Was the PMQ flare-up part of a Tory strategy?
November 13th, 2008
How can Gord avoid Dave’s deliberate wind-ups?
No doubt that on his flight across the Atlantic for the G20 meeting Gordon Brown will be reflecting on yesterday’s PMQs which seemed to go horribly wrong.
Could the Cameron approach not have been the accident it appeared to be but was it part of a carefully worked out plan to undermine him?
I’ve just been asked that question by a journalist who suggested that I might have predicted yesterday’s PMQ flare-up in an article I was interviewed for in the Washington Post just a month ago. At the time I was asked for a view on what Cameron could do about Brown’s transformation from a political has-been to someone who was being dubbed “the saviour of the world”.
The article, published on October 17th 2008, included this: “…Smithson said Cameron might also be trying to goad Brown into losing his temper, making him look less like a global statesman and more like a British leader struggling with his approval ratings. “I think a lot of the strategy is getting Brown to lose it,” Smithson said. “If he can get Brown to have a temper flash, then Cameron’s in the game again.”
Isn’t that what happened yesterday with all the taunts from Cameron about not expecting to get an answer from Brown because he never gives them? Wasn’t the idea of trying to deflect Brown from his prepared PMQ script just part of the Cameron game-plan?
The more I’ve looked at the commons scene and reflected on what I told the Washington Post a month ago the more I think I might be right. This was pre-prepared. The Cameron team knew that Brown would be blown off course by not going with the economy and they could easily have anticipated his response to what appeared to be an innocuous simple question on the baby murder case.
And, after his success yesterday, won’t Cameron try the same technique again? It’s dead simple. He makes an obvious point knowing that Brown simply does not have the fleet-footedness to make it up as he goes along. Cameron then reminds everybody that Brown never gives straight answers - something which is plain for all to observe.
There is a dead easy counter for Brown - just answer the question. Alas this is something he seems unable to do. Are we then into a new era of PMQs? I can’t wait until the next time.
Our cartoon is by Marf of Londonsketchbook.com.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
If you’re right Mike, you’ve just made the most damning inditement of Cameron and Co.
2nd!
I will not be the first - or the last - to say no!
Isn’t the problem with this analysis that in reality it was Cameron who lost his temper - and Brown didn’t lose his? He was clearly flustered, but he retained a moderate tone throughout.
No. To think that is simply not to understand Cameron on this issue.
Defintely not.
No - I don’t think even Cameron thought Brown would be so stupid as to respond in the way he did.
re 1 why? Surely the opposition’s only rôle is to show up the emperor’s lack of clothes. They did this very well yesterday. Jonathan you forget that the opposition needs no policies because they don’t have anything to run.
No
That’s the (usually correct answer to a Mike S thread question)
I don’t think it was intended to goad Brown into losing his temper - Cameron did that after all, but I do think its a return to Cameron’s past approach of varying the questioning, leading sometimes on the unexpected. Often this was to lay the foundations for a later trap - checking Gotdon would definitely go ahead with 42 days, getting him to give a definitive yes or no to a subject before policy was clear. Cameron recognises Gordon’s dependence on his notes and on planned phrases - so he varies the serve.
FPT.
551. Bollocks. I started noticing Labour at Glenrothes were value at 3/1 (or whatever it was) many weeks ago - and I said so on here.
At that time, yes, I still thought the SNP were slight favourites - but I was merely pointing out what I thought was a good “value” bet, despite that (and I was right). You can page back and check, if you like.
As the date got nearer I agreed with Mike that it was 50/50 - again go and check if you don’t believe me - this despite the punters thinking the SNP were faves, and SNP-ers like you lustily proclaiming victory beforehand.
A couple of days before the vote we had our own pb poll. I went for a Labour victory - against the mass of opinion here.
And on the night itself I posted a prediction here, that Labour would win - once more against the bulk of opinion (go and check the thread, if you wanna know for sure).
Anyone following my advice, and betting on it, would have made money all the way through.
550. And that IS quite DEFINITELY the last time I’m gonna mention Glenrothes - but Red Meteor brought it up.
BTW I’m not claiming any great predictive skills. I think I got Crewe and Nantwich wrong (appalling pessimism overcame me), and Obama in New Hampshire (but didn’t we all
ON-topic. I think NO, but it will have reminded Tories how easy it is to rile Brown, especially when he has to be “emotive”. They should definitely attack him more obliquely, on emotional issues, in future. And they should prepare surprises for our dear premier.
No. Apart from anything else, surely no-one would have expected Brown, poor though he is known to be at this sort of thing, to make such a mess of such a simple question.
For the future, though, your analysis is correct. Indeed, it’s really only a return to the approach Cameron was using in the summer. There was some suggestion at the time that he eventually eased off because he didn’t want Brown to be replaced. I don’t know whether there was any truth in that, but even if there was, it doesn’t apply now. Brown is now safe. So it’s open season.
I’d give a variation on that theme, Mike, which I suggested at the time.
If Cameron was trying to make him angry, he’d have been calmer and perhaps gently mocked him.
I think the strategy was not to show the public ‘Gordon the Tantrum-thrower’ but ‘Gordon the Unemotive’.
Your description is best exemplified by other recent PMQs encounters, which have left Brown shaking with rage.
That’s said, these are two halves of the same walnut - the overriding strategy behind each of these tactics is to make it about character, not policy.
McCain’s campaign had a choice - make it a referendum on McCain, or make it a referendum on Obama. The state of the GOP brand made the former impossible to win, so they made it about Obama, and the public liked what they saw.
Cameron did brilliantly to detoxify the brand, but the Labour response since Mandelson returned has been to focus on the ‘unlikeable’ aspects of the party, especially (and I don’t wish to be mean) the Shadow Chancellor. Mud-wrestling, and the obfuscation of differences when they are both in the dirt, is what Mandelson is aiming for.
Cameron knows that, against that (”I like Cameron, but the others seem horrid…”) - and having won a referendum on his own temperament in his first few years - he needs to (temporarily perhaps) make this a referendum on Brown.
Not Brown’s policies (at least not until March or so) - Brown’s character. Make the differences as stark as possible. And it will work, if they can stick to the plan…
“Cameron then reminds everybody that Brown never gives straight answers - something which is plain for all to observe.”
That is something that regulars watchers of PMQ’s have long been aware of, but last night *most* news channels also highlighted that problem too.
10 For the record SeanT, I bucked the trend and called it right on New Hampshire and Ealing debacles. But didn’t dare believe that the SNP would lose.
No. At least I hope not. That would ruin my fairly positive view of Cameron were this cynical political gamesmanship.
1.Excuse me while I LOL at that comment, and from a Labour supporter. Beyond parody!
I’m sure that the decision to ask about baby P was made on the basis that it drags Brown out of his economic comfort zone. Cameron’s very good on the whole humanity thing, whereas Brown has all the emotional intelligence of a Toilet Duck. However, I don’t think that his losing his temper was anything other than genuine - and it was trigerred not so much by Brown as by the barracking he received from Labour MPs.
Besides, there is a distinction between something being poltical and being party-political.
FAO Millwallforever – no problems. As you may have read I’m no fan anymore either. Considering voting Liberal with a peg on my nose, in the vain, vain, hope they do the right thing and bin the woefully useless Clegg.
It was always the case that off the ecomony - and possibly on it -Brown would come unstuck.
He can’t answer a question with a straight answer.
When he does anwser he says black is white or vis-versa and although he gets away with it a lot, his political vision/pride means he is unable to see when it is obviously the wrong thing to do. He will still be banging on about low unemployment when its over 2 million [January].
Off balance and off script he is a donkey.
Yesterday’s events stand out because it was over something so sensitive and because it was against the flow, but its was bound to happen anyway.
I am sure in hindsight Cameron would have tried to be calmer.
So no I don’t think it was choreographed.
4.”Isn’t the problem with this analysis that in reality it was Cameron who lost his temper”
Cameron didn’t lose his temper, he was passionate and angry over this issue, and that was appropriate.
557 (previous thread) - SeanT, we had an exchange ourselves at about 10.30pm (ie after the polls had closed) and at that point you were convinced the SNP were going to win. And yes, you changed your mind again after about two minutes - that was one of the fifteen times.
“SNP-ers like you lustily proclaiming victory beforehand.”
On balance I thought we’d sneak it, but every comment I made on the subject for three weeks up to polling day made clear that it could go either way and nobody could be too sure. Marcia certainly wasn’t confident. MalcolmG and Easterross are different cases, but that’s just their nature (and Easterross is a Tory!).
But I saw through you long ago. To the extent that you were ‘predicting’ a Labour triumph, it was because you were hoping to spin a Labour defeat or even narrow victory as an appalling result and ‘much worse than expected’. Your own particular brand of astro-turfing, methinks.
What Mike suggests is not the person I see, but obviously I don’t know him aswell as Richard
Agree that this was not a strategy on either side. Cock-up not conspiracy. Losing temper in political debate is always to be avoided and hardly ever reflects well on the person who loses it.
5 - Test, a genuine question.
Do you honestly think there was no politics here?
If there were politics at play, would it diminish your view of Cameron (ie do you think there is a finite degree of consideration, and what is given to politics is taken from true compassion?)?
16,19 You’re unique ChristinaD.
23 - Same question to Jonathan and benbobjim
Just because he plays politics, does that make his compassion any less?
I think Mike is 50% right. Cameron did throw out the aside that ‘you never get an answer in this place’ before the argument kicked off, which I noted at the time: it seemed that Cameron was going to go for him a bit from the start. I also think Cameron did want to get off the economy and on to emotive stuff, which Brown is bad at.
However, I think Cameron’s anger was genuine, largely because I felt it myself. It was a response to an insult from Brown which he didn’t have the grace to withdraw. Cameron did not go in angrily on the question about the enquiry, that only came after Brown’s response.
I think Cameron would have been more likely to go for Brown on a later question about the economy, and to hammer home the point he dropped earlier that he wouldn’t answer the question.
Really, Cameron’s question was a dolly. It could have been the planted question from a Labour pol which usually starts us off. It was Brown’s bad manners which led him into the vale of tears.
Looking at the quotation from Mike, it wasn’t Brown who had the temper flash, so this time Mike didn’t foresee the future.
25. I don’t think he was playing politics. If he was, on this particular issue, it’s sick. But as I have already clearly stated I don’t think he was, and very much hope and pray he wasn’t. My view of Cam is quite positive – I quite like him really. But if you have rumbled him here, I will lose respect for him instantly.
25 Not according to Gabble she isn’t
No.
548 from previous thread- Morus, you’re absolutely right that the extra criticism for the blogosphere is self-serving on the part of the NYT but, to be fair, they were quoting the pranksters themselves (no doubt selectively, however). Still, there’s no doubt that the print media should be held to a much higher standard of accuracy than shoestring blogs. The fact that they consistently make so many mistakes in addition to propagandizing and bloviating only adds to my contempt of the incompent and worthless types that proliferate at major media outlets.
27.Also, don’t forget the attitude of the Speaker. He too was clearly upset with the atmosphere in the Commons. Unless he cooked this up with Dave in the smoke-filled HoC bar, we have to conclude it was unscripted.
24.”16,19 You’re unique ChristinaD.”
Not at all, I have just studied the acting skills of one Anthony Blair and the bullying and disloyal backstabbing Mcavity qualities of Gordon Brown.
Oh, and throw Mandelson, Campbell, Whelan, Balls etc into the mix as well.
Thomas has put the argument well.
Is this PUMP UP Mike Smithson week?
I have looked three times at yesterday’s PMQ’s and I think Cameron was genuinely angry about Brown’s non-answer and attitude.
If you listen and look carefully and forensically you will find that cameron meant to return to the economy (his first words
was a quip on the unemployd) after 2 questions on Baby P.
No! I think your whole premise for this thread is wrong, in this particular instance; but may be a strategy for the future.
No. Cameron was genuinely taken aback by Brown’s claim he was being party political when he was expressly avoiding any such thing. If Brown had answered the first question with a decent, understanding answer then that would have been the end of it and the next 5 questions would have been on the economy. Brown’s subsequent ‘party political’ jibe after I think question 3 guaranteed that all 6 questions would stay on this subject.
This PMQs has been misinterpreted by many commentators and misrepresented on the news snippets last night, perhaps unintentionally. I urge people who’ve only seen or heard highlights to watch the whole thing and draw their own impressions of the two men.
34. You’re very kind.
The DOW is all over the place at present. Which way will it go today?
Sterling however is still sinking.
Hullo (again!) Sailor!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7727900.stm
35 “Is this PUMP UP Mike Smithson week?”
It doesn’t officially start until the current banner gets replaced with one that just says, in giant numbers:
50/1
20. Yeah, whatever.
What did I actually predict would win? Labour.
Who did you predict would win? SNP.
And independence is dead, even as a pipedream. That’s one of the main reasons why you lost. That’s one of the main reasons Labour have surged back in Scotland. Oil is at $40, your banks have gone bust, the arc of prosperity is a joke, and now your leader looks like an idiot.
It’s over. Your future is as a nice civic nationalist party, like the Catalans, content to remain within the Union. However I suspect your activists won’t tolerate this, because they really want independence.
Therefore your party will fatally split in the medium term. A terrible shame.
Mike, I would guess the Brown doesn’t answer such questions because he fears he would be walking into some sort of trap by answering (i.e., ‘if I answer him, I’m sure he’ll blast me with some prepared punchline’). Thus it seems safer to refuse to answer, repeat a familiar script, and wait for it to blow over. This works more or less unless Cameron is able to repeat this sort of performance on a regular basis. Hasn’t Cameron tried this before? If not, why not? If so, how well did Brown do previously?
seanT tempted by Lib Dems for fraction of a second, shocker??
Reminds me of a great scene in Star Trek - First Contact (1996) where the Borg Queen has tried to tempt Data to defect:
Lt. Cmdr. Data: And for a time, I was tempted by her offer.
Capt. Jean-Luc Picard: How long a time?
Lt. Cmdr. Data: 0.68 seconds sir.
Re: PtP@507 - I have continually said that the way to deal with the party hack and zealot “noise” is to move to a blog system that allow rating of posts and users. This would quickly cause poor posters to be rated down below most people’s setting, thereby forcing them to either stop being so immature or get lost.
‘my contempt of the incompent and worthless types that proliferate at major media outlets.’
And it’s not just in the US, S&S, either…
Cameron intended to ask questions about the economy. He said so himself at the start, and journalists had been briefed beforehand that he would. I do not think it was his strategic plan to abandon those carefully crafted questions.
His opening question “do you think people should investigate themselves” was designed to get a response that could be attacked, but I think he was genuinely shocked at how spectacularly the PM mishandled it. I can’t see how you plan for your opponent to shoot themselves in the foot quite to badly.
As to the future, he will do it again, and rightly so.
I think we are in danger of mixing up strategy and tactics. The PMQ tactic was to surprise Brown on an area where he is traditionally weak and then move onto the economy in the second set of questions, having knocked Brown off his stride. This was derailed by Brown and the Labour MPs’ reactions and Cameron reacted with passion and political clarity.
The strategy remains the same. Identify Brown as disconnected from the real world the rest of us live in, pin the blame for the coming recession on Brown and Labour, appear sound on the economy while saying as little as possible until the picture becomes clearer, and keep as much policy powder dry as possible for the 12 month run-in to the election or for the instant manifesto required for a May 2009 election.
26 Morus, I have never questioned Cameron’s compassion. I thought parts of his exchanges yesterday were on the money for a leader of the opposition. Equally, some his tone and comments were totally out of order.
But if we’re you say that he used this specific issue in a calculated way, as part of a strategy primarily designed to trip Brown up, I don’t like the guy. Sorry but there you have it. If I was Cameron and saw Mike’s article I would be upset. If I was feeling litigious…
I apologise in advance to the people who want to believe in the purity of Cameron’s part in this but I think what you write here holds alot of weight Mark. I understand why you want to believe this but let’s get real - it’s not the first time peoples emotions have been played on to achieve political ends. Failing to think of the whole ‘war on terror’ now would be to lack imagination.
The entire Tory blogsphere was on message following this exchange and lambasted Brown for being things like an ‘emotional retard’. Cameron couldn’t have predicted the Brown response but he is intelligent enough to know that Brown was bound to look ‘out of touch’ responding to a question like this. As The Guardian today notes in it’s editorial columns Cameron did sound at times like he was straying into his ‘broken Britain’ narrative especially when he got the age of the female in this question totally wrong; she is 27 not 17.
Incidentally, the same paper had an article on it’s site today by Iain Duncan Smith saying the solution was to ‘mend broken homes’ ie, traditional family values fare.
Cameron could have done numerous things to ensure he got a decent answer; he could have notified Brown that he intended to ask this question (after all by all accounts Minister’s had only been briefed in the morning). He could have changed to a different line of questioning when it was clear Labour MP’s were agitated by his remarks. He could have not made inflamatory remarks about ‘never getting a response’ which however true they are were obviously going to provoke.
What Cameron did was reckless, irresponsible and opportunistic in the extreme.
No. Not even Cameron would not have been able to guess that Brown would have handeled it all so badly.
*Mike even…sorry…
28 Politics is in itself not ignoble - it is politics to fight for rights, for fairness, for or in as this case (IMO) justice for a dead child.
Partisan cheap shots are ignoble.
Cameron is Leader of the Opposition, he has 6 questions and needs beforehand to decide what is important enough to raise. Political advantage will guide but so will his view of the subject. In this case, having written for the Evening Standard on it, he obviously felt the childs death was important, not something to blame on the Government but requiring action.
Cameron had a pattern of raising a subject of importance, to which partisan advantage did not accrue, such as Zimbabwe or a subject asking for knowledge of the Governments plans such as troop deployments in Afghanistan, then using his second set for more partisan attacks. This was designed for political benefit, showing him as rising above Punch and Judy on matters of importance but hard on the Government where necessary.
Mike, you are completely wrong. I am in the know, and I know that DC had another set of questions prepared:
This is how he started off (from Hansard):
Mr. David Cameron (Witney) (Con): Only this Prime Minister could be quite so smug on the day that 140,000 people have lost their jobs. Before turning to the economy, however, I want to ask the Prime Minister about the tragic death of Baby P.
Link here:
http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081112/debtext/81112-0002.htm#08111228004662
Note that he wanted to turn to the economy. Having spoken to someone who knows exactly what Cameron’s questions are before PMQs, apparently Cameron junked 3/4 questions on the economy, and latched on to Brown - it was not prepared and it was unscripted.
I would be happy to confirm details with you via private email if you so wish.
Your suggestion does not reflect well on DC, hence the reason for the post, and above all, it is factually incorrect.
