Is this the man who’ll choose Brown’s successor?
January 4th, 2010
Could my December 2008 speculation come about?
Back in December 2008 I put forward what I described as a “plan for Clegg” in the event that the Tories ended up with many more votes at the general election but behind Labour on seats. Such an outcome is highly possible if the gap between the parties gets down to five or six percent.
On the one hand Clegg would find it hard with his own MPs and activists to deal with the “vote winners” but their flag-ship policy on “fair votes” would put a big constraint on dealing with Brown. My thought then was they they could support Labour but demand Brown’s scalp in return.
Well according to Jackie Ashley’s Guardian column this morning my fantasy scenario is being discussed between the two parties. She writes:-
“…So Labour ministers are talking of a scenario in which, if no party won the election, Brown might stand down quickly. He would then be replaced by a more Lib-friendly leader..”
Now who could that “Lib-friendly leader” be? Ashley doesn’t name a name but I will hazard a guess. For looking at the likely contenders it’s hard to see Clegg being comfortable with Johnson, the Milibands, Harman, Straw or Balls, assuming he holds on in Morley and Outwood.
In my judgement, and this is not based on any information, the one name that sticks out is James Purnell - the man who quit his cabinet post just after the polls closed in the local and EU elections on June 4th 2008. He’s of the same generation as Clegg, looks set to retain his Stalybridge seat and doesn’t quite have the baggage as the others.
Could Labour have a Purnell leadership forced on it? Well in the frenzied atmosphere of an inconclusive election outcome the party’s NEC might have no alternative. Force Brown out and put Purnell in or have the Tories returning to power. It’s a no-brainer.
Is it worth a punt on Purnell? The problem is that all this requires a hung parliament and the polls need to move a fair bit before we are in that territory.
Overnight I’ve taken all the value out of what little was available on the Betfair market. The best bookie price I can find is Stan James at 16/1. 
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
First? Again?
First!!!
2. Unlucky!
On topic - surely Labour would have to hold a proper leadership election if Brown stood down post GE.
Just saying “it’s Purnell”, especially as he is not currently a very prominent figure, doesn’t seem very likely to me.
re 3. But there would be no time to do that. The time-table would be set by the first Queen’s Speech of the new parliament.
In the unlikely event it happens, it will definitely be an uber-Blairite, so Purnell in definitely in the hunt. Besides, Purnell very definitely distanced himself from Brown by resigning. All the others? They had their chance and blew it.
Everything I have seen of Clegg suggests he is definitely Orange Book rather than SDP. David Laws is his ideal minister.
4. I can’t see enough people in the Labour Party agreeing to it. At that point would there technically even be a Cabinet?
So I think it would be up to the NEC. And I think they would say “we’re not going to be bullied like this, we’ll elect our own leader thank you very much”.
OGH: “My thought then was they they could support Labour but demand Brown’s scalp in return”
This is precisely what the Tories need ahead of the GE - for the LibDems to be seen to be cosying-up to Labour.
Vote Orange, get 5 more years of
BrownLabour.Interesting thread.
I think Clegg would be doing well to force a change of leader.
Expecting Labour to let him pick who it is as well would be pushing it a bit.
And if Clegg really had that much leverage, I’d have thought he’d want to use it to get policy concessions or important cabinet seats rather than forcing Labour to choose his favourite leader.
In any case, do the LibDems really want to be responsible for choosing Labour’s leader? They’d be screwed whatever happened. If the new leader turned out to be unpopular the LibDems would get the blame, and if they turned out to be popular Labour could call a new election and go back to governing on their own.
That said, Labour would want to pick someone who could come up with a credible programme that would work in coalition with the LibDems. Alan Johnson seems to be lining himself up for that one, sending out friendly signals about PR, ID cards, etc.
re 6. Beggars can’t be choosers. Brown’s Labour would have lost and if this was the only way of keeping some hold on power then sobeit.
In my judgement Clegg could not and will not support a Brown-led Labour.
I’d say this is implausible immediately after election, but that it might suit both in the event of a hung parliament. eg LibDems agree to support Tories on issue by issue basis, and allow a year or so for Purnell or alternative to get settled before a formal lib lab pact before or after second election.
this would also let Tories take heat for cuts etc in interim. having said all that, still think Labour will be gubbed on a grand scale, so none of this is likely!
re 8. Johnson has proved himself to be a weak caver-in. When in doubt he concedes.
Don’t underestimate the generational aspect. The world has passed by for men in their late 50s.
in Scotland 2007, lib dems came under unionist pressure from Menzies Campbell, Brown to support Labour after 47/46 SNP win, but felt they couldn’t support party who had lost the popular mandate. they then held out on referendum veto in coalition talks and managed to negotiate themselves into a position of greater obscurity, which was a rare feat, and which still afflicts them today.
The problem with any scenario that needed the Lib Dems to prop up Labour is that it would be highly dangerous for the Lib Dems to actually prop them up. It is unlikely that any such Parliament would go anything like the full five years and the Lib Dems would have to have half an eye on the electoral consequences of any political support.
Also any Labour figure likely to be palatable to Clegg & Co is unlikely to be entirely stupid and may look at the situation and conclude that other options are more politically compelling.
The other question here is how much leverage the LibDems would have in this situation.
I posted here a while back that it might be worth Clegg making it known before the election that he wouldn’t prop up Labour unless they changed their leader. (Don’t like Cameron or Brown? Vote LibDem and we’ll make sure you get neither.) Somebody - can’t remember who - countered that if the LibDems tried it on, Brown, who would still technically be Prime Minister at that point, could just go to the Queen and ask for a new election.
Presumably a new election is something the LibDems would be keen to avoid at that point. You can see how the downside to propping up Brown might convince them to stay out of a coalition unless Labour made a switch, but letting Labour call new elections because they can’t get the leader they want would be rather - ahem - courageous.
Will it be up to Clegg? Don’t the LDs have an automatic leadership election after the GE?
Which MP could head a coalition with enough support from the public, the media, the PLDP and the PLP?
Vince Cable.
If there was a suitable candidate in the PLP he/she would have taken over months ago.
12. rob roy
The precedent the Scottish Lib Dems set in 2007, when they were led by the “political dud of the decade” Nicol Stephen, must speak against the Lib Dems being effective kingmakers.
Stephen had a (on paper) strong hand, yet managed to come away with less than nothing. He (and Menzies Campbell) managed to cripple the SLDs for the foreseeable future, simply by fluffing the few days after the 2007 general election.
5
In the recent Westminster Hour interviews, there didn’t seem to be much difference betweeen Mr Clegg’s picture of Lib-Demery, and Mr Cameron’s picture of conservatism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/8385381.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8314740.stm
——
Shouldn’t a LD/Labour pact be a non-starter, who-ever leads the LDs? Since the Green Party has become viable, LDs seem to be championing civil liberties, where they used to tout greenery. Aren’t Labour too authoritarian, and too statist, to contemplate?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2395395.ece
No mention of Wilson or Callaghan in an article about minority governments? How young is Jackie Ashley?
Her source is “a senior minister”, so not Purnell himself.
Why is the BBC focussing on such trivia?
‘Brown named ‘worst-dressed man’ by British GQ’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8438862.stm
So much for “quality” journalism.
20 re worst dressed man (Stuart Dickson)
If the BBC made no mention of the GQ press release, doubtless Pravda would be supressing news of Brown’s humiliation.
One more thought on the article - I think Jackie Ashley is too dismissive of the idea of the LibDems either in coalition the Tories or supporting their minority government. (Probably the latter.) She talks about Europe, but there’s nothing relevant on the horizon to squabble about.
Given that there’s going to be a practical necessity to shrink government in any case, it’s not hard to see Cameron and Clegg collaborating on something like a Classical Liberal programme.
Cameron isn’t a Liberal, but he sometimes plays one on TV, and he could carry on playing.
I was last on the previous post. Does that count for anything?
On topic. I agree with OGH that this scenario is dependent on a hung parliament. I am very doubtful that we will be in that territory. But if we are, I think any formal pact will be damaging to the LibDems: with Labour and they are tainted by association with those who brought us to the brink and possibly over the precipice; with the Tories and they become associated with the necessary but evil cuts. Thus the best option, IMO, for the LibDems in hung parliament territory, is to work with the Tories but informally, and then to hammer them in the second election for wielding the axe, while railing against Labour as still being the guys who brought it upon us.
continuation of 24
Thinking about it, what that suggests is that Clegg should have a two election strategy:
1. hold as much of the fort as possible this time around, while helping Labour prevent an overall Tory majority (ie get to a hung parliament);
2. concentrate on wiping Labour out at the second election when the LibDems won’t have to defend their right flank against the Tories so much.
24
Won’t a minority Conservative gov’t emphasise the splits within the LDs? Did the Liberal/SDP merger ever really work?
24,25. Cake, having, eating.
26 DaveB Yes. No.
Ref the Yes. There are certainly dangers for the LibDems in working with either the Conservatives or Labour. But part of the point of going into politics is to achieve power. Unless the LibDems treat with either Labour or the Tories, they’re not going to achieve any power. My argument is that an informal arrangement with the Tories is there best option, not that it is one without dangers. And it would be natural for the Tories to try to exploit such an arrangement to exacerbate pragmatic and ideological differences within the LibDem universe (party just seems the wrong term for them, given just how diverse the range is from libertarians to social democrats).
Ref the No. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.
27. Tapestry. So, if you can pull it off, you’re agreeing it’s a good strategy? After all, excepting cakophobes, who wouldn’t like to have their cake and eat it?
Mostly agree with TimT about LibDem strategy, but a couple of caveats:
1) There are quite a few non-LibDem Others, so the arithmetic may well end up making one coalition or the other unviable. Clegg wouldn’t necessarily get to pick and choose.
2) If Labour offered them a coalition with a decent chance of full-blown PR - unlikely, but not unthinkable - they’d be mad not to take it.
The bet at a price under 20-1 is only valid if you think Purnell has a shot WHATEVER happens.
