Can the Tories break Labour by breaking Brown?
December 15th, 2007
Is the opposition right to focus on the man and not policies?
It’s becoming apparent, as the 2007 political year comes to a close, that both the Tories and Lib Dems have managed to make the big issue not a particular policy or strategic direction but Gordon Brown himself.
Almost as though they were acting in tandem both David Cameron and Lib Dem stand-in, Vince Cable, have launched lob after lob against Gordon’s personality and judging by the way events are being reported they are having success.
The Brown Lisbon debacle would have had nothing of the potency if it did not chime with what many are talking about. The TV coverage of Thursday should be very worrying for Downing Street.
Patrick Wintour in the Guardian this morning quotes an unnamed shadow cabinet member (George Osborne perhaps?) as being unrepentant at Cameron’s decision to use the final PMQs the year to lob a series of insults hurled at the PM , culminating in “2007 - the year Brown got found out”.
The shadow cabinet member said: “They would love us to move it on to policy on children or on welfare or on anything. We just want to keep it on his leadership.” The Conservative strategy is to hit Brown as hard as possible for as long as possible until he is so damaged he cannot recover. Once Brown is broken, the government is broken.
In many way Gordon makes himself an easy target for Cameron’s vicious verbal assaults or Cable’s brilliant wit. Brown finds it very difficult being criticised at any time and when this takes place in a highly public arena like the commons he does not react well.
Humour would be the best defence but Gord never appears convincing when he tries this. His attempt on Wednesday to allude to the many Lib Dem leadership contests produced the best crack of the day from Cable
Judging by the polls the opposition strategies seem to be working. As well as the huge changes in voting intentions all the pollsters have found sharp declines in Brown’s personal ratings.
There is a danger for the Tories and Lib Dems that this approach cannot go on forever and they look shallow. For the moment, however, Brown looks increasingly vulnerable.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Of course the main danger in this strategy, besides it not working, is that it works TOO well, and NuLab replaces Brown just before the next election with someone who uses the goodwill/honeymoon period that British PMs usually get to bounce the public into giving Labour another five years. I’m not sure this is particularly likely, though, a) because Brown and his people have assassinated (figuratively speaking) anyone remotely likely to oppose him, b) because he’d have to be dragged kicking and screaming away from the power he loves so much and c) because NuLab didn’t exactly have too much talent to begin with. So overall, I think it’s a good strategy. We always knew Brown would be a dismal Prime Minister. The aberration was the honeymoon period over the summer. I was surprised both by how long it lasted and by how quickly it ended when it did.
I think it’s largely a symptom of modern politics in the UK. The public is fairly settled on the vision it wants for society and anyone arguing for a major break with that usually suffers in the polls and loses elections.
As such elections are equally (if not moreso) about competence these days. There are obviously some issues to debate though so appearing too focussed on personalities isn’t going to be a completely winning strategy.
I think that the strategy is sound, it is designed with one purpose in mind and that is to create space. The voting public are not going to expressly look for an alternative to Labour until Labour are viewed in a thorougly bad light. Ritual slaughtering of Brown is an effective means of doing this, by now most people will have either a dim view or serious doubts. The strategy will probably be widened slightly by linking the dismal nature of Brown with the fact that the Labour Party effectively foisted him on the country without the rigorous examination that a leadership contest would have given. The other part of the Brown strategy is to inextricably link Brown to the last 10 years, it isn’t difficult but that is why the Conservatives for the last year or so of Blair were quite often doing a softening up job on Brown. The strategy hinges on the notion, correctly judged in my view, that the public won’t care about the policies of an opposition party whilst they are willing to put up with the government.
The second stage of this strategy from both the Lib Dems and the Conservatives point of view is that having created the space and conditions in which people are looking for an alternative to set that out. It is why Cameron has been travelling policy light and is still being coy, he knows that to show his hand whilst the government is still tolerated would give traction to their rebuttals of his ideas. Once stage one has completley worked the bigger ideas will roll out as by then whatever Brown or the government says will be dismissed out of hand. The interesting stuff will then happen as to whether the Lib Dems vision or the Conservatives is more generally accepted, it will have a material impact on the result of the next election. I suspect to that end that the Conservatives will lob a few tonnes of ordnance at the new LibDem leader in the run up to Christmas.
Brown as IDS? It is possible. IDS was doing better in the country than in Parliament, and it seems Brown has the same problem.
Is it a good strategy though? Well, that depends on whether removing Brown is good or bad for the Conservatives. There is a paradox here, and so a perceptive Labour MP might wonder if the Tories really do believe their own propaganda (preferably before acting on it!).
A better plan for Cameron might cast Brown as Major: ignore the Prime Minister and prey on those around him whenever they are weakened. Darling and Smith over policy mistakes, Harman and Alexander for donorgate, Miliband for mysterious absences; the list is endless.
Labour’s real problem is not Brown. It is that many of its supporters face hard times. We have a credit squeeze in the run-up to Christmas, unaffordable homes, fierce competition for jobs and downward pressure on wages. A cold snap as fuel prices rise was not what the doctor ordered.
What Brown must do is clear out his chums. Big tent fun and games aimed at unsettling the Opposition instead angered his own supporters. Here is a clue: appointing Tory ministers means disappointing Labour MPs, and no-one voted Labour out of love for Mrs Thatcher.
Brown is the problem - in no 11 his character was hidden as PM it is fully exposed - he can not get through public interviews and appearnces with his pre prepared mantras and tractor statistics
The more he is in the spotlight the more the public dont like him - it does not take a focus groups to work that out but no doubt the Tories have the evidence they need
A word of advice for TB and Ed Balls and others in the cabal - they should stop spinniing the line that GB did well in a crisis over the summer - I think the public have rumbled this line - foot and mouth is a classic example of poor government standards which have become endemic over the last 10 years , flood defence - gbs cuts . Where they are really vulnerable is they took decsions in the interests of the re-election strategy and this added to the Northern Rock problems - lead to the criminal dash for cash and all other kinds of bad government since GB took over
Plenty for the Tories to expose - not just weak personal characteristics but a lack of good government
A similar question will arise when the Liberal Democrats announce their new leader (Huhne 9/2, Clegg 1/6) later on.
Will Conservative MPs get behind the new man as they have with Cable over the last several weeks, or set out to destroy him as they did Ming? What will be the word from the whips? What is best for the Tories?
Morgan @ 5: “Plenty for the Tories to expose — not just weak personal characteristics but a lack of good government”.
But that is the question: should Cameron play the man or the ball?
The moment Brown became PM he & his supporters launched a campaign based on Gordon Brown, whether as the Change, the Father of the Nation, the Moral Compass etc. Look at the culmination of his summer campaign , the Labour Party Conference. Cabinet members got 7 minutes, he got an hour. His speech was all about Gordon, his PPB afterwards all about Gordon. The Conference was dominated by a huge photo of Mr & Mrs Brown. Along side were initiatives to destroy Cameron and de-stabalise the Tories.
It nearly worked.
The Conservatives have had the opportunity to crush that strategy and so far they have done precisely that. It’s not a war won but a battle; the government can still take back the initiative but they will need now to campaign on their record. The problem their is voters become less interested in what’s been done, that’s banked, and more interested in what the future holds.
At this stage in a government there is increasingly a need to review (49 times apparently) the mistakes and repair the failures of the governments own laws and policies. It’s a hard sell as a Vision - we’ll fix what we broke. Its even harder if Brown is pictured as a ditherer, as a bully, as incompetent or as Mr Bean.
I worry. I really worry that Brown will be replaced. He can’t be pushed but might jump to avoid a kicking. If this year has taught me anything it is the iron certainty of new PM = honeymoon.
All those underlying anti-GB issue polls were right - just not right away. Whatever deficiences the new guy has will be smothered by the fact of his being new. We could get a fourth term on that. It happened before - in July.
Wound, gentlemen, don’t kill.
The attacks go directly to Brown because his main Ministers are seen as underlings and not Ministers.
Foreign Policy is not viewed as Milliband’s, but as Brown’s. Detention days is seen as a Brown policy and not Ms. Smith’s. Northern cRock seen as Brown’s dithering not Darling’s.
If Brown had stronger people in those roles and allowed them to be Ministers not mini people, then he would be more Prime Ministerial.
Instead he has a Cabinet more feeble and supine than Blair finished up with.
That said I do think that the shadow cabinet need to focus more effort on forcing out their opposite numbers.
John L @ 6
Would you be kind enough to explain how Conservative MPs “destroyed” Ming?
I was rather under the impression it was his own lack-lustre performance in the HoC and the country as a whole that saw his poll ratings plummet; followed by an assassination by fellow LibDems MPs which of course was ultimately ‘what did it for him’ ….. and not a Tory in sight if I recall…!
11 The late Eric Forth MP, Conservative, probably inflicted the wound, that continued to fester throughout Ming’s leadership, with his intervention in PMQs. Ming never really recovered from that in the House.
8 Ted, at Labour’s Conference “Cabinet members got 7 minutes, he got an hour. ”
A very good point Ted. It sums up the oppressive nature of Brown’s managerial style. Crushes down individual development in his Ministers.
“Nothing grows under a heavy roller”.
Stalinist.
8 - IIRC did not Quentin Davis get a longer slot than most cabinet ministers?!
Having said that, how is brother Davis getting on? - any PLC in danger of having him foysted on them?
Heard a suggestion yesterday that Labour was worried that Ming’s weakness was actually helping the Tories in Lab/Tory marginals. So Gordon suggested that Ming might like to be Lord High Something somewhere (is Governor General of Scotland available yet?). There would be a delay so as not too make it too obvious of course, but sounds plausible. Then we would have to have a by election in Lib Dem seat.
Self-composed exile @ 11 — Conservative backbenchers heckled and barracked Ming at PMQs just as surely and consistently as they cheer Cable and laugh at his jokes.
Campbell was not helped by his own PR team, though. Wearing glasses, Ming looked every inch the wise elder statesman, assured and distinguished. Without, old and vulnerable.
Re todays fuel protests “….the protests are aiming to “fire a warning shot to the government.” David Handley, spokesperson for group, warned, “it’s our intention to come back in January and let’s put it like this, it won’t be quite as peaceful as it’s going to be tomorrow.””
7 re the man or the ball question - the Tories are playing the gentlemanly middle calls game of rugby - where it is quite acceptable to play the man who is clutching on desperately to the ball of bad government deep in his own 22
14 - Comrade Quentin has a more ringing earthy appeal don’t you think? Like someone out of a George Orwell novel.
re 17. Icarus - you can always get your bike out - pump up the tyres and put on a drop of lubricating oil - and then you won’t need to worry. It’s because people are totally reliant on their cars that the country can be black-mailed in this way.
Get cycling.
John L @ 16 - Cheers for responding to my question, most enlightening!….I had not appreciated the impact Bifocals and back-bench biting had on LibDem leaders. If only it was that easy all the time.
I think John L’s question (at 6) is the key to understanding what is going on. “What is best for the Tories?”
The result is that they go for the man Brown, when they ought to be providing a constructive criticism of his policies.
As a result, the Tory MPs come over as a gang of yobs, and they are in no way convincing as a government in waiting. Cameron himself, of course, is one of the worst of these.
Brown - like Blair before him - does not help himself, because all he does is to reel off a mass of figures instead of presenting an argument. If Cameron is one sham, Brown is another.
The way the Tories ganged up in order to destroy Ming Campbell is par for the course for them. They have no valid arguments to counter Liberal Democrat proposals, so they go for the man. Politics, in the hands of the Tories, is indeed a dirty game.
And now we seem to have another Tory plot: to talk up the merits of Vince Cable - which are considerable, of course, but ought not to be exaggerated - in order that they can decry Nick Clegg or Chris Huhne (as the case may be) for being not so good.
And what is all this in aid of? Simply in order to get Cameron and his cronies into positions of power. Any argument this this might in some way be best for the country? No, as John L says, it is what is best for the Tories, or more exactly, for their leaders.
Scott 2 It is very easy - and plausible - to make a comment like the public have a settled view of kind of society they want etc. However, why do so many not vote? Often because they feel their ideas are not represented. This, of course, is why the Lib Dems, led by Ming, of course, have made an issue of “the cosy consensus” between the other two parties. Ithink you will see that there is very little agreement now that climate change and world recession loom ever closer. By the time 2009 / 10 comes we will be living in a very different world. Take your blinkers off, Scott.
Aside 1 - What’s this nonsense about Tory MPs causing the downfall of Ming. To some extent it was a contrast between how Cameron was fawned over by the media, and no corresponding effect with Ming. The point here, however, was that over the months it was apparent to activists and supporters, and the normally supportive public that Ming was making little impact. The only reason (if it did indeed happen) that “MPs assassinated Ming” was because of consistent pressure from below. Ming was, remember, the MPs’ man - brought in when Kennedy was ousted. Interesting, seeing how Eric Forth is mentioned, that a Ming near victory was over his legacy in the nearly successful byelection at Bromley!
