in the case of a handful of labourites who are plainly looking for a fight.
If there are fewer labour posters than tory, is that the tories’ fault? Go on a recruiting drive, or ask OGH to implement a rationing system whereby tories can only post on alternate days.
NPMP - “I agree the site has a Tory claque who don’t add much with their repetitious “I can’t believe how bad Labour is” chant”.
White Star Line Steward 15/4/12 “We have the most luxurious staterooms, the best cooks, the finest wines, the most comfortable deckchairs in the business, but all these passengers have to contribute to the debate is a repetitious chant of “I can’t believe we hit that iceberg”.”
122 Who is the man or woman that Simpson, Woodley, Prentis, Kenny et al want to lead their party? Is it someone the PLP would unite behind or Labour party members?
Why has nobody mentioned Bob Crowe? He seems up for it. Perhaps this is the one that Polly’s got in mind. Come-on Brothers!
Or that posh-bint Harriet Harman St Paul educated and closely related to the Earl of Longford. Or is she just the wrong side of too many dividing lines.
95. Happy New Year Nick. Interesting post as always though slightly surprising. Unlike the rest of us here you have some influence on who will lead the Labour Party into the election.
I know you don’t use the site to pass on your own preferences but in this instance you sound more ambivalent than usual. The question I want answered is who is the best man for the job ignoring electoral popularity?
The simple choice is Brown or Miliband. You know the personel and it’s a pity you can’t share your thoughts. Once agreed everyone should get behind the leader. Labour are sleep walking into the disaster of a Cameron government
My own feeling feeling for what it’s worth is that both electorally and for the renaissance of left of centre politics Labour should change now. Brown seems out of ideas
132 jsfl, Richie Rich is posting from inside the bunker though, not a commentator but a participant.
95. Nick Palmer
More to the point…
Can you believe how bad Labour is? I can’t!
136. Ted - I had taken it as given that they were all part of the ‘collective’ and were all participants only with differing roles. The Dead Parrot’s is to be a modern day ‘Tokyo Rose’. Richie Rich’s is to be a comedian (and a very bad one at that)……
re 129 Ritchie - is this your real view of Brown or is it like your view of Blair which seems to change from post to post?
I’ve mentioned before your extraordinary inconsistency -
So what do you really think of Mr. Brown? You can own up here - you are amongst friends!
139 speaking of friends - where is tim? Did his bot-contract not get renewed for 2010?
I thing the significance in the Yemen summit is not that it blocks a leadership challenge - quite frankly that is simply not true (if the will exists the domestic political urgency will prevail) - but in the fact it casts light on Brown’s state of mind and indicates that he is still looking to the future, making plans etc and fully intends to be prime minister at election day.
I agree with those who say that a voluntary resignation is the only possible route for leadership change, but feel strongly that this is not (and never has been) on the cards.
140. Perhaps he turned into a mouse or a pumpkin or something at midnight on the 31st?
140. I suspect tim’s new year resolution was to “get a life” so he’ll probably be back here by Monday.
141 It doesn’t make a challenge impossible, but it does make it politically difficult: Brown “I am concentrating on making the tough decisions which are right for the long term security of this country and to save the world from terrorism, while the novice [?] is playing politics with the safety of our citzens by mounting this challenge”.
Happy New Year to all PBers.
95 NPMP The problem with JK, as far as I see it, is that he plays the man not the ball, and then behaves like a slapped toddler when anyone criticises him for it. It is not his opinions that provoke personal attack, but the way in which he promotes and defends them. Although I suppose you’re happy with that approach as it is Brown Central’s approach.
As a former Communist, I suppose you are happy with the idea of electing an all-powerful Government which then rules hoi polloi for a period of five years, and only uncomfortable with the necessity for election. The good thing about the US Constitution’s checks and balances is that it makes the country fundamentally ungovernable - which is exactly as it should be in a democracy. In the UK, probably since the reorganisation of local government in 1974(?) we have had ever more centralisation. Political parties no longer tolerate free thinking among their representatives, and deride single-issue politics as puerile. Local government cannot effectively manage local services other than within a framework micro-managed from Whitehall, and are not responsible for raising anything other than a minority of their own funding. Forgive me for thinking we live in an oligarchy where we are grudgingly allowed to choose between different governments, as long as they choose their policies from a carefully chosen set that are acceptable to the ruling classes.
No wonder the voters are turned off, you have emasculated us. If we vote you out of office, you will probably be appointed to the Lords. If we vote against Bercow in Buckingham, that is somehow some sort of crisis for the body politic. You refuse to behave in an independent manner questioning the executive and holding it to account, instead you fawn on Government hoping for some form of ministerial position.
Yes, I can’t believe how appalling this Government is. I will vote Conservative because they can only be better, and they actually have a few policies I approve of. But after the GE, you will no doubt find me posting on here criticising the Tory Government from a position on the Libertarian Right.
Yrs in the cause
Col. John Lilburne, a Leveller so-called
140. Firmware upgrade on Mandy’s orders.
As in “The Thick of It”, if confronted with a plausible challenge the Prime Minister will simply go straight to the Palace.
143 He has to work out how to explain away the fact that Brown didn’t resign yesterday.
I wonder whether Marr is back tomorrow and if so whether his interviewees include a member of the would-be “Gang of Five”?
103, I noticed that. They had Michael Brown stating Cameron had a 7-10 point lead or suchlike and wasn’t on 40+. Utter tosh.
88. The story about the muslim march through Wootton Bassett makes the Sun newspaper today - talk about chucking petrol onto the fire - but would it really change the electoral numbers - help the BNP to win a seat?
151, if the Sun’s media spotlight forces the police to ban the march, then it’s a good thing.
I think the BNP matter less than increasing tensions and fuelling terrorism, though of course the two do reinforce one another slightly.
95. Nick P.
The “I can’t believe how bad Labour is” chant, doesn’t just come from Tories, it happens to be main British political topic of the moment. There are plenty of people like me who are not genetically Tories at all (former member of Labour in fact) but are de facto Tories (for now) because of the disaster that Gordon Brown has caused.
There will be more intelligent cross-party discussion when (if) more Labour supporters are inspired to join the argument. But Labour is currently demoralised, because it’s unable to evolve - nothing can be improved, because nothing can possibly need to be improved, because that would imply that Gordon Brown had not got everything right.
So an apparent lack of balance on this site, and elsewhere, is not because of Tories. It reflects the state of the Labour party. It’s your problem Nick, and your partys.
I like this site, precisely because of it’s “Ministry of Arguments” atmosphere - We can have civil,inteligent discussusions that cross party lines, which is what I want. But there is not much left-wing representation at the moment.
109 Rod Crosby
Leaving aside debates about poll averaging and Kalman filtering, why on earth do you persist in using 31 May as if it is a significant date for the purposes of assessing the extent of the Labour recovery. Labour’s poll results at that point were artificially depressed by the Euro election campaign - the euro poll taking place 4 days after Labour’s polling nadir - and by the immediate aftermath of the publication of MPs’ expenses claims. In that context Labour averaged 21% over a very, very small series of polls before recovering in a matter of weeks to more realistic levels, from which they have gradually strengthened, but not to the extent you indicate.
In takeover bids both bidders and target shareholders look for the “unaffected share price” to calculate the extent of the premium being offered. Naturally there is always debate about the point at which a share price can be considered “affected” but some events clearly distort the price (e.g. rumours of a bid). Your starting point of 31 May is highly “affected”.
What your graph does demonstrate, I think, is that both Labour and the Conservatives were badly hit by the expenses scandal, Labour shipping the best part of ten points and the tories about five points. Thereafter both have recovered to a certain extent but are still a couple of points off their pre-expenses scandal high. These points may be up for grabs in an election campaign but may have been lost to them for the duration of the parliament. Given how damaging expenses revelations were, it is no surprise there has been a small “plague on all your houses” effect.