I would price Labour Most Seats only (No Overall Maj) in small double figures; maybe a 9% chance and thereafter Nick Clegg has to weave his magic.
29 EdmundinTokyo. Points well taken. Off to bed with me (it’s gone 2am here)
Balls just been on Sky news.
Seems it really is going to be cuts vs investment gonig into the election.
Can they really fool enough people? I would think not.
Shamelssly wittering on about cutting the deficit too - as if that amounts to even begining to cut the debt mountain. Someday someone will have to call them on that one.
In breaking news, another soldier dead in Afghanistan.
32
Even the BBC call them out on that. Surely they’ll have to change tack before the GE.
28. the saying originally was …
The phrase’s earliest recording is from 1546 as “wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?”
In other words, the strategy is impossible. It is one or tother. The saying was reversed in order about 200 years ago which has confused everyone ever since.
But the original should become the Lib Dem’s election slogan, for sure.
32/34. And Labour’s slogan too.
They want to spend the money they’ve already consumed.
They are spent out.
They are borrowed out.
They are lied out.
But the habit will not die after it’s been so successful so long. That’s the measure of how dumb we are. The more they lied, the more we voted for them. Of course they’ll try again. It always worked before.
Three words only required.
Labour. Cake. Eaten.
We are very much in lala land here.
Unless the GE produces a massive surprise result in Labour’s favour, we would expect the hung parliament to be predicted by polls during and probably before the election campaign.
If the markets expected a hung parliament without there being a firm commitment by Labour to cut the deficit through identified tax rises and spending cuts, there would be a massive sterling and bonds crisis.
To maintain confidence in the economy, Labour would have to pass a budget before Parliament was ‘dissolved’. The budget would have to be of sufficient austerity to placate the markets. It would need to involve tax rises and cuts on a scale which none of the parties, least of all Labour, will have yet admitted in public are necessary.
This would throw the ‘political decision’ on coalition back to the pre-budget run-up, i.e. before the GE campaign started. In effect Clegg would be forced to make a decision to support or oppose the Labour budget proposals and commit himself - even if only politically - to favouring Labour over the Tories if the GE produced a hung parliament.
Such a scenario favours Brown. He could offer Vince Cable and/or Clegg a cabinet position - but not that of CoE - before the election in return for Clegg’s support for his Budget. Labour’s U-Turn on ’savagery’ would be explained as being the price paid for Lib Dem support and Brown would attempt to sell the deal to the electorate as one which offers a less turbulent resurfacing for the economy than the Cameron-Osborne Tory alternative.
Brown would essentially tie the Lib Dems into his deal before the GE campaign started and remove their negotiating power in the event of a hung parliament. Clegg could refuse to go along with Brown’s plan, but this could be disastrous for the Lib Dems at the onset of the GE campaign when all the market and popular expectations were for a hung parliament. Assuming the budget was acceptable to the markets, Clegg would be accused of jeopardising the recovery and undermining international confidence in the country.
Brown would then have to win sufficient seats to prevent a Con-LD coalition. If he achieved this, he wouldn’t be home and dry, but Clegg would have little leverage left to force a leadership change. Brown would just argue all the facts were known to the electorate and the people spoke.
All being said, we are still in lala land. The Conservatives will win a working majority at least at the GE. A Tory landslide is more likely than a hung parliament. But we are in deepest, darkest winter and it is reassuring to have a fairy tale to tell as we warm ourself by the fire.
Four More Years of Brown
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/6928696/Expenses-Morley-privilege.html
Mr Brown added:
“I think when you are behind in the polls you have got to regard yourself as the fighter.
“Everything I have ever won in my life I have had to fight for.”
The man who has dodged every electoral challenge possible, who was coronated as Prime Minister, who has only ever represented a seat which a Monkey in a red rosette would win, regards himself as a fighter.
Gordon, get Dolly or Balls to slander your opponents, does not count as fighting. Your predecessor, now there was a man who could start a riot in a phonebox. His predecessor, a man who took political street fighting to a new level. Brown? The Tim Henman of politics, always talked a good game but ended up choking.
37, my impression was that Henman was a decent, honourable man. It’s true he never won a Grand Slam, but unlike Brown he isn’t a ****.
Saw Balls on Sky. Apparently cuts now entail spending more money and criticising the Tories for not promising to raise taxes.
SOL @ 36. I agree with every word of your last paragraph. “Taxi for Brown” is priced at a rough 9-1 whereas even a mini triumph for him is a 12-1 chance.
‘NOM’ is a Chistmas song we are all humming now but by Wednesday we will all have forgotten it, except for Rod Crosby and tim.
41.Bah, I’ve said something that triggered the moderation trap. I’ll try again, in parts. Part one:
40.I have been thinking about exactly this problem quite a lot. I don’t see James Purnell as getting the gig - he’s just not senior enough.
The way I see it working is like this: Nick Clegg says that he will work with a different Labour leader but not Gordon Brown. He may name a name, but that is for the Labour party to take under advisement. The Labour greybeards (and their female equivalents) will then confer. A self-respecting Cabinet member would tell Nick Clegg that it was all very well for him to say that he wouldn’t serve under or support a Gordon Brown government, but it was for the dominant party in any hung Parliament to choose the Prime Minister, especially when that leader was to come from their party. They will look for someone acceptable to the Labour party and to Nick Clegg, and with some gravitas. I suggest the following, in roughly this order:
1) David Miliband
2) Ed Miliband (this is just about the only way I see him becoming Prime Minister)
3) Jack Straw
4) Peter Mandelson (this is just about the only way I see him becoming Prime Minister)
Bah, I’ve said something that triggered the moderation trap. I’ll try again, in parts. Part one:
I have been thinking about exactly this problem quite a lot. I don’t see James Purnell as getting the gig - he’s just not senior enough.
The way I see it working is like this: Nick Clegg says that he will work with a different Labour leader but not Gordon Brown. He may name a name, but that is for the Labour party to take under advisement. The Labour greybeards (and their female equivalents) will then confer. A self-respecting Cabinet member would tell Nick Clegg that it was all very well for him to say that he wouldn’t serve under or support a Gordon Brown government, but it was for the dominant party in any hung Parliament to choose the Prime Minister, especially when that leader was to come from their party. They will look for someone acceptable to the Labour party and to Nick Clegg, and with some gravitas. I suggest the following, in roughly this order:
I give up - I have a long post which I’ve tried to edit several times but all are stuck in moderation. If one of our excellent moderators could release post 40 and delete the rest, I would be extremely grateful.
So, we are in a position where (against all expectations), the next Labour Leader can be PM? And yet you just casually dismiss the Milibands as being unacceptable to the LibDems? And you think Harriet would have given up all ambition, when she has shown that in an internal Labour election, she can win - even though she wouldn’t have a cat in hell’s chance winning a General election leading Labour? And you would have Ed balls saying that Labour only got to be largest party because of his behind the scenes steering of the message to the electorate.
Oh - and where is Gordon in all this - a man who would claim the electorate had stuck with to steer the country back to another goldenage of “investment”? He might just refuse to go, thank you very much.
If Labour is largest party, I think we have to assume that Darling holds his seat. And as a post-Brown but continuity Labour that the voters want candidate - with Vince as his Chancellor - Darling would be politicallyvery well placed.
So there would be a frantic 48 hours to get this sorted before the markets opened Monday (a late result guaranteed because of the seats counting on Friday). And whilst this goes on, the fear is that the pound sinks, the FTSE drops like a stone as profits get taken, there is mumbling of credit downgrades, of bond buyers going on strike - even the dread initials I.M.F.
Welcome to power, Mr Clegg. Soon to be the second most hated person in the land. Perhaps the most, if he gets the blame for keeping Labour in power - and all that entails.
A highly unlikely scenario.
I’d want 40/1 on Purnell.
The best way to cover this scenario is to back Tory seats 250-300 at 10/1 with PP (URW - I’d only put NOM at 25% unlike Rod)
In the personality race under a coalition I’ve got odds on the Milibands Darling and Johnson to be next PM which are far longer than those on Purnell to be next Labour Leader.
45, 46 - I agree with both tim and Marquee Mark.
I just wanted to give that sentence an outing, because I won’t have too many opportunities to use it.
antifrank, it is the Axis of Awesomeness….
Kallis and Steyn both out. 280-8 - SA tail left…
38. Tim Henman was more the Alec Douglas-Home of tennis, if we’re going to compare him with PMs: too nice to really cut it at the top, which combined with a game more suited to an earlier era meant he never really achieved the victories or recognition his undoubted abilities probably deserved.
Clegg won’t back Labour if they are behind on vote share by any significant amount. In any case the scenario you describe is not really that likely once you include tactical unwind.
Could Purnell get past the Labour activists? He is the one that tried to get some very sensible reforms to the welfare system started, and as I recall the Labour rank and file did not like that one little bit.
Wild rambling post alert !
I have seen this situation before in the Big Brother markets. The big solid markets (Most Seats and Overall Majority) are telling you one thing, (Labour are on the rise) and the tiny side markets are saying something different.
All the money on the CON and LAB Seat Bands has been for the Tories to do very well and for Labour to fare badly. There is comparatively little interest in the ‘normal’ scenario where the expected happens; ie. CONS get 350 and LAB 215.
What they are saying is that the Tories will get a 100+ Majority. On the other hand, in a big solid market you can easily Lay 1.48 that they won’t have any Majority.
Now for the rambling bit. In Big Brother I have found that the punters in the Side Markets are great predictors but lousy judges of prices at the time. Later however they are often proven correct.
Google is telling me that it is, right now, minus five degrees in central London. At 8.30am.
MINUS FIVE? In London??
I feel for you guys, I really do.
*stifles villainous cackling with poolside cocktail umbrella*
To even be seen talking lib-lab pacts is death for the LDs. The deal with Tony is still unrequited. They should publish any offer by labour as a sign of desperation and a good reason to vote LD. I realise that they want to be seen as a future opposition to the tories, but labour are throwing an anchor and pretending it is a lifeline.