Aside 2 Icarus. Oh no, not Handley again. I thought he had disappeared into a hole somewhere. Despite it being obvious that worldpressures are forcing upprices, I noticethey are again highlighting domestic govt actions - political or what???
8.Ted. “Government needs to campaign on their record.” What record? I have never understood how Blair got away with his “legacy” line.Every policy has ended in failure at enormous cost.Education? Health service? Crime? Immigration? Jobs? Red tape stranglehold? Furthermore,what policies introduced in 1997 are even still in place? And GB cannot escape a large measure of responsibility for this failure.
Self-composed exile @ 21 — the Tories were helped immeasurably by Ming himself, of course. As well as the glasses, there were other little things that could have been done, like not holding the order paper while asking PMQs, because it exaggerates any hand tremors, and not writing questions down so that Conservatives behind him got a sneak preview.
Brown, by contrast, has improved. His suits now fit and are clean and pressed. When he remembers, he doesn’t shout or turn away from the cameras towards Mr Speaker. Trouble is, all the rest of it!
The British system is becoming increasingly presidential, so the attacks are becoming increasingly personal. I find nothing either interesting or surprising in that observation.
If I were a Labour strategist, I would be deeply concerned at the Mr Bean tag, because it appears to be sticking. You asked whether Thursday was the day that the Government lost the general election; I wonder if instead journalists will look back in three years time and date that to the day that Vince Cable made his “Stalin to Mr Bean” jibe. I don’t think that Labour has lost the next general election yet, but it ends the year in a far worse strategic position than it started it.
Mike@20 An interesting piece of footage - for the BBC that is - about how one haulage company had almost halved its diesel costs. By adopting smaller lorries! Also, for once, showing how fuel duty went up 120%+ under the Tories from (I think) 1989, and only 27% under Labour. Hopefully a bit more of that could stick metaphorical dynamite under David Handley’s “case”.
Ming’s principal error, though, was misunderstanding the nature of the job, which is to get on telly as much as possible. Sorry, LibDem activists, but no-one else cares whether or not Clegg is an orange booker.
The LibDems’ most successful leader was Chat Show Charlie, and their most successful time when they clearly and unambiguously opposed an unpopular government.
I’d concur with antifrank at 26.
Apart from large scale issues, such as discogate, the issues of today aren’t going to be fresh in people’s minds at the ballot box. But setting the mood and the agenda builds up perceptions of parties and leaders over time, and the Mr Bean tag is sticking and seems unrebuttable.
And I doubt either Clegg or Huhne will be losing much sleep over having to look good compared to Cable - they only have to appear a stronger leader than Ming did; sadly this should not be beyond either candidate’s abilities.
28 John L
I agree with what you say to an extent. Don’t think Ming misunderstood, I just think he couldn’t do it - it is a pity that the cartoonists and the satirists mainly took on the age issue. The main thing about Ming as leader was he did not seem in touch, style-wise (and I don’t mean just his wardrobe, although that didn’t help) with the majority of the British people, and was unable to cut it, because of that, with the British media.
This was a shame, as he is a very charming man, and a thoroughly good advocate of political cases. I have seen him win several Conference debates with the power of his argument. But not on TV. And because influential people thought his positives were what was needed in the leadership (and because, on his own admission, he wanted it so much) Lib Dems have now effectively lost a heavy hitter.
Let’s look forward to his successor, whichever.
An interesting feature of this discussion is that Conservatives are completely unembarrassed about something which outside the political bubble is still seen as pretty reprehensible - deliberately playing the man rather than the ball. The only discussion is about “Is it working?” “How long should we contniue until we move on to something else?” and so on. The ‘no more Punch and Judy’ line was self-evidently just that - a temporary line.
To some extent, the strategy has worked so far, but to some extent people have recognised it for what it is, and I think that’s one reason that there isn’t much enthusiasm for the Tories out there, as evidenced by their good but recently immobile poll ratings and their mostly poor by-election results. It’s also a reason why the Labour core vote is reasonably solid - you wouldn’t think it from pb.com, but there are a lot of people out there who respect Brown and are genuinely offended by this sort of thing, to the point that they swallow doubts about this or that policy which would otherwise loom larger in their minds. Even people who really dislike Brown and Labour (e.g. Janet Daley) are put off.
I’ve been in politics long enough to be hard to offend or even to surprise, so I’m not especially outraged, but the strategy has an electoral price, and I suspect Cammeron’s team have become too cocky to recognise it.
31 and the Dave the Chameleon campaign was playing the ball not the man?
Mr Bean and the B Team : song by V Cable arranged by T Blair performed by Jelly Roll Brown.
14
Its Quentin Davies, (Welsh spelling) as its David Davis, (English spelling) why can’t posters get this right? There is a David Davies MP (Tory) but not that one. Quentin’s ancestors must have been Welsh.
On the Brown thing, Labour does not have a history of back stabbing its leaders, (the Tories are the past masters of that, with the Libdems learning fast) preferring to niggle them to death, so a culture change will be needed.
However, if by next spring there is no real sign of improvement, Labour MP’s will probably start to look at alternatives. The Bali conference can’t have done Benn’s prospects too much harm.
31 “A price to pay” Especially as Dave came in heralding the end of yah boo politics from his side of the House.
Nice to find this place again.
Anyway. The Tories should keep attacking Brown because they don’t need to do anything else right now.
It’s all down to that piece of political skill called timing.
We aren’t going to get an election for a while, and the Tories are still effectively policy-lite. So, by playing the man it’ll start putting doubts in the voters’ minds about Brown - the Stalin jibe worked OK, the Mr Bean jibe certainly is resonating. All the while Cameron et al formulate more and more policy to present when the Brown bashing gets a bit stale.
It’s not good for Labour if your leader is seen as a comic character. And when he’s giving ammo (as in turning up late to sign in Lisbon) the mud sticks more and more. And as John Major proved, once the opposition find something against you, it’s close to impossible to throw off.
As for earlier comments about replacing Brown, two things. Firstly, does anyone really think that GB will go quietly? It would certainly divide the Labour parliamentary party, and split parties don’t impress the voters as we all know.
If I was an anti-Brown Labour activist, I’d be waiting and hoping that Brown would pick up again, losses in the next GE aren’t too severe and help rebuild the party in opposition or (just as likely) in coalition. To move now would destroy any freshness.
Secondly, who could feasibly replace Brown anyway? Jack Straw is the only one who could spring to mind, but he’ll have the baggage of 10 years rule under him. The rest? Can’t say they would inspire the electorate at large somehow.
31. But Nick, the man is being played rather than the ball precisely because the man announced himself to my much more important than the ball. That was what the whole premise of the Brown Bounce over the summer - loudly supported by people like yourself. I don’t think anyone was selling Brown as the new era of policies; he was sold as a change in personality - “Labour as it should be”. To that extent, along with Blair’s proactive presidentialisation of the office, you can hardly come at this from some sort of high horse.
re 31. Nick - I fear that the Tories learned a lot of their lessons from Labour in the 94-97 period. Everything was done to show up the weakness of Major and Gordon played a leading part.
Labour always seem to think that they operate on a higher moral plain than the other parties - so anything is acceptable. Thus party funding rules are to restrict the Tories and not for them and as for telling the truth….
You and fellow members of the PLP allowed Gord to get his job without going through the scrutiny that a leadership contest would have entailed. You are the ones who look likely to pay the price.
6, 28 - It will be very interesting to see how the Tories behave with the new LD leader. They had to get behind Cable both to bash Brown, and to prop up LD ratings. Had the LDs continued to slide, it would have been enough to save Labour lots of seats at the next election. The Tories could keep their options open too, as they knew he won’t be in the job for long.
CK was very effective at getting on TV. Unfortunately, given his condition in the latter days of leadership, it was only a matter of time before there was a major embarrassment. I think it would have been unforgivable if, say, he had fallen off his chair in a Newsnight interview… but it could have happened.
And Ming did not understand the job. I learnt that about a month after he took it on from somebody who worked closely with him.
4 - The idea that IDS was going down well in the country is surely a joke!
To be fair, at least they’re not putting about rumours that GB tucks his shirts into his underpants in an attempt to make him look ridiculous.
After the Blair/Brown/Mandelson/Campbell campaigns from 1994 onwards, it is a touch hypocritical for any Labourites to get huffy.
38 Come on Mike. Some of Osbourne’s abuse was totally OTT. You don’t have to operate on a higher moral plain to see that calling someone autistic is not really on. There are plenty more examples.
The truth about Brown is that he is an outsider, he is not part of the London media circle, he is not Oxbridge, he is not English. In short, he is not “one of us”. As such people, especially the commentariat in , are out to get him.
Yes he has made the situation a 1000 times worse himself But until the media get him as they surely will, I will enjoy the fact we have a leader who does things a little bit different. It’s great that we have a slightly bolshy leader,that you know would never in a million years take a bit part role in a White House Dog flick. Cameron and Clegg would be too vain to refuse.
31. dave the chameleon ring a bell? The labour party adopted an entire election strategy on trying to make the leader of the opposition look shifty and weak. Brown came in with the ‘I’m a new broom’ tactic, making himself and his ten years as chancellor a cornerstone of his appeal. The tories are attacking that, possibly because it’s a)working, and b) showing up Brown’s lack of composure when under pressure publically.
41 - “The truth about Brown is that he is an outsider, he is not part of the London media circle, he is not Oxbridge, he is not English. In short, he is not “one of us”. As such people, especially the commentariat in , are out to get him.”
Take out the “not English” bit and that could have come from a Tory in the mid-90s about Major
41 Cable is like Brown in many respects. His refusal to attend the Saudi event was very similar to Brown not attending the EU-Africa summit. Better sense of humour, less hair.
43 Major was intended as a stop-gap from the start, with the sole purpose of defeating Hestletine. The last thing the Tories thought was that he’d win and start trying to govern. After he won in 92 they were stuffed.
41 - I believe the exact sequence was
Journalist asks Osborne “are you autistic”.
Osborne says “no, why don’t you ask Gordon Brown?” or words to that effect.
Hardly the vicious personal attack is was made out to be. I recall a certain now deceased Labour MP saying that William Hague reminded him of a foetus not so long ago - don’t recall other Labour MPs unanimously uniting in condemnation.
31 - Nick, are you saying that it is absolutely fine to play the man, not the ball, as long as you pretend that you’re not doing it?
The difference, Jonathan (44), is that, while both were cases of gesture poltics, Vince Cable and the Liberal Democrats did things thoroughly: Brown and Labour just made themselves and the whole country look foolish.
See here
http://millenniumelephant.blogspot.com/2007/12/day-2533-gesture-politics.html
for some very sensible comments from a fluffy elephant.
46 No Osbourne and Cameron have direct an unprecedent amount of bile at brown. And to their credit it has worked. The Tories did exaxctly the same to Kinnock. Totally OTT and wrong. Nothing has come close to that. There is a reason why the Tories started to call themselves the “nasty party”.
The Tories are only using the “playing the man not the ball” tact because it works. They’ve only taken a leaf out of the Labour manual on how win an election with no policies. Wasn’t that long ago that we had the Michael Howard poster campaign (even though he likes to play up that image).
39 Your comment on Ming not understanding the job surely goes in a much bigger way for Brown. See the BBCi Headline “No 10 Dismisses EU Treaty Fuss” - his b@lls up scuppering a week when Ed Balls speech, Iraq withdrawal and Afghanistan were meant to re-launch the Government; who remembers Sunday-Wednesday announcements now?
IMHO his failings are that he spent too much time in one job, which through both his management but more through benign world economic conditions, meant he didn’t take leadership responsibility. Mike’s right in saying his leadership election should have been contested, a leader needs a bit of fire.
I was happy to vote for Cameron as I thought the party needed a radical shake up but until this years Party Conference had doubts on his ability to lead in a crisis - worsened by the quiet inactivity of July/August. His, and his shadow cabinets, response when facing 13% deficit and internal discontent made me a lot happier.
Brown’s reaction to the very real crisis that is Northern Rock, sacrifice Darling, sacrifice the BoE, the FSA, anything but associate himself with it, his use of reviews to deal with any failure doesn’t show a leader but an administrator. His lack of support to Hewitt, to Wendy Alexander is IMHO worse leadership than Major, who at least tried to support his ministers.