41. Oil is at US$52 today Sean, not U$40. You might be right tomorrow though, who knows?
42. The thing is, he doesn’t answer ANY questions. That is what is so frustrating for his opponents, and to a large degree why Cameron lost his rag yesterday, I would think.
What can Cameron do if Brown won’t answer? Not much. He can ask again, which he does. But then he uses up another of his questions, and he doesn’t control the editing of the clips for the evening news, so how many people will see it? He can throw down the aside ‘there’s no point in asking in this place’. But that’s dangerously close to the wind. It did seem a little ‘off’ to me, and I’m biased in his favour.
I’m sure Cameron gets immensely riled up that his questions don’t get answered, and I think yesterday he wanted to make an issue of it. It’s frustrating because unless the reporter says ‘Brown didn’t answer’, the message won’t come across. So Brown can get away with it. Hence the aside. And hence, perhaps, Cameron’s anger when on top of this he was effectively insulted.
Just thinking – is this not a bit of a legally dicey article? It is suggesting that the whole thing was a set-up. (I do not, do not want to, and cannot, believe it is BTW)
32.”27.Also, don’t forget the attitude of the Speaker. He too was clearly upset with the atmosphere in the Commons. Unless he cooked this up with Dave in the smoke-filled HoC bar, we have to conclude it was unscripted.”
Good point Thomas, I think that we all forgetting the big part the Labour benches, and in particular those on the front bench played in ratcheting up the atmosphere at PMQ’s yesterday.
Cameron wrong footed them by going on this issue, rather than the economy. Now as others have noted yesterday, Brown’s response could have been a win/win for him and Cameron had he been able to think on his feet. Instead he was flaying around and unable to to cope off script. The throw away accusation of Cameron playing party politics is too often Brown’s fall back when he is not coping with the line of questioning. And his own party didn’t help him one iota with their behaviour.
Yet again the Brownite Whips will have had the PLP primed and ready for action, and the fact that Cameron chose not to go on the economy *first* is his right at PMQ’s.
And I also think that it was just plain stupid for Brown and his team not to have been better prepared for the issue which dominated the headlines in the previous 24 hours to come up.
The reaction of Michael Martin towards the Labour backbenches yesterday should have raised alarm bells with the PLP, but it didn’t and they carried on.
O/T
These cartoons are superb.
Please pass on my admiration to Marf
Thanks
49. “He could have changed to a different line of questioning when it was clear Labour MP’s were agitated by his remarks.”
Is this a serious statement? Because Labour and Gordon were revealing themselves to be a bunch of helpless hypocrites, and numbskulled cynics… Cameron should have… politely retreated?
Yes. Of course. Uh-huh. Yup.
Nominations for Stupidest Post of The Year have just closed.
Gin,
I accept that Brown handled it badly. I accept that Brown looks out of touch with anything that doesn’t have an economic aspect…however, I am not even leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition and I can see this so if you are telling me Cameron can’t and wouldn’t take advantage of that then I have to disagree with you…
55 - If he wants a retraction, he knows he has to ask at least four times…
Seriously - any politician who wants to make legal hay over blogs divining their intentions would be a complete idiot.
If this were an attack blog accusing him, there would still be no case to answer - that it is PB.com asking about the insinuation of a possibility about a hypothetical thought, would make a mockery of already-difficult-to-mock-any-further libel laws in this country.
FWIW I watched PMQ’s twice and was struck by how Brown trotted out the same answer repeatedly. Cameron was extremely annoyd and passionate. Was it planned? Probably not. Brown was in tractor mode though and his voice nearly cracked at one point. Not his finest hour.
Next week ….proof of pudding etc
41. Who did SeanT claim would win?
SeanT now says…”Labour”
Our survey says…”Labour or the SNP”
And who did Red Meteor claim would win?
November 6, 1.29 am -
SallyC : “Are you going to win?”
Red Meteor : “Hope so! You know as much as me, though. I was getting a little pessimistic about ten days ago, but things are looking brighter now. It sounds like it’s going to be tight though.”
Yeah, that’s really categorical, isn’t it? If that’s a ‘lusty’ proclamation of victory, I obviously don’t know as much about lust as you do (but then that goes without saying).
By the way, repeatedly boring us to death with your theory of how Scottish independence is now stone dead (or even more stone dead than it supposedly was three months ago) will not make it any the more true. Support for independence is down 3-4% since the economic crisis - if support holds up that well in these difficult circumstances it’s obviously a good deal more resilient than you think.
And I’ll save you the trouble - SeanT’s response to this post is “Zzzzzzz”. Sweet dreams, my love.
Just a thought, is it possible to get a multiplier bet on a NOM with Tories having most seats.
NOM looks tempting enough at 5/1, and I think the Tories are nailed on to get the most seats, which’d make it even more interesting.
If the economy improves then we move into NOM teritory imho, if it goes the other way then looking at large Tory majority (if you like betting on the spreads).
I struggle to see a Labour victory happening at all. So load up on the Tories with savers in NOM (or NOM+Tory lead if you can get it) would be my theory (this of course, may be complete crap).
Ok, I need to go to a concert - see you lovely people later on.
I think people might be looking at PMQ’s from the wrong end of the telescope. Cameron immediately realised that if the charge of playing politics with Baby P had stuck, Cameron would have been in deep trouble. I think that was why he changed tack and used all his six questions - to make sure there was no risk of that outcome. But his deftness at turning the issue around so that Brown came out as the villain of the piece shows how formidable an opponent he will be in the GE.
Brown has used up half of his allotted span as PM until the latest time that general election can be called - and still hasn’t found a way to combat Cameron. Nor has Mandy.
62. Please keep going chaps – this could become a classic of yesterday’s devaluation debate proportions.
By the way, Friedrich has made an interesting comment on PMQs at the end of the previous thread - it argues against the prevailing thinking.
42. Sorry, to make my point clearer. Brown won’t answer questions from backbenchers when there is no possibility of a comeback. It’s not just a matter of avoiding being ambushed by Cameron A case in point was the question yesterday about the Post Office. A Tory asked whether he was going to do A, and he responded by saying ‘I’m going to do B, C and D, I’m going to do everything I can’. Which is not answering the question, not acknowledging the other person’s point, and actually very rude.
60. OK fair enough Morus, just sounding a warning, in reality my knowledge on this area is pretty shallow.
A Labour councillor has died in haringey (of all places) - see here for details http://www.vote-2007.co.uk
48. I don’t think that is stupid, it would have been statesmanlike and have left no room for the kind of accusations that Cameron now rightly faces…instead he chose to kept piling on and now the best thing you can say about his contribution is what Michael White did in the Guardian, that he elevated his own hurt feelings above the issue…
[Sorry for the long re-post]
Regarding yesterday’s PMQs, I watched them just now that it seems they may have a political impact, but my perception is also different from that of most posters here. Cameron’s performance made me feel quite uncomfortable. I don’t know how many cases like this you have had in the UK, but in Germany, we had quite a few over the last couple of years. In 2006 in my home town, a little boy was found dead and severely abused in the fridge of his step father. I had just finished working in a child care facility with a large share of children from… difficult family backgrounds, so it hit a bit closer to home in many ways. Haringey, again, is close to my Islington home.
The news led to the predictable national “debate”. Television would shove a microphone into the face of every politician they could get a hold of and ask just how shocked they were. I do not doubt for one second that all of them were in fact shocked, but the appalling fact is that this is never enough - you have to show it, in a way that the media find “convincing”. In fact if your performance is really “good”, you get to be on the evening news! There is no space for quiet sadness or some an introspective attempt to find what could have been done (or better: what should be done!). By contrast, if you could manage to cry a tear while the camera is filming… winner!
From what I gather from the German cases, there are three pretty obvious reasons this kind of abuse happens: firstly, the agencies responsible have inadequate resources (funding, staff). Secondly, our societies have a growing number of people whose lack of education/employement/social contacts means they never learned to take care of themselves and project their apathy and lack of respect for themselves on others, including even their children. Lastly, and this I can say from my (short) professional experience, it is almost impossible for parents to lose custody. As a society, we don’t want to increase social spending. We don’t want to be reminded of the losers in our society. We will not accept that “the state separates the mother from her child”. So what society, aided by the media, is really looking for is a scapegoat. A politician, ideally in tears, should point the finger at some individual in the agency (failing that, the head of it) so we can hate the parents, hate that person, and otherwise go back to normal.
I found the first exchange on the topic absolutely appropriate. Cameron was right to ask the question and, unlike virtually everyone else here, I found Brown’s answer to be unusually dignified and measured. I don’t know if he did not want to “do emotions” or is simply unable to, but he did express his grief in a quiet way that I appreciated a lot. It was neither media-savvy nor politically smart, and that was just so great for once. Of course, if you really do believe that this particular agency has a local problem, you may want him to agree that it’s irresponsible for them to review their own process. Wikipedia tells me that Haringey has an unusually high level of single parent households and the council website tells me that “within Haringey unemployment levels are even more extreme: estimates by the Greater London Authority show that Northumberland Park ward - at 13.7 per cent (of all people working or unemployed and actively seeking work) - has the highest JSA claim rate out of all wards in London.” Additionally (from networkharingey.com), “[o]ver 50% of unemployed Haringey residents have not worked for over 2 years or have never worked.” Quite frankly, from experience this is exactly the place where this kind of abuse happens. Of course an inquiry will find mistakes have been made. I’m sure constraints force agencies to cut corners everywhere, but it is in places like Haringey that the consequences will show. Even if they are lucky enough to have followed procedures in this case, The Sun will run headlines along the lines of “Shame! Agency thinks they did a fine job”. After all, it is not about the solution. It is about finding someone to blame. Additionally, there seems to be a broader national inquiry. It’s debatable, but I do believe that’s enough.
So, I’m sorry, but when I see Cameron devoting an entire PMQ session to Baby P, I don’t see a politician so shocked he loses his temper and so moved he will devote significant energy to help prevent the victimization of children. Instead, I see a politician who does what the media (and, secretly, society) expects: mount a meaningless inquiry, find someone to blame, move on, and all the while fit into the media category of “genuinely distressed”. I also see a politician who sees an opening because his opponent will not, or cannot, join in the ritual dance. From a political perspective, it’s good for the Tories - see Dukakis for how damaging it can be not to show the “appropriate” emotional reaction on demand. Obviously, most politicians, Labour, Tory, LibDem, would do the same. Blair would have aced it. Brown didn’t.
I give him credit for just that.
No. I think the line of questioning was designed to wrong foot Brown before going on to the economy. I am sure the additional question would have been about employment. Cameron even got his smug quote in before he asked about Baby P. I think the line about never getting a straight answer would have come up again in relation to the questions on the economy.
I think the turning point is when Brown says Cameron is being party political. How can he possibly be, when trying to ensure that an independent inquiry is just that. As noted on here it was a dolly and Blair would have batted it back no problem.
Brown’s problem is that he can only see things as party political. For him he must argue with whatever Cameron says, because it must be wrong he is an evil tory. The fact that he loathes him clouds his ability to think on his feet as much as his script reliance. In fact he needs the script, and he never answers questions for this reason - he thinks anything stated by the tories must be wrong.
Hence he does not see the stupidity in saying that tory tax plans are unfunded, when his are funded by ‘borrowing’. I am currently not sure how capable the tories are economically, but they are not running the country, they are trying to get elected and that involves both promoting themselves and denigrating their opponent. I think they may be happy at the moment that Gordon is superman. What goes up must come down, and his ridiculous quotes about boom and bust have come back to haunt him. In fact whilst the media narrative is against them they seem to be giving brown enough rope to tie him self up in knots again.
Think forward to spring. Browns tax splurge can;t materialise, because we will not be able to borrow the money as the pound weakens if he does not state how it will be paid for in the medium term. Browns bank rescue will jar with joe public as the business he works for cant get credit and makes people redundant. Browns pandering to the unions and their funding will jar as , in particular public sector, workers see both their pay and conditions well above private sector.
67. Friedrich’s post is very good actually – well worth reading.
18. benbobjim, I am staunch Tory now after voting Labour in my younger rebelling days in the 92, 97, 01, & 05 GE’s, I voted Tory in the 06 council election (we finally got rid of Labour from Croydon) & Tory in the London election last May (Mayoralty & GLA) I finally woke up to this shower of s*** government as to what they are really like, in all honesty I only ever voted Labour for my mortgage in 01 & 05, 92 & 97 was to simply to get rid of the Tories & 01 & 05 was more as a responsibly type vote thinking purely that the economy was ok so it was better the devil you know. Being sick to death of this government bleeding me dry on tax is only one of a number of reasons for wanting to get rid of them.
The problem with mike’s analysis is, as has been pointed out, that it was Cameron and not the PM who lost his temper. Cameron’s anger seemed pretty genuine to me and it seemed as if raising Baby P’s death was an attempt by him to be statesmanlike (which he tries to do quite frequently, especially last summer) and also to show that both sides of the House were shocked by the murder.
It must be extremely frustrating to be Leader of the Opposition and to see week after week the PM not even attempt to answer most of your questions. I think he was surprised and frustrated that Mr Brown didn’t even try to engage (twice) with the substance of his question about the local inquiry. He lost his temper at the Labour backbenchers not at Mr Brown (he was actually pretty calm after the PM’s ‘party politics’ remark).
I think the whole thing was more by accident than design but I agree with Mike that given that the PM’s negative side emerged so suddenly and unexpectedly, we are likely to see Cameron trying to wrong foot the PM again. We may see him asking three on the economy and three on other topics or ‘varying the bowling’ with the economy one week and something else the next. After all, as important as the economy undoubtedly is, we mustn’t forget that being PM is about more than being finance minister plus.If the Tories want to win the next election, one of their key tactics must be to make it ‘do you want five more years of Gordon Brown?’
Mike is right that Mr Brown could blunt this tactic by acutally answering the question but he won’t for two reasons. One is that, as we have seen, if he goes off-piste then he looks and sounds deeply uncomfortable. The second is that he is extremely obstinate, any ceding of ground, any concession that the opposition may have a point is a sign of weakness. Mr Brown belongs to that class of politicians who believe in the old mantra of “never explain, never apologise”.
Andrew,
The problem is he didnt look very statesmanlike….and all he succeeded in doing was dividing the House and making the entire thing look shabby…
63…no,you will not be able to link those two eventualities.
75. If they cut taxes on 24 November, as has been ramped, would you be prepared to go back to them? I guess you are a fairly lone Tory voice in Millwall/Bermondsey being a (political) blue!
33.
“I have just studied the acting skills of one Anthony Blair”
UR David Chamereon and I claim my UKP 5.
66. Ah, fraid not. I am flying to Boston Massachusetts tomorrow, to go and taste some clam chowders, so I must start packing in a sec.
Besides, arguing with Scots Nats is rather dreary, in the end. They are just…. boring. It’s like arguing with Fundamentalist Snakehandling Baptists. They know the Rapture of Independence is a-coming, probably next Saturday, yessiree - and no evidence will ever dissuade them; debate is therefore pointless.
I think there is way too much analysis here, we are bordering on ‘grassy knoll’ or ‘Nasa never really landed on the moon’ territory when people start asking if the whole thing was a set-up.
It was what it looked like, Brown screwed up (I genuinely believe he didn’t mean to accuse Cameron of party politics, I think he *meant* the whole house, and specifically the baying MP’s behind him) and then as usual proved he is too weak a man to climb down gracefully and made himself look a heartless oaf.
Cameron intended to do what the leader of the opposition is supposed to do, hold the PM to account for the matters of the day. His issue was, lets face it, addressed within hours when Ed Balls effectively conceded that Cameron had a point and launched an independent enquiry after all.
Friedrich’s post at 67 is compeletely undermined by this one fact alone.
The missed shot at PMQs came from the backbencher about Obama and the war. They should’ve just said, “Barack Obama says the war in Iraq was a bad idea, does the PM agree with him?” or words to that effect.
Instead he overegged the pudding by loading his question to heavily against the war. It’s a mistake a lot of MPs make, trying to be too cute and allowing the answerer off the hook because he can address a different part of the question. If he’d gone simple and clear it’d have been much harder for Brown to dodge either disagreeing with Obama or labelling the war as a mistake.
If it was a trap set for Brown and Cameron was only pay acting, then he’s wasted on Westminster. He’d make a fortune in Hollywood. Sometimes, we can be too subtle. We’ve become so used to seeing calculation and devious motives behind their actions, that we forget that politicians of all parties are human and occasionally feel real outrage.
74, 67 Very good. I can’t help feeling that the overall impression that was given by this spat was negative for politicians as a breed, and does not really reflect well on either Brown, Cameron or the House generally.
78. Alas, the best laid plans of mice and men*
*for best laid plans of mice and men, read idle nonsense that occurred to me (in other words, business as usual)
Saint David Cameron lives on by Tory Bloggers. .
If mike is right he is some cynical bastard.
To be fair, I can`t believe Cameron would be so insensitive.
So I will say Mike is over reading the situation.
Anyways I hope not as it would be like Kuwait before Gulf war one, using extreme stories of what was happening to children as a propoganda tool.
77. Darrell, No it was Labour backbenchers who divided the House by shouting ’shame’ at him for trying to ask the PM about the issue. Cameron reacted to them. Whether he should have done is a matter of taste. Perhaps he shouldn’t have, but I think I would have reacted in the same way Cameron did if I was being shouted out for trying to ask the PM a question about a baby’s death.
Forgot to mention on my last post that Brown also cant help being party political. When consensus was required in order to pass bank rescue measures, bi partisanship was called. Both opposition parties tried to work within this to stabilise the political environment whilst providing limited critical faculty to the government proposals. But even when Cameron gave him an easy PMQs in order to continue this, Brown waited until question 6 and then got his partisan answer in last. Can;t remember the quote exactly, but he quoted something back that Cameron had said previously. Not many mentioned it at the time, but I thought that was just as bad, obviously premeditated, and unnecessary. Brown clearly handles economic areas well, and even though I think he is liberal with the truth he can sound like he knows the brief to an uneducated ear. Why was this jibe necessary? He is compelled to be party political, whatever the circumstance.
Therefore I would suggest that the tories need to find areas to question Brown where the tory and labour opinion is similar, where he wont be scripted and may score further own goals. I think Brown opened himself up yesterday and showed a weakness on the easy question, and this alone may turn the media narrative.
Nick Clegg was better yesterday - does anyone know why Brown insists on calling the libdems the liberal party? Probably some nuanced historical reference that Brown thinks he is being clever with I would imagine.
81. “It’s like arguing with Fundamentalist Snakehandling Baptists. They know the Rapture of Independence is a-coming, probably next Saturday, yessiree - and no evidence will ever dissuade them; debate is therefore pointless.”