139. I gave a detailed response a few days ago when you originally raised the Tony Blair question. Do I need to copy/paste it again?
Let us be clear, there would be no recovery for the UK if Osborne and Cameron had been let loose on this global recession.
Gordon Brown is doing a fantastic job in an incredibly difficult time for this country. The fact the recession will be over in January 2010 is a magnificent achievement few would have predicted on here several months ago. Credit must go to Brown and Darling for this.
152 On the contrary, we should allow the march even though I find the idea disgusting. One thing we do not do well enough in this country is to support freedom of speech. I do not recall any politicians standing up at the time of the Mohammed cartoons and saying “Yes I agree that Muslims probably find them insulting. However, we live in a liberal Western democracy where we support freedom of speech. This includes saying things that some people may find offensive to their views. Muslims have exactly the same right to publish their views, and to rebut the views they claim to find so offensive”
To gain the moral high ground on this issue, we have to allow people the freedom to say things that offend us.
84 URW. In my case, the belief that a Con 400+ result is not impossible stems from three things. 1)The VIPA analysis. We are still waiting for an update. 2)The England/Wales breakdown of all the polls,indicating a Con lead of 13+.Seems to me ,the Scottish figures are irrelevant, I assume the status quo at the GE, unless better data is available 3)The differential effect of unemployment on certainty to vote,which does not seem to me to be adequately measured in the polls. With dependants, there are at least 5 million voters affected, difficult to see them motivated to turn out and I would expect most to be ex-Labour. Those who are not certainly will not be voting Labour.
156 Nurse……….
141 (Flockers)
The other thing about the Yemen summit on 28 January not having significance for a leadership challenge is that the Prime Minister already called an international summit on Afghanistan to take place that same day in London. If he really wanted to create events to upset any leadership election timetable, he would have spaced them out a bit.
157, being offensive is fine. Inciting criminal acts is not.
25. James Kelly January 2nd, 2010 at 3:01 am
“Does that indicate that “chauvanistic tosser” is somehow a less offensive term than “liar”?”
Just catching up myself.
Actually, I think liar is more offensive. Still, “chauvinistic tosser” is not very polite.
You could demand satisfaction. Challenging someone called Aguecheek to a duel would be pretty safe?
156 RR, you do realise don’t you that the “recession will be over in January 2010″ is largely a function of just how catastrophic the fall has been under Brown’s Govt.? When we do come out of it, we will be back to the economy we had in 2005. Five years of growth - destroyed. And at a cost of a £ trillion. That is a “fantastic job”, eh? You don’t half set the bar low…
155. I know it’s an arbitrary reference point, although it happens to be Labour’s low point.
Looking at the graph, who would you say the momentum was with, Labour or Conservative?
We are just a fraction away from a hung parliament at the moment, and if Labour can grab another 1-2% a hung parliament becomes a near certainty.
161 In what way would marching through Wootton Bassett be inciting criminal acts?
In any case, as a libertarian, I have mixed feelings about incitement crimes. It seems to remove some of the responsibility from the perpetrator of that crime. If I see someone carrying a placard I don’t like, and tw@t them, then I am entirely responsible for the crime, not the person with the placard.
160 Except no-one would have come to the second event. World leaders are probably already p155ed off that Brown is dragging them back to London in January, instead of holding it somewhere warm and sunny…
Morning all. Good to see the New Year kicking off with an outbreak of peace and love on the site.
The truth is the tribal ‘dividing lines’ are something of a psychological comfort zone. In fact left, right and centre are all very very jumpy. We are heading for uncharted waters politically.
On topic the polls have been going Brown’s way (albeit a little erratically) for some months now and there is no way he will go before the election.
The fact that there is a renewed outbreak of attempts to destabilise his leadership in Labour ranks reflects the extent of civil war inside the party and loathing for the Brown cabal rather than an objective appraisal of his electoral chances. In this respect Greg Pope’s intervention (New Labour, New Year, New Leader) which I posted yesterday is worth reading in conjunction with Toynbee’s extraordinary outburst in today’s Guardian. I get the sense there is no longer a Labour party as such. It has been hijacked by Brown and his bully boys, they are hellbent on retaining power and their power base within the party at all costs. And the cost is going to be very high indeed.
http://greg-pope.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-labour-new-year-new-leader.html
156 Richie Rich. No need to re-post - your excuse was you were either drunk or cowardly, you couldn’t remember which. We got the message. From this post, it seems you have been drunk ever since, can’t blame you in present circumstances.
I don’t take Polly Toynbee seriously. And the idea that GB might be replaced at this late stage hardly betokens genius.
But in the public’s eyes New Labour (I cannot bring myself to call them Labour) is suffering the usual maladay suffered by any long term government—contemptuous familiarity.
Although it would contradict every sinew in GB’s political body, a change of leadership for NLabour shortly before the last hurdle might just have a rejuvenating effect on their chances.
163 The problem with your analysis, Rod, is that you see support for the Government and Opposition parties to be some sort of deterministic natural law. In short, that there is a correlation between time and support for the Government. However, there is no reason why this should be so. I would agree that an approaching election probably concentrates some peoples’ minds, but there is no real reason why support for a government should be correlated with how far through the Parliament we are. Unless you can come up with a theory why this should be so, it is surely no more than an unprovable, and potentially fallse, correlation?
Your post is an example of what irritates the likes of John Kelly. You start off by suggesting he plays the man and not the ball and you then go on to do exactly the same to Nick Palmer but rather more crudely.
Whatever you think of john Kelly at least takes the trouble to make his posts interesting and he’s articulate. Not rude rambling and dull.
170. Addressed to 146. John Lilburne.
163 Rod, the point is that talking about momentum is misleading. Labour have recovered most - but not all - of the votes they had prior to the expenses scandal and the diversion of the euros (votes which did not go to the Tories). They need to retain those votes as a bare minimum to avoid a devastating defeat but if they want to block a Tory majority - and particularly if they want to be the largest party - they need to recover votes that switched to the Tories in 2005-2008. That means pushing well into the thirties and drawing the Tories down below the 40s. Neither of those things seem to be happening. If they do - that would be momentum.
154 Fat Steve
I find it really puzzling that *anyone* who plans to vote against the current Labour government are automatically labelled as Tories of the baby-eating variety - it’s a real ‘for us or against us’ mindset that feels completely out of place on a site as sophiscated as PB.
I’d like to hear what Labour supporters actually want their Party to do - not endless Tory bashing. I’m getting to the point where I’m sorely tempted to scroll straight passed many comments on the basis that the authors are prone to not much else.
I try to resist the temptation as I’d like to read something other than Labour are crap too. However they are crap, we know it and they know it. How they plan to get out of it would be infinitely more interesting and useful.
BBCLauraK
Cameron trying to start the election campaign this morning..speech live on bbc news shortly
re 109.
Rod - does your Kalman filter work both ways? Given the record of pollsters to over-state Labour then surely you should only apply it to Brown’s party highs?
Of course your flawed concept of averaging has been a failure in predicting elections since 1983. The most reliable pre-election poll has been the one with Labour in the least favourable position.
Re: 400+ Tory seats.
As I have posted much earlier I have taken small positions on the Tories gaining 325 - 400 seats. All beats will result in a profit if they come in. At the time I looked at the 400+ option, but thought it a) highly unlikely, and b) of little monetary value!