Quote from a mate of mine over dinner last night: “I’ve never had any time for the Conservatives, but frankly, the idea of this lot limping along for another term is just as bad”. I suspect that a lot of anti-Tory voters feel the same, which is why I continue to expect Labour to lose more seats next time than it did in 1983.
Of course the Tories don’t need to produce any policies, particularly - if ever there was a case for an opposition to go into an election with the fewest policy commitments possible, it’s the Tories in 2010. Then they can say that, having “looked at the books”, the only way to balance them is to slash & burn what’s left of welfare - nor need this be as unpopular as might be thought. The economic benefits of more discretionary spending for City bankers and lawyers, as against wasting money on care home staff - as trumpeted here yesterday - can be hammered home in press columns and well-linked blogs. After all, a majority of people in England believe that if people are in poverty it’s their own fault. How can this be true of children? Easy - the English have never liked each others’ children.
Losing tax details of up to 25 million people, not knowing how mnay ‘illegal’ immigrants are involved in security jobs are facets of incompetence within the government which can damage Brown. Criticism of the handling of the foot and mouth outbreaks and the floods appears to lay the blame at Brown’s provision of funds for the agencies concerned. Long term problems with worn out or military equipment - helicopters, transport aircraft, Land Rovers, rifles, not being replaced by Brown as a result of defence cuts will not play well as more lives are lost. Add on the bungling attempts to secure some sort of party advantage in the voting system in Scotland, to this add on the evasiveness over party donations and ‘leadership’ campaign expenses may begin to unsettle the neutral or floating voter. What does this do to claims that Brown has vision or a moral compass.
Brown could have learned something from Blair in the handling of PMQs, but if he has, the results are very limited. Brown has looked ill at ease, with shaking hands, and rising temper, helped out by interventions from the Speaker, and helpful planted questions. The continual repetion of tractor output statistics is tedious and counter productive. Brown has been in government 10 years not 10 weeks, and has to start taking responsibility for his decsions.
He chose not to be accessible during his period as Chancellor, can posters recall his pronouncements over Irag, or Europe? Where was Brown when things went wrong with Tax Credits or rising PFI costs? He seems to have kept away from Parliament and the media. He tried to portray himself as the Iron Chancellor, but chose to remain publically silent on many major issues, this didn’t stop his acolytes from briefing against Blair.
If the police find a big problem with Abraham’s donations to Labour and a a direct link to the planning application approved by Douglas Alexander would do add corruption to incompetence to the charge list.
Brown has to also make sure that he has promoted ministers on the basis of their ability to manage their departments well. Ed Balls can if he wants order more reviews, but perhaps it is time for ministers to concentrate on good governance and less on an ongoing announcements of headline grabbing initiatives, and guidelines.
45 - whether JM was a stop gap or not is ultimately irrelevant. The point is, the same language used to defend Brown now is similar to how Major was defended back then.
I don’t think we’ll see a 1997-style collapse for Labour next time round, but I can genuinely see a slower but far more damaging decline for them
You can change policies but you can’t easily change a personality and its flaws, at least not overnight.
It’s a logical approach but it would help the Government if it stopped announcing screw up after screw up then screw ups over the screw ups..thn screwing up the presentation then…
And with that I’m off for a cup of tea and a large amount of breakfast. Christmas party last night…
31: ‘deliberately playing the man rather than the ball’
Remind us which Tory leader your party hasn’t applied that rule to?
Is the new Labour strategy to moan about the Tories doing things that you’ve been doing for years?
If Brown’s government did not put through imbecilic legislation that the people do not want and did not make so many c*ck-ups then there would be little to attack Brown on.
Brown may have missed the signing ceremony for the EU Constitution that was dreassed up as a treaty, but he is very lucky the media focussed on his absence rather than him signing Britain away.
HIPs, another piece of damaging legislation by an out-of-touch government, prison fiascos, ID Cards, 90/42 days, police pay awards etc. You name it. Everything Brown’s government touches is poisoned because they have forgotten that they are the servants to the people. The people are not their servants.
So Brown is an easy target, but also the right target. They should kick him hard where it hurts. In a democracy that is the job of the opposition.
Barely over a third voted for Blair as PM. Nobody voted for Brown as PM. We have been all been hijacked by an unelected, out of control dictator and it is time to fight back and take back our nation.
41 - Jonathan bites poodle shock. We’ll set Cherie on him.
On Brown. I was one of many who argued strongly for a leadership election. We were not allowed one. Why? Because Brown made it plain to all and sundry that he had the right of succession and that any opposition would be divisive! How democratic was that?
The argument was made that it was better to let Brown have his turn unopposed than for the Labour party to openly debate the qualities and character of it’s future leader and PM. Why was this considered too great a risk? We know now.
The Conservatives don’t have to do anything to collapse Gordon Brown. He’s well capable of bringing about his own nemesis, entirely unaided. If I was them, I’d just sit back enjoy the show as the hubris of New Labour meets its inevitable destiny.
Brown destroyed Blair, but first he did for Robin Cook, Mandelson, AC and all other pretenders for power in NL. In the final scene, he has no one left to destroy but himself. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, cries of ‘woe is me’ and other tragic fare to witness, as New Labour’s most deadly reptile runs out of juicy political carcasses to devour.
Never sympathise with the tears of the crocodile.
Interesting artilce Mike, though I would not say that they are talking about Gordon Brown to the exclusion of policy, they are examining policy and its implementation through the prism of Gordon Brown whigh is fair enough.
alex at 31 - no, if people adopt a dubious strategy it’s refreshing if they are honest about it. But it does reflect a change in underlying assumptions. I’d guess that all parties have always included an element of personal attack in their strategies, but with a certian degree of shame when it got beyond a minor element to a central part of the approach. If you do it regularly, though, you forget that other people haven’t followed you into the habit and still think it’s wrong.
In that way it’s like dodgy bar-charts in leaflets showing that Only Party X can Win Here. Practicing politicians have long passed the stage of outrage - we’ve seen so many misleading bar-charts that it’s more a source of amusement than indignation. But most people outside the political bubble actually dislike being deliberately misled, and if they notice they react badly. In the same way, I think the Conservatives and to some extent the LibDems are alienating some people who want to support them by their relentless focus on the personal, but they’ve got so used to doing it that they don’t realise it.
51. “The economic benefits of more discretionary spending for City bankers and lawyers, as against wasting money on care home staff - as trumpeted here yesterday - can be hammered home in press columns and well-linked blogs. After all, a majority of people in England believe that if people are in poverty it’s their own fault. How can this be true of children? Easy - the English have never liked each others’ children. ”
*Sigh*
We’ve been through this Innocent. I wasn’t advocating shutting care homes. Still less “trumpeting” it. I was making a point about macroeconomics and how the allocation of labour resources (and their productivity) is impacted by public spending patterns. That is all. I never suggested that we should slash & burn all care homes and welfare. Still less give the benefits to city workers. Stop misrepresenting what I said. And stop trying to Marxise it in this emotionally charged manner of Rich vs. Poor as you are so apt to do.
You lot (Lab/Lib dems - you’re all the same) like to try and paint Conservatives as monstrous nazi ogres who don’t give a flying f**k about anyone but themselves and their rich friends. Well, I’ve got news for you sunshine, I care (we care) deeply about my fellow man, I just have a different view on how to achieve universal improvements in everyones quality of life to you.
I’m sick of the emotional kneejerk predjudices from you high-horse hiring, insecure, hypocritical, ignorant lefties.
Grow up and get a life.
61 - I’m sorry Nick but from the party that revelled in Alastair Campbell through the mid 1990s, we’ll have none of that from you. Read his ‘diaries’ again (and let’s not forget - these are the censored version!).
” Will Conservative MPs get behind the new man as they have with Cable over the last several weeks, or set out to destroy him as they did Ming? What will be the word from the whips? What is best for the Tories? ”
Seriously… what do you think will happen?… it’s a no brainer.
63. John O will take no lectures from the honourable gentleman.
O/T-”Obama, Huckabee lead new Iowa poll”
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/12/15/news/local/doc4762b62922c47155272760.txt
Nick P @ 61
As an individual I am in no doubt you are a thoroughly decent chap. However, as a spokesman for this retched government, you are in no position to lecture any political party on honesty, morality, transparency, fair play or for that matter basic decency.
64 - I doubt there’s been any ‘central guidance’ on Conservative MPs approach to LibDem leaders.
Nick, cards on table.
Didnt you have doubts about Brown as PM?
61: Since when has New Labour had any moral highground over honesty? The very premise of New Labour was a lie. A Tory dressed up as Labour leader and then a betrayal of everything Labour stood for and a betrayal of Britain. Spin doctors installed in every government department, statistics, dodgy dossiers, Alistair Campbell, bare faced lies.
If your party is falling apart at the seams it isn’t because of attacks on Brown, it is because more and more people are seeing through the sham that is New Labour, a party obsessed with power at all costs, a party whose very existence is to be there for itself and not for the people of Britain.
If you had moral fibre you would resign from the Labour Party today.
69 - Absolutely daft question - if he did, he certainly wouldn’t be expressing any doubts here, would he?
65 -
Oh dear, I was trying to find a way of not saying that!! Hopeless endeavour I know
[62] Touched a nerve, did I, CR?
70 - remember that Labour’s current reason for existance isn’t to govern, it’s to destroy the Tories.
A rather nasty little psychological trait that will render it unelectable for a while.
71. That people can’t or won’t answer doesn’t mean you shouldnt ask the question.
Secondly questions have more than one point. Think about it.
75 - I believe in freedom of speech so ask as many questions as you like. But you know as well as I do that Nick will reply - as he has consistently done - that he has the fullest confidence in Brown. So your point was….
I have thought profoundly about your second paragraph.
76. To remind that some of those who publicly defend Brown and his wonderful qualities in public don’t actually think so in private.
If he doesn’t reply he doesn’t reply. The bloke has a job to do. I’ll still be direct about it anyway.
Oh come on Nick, if you’re trying to paint the Tories of today as being in any way “worse” than others before, you’re just mpt going to succeed. Ordinary people know it’s just like Blair on Major or even Kinnock on Thatcher. You’re not stupid. Why bother?
70: Poor old Nick has read a few commentators who suggest that Cameron has got to be careful or he’ll come across as a bully and thinks that argument might work. The flaw is that we’ve seen for over a decade Labour attacking Tory leaders, calling them names, and behaving like a bully themselves.
Give Nick a break. If he has reservations about Brown, you would hardly expect him to voice them here. Just value Nick’s contributions. He is engaging and civil. Unlike Stewart Jackson.
56.’Brown may have missed the signing ceremony for the EU Constitution that was dreassed up as a treaty, but he is very lucky the media focussed on his absence rather than him signing Britain away.’
I do wonder whether one the reasons that Brown didn’t turn up at the signing ceremony is connected to this. Two of the ‘major’ concessions Brown helped insist on, which distinguished the Constitution and the Treaty were the omission of a European flag and anthem as these might give the appearence of a European State.
Yet at the signing ceremony the EU flag was prominently displayed and they had a choir of children singing the EU ‘anthem’ which would seem to render meaningless these concessions.
It might have been difficult for Brown during the parliamentary debate explaining why we didn’t need a referendum on the constitution because it was so different from a constitution, when the EU had blatantly ignored these concessions and violated the spirit of the treaty, quite literally before the ink was dry on the paper, by using these symbols of statehood as part of the ceremeony.
80. Theres no issue with him asking the question because it is pertinent to the issue is it not?
It’s not about knocking the man over, its not a trap. Its a point..in the form of a question.
Where Conservatives must be careful is in so personalising the attack they start to go for the private man rather than the public persona. As PM his leadership capabilities, his Macavity tendency, his bullying of editors or Downing Street typists, his incompetent ministers, his failed policies and his lack of ownership or responsibility, dodgy loans or donations are all fair targets in the political game.
When it gets to personal integrity, to truthfulness, to Gordon Brown the man, then greater care must be taken - Cameron and Osborne have come close to what’s acceptable. It’s only if there’s strong evidence of personal dishonesty that a politician should be attacked on those grounds.
I’ve no doubt that the private Gordon Brown, at home, is a different person from the caricature he is as PM. He chose his career so attack him on how he carries out those duties but IMO attacking him for who he is (as I’ve seen in some articles & blogs) goes too far.
He’s still the most interesting politician around - and I personally feel we still know little about what he really believes or what he intends; odd to say about someone who has been a focus of public life for over a quarter of a century.
61. What utter, ludicrous piffle from the member for Brown-nose, sorry, Broxtowe.
Labour spent the entire period of the Major government deconstructing the persona of the PM in the most vicious way. Remember the endless, endless Guardian attacks on the man-who-tucked-his-vest-into-his-y-fronts.