Rather like my attitude to the very few Palinistas on here – one of them disowned me today and I told me he would no longer “engage” with me. I can’t say I was in the slightest bit disappointed.
In fact, are the Fundamentalist Snakehandling Baptists and the Palinistas in fact, the very same shadowy organisation? You got me a-wondering… You betcha!
90 “Nick Clegg was better yesterday - does anyone know why Brown insists on calling the libdems the liberal party? Probably some nuanced historical reference that Brown thinks he is being clever with I would imagine.”
I believe Nick Clegg referred to his party as the Liberals in his conference speech.
85.
“Cameron was only pay acting”
And there I was thinking it was only the Tory EuroMPs who were just in it for the money!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1925656.ece
84. You are right, MPs are often too cute (or dumb!) and allow the minister to latch on to a certain portion of the question and answer that rather than the substantive point.
85. Good point Fernando, it’s easy to read too much into these things. Yesterday was more cock-up by the PM and the Labour backbenchers than conspiracy by Cameron and the Tories, though the latter will definitely use yesterday’s experiences to inform their actions in the future as Mike suggests.
Nemtynakht,
If I was cynical I would suggest it is a ‘in-joke’ with his core vote and is trying to poke at the Lib Dems by playing up tradtionally ideological hostility between socialists and liberals…maybe i’m wrong, I don’t know….maybe it’s a psychological tic of his political upbringing which he simply has never lost…
81. I sympathise. Debating with someone is always pointless if you can’t disprove their points and instead have to fall back on old favourites like “whatever” and “you’re a retard”.
By the way, there’s one breed even more dreary than us Scot Nats, and that’s the Brit Nats. I dare say there are legions of Thais who would now heartily agree with me.
91.
“one of them (Palinistas)…. told me he would no longer “engage” with me.”
in a biblical fashion?
86. That was may immediate take. However, I decided not to articulate it without cover from people like your good self – the Sun has decided it was a Brownite own goal and I was dreadfully scarred of running against the “Voice of the Common Man”
83. “Friedrich’s post at 73 is compeletely undermined by this one fact alone.”
Friedrich’s post at 73 is undermined by the fact it lacks paragraphs, and is therefore unreadable.
Afraid Mike you cannot have mystic in front of your your first name (Yet)!
I don’t believe this was part of some sort of strategy to humilate Brown. I think if anything it was Cameron being hacked off by Labour jeering & Brown trying to accuse Cameron of playing politics.
To turn it on it’s head - If Cameron had been doing this as some sort of pre-ordaned strategy Cameron would have started pumping in political facts & statistics. He did not - he asked Brown to withdraw the comment. Brown would not.
The awnsering questions bit was before it all kicked off IIRC - Cameron did not recieve an anwser to the first couple of questions - then mysteriously ED Balls later that very afternoon makes a decision on the subject.
If anyone is guilty, it was Labour MP’s wanting Cameron to ask questions about the economy - being disappointed about the first two questions and then Brown blew it for them by the deflamotry “party-politics” statement. If Cameron had not asked for a retraction, what would the discussion have been about today?
Brown is a ruthless politician - this just showed their is no barrier to Brown’s opportuninsm. We have seen this trait in Brown smuggly smiling at last years PBS with the IHT tax changes:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/images/2007/10/09/smilingbrown.gif
2nd row down - 4th one along is Brown’s true face. He lives and breaths politics and is a complete bastard!
Looks like some Journo has Nobbled the genial host!
Andrew,
Well, they obviously felt from the off that Cameron was trying to politicise the issue…I have to say this what else does Cameron expect…PMQ’s is the time when politics gets the most media attention…it’s traditionally a joust and I saw nothing in Cameron’s remarks to be honest which tried to foster bi-partisanship or at least soften the effect of raising it in such a way…
This is what happened:
1. Cameron knew he was walking into an ambush, with howling, jeering Labour MPs straining at the leash.
2. He had decided to do what Brown does at PMQs. Start with a sombre question/statement. In Brown’s case deaths in Iraq etc. This elicits a calm statemanlike response and gives a bit of breathing space.
3. Brown completely cocks up the statesmanlike response. Cameron persists, trying to get an answer to a straightforward question.
4. Brown makes the “political” allegation which cannot be ignored.
97. I didn’t stay long enough to find out. I simply posted something flippant about a hungry polar bear and electronically legged it!
Here’s a article article worth reading that illustrates how congressional Democrats are already trying to drive the agenda of the Obama administration, pointing out how Obama himself is hamstrung by his reluctance to prematurely take on a presidential role in policy making. This has given Democrats in Congress the ability to jump the gun and begin jockeying with each other and Obama himself in determining which issues will be dealt with first as well as the parameters of the issues.
http://www.latimes.com/la-na-agenda13-2008nov13,0,1264317.story
98. my; scared. Sorry.
96. I wouldn’t take offence to SeanT – he calls everyone those things. I was a “retard” yesterday but did not take it to heart.
£ suddenly crashed another cent. $1.47.
Not a great time to be flying to America TOMORROW.
Those currency traders will get their fingers burnt when they realise GB is best placed country in world to fight the recession.
Machiavellian market manipulator and political puppetmaster Soros say a deep recession is inevitable in the U.S. and a depression is possible. Political spin or reality? As it’s coming from Soros, one can’t really be sure…
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081113/business_us_soros.html
101. Darrell, you are welcome to your own interpreation but Cameron’s riasing of the issue at PMQs was justified in that by the end of the day he got the indpeendent inquiry he wanted. Important issues should be raised and Cameron’s first two questions were non-partisan. He merely asked the PM about whether it was right that Harringay’s children’s dept (though he didn’t mention the council by name) should investigate itself. When the PM didn;t engage with the question the first time, Cameron made no comment about that and sought clarification on the local review. It was then that Labour MPs began barracking him. Of course, they are welcome to think what they like, and Nick Palmer gave us an indication of what they thought of Cameron raising the issue, but I can understand why Cameron lost his temper with them (and to a lesser extent also with the PM). I think there was misunderstanding on both sides for which Cameron is not totally blameless but the PM did not handle the situation at all well and it revealed serious political flaws in him.
I will endeavour to make a serious point here:
If David Cameron can become so agitated in the ’set-piece ‘ environment of PMQs,were I a Tory activist,I would have serious qualms as to how he will handle the month-long marathon of a general election campaign.In other words,can he go the distance without ‘blowing it’ (I hate to bring it,but Sheffield Rally-Neil Kinnock does spring to my mind-and in my opinion,that was merely over-exuberance-could anyone here hnd on heart say they could face 10,000 cheering fans and not get a tinsy,wincey bit carried away? ):wink:
108.Ho Ho Ho!
Off topic: Why id Runnymede named after a deeply dull part of Surrey? I knew I’d heard that name somewhere before and a quick googly brought me a wicket in the shape of Runnymede Borough Council. I doubt anyone will respond but, for my quizzical mind, even posting the question is cathartic.
100. “Looks like some Journo has Nobbled the genial host!”
A worrying mental image.
111. If Cameron had not asked Brown for a retraction and reiterated the point.
Who would Labour be saying was the politician who used the death of a child for political point scoring?
There is no doubt about it that Brown is guilty, I think what is worse is the persistent Labour proganda to say it was part of various campaigns such as “Broken Society” etc - etc. Labour should just let it go as they arte digging a bigger hole and making themselves look like complete bastards.
113 - benbobjim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
109. I’m Sure!
If it look’s like a recession.
Smell’s like a recession.
Tastes like a recession. Then it’s a recession.
Let us all hope that it’s not an incipient Depression in the making.
111. On a month long election campaign he won’t have dozens of Labour MPs shouting at him when he tries to raise an issue and the Tories won’t try anything like the Sheffield rally (they even banned Champagne flutes at the Party Conference).
The bigger danger in a GE campaign is for Labour and Mr Brown’s inability to emote on a normal level. How will Labour strategists handle the ‘Gordon meets the public’ moments?
111. Patrick West Ham Fan have you yet locked swords with Millwall Forever? He used to vote Labour and is now a staunch Tory. I sniff a fascinating and possibly explosive duality here…
Agree Patrick. I managed to wind him up when he was going round the country standing for the leadership. Something about what happens to Witney MPs.
Just ask him about Europe, or taxation or sticking to Labour’s spending plans, - should work. If I was the Labour party I would put a team on to it now.
See Cable parliamentarian of the year.
Though it may be too early to tell, I understand that the Lib Dems dont think that Sean’s membership (all 1 second of it) has done no lasting damage!
sorry double neg - please discard the “no”
111. I cant believe you’re a Tory activist Patrick.
An ex Tory would describe you better. Lol
116. He is a direct descendant of those that signed the Magna Carta???
113 Wikipedia cites a ‘place by the meadows’ (in Anglo-Saxon) as the derivation of the name ‘Runnymede’-also it widely regarded as the signing place of Magna Carta in 1215
120. Is it possible for the Liberals’ reputation to be damaged? They have no reputation *to* damage
124. That clears it up then
This is all far too Machiavellian and paranoid.
I just can’t believe it was planned. Cameron has a 10 yard wide open goal on the economy, but he just got so wound up by Brown that he stuck with the baby P case.
In any case, Cameron came closest to losing his temper, Brown did not.
The tories should be miles ahaead on the economy, and despite me getting annoyed yesterday with Cameron for ignoring it, I can see that PMQs is not the best place to attack Brown, as he just ignores the question and reels off tractor production statistics.
Tories deperately need to do something to get away from the situation where comments such as Mike Smithson’s on the last thread that the tories are “weak” on the economy can be made with some justification.
Come on tories! The pound is tanking, unemployment is rising fast, growth is negative, shares are at pre-1997 levels, budget deficit rising fast, tax receipts collapsing, personal debt at record levels…. need I go on?! Labour should be getting a pasting for all this.
Andrew,
The facts are this; Cameron made no attempt to appeal across the House. What Brown refused to do was comment on the position of Shoesmith and whether her position in leading the local review was the right one - he made some general points which didnt answer that precise question. David Cameron then ranted along his ‘broken Britain’ lines and it was clear at this point that he was attacking Brown in a partisan fashion and then Brown made his ill-advised ‘party political’ remark. Not once did Cameron attempt to foster an atmosphere of consensus and agreement.
125. You have one leadership election with some ‘interesting’ candidates and suddenly you don’t have any reputation left.
117- But what are we really looking at here? What is a “deep recession?” Certainly worse than the 1990-91 recession, but what are we headed for here? I don’t think anyone really knows. I also think the climb back from the pit will take much longer than in previous recessions because of the lack of ability to borrow our way out of it, either on a national or individual basis (at least here in the U.S.).
127. Great post. Possible post of the day in fact.
129. Snap of sorts.
Andrew,
I’ve started so I will finish lol. Yes, I agree…both sides are to blame but the fact is subsequent reaction noticeably by Conservatives and Conservative bloggers who reflect none of the balance we are in this discussion has made it a party political issue.
I think you’ve over analysed PMQs. Just listen to how Cameron asks Brown to withdraw his comment right at the end of the exchange, he’s so disgusted he almost doesn’t know what to say. I’m sorry but I don’t buy it. I genuinely believe he meant to ask about it, get a straightforward answer and then move on to the economy. If they were still studying the document as Balls said, then why not invite Cameron in to the discussion? Question over. No I think Cameron couldn’t believe what he was hearing from Brown (as it was such a simple question to answer) and so decided to ask again, and again, and then he was accused of playing party politics with it and the red mist came down.
Darrell @49 Are you suggesting some sort of blogsphere conspiracy or PB one?
I don’t think anyone knew quite what was coming including Brown or Cameron.
I recognise that if it was deliberate, Cameron is judged by some to be a political genius, but I am not giving ground.
One person has more faith in their own natural reactions.
Simple as that.
In the absence of any political betting opportunities, maybe we should all concentrate on the forex market. Betting against the £ seems a certainty at the mo.
It just hit yet another all time low against the euro; and is now $1.46 something.
Watching the live-streaming of the forex market is just mesmerising. Geeky, but mesmerising.
Another reason I don’t think Cameron pre-planned the Baby P commons rapture is the fact that 3 members of the last Tory government have penned a critique of Gordon Brown’s economic policy.
John Major in the times.
Kenneth Clarke in the Daily Telegraph.
John Redwood (Left office in 1995) in the Yorkshire post.
Given this and the dreadful economic news in the press - it would have made sense for a clash on the economy at PMQ’s. It’s all about media narrotive you see! As an opposition you try and get maximum coverage on the pre-eminat issue that win’s elections, which is of course the economy, high Labour party taxes and chooked economic growth that make britain worse placed in this recession.
Dow Jones just went through 8100 - now below it’s October low.
Looks like the DOW is about to tank.
118 I agree that this is a worry. On the other hand, Brown seems to have coped in previous election campaigns and in Glenrothes. Even during election campaigns most appearences by party leaders are very staged. Not much spontaneity.
Someone buying Lib Dem seats on Spreadfar, buy price moving out to 47. Close to my heart as I am still selling the Lib Dems at 44.
128. He has no brief to reach across the House. What he wanted was clarification on the local inquiry. This He was not attacking the PM in his opening questions but he wanted answers which, as Leader of the Opposition, he is entitled to seek.
Mr Brown simply didn’t engage with the question and merely read out a prepared note. Cameron didn’t indugle in the ‘broken Britain’ narrative until after he was being called ’shameful’ by Labour MPs and until after the Speaker had intervened to shut them up. No one comes out blameless but had Mr Brown handled the first question better then none of this unfortunate episode need have happened. The most shameful behaviour however was by Labour backbenchers who were rightly admonished by the Speaker and, afterwards, by Jon Cruddas who said Cameron was right to go on the issue.
Night all, I shal watch TV while my wife nabs the computer.
DOW still falling.
142. Cameron did not mention “Broken Society” in the whole exchange.
142. “The most shameful behaviour however was by Labour backbenchers who were rightly admonished by the Speaker”
After the ‘Brown bounce’, are we now seeing an even more implausible phenomenon - a ‘Michael Martin bounce’?
145. Dear God, when did politics become so obsessed with bouncing.
Dow 7980
119 I tend to get on with Millwall fans-its Spurs fans (of whatever political persuasion) that do my head in!
133. Darrell I agree that there has been little balance in the response by either side. But there can be no denying that it was Labour MPs and Mr Brown who first made mention of ‘party politics’ so one can understand the reaction by Cameron and the Tories. Equally, however, I can (to some extent) understand why Labour MPs reacted to what they perceived as undue criticism of a Labour council and to Cameron running scared of the economy. Unfortunately, the bearpit atmosphere of the Commons took over and all sides look diminished, (though in my opinion the PM and Labour MPs more than Cameron).
Interesting lessons flow from this, however, and though there are perhaps minor concerns about Cameron’s temper the biggest concern is for labour as it reveals Brown’s inability to ‘do human’. After the first answer (which, apart from not answering Cameron’s question, was actually reasonably human on paper though he finds it difficult to emote) he lapsed in jargon ‘procedure, safeguarding children’s boards, indentified weaknesses in the system’ etc that make him seem slightly otherworldly.
MM@ makes a really telling point at 66.
Having made the insinuation, Cameron could not possibly let it go.
Brown knew that and realised his mistake.
If I were DC I would be very put out at your insinuation and if I am not at all sure it should have been made.
Or as with the events yesterday, it could have been better put.
145 A man of Michael Martins build bouncing would register on the Richter scale !
144. No he didn’t mention the phrase broken society but that was the riff he was playing when talking about the mother, father and social services dept. I don;t think he meant to bring it up at the beginning but he changed key into it in reaction to the barracking he was getting from Labour MPs.
Is this where Madasafish get his stuff from or does he run the site?
http://marketoracle.co.uk/Article7280.html
re 145. I love it a ‘Michael Martin bounce’ That’s spot on.
Sorry, I just have the urge to post this:
Little Miss Bouncer loves an announcer down at the BBC.
150 I thought you was DC saintly only angered in a non partisan way.
155 As they kissed,they united the places they piss
157 Sorry,I just could’nt resist that!
83. I would argue to the contrary that Balls is simply doing what a politician is supposed to do in this situation. Join the ritual. That doesn’t make it any better. If Labour is doing the smart thing, he will now be on a mission to find someone to blame. Anyone. After all, we are just one sin-offering away from acting as if this never happened.
Until it happens again.
128
As soon as he spoke Labour backbenchers should have shut up whilst he asked a question in which he made no reference to the political colour of the council.
Labour benchers were desperate for a fight. If the PM brings up something sober, the opposition has to react properly however they feel.
He started of calmly and tried to stay that way but Labour’s actions just added insult to injury and escalated the tension.
How do you appeal to that?
158
i wish you had.
I think Mr Smithson is getting a bit carried away here. The simple fact is that a number of Labour goons - cocky and emboldened after Glenrothes and a couple of opinion polls - thought Brown would secure a PMQs win over the economy and threw a hissy fit when Dave chose a different subject. Dave realized what was going on, was rightly appalled by their vile antics and decided not to give them the satisfaction of moving on to their preferred subject. And he was right to do so! Such revolting, disrespectful behaviour should not be rewarded. (Brown was just clunking.)
Regardless, thanks to Friedrich for his humane and thoughtful comment on how the media handle child tragedies.
The only person I recognize in the cartoon is Norman Fowler, at the back.
160 By not barking you never answer the question.
Then not expecting a riposte, what hurts your delicate feelings.
Maybe Brown had a bad day yesterday, but he could console himself that at least it wasn’t as bad as that experienced by this poor clergyman who was just hanging kitchen curtains in the nude, minding his own business, when…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3330057/Vicar-went-to-hospital-with-potato-stuck-in-bottom.html
166 - It could happen to anyone. But bachelor vicars are particularly at risk. The government should set up a helpline.
111 Patrick.” Will probably JUST vote Labour”. Always intrigued by this pseudonym - what would persuade you to JUST NOT vote Labour at the next GE?
Adds a whole new dimension to the expression ‘Up your ‘arris!’
:lol:
O/T but looking forward to seeing the video of Osborne presenting the Spectator Award for Newcomer of the Year to Mandelson. Apparently Osborne took the stitch up in good grace, Mandy joked about Corfu and Osborne announced they would be holidaying in Hartlepool next year as neither them had visited there much.
Don’t expect it will equal the McCain/Obama comedy show though.
O/T
Begich Leads Stevens in Race for Alaska Senate Seat (Update1)
By Christopher Stern
Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) — Democratic challenger Mark Begich leads by 814 votes in his bid to oust Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, according to the state’s elections division.
Alaska is still counting absentee ballots from the Nov. 4 election. Anchorage Mayor Begich trailed Stevens by 3,257 votes before officials started counting approximately 90,000 absentee ballots yesterday, a process that may stretch into next week.