Fair-enough [same may add] as I am but an amatuer gambler, but wait: A 400+ seat has more than monetary value to me [as an English Democrat]. Here’s why…:
400+ seats would imply ~380 English seats, a proportion larger then nEU-Labour’s 2005 landslide [sic] vivtory. This will enable the Conservatives to push through changes to address the democratic-deficit within England and readdress the misallocation of funds within the governmental/public-sector.
So 400+ seats will really result in p1$$ing-off the Celtic-fringe. That’s a fair enough outcome for loosing money on a bet; sometimes let the heart-rule-the-head….
On-topic, Edmund of Tokyo makes the right point at 20. Brown will hold a very strong hand if anyone tries to force him out. There’s no cost to him in calling their bluff.
The only way he’ll go voluntarily is if there is a genuine medical reason.
164 John I agree that in a democratic society the march should be allowed but there are so many that don;t agree with this notion that I would fear for public order if such a march took place - allowing the BNP to say ‘we told you so’ even more loudly - loudly enough to win them a seat and upset the odds.
This is all moot, As soon as Q4 growth* figures are released at the end of the month, expect Labour and Gordon to ramp up we saved the economy, don’t let the Tories ruin it meme, use that to launch the campaign for a March 25th election.
The only way for Labour to win the election, is not for them to fight on their record, but to make the election a referendum on Cameron.
*I’m certain they’ll show growth, even it’s 0.1% Growth.
Well said Plato.
Nick P seems to forget that in 2005 the only tory voices on here were Sean Fear and Rikw. Times change.
As Cameron develops as PM (and he will be PM after the election) you will see Tory voices on here drift away or become some of his biggest critics.
Conservatism is a broad church and Camerons biggest test will keeping it together. Thatcher was successful in that task because the party was united in a common purpose -defeating the unions.
It fell apart because of the elephant in the living room called Europe.
164, depends what they chant, or wear or the placards they carry.
169. I’m just showing what the polls are saying, using the best available method of filtering out noise. And Labour have lots to be cheerful about as we enter 2010.
I’ve never said support is correlated with time, whatever that’s supposed to mean. But there is evidence that elections are not just random events with any outcome as likely as another. There is evidence that autoregression is a big factor - in other words, the system contains memory. Indications of how far the next election is likely to differ from the last can be divined from by-election performance and PM approval.
And reality is fast moving closer to my prediction. Hung Parliament, very very likely.
173.
“I’d like to hear what Labour supporters actually want their Party to do - not endless Tory bashing. ” Yup. Labour members needs to work this out for themselves. And if there was a lively argument going on, this would actually be good for the party rather than damaging. But it’s not happening. I think the culture of the party under Gordon Brown is the main reason.
The period after the election will be interesting. A healthy party would revive itself, however damaged, and come back fighting. I’m not sure that Labour will manage this. It may too broken (and broke).
Cameron on now on News 24
95. Nick Palmer MP January 2nd, 2010 at 8:53 am
“the site has a Tory claque who don’t add much with their repetitious “I can’t believe how bad Labour is” chant”
Nick, it’s not a Tory chant. There are people from all political viewpoints saying this. The only parties I’ve voted for are the SDP, Lib Dems and Labour and I’m now determined to vote Conservative purely because your government has been so god-awful. If you kept the same posters on this site, but turned the clock back 13 years, you’d find a lot of us were your supporters back then.
Rod,
Elections are Random events. Governed by events occuring at the time. If you going say that autoregression is a factor, then you must be ignoring outside influencing factors, like demographics.
I am surprised that you have not tried applying (or mis-applying) a Bayesian model.
If the polls turn on Gordon any more then the law of self preservation could kick in,as pollies revert to fighting like ferrets in a sck to try and continue their own personal gravy train.
That is not to say they do not genuinely care about the country, it is just that like most people they care more about themselves than others. As a publicly ELECTED servant that is sad but true in many instances where they are paid to care about others.
This election will get nasty, and down in the gutter. There is no pretence of fair play expected by the main players. Media support is key; to the ready!
Did Cameron just say that he will help those in long term poverty into long term unemployment??
Nice slip there by Cameron: he wants to move those in long term poverty to long term UNemployment. Oops!
188 I think he did!
162. It’s important to remember that this was a global recession. The recession was largely not Labour’s fault; we were dragged down by a frightful mess overseas. The cure is Labour’s fault though. So by all means:
Vote Conservative if you dislike us coming out of recession in January 2010.
Vote Conservative if you are angry the UK had to accumulate some short-term debt to stabilise our economy.
Vote Conservative if you are unhappy with the fact millions of families still have a roof over their heads.
Vote Conservative if you are disappointed we managed to keep the jobless total well below 3 million.
Vote Conservative if you wish you no longer had a funded bank account.
Final point. Yes the government did make *some* mistakes. But do you really believe the Tories would have cracked down on the party in the city, regulated them out of London, and prevented these filthy rich bankers from making wild, speculative bets in return for massive bonuses?
188. Perhaps he said “into long-term .. um .. employment”
189. A freudian slip if there ever was one. Nice one Dave.
173 .Plato. ‘I’d like to hear what Labour supporters actually want their Party to do - not endless Tory bashing. I’m getting to the point where I’m sorely tempted to scroll straight passed many comments on the basis that the authors are prone to not much else’
Do you think you’ll find less Labour bashing and more positive ideas of what a Cameron government will do if you just read the Tory posters? Even Cameron doesn’t seem to know what he wants to do other than not to be Labour so what do you expect to find reading his disciples on here?
I also don’t understand the distinction between someone voting Tory and a being a Tory? Sounds the same to me unless you think Tories are cast.
Interesting announcement on the War Cabinet.
Aye, that slip was a bit comical
Brown won’t like the war cabinet idea, but then he will not be labour leader then.
175. Why should the “record” of the pollsters be an issue, when as you never fail to remind us, most if not all the pollsters have subsequently changed their methodology?
In 2005 Kalman filtering would have predicted the result to within +/-1% for all parties, and even that was within the pooled, smoothed MOE, meaning that we can’t say for certain there was any industry bias at all.
Even the exit poll of 30,000 couldn’t do significantly better, and while they both overestimated Labour slightly, turnout and other effects still produced a near spot-on seat forecast…
156 But under Labour, we have had the lowest rate of economic growth, in a decade, since the 1940s. In other words, a worse economic record than any government since 1945. How can that be considered a good record?
157 I agree, but we should also allow people to display their contempt for the marchers. Everyone ought to be entitled to freedom of expression.
172 et al, Labour are also about 6% down on this point last year, overall.
On topic, I think it’s too late to remove Brown now.
194 - “I also don’t understand the distinction between someone voting Tory and a being a Tory? Sounds the same to me unless you think Tories are cast”
Remember all those Labour supporters who voted Lib Dem in 1997 to get rid of the Tories?
People will vote for who they think is best placed to remove the government
If I lived in Barking, I’d vote for Margaret Hodge, that wouldn’t make me a Labour supporter, just someone who didn’t like the BNP much
193 - I would counter with “And we not only saved the world…”, but you’re under the impression that Labour actually did so it would be lost on you.
183.
Yes, forecasting the post-electoral-defeat Labour is going to be interesting. I really think Nick Clegg has a good chance of being the official opposition to the Cameron second term. Labour is just going to disintegrate.
194. Roger January 2nd, 2010 at 11:41 am
“I also don’t understand the distinction between someone voting Tory and a being a Tory?”
If you hold a large number of views that roughly accord with those of the Conservative Party you might be called an unofficial Tory.
If you belong to the Conservative Party you could be called an official Tory.
If you put your X against the Conservative candidate then you vote Tory. Doesn’t mean either of the above are true of you. I’m voting Conservative because it’s the only real anti-Labour vote. Everything else is pussy-footing around the issue. Going “Oooh, I’ll vote Lib Dem and ’send a message’ to Gordon”. That’s piffling about. The only sure way to get rid of Labour is to bring about a Tory majority.