Labour never tackles a man with the ball if they can stab him in the goolies first. Read the Campbell diaries to see just how personal was the hatred Labour had - and have - for Conservatives.
In fact don’t read the Campbell diaries, just read some people on here. Plenty of Labourites will, by their own admission, be holding parties when Mrs Thatcher dies. Presumably they were a bit narked when the IRA missed her at Brighton.
Politics is personal and very aggressive. It just is, and always has been, on all sides. All parties are capable of being snide, nasty and vicious when called upon.
The difference with the left is that they won’t admit it, and pretend they are better - they are hypocrites as WELL as bullies. Which is why the left is so odious.
Moreover, as Ted rightly says upthread, the Labour party MADE BROWN’S CHARACTER AN ISSUE FROM THE START. They decided to campaign on it, to make his granite-hewn probity a USP. Now it turns out Brown is, whoops, a mewling great jessie who tells enormous fibs, they want to bury the character thing and concentrate on “issues”.
Sorry guys, too late.
82. Thats no issue with me asking the question…
80 SBS, “… engaging and civil … “, yes, Nick P is. And I agree Stewart Jackson is often a bit abrasive.
But, this is not the smoking room of a gentelman’s club, where clubability is all that counts.
Nick P has very often (always ?) used pb.com to spin the party line. For example, I agree with Mike Smithson at 38 regarding Nick’s latest contribution.
61 Nick Palmer 2007 “I’d guess that all parties have always included an element of personal attack in their strategies.”
Yes and how did Labour in opposition refer to the Conservative PM?
Eaxample, Tony Blair in 1995 to John Major at PMQs “Weak, Weak, Weak.”
Blair took personal attacks down to a whole new level.
87: Quite right. Blair took personal attacks to a new level. Look at Mo Mowlem. Look at Black Rod after the Queen Mother’s funeral. Look at Dr David Kelly called a “Walter Mitty” by Blair’s spin doctor after he died. There is a long list. Look at how the French were blamed for Blair waging a war on Iraq without a second resolution.
Blair always had somebody else to blame, but always had somebody else to point the finger. He never had the bottle to do the dirty work himself in public, but there were always spiteful sycophants crawling out of the woodwork to do it for him.
David Cameron is a very decent man compared to Bliar and what a slur for anyone to describe his open and honest attacks on Brown as being like a bully. It is those who slide around in the shadows loading the gun for others to fire who are the bullies, without the bottle to do it themselves. That is the trait of all bullies: cowardice.
The tories will go for the jugular if Clegg is elected, and it won’t be pretty. Huhne would, conversely, be more likely to be treated like Cable - although that isn’t certain - different enough not to be a direct threat and also determined, as he is, to expose the government ahead of the opposition.
Nick P - Playing the man is sadly necessary when the man in question makes the man himself the centre of his electability. How Brown thought that his best chance was this cult of personality god only knows, but he made his bed and now he’s having to lie in it.
66. Excellent news for anyone currently sitting on a three-figure profit on both Obama and Huckabee.
90 Yes, David but I think Obama is the better prospect of the two.
Clinton thought NH was her firewall, but the flames are starting to lick around her feet.
Huckabee is still on a roll but I can believe the GOP will not draw back when they see exactly what it is they’re nominating. My hunch is they will turn back to McCain, but they’re leaving it late.
Labour is guilty too. It arises from taking advice from the United States, where there really is a presidential system.
Insults are directly lifted as well, with no regard to the difference in context. Flip-flopping, tax and spend, even liberal to mean left-wing!
31. Nick, I don’t think the reason the Labour vote is currently holding up is down to either the entrenched dislike of a large section of the population towards the current Tory party or to a belief in Brown, the man. I suspect it’s something a good deal more practical: the effect of the policies over the last 10 years.
Expanding the state has given Labour a larger client base, many of whom have done well out of the deal - especially from about 2001 to 2006. There are also plenty of others who have seen either new facilities open for them or significant increases in wealth e.g. those who own property which they bought a while ago and who may even be looking to downsize.
That’s both good news and bad news. On the plus side, there are certainly plenty who have been winners; on the down side, the likelihood is that none of the factors that produced the winners will be sustained over the next three years. State pay rises will be below inflation (even if not backdated), house prices are static at best and unlikely to pick up in the near future, there is no money in the pot to splurge on new schemes or payments.
Brown has made competence the main theme of his premiership: “not flash, just Gordon”, “look at how he handled the Summer crises” etc. That will no doubt be the battleground and without a huge amount of policy disparity is effectively a debate about management ability - which is inevitably going to involve discussing individual’s abilities and characters. If Labour are complaining about Tories and Lib Dems playing the man, never mind what happened in the ’90s, this focus on competence could do nothing but bring it about.
Jonathan @ 41 re Brown not Oxbridge.
You may have a point. That was a failing shared by Callaghan and Kinnock, on one side, and Major and IDS on the other.
Mike, I agree that “… Cameron’s vicious verbal assaults and Cable’s brilliant wit …” are certainly taking their toll on the lumpen Brown.
But, also, something you didn’t mention — Brown also faces the brilliant, witty and nimble Alex Salmond in Scotland.
93: Perhaps the reason Labour’s vote is ‘holding up’ is that its present level represents its core vote.
69: yokel - straight answer: no. I think he was the obvious choice, and I continue to think so.
The Tory responses here essentially say hey, you did it in 1995, so that’s OK. But this misreads history. The thing that really stands out about the pre-97 period is that Labour under TB redefined itself to an extent that I don’t remember ever seeing any party do in my lifetime. Sure, John Major got knocked as weak and not in control of his party, but I don’t remember personal attacks dominating the agenda in the way that Mike correctly describes as the Opposition strategy at the moment.
I do think it’s unpleasant, but that’s not my main point. My point is that it’s not altogether working: it’s gone some way to undermining Labour, but increased rather than reduced doubts about the Conservatives. Ted makes a fair distinction between attacks on people that relate to their jobs and pseudo-psychiatry that attempt to demolish people personally: Cameron and Osborne seem not to see a distinction.
90-LOL!The only “strange” thing was yesterday poll which Clinton leads Obama in NH by 9%
http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/12/fox_poll_romney.html
For Nick to pretend that Labour does not indulge in the politics of the personnel is frankly pathetic. What about the Fagan poster of Michael Howard?
At least treat us with some respect Nick, like you expect for yourself.
93: David Herdson, yes, it’s perfectly fair to respond to claims of competence with claims of incompetence - that’s a normal argument. I think the Tories have gone well beyond that with Brown, as a matter of deliberate strategy, but I won’t belabour the point.
On your other point, it’d be interesting to see a poll on party preferences split by whether people work for the public or private sector. Labour clearly has a core vote in the public service professions, but the nature of government always erodes that, since the government is the employer and few people really love their employers. There is also an idealist vote which gets fed up over specific issues but tends to come back in the end. The main battleground, though, is the not very political people who are simply doing well.
I remember canvassing with a privately Tory friend in 2005, and he was struck by how much better we were doing in the smart new housing estates than the run-down ex-council estates: ‘you’re getting the people who feel they’re winners under Labour’. I think that it’s largely a segment of this group that is giving the Tories their extra 5-7% at the moment - they’re uneasy about the economy and management generally. That could intensify or ease as the economic cycle moves on - we’ll see.
97. A lamentable failure to address any of the arguments.
Just one: Labour made Brown’s serious noble saintly honest son-of-the-manse character THE issue when he took over. He was the antidote to Blair spin, the new broom from Fife with a moral compass the size of Dawn French.
Unfortunately, this turned out to be complete bollocks. Brown is now a proven liar - “the polls had no influence on my decision to cancel the election”.
He is not only a proven liar, he is now proven to be incompetent, evasive, shifty, scheming, silly, cowardly, and addicted to political spin (the Iraq visit, the EU signing cock-up).
But now this is all accepted suddenly Labour don’t want to focus on Brown the Character they want to focus on anything, anything else.
This is maybe understandable - they are lumbered with a terrible leader - but it won’t work. The Lib Dems and Tories are wholly and morally right to focus on Brown’s failings, as it was Brown’s virtues that were sold to us in the first place.
Imagine, Nick, that Brown was a new brand of shampoo. Imagine that when the shampoo was launched the company responsible said in a series of adverts: this shampoo is unique, its better than any other shampoos because it makes your hair grow quicker and will allow you to have sex with film stars.
Then after a series of tests the shampoo was proven to actually make your hair fall out, give you scabies, and make small dogs attack you on sight.
I think the shampoo’s competitors might be forgiven for pointing this out, don’t you?
91. I’d agree with that assessment. Obama has both a better national base than Huckabee and also fewer challengers. If he can win well in Iowa then it’s difficult to see how Edwards could come into play. I’d then expect Clinton to turn negative, though whether that will work or merely play up the adverse aspects of her image. What is should do is give a better idea of how Obama handles a sustained assault - something which he has got a long way without having to deal with (I know Fox News and the like aren’t being overly complimentary about him, but that’s to be expected; I doubt they’ll be that keen on Clinton either). That should give some good pointers to both the remainder of the primaries and the general election to follow, whichever is chosen.
Returning to the point in hand, I don’t expect to be laying off either Obama or Huckabee this side of the Iowa poll, but will reassess things then. I did back McCain about 3 weeks ago at 20/1 but have since laid that off at 12/1 following the comments from our North American correspondents. I don’t know whether I’ve missed out on a bigger profit, but at least I’ve locked some in.
One other point to consider: I think there are only five or six effective days to the Iowa caucus, excluding the Christmas and New Year breaks. Journalists, volunteers and just about everyone else but the most committed will be winding down and I’d say there’s a very good chance that however things look on Thursday next week is how they’ll look on the 3rd January.
97. Nick P. Yes but it was Brown who opened the door to the attacks. It was Brown himself who said he was about strength, reliability, integrity, vision and openess. It was the platform he offered himself to the people as Prime Minister on. He put his character on trial (and perhaps after his predecessor’s regime he had to).
However, he then went about disproving this projected image of himself in a quite spectacular way. What a gift for the opposition parties.
In my book if you say you are something then its fair and above board for your opponents to disprove it and then highlight it until the deceit is shown for what it is.
You might think it unpleasant but fact is Brown brought this on himself and he’s getting his just desserts!
Fact is ‘Just Gordon’ is exactly that ‘Just Gordon’ and that doesn’t add up to much of value right now.
Its a question of what you consider personal. The attacks seem to be saying Brown, by his style and attitudes is making problems worse and making non issues issues. To that extent its just politics. I can see how it can tip over but I’m not sure it has though I rarely watch the Westminster banter.
The problem is that these attacks are working or you can take the view that it is not working and Labour’s position in the polls which is close to the 27-30% core vote territory can only then be down the Government being plain poor.
Either doesn’t represent great ground for the government to be fighting to change because they are already on the back fot on both counts. To turn either around may well take time and Labour have got to stop the current rot first. Its potentially turning around supertanker stuff.
The only other alternative is that the government has simply run out of steam and goodwill, maybe because its got too comfortable.
And on that note, off to gym with a bit of a hangover, should be a laugh for the other people there.
99: london - my response at 97 applies to that too. It’s not that personal attacks have suddenly appeared for the first time. It’s that the Tories are openly making them their current central (indeed alomst their only) strategy, as Mike’s article notes.
101. Great minds think alike………
;o)
97
Oh Labour redefined itself alright; it sold its soul for power. The only reason we still have a Labour government is because staying in power and keeping the Tories out is their only reason for being, the only thing you collectively have achieved over the last ten years is to win elections. And look how you have done it! Every trick and lie in the book.
I personally dislike the way in which Gordon Brown is taking all the flak; much as he self-evidently deserves it, I would much rather see every last parliamentary member of this lot held to account for their responsibilities in maintaining the worst government in British political history.
105. Yes and the reason you don’t like them Nick is because they have resonance in the media and the country.
It’s just like the funding thing. It’s hurting Labour and you don’t like it.
31. And lines from Nick in a local newspaper that landed on my doorstep today criticising his tory opponent “due to her many commitments in the city” isnt playing the man, or woman, then.
It is classic New Labour double standards and I honestly thought Nick was bigger than that.
John Major was assailed nearly every day with taunts and insults from labour, it’s amazing he managed not to crack under it all, which is what they were aiming for.
102 Yes, David, in view of the holidays there is in fact little campaigning time left and I think we’re pretty much there.
Huckabee should take Iowa, but I don’t see that as a springboard to the nomination. It will hurt Romney though, which is why I have this inkling that McCain will get back into the race at NH. He’s been closing the gap, but very slowly. If Romney does badly in Iowa, an opportunity opens for the veteran.