37 - Seth. I’m sorry but I don’t agree with your main assumption.
One of the biggest advantages of being in opposition is that you can oppose a measure based on any of the component parts, whereas support implies opposition to none of them. The Lib Dems can therefore oppose Labour’s budget because of cuts to x or increases to tax y, even if they agree with the majority of it. And as there’s an election in imminent prospect, as Labour will get their budget through with or without the Lib Dems’ support and as the Tories would portray Lib Dem support as support for all the unpopular or irresponsible bits in the budget (and they would), there’s no good reason to do so.
The whip hand is sort of with the Lib Dems, as it always is in a hung parliament, except that this time it’s poisoned. This really is not a good election to win. 1997 was a good election to win and from a Lib Dem viewpoint, that was the missed boat. Then, the economy was in goodish shape, spending wasn’t committed years into the future and the international and domestic canvas wasn’t crowded with all sorts of difficult issues. Even the bigger challenges, such as Northern Ireland, were moving the right way.
Mike’s right that the Lib Dems can influence Labour’s choice but I don’t think they can impose a PM. For those who worry about Labour’s constitution here, it’s worth noting that there’s no requirement for the PM to be a party leader. In fact, in Britain’s limited experience with coalitions, they’ve frequently not been: neither Lloyd George nor Churchill (initially) were.
I don’t think the Lib Dems would (or could) rule out as many as Mike suggests. Balls, Ed Miliband and Harman, probably, but I could imagine them serving with one of the others given the flexibility they’ve demonstrated in their careers to date.
Ultimately, I’m sure the Lib Dems would demand a much higher price than influencing who the PM would be and picking up some cabinet positions. Entering the post-election government is a recipe for unpopularity - especially if you don’t lead it - and full PR for Westminster in the first term ought to be a sine qua non for them.
Jon, I think vote share is key to this, regardless of seats. For the LibDems to look at seats only would totally undermine their argument of unfairness in the current system (x votes to elect a Labour MP, x + y to elect a Tory, x + y + z to elect a LibDem).
And I just cannot imagine a scenario where Labour improves from its current position to get anywhere close to the Tories on total vote. We are consistently seeing a large proportion of Labour’s 2005 vote having walked away from them. We are consistently seeing the Tories polling well above their 2005 position. Those each point to the Tories being well ahead in the popular vote. What is going to change that in the next four months? Anybody?
I think Jackie Ashley’s piece is poorly thought through.
50, I dislike the media’s treatment of unusual temperature. I quite like cold weather. I hate hot weather. But whenever we get a hot summer with mid-30s temperatures the forecasters almost have trouser accidents with glee, but a teensy bit of cold makes the entire media cry “TRAFFIC CHAOS!”
It’s chilly, but that’s all.
More concerning is that I appear to have dreamt I was a contortionist, and now my left shoulder is feeling a shade dodgy.
Not sure these are great odds for such an extreme scenario
I note that as Britain descends into the next ice age, Beijing is suffering historic snowfalls:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8438871.stm
Meanwhile, record cold and frost has battered America from Texas to Florida:
http://tinyurl.com/yd6hq2p
Global warming, my pharaonic Cornish BUTTOCKS.
54. Call me Henry H. Hyperbole, but I would describe minus five as a bit nippier than “chilly”.
56, it’s only 2-3 years since China suffered the worst winter for 50 years. Transport and communications infrastructure was severely hit.
On topic, Jackie Ashley is living too much inside the Westminster bubble when she writes “As the gap between the main two parties narrows, the Lib Dem leader has changed status – from wallflower to hot date”.
It’s not Clegg the party leaders want (yet): it’s his voters.
57, I’d rather call you a big girl’s blouse, but if you prefer Henry H. Hyperbole, that’s alright too.
Saffers 291 all out
ENG 2-1…Strauss gone.
David Herdson is a good judge of the strategic considerations here. I agree on the tactics (which I focussed on in my post in moderation). The Lib Dems should be less fixated on who and more concentrating on what. Shunning Gordon Brown is one thing, acting as kingmaker is a different thing entirely.
Unlklely to be hung parliament If there is any coalition is a poisoned chalice for whichever is winning party and and particularly for the junior coalition partner.
Lib dems should be thinking long term -no deals no coalition.Reap the whirwind at the 2015 that will follow from whichever government is in power.
rogerh
57. You’re being a Southern wuss, Sean. I woke to a bedroom temperature of 6.5 degrees this morning. It’s nothing that a good breakfast doesn’t sort out.
59 David, quite so. The Big Squeeze is on.
The LibDems are going to be squeezed harder than a Chippendale’s bum cheeks at a Blackpool hen party…
“Do you REALLY want the Tories back in power? Only Labour can stop that…”
“Do you REALLY want Gordon Brown back in power? Only the Tories can stop that…”
“Er…we’ll tax mansions?”
60. Big girl’s blouse is probably more appropriate. As I get older I dislike the cold more and more, and especially loathe dank rainy grey freezingness.
Indeed I take bad weather these days as a kind of personal affront, and I get pointlessly angry about the disgusting English winter, as if it is a ludicrous joke aimed directly at me.
*stares meditatively out of window, at sunlit hotel palm trees*
69, rain annoys me, mostly because I have to walk the dog whatever the weather and it’s a pain. But I quite like it when it’s cool and crisp.
67 58
Only -8C here.. That’s warm.. went for my run: did not fall over once.
When we see -15C as we did in the 1980s , then the climate HAS changed…
70. Why don’t you just have the dog put down? Surely that solves the problem. Buy a little dog in Spring, enjoy its puppyish romps through the summer, then when autumn comes, kill it.
Job done.
Edmund is right that the LibDems couldn’t simply choose a Labour leader - the scenario would be more that Labour lost lots of seats but was still was the largest party (which given current expectations would be seen as a relative success for Labour and a failure for Cameron), the LibDems said they could only work with a new leader and Gordon then decided to step down. I wouldn’t think they’d have much trouble working with Johnson - e.g. he’s been a PR man since forever and would certainly offer AV+, not just AV.
I note the evasive response by Tories on the last thread to my suggestion that their message was confused (’we need spending cuts, and by the way we’ll build a new high-speed train network and increase NHS, overseas aid and climate change spending’). Basically there were two replies on the thread: “ha, you’re evasive too” (but it’s not us that is claiming to be majoring on austere spending) and “we’ll be cutting in other areas” (what and how much, specifically?). Moreover, the Tories are now more evasive on tax and NI - Osborne has said he’d like to reverse the NI rise, which does represent a substantial contribution to reducing the deficit.
What’s happened, I think, is that focus groups have told both parties that they don’t want to hear about cuts that actually affect them, and they do want to hear about some positive stuff as otherwise it’s all too depressing. I think there’s scope for a “doctor’s mandate” sort of approach if the electorate is addressed like adults, but after flirting with it, it seems to me that the Tories have now backed off. And before anyone says ‘your lot aren’t being explicit either’, that’s true too. But the new high-speed network stuff is simply bollocks, when presented in any way except as a long-term aspiration, and that sort of thing is quietly undercutting the Tory message of recent months.
Budapest yesterday was afflicted with a lazy wind. I’m glad I’m back in the relative warmth of London.
Christmas day, however, touched 21C in one place in Hungary, which I understand was a record by a long way.
Weather: not to be confused with climate change.
73 Nick, but Gordon Brown said yesterday the NI increase was to fund the real term increases in NHS spending - it can’t do that and reduce the deficit can it.
Confused messages?
71 cant beat that, minus 7 at 7.30 am this morning, now minus 5 According to the forecat , top temp is 1c today.. It must be all that global warming.
72
The simplest solutions are the best aren’t they. Of course if there is a Korean take-away in the area, a nice life profit too.
The more a, ‘hung-parliament’ is discussed the more interesting it will appear. ‘Thought is father to the deed’
52 David Herdson
I am reluctant to defend an argument on a scenario that I think is highly unlikely to develop.
Nevertheless, I feel there was an early morning mist hovering over my earlier post, so I will attempt to apply some sunshine.
The key to my argument is the general expectation that there will be a hung parliament before the GE campaign starts and that the Tories would not get a majority even in coalition with the Lib Dems. This would need a major change in the polls from current levels (say from 40-30-20-10 to 30-30-30-10 on Wells’s predictor).
The markets would no longer be expecting a Tory victory and the current position of “hold fire on panic until the Tories get in” would change. This forces the pre-election austerity budget from Labour.
The next assumption is that the result of the election matches the expectations at the commencement of the campaign. In other words, the voters were told that a hung parliament was likely and that the next government would be a Lab-Lib Dem coalition under Brown. And that is what, in the event, the electorate voted for.
I cannot see, in the circumstances set out above, how Clegg can chose the next PM. He can frustrate Brown and force a second election but that would clearly be seen as running against the will of the electorate.
The time for Clegg to ‘pîss or get off the pot’ would be the Budget and not post election.
This is fantasy. In the aftermath of an inconclusive election the LibDems try to foist a PM whom most people have never heard of on the country? In exchange for what exactly?
Not to mention the small matter of cabinet collective responsibility and the Labour leadership mechanism.
Even Thorpe in 1974 knew this was a non-starter, despite his party trying it on.
Study this carefully. It’s the best roadmap we have for what may happen this year…
http://hungparliament2010.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-can-we-learn-from-last-time.html
Off topic, I’m open-mouthed as Labour are apparently about to make a huge strategic mistake. What is possessing them to attack the Tories for having too optimistic spending plans? They want to give the message about nasty Tory cuts and all they’re doing is reinforcing the message that the Tories would like to give which is that it’s not just about cuts. Labour doesn’t have the fiscal credibility to make an attack based on incoherence. This is a huge error.
(Tories) behind Labour on seats. Such an outcome is highly possible if the gap between the parties gets down to five or six percent.
How big an IF is that? Too big to put your money where your speculations take you at 7.4 on Betfair?