194: “I also don’t understand the distinction between someone voting Tory and a being a Tory?”
I would have thought that there is very clear distinction to be made between voters for a party and members of that party. Indeed, I would have thought it possible to make finer distinctions between the levels of attachment between people and parties.
I wonder if Cameron will raise the War Cabinet issue at PMQs. If Brown lets him attend, he’s following Cameron’s lead. If he doesn’t, he looks petty.
Joey Jones feels the deep economic crisis is a big problem for the Conservatives.
204 Clearly, it is.
179 TSE - I agree with what you say here. It strikes me that Labour has two options to try and get a reasonable result at the election. Firstly, to try and find a positive message to enthuse supporters and win back waverers. Now quite how they do that in the current circumstances is hard to fathom - “Five More Years of Gordon” really doesn’t sound like the right sort of message to be putting out there.
The other option is to find a reason for people not to vote Tory; in other words, to scare people off the prospect of a Cameron government. This idea worked for the Conservatives in 1992 but failed dismally in 1997 because, by that stage, people weren’t frightened of a Blair PMship whereas they were far more cautious about a Kinnock-led Government in 1992. The problem with this second method is that the people really don’t seem to be frightened of the prospect of a Cameron Government; they’re not enthused but they’re certainly not scared and any message of ‘they’ll wreck the recovery’ won’t work whilst people don’t see any real, tangible signs of a recovery underway.
204: Only after the election though. And in which case it’s a problem for everyone not ‘just’ the tories.
95 maybe its because labour (and Brown) really are bad?
Record debt (most of it hidden)
Record number of people economically unactive
Record number of benefit recipients
Record number of useless wars started
Record amount of bullchit -’best placed’ ‘position of strength’ ‘no boom and bust’
So the Labour message is give Gordon Brown five more years to stop the Tories wrecking a recovery that the voters don’t believe is a recovery?
Good luck with that. Maybe 400+ Tory seats isn’t so far-fetched…
209 - Remember, we have Gordon Brown masterminding that message, what could possibly go wrong?
The Tories will be doing well to get 300 seats, never mind 400.
211 - Would you like to wager some money that the Tories don’t get 300 seats?
209. I didn’t say it was a good message, but it’s hard to see what options Labour have at the moment.
209 They will think it was a recovery this time next year.
With vat at 22.5% and the usual mantra of it needs to hurt to be working.
211: The polls still all say Tory majority Rod. And this is Brown we’re talking about now. The England figures (especially the Midlands) are dire for labour.
212: Indeed. I would like some of that too.
Evens sounds good. (after all they would be ‘lucky’) as you say.
215 Not to mention Brown’s rating of -43%, and the Government’s rating of -47%.
217 - How on earth did Labour manage to make themselves less ‘popular’ than Gordon Brown?
206
There is a message that Labour could have used, but they are in no position to do so now.
The message is simple: “The country is facing an unprecedented economic crisis and Conservatives are inexperienced and will make mistakes with serious consequences”.
Labour cannot use this argument because of the long, long, long list of their own mistakes, lies, false narratives, misunderstandings, party and personal politicking (both internal and against other parties, both petty and gross) at the countrys expense.
Does anyone know if/when Angus-Reid will be publishing their January poll…?
218: Ask Ed Balls, McGabble, Harman and Liam Byrne
I can’t see the Labour Party disintegrating in opposition because the prospect of winning again in 2015 will keep it together - the Tories will have to make very difficult decisions that the electorate will blame them for (see Mrs T post 79 and B. Obama now for how quickly winners can become unpopular) and Europe wil be a running Tory sore in any case.
What Labour needs is a cathartic leadership election in 2010 and time to formulate a relevant message for the 21st century. A period in opposition will do that. If a second election defeat follows, that’s when the disintegration may occur, but it will mean a complete realignment on the left in Britain, not just the LDs replacing Labour.
I also do not blame cabinet ministers for not standing against Gordon Brown. Labour is a busted flush whoever leads them into the election, so why not lose with him in charge and then start again once he has been kicked into the long grass? The last thing someone like Miliband (D or E) needs is to lead the government into a landslide defeat. Let Brown do that and take the deserved blame.
218 Governments almost invariably have lower satisfaction ratings than the PM has.
212. Yes, but I can get far better odds than I can here…
159. MTF - I don’t think a nurse would be able to subdue the patient.
Guard!…
225, guard? Pah.
What you need is an enormo-haddock!
206 - A third option, I would argue, is to accept a defeat and try to contain losses while, at the same time, putting the foundation bricks in place for an effective critique of Cameron’s government. I think that is what people such as David Miliband are now doing with their attacks on the Tories in Europe. It has nothing to do with trying to win votes at the next election, but being able to say “we said this would happen” when the brown stuff inevitably hits the fan over the EU some time in the bext four years.
I will Lay 3-1 Conservative Seats 299 and under.
Terms: I will Lay a maximum of £3000-1000 and all the money has to be lodged and confirmed with Peter the Punter (cheques cashed etc.). I will then put up my side of money matched.
Furthermore, I will donate 10% of any winnings to pb.com.
Do you feel lucky,punk(s) ?
161
‘ being offensive is fine. Inciting criminal acts is not.’
Whatever you call it, I think you will find that its not applicable to muslims in the UK.
222: The issue is really how the various ‘factions’ of Labour (Blairites, brownites, the ’soft-left’, the guardianista’s etc) can after the fallout of the election come back as a functioning unit.
The danger is that the left have a tendency to being more happy being in opposition (so do the right to a certain degree).
228 - See 224, he can get better odds elsewhere.
199. Sorry Eagle. Anyone voting with the intention of getting a Cameron government is a Tory and a Tory whose Party has Margaret Thatcher’s bosom at it’s core!
232 - Roger, I really do like you, however, I think you are misunderestimating just how unpopular this government is.
230 That can be a strength, in that the Left do seem to be more resilient in Opposition than the Right, but it’s obviously a problem if they come to prefer being in Opposition.
This is genius:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437440.stm
Motorists face new £15 ‘victims levy’
Simultaneously reminding people:
That the government has run out of money
That one of the biggest changes we have noticed since 1997 is the stealth tax of speeding camera fines
That labour believe that everyone is a child rapist, spouse beater and terrorist at heart even if they pretend to be merely parents or motorists or tourists taking photographs.
That the government has a habit of burying bad news.
I can’t believe how wonderful Brown is. Even the Cones Hotline is dwarfed by this masterstroke.
234. Sean
I hardly see how you can claim that one way or another unless you consider that Foot’s vote total being 100,000 or so more than Hague proves it?
Labour were on their knees in 1983 and the Conservatives the same in 2001. The fact that the Conservatives are close to retaking power only 9 years later when it took Labour 14 years suggests it may be the other way around?
232 Roger some I believe think Cameron has more of a social concern for the less well off in society than Thatcher and will vote in that hope.
53 - “JK, this mid-night routine of yours is becoming embarrassing.”
Yep, have to agree with that.
Its almost like an obsession, embarrassing and painful to watch.
235 It does seem to hit several targets all at once.
194 Roger - you seem to have missed the sentence that follows of my post that you quoted
“I try to resist the temptation as I’d like to read something other than Labour are crap too.”
226. Cut backs Morris D. Cut Backs!
We should only roll the enormo haddock out to deal with serious credible posters. ‘Itchy Dick’ is anything but…
222: Southam Observer @ 12:25
Welcome back, you contributions have been missed over the festive period and I hope you and yours had a good time.