The race is one of three Senate contests — with Georgia and Minnesota — still undecided more than a week after the election. If the Democrats win all three, they would secure the 60 votes required under Senate rules to overcome filibusters, a parliamentary procedure that can kill legislation.
Begich leads Stevens 132,196 to 131,382, according to the Alaska Division of Elections Web site. Officials counted approximately 50,000 ballots yesterday and may finish counting the remaining 40,000 tomorrow, said Jonathan O’Quinn, an elections program manager.
Among uncounted ballots are those mailed in from remote areas of Alaska, along with out-of-state voters including those in the military. Also, Alaska is counting ballots that were initially rejected because they were damaged or improperly filed.
169 For the benefit of Stars and Stripes the expression ‘Up your ‘arris’ is cockney,hence the dropped ‘h’ -Aristotole..Bottle..Bottle and Glass..@rse
73 A thoughful post.
But I am sure you appreciate that not everyone who is involved in child protection will share your interpretation of the problems or the human responses.
Nor do we share the same system.
I found a number of years working in ours a distressing and sobering experience.
167 I assume the “entirely discreet” way the hospital handled this matter was to deliberately omit the vital infomation of what type of potato ther poor vicar fell onto….
If this is Cams plan then he should hang his head in shame. I do sense there is rather more than a whiff of panic in the Tory Party recently. Since ‘Mandy’ has returned they’ve become headless chickens!
A feeling that my countrys best interests,economically,socially and morally would not be best served by the continuation of a Labour govt.As I live in a safe Tory seat,I would probably split the difference and vote Lib Dem,were I to not vote Labour at a GE
166. To be fair he probably moved all the dodgy looking objects like Broom Handals, wine bottles and candals but forgot the possibility of slipping on an innocent potato!
172- Ah yes, thank you. In the category of “Things Eliza Doolittle might have said.”
163 Yes Palmer, unlike your vile and odious comments yesterday.
177 Any joy,on the job front-I ask in genuine concern:a good friend has just found part-time work after a few months scrambling about
friedrich at 159. The point is not about finding a sacrificial lamb as you infer, it is that lessons weren’t learned last time, there appears to have been a systematic failure of the child protection system for a second time- and wise politicians are right to try and find out if it’s possible to avoid a third, or fourth occurrance. If you think thats cycnial I pity you.
Reading through it seems their are very few people [certainly amongst the regulars] on any side who believe this was anything other than ‘events’.
I am relieved.
Its a level of cynicism I would rather do without.
I never see the issue of any of the leaders getting “angry” or passionate about an issue as a negative one. Showing a bit of a passion towards debating things is something that politicians of all colours seem to have got away from far too much. All you hear is review, report, must learn lesson, will not happen again. And that isn’t just Labour. I remember the old conference speeches, not the tightly controlled PR fests that now pass for the same thing.
I think Mikes analysis is wrong, but not to say that the Tories won’t use this kind attack in the future, albeit more calmly. In the way they bashed on about Brown been a ditherer.
My reading was that Cameron did ask a question in order to point out, as with many of this governments independent reviews, the fact that is far from independent. I think was planned and asked to score an early point. Which I think is fair enough. I assume Cameron expected a diplomat non-answer (which he sort of got), and was going to have one more bash, before moving on. It is a standard strategy, ask Brown once, get no answer, ask again, get no answer, then say “lets try another one”.
However, what followed, I think Cameron was genuinely shocked by Brown’s robotic nature towards the issue topped by the attempted low blow. Unlike the Cameron / Blair mutation admiration society, they genuinely dislike (actually I think despise) one another, when the comment was made the gloves came off. I don’t think the anger was faked or planned in any way, for Cameron his reposts were actually a lot less articulate than normal.
Cameron has done faux-ish anger before, but if you notice when he does looks like he is getting frustrated or upset, he still remains very coherent, on message and finishes with the prepared punch line. None of that was evident yesterday, it turned into more of a rant and I think the slip about 17 rather than 27, is evidence of this as it is the sort of mistake that Cameron virtually never makes (unlike Brown).
182 there not their!
174 - It is intriguing. Maris Pipers are very versatile of course (and entirely suitable for roasting). However, I reckon it might have been a Pink Fir Apple.
http://www.pinkfirapple.co.uk/
“Long, knobbly, cigar-shaped, potatoes with a pink skin and a creamy yellow flesh… a firm and waxy flesh with a deliciously nutty flavour.”
176 Patrick.Thanks. With those criteria, you must be getting very close to the line!
I understand Baby P died in the summer of 2006, and this report landed on Edd Balls desk yesterday, this lookes more like a coverup to me
Mike - I’m surprised you’ve joined Labour’s Waco Texas bunker tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy tendency!
I spoke to someone very close to David Cameron yesterday. His (Cameron’s)reaction was unplanned, genuine, sincere and completely appropriate. It was Brown who is emotionally constipated and a control freak with little if any human empathy.
To Roger, Gabble, Nick Palmer - et al - that’s your leader - Live with it!
182 - My take on it is very close to Baskerville’s at 47. Raising the subject was valid but deliberate, to throw Gordon Brown off-balance. I don’t think that he originally intended to ask 6 questions on the subject, but when Gordon Brown made such a Horlicks of his responses, he threw his original game plan out. Like Morus, I believe that David Cameron could be entirely genuinely angry and simultaneously calculating that this argument would play well for him.
159 Freidrich - it was confirmed yesterday that the Council had witheld information and evidence from the police. It is today reported that the Social Services had tried to prevent his mother’s newborn child (born after the mother had been charged with Baby P’s death) being taken into care against the advice of police, despite the fact it was born in jail, they said it was “against the human rights” of the mother.
There is something wrong in Haringey Social Services and Cameron’s call for and Ball’s agreement to an enquiry specifically into that organisation was both justified and very necessary.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5149549.ece
Why is it Baby P? Why cant the poor mite even have a name?
180. I have some interviews lined up for next week! Not Financial advice work, that is dead - funnily enough i have just seen a job where it would be advantagous to have the qualifications and experience i have. Alas i have applied for it twice before and they do not even short list me. I ask for feed back and they say they have abandoned recruitment or the other candidates had more relevant experience but still they advertise!
So either they waste money advertising for jobs they don’t want to fill or they are stupid and their company bosses are the sort of idiots who complain about skills shortages.
Part-time work is of no use to me what so ever. I will just run up credit card debts to the max and go bankrupt and piss off to a decent country not this shit creak.
182 Thought the whole point of this thread is that mike does not share your point of view.
Believes it was a Tory stratigic plan.
191. Reporting restrictions haven’t been lifted yet. The “mother” and her lover may still have other charges to answer and they don’t want to risk a future jury being prejudiced.
re 166 I particularly liked the last line “But our staff deal with them in a discreet, professional and kind way.”
Quite so, by blabbing to the press. The nurse quoted should be struck off.
Martin Stop the nonsense you have friends on here. Wether we agree with you or not we need your input
188 Stewart. Whereas I’m not at all surprised you’re part of the Cammy arse licking, brown nosing, Russian businessman, Corfu yacht walking the plank tendency.
Fuuny old world !!
153
No
and
No
177- I hope that story doesn’t give Mr. Bean any ideas for an edgy new skit…
182 If he does he is out of step.
In any event, Mike makes an effort to ensure his threads have a certain tension about them in order to be provoke debate.
200 is to Dez.
194 Reporting restrictions just mean you can’t go public. It doesn’t mean the minister shouldn’t know exactly what is going on.
200 Sally C. Do you think we’re being played by Mike Smithson for circulation purposes ???
I’ve never thought of our genial host as some latter day Murdoch of the ether …. Hhmmmm, where’s page 3 …. Peter the Punter in drag mode with a pair of buxsome hairy breasts …. on second thought !!
O/T What a U turn on Post offices am I being cynical is this to cover for the number of banks that will close when the Lloyds/HBOS deal goes through
The tory strategy, it seems, is to use a recent lead news item for a question, hardly surprising as a strategy. A question about the child’s murder should have been expected by Brown as it was all over the media on the previous day. That he was so wrongfooted suggests his team are not up to the job of preparing him, or Brown to thinking on his feet.
195 Theres a fair chance she’ll laugh so long and hard she’ll have a fatal heart attack-by the way,the 1970s TV comedy ‘The Goodies’ actually did kill someone -a 50 year old viewer had a fatal heart attack laughing hysterically at ‘The Goodies ‘in 1975-his widow thanked the BBC for making her husbands last moments happy.Wow!
200 Sallc I agree I don`t buy this was planned by team Cameron.
203 I think its possible he sometimes put a little extra mustard on the side.
But young thing that you are you can be forgiven for being niave.
204.Poor Mandelson and Purnell, a carefully planned, and hopefully electorally fruitful retreat is blown away by other events.
Mandelson has a private letter helpfully leaked to the Guardian about the possible lifeline to Post Offices, the Guardian follows up the story today, and then we have Purnell announcement.
I think that we should say a big thank you to all those PPC’s who made the issue of Post Office closures part of their long term campaigns up and down the country. Without you this government U turn would not have been possible.
the quality of Jack W’s piercing insights goes from strength to strength…
Again, I think you’re wrong, Mike. Undoubtedly showing Brown to be the turd he is remains a longterm Tory strategy, but there is now ay they could’ve depended on him making that party political gibe. I think you’re looking at this through tinted glasses slightly. We cana rgue whether the anger was genuine and controlled or if he genuinely lost it (I think he actually lost it, hence the 17/27 year old mix up) but I don’t believe at all he didn’t intend to go on the economy.
210 marcus. I always draw such strength from the support of Torbays finest …. Are you per chance doing a spot as a PB “Page Seven Fella” ?? …. surely the sight of rippling Torbay Tory Totty will do wonders for the pulse rate of blue rinse constituents !!
The speaker has to rescue PMQ by pointing out, in the most flagrant cases, that the Prime Minister has not addressed the question. The speaker can’t force an answer, but if he said “Order. The Prime Minister should answer the question” even once or twice, it would stop the PM getting away with what is a sort of contempt of the parliamentary process.
Brown knows that noone outside Westminster and political betting pays much attention to PMQ unless it’s highly charged and interesting, and a non-anwswer to a straight question is never going to make the news. Gordon Brown is going to answer fewer and fewer questions, even approximately, (a) because he doesn’t want to (b) because he can’t think on his feet so he can’t do it very well and (c) because he knows he can get away with it.
The Speaker is there to ensure proper debate. Unless he deals with (c) fast, PMQ under Gordon Brown will just get worse and worse and that would be a pity, because we don’t have candidate debates as they do in the US, and PMQ serve a really important function in holding ministers to account.
209 I also think its part of Lord Fauleroy detoxing the Labour party for the forth coming election
Benedict Brogan on George survives appearance in Circus Maximus
”
Tricky one for the Shadow Chancellor today, that appearance before the collection of classical Tories and Tory classicists that is the Spectator. This is a critical time for George Osborne, and not just because Iain Martin has put the case for his removal in the Telegraph today. What would have been an easy occasion was turned into a potential ordeal by the presence of Lord Mandelson of Corfu himself, helpfully sat at the same table where the two could eyeball each other over the lamb. We were laughing with delight before even a word was uttered, ready with our thumbs to decide George’s fate. A poor performance and crash! the share price tanks, never to recover.
It didn’t happen. George played it with well judged grace and humour, artfully returning the balls sent spinning towards him by the master of that dark art. Honour preserved on both sides, and only at the end of his speech did George rightly slip in a note of defiance to those in the room who would see him removed. Fiscal responsibility was vital, he said: “I don’t care if that’s old orthodoxy, it’s the right orthodoxy.” These are the best bits, as scribbled on my menu:
Lord M: “I’m bound to declare that this is a time for a novice. Having been marched down the political gangplank a couple of times it’s great to be back on board, as we say in Corfu. A brilliant judge of my own PR requirements as ever, I’m sure an award from a Tory newspaper at a champagne lunch here in my natural habitat at Claridges is exactly the thing I need to silence my party critics and allay any fears or misgivings they may have about my return. The thing about newcomers is that we celebrate their naivete, their gaucheness, their endearing lack of judgement, I’m amazed that I managed to pip George Osborne to this coveted prize. It means more to me than I can say or express.
GO, to PM : Sorry to change the running order but you are going to be leaving here shortly, not for the first time. I was a little nonplussed when I was told you had won this award. I was told it was going to be Lord Mandelson of Hartlepool and Foy, and then I remembered - it was the guy I met on holiday. You know how it is: you meet another English guy, he’s the only English guy in the resort, you swap stories about work and you think you are never going to see him again. Imagine my delight today. It’s wonderful that as winners of a Spectator award we are once again in the same boat. Our next holiday together is going to be in a rowing boat in the North Sea off Hartlepool, a place neither of us has visited for many years.”
re 200. That sums it up exactly. Provocative propositions create good debate and that’s why people come to the site.
216 You harlot !!
215 “imagine my delight today” - genius
Time for ITN to revamp the jobs lost slot that they used in 1981…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/7728075.stm
Oh Mandelson and Purnell will be delighted with this observation of the latest Post Office news on the Coffee House Blog.
Has James Purnell just become a Labour hero?
“James Purnell is highly rated by almost every Westminster Villager I chat to - indeed, Fraser’s even tipped him as a potential Labour leader. But there’s always been a sense that the Old Labour wing of the party isn’t quite as impressed as everyone else. I guess there’s something about his welfare agenda/media background/Blairite past that just doesn’t sit well with them.
But has the Work and Pensions Secretary overcome all that today? Earlier, he was tasked with announcing that the Government would allow the Post Office to keep running the card account for distributing benefits, rather than handing it over to a private provider. Jon Craig writes a lively account of Purnell’s statement over at Sky’s Bouton & Co. blog - the gist being that Labour MPs were whooping in delight as he referred to the “trusted brand” that is the Post Office, and claimed that the Government were “protecting vulnerable groups” by taking this decision. A new Labour hero, rather than a New Labour hero? Perhaps.
But whatever this decision means for the prospects of James Purnell, it’s quite useful for Brown too. Rightly or wrongly, some groups are claiming that it’s “saved” around 3,000 Post Offices from closure. Expect Team Brown to deploy that in the face of Cameron’s new job-saving theme.”
I noticed that my least favourite leftie journalist(Maguire) was wondering about Mandelson’s leaked letter in the Guardian a few days ago and how they could keep the post offices open without running the card account for distributing benefits.
218.Ted, George’s response made me laugh, especially the last bit.
Benedict gets it right though, I actually thought earlier today that the Telegraph crew’s combined efforts on Osborne today reminded me of a bunch of pompous Romans looking down on the real fighting gladiators in the arena. I mean, the Telegraph have got it right so many times over the last 3 years - not.
Question Time tonight, yesterday`s PMQs has to be asked about, should get the views of people outside
the bubble
222 Afraid not. There is always a sizable number of party hacks.
They get everywhere! tut tut
215.As Benedict Brogan noted earlier, George Osborne pointed out that fiscal responsibility was vital, he said: “I don’t care if that’s old orthodoxy, it’s the right orthodoxy.”
John Redwood reports on the The Governor’s sterling collapse.
“Tonight sterling hits $1.45 and Yen 138!
Do the authorities in this country intend to demolish our currency, by being too gloomy and borrowing too much?
Don’t they care at all?
A modest devaluation to make our exports more competitive is one thing, but this sterling rout is now out of control and very damaging. We have fallen around 30% against the dollar since the summer.
They will discover that this will make it more difficult to sell all the debt they wish to sell, as foreigners will be wary.”
215
On the other hand!
Today in Politics: Will George Osborne be moved?
By Andrew Grice
Why do politicians obsess about the potential downfall of their own party’s leading figures? Until recently, you could hardly bump into a Labour MP without being told that Gordon Brown’s days as Prime Minister were numbered. Now he is safe, the boot is on the other foot. Tory MPs speak of little else than whether George Osborne will keep his post as shadow Chancellor. He is judged to have had a bad economic war and to have lost the mad battle of Corfu he waged against Lord Mandelson by revealing what he said about Brown at their private dinner there in August.
Osborne is not having much luck. Today he suffered the indignity of presenting prizes to two of his main political foes at The Spectator magazine’s parliamentarian of the year awards - Lord Mandelson and Vince Cable, his Liberal Democrat counterpart. Lots of quips about Corfu, being in the same boat and where he and Mandelson would holiday together next year.
There’s no smoke without fire. The calls for Osborne to be moved to a new berth - probably Tory chairman - are coming from Tory backbenchers, and are not a figment of the media’s imagination. One Tory summed up the mood to me perfectly: “Everyone is convinced George will not be shadow Chancellor by the next election. But equally, they can’t quite see how David Cameron will bring himself to move him.” I suspect the Tory leader will stick by his close ally and friend rather than give Labour the scalp it would crave.
Christaina, you make it sound as if George O and J Rewood agree.
I think you must not have read Gabble’s script.
224 Since Brown and Darling started talking about 15billion to kickstart the economy the £ has tanked faster. Where will it be on the 24th when we get the true picture
225 He won’t move him because he doesn’t want to.
166 The removal of the Russian doll must have been entertaining in the Operating Theatre:
“Bloody hell - there’s an even smaller one still up there….”
220
Peter Allen gave Purnell a hard time on 5 live. I dont think that the narrative of what this was about was entirely missed. Purnell did a good spin job, but it was clearly evident that it was spin. IMHO
168 &111
“What would it take for you to JUST NOT vote Labour at the next GE?”
I reckon another 6-months should do it…
If this is Cameron’s strategy (to deliberately wind up GB to get him to “lose it”) it is very risky indeed, considering Cameron’s notorious short fuse (and increasingly obvious general cantankerousness - if he’s like this in his early 40s, God knows how he’ll be when he hits 60!). He’ll just end up displaying his own emotional brittleness, surely?
206
I remember that. It was the Lancashire martial art “Ecky Thump” episode.
232 Dreaming or spinning?
Without wanting to prolong the debate about PMQs (which will be forgotten by Monday) Mike’s theory is wrong.
Any Tory strategy that relies on one of the protagonists at PMQs losing their temper is a pretty poor strategy given the involvement of the notoriously short fused David Cameron.
223, aye. You always get some nutcase. One of my recent favourites was some mad bat blaming Thatcher for the financial crisis. Personally I blame Ethelred the Unready.
I hope it wasn’t part of Tory strategy. I found his amateur dramatics embarrassing. Fortunately I was in the vicinity of Balmoral at the time and so had the consolation of some fine landscape.
Talking of Balmoral….Isn’t Scotland a wonderful country? They still believe in public service and to the average citizen the posters on PB.Com would be somewhere to the right of Ghengis Chan.