For those of you with bets on individual months this year and anxious to get hold of your money, these are the dates each month after which it’s impossible to hold an election that month
6th January
3rd February
8th March
7th April
5th May
Interestingly the last possible day for an election in all these months (except March) is a Friday.
79. Rod, I’ve been reading your closely argued posts for two years now, with great interest. It is obvious you know what you are talking about. However you do have a tendency to clutch your cards close to your chest; your comments are smart, yet gnomic; insightful, but also opaque - in the most elegant way, of course.
Nonetheless I think I have finally discerned what your true beliefs might be. Am I right in thinking that you suspect, taking all the many imponderables into account, that there is a significant possibility we may just see a hung parliament?
The outbreak of rebellion in Labour ranks last week culminating in Polly’s Guardian article clearly signals an intention to be rid of Gordon. IMO this is not about ejecting him before the election, but ensuring he is so weakened that he can’t continue after it. Clegg might be the figurehead presiding over the demand for new leadership, but I really don’t think he will be able to name his man or woman. He wouldn’t, anyway, want to be linked to such an undemocratic move. Blairites and post Blairites, I’m sure, would rather have a hung parliament where they can do a deal with the LibDems and ensure Brown is banished, than witness him clinging on buttressed by Balls, Cooper and Sarah Brown. If the election (unexpectedly) was to deliver a small overall majority to Labour it really would spell the death knell of the party. I think Polly et al are smart enough to know this. I think they are actively working to retain power, supported by Clegg, under new leadership.
Now we are into our 10th day or so of freezing cold weather, with 10 more forecast, are these to be added to our 50 days before the end of the world ? Gordon was so explicit before Copenhagen he should really tell us so we can make our arrangements.
Credibility gap, I have that every time any labour bod opens his mouth ever since Iraq.
Darling: Tory credibility gap of £34bn ROFLMAO
so says Mr £178bn credibility gap
no, no they say. Our missing £178 bn is the “baseline” so it can be ignored
Labour clearly going for the “you can fool some people some of the time, those are the ones to focus on” vote
Good morning all.
I was watching Alistair Darling’s boring delivery of his ‘Tory Tax Gap” speech and he looked and sounded as if he didn’t believe a word of it himself.
I shall now call him “Piglet on a stick D”.
We all know who the “Pig on a Stick” is.
80. Antifrank - couldn’t agree more. I was gobsmacked to hear about Darling’s ‘dossier’ on this morning’s news. Yesterday it was the age of austerity Tories plunging us into worsening recession, today it’s irresponsible Tory spending. It is a ridiculous blunder - it’s also utterly incoherent. Surely the Conservatives can nail this open goal - both reinforcing their message that they aren’t just about cuts, but also to blast Labour’s inconsistency.
73. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. It is no wonder we are in such a mess with thinking like that.
The next Government will have to both cut and invest. There will have to be a massive realignment in Government spending in order to ensure that money is available for long term projects vital to get us out the hole we are in. That will mean much existing spending will have to go including some cherised schemes.
We had Balls on the telly earlier effectively saying that it was more important to put up new buildings than to ensure childrren could read and write. My wife, who has worked in Education all her life and is a Special Needs adviser, was little short of blowing a fuse. A failure to ensure they can read and write means a life time of lost opportunities for many and is just one example where priorities do need to be changed.
Darling BLINK-A-THON!!
Fantasy and nonsense , there will not be a hung parliament!
It’s just wishfull thinking from Deluded Socialistas and LibDem supporters, who realise they will NEVER set foot in No. 10
Good Morning Brass Monkey Voters For Nick Palmer Worlwide
Meanwhile …. I think aforementioned Broxtowe MP has this one covered. Such a result would be a relative triumph for our Gawd and Clegg would have little traction on Labour leadership travails, should there indeed be any.
Imo
1. Brown is toast anyway - unless he wins the GE.
There will be a cull of Labour MPs and those that remain will not be inclined to clasp McDoom to the collective bosom - I can imagine the myth the party will propagate: “Brown; a great Chancellor who lost his way when he moved to No.10 (sotto voce:- he let ambition get the better of him).”
2. The party will be smarting (or worse) from its defeat and will fall back on the rules and structures of the party: they are not going to accept any form of blackmail from the leader of the Lib/Dems until a ‘by the numbers’ leadership campaign has taken place.
And perhaps most importantly;
3. Does Labour actually WANT to clean up the mess they have made of the country?
Just as many here believe that Labour will be routed at the GE and would not be permitted to form a government for a decade or more, there is the possibility that Labour could step back and let the Conservatives form a minority government and take the necessary steps (and subsequent opprobrium) then in five years time a catastrophically unpopular Conservative government could be swept from power and suffer a decade in the wilderness.
NOM 3.80
CON MAJ 1.48
LAB MAJ 17.0
That is a Lay Book on Betfair of 100%.
87/89. So we have Darling lecturing the Tories on unfunded spending on the telly one minute, with Balls on next announcing Labour’s neverending programme of education spending?
All the journalists seem pretty much hostile to Darling and his dossier. Sky were promoting this as big trouble for the Conservatives.
Every single journalist giving Darling a hard time over Labours credibity gap
95
How unlike the Tories, of course!
“David Cameron is launching an audacious raid on traditional Labour territory by pledging to divert NHS resources to deprived areas. Amid fevered political activity at the beginning of what could be a five-month election campaign, Mr Cameron will attempt to counter the Tory image as the party of the rich.
“He will also unveil plans to give mothers “real choice” over the kind of childbirth and other services they want… The party leader has gone to great lengths to stress his personal commitment to the NHS, promising that health budgets will not be subject to the same cuts as other departments.”
Can’t wait to see, ‘Mad Dan’s’ reaction.
73. “I note the evasive response by Tories on the last thread to my suggestion that their message was confused (’we need spending cuts, and by the way we’ll build a new high-speed train network and increase NHS, overseas aid and climate change spending’). Basically there were two replies on the thread: “ha, you’re evasive too” (but it’s not us that is claiming to be majoring on austere spending) and “we’ll be cutting in other areas” (what and how much, specifically?). Moreover, the Tories are now more evasive on tax and NI - Osborne has said he’d like to reverse the NI rise, which does represent a substantial contribution to reducing the deficit.”
Before you have a got at the Tories how about you defend your party’s plans for halving the deficit by 2014 by some how magically achieving double the level of growth that was achieved in the preceding decade.
96. Sky have come down heavily for Labour since Xmas.
Does their boss know about this?
Is someone (pretty high up) getting a backhander for this shift of emphasis?
I’m going to have a siesta. Just thought you all should know.
Sky: “Darling given a rough ride in press conference”.
98. I agree Coldstone, Labour’s horlix of a ’strategy’ this morning is wholly unlike the Conservatives.
Cameron has been unwavering and utterly consistent in his support for the NHS and his latest plans are innovative, well thought out and could make a real difference. Totally unlike anything we’ve heard from Labour. (and BTW Dan Hannan doesn’t make Conservative party policy and has never pretended he does).
101. You beast!
103
I’m popping that post into my little file,in two years time I’ll quote it to you: I’ll then proceed to rub your nose in it, till the skin peels off.
96. It’s hard to hear the word “dossier” these days without mentally inserting “dodgy” before it.
OT, Brown has already declared, on election night 1992, that a government that has lost its majority has lost the moral authority to govern. He’ll be repeatedly reminded of this if the situation requires it.
Morning all.
On topic: I think Mike is (for once) getting carried away. As others have pointed out, not only does this scenario require a series of contingencies to happen in exactly the right way, it also assumes that Clegg would have the whip hand in choosing the next leader (unlikely), and that he would not be happy with one of the other contenders (some Miliband or other, or AJ).
On the point raided by antifrank at 80: This was exactly my reaction. Labour were beginning to get some traction (at least amongst their deluded core vote) with their ‘nasty Tories planning draconian cuts’ line, and now they are muddying the waters with an attack which is diametrically opposed to that line. That suggests to me that this is the left hand (Darling) not knowing, or not caring, what the right hand (Balls and Brown) is doing.
73 NickP - Building a high-speed train link could be financed independently of government spending, so the contradiction you think you have discerned is a false one. In addition, construction is hardly likely to start this year, is it?
Excellent question from the Guardian: for years you’ve championed extra government borrowing to support the economy, are you going to congratulate the Tories for coming round to your point of view?
Badger looked like a rabbit in the headlights
Skys Joey Jones in desperate post car crash spin mode, after news reader wrote of Darlings conference as a disaster for Labour
103 - The single rooms policy is satire.
The maternity services?
Lets see which voluntary groups he has in mind.
105. Does that mean you think the Conservatives will win the election?
Further to 107: Nice typo there. ‘On the point raised by antifrank..’
110
My personal choice is Tories largest party, but short of a majority.
If they do win, good luck to ‘em, I’ll be enjoying myself on this site as happy as a pig in sh*t, as Tory wars break out between the Cameroons and the rest.
111 - I like the idea of being a point raider. It makes me sound like the Indiana Jones of political betting.
“antifrank and the raiders of the lost election”
Or perhaps Lara Croft. Then again, perhaps not.
Joey Jones - is he really normally that biased ?
I think the electorate will note any attempts of senior labour and lib dem politicians to second guess their intentions ahead of the GE - and vote accordingly. Both these parties would be way better off just campaigning. There was a lib lab pact in the 70s and look where that got both those parties.
The Bank of England said mortgage approvals numbered 60,518 in November, rising from an upwardly revised 57,718 in October and more than double its record low of 27,162 set in November 2008. Analysts had forecast a reading of 58,000.
Net mortgage lending was also stronger than expected at 1.459 billion pounds, its highest since February and well above the 0.9 billion pounds which economists had expected.
Consumers repaid unsecured debt for a fifth consecutive month, but the 376 million pound repayment was less than the record 591 million pounds repaid in October and a fraction below forecast.
The central bank is due to complete a 200 billion pound quantitative easing programme, designed to boost credit and help kick-start growth, by early February. Recent signs of a pick-up in the economy have boosted expectations the BoE will not expand its QE programme any further.