I agree with much of your post, Labour will not disintegrate. I hope they will, as you say, use the time to renew themselves and formulate a relevent message for the 21st century.
In looking for a vision of the UK in the future I hope they will look back to the past for its guiding principles and to the not so distant past for some key strategies.
Beveridge identified the five giants that have to be slain; want disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. It is a sad indictment that after thirteen years of Labour rule so much of each, especially ignorance and idleness remain with us.
When I read now the speeches of Brown and Blair from the early years of this administration I am again struck by how right they were in their description of what needed to be done. What horrifies and disgusts me is how, having got the diagnosis correct, they then totally failed to deliver the treatment needed and in fact seem to have been administering poison to the patient.
On any basis you care to choose Labour have failed, what’s worse they have betrayed ther own principles. Indeed, apart from holding on to power, what principles have Blair and Brown displayed by ther actions.
So I offer you a toast: to massive defeat this year so that a new movement with real principles can emerge. Cheers.
241 A sad day for the defence of the realm when enormo-haddock budgets are under threat
241, cut the enormo-haddock budget?! What next, postponing the essential Death Star fleet?
How else are we to obliterate inconvenient planets and annihilate Paris from orbit?!
235. You have a problem with taxes on law-breakers, not paid by the law-abiding?
222 “the Tories will have to make very difficult decisions that the electorate will blame them for”
No I don’t think so, most of the electorate will blame Labour for the first term at least. Especially as it is Labour’s fault.
“see Mrs T post 79 and B. Obama now for how quickly winners can become unpopular”
Thatcher wasn’t truly unpopular until the poll tax and Obama is unpopular because he is a ditherer (just like Gordon).
“Europe wil be a running Tory sore in any case.”
I think the people of this country are looking forward to a party who will stick up for them in Europe, not just blindly obey.
#233, The Screaming Eagles January 2nd, 2010 at 12:33 pm
232 - Roger, I really do like you, however, I think you are misunderestimating just how unpopular this government is.
Oh God, this is gonna’ hurt! Wodger is correct.
My politics - as (IIRC) Stuart Dickson and malcomG would admit theirs is - is instinctively centre-right. Had David Davies been elected I would be a fervent Tory; unfortunately Cammers won.
As a Thatcherite-liberal I hold no bent with one-nation Toryism so I choose my nation first over Unionism. When the Conservatives awake to the anger in England - as the former centre-right SNP has in the parish of NorthernBritain - I may return to the fold (or maybe not).
Many posters here will pinch-their-noses and vote Tory (and hopefully win a few bets). That said, until the democratic and economic deficiencies are resolved, many voters will be Tories in mind but not at heart. Well spotted Wodger!
[That said, this government are shyt3. NPMP calling posters a claque is hillarious: he is the only example I know that fits the defintion (of being a paid follower/clapper). A flock-of-
seagullsLabour-MPs comes to mind...!]231 TSE. The Tory cowards on here offered EVENS. I offered 3-1. Believe it or not, there is a difference.
The quickest way to shut down a crank is to offer him a bet.
The Tory cowards on here wouldn’t know what a fair bet was if it bit them on the bum.
So come along, Rod Crosby……you know MY money would be sweet.
#233, The Screaming Eagles January 2nd, 2010 at 12:33 pm
232 - Roger, I really do like you, however, I think you are misunderestimating just how unpopular this government is.
Oh God, this is gonna’ hurt! Wodger is correct.
My politics - as (IIRC) Stuart Dickson and malcomG would admit theirs is - is instinctively centre-right. Had David Davies been elected I would be a fervent Tory; unfortunately Cammers won.
As a Thatcherite-liberal I hold no bent with one-nation Toryism so I choose my nation first over Unionism. When the Conservatives awake to the anger in England - as the former centre-right SNP has in the parish of NorthernBritain - I may return to the fold (or maybe not).
Many posters here will pinch-their-noses and vote Tory (and hopefully win a few bets). That said, until the democratic and economic deficiencies are resolved, many voters will be Tories in mind but not at heart. Well spotted Wodger!
[That said, this government are shyt3. NPMP calling posters a claque is hillarious: he is the only example I know that fits the defintion (of being a paid follower/clapper). A flock-of-
seagullsLabour-MPs comes to mind...!]245 I can’t speak for him, but I suspect that his view is that the punishment should fit the crime. People who commit parking offences should not be subject to a special levy to compensate “victims”, when they are not responsible for their suffering.
RodC:
“We are just a fraction away from a hung parliament at the moment, and if Labour can grab another 1-2% a hung parliament becomes a near certainty.”
According to your comments through 2009 we have always been only a fraction away from a hung parliament except for those occasions when we were already in hung parliament territory.
The bottom line is though that the Conservative lead increased over the year and where and when it mattered, at the local and Euro elections and Norwich North, the Conservatives did better than expected.
Does this mean that the Conservatives are certain to win? No, a lot of things will happen before the election and these may affect the polls one way or another. But equally we cannot predict things by drawing lines on graphs to fit preconceived ideas.
243/244. I know it’s tough. At least we’re not reducing the shoal, just reducing operations. We’ve had to cut back on the coffee and biscuit budgets as well but you know what they say ‘We’re all in it together’.
The enormo-haddocks are lucky they are not being sent back to the Arctic Seas (it was close for a while there) and all those nasty Norwegian and Icelandic Trawlers….
Anyway using guards for all the minor stuff helps keep unemployment down to.
Wouldn’t pay much attention to Polly. She’s probably penned a ‘We must get behind the leader’ piece for Monday.
She will flit and flop about from support to stabbing the leadership until she can find a dreamy new beau to begin a new crush on. Ed Miliband will probably be the one. She always fancied the brother but dissapointed on the second date. Maybe she could have a second chance with the sibling?
251 It’s worth noting that the Conservative vote has also shifted up from its low point in June, when the party’s polling range was 30/40%. Even if one accepts that the poll putting the Conservatives on 30% was an outlier, the range was still 35-40%.
242 Great post and so right Mr Llama. That’s at the core of why I am so perplexed that Blair in particular effed the whole thing up [and most tellingly allowed Brown to take control of the money].
All of us who voted Labour for perhaps the first time in our lives, did so because an awful lot of what they said made sense. It was *good* stuff - and frankly the rest didn’t have a clue.
And then looked what happened once Gordon discovered PFI, stealth taxes et al. If he wasn’t the Chancellor, his bank manager would have been round wielding a pair of sharp scissors at the nation’s credit cards.
I’m not terribly keen on the Tories me-too attitude to banning things, as someone with a strong belief in personal responsibility rather than nannying - it cuts right across the grain.
Still, I have a great deal more faith in them to only spend what we actually have - and I suspect that many others like me will never ever vote Labour again.
I don’t think Gordon or an awful lot of Labour high-ups understand that trust like virginity can only be lost once.
Labour’s problem is that there is NO debate within the party about policy. Brown has made it so.
Over more than fifteen years, assisted by his personal bodyguard, Brown has accumulated sufficient autocratic power (burial sites, patronage) to dictate policy as he and he alone chooses, power exercised without restraint and by all available means, post-Blair.
Brown’s policy, nett, is to
(a) attain power and ensure his own survival at the top
(b) eff the Tories
(c) impose, partly by Gramscian methods and partly by simply lying, the dictatorship of his version of Leftist socio-economic doctrine. It is not left enough for some but Brown’s got the ship.