I wouldn’t entirely rule out an Edwards win in Iowa, but again I couldn’t see that leading on to the nomination. The real contest is between Clinton and Obama. He has the edge but it’s tight. NH is tighter still. I still think she’s favorite for the nomination but have edged her out in my hypothetical prices. I would go 4/5 Clinton, 5/4 Obama. Edwards, sadly, is out of it I think.
111-PtP, What do you think?
http://larison.org/2007/12/14/unfortunately-shes-not-finished-yet/
Those nice men from the Labour Party would not stoop so low as to make it personal would they?
I believe that the Opposition should attack the nasty man with every available weapon and, in the words of the Nobled Lord Kinnock, destroy the bastards.
The Labour Government: Just Gordon
109. I suspect Nick has been told, or has advised himself, to come on here and trot out this line and see if it works - “the Tories are mean and nasty and Labour would never be so personal” - in the hope that Labour’s opponents will get all embarrassed and stop their very successful assaults on Brown.
Given the drubbing he has got on this thread, even from the likes of our esteemed administrator, I don’t think they’ll be trying this line any more.
I agree with the commenter upthread. Probably the most wounding and injurious assault has not come from the Tories, anyway - it has come from the Lib Dems, courtesy of Vince Cable’s “Mister Bean” gag.
At the time I didn’t see why everyone was so amused and excited by this one liner: it just seemed like a fairly funny joke, quite well told, by a rather likeable guy.
But now I get it. Because it fits so well. Brown really does have a lot of Mister Bean about him. He will never live this down. He will always be Mister Bean from now on. And when the newspapers, like the Express, can use a front page and just say “Mister Bean” and everyone instantly knows who they mean, then that is surely fatal, in the long term.
No one will happily vote for a laughing stock. Brown is burnt toast.
96. No, I don’t think Labour is anywhere near its core vote level at the moment. As both Nick and I have commented upthread, there are plenty of ‘practical’ voters who are supporting Labour at the moment because they feel they’ve done well out of the last 10 years. These are people who aren’t particularly political, don’t care that much about the personalities but are likely to vote for the party they feel will do the best for ‘people like them’.
Put another way, suppose there was a recession, ending with 2 million unemployed (officially), tens of thousands of repossessions and negative equity, a budget deficit of £70bn a year despite tax rises and spending cuts. Do you not think that would hit Labour’s vote share? (I’m not saying all that is likely, but the way, though it is possible; I’m using the scenario as an illustration).
I’d guess that the rock-bottom party shares are about: Tory 22%, Labour 18%, Lib Dem 9%. The Conservatives just about hit that level in the late 90s, following Blair’s first election, when there was virtually no reason to vote Tory unless you believed in the policies. Labour’s share is lower, because of the smaller propensity of its supporters to vote, the abondonment of much of its traditional ideology and the existance of an alternative centre-left party. The Lib Dems came close to hitting rock-bottom under Ming (they were of course even lower in the late ’80s, but that was at a time when the Lib Dems as a concept was an uncertain thing, and when they had far fewer MPs).
This article in the Guardian provides some light on the topic of this thread:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gordonbrown/story/0,,2228034,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
112 Nice little article, Me. It rather supports my view of 4/5 Hillary, and Edwards not out of it in Iowa…so I guess I would say that, wouldn’t I!
Interesting Site. What’s it about? Where did you come across it?
100 - And, Nick, you should remember - how could you forget? - that the bitterest assaults on Brown’s character emanated from a sizeable array of very senior Labour politicians, and long predated Cameron and Osborne.
Alastair Campbell’s ‘psychologically flawed’ jibe (or was it T. Blair himself
was, what, back in 2000 or so….and set the ‘narrative’ for Charles Clarke, Alan Milburn, David Blunkett and a cast of thousands over subsequent years.
117-First time I went to this site, PtP. I found this in the Daily Dish!
I find these Labour protestations about playing the man not the ball a little hard to take. It was Labour who bought in the politics of the gutter in the 90’s and they shouldn’t moan when it comes back to bite them on the arse.
Canvassing was interesting this morning. Lots of ‘voted Labour but couldn’t do now, will be voting for your lot to get rid of them’. Never used to be that good.
93 - Can somebody explain why the Govt don’t take a different tack on public sector pay. The problem is that everyone focusses on the one-off yearly percentage amount as if a 2%, say, full year award is the same as a 4% award, given 6 months through the year.
It seems to me that it’s perfectly reasonable for the govt to want to keep down the single amount paid in any one year, when inflationary pressures justify it. However it is not however justified to let public sector at an absolute level fall behind salaries earnt in the rest of the economy. The result is that once the economic troubles are past everyone demands whopping pay rises to “bring themselves back into line” with their equivalents.
In this context “staging” is the perfect solution, if sold properly, because it satisfies both these basic criteria. For example the govt could set a single %rate increase that public sector workers can expect each year, and whatever independent pay bodies recommend should be granted but staged in such a way as to meet this single figure.
As a result the net amount in any single year is restricted but public sector workers don’t miss out on earnings rises due to the growth in the economy. (in the long run a series of 4% rises staged over six months is significantly better than a series of 2% rises granted in full - just do the Maths).
It would make for secure budgeting and avoid the arguments that occur with every set of public sector workers, every year.
In the short term, I’m sure the Govt could have avoided some of the problems with the police if they had, say, responded to the 2.5% suggestion, by replacing it with a higher figure, say 2.7% but staged as intended. Would give the police a short term loss, but long term gain.
119 Very articulate, isn’t it? I don’t think it tells us much we didn’t know already but it’s a worthy addition to ‘favorites’.
116. Interesting and insightful article.
The key line for me is when it says the EU signing debacle blew up in a way that Number 10 “could neither foresee nor understand”.
How could they NOT predict that turning up late to a signing ceremony, looking furtive, guilty and sulky, but signing the damn thing anyway - was gonna get everyone riled, sceptic and phile alike?
How could they NOT have predicted that? It is astonishing. The only explanation is that they must think we are literally idiots: that eurosceptics are so stupid they would be impressed by someone turning up late for a signing they regard as treachery - but still signing.
It’s like expecting someone to be impressed if you burgle them ever-so-politely. “I say, do you mind awfully if I just take your plasma screen TV? Thankyou, old bean.”
This could be crucial. A lot of Brown’s egregious errors can be ascribed to this - a belief that everyone else is totally stupid, compared to him - the voters, the papers, the Tories.
Hubris and arrogance, hubris and arrogance.
There is no point in complaining about the tactics the, ‘other side’ use, you are at fault if they are succeeding.
If Labour are suffering because the Tories have found a weak spot and are exploiting it, don’t moan, find theirs and do the same.
If there’s dirt to be found, find it, once you’ve found it, use it!
All’s fair in love, war and politics, show me a good loser, I’ll show you a loser.
122-PtP-Yes, I already did this!!!The Time has a good article about Huckabee this week too, but it doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t
know too!
115: What represented the parties core votes in the often silly polls of the 1990s is different from the situation now.
At a guess the Tory core vote is around 30% as evidenced by their polling at elections, and during the Brown bounce, Labour’s is a few points lower. It’s hard to judge with the Lib Dems as pollsters tend to underestimate them but at a guess 14%.
I don’t think the question can be settled until there is agreement on what “core vote” means.
Is it a definable group who will always vote for their party in a General Election come what may?
Or is it just a short hand for “lowest a party’s vote share could fall in a General election”
Even both of these (the first when equated to a percentage) make assumptions about correlations between a parties vote share and overall national turnout.
An idea for Mr Smithson for election 20?? Why not explit the new video streaming capability and have PBC Election night TV. I’d rather watch Sean Fear than King, Roger rather than Balls etc. With mobile camera phones and web cams in addition you could have people at scores of counts up and down the country. So why not..
128. I can see something like this happening at the next election whether it by through here or somewhere else. The way political ‘experts’ in the dead tree press are pulled apart on here shows this is the place for the best political analysis.
Re 128, Punter, now there is an idea…
128 - Sean Fear would be very good…but Andrea with the swingometer would be Oscar material.
Re 131, John O, yes fair point. So far we have Andrea and Sean Fear, presumably Mike Smithson as host, Roger for commedy?
109 - Cynic
109 - Cynic
That’s very interesting!!
131 Well the server capability would have to be massive. TV takes up 1000 times more space and with sheer traffic you’d have to have even more to allow spare capacity
The discussion on core vote levels seems to me to be missing one point - the number of people voting changing over time. The size of “30%” cores changes over time.
For example - Labour got fewer votes in 2005 (9,562,122) than the Tories did in 1997 (9,600,943). The Lib Dems won a few more votes in 1992 (5,999,384) than in 2005 (5,981,874).
So what does “30% core vote” represent? The number of votes that Neil Kinnock won first time out in 1987 was a good half-million more than the number that Blair finished with.
I don’t know how we’d take this into account - but if we say that 8 to 8.5 million represents the core base for the larger parties and 3-3.5 million the core for the Lib Dems, then the minimum “core” number of voters for the three main parties together would be around 19 million.
If a low turnout election has around 25 million voters and a high turnout election around 30 million voters, then there are 6 million (low turnout) to 11 million (high turnout) voters up for grabs.
135.
Team up with Doughty St perhaps?
136 - Yep, that’s what i was getting at when i referred to correlations between party shares and turnout.
Saying that there is a “30% core vote” assumes that (using my second definition above) 30% is the minimum that a party could expect, at whatever national turnout level, and that turnout is not a significant determinant of vote share.
I think Labour got more votes in 1992 than they did in 2005… Andrea?
138, alex.
Agree completely (I was still typing when you posted - you said it more succintly than me).
128. Splendid idea.
I’d like to see John Loony doing the interviews, Colin W anchoring, and Nick Palmer as the Labour party spokesman:
“The fact that Labour have been reduced to just seven votes in the entire country shows that our fightback strategy is working. Last night I canvassed across my constituency and I had pickled onions thrown at me by literally hundreds of people, and I knew then that we would do a lot better than the polls, some of which indicated we would get no votes at all.”
139, They got more votes in 1992 (11,560,484) than they did in 2001 (10,724,953), let alone 2005 (9,562,122))
41. You don’t have to operate on a higher moral plain to see that calling someone autistic is not really on
But I don’t see any harm in it if the person actually is autistic (me, for example).
On another point will Waller bring out an updated tweaked edition just prior. There have been major major changes new Leader Scots and Welsh Elections. Another new Lib Demn Leader plus London next year. It would make sense I think as those are just the events that we know have or will happen
142 In 2001 or 2005 there was neither a) A close fight as in 1992 or b)The desire to absolutely punish the Govt as with 97 and Major. Next time it will be either a) or b). I expect a 5% increase in turnout minimum
141. Would it be ethical to have me an an interviewer on G.E. night? I would, after all, be one of the candidates (unless the revolution has already happened by then).
(O.T.) I hope I will be forgiven for wandering away from the subject of the thread, but having been described as “a thoroughly nasty piece of work” a few threads ago, I want to point out to whoever is interested that the ultimate goal of what I want is a world in which everybody has an adequate supply of food, water, housing, and basic health care (instead of having a billion people without access to safe water and enough food, and millions of children dying annually because of malnutrition and disease). This is not possible under the current system of capitalism and imperialism.
Re 135, Punter “131 Well the server capability would have to be massive. TV takes up 1000 times more space and with sheer traffic you’d have to have even more to allow spare capacity”
Bet it hosted by what ever 18 Doughty street is now called.
146 - (O/T That depiction was mine. And until you cease being an enthusiastic apologist for Stalin, then there will be no withdrawal, however genuine or benign you may be as an individual. I would be no different for someone who tried to exculpate Hitler, Pol Pot, the Burmese junta etc.
And the notion that your hero - and the system over which he presided - would result in any of the ideals which you (and I) cherish, simply beggars belief.
144. Is it still Waller and Criddle or is it just Waller now? I seem to remember that I must have missed the 7th edition because the latest I’ve got is the 6th (and then I noticed people talking about the 8th).
146, John,
I think we all would agree that your ideal is wonderful. However, I’d suggest that your desire to believe that Communism/Marxism is a better way to achieve that aim may have biased you to believe arguments by organisations that are themselves in denial about the catastrophe upon humanity that occurred when the Soviet Union in general, and Stalin in particular, attempted that route.
I’d rather not be drawn into an argument over what is true history and what is revisionist history, but I will say that I do believe that your heart is in the right place. I also understand the anger from some who may (either themselves or loved ones or others close to them) have been directly affected by the events that the CPGB and the Stalin Institute deny having ever occurred.
Colin W as an anchor?
Was that a spelling error?
147 I suspect the demented Shane Greer and Donal Blaney may object
148. I am not an “enthusiastic apologist for Stalin”, I am, as it happens, a reluctant defender of Stalin. This is based on the evidence I have read. (I say “reluctant” because it goes against the grain of what I have been brought up on for 30 years).