The journalists universal hostile reaction to Labours press conference does not bode well for them in the coming election.
In 2005 Labour could have come out with similar guff, which the media would have swallowed whole and regurgitated ad nauseum to the electorate, thus scuppering a Conservative campaign
On the subject of highspeed train networks, could we not have a bullet train linking Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, Stansted and Ebbsfleet in a large circle (running both ways of course)? By more efficiently distributing resources between London’s international exits so that transferring between Gatwick and Heathrow was scarcely more inconvenient than transferring between Terminal 5 and Terminal 4, we could also defer the day we needed a new runway, as well as making Britain a more attractive transit point.
Mike, this scenario would surely be too open to charges of opportunism for the Lib Dems:
Lib Dems before the election: “We want PR so that every vote counts!!”
Lib Dems after the Tories win most votes: “We’ll cosy up to Labour so that we get as much influence as possible!!”
The Guardian not impressed
The “£34bn credibility gap” claim is spin.
…
I’ll reserve judgment until I’ve taken a proper look at the document, but my initial impression - reinforced by the tone of questions at the press conference - is that Labour still has a bigger problem with its own “credibility gap” on reducing the deficit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jan/04/general-election-campaign-live
To get back to our host’s scenario, for Nick Clegg to insist that Gordon Brown be ousted as Labour leader after an election, he really needs to say that he would not be prepared to work with him before an election. Since this would be a vote-getter for him in any case, I really can’t see the downside in him saying this, and am baffled as to why he has not done so already.
118. Labour have dug a splendid new hole. They could have come clean with the PBR, but Brown and Balls put a stop to that. If they now reverse direction and fess up to large tax rises and spending cuts the press and other parties will rightly ask what the **** Darling was talking about a month or so ago.
119 - Alternatively we could just build a third runway at Heathrow.
On topic - But the Lib Dems aren’t necessarily going to do very well, are they? I voted for our LD MP last time, and he’s decent. Solid, amiable, principled (one of the Expenses saints, in fact), and yet I am having to push all of that out of my mind and attempt to oust him in favour of the Tory. For the greater good. And there will be other LD constituencies where this happens.
115, Joey Jones tends to be reasonable, but I agree that recently Sky have been singing the Red Flag.
Its very rare that I don’t “get” a OGH thread even if I don’t agree with it however this does leave me stumped. I understand the bit about saying “No Brown or No Deal” as it makes clegg a change maker and enforcing the will of the electorate. However even that only works if Brown is clinging on and hasn’t either walked or being pushed by Labour MP’s.
Biut after that doesn’t it all collapse into unaswered questions? Why on earth would Labour allow the Lib Dems to pick its leader? Why would the Lib Dems want to be responsible for who the Labour Leader was? Why would they pick a Blairite reformer who might increase labours structural integrity post election rather than try and hoover us survivors fleeing the war zone them selves? Wouldn’t the country explode at seeing a back bencher who they had never heard of who hadn’t taken part in the debates appointed PM?Why would the Lib Dems burn political capital on personel which most people don’t care about when its policy distinctiveness that that they’d have to campaign on?
I’d love to see this senario get through a requisitioned special conference.
123 - That still doesn’t solve the problem of getting from Stansted to Heathrow. By building such a train route, you not only defer the need to build a new runway, you increase the options as to where to build it dramatically.
I’d have thought you’d have been all in favour - it would travel through the area you like to refer to as the dead zone. The zombie train, if you like.
Just tried checking Coffee House, got asked for username and password. Happened to anyone else?
125 - And so, in the herd mind the anti Tory conspiracy stretches across the BBC, Sky, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph and the Times.
129, er, no. All news organisations are biased, even if only by accident.
The BBC is a leftist organisation. Sky can be pro-either side and is prone to sensationalism, the Telegraph tried spiking the McBride story and the Mail is weirdly against both sides, apparently, because the editor is desperate for a gong.
You missed out the Mirror, by the way
129
Thats the third attempt this morning to distract the thread.. not having much luck are you tim.
127 - Is there a lot of transfer business between Heathrow and Stansted?
131 - I’ve added my contribution to the thread at 44, and the discussion has moved along.
As you are incapable of joining any of the arguments, why not go and walk the dog.
OT
Gordon Brown has won another award.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8438862.stm
It won’t be “Clegg’s choice” alone if this were to occur (a bit unlikely, I think - as there would be powerful voices inside the Labour party saying that they wouldn’t be dictated to as regards Leader, and I think Purnell discarded any likelihood of being Leader when he took the action of resigning). But in terms of Nick Clegg, he already steers a difficult path within the Lib Dems ideologically, and he would not be able to “choose” a Blairite leader for Labour (even putting it like this makes it sound faintly ridiculous) because that would be opposed by most active Lib Dems. Look at the trajectory his “savage cuts” rhetoric has had to take bearing in mind opinion around him.
And Wibbler at 5 - what planet are you living on if you believe “Orange Book” vs “SDP” is a valid description of ideological differences within the Lib Dems??
“Just tried checking Coffee House, got asked for username and password. Happened to anyone else?”
Me too!
From Coldstone at 09:53 above:
“The central bank is due to complete a 200 billion pound quantitative easing programme, designed to boost credit and help kick-start growth, by early February”
Can one of the grown-ups who visit this site please take the time to explain this. From what I can gather the overwhleming majority of the 200bn has been used to buy guilts, i.e. to fund government spending. So what I cannot understand is how this has helped kick-start growth, especially growth in the wealth producing sector.
A repeat pos post as the other one has fallen foul of the spam tap. For those of you betting on individual Months, the last dates to hold an election in any particular Month are
6th Jan
3rd Feb
8th Mar
7th Apr
5th May
78 - Seth. “[if the polls tighten to hung parliament territory,] The markets would no longer be expecting a Tory victory and the current position of “hold fire on panic until the Tories get in” would change. This forces the pre-election austerity budget from Labour.”
I just can’t see Brown sanctioning such a Budget. Labour could still deliver a holding / electioneering budget in March and if the markets (continue to) go south afterwards, Brown could explain it as ‘nervousness at the prospect of a Tory victory and the ‘wrong’ policies for Britain and hard working families’.
Regarding Nick’s question about infrastructure spending there was a paper from Reform last year infrastructure spending to be the most effective GDP raiser in short and long term. Can’t find it now but this quote from Reform was interesting
“The UK is in the infrastructure slow lane, rated 34th behind Namibia and Spain, despite being the 6th richest country in the world. This poor infrastructure is important as transport, utilities and communications are powerful drivers of growth and represent the best value for government spending. The OECD’s most recent survey of the UK economy found that inadequate investment is a key reason for low productivity – Britain spends less on this area as a proportion of GDP than any other OECD country.”
132 - There should be. By following the suggestion that I outline, we would add four extra terminals (and Eurostar) to Heathrow’s capacity. Transiting in London would become more appealing.
139 David H - Or, indeed, Brown could simply ignore the markets in the short term. Of course, Labour’s real nightmare would be the faint possibility of actually forming the next government on a fraudulent manifesto, where they would within months have to take the kind of drastic action the Irish government have recently undertaken, in order to restore credibility. I think even the supine Darling, as well as Mandelson, might baulk at that risk.
As far as I can tell most Lib Dem candidates are stressing how the party must map out its own clear identity in order to attract votes in what may become a highly polarised election. I have spotted no desire to leap into bed with Labour and many recognise it would be suicide to do so. Brown’s advocacy of the AV system is a red herring as many recognise the AV system is no better than FPTP in many important respects.
136: Gadfly @ 10:13
“Just tried checking Coffee House, got asked for username and password. Happened to anyone else?
Me too!”
Strange, it is working normally for me this morning.
139 ChrisA, is that a list of the last dates to CALL an election to be held within that same MONTH?
Coffee House fine for me - maybe their subscriptions dept were getting a bit over zealous!
“Strange, it is working normally for me this morning.”
Working OK here now!
“Brown’s advocacy of the AV system is a red herring as many recognise the AV system is no better than FPTP in many important respects.”
Except it will certainly give the LibDems more seats than FPTP and virtually entrench them at a 50 seat minimum, meaning that hung parliaments remain more common than in the past.
138
Banks are bust with lots of dodgy loans they cannot declare as useless as if they do, they become insolvent.. and world collapses.
So BOE buy their dodgy loans - by printing money.. and then force banks to use some of the money to buy gilts.. thus funding the Government deficit.
As for lending , banks only lend to customers now who will not collpase and hence create more dodgy loans.
143 RN
And with Brown’s confirmation y/day that there will be a Budget (which should form the cornerstone to the Manifesto*) has he not painted himself into something of a corner?
(* legally demonstrated to be not worth the paper it is written on)
PB is acting weird though. Normal page reloads are OK but auto-reloads after posting are taking half a minute.
61. “It’s not Clegg the party leaders want (yet): it’s his voters.”
This, funnily enough was Blair’s position with the Lib Dems/Ashdown. Initially he wanted to occupy the basic ground of the Lib Dems or, more precisely the SDP component of the Lib Dems for the ‘New Labour Party’ - and wanted to gobble up the Lib Dem vote. Then, when the Lib Dems refused to roll over and die, Blair started courting Ashdown while positioning his Party slightly to the right of the Lib Dems. Then of course he realised he didn’t need the Lib Dems at all (other than to steal their policies such as the Independent Bank of England). The rest is unfortunate history.
MM yes it is. Interestingly the last possible days in Jan, Feb, Apr and May are all Fridays.
61 = best post of all the Libdemmery election threads, so far.
I expect the polls in midJan to show Conservative leads of 12+ and all this hung parliament stuff will go away.
dec to mid Jan Yougov leads
Dec2008 = 7 to mid Jan09 =13
Dec2007 = 5 to mid Jan08 = 10
The Dec 2009 poll lead of 10 is the highest for the Conservatives in all end of December Yougov polls. No wonder Kellner reads it as indicating a Conservative majority.