To wit., chiefly:
(i) redistribution regardless of cost (he being frighteningly ignorant of economics)
(ii) the elimination of dissent inside and outside Parliament (hence the auto-guillotine and similar) and from academia/education
(iii) the imposition of an all-pervasive hard (sic) Left anti-capitalist egalitarianism variously called ‘multiculturalism’ (partially through unlimited immigration from dissimilar cultures to be used as a stick to suppress the natives with), ‘diversity’ (see above), ‘gender equality’ (conveniently damaging to a trade-based economy) and other weasel words betokening ’fairness’.
Throughout, Brown has had the unswerving support of most of those currently in his Cabinet, a largely supine and rent-seeking backbench, the Union leaderships and the EU. Brown himself, therefore, is merely the face of the actual problem facing this country: the Labour Party itself.
(Brown will not accept that the electorate understands this until his party is pretty much destroyed by a vengeful electorate, which will – believe me – happen.)
In none of the above has the welfare of nation or people figured large - other than in Brown’s speechmaking because even the Deluded Ruiner recognises that the British constitution allows the peasants some limited choices. For now. But he, Harman, Straw and a string of Labour government law officers have been working on that over their years in government as the present constitutional wreckage attests.
When Brown goes it will be because the electorate evicts him and for no other reason. Being utterly deluded and quite wicked, though, in the way that his hero Lenin was wicked, he will be largely satisfied with his handiwork and will drone on about his glorious achievements until he falls off his perch.
His autobiography will be of little interest because it will be a paean of praise for himself and we are numb to those after all his speeches. The interesting biographies will be written by his enemies once Labour is in opposition. They will be BIG sellers.
242 - Thanks for your kind wishes, which I heartily reciprocate.
I think your analysis is spot on for the most part. Labour called most things correctly in the mid-1990s, but failed to do anything about it when given the chance to because they did not trust the electorate with grown-up engagement and discussion. As a result, they have put back the cause of government as a force for good by many years. It is a damning indictment and perhaps the biggest wasted opportunity in the history of British politics.
256 - All of which is why it would be madness for anyone else to lead Labour to election defeat.
245. Quite so. Raping under two year olds, doing 37 in a 30 zone on a dead straight road at 3 in the morning - it’s all lawbreaking, innit?
I cannot imagine a more perfect illustration of my point. Thanks for that.
256 I imagine that any book penned by Brown would make David Blunkett’s efforts look like a best seller
Oh dear - another British flagged ship has been hi-jacked by those nice S0malians.
I still can’t believe that the couple kidnapped in November are still there - the media just don’t seem interested at all anymore.
255 It was all bullshit from day one. New Labour was about constant electioneering and spin which is the only thinmg they are good at, governance of the country didn’t really come into it.
Policy where it did exist was poorly thought through and was basically there to mask an agenda of jobs for the boys, (i.e. massively increase the public payroll with Labour toadies or fund the unions from public purse or give lucrative pfi contracts to friends in construction) borrowing and stealth taxation, to overall build a client state whatever the cost.
My favourite comment of the day - 110: Edmund in Tokyo.
Just because we vote for a particular party doesn’t mean we support every single policy that party stands for, but politicians love pretending that this is precisely what it means because it suits them to think so.
The Joys of Betting are that you are thereby enabled to separate the men from the boys.
By definition, the Tory Herd are not men, they are cows.
Rod Crosby talks tall but apparently walks small. He is a kind of a man but not much of one.
This innumerate (Crosby) states that “The Tories will be LUCKY to win 300 Seats, let alone 400.”
I have offered him 3-1 that I will get lucky. Where is he ?
Rod Crosby - You could make me look like an idiot by taking up my offer. You say CON Seats 299-. I offer 3-1.
Is Cameron’s speech worth watching - well apart from for the gaffe
?
188
Did Cameron just say that he will help those in long term poverty into long term unemployment??
by peter sadler January 2nd, 2010 at 11:37 am
The question is WHY are there so many in long term poverty. They cost us all money, so it is all our interest to get these people out of long term poverty.
262 But, but, but Rodger said that anyone who voted Tory secretly held Thatcher to their heart
Shurely you can’t both be right
25. james , you should know by now that only Scottish Tories are tolerated, any SNP supporter is seen as bad by the Tory herd, either through hatred or ignorance of Scottish politics or both.
Is it just me - or is Cameron’s NY message venue/dress trying to say more than he actually is?
Hideous spartan room [with what looks like a bare flex hanging in the left corner], hideous lamp shade and peek of sparsely decorated Xmas tree and no other decorations - oh and he’s wearing a miserable looking jumper and open-necked grey shirt.
If he wanted to say - ‘we had no fun this Christmas’ it couldn’t be more obvious.
Re 222/242
Whilst the chances are Labour will survive the first years in opposition I think it is not a foregone conclusion. I don’t accept Southam’s argument
because the prospect of winning again in 2015 will keep it together
IIRC this was a common but false assumption post 1979 and 1997
What happened? - in 1983 Labour lost 60 seats and 3 million votes
whilst in 2001 the Conservatives somehow managed to gain one seat while losing 1.3 million votes. Both parties then had to go through two further leaders before finding a suitable challenger to win a General Election.
The previous election scenarios suggest that the 1st election after being defeated has been worse, in recent times, than the actual defeat.
There will be in-fighting and their funding will be likely undermined by legislation aimed at cleaning up politics. Add to that the lack of any credible candidates in the current PLP (Ed Miliband will suffer as his brother did) and it is plausible that Labour could be in the wilderness for a very long time.
264 I would have said a bit lightweight, but yes, worth watching.
I am not sure who the audience was or why the venue was the Oxford School for Drama - connotations, surely, of the Bullingdon and of insincerity. tim would normally have made this point for us by now - a major version upgrade (tim 2.0 beta) must be in hand.
War cabinet and the unemployment gaffe were the highlights,
URW,
I cannot afford to bet at that level. My wife would kill me. 3-1 are generous odds on your part.
265 Yes he did say that he will help those in long term poverty into unemployment.
Seems a fair prediction to me of his future policies in the next couple of years.
Does he agree with David Blanchflower.
URW Sometimes I really do I like you.
232. Roger January 2nd, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Roger, how do you recommend I vote, other than Tory, in order to maximise the chance of removing the Labour government (that I originally voted for) from office?
269 Agreed - I don’t think it’s particularly healthy for democracy but if I were a Labour big cheese/and a realist - I’d be wondering where on Earth they go from here.
Old Labour [Team Gordon] vs New Labour [Mandy and ????] are already sulking and they haven’t lost yet.
Mandy’s invisibility is remarkable - he was the frontman for Labour for weeks and now zip. And Harriet is being pushed instead - frankly I can’t think of a more strategically different face than this. Oh and of course Mr Balls.
I LOL when R5 chose to include the WHOLE car crash interview between Balls and Peter Allen for their review of the year - it gets even worse the more I hear it
“Thatcher wasn’t truly unpopular until the poll tax and Obama is unpopular because he is a ditherer (just like Gordon).”
Both points are not exactly borne out by research, Thatcher’s popularity was poor until the Falklands, given the economic problems that many were facing, recession, high unemployment etc.
Polling also shows that much of any shift against Obama is because he isn’t being liberal enough for the liberals and too liberal for the conservatives. That added to the same as Thatcher (recession, unemployment etc.) gives a more rounded reason.
Given the kneejerk reactions of the Bush/Cheney years, people appear to realise (as per polling) that taking time to make decisions from a position of knowledge and understanding rather than being bumped into them through fear is a more mature form of government. Given that the opposite led to Iraq and economic meltdown then that sort of government is (rightly) in the doghouse.
OT
Meanwhile global warming means the madasafish view is that of a parched desert in the mild winter forecast by the Met Office.
http://i981.photobucket.com/albums/ae293/mikemadf/2jan2010001.jpg
260
I think ‘cos there is a general feeling if you are silly enough to sail in that particular area, what do you expect?