232 said “notorious short fuse”
235 said “notoriously short fused”
Coincidence? Conspiracy? Groupthink?
Cameron is not the man known for hurling furniture and mobile phones around, or shouting in people’s faces. He got angry over Brown’s despicable response, and rightly so.
Public-sector workers with unfunded pensions, yet nEU-Labour [Scoots' Baathists] employ indentured-workers to rig elections…? Time to try my hand at the Spread-Markets!
Tory-majority +60 is a great starting point. The more interesting spread-bet will be: “How big will England’s subsidy to the Scoots’-ingrates be next year…?” £13billion is a good bet.
From a thread a few days ago, as I am busy, Nick Palmer is toast. Hope he is up-to-date with Web-2, AJAX and JSF! [Or maybe his unfunded public-sector pension protects him from the real-world...!
]
227. The £ has actually “recovered” against the dollar, this evening, it now stands at $1.47, after bottoming out at near $1.45.
That’s still a whacking two cents down on the day, of course, and 30% down on the dollar in three months.
What is more astonishing tonight is the pound’s non-stop drop against the euro. Right now it’s down to €1.15.
That’s right. €1.15.
It was €1.22 about a week ago, which was considered dire.
225.”There’s no smoke without fire. The calls for Osborne to be moved to a new berth - probably Tory chairman - are coming from Tory backbenchers, and are not a figment of the media’s imagination. One Tory summed up the mood to me perfectly: “Everyone is convinced George will not be shadow Chancellor by the next election.”
Coldstone, there is always a few headless chickens running around the backbenches anonymously quoting to journalists, and I am sure they and the media know who they are.
Just read the last quote and think about it a bit more?
236. Yes I remember that woman - I thought she was barmy as well!
I once remember watching QT and another person, a real arsehole: made a stupid, pointless and abrassive comment IIRC. Anyway, I happened to be travelling through Mancester Picadilly station the next day and happened to stuble across the same person, this time he was being abusive to a strange bloke who obviously had a complusive disorder and had to touch each metal support post for the ceiling and hum MMMMM.
I didn’t say anything but thought this bloke an idiot. when, i went on question time i held my peice, no point making a tw@t of yourself if you have not got anything worthwhile saying or doing what that bloke did.
Anyway, when i went on QT I remember one bloke reheasing what he was going to say and then saying something similar on the program. It actually looked better when i got home and watched! Still thought it was crap though!
238, Group-something. I don’t know if I’d call it thinking.
Another one about Osborne:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/themole,,tory-grandees-urge-cameron-to-give-osbornes-job-to-ken-clarke,55668
240
That means, that when KC is the Chancellor in Cameron’s government, it’ll be no great shakes, to dump Stirling and adopt the Euro.
Of course, ‘Independent Cornwall’ will already be in the Eurozone!!
238 - I think it’s referred to as “the line to take”. Since it seems to be being propagated by Lib Dem supporters, we can at least be grateful that they didn’t confuse it with other types of lines to take.
226.Sally, Redwood has been very supportive of Osborne recently, remember that he got bumped off C4 because he would not openly criticise him. So I know that he is not one of the headless chickens so often quoted in the media recently, I still think the media are sharing the same taxi/mini bus of usual rent a quote suspects. What a bunch of spineless numpties.
227.”224 Since Brown and Darling started talking about 15billion to kickstart the economy the £ has tanked faster. Where will it be on the 24th when we get the true picture”
Is that why Darling was a great pains to distance himself and the Treasury from either the idea of a huge spending spree, any briefing to that effect and the possibility of higher taxes sooner rather than later?
244
Forget it, it sint gonna happen.
248 even isn’t
237.”I hope it wasn’t part of Tory strategy. I found his amateur dramatics embarrassing. Fortunately I was in the vicinity of Balmoral at the time and so had the consolation of some fine landscape.”
What did you think of the area Roger? I live not far from there.
245. You may be right.
Check this out. A 3 cent drop in 5 hours.
http://forex.tradingcharts.com/charts/index.php?sym=GBPEUR
According to the BBCy there have only been two times in “recent history” when sterling has fallen faster - the ERM disaster, and a “commodity fall” in 1980. And we may not be through yet. This is not far away from becoming the fastest fall in sterling in at least a century.
244. ‘Grandees’ heh? Usually that’s code for the EU placemen. Looks like the non-so subtle campaign to try to drive the UK into euro is still stuttering on…
Is it true that Charles Clarke has been going round telling hacks that “Gordon, must act in accordance with the high office he was installed in unchallanged or question marks over the future leadership of the Labour party will remain an issue”.
244.Me, they didn’t name these Tory grandee’s..
ConHom noted that “There’s a lot of speculation about George Osborne at the moment. Some of it ill-founded. The London Evening Standard reported yesterday that the backbench 1922 Committee was unhappy with the Shadow Chancellor. I understand that that is simply untrue.”
Will UB-40 soon reissue their classic “I am a One-In-Ten” next year. At least for the employment prospect for those born in England, and not those indentured and imported to vote nEU-Labour (Scoots’-Baathists)…?
It will be 2011 before the worst is over… according to a report on ShyNews. Nae-ma’ boom-n-bust! Truth is as tight as a Sweatie!
251. Was the ERM exit a ‘disaster’ now then? When are you planning to join Labour, Sean?
256. Haven’t you heard, he’s a closet Lib Dem.
248-I don’t know if it’s going to happen, but this story is getting quite boring. They should dump him or they should support him without complaining about everything to the press.
If you wonder what the Govt is spending some of our money on.. its branded golf balls ….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085318/Government-quango-linked-Lord-Mandelson-spends-12-000-branded-golf-balls.html
253. I mean Charles Clarke has form and the whispering has only been on hold. When you remember the bitterness of this:
Gordon Brown should quit -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/7618279.stm
258
If its so boring, why do you keep raising it?
256. The ERM experiment was a disaster because we entered the currency “union” at too high a level, and then tried to maintain our position for political reasons - despite the UK’s economic weakness - by wrenching up interest rates, worsening our recession. Political desire to be “at the heart of Europe” was allowed to warp proper economic governance.
Therefore our exit was a blessing, and enabled the pound to find its natural level and interest rates to fall.
This new devaluation, the Brown Bust, is a different kettle of fish. It’s got nothing to do with Europe and everything to do with international loss of confidence in the UK as a place to invest, as a place to buy debt - and in our currency as a store of stable value.
That’s what’s so worrying about it. Yes it will have an upside - cheaper UK exports for our customers abroad - but devaluation has many many downsides, too. AND we don’t know where this is going to end.
There. That’s yr economics 101 for the day.
261-Did I say it was boring? I said it was getting boring. My English may not be perfect, but I understand that there’s a difference.
Well now Redwood is supporting him, well! men with a lean and hungry look, aren’t such men dangerous?
Read Redwood’s ’support’ on his blog, the term, ‘damned with faint praise’ came to mind
246 Such generosity from our Lib Dem friends:#The coke’s on us’
264 I was feeling so ail and hearty-but the very sight of the word ‘redwood’ is enough to send a shiver down my spine.
Hey,ho,its 8.50pm-time for a constitutional to my local watering hole.Ciao for now
262. So you have changed your mind 100% from your earlier post, then? The drop in the pound associated with the ERM exit wasn’t a disaster, but rather a ‘blessing’? It was the entry to the system that was a disaster?
A rapid shift of position, it seems. The sort of thing that inevitably happens when one strays into areas one doesn’t fully understand.
254-ChristinaD- “Last year was the right time to move George Osborne. Now it’s much, much trickier.”
Totally agree. If Cameron moves Osborne now it will be a victory for Labour, and that cannot help the Tories.
267. Find me the place when I said the exit from the ERM was a “disaster” and I will buy you a seven foot wide toffee apple shaped like Jessica Rabbit, you idiotic little man.
I’ve never claimed that. As a eurosceptic I’m hardly likely too, am I?
I’ve just flicked through the last few threads and I can see where Mike gets the idea that ‘Gordon’s PMQ’s went horribly wrong…’ back in the real world it was Cameron-if anyone-who got it ‘horribly wrong.
I listened to Nick Robinson and then a discussion with Vince Cable and others and the consensus seemed to be that Cameron had got it wrong. I didn’t hear anyone who thought Cameron had the better of the exchange.
This site really isn’t any more reflective of public opinion than I am. But Mike seems to have got yesterday wrong unless has chosen to become a Tory propaganda site like most other political blogs?
This is boring.
Osborne is not going anywhere. Any move by Cameron to move him would play straight into Mandelson’s hands and would also show panic.
I’ve hardly been over impressed with Osborne and the Tory reaction as a whole to the economic crisis, but that does not mean mean one throws the baby out with the bathwater at the merest whiff of turbulence.
If backbenchers - as ever - are sounding off, they need to get a grip and concentrate on attacking contemptable Brown and his party, not chaps on their own team.
In short, Osborne will be Shadow Chencellor for the Tories going into the next election and any further talk is just dwelling on a story that is now over whilst there is a lull in the media.
Except of course, there should be no lull as the economy is falling apart around our ears.
270, Robinson, that well-known objective political editor?
Shock news, just in, Kevin Maguire backs Brown!
OK, I’m off to watch West Wing. Again!
To be fair to the much maligned pound (much maligned by me) it is staging a stirring comeback against the buck: it’s now at $1.48.
And the currency volatility is striking - all over the shop. i.e. It ain’t just us. e.g. The euro is five percent up against the Yen. The world is in chaos!
Sawadee K.
“I listened to Nick Robinson” - say no more!
273. If only the West Wing had continued. We’d know what is going to happen in 2012 a year or two early!
270. As ever whether its Taxi drivers, Dutch focus groups or Sycophantic political correspondents you have very selective hearing. Almost everyone agrees that Brown got it horribly wrong..the only disagreement is whether Cameron did as well. Personally I dont think so but I would..
269. But dear boy you said at 251.
‘According to the BBCy there have only been two times in “recent history” when sterling has fallen faster - the ERM disaster…’
Was it a slip of the fingers? Did your prose skills briefly desert you? Or were you just over-enthusiastically cutting and pasting some cr*p without reading it properly?
270. Another post from inside a padded cell…
On the same subject there has been a new development on Baby P:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5149549.ece
132: Thank you
Shame no-one else thinks so, no other replies!
270 err no it wasnt Roger, flicking thro threads doesnt give you any kind of a picture, you need to WATCH what happened in full, and hear the barracking from Labour MP’s.
Incidentally Robinson IIRC was in the gallery with Mandelson, so that kind of impartial viewpint butters no parsnips.
In the REAL world, Cameron was in the right, and Brown truly odious.
Take a look at the comments in Nick Robinson’s blog and see what voxpop thinks. It is almost exclusively hostile.
131 even
Just occurred to me you maybe also got the number wrong
238. Good point. I had never heard of this temper before. The McCain strategy? Ain’t going to work if it is.
Has anyone read “How Green Were The Nazis”?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/misc/titles_listener_suggestions_20070312.shtml
280, you mean 131? I came to the thread late. That’s why I didn’t reply. Honest.
270. And back in the real world - The Sun says
“The Government needs to wake up to the extent of public outrage at Haringey’s criminally incompetent child care department.
Yesterday was a low moment for Gordon Brown.”
I think the Sun is a rubbish newspaper. I also dont think we should fire everyone involved. BUT, Roger, in the real world - what you think matters diddly. What the Sun writes does. And I think we can all tell who was on the wrong side of the PMQs debacle. Gordon Brown.
284. I know that Brown quotes from Mein Kampf but we only joke about the Similarities Roger. You don’t thave to put policy evidence to see the traits that run through Brown, Hitler and Stalin. It is more a personality thing - maybe this is why the civil servant called Brown starling because of his hard left and uncaring views?
I wonder what Brown will try claiming the credit for next?
The next short-term move to shift the headlines away from the disgusting way Brown behved yesterday. Now Brown uses overseas suffering for political point scoring:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/congo/3454470/Gordon-Brown-backs-more-troops-for-Congo.html
Gordon Brown offered support for the move, which could cost Britain £5.5million, after a meeting with Ban Ki-Moon, the UN’s secretary general, at the organisation’s headquarters in New York.
277. No, you’re just a twit.
You claimed I said: “The drop in the pound associated with the ERM exit” was “a disaster”.
Whereas all I said was “the ERM disaster”, and that merely en passant, when referencing a BBC report.
Come come. You can do better than this. You know you embarrassed yourself yesterday, so I appreciate your discomfort. And I think you may be quite old - so, before I do go to the West Wing, let’s try and make peace, for the sake of your heart.
I agree that devaluations have an upside, as I have long said. You are right. However you are wrong to blithely dismiss this present collapse in sterling as wholly a good thing and nothing to worry about. Devaluations are a neat quick fix - but they have seriously negative impacts as well.
Let’s take our neighbours as an example. In Europe Germany and Italy (prior to the euro) had different ways of treating with economic problems. Italy’s usual solution was to devalue the lira. This kind of worked - Italy sort of prospered, but remember all those zeroes on the notes….?
Germany, by contrast, had the opposite approach: it maintained a strong Deutschmark, refused to devalue, and forced German industry to improve productivity and make exports of greater quality and desirability to compensate.
In the end, which policy was better? Germany’s or Italy’s? Germany may have its problems, but the GDP per capita figures, before
Unification, tell their own story.
That’s an extra economics FREE lesson for you, my aged friend.
Now Josh and Jed are beckoning.
Regarding QT: does anybody else get bloody annoyed at Shirley Williams being on so much? Don’t like her. They some Lib Dem chap called Thurso on once (think he used to be a life peer), seemed a decent fellow. Very good moustache.
280. Jon C. Having tempted me to read your post around 130 I also thought you were on the money……. (I also know that an endorsement from me is probably worse than none at all!)
The stuff about Osborne is IMO similar to the stuff in the summer about Brown: it mistakes a wider problem for a personal one, as we so often do in British politics. I don’t hold any brief for Osborne, but it’s unfair to blame him for what is presumably a deliberate collective strategy, to say as little as possible on what should be done about the economic situation.
Say Hague took over. First question: ‘Mr Hague, the Governor of the BoE thinks a fiscal stimulus is needed. Do you agree?’ Hague: ‘Well, the roots of the problem are in Brown’s policy in …’
How would that advance matters?
As for Cameron’s PMQ line, I agree with those who say he didn’t think it up in advance. But PMQs are such a traditionally confrontational setting that he just couldn’t resist letting off the ‘I never get an answer to my questions’ jibe in the middle of talking about the baby. One of his strengths is tactical spontaneity, but in this case it IMO led him astray. If it looked good on TV, he’s lucky.
290′ Regarding QT: does anybody else get bloody annoyed at Shirley Williams’
Yes.
I get fed up she is on a lot aswell.
But there aren’t msny well known LibDems and the other one is on his way to the jungle.
292, Cameron has also made points of asking non-partisan questions regarding Zimbabwe and Burma in the past. He made that remark after two basic questions neither of which got anything approaching an answer.
293, Lembit’s a prat as well. His performance on the Apprentice was mitigated only by the fact that Singh-Kohli was even more pathetic.
Get Charles Kennedy on.
The baying Labour MPs are commanded by a new set of whips now who are lead by the viscerally loyal eponymous alter ego of Brown who also hates Tories with a passion and loathes LibDems.
He would have been orchestrating the MPs to support Brown at PMQs and the crude abd distressing result demonstrates the crassness of him and his master. If they can upset Gorbals they have really got it wrong as he is another stick of the old rock with Labour all down the middle.
The nasty party just got nastier.
All to hide their economic incompetence. But spin will not manage the global markets for sterling or for gilts. A comeuppance is a-coming in so many ways.
http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2008/11/how-likely-is-a-sterling-crisis-or-is-london-really-reykjavik-on-thames/#more-359
William Buiter in the FT: Gordo’s fibs on debt to GDP looking dangerous
295: ‘Singh-Kohli was even more pathetic.’
Is he the bloke here?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tAllS4fqr4E
(Parental guidance may be necessary)
298, not watched it, but clicked the link and his first name is indeed Hardeep. Apparently it’s Punjabi for ‘talentless crybaby’.
292 Reasonably fair post
EXCEPT…
Tha partisan narure was dictated by Labour MPs screaming.
Its a bearhouse will not cut it. Tories often have to respond to death announcements etc.
Come on here and tell us who said ’shame’,tell us you have a problem with Harriet waging her finger at the Speaker - and then we’ll listen to you taking a pop at Dave’s responds to being heckled and shouted at through two reasonable questions and we can analyse whether he should have kept his rag in the face of provocation.
292
I dont think there is/was any question of “looking good” on tv as you put it. It was more a case of Brown looking odious and out of touch, and seriously underbriefed. His scrabbling with notes and refusal to answer a simple question played extremely badly as did his even more odious “party politcs” suggestion.
292. What’s the point in the Tories saying what they would do if Labour just nick it?
I don’t remember Labour doing much in Opposition until the election was called.
In any case, when the Tories have announced things like the Employer tax cut Brown says incorrectly it is unfunded and then says Labour will borrow the money to do something else! Brown has axtually through wishing to score political points like yesterday over a childs death, grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory on the economy. Why? Because Sterling is dropping like a stone!
What does this mean?
If you buy £1 million of guilts and you are a country pegged to the dollar. If you bought them when it was £1 = $2, then due to Brown playing politics and keep on trying to get political capital and take credit. Brown has pushed sterling down by basically saying he does not care about the old economic framework or about how much he borrows. Brown has precipatated a slump in the pound, which may well prevent him from any tax cuts and thus his hunt for political credit leads him to further economic failure and failure in his leadership.
Gordon Brown is a monster - An absolute bastard. The sooner Labour get rid of the cretin the better. The only job Brown wants to save is his job, he does not give a shit about you Nick! Brown does not give a toss for people like me out of work either. Brown is the most dishonest, disengenuis person in the commons. Maybe his phycopathic tendencies got him the top job but Brown is an utter utter ruthless b@st@rd as yesterday shows.
For a truely frightening view on Sterling read this in the FT
How likely is a sterling crisis, or is London really Reykjavik-on-Thames?
http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/
296. “The nasty party just got nastier” I thought you were a Tory?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/oct/08/uk.conservatives2002
302, Brown won’t be sacked by Labour. They had months to do it, and chickened out. The Tories have many faults, but gutlessness when faced with an electoral liability as leader is not one of them.
302. £1 Million @£1 = $2 after the depreciation to £1 = $1.50 means you lose 25% oy your capital if investing from overseas before you factor in any movement in the guilt price. Basically you would be made to invest in thses from overseas with Brown pushing the pound down through his incomptence.
Sorry i did not make clear before!
302.’ I don’t remember Labour doing much in Opposition until the election was called.’