And the notion that a fair provision of enough food, water, electricity, housing, heat, shelter, health for everybody can be possible as long as capitalism is scrambling ever-more desperately for profits equally beggars belief. (Incidentally, Stalin is not “my hero” but merely one of many leaders from whom I have learnt and been inspired in my quest for political truths).
I notice you also mention Hitler in your reply; you may wish to consider what might have happened to Europe if the USSR had not been militarily and industrially strong enough to repel the Nazi invasion, as a result of the reforms and growth brought about by Stalin’s modernisation policies.
153 - Yours can be the last word.
150. Thank you for your support.
152. Who? (off to check by googling)
151. Ha ha ha! It took me about 576,000,000,000 millijiffies to get that …
153 Perhaps you will wonder if Barbarossa would have been so successful at the Start if Stalin had not done any of the following A)Ignored copious warnings of German buildup from his own guys as well as us b) Had the entire Russian officer class liquidated including the military genius Tukhachevsky who invented the concept of Blitzkrieg c) initially insisting as Hitler later did on insane no retreat orders to units facing imminent encirclement causing inter alia a defeat of staggering dimensions at Kiev d) Not taken six months to lift the power of the Commissars over professional experts and let the likes of Zhukov do their job. Just a thought
It might be a good idea not to head into that particular (Stalin) thread again.
JohnLoony, I think you should accept that none of us are likely to be convinceable (if that’s a word) that Stalin was misunderstood and that the Communism implemented by the Soviet Union was a good idea that’s suffered a bad press and just avoid bringing it up here.
It is now hurting Labour the attacks be made on Gordon Browns credibility and competence. Just like Blairs attacks on Major harmed the Tories. So I think its a bit late for Labour MPs too now complain about it. But hypocrisy and politics go together like bread and butter.
127: What I would define as the ‘core voter’ is a person who will, if the vote, only vote for one party.
As regards the Democrat race in Iowa I’m going to run a hypothesis past you.
What might happen is a fairly hard shift away from one of the candidates in the last few days before caucus. I’m beginning to take the view that something has to give and the result wont quite be the three way near tie with only a couple of percent between the 3 main players. Perhaps two will be close but a third will be either a surprising bit off or a surprising bit ahead.
Who could it be? The obvious focus would be on Edwards vote but his base has up until now beem pretty loyal and has been for a while so its possible one of the other two could be in for a bad surprise as well.
Beting wise if this hypothesis on a last days decisive shift ends up being correct then punters will need to be on their mettle.
161. Yokel. If I was an Iowan voter I would take the view that Edwards can’t win the nomination.
So I would vote for my preference between Clinton and Obama. If the Iowan voters agree with my logic then it’s Edwards who will get squeezed.
162. From what we gather, Edwards base would split strongly in Obama’s favour if Edwards went out. Thus if the Stop Hilary campaign which is gaining legs, really goes forward then we could see Edwards vote go down to boost Obama.
I think Alan Duncan’s line on question time the other week was apt. He said ‘We Conservatives sometimes had to force ourselves to dislike Tony Blair, we don’t have to force ourselves to dislike Gordon Brown.’
2007 is the year, through Gordon Brown, the Tories got there true enemy, the Labour Party back. It’s the year, through Gordon Brown, the mainly center-right media got it’s true enemy, the Labour Party back. Play the man or the ball, it does not matter now, the Tories and the media are in the same direction whichever way it is chosen to be played, and that is bad, bad news for Gordon Brown.
113.
“The Labour Government: Just Gordon”
The Tory Opposition: Unjust Chameleon
O/T but on the subject of Nick Griffin and Jews, there is a subset of BNP members who believe that Griffin himself is a secret Jew, according to Peter Hitchens. Apparently, this is because his father’s nose looks “a bit Jewish”. This mirrors the belief among some British fascists, in the 1930s, such as Arnold Leese, that Sir Oswald Mosley was a secret Jew.
The leader of the BNP group on Epping Forest District Council, Mrs. Richardson, is ethnically Jewish, but does not practise her religion. Councillor Lawrence Rustem, in Barking, is half-Turkish, and former Councillor Sharon Ebanks (who fell out very badly with the BNP) is half West Indian. Without a doubt, some of the recent recruits to the BNP are willing to tolerate such members, but there is a more fanatical element who regard them with loathing.
The strangest case in my view, is that of Simone Clarke, “the BNP Ballerina”, who is now a very prominent activist in the Party, despite having a mixed race son. Some of the stuff that one sees on websites like Stormfront about her and her son is abusive in the extreme.
‘We Conservatives sometimes had to force ourselves to dislike Tony Blair, we don’t have to force ourselves to dislike Gordon Brown.’
I never had to force myself to dislike Tony Blair.
Well, here’s one issue that won’t have the government quaking in their boots:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7145581.stm
167. I confess I did sometimes have to force myself to dislike Tony Blair. He just had that smiling charm - your instincts told you to like him.
Sometimes when I was watching him smarm away on TV, I would actually repeat a mantra: Remember Iraq, Remember the Rebate, Remember Remember Remember…
Just so I wasn’t taken in. Recall how Cameron and the Tory benches rose to applaud him on his last day in the Commons. Blair was a more charming version of Clinton. Political catnip.
By contrast Brown is political skunk-musk. He repels, naturally. Even if he tore up the European Constitution and fed it to his wife, live on TV, I’d still dislike him. Something about the man is just obnox. He doesn’t help by being a lying cowardly berk.
168. Yes, they don’t seem to get it do they? When the fuel protests had public backing back in 2000, it was off the back of consistent and hefty fuel tax increases. The rises were clearly the result of government action and so the protests had a focus.
The recent rises have much more to do with the global oil markets and ironically, because of the sizable fixed duty in the UK, have affected people and companies less here than elsewhere, where the proportionate increase has been greater. True, we’re paying more here than in other countries, but then that’s been the case for a few years now. I know there was an increase in diesel duty in October (?), but generally there hasn’t been the sort of spark that was present in 2000 to set the protests off. As such, it looks much more like another interest group trying to bully the government into giving it concessions. No doubt there’s some public sympathy for a reduction in fuel duty, but I doubt there’d be much for hauliers and farmers if they start disrupting people’s lives.
167. PS. What is curious about Brown is that the closer people are to him, the MORE they seem to detest or revile him.
Uusually the opposite is true. “I know the real Tony Mandelbrown, and I know him as a man of deep integrity, with really great hair and a ready wit, etc etc”
But the closer people seem to be to Brown, the more the contempt. i.e. Blairite Labour bigwigs detested him long before that feeling reached the Tory front bench, who in turn hated him long before the media began to hate him; and only now is that Brown-loathing feeling percolating to the country at large.
Interesting.
Is it sick or wrong,when witnessing the worst anti-social,nasty,low-life scum in society for one to think ‘Perhaps some of the lowest of the low deserve an Adolf Hitler Nazi regime’-just asking
172, depending on who you have in mind, it’s quite a natural reaction, IMHO.
re 121 having done the maths you’re quite right.
Comparing an annual 4% pay rise over 10 years with a 1% pay rise every quarter for 10 years. The individual worker has received an increase in pay of 48.9% using the quarterly increase compared with 48.0% under the yearly system yet the government would have trimmed 1.2% off the overall pay bill over the 10 year period.
172,I DON’T for one moment condone or bel9ittle the Holocaust-but I would condone draconian measures like taggign and tracking young offenders on ASBOs,and other equivalent measures,targetting at the very nastiest in society-I also assert there is an inverse relationship between those who secream about cicil liberties,and how much that person actuaslly deserves freedom-in short a scumbag may well deserve to be prodded,interefered with,harrassed by the state as seen fit until said individual mends their ways
163.
Edwards and Obama’s shares of the votes are uncorrelated (or to be exactly very weakly correlated). However, there are signficant negative correlations between Edwards and Clinton and Obama and Clinton. This suggests that Edwards and Obama voters will move to Clinton if one of them is squeezed. I’m still predicting that Obama will NOT win the Iowa caucus, and he could very well come in third.
I meant to say that Edwards’ and Obama’s share of the vote is very weakly positively correlated.
173 Are you still expecting a Tory majority next time. If so do you think Fraser Nelson is of his trolley to argue Cameron should really look to get a Blair sized majority
175 - I’d hardly call tagging or tracking draconian.
176. Can you develop that?
If that is so then surely a Stop Hilary effort would ultimately be certain to fail, and badly.
179 ….still less redolent of the Third Reich’s way of ‘doing’ things.
Re 166, Sean fear, “O/T but on the subject of Nick Griffin and Jews, there is a subset of BNP members who believe that Griffin himself is a secret Jew, according to Peter Hitchens. Apparently, this is because his father’s nose looks “a bit Jewish”. This mirrors the belief among some British fascists, in the 1930s, such as Arnold Leese, that Sir Oswald Mosley was a secret Jew.”
What? The BNP a jewish conspircay? What would Jenny Tongue say
175. Tagging Draconian? Burn ‘em I say.
I am constantly impressed by the perspicacious and witty repartee to be found on PBc.
By chance, do any contributors to this fine site have their own (to use the vernacular) ‘blog’?
174 - True although not quite what i was getting at.
Suppose you give a worker a choice of a 2% pay rise paid in full, or a 3% pay rise paid for half the year (so effectively, in that year a 1.5% pay rise). Comparing this over ten years the second option will earn the worker £7000 more over ten years. But which would the unions kick up more of a stink over?
It just seems to me that there is huge potential for staging to be used to create win/win situations for both Govt and Workers/Unions. And because the staging can be used to make keep any pay increase in a year within inflationary guidelines, there is no need for inflationary pressures to impact on the independent assessments of the worker’s true worth and right to share to some extent in the growth of the economy.
Hence Public sector pay will not fall behind in troubled economic times, and there won’t then need to be big increases at other times which stoke such unwarranted resentment in the private sector.
182 Well, in their eyes, (and of the dissident fascists in the 1930s) it’s evidence of the diabolical cunning that the Jews display.
178 I’ll have to read his article. One thing that has convinced me that Labour are going to lose, though, was Jack Straw’s article in Wednesday’s Guardian, in which he argued that under this government, civil liberties and democracy had been advanced to a degree comparable to the introduction of universal suffrage in this country. Modestly, he then went on to say that whereas it had taken about 100 years to achieve universal suffrage, Labour’s achievements had taken a mere 10 years. If that really does reflect government thinking, then it’s inconceivable that any group of people so out of touch with public opinion could be re-elected. Something like 500 people posted comments in response to Jack Straw, of which about 15 were supportive.
172: I’d like three things to happen, everyone who says ‘well if you have nothing to hide…’ should have to allow anyone who wants to look around their homes and through their things, any MP who asks the PM a ‘isn’t it true Labour is wonderful’ question at PMQs has to spend the rest of the week in a sheep costume going ‘baaa’, and more seriously we should be able to recall MPs.
*185 - £7000 more, assuming a £20k starting salary.
185. That only works once. If pay increases are staged in sucessive years then both the payroll bill increase and the final figure rise would be the same (if the staging were done at the same time of the year).
To use your example of 3% increases staged, suppose someone earns £20000 in year 1 and is then given a 3% increase halfway through the next year, they will earn £20300 during year 2 - a payroll increase of 1.5% as you say. Even without any additional increase, they would then earn £20600 in year 3, but they are due an increase in that year too - using £20600 as the baseline.
Suppose another 3% rise introduced after 6 months. That would bring year 3 pay up to £20909, but against a notional annual salary of £21218. Whether you compare £21218 against £20600 or £20909 against £20300, it still represents a similar rise and only a brief saving as the rest of the increase will kick in after a few months.
I just read 128, 131 and 132, and thanks, I’m very flattered.
189 - I don’t think you’ve understood my point. But the Govt does not stage pay increases to make savings. They do so to ward off short term inflationary pressures.
By using staging to deliver consistent levels of pay rises in any individual year, it is therefore possible to keep within inflation targets whilst allowing worker’s earnings to benefit from growth in the economy.
The alternative is conflict with the unions every time inflation seems to be threatening the economy, as pay rises are kept artificially low, workers fall behind their private sector equivalents, which then leads inevitably to large pay public sector pay rises at some future point which then causes resentment for workers in the private sector.
190 Deserved entirely. O/T but picking out two seats at random from Waller’s book Newport West and Barking.
Do you agree with Waller that the Tories need a reprise of their 1983 performance to take it. Personally I doubt it very much. It’ll be extremely tough for them to crack but this is no Bridgend a genuine landslide seat. The houseprice boom in Cardiff has driven more middle class voters further east young couples etc. This is a seat the Tories could take with a smallish UK majority I think.