So which Dave are we onto now, we’ve had Sunshine Dave, Austerity Dave, do you think it’ll end up a series like the Mr Men books?
275. Was it healthy for democracy when Labour replaced the Liberals? I think so. The only question is which of the parties will would replace them if they cannot recover.
I agree Labour is very much an empty vessel full of empty vassals but then what do you expect when they have ripped the heart and soul out of their constitution and in doing so their destroyed their raison d’etre?
Labour unlike the Conservatives (whose raison d’etre has stayed in tact pretty much) before them have got to work out who they are and who they actually stand for again and stop trying to be all things to everyone and ending up be nothing to all.
269: jsfl @ 13:25
“There will be in-fighting”
I do hope so. There is no way a credible left of centre party with a real vision of what they want to do can emerge without a lot of blood-on-the-carpet, eye-gouging, knee-in-the groin type politcial violence. It will not be pretty, if it happens, but it will be necessary.
“funding will be likely undermined by legislation aimed at cleaning up politics”
I do hope so. Having a party funded by, mainly public sector based, interest groups will nto be to teh benefit of either the party or the country.
“Labour could be in the wilderness for a very long time”
True but that depends on how long it takes them to come up with a vision that will attract a large section of the population that are not dependent on benefits or working in the public sector.
72. LS , That is rich coming from you of all people.
James Kelly as part of a fascinating meta-exchange above said “Ezio (formerly of this parish) strongly suggested to me a few weeks ago that this site had recently become just so belligerently right-wing and intolerant of alternative viewpoints that all the few remaining left-of-centre posters were actually achieving was to give the site a thin veneer of credibility as still being the ‘broad church’ it once was.”
Guerilla tactics are best in such situations; steal in, make your point, stick around for a while then retreat. Frustrate those who you oppose and divide them into those who are worth the effort and those who aren’t. Stick around for too long and at the same time and place and you make yourself too big a target.
275. I don’t think Mandy will play a major role in the election campaign. Peers of the Realm are expected to assume a lofty indifference while the common folk elect the ‘lower house’. Labour would look absolutely desperate if they have to rely on him to articulate the thoughts of their Leader.
269
280
“There will be infighting”
How can you post such drivel? With that nice Mr Balls as heir apparent, everyone will see he is best suited for the job.
Anyone who looks at the Labour Party can see the senior members are driven by socialist principles and respect for each other. Ed Balls is best placed to win and there will be no infighting…..
So I offer you a toast: to massive defeat this year so that a new movement with real principles can emerge. Cheers.
by HurstLlama January 2nd, 2010 at 12:47 pm
This comment I am about to make is not trite or point scoring. It is serious and comes from many years of being in the Labour/Unions miasma.
Labour must start at the smallest level to change culture. A good start is by not calling it a ‘movement’ or addressing one another as ‘comrade’ or singing the red flag and dropping all that hagiography of past leaders - in this you are worse than the Tories Bufton-Tuftons with Mrs T - which make many party events seem so dated and disconnected from reality.
Secondly, stop assuming the party represents the working class and that you have those voters’ support and that they accept the party’s condescension.
The first changes will effect the culture of the party quite significantly, helping it move from what has become an historical anachronism to a modern social democrat party.
The second would avoid the loss of support of the real working class of all colours and creeds who are not stupid, do not agree with liberal shibboleths of the middle class conceited elitists who have captured your party, who supported the Tories for most elections in the post war years and are about to do so again.
I wish the change well, as a real social democrat party is essential in our democracy. The LibDems are incapable of deciding what they are - indeed have failed to do so for fifty years - so we can put no trust in them as a constitutional counterweight.
I wish your party at this election nothing but ill, I am afraid, but after that I hope it refreshes to a sensible position in the current context socially, economically, politically.
93. Fergusmac, well put and a nice ideal, however given that many on here like to hurl insults but do not like them back it will be difficult, you cannot always turn the other cheek. James is an excellent poster and forceful wit hit , but in doing thsi you attract the herds anger and they do not like people returning their insults.
276 Thatcher wasn’t truly unpopular (i.e almost Gordon Brown level) until after the poll tax.
On Obama, I will take your word for it although I know you and the US posters argue fiercely about polling. Certainly from my perspective I was willing to give Obama a chance at the start but his dithering over Afghanistan was poor leadership, and I get he same feeling over the Health care reforms.
280 Hurst
True but that depends on how long it takes them to come up with a vision that will attract a large section of the population.
Agreed but not only that but how long it will take to find someone who can lead and present that vision.
As I said above both previous oppositions took 4 attempts to find the right leader after being kicked out. Do the likely math?
After all Cameron wasn’t an MP when the Conservatives last were in power. My view is that if Labour survive, the next Labour Prime Minister is not in Parliament yet either and likely won’t be after this election.
Re 288 - oops didn’t close the italics - apologies
279. Agree.
We needed someone to defend us against the vampire squid and the ills of rampant global capitalism. It would be a bold Tory party to be that defence (though John Redwood could have been that on the basis of his blog), St Vincent of Twickenham would not have been up to the job, and New Labour were intensely relaxed about it. Where is a non-loony counter to global greed when you need one?
The worst thing about the Scottish conversations overnight is that sometimes the Scottish protagonists have very set viewpoints and once they repeat them they go back to sticking the old tongue out and saying yah boo sucks. Unless there is actually a new event to discuss which is unlikely over the holiday season.
And if an English person joins in, they get told they have nothing to contribute anyway so go away.
I admit that Oldnat’s dismissal of pretty much my entire life’s work in a sentence rather got to me!
96 NPMP
I don’t think it possible to import a political system from elsewhere (which is why “democracy” in Pakistan is a totally different beast than “democracy” in Europe). It has to develop from the culture, societal structure, and traditions of each country. It is, of course, useful to look at models that other countries use.
Obviously, my thinking on the subject of an appropriate constitutional model has been focussed on Scotland, and might not work in a larger country like the UK.
One of the better things Donald Dewar did was to establish the process of petitioning Parliament. It’s quite instructive to watch the Petitions Committee at work, as individuals or small groups actually achieve changes in legislation or practice, or have it explained to them that while the idea may have merit, implementation would conflict with a greater need. It would be relatively easy to expand this process into something similar to the Swiss model. For anything less than constitutional change, however, I would have such referenda as advisory to, rather than mandatory on Parliament. California got itself into a terrible mess with the passing of Proposition 13 in 1978.
On the substantive issue, however, it seems to me to be fundamentally wrong for so much power to be invested in one person - the PM - with few effective checks. A system needs inbuilt inertia to prevent the erosion of liberty. The only effective way I can see to do this is via a codified constitution which cannot be changed without a popular vote. You seem a good guy, but I wouldn’t trust any politician with my liberties.
284. Madsa
Oops sorry I was having one of my moments of clarity. I had forgotten such realism had been forbidden by the supreme national politiburo.
What punishnment am I likely to suffer? Please not reading allowed the scollected peeches of the great leader again - such total stupefaction is more than one can bare..
Mercy I plead Mercy!!!!!
Re 293
scollected peeches = collected speeches
ROFLMAO!
293
jsfl
Your punishment is to toil at night posting gibberish to annoy the Scots Nats and every time one of them gets enraged a giant meat eating lizard gnaws away at your kidneys. When they agree with you, your kidney grows back again.
I reckon you will either die from lack of kidneys or boredom on night 1.
288: jsfl @ 13:48
I think you are probably correct, certainly I can think of nobody in the current PLP that has what it will take.
One can only hope that in the future the Labour Party finds a man or woman of years, gravitas, charm, passion, knowledge and, most importantly, principle. Just by having such a leader they would probably make themselves electable, after all neither of the other two main parties seem to have gone for such a leader.