It wish they had done less in Government Martin.
Very best of luck with the interviews.
291
Well thank you too.
I don’t see why that post was singled out, just more stream of consciousness ranting as ever. In fact as I posted I thought Oh no, too long AGAIN…
Won’t stop me though
307.
Thanks!
306. Martin - forgive me but I like my investments to be not gilty.
302 Blimey
‘monster,bastard,cretin,dishonest,disingenuous,psychopathic’
You don’t like GB much do you.
302 quite so Martin, Brown slags off the Tory unemployment plan but has no concrete answer of his own - just vague posturing about borrowing with no figures, plans or projections. I guess he just shrugs his shoulders at the increasing dole queue - souless weirdo
310.
Gilt! Let Gordon take the credit for that one!
312, he’s like Francis Urquhart without the competence or wit.
312. It is rather like the bit in this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jbgwR1pA1k0
where he says I cannot even blame the Tories!
Unfortunatly for this country it is the measure of Brown.
Gosh the pattern of a Brown Bounce is getting really repetitive now
- last year the target was Cameron, with backbenchers and senior sources reported to be muttering that he wasn’t up to it etc. This year its Osborne. Same crew probably. Certainly many of the journalists are those who leapt on the boat July 2007 to attack Cameron (grammar schools, Rwanda, ineffective, look how much Brown dominates - remember Janet Daley swooning over her new love)
- now we have the re-appearance of Cameron temper - I’m certain if Mike did his clever search as he did for “Richard” he could find plenty of posts - perhaps from some of the same posters about how Cameron is a short tempered grouch and it’s a liability.
- quite soon as Gordon stumbles more often as the Bounce subsides I expect we will get “Cameron the bully”.
297.303. Buiter. I dont think what he is saying is that likely. The Icelandic banks were a very special case, closely tied in to conglomerate structures, taking on very risky loans*. Still, it is a reminder of how delicate the financial system remains. Another round to the crisis is likely to be much more difficult - several countries could find themselves in trouble - Austria and Switzerland I would say are definitely in trouble, possibly Ireland and even the UK. But, it is something that the government should bear in mind - they really cant afford to splurge. I continue to worry about the gilts market - I would have preferred Merv to say a few positive words to calm forex and gilts rather than go on his guilt-trip on the economy.
* loan quality is poor because it was built up so rapidly during the boom. Compare that to the rate at which assets and foreign assets built up in the UK during the past decade, it just isnt that extreme.
314 - Morris Dancer
You might say that, I couldn’t possible comment!
He is decidedly weird though - that odious claw scratching at the lectern, the way he uses stupidly out of place words, his inability to be a normal bloke, the Nixon fake smile, his temper. Creepy.
318, I do think being unusual or eccentric is fine (look at Boris), but you’re right. Brown is not unusual in any good way. All his defining features are deficincies.
Anyway, I’m off for the night.
317. Buiter is worth reading though - for a “worst” case view - no matter what your political persuasion. Also his previous post on Obama’s transition economics team was interesting. It was slightly dispiriting, although the make-up didnt surprise me that much and I am much more of a fan of Larry Summers than Buiter. I also dont think that Krugman should be on the team or Stiglitz, but I would have hoped for some more heavy hitters.
244. Me. Ken Clarke for Shadow Chancellor?
That article from “thefirstpost” is very interesting. I have said before that I think it would be an inspired decision for Cameron to replace Osborne with Ken Clarke. Staunch Tories including Sean Fear say, “No way”. I am loathe to disagree with Sean Fear as I find his judgment very sound.
But why not? Reasons given:
1. Clarke won’t do it: This article suggests he might.
2. Europe: A line could be agreed.
3. Tory Blue Rinse Brigade: They will still vote Tory if Clarke toes an agreed line on Europe.
4. Labour gain Osborne’s scalp: This looks like a plus to me, as it dilutes the Toff Tory problem. It also demonstrates Cameron’s preparedness to make tough decisions, including sacking his closest political friend and ally, if necessary.
5. 15% interest rates. Don’t remember the facts clearly on this one but I suspect it could be managed.
And the positives?
Clarke is one of the most confident, effective, personable, and talented politicians around. He has a reputation for having been an extremely able Chancellor. Voting floaters love him.
I think for us punters a Clarke appointment as Shadow Cahncellor would seal the deal as far as the outcome of the next General Election. It wouldn’t half move the spread markets.
Will it happen? Probably not.
321. I think Clarke’s good press and the weight given to his opinion would vanish were he to be speaking from the government benches.
322. Doubting Thomas. Why?
Went to our cricket Club AGM, Dow had just fallen below 8000 now its 8850 WTF is going on. Have they elected a new President or something?
321. They are better with him taking a pop from the sidelines.
The Tories have Clarke, Redwood and Hammond, occasionally Lawson.
290: Morris Dancer at 21:12
“Very good moustache”
I don’t remember the chap you mentioned, but your comment about his moustache, struck a bell.
These days politicians are as a class distrusted, if not actually loathed. They are regarded, by many, as colourless, lobby-fodder who have two interests: their own bank accounts and being re-elected. From the pictures I have seen they almost all appear clean shaven. Even those that like Charles Clarke who wear a beard do so in a half-hearted fashion - so trimmed back it appears more as an excuse for not shaving every-day.
Perhaps what this country needs is a new breed of parliamentarian with proud, luxuriant facial hair showing an independence of spirit and a damn-your-eyes robustness of thought that will cut through the third-rate cant that spouts from all too many in government and the Civil Service.
Let has have MPs sporting fine walrus moustaches, some with the traditional RAF style, maybe even one or two with the waxed tips of old. As for beards, a few imperials and some that you could hide a badger in would greatly enhance the look of the back benches.
323. Sorry, I meant ‘opposition’ rather than ‘government’, of course. Because because. That’s the difference between being a candidate for government and a pundit.
314. You may very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment…
322. 325. thomas. Sally C. I think that you are failing to factor in Ken Clarke’s reassuring appeal to Middle England in these turbulent times. He has all Brown’s attributes for competence and experience without any of the negatives.
316: ‘Gosh the pattern of a Brown Bounce is getting really repetitive now’
Very good observations. Funnily enough someone posted on here the other day that Dave’s irritation at PMQs was the result of nicotine withdrawal! The subject of Dave’s smoking was also a feature of the last Brown bounce when Dave was said be puffing sixty a day through the stress of it all. It was never mentioned since, of course. Until now.
320 What struck me were his last paragraphs - the much maligned George Osborne at end of his speech at Spectator said he was still wedded to fiscal responsibility and while Buiter’s is a worst case scenario it seems to me that between the risks of depression and sovereign bankruptcy George’s prescription, while not the popular one, perhaps not flash enough politically, looks the least risky.
There is too much panic reaction among policy makers, perhaps because it’s been two decades since the last major recession started (before that they came along every decade or so) and many are too young to have been involved at the sharp end or because starting in the two biggest financial centres, Wall St and London, the fear of 1929 is weighing too heavily.
When Gavyn Davies seriously proposes that BoE should consider printing money rather than issue bonds I feel the panic is getting out of hand.
324. Walmart results good according to R4
The Osborne issue really is now a Westminster affair only. When was the last time there was any interest in his position from the mainstream media (not columnists) or the television news? It’s difficult to see any reason for Cameron to move him now.
333 - As I commented this morning, since Janet “Byword for uselessness in Punditry” Daley called for his head his position has been impregnable.
334: ‘…since Janet “Byword for uselessness in Punditry” Daley called for his head’
Janet’s probably had it in for Ozzy ever since he did her the disservice of not knowing her life history:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/janet_daley/blog/2008/10/07/new_labour_still_knows_how_to_court_the_media
329. I do see your point. I think the downside is too great for a few reasons:
1) same old Tories - Major/Thatcher etc
2) divisions on Europe (it matters not whether Clarke would stick to a party line, everyone knows his position and Labour and their hacks would be all over it)
3) Cameron under fire shocka! Tories in disarray! (headlines)
4) avuncular reassuring Ken is recast as tobacco pusher, big business shill Clarke.
220 - I was pleased that the government actually got something right for once by finally deciding that Post Offices Limited can keep the Post Office Card account.
From the electoral point of view this rare good decision may make my job as a Conservative candidate a little harder, but like everyone else who lives in this country I don’t want decisions taken which do a great deal of harm.
And those of us who have been on record for months as urging the government to keep the Post Office Card account will do better to minimise any adverse electoral impact by presenting it as a victory for a campaign which Conservatives have supported than by abandoning a correct view because the government has belatedly come round to it.
On Topic - I am reminded of the saying never to attribute to malice or conspiracy what can be adequately explained by incompetence. I don’t think either Brown or Cameron planned what happened at PMQs.
Brown’s reference to party politics didn’t quite make sense and I wonder if he mis-spoke.
If you take his exact words literally Brown actually appeared to be apologising for making the issue party political himself: what I heard him say began with “I regret making this a party political issue …”
He cannot possibly have meant that, and I do not blame David Cameron in the slightest for assuming Brown meant to make a dig at him.
However, if Brown really did mis-speak and had intended to say something like “I would regret making this a party-political issue …” then he was foolish not to clarify this when DC challenged him about the accusation Brown had appeared to make.
Incidentally, Mr Speaker Martin has had a lot of stick lately but I thought that the way he tried to calm down both sides yesterday was very well done.
329.”322. 325. thomas. Sally C. I think that you are failing to factor in Ken Clarke’s reassuring appeal to Middle England in these turbulent times. He has all Brown’s attributes for competence and experience without any of the negatives.”
stjohn, take from me, there are serious negatives about Clark replacing Osborne right now. And I voted for voted for him back when he was up against IDS, and nearly did again if Cameron had not appeared on the scene.
Mike - Quentin Letts thinks you’re wrong on this one and frankly so do I:
http://tinyurl.com/5vmda2
I’ve just followed Ted’s reference to ‘Richard’. Surely everyone can’t be pleased to have ‘chased’ another labour leaning poster off the site? Would it be more interesting just to have Tory posters talking to each other?
284 Roger. Thanks for the link - it was hilarious (as you intended of course)!
“The XI Panzer will move forward by bicycle on the left flank, the SS Mountain Corps will take the right flank using public transport - there is still a regular bus service from Lűbben after 10 o’clock- and we will sent a small diversionary unit through the forest. But I must spell out one important message for them: keep to the paths and no shooting!”.”
333 - so is he on 2% or 70% with ConHome next month? As Shadow Chancellor, he’s toast. Or the Tories are. Give him an another post.
According to Charlie Kennedy the message on Paddy Asdown’s answerphone says ‘…..please speak after the high moral tone’
So Cameron has employed Steve Schmidt and plans to put lipstick on a pig as often as possible.
Really?
Cameron was theatrical, but surely not rehearsed?
Did Cameron plan this? No, I don’t think so. There are too many impodrables to fix PMQs like this.
Why is the money going back on the Tories after this? Because punters think Brown’s performance will be repeated again and again despite some favourable windows of favourable press.
They think that not only the public but the media will not want to associate themselves with someone who shows a lack of empathy and appears to place party advantage above non-partisan concerns.
It’s a bit like Glenrothes. Even Labour had given up the ghost before the result but then started spinning after that it was carefully planned. Ho hum as they say.
Cameron has by accident (and not design) hit upon a way to upset Brown’s brand and I expect we’ll see more of it.
If Labour had been looking to gain momentum this week from Glenrothes they’ve blown it. PMQs did for it UK wide and this week’s votes in the Scottish Parliament - which the SNP won - just help isolate it as a by-election based on local factors.
334&335. Guido, Is the Labourgraph on a Crusade Against Osborne?
“Iain Martin has been becoming noticeably increasingly incensed with the Tory’s incoherency on the economy.”
Really? I find Iain Martin a pompous git at the best of times, but he is not incensed about a incoherency on Tory economic policy, he just does like the very coherent message coming from the Shadow Treasury Team right now. And that is something entirely different.
The Telegraph is not in charge of the Conservatives policy agenda or direction - THANK GOD!
Just to repeat George Osborne’s message to them as reported by Benedict Brogan. “only at the end of his speech did George rightly slip in a note of defiance to those in the room who would see him removed. Fiscal responsibility was vital, he said: “I don’t care if that’s old orthodoxy, it’s the right orthodoxy.”
re 290 Viscount Thurso is a proper peer, not one of these johnny-come-lately lifers. I did used to think he was Jack W, but he’s too young!
CAMO rules ok!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
342 SBS good to see you posting!
340.Roger, are you actually reading the relevant bits of those threads?
I don’t think the seemingly inevitable pound-euro parity is going to play at all well with the public. It might be economic nonsense but you always used to get the impression that the pound was a strong currency because you got ever so much more when you converted it to practically very other currency (except for some teeny ones like Malta and Cyprus), and this was a sense of pride.
The public will see £1=€1 and aren’t going to like it one bit.
342.SBS, great to see you posting again, and I hope that your treatment is going well, although you must be feeling pretty rough at times.
And Osborne is not toast by the way. If the Telegraph and ConHom crew want him gone, then he is still bankable, they are usually more wrong and than right on any given issue with regard to team Cameron.
340 - Roger in Balmoral, You’re not staying with….you are, aren’t you!! Hope you haven’t been bitten by one those vicious Tory corgis.
340 yes it would be now f*** off you #.
340 Roger, he claimed to be a floating voter not a Labour supporter but someone who only 4 weeks ago was a keen Cameroonie. His posts were repetitive and far too numerous, disrupting every thread with same poor attempts at astro-turfing.
Christina. How can you be a Tory in Aberdeen? You must feel very lonely. It all feels so delightfully left wing!
351 Cameron spends 10 months out of every 12 ignoring the DT and ConHome.
Otherwise Labour would be in the lead.
Evening all, been away on business so missed all your postings.
290 John Thurso is not a Life Peer or ex-Peer. Sir John Sinclair, 3rd Viscount Thurso was the first Hereditary Peer to be elected an MP after Tony Blair started buggering up our constitution and legislature. He is also my MP and has been since succeeding Lord MacLennan as MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross.
His grandfather Sir Archibald Sinclair 4th Baronet and 1st Viscount Thurso was MP for the same seat between the wars, served in the last Liberal Government as Sec of St for Scotland and served in Chuchill’s War Government as Sec of St for Air. Another of Sir Archie’s grandchildren, wife of Magnus Linklater a well known Scottish journalist is a Life Peer and sits as Baroness Linklater.
I believe John Thurso holds some position in Nick Clegg’s “Shadow” Government.
357 welcome back. looks like Con heading for an overall majority
355 Roger = SPANNER
351 - well, maybe true… I don’t know how many get to vote in ConHome surveys. But he does need to be the BIG MAN to vote as Shadow Chancellor. He is not. He is not looking anything more than CAMMO’S MAN. Who can they get?
Treatment every weekday - chemo / radio - for six weeks. Not bad. Probably turn me into a rabid LD.
355 Roger, Aberdeenshire Council is run by a Tory-LibDem coalition so there are lots of Tories in Aberdeenshire and frankly if you were anywhere near Balmoral earlier today then you were in deep blue territory.
JohnO. I couldn’t even get within site of the pad! An under gardener’s under gardener told me to go away (politely-he was Scottish)
Deep blue territory?? Surely you’re not coercing the local sheep? There were no humans for miles!
Thanks AveIT and I trust you all saw my apology for getting Glenrothes so badly wrong. Sadly several hundred idiots who voted for the Marty Feldman look alike are already feeling thefolly of their actions as several hundred job losses were announced in the constituency yesterday.
362 - You don’t fool me matey. Oh No. You’ve been directing this year’s Christmas Broadcast.
360 - please note that until now my comments have never been “rabid LD”, just “LD”.
360 ConHome polls? No one sets their compass by a ConHome poll.
It’s not quite in the same league as Heffer. If he agrees with us we need to think again. A sort of reverse compass.
With ConHome - just ignore.
364 Con gain all Scotland soon…….
363 #
366
Roger, in rural areas, Tory wards can extend to dozens of square miles containing only a few thousand people. You should know that since I assume you have been on shoots etc on the grouse moors being a rich pinko toff.
321 “It wouldn’t half move the spread markets.”
You’re damn right it would, StJohn.
Can’t see it happening though.
I think…..
IF by any chance you see any real sign of it happening, you will let me know straight away? I’ll be hitting the SELL LABOUR button as hard as I can.
364 What sort of jobs?
362 Roger. “An under gardener’s under gardener told me to go away (politely-he was Scottish)”
“Politely” eh? Because he was Scottish…maybe…more likely because he was a good old-fashioned Tory!
A Question Time “panel from hell” - Shirley Williams, Heffer and Margaret Beckett.
Good grief, which sadist was responsible for booking that mob? I feel sorry for Jeremy Hunt, he’s going to get it from 3 directions tonight.
364 No need for sackcloth and ashes, Easterross. All we ask for around here is an honest opinion and I’m sure that’s what you gave.
371 I take it you think it would be a good move?
368 Ave It, I am quite happy to share control of Scotland with the SNP. There are lots of areas where any decent minded person would frankly not want to represent and the SNP can have them. If the Tories give David Cameron 6 sets at the GE in Scotland I for one will be well pleased and hopefully the next boundary change will restore some dcent Tory seats as the present Scottish parliament proposals are hopefully going to do.
274 - Hefferlump is even more ludicrous in the flesh than he is on the page. LIttle to worry Hunt there.
368 Ave it “Con gain all Scotland soon”
“Soon” ? Good grief man! You must be working in geological timescales.
Watford will win the Premiership before that happens.
It’s in Dover, not a world class line up. Brian Moore has the potential to be pretty good in this however.
MELTDOWN
MELTDOWN
MELTDOWN
MELTDOWN
MELTDOWN
2009 = house prices -50% FTSE = 1000 unemployment = 5,000,000!!!!
Sally, sorry I didnt pay any attention as I was busy trying to save a client’s company in Glasgow fom going bust
O/T
“THE BBC is understood to be planning a dramatic reduction in its televised racing coverage by only showing the sport’s showpiece events after its current contract ends next summer.
The Racing Post has beentold that from 2010, just 12 days racing in Britain appear guaranteed on BBC broadcasts, which is less than half this year’s domestic output, although the final figure could be marginally higher.”
Ah well, another enemy it’s made!
379 looks like the Con bet is better……..
In 1955 we won loads in Scotland…
And in 1896 Lab won 0 in Scotland…………
383 good racing is boring.
Lets scrap it now.
379 Disraeli, sadly true
355.Roger, I grew up in the Highlands(Inverness-shire) with two Russell Johnson(Libdem) voting parents. Many of my friends there became part of a thriving SNP group in our village which had an excellent social scene.
I had the pleasure of voting in Aberdeen South in 92′ where we took our only seat off Labour in that GE.