In a hurry so apologies if already posted
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/6927399/David-Miliband-builds-up-war-chest-in-advance-of-leadership-battle.html
David Miliband has built up a substantial war chest in advance of a likely Labour leadership battle this year.
With help from Lord Mandelson, he collected almost £19,000 through his South Shields constituency party between December 2008 and last month. In the previous seven years combined, he received a total of just £19,100.
Ed Balls, the Children’s Secretary, was given just £300 by the GMB union in July.
This was split between his constituency of Normanton and that of his wife, Yvette Cooper, the Work and Pensions Secretary and MP for Pontefract and Castleford.
Significant that Mandy helping him?
137, cheers, Gadfly. Was worried they might’ve singled me out
Working for me as well.
re 120 PR.
The common assumption is that on a hung parliament,the price of the Lib Dems for joining ant coalition would be PR.
But could not the LIb Dems achive PR without any coalition?
If there were to be an HP then that result itself is likely to
spotlighty the unfairness of the FPTP system
-Most likely HP scenario Cons have highest proportion nof vote ,but resulting seat numbers are notin proportion so no overall victory
-Alternatively Labour could have highest number of seats but lower share
The reslut would give the oppo rtunity for th nLib bdems and other oppossition parties to brig a bill to,Parlaiament to introduce pR and they could defeat a mimnority Governmenmt.
rogerh
Good morning all and to those of you who have not already posted in 2010 a Happy New Year.
So General Election 2010 has begun in earnest.
David Cameron made a reasonable speech, part hope part gloom on Saturday and dominated the weekend media.
Gordon Brown gave an interview with Andy Marr in which his style and delivery was much better than normal but in which he refused or fail to answer even soft planted questions and banged on about Tory cuts v Labour spending. Also his comment about the Eton toffs only being a Westminster joke not intended to be taken seriously will come back to bite him every time he tries to step up the “class war” rhetoric.
Move on 24 hours and we have Ed Balls, the great hope of the Labour party (according to Brown and Mrs Balls anyway) making a meal of explaining where the funding is going to come from for 1-2-1 tuition for struggling kids when budgets need to be slashed.
Finally we get the much trailed (by the BBC and SKY) Alistair Darling event at which he launches his 100 page dossier on how the Tory economics dont add up. Surprise surprise the journalists present want to ask the Chancellor how he is going to cut the deficit in half so Darling starts on the Tory cuts v Labour spending agenda but cannot or will not answer the journalist who asked him to name one single government department which will face cuts.
Meanwhile off-stage at the edge of the rear curtain where the jobbing actors enter the stage from we learn that Lord Adonis and others have been talking with leading LibDems about possibly working together i.e. Lab-Lib coalition and even when put to Gordon Brown by Andy Marr he cannot quite deny it completely.
So now we have the battle lines drawn. The LibDems intend to go into coalition with Labour if they can to stop the old enemy, the Tories at all costs. If we have such an election campaign, who says Sheffield Hallam is a safe LibDem hold!
149 RodCrosby.
True but it is the wrong change. Electoral reform to a single transferable vote system with multi-member constituencies would actually give a far more proportional result and eliminate the safe seats which would remain intact under the AV system.
157, Mandelson matters more than money. Didn’t Hain have a stack of cash?
Milipede would be a mistake for Labour though.
150: madasafish @ 10:26
If that is what is happening, I can understand it as as short term measure to shore up the banks, but how does it help kick-start growth? This looks far more like printing money to finance current government expenditure, in which case is it not just another way of taking wealth from the future?
Roger was right yesterday. Tories are in serious danger of crediting the electorate with too much intelligence.
Brown intends to use the budget as a declaration of war against the Tories. It will be a pure fantasy budget, just like the PBR was, but in the short term it will be designed purely to say “we can make it all better, with no pain whereas the Nasty Tories want to take all your goodies away” and people will believe it - because they want to. The only remaining barrier in the cabinet was Darling and Brown made it clear that if he didn’t do his masters bidding he would put Balls in instead.
Brown believes this is not a re-run of 1979, or 1997. He bitterly remembers how ‘being honest’ in 1992 cost Labour that election, and he remembers how the public were in 1974 when they didn’t believe the Tories about the state the country was in and took the ’soft’ option of putting Labour back.
It was never the economy that did for Labour it was the unions, people accepted exchange controls, credit controls, 20% inflation and even potential petrol rationing without putting Labour out of office, rioting or a coup. It was the dead unburied and the rubbish in Leicester Square that did for them eventually, not the utterly bombed economy which most voters neither understand or care about provided their standard of living held up.
Stories about a £ crisis won’t worry Brown one jot, in fact he wants to provoke one. He will blame the already unpopular bankers - he will say ‘we are not going to be bullied by international bankers into making cuts, I am busy fighting for peoples jobs while the Tories would roll over and serve their banker friends’. Any currency crisis won’t actually effect voters in their pockets until well into 2010/2011 by which time Brown hopes to be safely back in office. Even if the pound fell by another 40 or 50% Brown could tough it out in the short term, it fell by a third last year and nobody cared or noticed. Need more money? No problem now we can just print it.
Look at the facts, Brown has more effective control over the levers of the day to day economy than any Labour prime minister in history, and *any* prime minister in peacetime, because of the structure he put in place in 1997 and the effective nationalisation of the high street bank network. One in five workers is employed by the state, add a million or so retired civil servants on inflation-proof state enhanced pensions, and four million on benefits and then millions on state top-ups of one kind or another. These are the voters Labour will play for, those with no care about inflation which only affects the few with savings - ‘rich’ people in Labour speak.
The big mystery is not what the Labour election strategy is, but whether it will work.
On topic. There is one big problem with this hypotheses. Even if the Tories do not win an overall majority of seats they will almost certainly win a majority of English seats. Can the English Lib Dems really support a situation where they vote in an education minister who does not have a majority support of English MPs? This would be long term electoral suicide. In Scotland the Lib Dem pact with an unpopular Lab party set them back a decade with the voters even if it gave them PR for councils. Was this worth it?
Just to not that he peg for this is Jackie Ashley’s piece and the apparent quotes about the need for Brown to be replaced by a more Lib-friendly leader.
Clearly these speculative discussions are taking place and the essence of it is that some leading Labour figures believe that the only way to bring the Lib Dems on board is to have a leader who is “Lib Friendly”.
Joey Jones seems to be deliberately missing the point of why the Tories are running with Cameron front and centre - yes he’s an asset - but it’s also saying ‘Gordon Brown…’
New Conservative poster unveiled
Pic of Cameron saying “We can’t go on like this. I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS”.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/01/tories-will-cut-the-deficit-not-the-nhs.html
today we’ll find out if the Tory war room really is as well-staffed, well-funded and efficient as it’s supposed to be. If they are any good, they will have a “rebuttal” of the Labour document out within hours. That’s what Labour used to do in their glory days. I even remember once reading a document containing a “rebuttal of a rebuttal”. But if we don’t see any paper by 4pm, Lord Ashcroft should ask for his money back.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jan/04/general-election-campaign-live
168 - What a scruff!
166. But which ‘Libs’ Mike? Ones like yourself, or ones like Paul Lloyd and Mark Senior?
171 I suspect the latter to be so viscerally anti-Tory that Gordon Brown could stay as PM if that kept out Cameron…
139 David Herdson
I think you are right to criticise the Tory faithful for threatening market censure whenever Labour ‘go soft’.
A lot will depend on the performance of global economy in the first half of this year and whether a tide of general confidence leads performance. The UK can lag other major economies in exiting from recession without much damage to Labour or panic on the markets if global growth betters expectations. A combination of higher than expected growth and inflation is the soft option for Labour in moving the deficit down the political agenda. Your electioneering budget would fit these circumstances.
The risk for Labour would be global growth being below forecast with increased volatility in the sovereign debt markets. The markets would remain focussed on Britain’s lagging performance and be more aggressive in applying pressure during an election runup.
In the latter case, Brown would be forced into an austerity budget, not just by the markets but by the press and electorate following the markets’ lead.
I actually think the chances of each outcome are fairly easily balanced. Which interpretation the public takes will increasingly depend on the communication skills of the competing parties. It is here that I believe Cameron has the unassailable advantage.
168. A bit g@y. Most Labour voters think a deficit is a Welsh chair so prob over their head.s
163
Hurst Lama
There is some argument that the BOE buy the bank loans cheap (distressed) and as they have time can wait to sell them at a profit when things improve..
Given the discussions with Lloyds and RBS are all about the scale of future losses and the extent these are financed by Government.. it will take years.. (or decades.. see the 1980s Third World Debt crisis).
Yes: BOE borrowing MAY have to be repaid - eventually. So if the loans go sour or interest rates rise (currency collapse?) it could be a future disaster.
But WW2 was financed with War Loans - which lasted 60 years plus after the war.. so as long as the country is solvent…
All it does in the short term is 1> delay disaster and 2> limit flexibility to borrow in the future..
168.
” I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS”.”
So which bit of the fairyland budget will be used to cut the deficit? Looks like DC is almost as honest as TC.
http://blogs.oracle.com/leslieStuddard/images/topcat.jpg
160 “So now we have the battle lines drawn. The LibDems intend to go into coalition with Labour if they can to stop the old enemy, the Tories at all costs. If we have such an election campaign, who says Sheffield Hallam is a safe LibDem hold!”
And the prize for the most hyper-ventilatingly wishful thinking goes to …
Calm down dear.
The best thing that comes out of both Conservative and Labour flirting with the Lib Dems is that it puts Liberalism and Liberal ideas centre stage.
Which means that, ultimately, the UK wins.
The obvious charge against Labour is that it’s a bit rich talking about a Tory credibility gap when they are so vague/evasive about their own spending plans.
Equally, it’s reasonably easy to see that in some areas the Chancellor is misrepresenting Conservative proposals…
Whatever the nit-picking, rebuttal and re-rebuttal, the heavily researched totality of this document presents the Tories with a problem. We’ll see how they deal with it through the day.
http://blogs.news.sky.com/boultonandco/Post:88d5597b-3f1d-4085-83c9-ce5ab4326922
161. Politics is the art of the possible, and a direct switch from FPTP to PR for Westminster just isn’t realistic. AV is a staging post, and would throw FPTP into the dustbin for all elections in the UK.