295. NO NOT THAT!
How can you be so cruel? Just throw me to giant meat eating lizards and be done with it!
291 David Roe
While I do try to be constructive most of the time, there’s no point in having a dig at someone, unless it does get to them!
296. Hurst
a man or woman of years, gravitas, charm, passion, knowledge and, most importantly, principle
Ah of course and such people are ten-a-penny particularly in the political arena. Still perhaps if they put an ad in the local papers they might be lucky.
But of course there is Frank Field.
Ironic isn’t it….?
291. I never saw it but I bet he was almost certainly correct and that is what caused you the concern. There is no doubt that many people on here are very fixed in their views, Conservatives, and will brook no other opinion. The Scottish posters have strong views but are happy to consider others views, this is rarely done by the usual herd on hers. They like to through insults etc but not so good at receiving any criticisms or opposite points of view in return.
On Thatcher, maybe it’s because I’m a northerner but the dislike was much more intense, as we suffered greatly in the early part of the eighties. Later on with the poll tax I got the impression that this was much more a national rather than regional dislike.
On Afghanistan it turned out that the delay was because the military wanted things to be taken more slowly, so the popularity of that has grown given that it was there to make things quicker not slower (not sure that that was made obvious over here).
On health care, the complaint was that Obama didn’t impose himself on the debate, not that he was taking his time; in this he sought to avoid what helped to cause the Clinton collapse on the same issue. It’s one of the problems of the US system where 50% is not enough and that there are two bills to reconcile now, as opposed to one that is modified and sent back (as per Commons/Lords).
263. I can get effective odds of 6/1 for the Tories in the range 250-300, which is where I think they’ll end up, as will Labour.
Your offer is declined.
291, 295. I can more readily digest the nocturnal emissions from north of the border if I associate the protagonists with much-loved TV characters of my distant youth. Stuart Dickson is the worldly-wise Dr Cameron and James Kelly the young firebrand Dr Finlay. ChristinaD is the relentlessly polite Janet, who always gets her way in the end. Easterross is, of course, the laird and MalcolmG his mutinous ghillie with an irritating rash that just won’t go away.
287 Thatcher’s approval ratings in late 1981 were worse than Brown’s ratings in late 2009 .
303 -
@304:
All Gordon needs now is for somebody to invade the Falklands.
303. And which posters are the ‘irritating rash’?
“SNP reveals membership boom at start of general election year”
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/SNP–reveals-membership-boom.5951268.jp
“According to the party, it now has 15,644 members, up 4 per cent from a year ago and 65 per cent from 2003.”
“Scottish Labour had about 18,500 members last year, according to recent figures. The Scottish Conservatives never release membership figures but a spokesman claimed the Tories had “roughly the same number” as the Nationalists, about 15,000.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats are believed to have around 4,000 members in Scotland.”
Happy New Year all.
Just checking the betfair GE markets after the holidays and I note that March is on the drift but still too short around 6s whilst NOM is in from 4.5 to 3.8.
307 jsfl
I think I just answered that question with my 308.
I reckon Cameron is the name of the decade.
Cameron Diaz, David Cameron, Dr Cameron, James Cameron, John Cameron ………
306. I’m waiting for Gordo send a task force to save Sark from the Barclay Brothers.
I have visions of Bob (Ainsworth) the Admin landing to a rapturous welcome from the Puffins and Guillemots (the people having all escaped to Guernsey and Jersey).
310.
New Thread
301 The trouble with Obama is Paul you seem to be giving excuse after excuse. I am sure there is always a good reason for dithering, but it still comes across as dithering and that is not leadership.
304 The relevent point is that Thatcher’s lowest ever ratings ever were never as low as Gordon Brown’s lowest ever ratings.
303. history boy, nice one , very witty. Not so keen on the rash though.
IMO Any opinion based on ANYTHING whatsoever Polly Toynbee has to say on ANY matter, is destined to be at least 180 degrees incorrect, as well as often dangerously so.
The above conclusion is based on experience. Indeed when has Polly Toynbee been even partially correct on any subject?
It is not The Trades Unions, or Labour MP’s that will decide, or indeed have decided the length of Gordon Browns role of apparent Fascist dictator of the UK. It is elements within the establishment including The Bilderberg Group and others that have long since decided such things, including the results of UK elections since not long after the second WW.
In my mind the only question regarding PT on this matter is whether she is a very nasty lying bitch, or more likely simply an ignorantly deluded one.
Of course PT’s tendency to be completely wrong about absolutely everything does actually make her the most ‘freely available,’ accurate guide as to future events, and why they are happening. All one has to do is listen very carefully to what she is saying, and swiftly come to the opposite conclusion, and for exactly the opposite, or completely different reasons, that she gives.
PT gets her opinions and the information that they are based on from the most dishonest sources of vile dis-information yet known to mankind. Which is directly and indirectly from the British and now WORLD corporatist establishment. As does SKY TV, and it most surly by now goes without having to state yet again, The BBC.
I would strongly advise that readers of this site get used to the above facts of life and death ASAP. Please try to take what you are told by these characters, and organizations with the utter contempt they most clearly deserve.
315 - They are facts though, not excuses, the reason they appear so is because of the success of people and some media on the right in twisting actuality. Take Afghanistan for example, the truth is not what was claimed. Take Palin’s ‘death panels’, a total lie. Take Drudge and Breitbart, pretty much everything posted there is a twisted version of truth or an outright untruth. Take Cheney now trying to rewrite history in the manner of some Communist despot.
In such situations you can only carry on knowing that people will believe these lies if they are politically predisposed to do so. If they believe it then more fool them, it’s sad that political debate is often like this but thank god that this country has somewhat better standards.
On topic.
The problem for any hypothetical coup against Brown, whether lead by cabinet ministers, members of the PLP, unions or anyone else is what do they do if Brown says ‘no’, as he very easily could?
Would the ministers really resign, pitching the government into crisis and creating splits that would have no chance of healing by the Spring? Would the unions really cut off funding, in the knowledge that that would make a Tory win even more likely?
The threats would look like bluffs and Brown is in a strong position to call them. If there is to be a change of leadership at this stage, it has to be orderly otherwise the damage from doing it is likely to be greater than the benefits from removing Brown - and the PM can easily prevent it from being orderly by simply not cooperating.
Re 319 - serious point. However we are in for a 2 to 3 week press barrage of will the grey suits ( who ever they may be ) make the gruesome visit. When Lab MPs return what will the small talk be ?
The other thing to watch out for is the delayed High Court judgment re the summary sacking by Ed Balls of Sharon Shoesmith - might be damning - what some might call a resignation issue. PB may want to ponder implications.
Concerning interesting bets for 2010 - is there market re 2 general elections in 2010 or a 12 month period ?
As regards lefties not posting - many of us read PB but not post.
Best wishes for 2010 - remember election expenses for the long campaign have kicked in !!
Polly is desperate and cynical. Labour would be seen as desperate and cynical too, if they ditched leader with so little time before an election. The result for the government could be horrendous, and might see Labour absolutely routed at the polls.
As things stand they have a chance to deny Cameron a majority, and leaving aside questions of whether or not a hung parliament would be good for the country with the country’s credit rating hanging in the balance, from a Labour perspective it is preferable to having less than 200 seats and having an opposition that cannot hold the Tories to account.
Has Polly fired the opening salvo in what could be a bloody civil war?
What kind of fool would want the job now? They’re doomed. Even if Gordon walked under a bus they would struggle to find enough people willing to contest a leadership election.
There are some silly people in the Labour party but surely nobody would want the title of the shortest serving Prime Minister ever!