Also, in the area you visited in Deeside, we have two Tory Councillors and one Libdem, you really were in true blue rural Aberdeenshire territory.
374.With the Telegraph gunning for Osborne today, I wonder if its such a coincidence that Heffer is on QT tonight?
382 Sounds rough.
387 Doran cheerio cheerio cheerio CON GAIN ABERDEEN S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Roger = LOL
Shirley Williams is a doddery old crone. Bless her. Wheeling her out in her dotage is a bit sad. Let her retire in peace.
when we were last top of top flight 82/83 it was Con maj 144!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#303 For Great British Pound (GBP) substitute Great British Krona (GBK).
385 Wotchit sunshine, unless you wanna become Ad It 08.
321-Stjohn-There are many good reasons for Clarke to replace Osborne, but like almost everyone here, I don’t think it will happen. Osborne is very a much part of the Cameron project, and I do not believe he can be replaced without Cameron taking some hits from the press. Cameron is probably thinking that the negatives will be bigger than the positives, and in the short-term they probably will. The press will see this as a big win for Mandelson and co, but in the long-term, it may provide the Conservatives with a more coherent economic narrative, at least they may be able to claim some experience.
394 its only worth watching if you have a bet on.
And if you really are that interested there is SBS (satellite betting service?)
390.Ave it, if Doran goes at the next GE, I really will open a bottle of very nice champagne.
Jeremy Hunt seems to be in politics to make Sarah Palin look adequate.
395-it should read “very much part”
O/T I wonder whatever became of that bloody YouGov poll that a number of our brethren here so valiantly, indeed gallantly, devoted the best hours of their day to sustain?
Osborne at Speccie Awards
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7728302.stm
Mandelson’s acceptance speech
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7727993.stm
395. As a cheerleader for the Shift Osborne Now campaign, I actually think Gideon has survived the moment of maximum danger, at least for now.
Baby P, Brown’s PMQs debacle, and the relentlessly bad economic news - along with his apparently confident performance at today’s Speccie awards - have taken the pressure off him.
He lives to fight another day. Chastened and scarred, but maybe - hopefully - a little wiser and grittier.
The Tories still need to shape up - and pin the rosette of economic blame on Brown’s lapel, however.
Evening all.
I would recommend everyone to read the Buiter article (297, 303), if they haven’t already. It is sobering and very authoritative. Let’s hope Darling and Brown read it, especially this:
“The British government should go easy on the discretionary fiscal stimulus it applies, lest [it] risk a triple bank, sterling and public debt crisis.”
400.John, we decided on Tuesday that it must have been a private YouGov. Fitaloon did a Politics/Economy for them on Friday, and its the second one he has done that has not appeared in the Press.
Just had to turn QT off as a combination of Heffer and Shirley Williams was too much to bear.
Paradoxically I think that Osborne & Mandelson today being re-united has drawn a line not just on the Corfu yacht story but also the rumberlings.
I felt that osborne dealt with Mandelsons taunts in a dignified and self-depreciating way. As Mandelson once said about his early time in office cira 1998 - Mandelson said that Tony “Did not mind a bit of political rough and tumble as it hardens me up for future conquests”.
Indeed I was amused by the BBC journalists clear point that it was political schanigans on the boat and nothing else!
AveIt - ‘In 1955 we won loads in Scotland…’
Which ‘we’ is that then AveIt?
I for one see no reason for GO to go. He is clever, sharp and gets right under Labour’s skin and in any head to head with Mr Eyebrows Darling, looks and sounds far sharper.
David Cameron can far better use Ken Clarke in the role of senior statesman attack dog who unlike Brown, Darling etc actually knows what he is talking about.
397 2nd time lucky: its the 2010 1992 remix!!!!!
407 Watford er sorry Con!!!!!!!!!!!!!
406 - I thought that Mandelson and Osborne both came out of the Speccie lunch enhanced. Both showed nice humour, a little inner steel and some evidence of being good sports. Doubtless they will now return to attempting the political assassination of the other with renewed gusto, to the general enjoyment of all, but today they both rose somewhat in my estimation.
383. They should take them 12 days off them. What sport are they showing instead? Softball. Coverage is terrible anyway.
398. Nonsense, he’s maybe not the finished article but that’s because he’s come from business and actually achieved something before going into politics.
402. Sean, his staying will really pi** off a certain dour Scot.
408.Easterross, I think that is already the case, add in Major and Lawson too this week.
412 - Iain Martin?
414.Oh, and that pompous git too.
d
I kid you not, a while back he apologised on behalf of Scotland for an episode of QT in our fair country, his arrogance is unedifying at the best of times. Yikes, I need to avoid that rag and its journalists for while.
408. I quite agree - It has to be remembered that Cameron is the attractive vote winner. Osborne’s opinion poll rating cited by SBS (Nice to see you posting mate!) as being 2% does not really matter in the greater scheme of things if Cameron manages to keep the Tories consistently above 40%.
It may well be Alister Darling who moves from the treasury first as the complete lack of confidence in Sterling seriously inhibits Brown’s economic strategy. Indeed as i said up thread, Brown’s lack of fitness for office is shown by him wanting to gain the credit and opinion poll points by mooting tax cuts, which is counter productive in the long term politically.
Brown is not a strategist he is a liability! Sadly it would seem that the country is suffering more than the Labour party but that has time to change.
re 400 I did another one today on betting. It only asked me one question - the easiest 50p I’ve ever made.
404 - Chris, Thanks. Hey ho….maybe COMRES is next then. I’m still mildly spooked by Populus.
410 - yes, Fleet, rather agree with you.
Meanwhile, on vote-2008 someone has pointed out the surprising fact that the BNP hasn’t won a single council by-election for four years!
Osborne has broad shoulders.
When he was the subject of the unpleasant attack on his character after standing by a friend with a serious drugs problem - he raised some eyebrows by setting on the guy who stitched him up.
His theory - the guy had done a good job.
408 It was good to see Clarke, Major & Lawson deployed across the media yesterday.
Ken Clarke’s best role is that of a slightly distanced observer, a successful Chancellor making trenchant criticisms of Brown and Darling, more authoritative than Cable.
The developing story is tax rises and spending cuts from 2010 onwards, that Brown’s policy is splurge now, pay later and the bigger the splurge the harder the taxpayer will be hit. Clarke picked this up early and as one of the rare experts on recovery from a recession and the difficult choices that need to be made he is an obvious choice for the media for a view of events. Any official position from Cameron would negate his media strengths.
402-I also think he lives to fight another day, but he’s walking on a tightrope. Mistakes will be much less tolerated then before. And Osborne inability to land a blow on Brown, even when the economic news are awful, will play into the hands of his “enemies”.
418 You don’t look for solace in a Comres. I seem to remember Anthony saying they were pretty unfavourable to the Tories these days.
421. Yes, the Tories get the best of both worlds with Clarke, Major & Lawson et al being free lance! John Redwood was in the yorkshire post todyay as well!
Labour cannot point to the tories record pre-1997, not that it is anyworse than Labours now the UK has Bust.
I much preferred ‘colouring’ my name when it went blue. Green is just not the same.
410. To my surprise I thought Mandelson was droll in that speech, and showed a warmer side. He still gives me the shivers, though. Just something saurian about him.
Osborne was genuinely likeable and funny: he has won himself a reprieve. Now he needs to sort out his economic attack.
The weird thing, if you watch the video of the Speccie awards, is that Mandy and Ozzie exchange a wary, brief, yet knowing glance - like friends who can no longer publicly acknowledge each other.
The goss, about Mandy’s pouring “poison” re Brown into Gideon’s ear, is obviously true. Osborne and Mandy both, evidently, loathe the prime minister.
419: Good! Odd though, in an anoraky way.
424 yes Labour have caused biggest UK meltdown since the Ice Age!!!!!!!!!!!!
426 - There’s something of Star Wars in this.. bear with me here… Obi Wan Mandelson and Darth Osborne, the master and the apprentice, sparring in epic battle, the old master warily respectful of the skills of the upcoming youth, the youth in awe of the legend, but suspecting he can take him….
(I’ll save myself the trouble of apologising for this post tomorrow by getting it out of the way now - “it’s late, I’m tired, there is cider involved”)
#332 Wal-Mart cutting 4th Quarter earnings forecast $1.03 vs $l.11exp beat on 3rd quarter 77c vs 76c exp?
Energy producers led gains on S&P. Other than that bargain hunting?
428. Certainly Have!
The number of jobs ditched today is dreadful - I saw a job advertised in the paper with BT today……..
I just try and be positive and joke about it! Tis the British way!
But don’t invite any muslims around!
422.Me, there was a real danger that Osborne and the Tories would have been seen as being opportunistic in the last few weeks, and might have been accused of talking down the economy when reassurance was the only media game in town.
The last few weeks has not been about Osborne not laying a glove on Brown, he can do that very easily when he wants. But, he is playing to a long term strategic plan, and the risks of trying to thwart Brown’s short term political tactics outweighed any short term headline gains.
Brown has been built up as a global economic superman by the media, he has raised expectations of his personal abilities and been dishonest about how precarious our economy is at the moment.
The Tories have been neither incoherent or silent throughout this period. They have simple set out small targeted policies on an almost weekly basis, but refuse to go down the road of unfunded big tax cuts which will not only increase our debt, but also increases taxes later when we are really feeling the pain.
429 I follow you. You’re right.
418.Don’t be spooked John, Mike and Ted did a good job of filleting the details of that particular poll.
432. might have been accused of talking down the economy -
Yes, that would have been ironic given doom munger Brown in the early 1990’s - he used to smile when he talked about unemployment and hardship…..Come to think about it he still does!
It’s half past eleven, and we still haven’t had any local government election results. The polls close at 9:00 for locals, don’t they? What on earth is wrong with local government officers these days if they cannot count a few hundred bits of paper before midnight?
431
:lol; 
Labour = all time uk no 1 enemy!!!
432 i agree Labour give aways now mean that us and the next generation pay for 50 years!
Ave it says:
- increase personal allowance to £10,000
- increase VAT to 25%
- increase interest rates to 10% to make those who have borrowed beyond their means PAY!!!
432. Besides which the obvious strategic point is that Labour want the Tories to come out with ‘BIG PLANS’ as they will inevitably, given the state of the economy, be unpleasant ones. They can then pan the Tories for proposing them, before slipping out their own ‘BIG PLANS’, having muddied the waters and done their best to presen them as slightly less awful.
436 West Worthing result
Mr Top (Con) 1,112
Mr Failure (Lab lets destroy Britain party) 112
Mark Senior (gold coin party/LD) 62
Ave it (pro kitten lets bite Labour party) 12
Swing Lab to Con 19.9%
Well, they have heard me in Darlington!
Darlington North Road - Lib Dem “gain” from ex Lib Dem Ind; majority 399
Curry LD 561 50.8% (-4.1%)
Vasey Lab 262 23.7% (+1.2%)
Jenkinson Con 115 10.4% (-1.7%)
Hoodless BNP 106 9.6% (-0.9%)
Jones Ind 60 5.4% (+5.4%)
437 You have forgotten hanging and flogging.
And they say writing manefestos takes thought and time.
Big Jessies.
re 436 Augustus the government changed it to 10pm a few years ago
438 That’s the point the DT don’t get. They are crying out for Cameron to say he will half the public sector.
438.Agreed.
Larry Elliot on We just can’t afford tax cuts
“Gordon Brown has fallen into the trap of thinking bad economics makes good politics. He’s wrong”
440 glad to see they like a curry in Darlington!
441 yes for Labour MPs!!!!! (Sorry I dont like capital punishment so 40 years penal servitude/watford season ticket instead)
434 - Chris, Yeah…as a unyielding adherent of the Keep Calm Tendency, I should know better. But the next round of polls will be particularly interesting in setting the ‘narrative’ - yuk, how I loath that word in this context
Crikey, Portillo is GAY.
438 - It seems to me that Cameron’s strategy might be to hunker down for now, delivering the occasional jab such as the tax proposals earlier in the week just to avoid appearing totally silent on the economy, gradually building the framework of Tory policy without giving anything too shiny and stealable, and then when the wheels really start coming off and the narrative shifts again come out with all guns blazing. In the meantime the big beasts of yesteryear (Clarke, Lawson, Major, Redwood plus anyone else yet to be unveiled) can do useful work nipping round the heels of the Government from the relative safety of retirement.
CON GAIN WORLDWIDE
442 Thanks, Chris, I wasn’t sure and thought that it might have been 10:00 for All Out Local Elections and not by elections. Thanks for the correction.
(But local government polling clerks and counters are still a load of skiving scrimshankers! Get on with it, the lot of you - I am being forced to watch Andrew Neil’s ridiculous TV programme whilst I wait, and I will not be answerable for the consequences!)
447 - Oh lawks, what’s he done now?
432-ChristinaD- “Brown has been built up as a global economic superman by the media, he has raised expectations of his personal abilities and been dishonest about how precarious our economy is at the moment”
Fraser Nelson had one article at the Spectator that really got me thinking. He says that we cannot be sure when this Brown bubble will bust, it may not bust until the next election. The Tories shouldn’t wait for this to happen.
I don’t think they should propose big unfunded tax cuts, just that they should point out some obvious facts. And that’s not talking the economy down. Brown claims Britain is better placed to face an economic downturn. What is the basis of that claim?
Andrew Neil is in danger of being eaten by his own shirt collar.
447. Portillo is a good laugh!
I met him this week, it was one of those things that was sheer coincidence I was walking up some steps behind him at a lecture he was doing. He stopped and chatted to the hosts in front of the root i wanted to take, so i thought it polite to wait! He then starts introducing himself to the hosts and mistook one for me - I just said pleased to meet you etc - Just as i was going to move my hand out of the handshake he didn’t let go! I said - Pleased to meet you! (Rabbits in headlights time - why won’t he let go?) He smiled! Still holding my hand in handshake and said your name is? so i give him my name. Still holding my hand and one of the hosts say so what do you do at XXXXXXX XXXXXX. I said, so sorry I don’t work here: I have just come for a cup of tea!
Portillo thought this very funny as I and he finally let go!
452. Er, nothing. It’s just the way he moves his knees in his tight trousers. Reminds me of the way Richard Gere minces - in a crucial scene in Pretty Woman.
I accept this is not the most insightful observation I have ever made on the political scene. It’s late, and I’m on the port. Eheu.
I do feel sorry for Darling, deputy-Chancellor, he has to watch his boss winging it round the world demanding action on things already happening (US, China, Australia among other have already announced fiscal stimuli, the EU has agreed countries can break the 60% national debt targets and 3% budget deficit limits) so that:
a) Brown convinces the UK media he is the Global Superman
b) Brown can say the Tories are wrong footed because “look everyone’s doing it”
meanwhile back in the Treasury they have to convince the markets that from 2010 onwards they will reverse the rise in budget deficits underway since 2001. that UK can finance borrowing so interest rates for gilts don’t soar and sterling fall so low that the BoE has to reverse the interest rate policy.
455 Who’s the shipper, Sean? And what vintage?
No one complaining about lack of impartiality on This week?
458 - Too busy marvelling at what they have made Maguire wear…!
Maguire must be very cheap to get this much work.
I hope Mandelson does not have a hand in this or he might suffer a conflict of interest:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/3450672/Ban-on-food-additives-supported-by-ministers.html
452.”What is the basis of that claim?”
Gordon Brown.
The way Brown treats Darling is very telling.
Darling must do what he does for the party because if he does it for a ‘friend’ he is a mug.
I just hope he has the courage to sticks to his guns in the latest round of squabbles over spending and borrowing - otherwise he’s a complete sell out and the best he can hope for is that history ignores him.
455. Crofts 77. Just finished it. Bit gritty at the end. Needed to be decanted.
452 Fraser Nelson is always too impressed by Labour spin and its effectiveness. He’s a glass half empty man when it comes to the Conservatives.
Brown’s father of the people act was pricked yesterday, his superman act is time limited, Obama will concentrate on domestic policy and swat away interference in what he wants to achieve, Sarkozy is itching to be The Player (he and his Finance minister said today that the Euro was the new reserve currency - but please don’t sell those dollars too quickly). The bubble will burst.
Is anybody watching This Week? Except Sean and his glass of port.
466 - Was - couldn’t cope with whatever Maguire was playing at in that vile schmutter.
464 Sean, you writers lead charmed lives. The ‘77! I still have some of the Dows ‘77 in the cellar, but only tried the Crofts once. Sublime.
465 Iam, but with only one eye. I am not very good on “popular” “culture” - who is Maguire, should I have recognised him?
469 - He pretends to be a political journalist. (Political Editor or suchlike at the Mirror)
468. Er, is it good?! I know nothing about port, and certainly don’t keep a cellar in my Fitzrovia hovel. I’m normally a Tescos Chilean Shiraz kinda guy, and happy with that.
Mate bought me the Crofts. I never knew it was meant to be good. I shall have to thank him; he’s a gay europhile Lib Dem. Bless ‘im.
466.Yep.
471. I can see why he is a europhile: He is used to being shafted!
465-”The bubble will burst.”
No question that it will. But when?
470 - More precisely, Associate Editor (Politics) on the Daily Mirror.
A much respected former boss of mine gave me sterling advice early in what I laughably refer to as my career - to whit; if someone has the word “Associate” in their job title, mentally replace it with the words “Not Actually A”
For example -
Associate Director = Not actually a Director
Associate Vice President = Not actually a Vice President
etc.
Portillo and Abbott just now have both expressed the view that Cameron showed genuine anger in the PMQ exchanges yesterday. He was still fuming and needed to be hosed down at 5pm. Something like that.
Portillo also feels that the Brown bounce is not of the dead cat variety. Those of us who have a regard for Portillo’s judgement and who like to have a punt should take the hint. SELL LABOUR!
Front pages:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Friday-Papers-Newspaper-Front-Pages-For-Friday-November-14-2008/Media-Gallery/200811215151221?lpos=Home_Left_Promo_Region_0&lid=GALLERY_15151221_Friday_Papers%3A_Newspaper_Front_Pages_For_Friday_November_14%2C_2008
461 Sean, you are not serious, are you? Croft’s ‘77 is pretty rare nowadays, and would retail at about £60 per bottle. It should certainly be decanted - preferably through gossamer which has been warmed to blood temperature by a young lady employed for the purpose.
Please will you introduce me to your Gay europhile Lib Dem chum?
476 The Baby P story is still commanding headlines and major articles, justifying Cameron’s judgement.
Per Andrew Neil on This Week: “Per ABC News, Obama is considering appointing Hillary Clinton Secretary of State”.
478 - I hope to god he’s winding us up - otherwise I might start crying!