AV would make hung parliaments more likely and strengthen the LibDems, increasing the possibility of further reform in the future.
AV is the Grand Junction of electoral systems. It is but a small further step to either STV or AV+…
Technical note
As Robert reported in a post early on Sunday morning the server crashed and the whole of PB has now been transferred to another server which is part of the Amnazon group.
We were planning to do this anyway to deal with the expected traffic increases and demand spikes in the next few months.
Robert did note that there will be some glitches in the next few days as we bed the new structure in.
See here - http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/01/03/database-updated/
Personally any LibDem who thinks there is likely to be a coalition is living in lala land. The LD leadership may be dumb but not that dumb. They have been screwed twice by labour … do they want a bit of Tory rough for a change.
All the warm words do is peel off a few votes which may make a difference in marginals.
161. AV does go a long way to reducing safe seats as it makes results like Blaenau Gwent much more possible, where an unpopular ‘official’ party choice can be rejected in favour of an Independent, who is in reality Ind Con / Lab (as appropriate) and can be voted for safe in the knowledge that there’ll be little split vote effect as the unpopular candidate would get grudging second preferences.
178. Worth noting that Cameron has been positive 3 days in a row with Labour being negative 3 days in a row.
Hard work by Labour - but don’t believe the £34 billion Tory black hole figure
http://timesonline.typepad.com/politics/2010/01/hard-work-by-labour-but-dont-believe-the-34-billion-tory-black-hole-figure.html
Tories already rebutting Darling’s novel as ‘a dodgy dossier full of lies’ and spotted £16bn Brownies so far.
Great to see them using such a loaded phrase.
182. Good point, one of the primary virtues of AV is that it eliminates the “spoiler effect”, which should in theory lead to greater pluralism.
Anyone know if Darling’s press conf is available anywhere? Sounds like fun.
Cool your warm jets, my Lib Dem comrades. Can’t keep getting all excited about a hung parliament every time we get within spitting distance of an election.
I mean, I’m no Nostradamus, but I don’t think presenting yourself as Labour’s future coalition buddies is going to be a vote winner.
187, sounds like horlix to me… caught five seconds of him being bitchslapped by Toenails, of all people, afterwards.
160 Easterross. Cameron will be PM with Clegg Deputy PM in a co-alition, which will include an Alternative Vote system referendum. The state of the country demands that there is a government with a solid majority for at least 2 years. Anything else is wish wash.
I agree with Rod Crosby that if there is a hung Parliament, we can expect a referendum on AV. I don’t agree that Gordon Brown would be safe in his job as Prime Minister. Gordon Brown is just so viscerally loathed by so many people, I can’t see how Nick Clegg could agree to serve under him - it would be electoral suicide in all the Lib Dem southern seats. Even with AV.
One thought does cross my mind, which is that Gordon Brown might remain Labour leader and become Foreign Secretary in those circumstances.
The dodgy dossier.
http://www.labouremail.org.uk/files/uploads/4af8b408-03a8-d034-0536-35eb45fc8b96.pdf?utm_source=taomail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3498+George+Osborne%E2%80%99s+%C2%A334+billion+credibility+gap+%E2%80%93+Darling&tmtid=16794-3498-2-15-3494
182 - yes, but in reality how many safe-seat candidates truly are unpopular? 5 or 10 max?
Creating multi-member STV constituencies would be easy by simply combining the current FPTP constituencies on a County (or part-County) basis. For example, in my home County of Nottinghamshire, the 3 Nottingham seats, Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe could be combined into 6-member “South Notts”, whereas Ashfield, Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Newark and Sherwood could become 5-member “North Notts”. Job done.
192 - The complaint that the Tories have not set out their spending plans in full would carry more weight if Labour itself had set its spending plans out in full.
194. The 50p tax rate raising £2.4Bn is unproven too - and its not Con policy to reverse it.
194 - The same with the “budget black hole”, if Labour weren’t running at 14% deficit and heading the country towards a £1 trillion in debt. Screaming but but but the Tories numbers are out by £16 bn ain’t going to get you far.
Judging from the questions at the Darling event, the press aren’t buying Labour’s line. They were nearly all of the ‘first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye’ variety. Revealing, when Darling was challenged by Nick Robinson to name a single department that would be exempt from cuts under a re-elected Labour government, Darling dodged the question.
One thing that the conference did show is how Labour intends to use the advantages of incumbency. Darling kept referring to the PBR as the baseline and we can expect Labour to carry on announcing new things and then demanding that the Tories show how they would match Labour’s commitments, commitments Labour make knowing that they almost certainly won’t have to implement them.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5681321/the-shape-of-things-to-come.thtml
running at 14 -> running country at 14
194, aye. On the Lib Dems, their usual lack of media attention is a double-edged sword. They can set out what they like and then cherrypick the correct bits (if proven that way by later events) to pretend they’re awfully clever.
But come the election their numbers will need to approximately stack up. Not sure they will, despite Ye Olde Vincent, Saint of Fleet Street.
The only reason Ashley is banging this drum is so that the Guardian can keep its Liberal lefty audience happy. In reality there is sod all chance that any sensible Labour party member would consider the wishes of an inferior party. It would be the act of losers. The country would not stand for yet another unmandated Labour leader being foisted on them - it’s la-la land thinking
Consequently, whilst personally Purnell might be far less desperate candidate for the Labour leadership than most of them, I cannot see a scenario where Labour would accept him as leader in the next 5 years. He was the centre point of unsuccessful coup. He sits on the right of the party and is associated with the sort of changes in benefits which will go down like a cup of something cold and noxious in large parts of the labour heartlands.
Now to todays fun which could be described as a ‘Black Day for Britain’.
175: madasafish @ 10:47
I am grateful for you taking the time to answer my questions, thanks.
Unfortunately I am now even more of the opinion that QE has nothing to do with kick-starting growth in the productive sector of the economy. I had hoped that it was my own ignorance and cynicism that was leading to me to that view.
So if this coalition comes to pass, what cabinet position does Clegg want for himself? Deputy PM? (with what specific responsibility? and would he take PMQs in PM’s absence?), Home Secretary? Foreign Secretary? Minister for Constitutional Renewal? He must have thought it through. He can’t be planning on saying “Make Vince Chancellor, and I’ll just hang about sitting next do Dennis Skinner” as a bargaining position, surely.
wibbler @168: Great stuff from Cameron there.
I think he should come right out and take a clear stand against Abstract Spending and pledge not to cut a penny of Specific Spending. By halving the amount of money wasted on Government Expenditure In General, the Conservatives can pay back the deficit while protecting the valuable Particular things that the voters want like Health, Education, Defence and Transport. And keep taxes down to boot.
I just checked and Article 6 of the Lib Dem constitition makes it absurdly easy to call a special Federal Conference ( 200 voting reps ). I’d be very interested what one would have to say about making James Purnell Prime Minister.
Article 11 on Leadership elections is vaguer than I recall however Clegg would need to be reelected leader by the parliamentary party within a year of the date of the general election. Unless intrigingly he ” was in government.”
Gordon Brown’s worst dressed award is the beeb’s third most read story. Darling’s dodgy dossier doesn’t make the top ten.
Nick Robinson from the BBC asks why the Tories are committed to cutting various taxes when the public services will need money.
Cameron says Robinson has been “indoctrinated” by the press conference he went to earlier. He will have to be “re-educated”, Cameron suggests. That raises a laugh. (There’s an audience of around 100 Tories here, as well as journalists.)
Cameron says he has already spotted mistakes valued at £11bn in the Labour document. It took him about 11 seconds to spot them. The Labour document is “complete junk”.
He mentions reversing the 50p income tax and cutting restrictions on pension tax relief as two examples of supposed tax cuts identified by Labour that are not Tory commitments.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jan/04/general-election-campaign-live
205. Was a bit harsh on Sarko and Bojo IMHO.
Little snippet of Darling, Creator of Narcolepsy:
http://playpolitical.typepad.com/labour_party/2010/01/alistair-darling-claims-the-conservatives-have-made-34-billion-of-unfunded-spending-pledges.html
Here is the Conservative manifesto for health
http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/01/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/DraftHealthManifestopdf.ashx
I can’t find Darling’s report on the Tory plans on the Labour website.
202 - If we’re playing fantasy coalition politics, I see it lining up like this:
Prime Minister: David Miliband
Deputy Prime Minister and Home Secretary: Nick Clegg
Foreign Secretary: Gordon Brown
Chancellor of the Exchequer: Alistair Darling
Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Vince Cable
But in practice I imagine that in these circumstances the Lib Dems would stay outside government in return for Gordon Brown standing down and a referendum on AV.
Its amazing, I thought the Tories had no policies and only some vague aspirations. Reading Labour’s dossier, they seem to have dozens of policies. Its nice of them to lay out what the Tories are doing in such an easy read. I never knew they were planning to remove stamp duty on shares.
207. But they can take it. The trouble with Gordon is his reaction to this kind of trivia. Hea-vy.
209.
http://www.labouremail.org.uk/files/uploads/4af8b408-03a8-d034-0536-35eb45fc8b96.pdf?utm_source=taomail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3498+George+Osborne%E2%80%99s+%C2%A334+billion+credibility+gap+%E2%80%93+Darling&tmtid=16794-3498-2-15-3494
Good Dizzy piece on Choudry and leftist hypocrisy:
http://dizzythinks.net/2010/01/compare-and-contrast.html
141 - yes, because we have accepted the post-war statist settlement. We have become addicted to maintaining a grotesquely vast public sector with its vast pension liability and other drag-anchor overheads.
Cut that and (you cut government debts and deficits and) restore sound finance and there’s your bona fides for the finance necessary for infrastructure. It would attract investment from the markets - especially sovereign investors - in what would be a thriving economy with an increasingly decent infrastructure.
