Could Polly’s column herald the start of the “revolution”?
September 6th, 2008
But who will carry out the great lady’s command?
With the first of the September conferences, the TUC, just about to start the Guardian columnist, Polly Toynbee, returns to the theme she was developing a few weeks ago that Gordon, the Labour leader that she invested so much in, has to go.
Her dismissal of what’s happening at Number 10 is vicious and she clearly she is on a mission. Her first paragraph sets the scene “..The smell of death around this government is so overpowering it seems to have anaesthetised them all. One bungle follows another and yet those about to die sit silently by.”
The piece goes on “…A cabinet of minnows and spineless backbenchers include many - perhaps most - who want Brown gone, but lack the nerve to act. They wait for someone else, for Brown to walk away or for a proverbial bus to save them from the task. First they put it off in July: wait until after the summer, many said. Now it’s wait until the party conference - as if that “speech of a lifetime” could make a scrap of difference at this stage. Then it will be “Don’t rock the boat before the Glenrothes byelection”. Will that deliver the electric shock to end the inertia that neither Crewe nor Glasgow East could? Or will they put it off until after Christmas, or catastrophic May elections? Some say a recession is no time for internal wrangling; but the longer they leave it, the longer the leadership question hangs over them. It will not go away.”
Today’s column is significant because of the influence that Toynbee and her Guardian “twin” Jackie Ashley wield within the movement. If they of all people within the media are not on side then what hope is there?
There’s little doubt that what she’s trying to do is put fire in the bellies of key players who could be ready to rock the boat. These might initially be one or two of the big trade union bosses. Cabinet ministers would come later.
The challenge they’ve got is that their quarry is perhaps the most capable manipulator of the Labour movement’s political forces that we have seen in generations. Gord would not have got where he is today if he did not know how to work the system and conspirators are going to have to tread with great care.
So is the Toynbee pressure going to lead to anything? It might and much depends on the conference season. The mood at the TUC gathering is important and maybe two key or three players could come to a loose deal to back a coup giving a Miliband or a Johnson the confidence to move.
The last thing they want is for a Charles Clark type intervention that nobody supports.
Later today on PB: The moves on the Commons Seat Spread markets - “Is punter sentiment becoming more aligned with the polls?”
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Per The Times:
“The unions will also renew their demands for secondary strike action”
Well that’s a sure fire way of improving Labour’s position!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4687203.ece
Oh dear. If Polly has come out against the government, then it really is all over for Gordon. She was one of his biggest cheerleaders throughout the Blair years, and praised him louder than anyone in the initial honeymoon after he took over. If even she now wants him to go, the Prime Minister must have very, very few friends left.
(I’m of the opinion that changing leader wouldn’t make too much difference to the Labour party’s fortunes, mind you. But the Brown saga is just too compelling not to pay attention to, like watching a car crash in slow motion.)
Yawn. It’s all very well to call for changes but what changes? What policy changes do these people have in mind and can they name a Labour politican who would improve the party’s standing?
Well Comres suggested Cameron’s lead would be half the size if Blair was leader.
It goes to show for the idiots who lauded Brown as the real reason for Labour’s success.. You were WRONG, big time.
Yes, Brown is a bag of Blollocks - Always has been!
Nevermind, Labour will get it in the end both in terms of electoral defeat and the in the penny dropping. Wonder which will come first?
The thing I really like about this is the glee I get politically from being able to say “I told you so”! The way Brown and for that matter Labour in general played silly buggers last Autumn with elections - the chickens coming home fills me with joy!
How MP’s can sit and watch Brown make costly mistake after costly mistake I do not know; both in terms of public spending and politically. Supreme strategis!
A Chicken crossing the road has a better head for strategy! 
Polly’s put the kettle on AGAIN. “Brown Must Go”? She’s said all this before.
So has Jacqui Ashley. So has Steve Richards. So has Martin Kettle. So has practically every other significant lefty pundit on the papers. Charles Clarke has also said it. Miliband has practically said it. Trade Union leaders have said it. Labour donors have said it. Backbenchers have said it. Frontbenchers have said it. My mum’s friend at the hairdresser’s said it. There’s probably an elderly parrot in Labour headquarters that’s learned to say it simply because it’s heard this said so often. “Brown Must Go”.
Yet still they do nothing because they are a bunch of pathetic, cowardly wetwipes with the gonadal endowment of a castrated gnat.
They are frit. They know that changing leader means an election. They know that an election means many of them will lose their jobs. They like their stupid pitiful jobs and the perks and expenses that go with, even if they are so demonstrably crap at them.
My guess is this article will do precisely nothing except make the party’s anxiety worse. And that’s good, because I am hugely enjoying this prolonged period of Labour infighting. It’s hilarious.
6. How do you castrate a gnat? ???
Never mind Sarah Palin’s family. Isn’t it more important that Roberta McCain is obviously far too young and fragrant to be John McCain’s mother? She must be his sister. Or perhaps he is her father. I think we should be told!
8. I think Gordon Brown is pregnant, right now. It explains so much: the hormonal moodswings, the obvious weight gain, the early lactation visible during prime minister’s questions, and the apparent dimunution in intelligence - pregnant women suffer an IQ drop of about 10 points in the third tremester.
Question is, if Gordon Brown is pregnant, WHO IS THE FATHER?
9. To answer my own question, if Gordon Brown is pregnant, who is the father, I think suspicion must fall on Ffion Hague. Where has she been? We haven’t seen her in the media for many months. Is Mrs Hague a “deadbeat dad”? Did she get Gordo up the duff, then do a runner?