476. The speech I saw Portillo make this week was very political (Pro - Tory IMO). I can see it in Portillo’s eyes, he thirsts for the cut and thrust of political debate, given the chance he would be in there!
If the Tories win the next election, they should make room for him - he is a massive talent plus he has ministerial experience.
“Can Labour really win the next general election? Yes, we can”
by Douglas Alexander:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/14/do1406.xml
Me The front pages of the Mail and the Independent look bad.
The story about Ministers being warned of the collapse in social service care in Haringey.
483. No chance! If Labour had scored 40% plus in 2005 you might give them a chance, now - they are dead meat!
Wokingham Coronation ward Conservative hold with small swing to LibDems
Con 850 LibDem 675 UKIP 74
2007 result Con 1133 LibDem 802 UKIP 103 Lab 92
Not a hope. Best Labour can hope for is NOM, if they’re lucky.
476.stjohn, bang on the money there. We had the Telegraph crew earlier, and now Portillo, its bankable!
I noticed that Neil expressed the view that he thought Cameron’s anger was genuine, as did Portillo and Abbot. Interesting that Portillo noted that it was more the behaviour of the PLP that angered Cameron, even more than Brown.
Good article:
Steve Richards: This shameful political point-scoring over Baby P
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-richards/steve-richards-this-shameful-political-pointscoring-over-baby-p-1017813.html
That’s it for Me. Good night.
Boston BC Fenside is apparently BNP gain from Boston Bypass but figures not yet available .
479.That is interesting, because today’s papers were almost surreal in their silence. Iain Dale noted that last night on the Sky paper review. Anyone know who did them tonight as I might watch it, can anything be worse that Pierce and Maguire earlier this week.
477. Yes, v poor front pages for Labour. The Baby P story could get nasty for them - all the more reason Brown should have been a little cleverer at PMQs. Tut.
And the increasing absurdity and dissonance of the Brown Bounce narrative is shown by the Guardian front page - in big bold letters it says Brown: Major Countries Must Cut Tax Now
In slightly smaller letters, right underneath: Pound Falls to $1.48
Why should any leader anywhere listen to economic lectures from a premier of the UK, the country facing the worst recession of all, the country whose currency is collapsing?
It’s Patently Ridiculous. Brown is lucky Silvio and Sarko haven’t poured a bucket of manure over his big fat arrogant head.
483. Wasn’t this clown one of those responsible for stirring up election hysteria first time around? You’d think that he’d stay well clear of election speculation, wouldn’t you?
And anyway, since when did abandoning all your fiscal rules, having a dutch auction of unfunded tax cuts putting tens of billions on a national debt thats already out of control, akin to having an ideology?
Labour have only one iedology:
STAY IN OFFICE AT ALL COSTS!
489.”What followed those exchanges at Prime Minister’s Question Time was extraordinary. Throughout the stormy confrontation, Brown had been adamant that the right course was being followed. Yet four hours later the Secretary of State for Schools, Ed Balls, announced another independent inquiry into precisely what had happened in Haringey. Why was the announcement made so breathtakingly quickly?
The answer is that after yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Question Time there was a whiff of panic in Downing Street. The instant reaction from political bloggers and from parts of the BBC was that Brown had shown a tin ear in relation to the tragedy, deploying the wooden language of the bureaucrat to navigate his way through an unexpectedly lengthy exchange. Yesterday, some of his closest admirers continued to express despair to me that Brown cannot emote publicly.
Evidently, Brown despaired too. In Number 10 and in Cameron’s office, advisers read assiduously some political bloggers to get instant verdicts on the latest performances of their leaders. They do so with particular intensity after Prime Minister’s Question Time. The influence of some Conservative bloggers on the tactics of the Tory leadership is particularly interesting, worthy of a longer study. But in this case it was Brown who seems to have got into a state, fearing he would be seen as on the wrong side of a distressing and highly charged debate.”
493.Wasn’t he made to take the rap last time and sent to a political Siberia outside the Brownite bunker?
stjohn, from the previous thread:
Now that the threat of Armageddon appears to be receding
I wish I was as optimistic as you sound - I feel things are going to get a very great deal worse and that we are not being told just how desperate is the outlook.
Hence my belief that we will see a GE sooner rather than later.
BNP gain reported in Boston, Lincs on vote-2008 - ending the 4-year famine, if true.
497 - confirmed, though turnout was minute (<10%, winning candidate got under 300 votes)
Sorry, misread it, turnout around 20%.
On topic…
I’ve just got around to watching yesterday’s PMQs, and even though everyone said an emphatic “NO” at the start of the thread, I have to say the answer is “NO”.
I’m not a great Cameron fan, but Brown was being such an arse that even I can see that Cameron couldn’t reasonably have handled the situation very differently.
Rob
482 Marin - First Portillo has to act and speak like he’s a Tory. I sometimes think he is sympathetic towards Blair and now Brown to keep his seat on the Brillo programme - must be a nice little earner for him….. £5K per week at a guess, maybe more.
501 Marin = Martin
489. Interesting piece. Its odd to think that after PMQ’s Labour and Conservative workers trawl through blogs like this one to see what we’re all saying. You would think they’d have better things to do.
Richards misses the point though. He seems to blame all sides for what happened on Wednesday. This seems to be something most left wing commentators are seeking to do (Maguire did it on This Week) They know Brown screwed up, but they think if they drag Cameron into it, they can turn a disaster for Brown into a disaster for everyone. But the fact is, when Cameron got up and asked Question One he was NOT trying to score political points about the death of a baby. It was the Labour Party and Gordon Brown who shamefully made a political issue out of it. What happened wasn’t Camerons fault in any way.
Richards thinks that Cameron was self absorbed in his anger at Browns accusation that he, Cameron, was making political capital out of the brutal death of a baby. Again Richards misses the point. Cameron had every right to be furious. If that accusation had stuck, it might have gone a long way to destroying Camerons future as Tory leader and PM in waiting. He wasn’t just going to sit back and allow himself to be smeared by such a disguating accusation. This whole disaster was the thanks to Brown and the Labour Party. Richards is right about one thing though, it does go to prove the depth of hatred that Brown and Cameron have for one another. When that election is finally called, we’re going to see the dirtiest, nastiest election in British history. Labour will stop at NOTHING to try and cling on to power. The Tories have to toughed up and be ready to send plenty of sh*t back, because they can be sure they will have a lot thrown at them. Think Boris V Ken and multiply it by a hundred. Thats how nasty the election will get!
503 Gin - I was surprised by just how civil Boris and Ken were to each other and both their speeches at the declaration were nothing short of glowing towards the other.
An unremarkable YouGov poll on Scottish independence - most further swing against but nothing startling:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/32200/half_of_scots_are_against_independence/
501. I’d say Portillo and Abbott both just say what they think - that’s the appeal of the programme.
Mail says 4 government ministers knew that social services were ‘out of control’.
Which 4?
Hewitt is mentioned in The Inde.
Is Ball’s one?
506 Mike ……hmm ……I haven’t exactly seen these two have many stand up rows, rather supports my view don’t you think?
504. I can remember all those doom laden predictions about what would happen if Bojo took over though Peter. The sky would fall in. And the Thames would flood. Not to mention all the “upper class twit” smears from the likes of Blears. Ken and Boris may have got along personally, but it was a pretty nasty campaign all the same.
Well as the saying goes, you ain’t seen anything yet!
507. I’d call in gap from 12 to 23 since July pretty dramatic.
505. That poll’s a couple of weeks old, Nick. There was also a fairly recent one by System Three that showed 35% in favour, 43% against. Both were pre-Glenrothes, though - I don’t know whether that will make a difference.
Jeff Randall sitting on the fence on this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/3454763/Gordon-Browns-fingerprints-are-all-over-a-disaster-made-in-Britain.html
505. Yup, it’s never gonna happen. How many of those 31% who say Yes to independence would ACTUALLY vote yes when faced with all the risks and unknowables?
Maybe half? Two thirds? Max? Maybe less. Referendums nearly always favour the No side - the status quo option, the less risky choice.
To be sure of a good chance of winning an independence ref, the SNP would need, I think, to be LEADING by 20 points in these independence polls, not LAGGING by 20 points.
And of course economic uncertainty is just adding to the problems of the seperatists who want Scots to take the risk. The Brown Bust has, paradoxically, nixed independence for a generation. Maybe that was Gordo the Unionist’s secret plan all along.
501. Yes, I can agree with you there, when he is on this week - He does tend to become a bit centerist.
Whether he was modulating it to the audience or not I don’t know earlier this week but he came across as thinking Mandelson should not have been given another chance big style (Maybe if Mandelson comes back - he figures he should?). But I don’t think the audience was raving tories apart from me!
I could tell he either recognised me from Tory HQ or thought i was a politico because his eye looked at me for a moment before he spoke about the scottish by-election last week (I could see it turnig through his mind)! He said he could not remember the name! So i said Glenrothers along with some other chap!
I think Portillo took 2001 badly, I can understand that but he should not of sulked off. That said, even if he positions himself as a moderate on ‘this week’ at the moment. His skill set is still that good, his face that well known and ironically because of the BBC slot ‘acceptable’ to that audience. That he would be very good particularly with the F*cked economy in some enhanced economic role maybe to do with Chief Sec to the treasury combined with Business Sec (From Lords).
509: ‘I can remember all those doom laden predictions about what would happen if Bojo took over…’
They’ve got a discussion about how Boris is doing over at CiF:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2008/nov/12/boris-london?commentpage=1&commentposted=1
Funnily, the CiFfers are now mainly whinging about bendy buses still being in service rather than Boris as the new Hitler.
512 Jeff Randall sitting on the fence on this one
You are kidding aren’t you - either that or you haven’t read the piece. Jeff Randall just never, ever sits on the fence!
512. Excellent analysis. The Tories have got to stick to their guns and not be drawn into a dutch auction of unfunded tax giveaways. Instead they need to set out a path a to get the nations finances in order, to reign back on spending and to aspire to give away REAL, lasting tax cuts in the future.
German finance guy on Sky News saying he can’t just throw money at the recession and he won’t.
Has anyone told Brown?
I was being ironic (as I’m sure you realise) but I thought Randall was giving it more of a go than he usually does.
I would just love to see Randall at the Downing street press conferences.
508. Disagree - he often disagrees with Diane Abbott but they obviously like each other so they wouldn’t row.
I would say This Week is one programme which certainly could not be accused of being pro Labour / Blair / Brown - Diane Abbott is regularly highly critical, Portillo is not a supporter and Andrew Neil is proably the most right-wing BBC presenter - witness tonight’s scathing comments about the welfare culture.
513. SeanT, if you genuinely believe Scottish independence is as unlikely to happen as ‘the Rapture’, why do you feel the need to pontificate on the subject on such a regular basis? I’d expect someone who was so relaxed on the subject to show more signs of…well, relaxation. Methinks the sex memoirist doth protest too much. Or should that be, the misty-eyed British nationalist doth protest too much. You’ve got your whole self-identity riding on the outcome - you’re actually less relaxed than I am. I’m Scottish with or without independence.
“Referendums nearly always favour the No side - the status quo option, the less risky choice.”
‘Nearly always’? That’s an incredibly strong claim, and it sounds implausible to me. I don’t know for a fact you’re wrong, but I’d be interested if others agree.
“To be sure of a good chance of winning an independence ref, the SNP would need, I think, to be LEADING by 20 points in these independence polls, not LAGGING by 20 points.”
I believe I’m right in saying that in the 1995 Quebec referendum, the ‘Yes’ side actually caught up in the closing weeks having been lagging quite badly, and very nearly won. Referendums are strange, unpredictable things, so you’re quite right to be so nervous.
And yes, I know your response to this post is “Boring…zzzzzz”. At this time of night, fair enough. Sweet dreams, my love (which is GAY but better than being called a retard).
520 I would just love to see Randall in the top job at The Daily Telegraph!
517 I agree - I just think their real problem (as in the problem that actually exists) is that they just don’t know what they will inherit economically if they do win the next election. That’s why I agree with Christina D etc upthread in that I think the softly softly, fiscal responsibility economic approach might yet prove to be rather sensible in the fullness of time.
518. Brown is trying to get all the other leading economies to sign up to his dutch auction of unfunded tax cuts in the hope that doing so will ease the pressure on the Pound. With all countries signing up to this he knows the UK is set for a major run on the currency. Will the other nations sign up though? If they don’t it won’t only be the Pound tanking, it’ll be Browns repuatation as an economic genius listened to by leaders all over th world.
Note - Jeff Randall will have a 30 minute programme on Sky 4 nights a week from January - could this mean he’ll be in a more prominent position?
520, 523 I trump you both - Shadow Chancellor!!!
Sorry that should have read “Without all countries signing up to this he knows the UK is set for a major run on the currency.”
526 Well it probably means he’ll quit the Telegraph, making it even less compelling.
527 Wouldn’t argue!
529 He is editor at large for the Telegraph but has stepped down to do more Sky work:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/21/dailytelegraph-bskyb
524. I think, in the end, the fiscally conservative response to this recession will be the one the public wants. And if they don’t. If the public do want anbother 5 years of reckless borrowing and crazy tax cuts that turn out to be tax rises, then at least the Tories will have the moral high ground of knowing they was right, even if it ends up costing them the election. Better that than join in with Labour dutch auction and end up ultimately compounding everyones misery longer than it needs to be.
522. No, I just like annoying Nats, cause they always rise to the bait. As, ahem, you just did.
I’m right about the referendums tho - Mike did a learned thread on this years ago: the less risky, “No” option has a built-in advantage. Cf various Euro referendums, where No has won against ALL the odds.
Your dream of a lifetime died on 16th September 2008, when Lehman Brothers collapsed. Sorry.
512. Excellent analysis by Randall. Why can’t the Tories be as forensic!?
532 Agree, people aren’t fools, not all the time any way, especially when they start to compare Britain’s performance with other major economies, not when they see how our currency has fallen by 25% against both the US Dollar and the Euro.
Labour back to 16% behind in the polls by 30 April would be my guess.
512.Well if I was really worried about the economy before reading that piece, now I really am!
How the hell did we get to a point where when we really need a PM and Chancellor who will be desperately trying to get us through the next 3 years in one piece?
Thanks Labour, what you have given us is a man not fit to be PM any day of the week, but who will be running the sinking ship with only his own reputation and political ends at the forefront of his economic policy.
Listening to Jon Craig tonight breathlessly telling us about Brown’s latest appeal to the rest of the Western leaders was very revealing.
Action now (my plan of spend, spend, spend), because inaction now would be worse the long run(I am screwed if you don’t all follow me on this). And a warning for countries to revert to a protectionist stance(because if you lot survive and we don’t, questions will be asked, and I am screwed politically).
Sounds like Superman has been getting his wings clipped, and he is trying to desperately stay in the air, at least in the UK, still trying to pin the blame on others if his plans fail.
533. “Your dream of a lifetime died on 16th September 2008, when Lehman Brothers collapsed. Sorry.”
And a drop of support for independence of 3-4% in the two polls taken since that supposedly decisive event proves your point, I suppose? Transparent nonsense, I’m afraid, and anyone with an ounce of sense knows it. If you were right we should have seen a 10-15% drop, but we didn’t. In fact, the fall is so modest, it seems perfectly conceivable that it’ll be fully reversed once the initial shock of the crisis wears off. So your fear of a lifetime is still very much alive. Sorry.
But try not to have nightmares.
Bu the way, there’s quite a considerable difference between saying “the less risky, ‘No’ option has a built-in advantage”, and saying the No option “nearly always” wins.
521.MikeL, Diane and Michael were at school together IIRC. Hard to believe.
538 Yep, quite right, primary school presumably. Portillo is proper posh, whereas Abbott is just quite posh, although her child goes to private school IIRC.
535.Apologies for the errors, I was touch typing too fast and did check. DOH!
539.I think it was grammar school, anyone able to confirm.
Didn’t I read that they were in a play together, Abbot was Lady McBeth to Portillo’s McBeth.
541 Oh come on Christina, you’re making this up as you go along - I’m almost tempted to do a search on Google or Wiki.
542. I think she’s right, I’ve heard that too.
542.
Honestly PfP, I pick up these odd snippets all the time, its can be handy. That’s why I knew immediately it was Osborne who was the Senior Tory who had chatted to Mandelson. Still not sure why the Times were being coy that weekend, I had read of their relationship more than once in the media, it went back a wee while longer than some on here realise too.
The only thing I am not sure about is which universities they went too. Didn’t one go to Cambridge, and the other Oxford?
Not the same school - each went to a same-sex school in Harrow, though it seems likely there were joint activities between the schools.
In other news, today I finally got around to withdrawing my Glenrothes winnings from Betfair
Actually, according to Wikipedia it was Macduff and Lady Macduff. So Christina was 90% right.
546.Oops, I will be in trouble, I live not too far from Lumphanan.
Diane Abbott was excellent on This Week - best I’ve ever seen her on that programme. Portillo was a bit muted - maybe the subject matter didn’t suit him. Earlier on QT I have to say Margaret Beckett was surprisingly robust and authoritative but it’s really time the Lib Dems were bold enough to make more use of their current “frontbench” talent. As for the Tories once again where were their attack dogs?
Other alumni of Portillo’s school: Clive Anderson, Angus Fraser, Mark Ramprakash…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrow_County_School_for_Boys#Notable_alumni
545.When I read about it, they just said they were in the play at school.
548.Ask QT, although I know that Ed Vaizey was supposed to be on it, but had to pull out because of an adjournment debate on the proposed reservoir that Thames Water wants to build in his constituency.
548. Margaret Beckett’s answer about Council Housing was a total disgrace.
Why on earth should ordinary people pay taxes to subsidise someone who might be earning £50k, £75k, £100k or even more to live in a Council House for life?
549 Right, so let me get this straight …. we now know that Michael Portillo attended Harrow County School for Boys …..here, hang on a minute ……
553.PfP, check out LS@545. “Not the same school - each went to a same-sex school in Harrow, though it seems likely there were joint activities between the schools.”
When I read the story about MacBeth, it simple said that they performed together at school. What can I say.
One of life’s little coincidences - just went onto Wiki to check out on Abbott and Portillo and, I don’t know why, something made me check out Paul Dacre at the same time, only to discover that he’s 60 years of age this very day!
Happy retirement Paul, soon!
552 Why what’s the problem? Did she not say it’s better to have a varied social mix on a council estate rather than just the very poorest (underclass?).
Goodnight all, you learn something every day, that’s for sure.
556. Yes, she did but I find that an incredibly weak excuse. I see no justification for the idea that ordinary people (many of whom have no property of their own) should subsidise wealthy people to live in a house.
You’d think Brown would be more sympathetic - he’s got dead babies too!