Cameron performed well in press conference - certainly seems to be turning the usual tactics on their head.
Just glimpsed Darling - crikey, I’d didn’t think anyone could sound so dull when making a critique of one’s worse enemy!
201
Hurst lama
Thanks.. But I am no expert.. I’ve just put my simple understanding of it.
Oh dear - Choudrey praising OBL - well that makes his position clear
Re 200
So to the Black Day Pt 1 - The Red Chapter
ROFLMAO Alistair Darling and the Treasury ‘identify’ a £34 billion ‘black hole’.
This is from the man who has been Gordon Brown’s pet puppy in the Treasury for 13 years almost and has been complicit in the most profligate and wasteful use of taxpayers money in history.
This is the treasury that overestimated tax receipts by £368 billion in 2007 which have left Brown and Darling with a ‘black hole’ over 10 times the size of the projection now being made.
The fact is Labour and the Treasury have bugger all credibility and even if there was any credence (and Labour’s reputation for dishonesty is now reaching legendary status) in their figures given Brown’s assurances on ‘investment’, the only logical conclusion is that if the Conservative plans have a theoretical blackhole (because blackholes get filled by borrowing, cuts or by increased revenue) then the Labour will have an incrementally larger black hole.
Darling’s stunt is the desperate ramblings of a defeated and dishonoured joke of a government…….
216, to be fair, Darling is probably doing it against his will. Damned fool. He should’ve realised for the PBR that he had the whip hand.
218, OBL?
216. Plato - I’ve noticed Cameron tends to perform better with Q&A than making formal speeches.
Old Bin Laden.
Darling’s Dodgy Dossier is interesting - it’s been presented as authoritative with Treasury having been involved, a novel use of civil service expertise and taxpayer funding in support of a partisan political activity. Perhaps HM Audit Commission could look at this and surcharge the Labour Party?
The Conservatives will not want to make too much of the Treasury’s involvement, as despite the politicalisation of Treasury forecasting there remains some degree of public trust in Treasury documents so there is a risk that its seen as an apolitical document produced by independent civil servants. Not sure why this is; certainly the press look to the IFS to critique Treasury prophecies and go through the assumptions and small print as the Treasury itself is no longer trusted (which is sad).
Osborne should respond in part to this by promising to put Treasury Forecasting under the control of the independent National Statistics Office, reporting to Parliament. That might upset the Permanent Secretary and others in the Treasury but it would cast an aura of doubt over the dossier’s output.
223, I eagerly await the Unite Against Fascism [ha] protests against the bearded nutter.
O/T The test match is moving forward at great pace - 6 Saffers and 2 Englishmen out already today.
219. Once again it is quite striking that Labour have no new attack lines, no new tactics.
This latest effort is just a rehash of the traditional ‘unfunded committments’ line, and is utterly laughable in the face of an ‘unfunded’ spending committment currently running at 12-14% of GDP….
Labour are a broken record, with the needle apparently having got stuck around 2001…
From the Guardian:
“Later Cameron and other shadow cabinet members will travel across the country to promote the draft manifesto. Cameron will be in Gloucester, Michael Gove will be in Nottingham, Chris Grayling in Reading, William Hague in Yorkshire, Nick Herbert in Southampton, Oliver Letwin in Plymouth, Theresa May, in Bristol, Eric Pickles, in Luton and Lady Warsi in Bury.”
As far as I’m aware, only Bristol and Yorkshire have any Lib Dem MPs. It is clear where the Tory guns are aimed today.
226. Did we have the interesting situation of 13 Saffers and no Englishmen on the pitch?
228. I think there might be one in Dorset too, but I can’t remember her name.
Re HMG stats - don’t know where I saw it but over the weekend there was a report saying that only 10% of Gov stats are believed by Joe Public.
The other 90% either believe they are spun or twisted.
That really is shocking stuff.
224 - “Darling’s Dodgy Dossier is interesting - it’s been presented as authoritative with Treasury having been involved”
No, it’s been prepared using publically available HMT costings. Something very, very different.
“Lib Dem candidate condemned for “sexually gratuitous” and “outrageously rude” attacks on political opponents”
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2010/01/lib-dem-candidate-condemned-for-sexually-gratuitous-and-outrageously-rude-attacks-on-political-oppon.html
220 Agree. Darling gets told to do it or they’ll roll out Liar Byrne who will say absolutely anything he’s told.
Re 200
So to the Black Day Pt2 - The Blue Chapter
Barely have we recovered from the hilarity of Darlings pathetic whimperings before David Cameron comes on stage to prove the continuity in our quality of Government will be achieved and that the we can only hope for what we have already experienced.
Today he talks about what he is going to do with the highest spending public sector organisation in this country whilst recognises that the size of the public sector must be cut severely.
So what does he do? He guarantees the current levels of expenditure for the department which eats up something like 25% of the Government spend.
He then proposes to hand the management of the NHS over to the very ‘professionals’ who, for the last 10 years or more, have failed to make significant improvements in the levels of service quality even though the Government have thrown money at them hand over fist. In doing so he further insulates both his Minister (and I’ll come back to that) and the ‘professionals’ from any democratic accountability by in effect creating the largest Quango in history!
And do you know what the cherry on top is? That the Conservatives answer to Bob Ainsworth is going to be Minister for Health and the best of that is we know he doesn’t want to run the Health Service but instead only wants to dictate to the electorate what our lifestyles should be as some glorified Public ‘Elf dictator.
I’m beginnnig to think that the lunatics have taken over the asylum……
222: Should leave him in very good stead for the debates.
235. I can’t see Lansley lasting long as health secretary
237 I disagree re Lansley - he’s the ‘don’t frighten the horses’ minister - I’d see him lasting a year or two.
Grayling is the weaker link for me - he’s been variable in the media and will have a crap brief to inherit so will have to keep his tenure short or drown in controversy.
The proposal for a high speed rail network works on a lot of levels. It is spending as against austerity, it is as green as a cucumber, it is feelgood (everyone likes trains if they are fast, clean, punctual and not overcrowded) and tangible. Tangible is the best bit because it highlights the point that all government overspending since 1997 has been on gay outreach compliance support pathfinder officers and what is on offe from Labour is undoubtedly more of the same.
Today feels very like wheels-coming-off-for-Labour-day. I have metaphorically retrieved my Gordo-not-to-lead-at-election betting slips from the bin and am laying in popcorn.
235. Trouble is I can. Cameron has invested a lot of his reputation in the NHS and it wouldn’t look good if he had to admit that he then chose the wrong man for the job.
Health is won of the areas that will damage Cameron’s and the Conservatives long term chances…….
238 Plato did you just mention ‘Grayling’? tim to post in 3,2,1…
238. Plato
Lansley frightens the riders not the horses and thats worse because it just means the horses will run wild.
Personally, I’d have not have Lansley as a minister (he’s the sort of petty bureaucrat that the country needs rid of) or Grayling as Home Secretary (a lesser post is all he’s up to). They are both weak links right now.
Re 240 won = one . Shish posting is wrecking my accuracy
So Darling’s Dodgy Dossier was tasked with blunting the Tory election campaign launch, eh?
Oh dear….
I really don’t see the gap in national polling betwen Tories and Labour getting within 10% between now and the election. In spite of the collective best efforts of the media to make it look like a contest.
At what point do the media give up on that unpromising line of attack - and go instead for the new line of whether Labour will crash and burn at the election - “Will Labour face obliteration, coming third behind the LibDems?” That would at least have some continuing legs on it right up to polling day…
I know it’s only Day 4 of 2010 - but this has to be a contender for most stupid blog post of the year.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewmcfbrown/100021183/why-does-david-cameron-wear-five-buttons-on-his-suit-cuffs-is-it-some-sort-of-bullingdon-bling/
On topic, it’s worth noting that Coral have some interesting New Year politics markets. Among other bets, they offer:
David Cameron to be Prime Minister on 31st December 2010 1/5
Gordon Brown to be Prime Minister on 31st December 2010 5/1
Anybody other than Gordon Brown or David Cameron to be Prime Minister on 31st December 2010 8/1
Personally, I think the David Cameron bet is good value, since the Conservatives to win most seats is typically 1/12. But if you think there might be a hung Parliament and the Lib Dems might indeed oust Gordon Brown as a price of their support, the 8/1 bet might interest you.
Labour have tried the classic spoiler with the Darling dossier ahead of Cameron talking about the NHS. The BBC 12 noon News, as to be expected, led with the Darling dossier.
After 8 minutes none of the outright lies in the dossier has been reported by the BBC.
:-0
HurstLlama @ 138
Can one of the grown-ups who visit this site please take the time to explain this. From what I can gather the overwhleming majority of the 200bn has been used to buy guilts, i.e. to fund government spending. So what I cannot understand is how this has helped kick-start growth, especially growth in the wealth producing sector.
My guess is that it worked in three different ways
1) Spillover, the state buys goods and services from the private sector, and even worthless “Women’s Diversity Facilitators” have salaries to spend.
2) Incentives, it helped pay for tax cuts and other incentives. You might believe they were inefficient, badly designed or wrong headed, but they must have had an effect.
3) Averting cuts, Without the £200 billion, Labour would have had to cut not just useful spending (police, nurses etc.) but shock horror, spent less on left wing b*llocks as well. Now you may be thinking so what, but hitting the brakes hard in a down turn is like doing the same thing on ice. You need to slow down, but you don’t really want to crash.
Was there a better way of doing things, certainly. But even I would hesitate to say that there was no impact.
Of course my as yet to be born grandchildren will be paying for this, but that’s another matter.
Back to blighty and I see we are going to have a looongggg election campaign. Labour still don’t have a coherent strategy. Is it cuts v investments? Nice cuts v Nasty cuts? Tory austerity or Tory lavishness?
Make your mind up time team bunker.
I like the picture!
173 SOL “The UK can lag other major economies in exiting from recession without much damage to Labour or panic on the markets if global growth betters expectations. ”
Indeed, a rising tide lifts all boats. Except, of course, those with holes in the hull.