Barking. Do you think the BNP can’t win in a General Election here. I confess genuine alarm as it seems clear the BNP will throw everything at this seat and the boundary changes if anything favour them. Could the BNP even threaten next May in your view
A penny for your thoughts..
Election night with Sean Fear sounds pretty good to me - pity half of us will be tied up in counts!
191. But a 3% increase is a 3% increase - the inflationary impact will be the same (and frankly, even the difference that a one-off staged increase would have is minimal unless it sets off a chain reaction of wage demands, which is unlikely). In the case of the police, for example, a few tens of millions extra in the economy is peanuts compared to its overall size, or indeed the margins of error many other government budgets operate to.
The timescale over which you’d be seeking to implement that kind of policy is too short for it to work effectively. In fact, the alternative that you outline represents the same policy, but over a longer time frame: the course of an economic cycle.
186,
180 majority for Cameron,
Is he putting his money where his mouth is ?
As he won`t be collecting the cash in a trolley.
However he might have to knick the £1 coin, from the dispensor to get the bus home.
194 - in that case why do the govt bother with staging increases at all?
196. It’s a temporary cost-saving measure.
197. Or to ‘make a point’ to certain groups - gesture politics.
193,
Nick is it a safe bet now election night will be June 2010?
193 Take a web cam in then. No rules against that. Maybe rather brave of you though as the tension mounts to keep a stiff upper lip
So if everyone knows that then how can the home secretary/PM stand up and claim it’s to do with inflation. She must know she hasn’t a leg to stand on.
191 If there is an inflationary pressure it isn’t the pay rises but overall deficit spending. Quite simply Brown has a public sector pay policy because he recognises that he needs to keep a lid on public spending not because a 2.5% pay rise against a RPI of 4%+ is inflationary.
At same time he has promised huge unfunded public spending in education and housing.
202 - thanks
192: If the BNP had a chance of winning in Barking, which I doubt, they would face a single major party anti BNP candidate.
193 - Well, I do hope Ms Whiplash of Broxtowe will untie you for the result.
I gather that the BNP are on the edge of splitting into two factions. Anybody know more?
201. The government’s ‘argument’ (sic) about inflation is a smokescreen designed to obscure the reality, which is that they are running out of money. And if the economy slows next year at the rate that now looks likely, the problem is going to get a lot worse. Expect some major ructions over public sector pay next year.
207 - yes, spot on. And I wonder what approach the LDs and Tories will take on this. I really hope that Clegg (or Huhne) don’t do the CK line and solicit public sector votes too hard.
191. Don’t forget that the £30 million we are talking about is a drop in the ocean(in public expenditure terms). To pick a fight with the police when we are still under a definite terrorist threat for such a measly amount is basically moronic. Whatever the financial constraints there must be some exceptions and this is one.
After all suspending MP’s communications allowance would cover more than 20% of the shortfall so I’ve no doubt the rest could be found easily (I’d start with some of the pointless IT projects). Which is more important, protection of the people or the pontifications of an elected official?
This is the sort of petty penny-pinching that companies indulge in when they are slipping into trouble with little real idea how to get out of it and it says it all. This Labour Government has got itself in trouble and it doesn’t have a clue how to get out of it.
204 All parties would have to run Paper candidates at least. A full blown electoral pact could backfire as we’ve seen in other Countries
209. It seems likely that the decision to pick a fight with the police is the result of three factors a) their inability to strike - file under ‘cynical’ b) a belief that the public have lost respect for the police in recent years - given this is due largely to Labour’s baleful influence this can be filed under ‘hypocritical’ as well as ‘cynical’ c) a vestige of the old left’s hatred for the ‘pigs’ - file under ‘vindictive’.
Overall - typically New Labour - the basest of motives mixed with gross errors of judgement and incompetent execution.
Another special election coming up stateside:
http://tiny.cc/Y3×9p
Democratic Rep. Julia Carson (IN-07) has passed away following a battle with lung cancer
193. You could do a Bob Marshall Andrews to us all on a webcam Nick. Must be tempting
212-Can you send the link again?
214. Hopefully this one works http://tiny.cc/uhjcN
dez at 199 - I don’t know much more than you do, but I’m sure it won’t be 2008. It’s IMO more likely to be 2009 than 2010 if we think we have a fair chance of winning, and vice versa if not, but that’s just my personal opinion.
SBS at 206 - yes, I’ve posted a few items about this. Google “sadie graham” with “expulsion” and you’ll know all.
215-Thanks
210: They could persuade some popular local to run as an independent.
216 Yes I imagine Labour will be highly reluctant to take a hit in the Euros of 2009 and keen to help assorted MEPs and Councillors by going on the same day. If they don’t feel they can risk and abandon them to the Wolves as well taking a political hit, it will be because they are so up against they feel they must
211. Fully agree that is quite possibly the thinking behind it. However, it just shows how detached from reality the thinking is in the bunker.
218 Same dig. The Taylor/Bell scenarios involved the major parties against another Major Party. I fear an overt act like that against the BNP would be a foolish move with a strong chance of backfiring and galvanising the ‘Protest’ voters
219. I would judge it on how selfish Brown is. If things continue to be this grim next year, then going in 2009 would be the logical step to get it all over with, save councillors and MEPs, and start a recovery with a new leader. However, if he’s selfish and believes something will turn up, then he’ll wait until 2010, lose another chunk of his ever diminishing activist base and make th recovery as difficult as the Tories faced in 1997.
I think his nature will lend himself to 2010.
190. I’ve just read 128,131 and 132. So no job for me then? I’m very flattened.
Paul Flynn reports that Glenys Kinnock is standing down at next Euro elections
219/222.
Actually going in 2009 would leave many Labour county councillors open to a bloody night in 2010…in 2005 they got elected on a GE day turnout, in 2010 without a GE they would probably fight elections with half of the turnout which can be negative for Labour is they lose in 2009 and the Tories are still in their honeymoon in 2010
206 Some BNP members are looking at the WLQ and even completely moving from British to English Nationalism. From an English Nationalist point of view this is very worrying as we don’t want BNP fugitives joining our ranks. Let the BNP remain a ‘British’ nationalist movement, while the English Democrats, English Independence Party, Campaign for English Parliament continue to champaion English nationalism.
Re 184, Self Imposed Exile “By chance, do any contributors to this fine site have their own (to use the vernacular) ‘blog’?”
*cough* I might, but I am just to modest to mention it
225 - Not often I correct the maestro, but all Councillors serve 4 year terms, so they will be praying that Gordon DOES have the election in 2009.
Re 186, Sean Fear “182 Well, in their eyes, (and of the dissident fascists in the 1930s) it’s evidence of the diabolical cunning that the Jews display.”
Ah yes, I had forgotten that! Nutters the lot of them!
225 True but I think MEPs rank above Councillors in the political jungle
224 No surprise there. Any thoughts on 192
225 - Doesn’t this assume that Labour win the election?
Wasn’t there some talk at some point that the Govt isn’t allowed to hold a General election on the same day as the Euros?
New YouGov poll has the Tories on 45%. All on ConservativeHome.com.
228. John, yeah..I got it totally wrong..I went from the assumption, GE day with next GE day…but it doesn’t follow if the GE is moved to the next year.
If so, I agree with the previous comments…2009 would be a massacre for Labour County Councillors if not held on GE day
230. I’m not sure how many Lab MEPs are really at risk….it’s difficult to guess how much down Lab can go in a PR Euro election
221: Such a candidate would only need about 65% of the three parties combined vote to get over 50%. I also can’t see the Greens and the Worker’s Revolutionary Party votes shifting to the BNP.
That said the only way the BNP might win is if the Tories, Lib Dems and the BNP took large chunks of the Labour vote and the remainder was split by Respect fielding a candidate.
Con 45
Lab 32
LD 14
231 No. The Electoral Commission advises against it but there’s nothing to stop them. And if they think it’ll benefit them do you think they’ll listen…
It’s not enough. The Conservatives need to be on at least 65% at this stage of the electoral cycle.
Martin Baxter is going to have to amend his calculator in favour of the LibDems again soon
237. And Labour still have some voters..not clear why!
237
My rugby team got dicked, my football team lost to a last minute penalty, then I was musing about whether there were any polls this weekend….. I’ve cheered up already, Time for a bottle of Margaux !
Does Mike have to pay a copyright fee every time he displays a picture of DC.. if so, its going to get a tad expensive. 13 of them. Merry Xmas…
Majority prediction 102. The list of gained seats on this poll is interesting.
The predicted results in the country, given the National levels of support which you entered, are as follows.
National Prediction: CON majority 102
Party 2005 Votes 2005 Seats Pred Votes Pred Seats
CON 33.24% 209 45.00% 376
LAB 36.21% 346 32.00% 228
LIB 22.65% 66 14.00% 16
Show
prediction
map
Edit current prediction, make new prediction, or go back to home page.
List of predicted seat changes
Aberconwy CON gain from LAB : Betty Williams
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine CON gain from LIB : Sir Robert Smith
Amber Valley CON gain from LAB : Judy Mallaber
Angus CON gain from NAT : Michael Weir
Arfon NAT gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Argyll and Bute CON gain from LIB : Alan Reid
Barrow and Furness CON gain from LAB : John Hutton
Basildon South and East Thurrock CON gain from LAB : Angela Smith
Bath CON gain from LIB : Don Foster
Batley and Spen CON gain from LAB : Mike Wood
Battersea CON gain from LAB : Martin Linton
Bedford CON gain from LAB : Patrick Hall
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk CON gain from LIB : Michael Moore
Birmingham Edgbaston CON gain from LAB : Gisela Stuart
Blackpool North and Cleveleys CON gain from LAB : Joan Humble
Bolton North East CON gain from LAB : David Crausby
Bolton West CON gain from LAB : Ruth Kelly
Bradford West CON gain from LAB : Marsha Singh
Brecon and Radnorshire CON gain from LIB : Roger Williams
Brentford and Isleworth CON gain from LAB : Ann Keen
Bridgend CON gain from LAB : Madeleine Moon
Brigg and Goole CON gain from LAB : Ian Cawsey
Brighton Kemptown CON gain from LAB : Desmond Turner
Brighton Pavilion CON gain from LAB : David Lepper
Bristol North West CON gain from LAB : Doug Naysmith
Bristol West LAB gain from LIB : Stephen Williams
Broxtowe CON gain from LAB : Nick Palmer
Burton CON gain from LAB : Janet Dean
Bury North CON gain from LAB : David Chaytor
Calder Valley CON gain from LAB : Christine McCafferty
Camborne and Redruth CON gain from LIB : Julia Goldsworthy
Cardiff North CON gain from LAB : Julie Morgan
Carlisle CON gain from LAB : Eric Martlew
Carmarthen West and Pembrokeshire South CON gain from LAB : Nick Ainger
Carshalton and Wallington CON gain from LIB : Tom Brake
Ceredigion NAT gain from LIB : Mark Williams
Chatham and Aylesford CON gain from LAB : Jonathan Shaw
Cheadle CON gain from LIB : Patsy Calton
Cheltenham CON gain from LIB : Martin Horwood
Chester, City of CON gain from LAB : Christine Russell
Chippenham CON gain from LIB : Unknown (new seat)
Chorley CON gain from LAB : Lindsay Hoyle
Cleethorpes CON gain from LAB : Shona McIsaac
Colchester CON gain from LIB : Bob Russell
Colne Valley CON gain from LAB : Kali Mountford
Copeland CON gain from LAB : Jamie Reed
Corby CON gain from LAB : Phil Hope
Cornwall North CON gain from LIB : Dan Rogerson
Cornwall South East CON gain from LIB : Colin Breed
Coventry South CON gain from LAB : Jim Cunningham
Crawley CON gain from LAB : Laura Moffatt
Crewe and Nantwich CON gain from LAB : Gwyneth Dunwoody
Croydon Central CON gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Dartford CON gain from LAB : Howard Stoate
Derbyshire South CON gain from LAB : Mark Todd
Devon North CON gain from LIB : Nick Harvey
Devon West and Torridge CON gain from LIB : Unknown (changed seat)
Dewsbury CON gain from LAB : Shahid Malik
Dorset Mid and Poole North CON gain from LIB : Annette Brooke
Dorset South CON gain from LAB : Jim Knight
Dover CON gain from LAB : Gwyn Prosser
Dudley North CON gain from LAB : Ian Austin
Dudley South CON gain from LAB : Ian Pearson
Dumfries and Galloway CON gain from LAB : Russell Brown
Ealing Central and Acton CON gain from LAB : Andrew Slaughter
Eastleigh CON gain from LIB : Christopher Huhne
Edinburgh North and Leith CON gain from LAB : Mark Lazarowicz
Edinburgh South CON gain from LAB : Nigel Griffiths
Edinburgh South West CON gain from LAB : Alistair Darling
Elmet and Rothwell CON gain from LAB : Colin Burgon
Eltham CON gain from LAB : Clive Efford
Exeter CON gain from LAB : Ben Bradshaw
Gedling CON gain from LAB : Vernon Coaker
Gloucester CON gain from LAB : Parmjit Dhanda
Great Yarmouth CON gain from LAB : Tony Wright
Guildford CON gain from LIB : Unknown (changed seat)
Halesowen and Rowley Regis CON gain from LAB : Sylvia Heal
Halifax CON gain from LAB : Linda Riordan
Hammersmith CON gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Hampstead and Kilburn CON gain from LIB : Unknown (changed seat)
Harlow CON gain from LAB : Bill Rammell
Harrogate and Knaresborough CON gain from LIB : Phil Willis
Harrow East CON gain from LAB : Tony McNulty
Harrow West CON gain from LAB : Gareth Thomas
Hastings and Rye CON gain from LAB : Michael Foster
Hazel Grove CON gain from LIB : Andrew Stunell
Hendon CON gain from LAB : Andrew Dismore
Hereford and South Herefordshire CON gain from LIB : Paul Keetch
High Peak CON gain from LAB : Tom Levitt
Hornsey and Wood Green LAB gain from LIB : Lynne Featherstone
Hove CON gain from LAB : Celia Barlow
Hyndburn CON gain from LAB : Greg Pope
Ipswich CON gain from LAB : Chris Mole
Keighley CON gain from LAB : Ann Cryer
Kingston and Surbiton CON gain from LIB : Edward Davey
Kingswood CON gain from LAB : Roger Berry
Lancashire West CON gain from LAB : Rosie Cooper
Leeds North East CON gain from LAB : Fabian Hamilton
Leeds North West CON gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Leicestershire North West CON gain from LAB : David Taylor
Lewes CON gain from LIB : Norman Baker
Lincoln CON gain from LAB : Gillian Merron
Loughborough CON gain from LAB : Andy Reed
Luton South CON gain from LAB : Margaret Moran
Manchester Withington LAB gain from LIB : John Leech
Milton Keynes North CON gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Milton Keynes South CON gain from LAB : Phyllis Starkey
Morecambe and Lunesdale CON gain from LAB : Geraldine Smith
Newport West CON gain from LAB : Paul Flynn
Newton Abbot CON gain from LIB : Richard Younger-Ross
Norfolk North CON gain from LIB : Norman Lamb
Northampton North CON gain from LAB : Sally Keeble
Northampton South CON gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Norwich North CON gain from LAB : Ian Gibson
Norwich South CON gain from LAB : Charles Clarke
Nuneaton CON gain from LAB : Bill Olner
Ochil and South Perthshire CON gain from LAB : Gordon Banks
Oxford West and Abingdon CON gain from LIB : Evan Harris
Pendle CON gain from LAB : Gordon Prentice
Perth and North Perthshire CON gain from NAT : Peter Wishart
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport CON gain from LAB : Linda Gilroy
Poplar and Limehouse CON gain from LAB : Jim Fitzpatrick
Portsmouth South CON gain from LIB : Mike Hancock
Pudsey CON gain from LAB : Paul Truswell
Reading West CON gain from LAB : Martin Salter
Redditch CON gain from LAB : Jacqui Smith
Renfrewshire East CON gain from LAB : Jim Murphy
Ribble South CON gain from LAB : David Borrow
Richmond Park CON gain from LIB : Susan Kramer
Rochdale LAB gain from LIB : Paul Rowen
Romsey and Southampton North CON gain from LIB : Sandra Gidley
Rossendale and Darwen CON gain from LAB : Janet Anderson
Sefton Central CON gain from LAB : Claire Curtis-Thomas
Sheffield Hallam CON gain from LIB : Nick Clegg
Solihull CON gain from LIB : Lorely Burt
Somerset North East CON gain from LAB : Dan Norris
Somerton and Frome CON gain from LIB : David Heath
Southport CON gain from LIB : John Pugh
St Austell and Newquay CON gain from LIB : Unknown (new seat)
St Ives CON gain from LIB : Andrew George
Stafford CON gain from LAB : David Kidney
Stevenage CON gain from LAB : Barbara Follett
Stirling CON gain from LAB : Anne McGuire
Stockton South CON gain from LAB : Dari Taylor
Stourbridge CON gain from LAB : Lynda Waltho
Stroud CON gain from LAB : David Drew
Sutton and Cheam CON gain from LIB : Paul Burstow
Swindon North CON gain from LAB : Michael Wills
Swindon South CON gain from LAB : Anna Snelgrove
Tamworth CON gain from LAB : Brian Jenkins
Taunton Deane CON gain from LIB : Jeremy Browne
Telford CON gain from LAB : David Wright
Tooting CON gain from LAB : Sadiq Khan
Torbay CON gain from LIB : Adrian Sanders
Truro and Falmouth CON gain from LIB : Matthew Taylor
Twickenham CON gain from LIB : Vincent Cable
Tynemouth CON gain from LAB : Alan Campbell
Vale of Glamorgan CON gain from LAB : John Smith
Wakefield CON gain from LAB : Mary Creagh
Warrington South CON gain from LAB : Helen Southworth
Warwick and Leamington CON gain from LAB : James Plaskitt
Warwickshire North CON gain from LAB : Mike O’Brien
Watford CON gain from LAB : Claire Ward
Waveney CON gain from LAB : Bob Blizzard
Weaver Vale CON gain from LAB : Mike Hall
Westminster North CON gain from LAB : Karen Buck
Westmorland and Lonsdale CON gain from LIB : Tim Farron
Winchester CON gain from LIB : Mark Oaten
Wirral South CON gain from LAB : Ben Chapman
Wolverhampton South West CON gain from LAB : Robert Marris
Worcester CON gain from LAB : Michael Foster
Yeovil CON gain from LIB : David Laws
Ynys Mon NAT gain from LAB : Albert Owen
York Outer CON gain from LIB : Unknown (changed seat)
Seats whose winner changed due to tactical voting effects are marked ‘(TV)’
by the way, I havent seen any posts from Gabble recently.. has he/she disappeared?
New thread - YouGov shows Tories heading for a 96 seat majority
Wells gives a 373/230/18 split, so both in line for a 100 majority.
I don’t really think there’s much use in the electoral predictors at the moment beyond Peter Snow’s ‘just a bit of fun’. In a real election, local personal votes and campaigns will make a difference and in any case, the party behind usually makes a bit of a come back. The Lib Dems also don’t have a permanent leader at the moment, which must be having some effect no matter how well Vince Cable does at PMQs. (Though if the above list is accurate, they’ll need another new one after the next election as well!).
The interesting thing is the new high for the Conservatives: 45%. That’s an impressive score - when was the last time any poll had the Conservatives that high? 1988? It’s probably five or six years since ANY party made that kind of share.
Obviously, the poll is a bit out of line with the recent by-elections and I’d repeat my comment from yesterday about all polls (be they opinion or by-election) being a bit dodgy in December, July and August when Christmas or Summer tend to produce ‘close seasons’. Still, I don’t think David Cameron need worry about Christmas plots.
161. The way the caucuses work with second preferences means you don’t need to move away. Many will go into the caucus with a first choice they know won’t making it, and also a decided preference of the top two. This will really work against Clinton.
A PBC baby. My son Robert and his wife Lucille have given birth to a daughter this evening - Julia Smithson. This is a first grandchild for Jacky and I.
Robert and Lucille have played a key part in the development of Politicalbetting and without them this site would not be what it is. They have been to every PBC party though I guess it might be a bit harder for the next one that is planned for late January.
A couple of points. Firstly, regarding Barking. The likley candidate from the party best placed to fight off the BNP is The Rt Hon Lady Hodge who is the last possible person to “get votes” from across the board. It would be difficult to get Conservative/Liberal Democrats out of single figures to give her a vote.
Regarding playing the man and not the ball, Nick Palmer is being extremely selective in his political experience, memory and research. Steve Richards was recently on Newsnight and said that the personal attacks on John Major prior to 1997 have helped create the climate which exists today. One can, however, go further back. Margaret Thatcher faced incredible, visious personal attacks. Next time Nick Palmer is in the HOC Library look up Gerald Kaufman, and that is just the beginning. In the current House, Sion Simon, Tom Watson and Ian Austin are scarcely shrinking violets when it comes to dishing out personal abuse. Although one can ignore the ageing and incresingly irrelevant class warrior from Bolsover.
I have just looked up some of the Butler, British general election books. In 1951 Churchill sued the Daily Mirror and won the case, over the “Whose finger on the trigger” libel. Interestingly huge numbers of extra copies of the paper were printed on election day and were deliversd (accidentally) to the homes of voters in marginal seats.
Alec Home faced awful attacks from Labour often just based on his features. Ted Heath lived through some nasty attacks and in 1970 Labour were barred by TV for using dummies made up to look like unflattering members of the shadow cabinet. These emphasised Iain Mcleods and Quintin Hogg’s physical disabilities. Not nice.
I certainly remember the run up to 1997. The shroud waving and ambulance chasing reached fever pitch.
Those who live by negative activity can be felled by negative activity.
Well done grand dad. Raise a glass to the future PBCer.
Re 223, Stjohn “190. I’ve just read 128,131 and 132. So no job for me then? I’m very flattened.”
Nor me, obviously we keep good company
When more comes out about funding and Abrahams, then things are going to get even worse for Brown and Labour.
re 245 We have a grandchild! Congratulations
245. “for Jacky and me“
251. That was supposed to have “grammar pedant” in the angular bracket thingies, but it didn’t work properly
Gordonized? Seek help - In the meantime, vote YES (not NO) to Free Europe Constitution at http://www.FreeEurope.info
240.
Rarther than play fantasy ballot bollox, if we compare these polls with actual votes that are taking place on the ground, what do we see? The Lib Dems thrash the pants off the Tories in Chelmsford this week to make a key gain. If Essex man is moving against Cameron, what chance do we really think he has of sustaining any real parliamentary majority?
Even where the Tories should be onto a good thing they are accident-prone. The Tories thought the new Sefton Central seat was a ’shoe in’ but now their parliamentary candidate is up before the national Standards Board over some very peculiar discussions she held with a Council chief officer over contracts for a firm she was doing work for.
My local community web-site reports it thus:
[i]Sefton Tory councillor Debi Jones probed over irregularities
Sefton Conservative councillor Debi Jones is to be investigated by the Standards Board for England after she met a senior Council official to discuss how to bid for council contracts.
Cllr Jones was reported to the Board by Chief Executive Graham Heywood last month while Alan Moore, deputy chief executive of Sefton Council, was suspended.
Cllr Jones, who works in freelance PR, started work for Liverpool firm Ampersand on a freelance basis just a few days before the meeting in September.
The Standards Board has confirmed it had launched an investigation into allegations that Cllr Jones, who is also the Conservative Parliamentary candidate for Sefton Central, had broken the councillors’ Code of Conduct possibly in four areas.
!) a member must not compromise the impartiality of a council employee;
2)a member must not bring their office/authority into disrepute;
3)a member must not use their position improperly to secure an advantage/disadvantage for themselves or an associate
4) influencing matters in which the member has a prejudicial interest.
Debi Jones has said that she “went to see Mr Moore with a colleague of a company I represent to inquire about how a company goes about the tendering process. I merely wanted to know what the process was for future reference.”
Cllr Jones claims that she spoke to the Council’s legal department beforehand to advise them of what I wanted to do, and, as far as I was concerned, all was in order. She says that she feels she is being “used as a political pawn.”
Caroline Ellwood, Legal Director of Sefton MBC has not yet commented regarding the advice which she or her department are alleged to have given Councillor Jones.
Mr Alan Moore, meanwhile, remains suspended from his job as Deputy Chief Executive while independent investigators are now looking into the matter. It is not at all clear why any PR company would want to see the Strategic Director of Regeneration for advice about bidding for Public Relations contracts, rather than the Chief Executive.
At about the time of this meeting between Ms Jones and Mr Moore, the Conservative council leaders were plotting with the Sefton labour leaders to stop major cost-saving redundancies of senior Bureaucrats in Sefton, the outcome of which would have involved replacing Graham Heywood as Chief Executive with …..Mr Alan Moore - a bid which has so far been thwarted. As the Daily Post describes it (8/12/07):
“Conservatives and … Labour … teamed up in a bungled attempt to offer chief executive Graham Haywood early retirement or redundancy.” [/i]