If it’s not Ffion, then I don’t know who. Maybe the Duke of Norfolk, or either one of the Krankies.
8 - Many, you must have a really fancy TV to be geting Smell-o-Vision. What other wiffs did you pick up from the GOP national convention?
Thought must admit, that I myself am receiving reports (via my heavy-gauge tinfoil helmet) that Roberta McCain allegedly worked as a hootchie kootchie fan dancer in the back room of the Hoover for President VIP suite at the 1932 Republican National Convention . . .
11.
Levi Johnston - beef
Track Palin - tomato
[MODERATED]
That odd looking Abraham Lincoln lookalike - marmite
I wonder if they have started making “Roberta / Barbara 2016″ badges yet?
10 - How dare you make such ugly insinuations of such a lovely woman, ffion Hague. You even presumed to mishandled her initial “f”! Sir, have you no shame?
Perhaps this is just a sign that (as I’ve long suspected) you’ve been subborned by dangerous extremists loosely affiliated with rogue elements of Mebyon Kernow in pursuit of the Greater Cornish Co-Prosperity Sphere. Time will tell.
In meantime, keep a sharp lookout for prospect of Wm Hague wielding a horsewhip in your direction!
Long time, no post.
What Pollyfiller doesn’t pursue in her logic is that the situation is so dire and so terminal, taht a change a leader will not make more than a couple of percentage points’ difference. Once you get “the smell of death”, it usually means you’ve got a ripe corpse.
No incoming leader will turn around Labour’s fortunes - they are despised and hated en masse across the land. I would imagine that is what is entrenching their spinelessness to act; who would want the leadership now? It is career ending
12
Fred Thompson - Rebel Yell
Rudi Giuliani - burnt toast
Sarah Palin - essence of moose
Todd Palin - canned salmon
John McCain - Geritol
Barack Obama - Frappicino
note that American’s think “marmite” is a kind of termite or suchlike. Considering Obama’s Hawaii connection, reasonable alternative might be Spam, which is very popular with Hawaiians (highest per capita consumption of the stuff in the US).
The Labour leader will be another EU-obeying sycophant. It makes no difference which one of these stooges they pick. Their party is doomed.
The Conservatives also will be unable to make much impact on the appalling state of British life unless they tackle the EU-question - and get us out of the thing.
As for Polly, why does anyone read that garbage any longer? How can anyone with an intelligent mind bother to follow the meanderings and reversals of a dysfunctional columnist, who obeys her instructions and writes what she is told to write by her ‘masters’. Pro-Brown, Anti-Brown, Flip-flopping in circles, going nowhere. Even she must be getting confused.
Until people see that the EU is behind the Guardian, the BBC and New Labour, Blair, Brown, Charles Clarke, Miliband and the rest and makes the necessary connection, the media will bring on more and more New Labour Theatrical Productions for your entertainment endlessly. Please don’t take any of them seriously.
There are serious events taking place - with the BoE subbing UK banks to the tune of £200 billion in the last 2 months, but that is way about Polly’s little head. She lives in the theatre, not the real world. Leave her alone, and all the nonentities that have a mistaken view of their own importance. Like Gordon Brown she is an irrelevance to the real business of saving Britain from disappearing down the plughole, with sterling collapsing on a daily basis, and banks teetering on the edge. The real events and their significance are going unreported, and uncommented upon.
14 - After all that judo with Sebastian Coe, surely William Hague would have no need of a horsewhip?
On topic, Polly Toynbee has made her views about Gordon Brown clear already, this simply draws them together. This will focus minds, deepen gloom and not change the trajectory at all.
16
Mitt Romney - Tang
Cindi McCain - Tabu
Mike Huckabee - Tab
18 - but it would be a nice old fashioned touch befiting a Tory traditionalist. Though might a Yorkshire lad use a walking stick or a snooker cue instead?
David Roe @ 4 re Blair as leader.
Blair slipped behind the Conservatives in benign economic conditions. Remember Cameron enjoyed a poll lead throughout 2006 till mid-2007 when the succession became clear. Blair lost it on foreign policy alone, a remarkable feat in itself, particularly when the final straw for many voters was Israel’s shelling of Lebanon, a dispute in which Britain was not involved.
What would Tony, starting from a lower base than Gordon (no Brown bounce), have done to shore up support as the economy hit the rocks? Food subsidies?
seanT @ 6 is “hugely enjoying this prolonged period of Labour infighting”. I rather thought the complaint was that there is no infighting but there really ought to be. Where is the coup? Where are the plots? One over-hyped article from Miliband now lost in the mists of time, another from the hardly-missed Charles Clarke. Are these the stuff of revolution? Especially as Clarke even lamented the absence of plot.
It may well be that Gordon Brown will not be PM or Labour leader going into the next general election.
But the present moment doesn’t seem especially auspicious to begin a transition. Wouldn’t it make more sense to wait until early 2009.
Sure, GB isn’t going to like the idea whenever it pops up on the calendar. But he cannot stop the clock.
Unless there’s survey evidence by early next year (by April Fools Day at the latest) of both a) an upward shift in Labour’s position v Conservatives, and b) Brown’s personal job approval running ahead or at least not behind the party; then my guess is that clear majority of PLP and the payroll vote will turn against his continued presence at No. 10.
SSI — Thanks for your answer about Mac being the Past.
25 - In his heart he is still young and he sees the future shimmering in his mind’s eye. But unfortunately it’s the reflection from his rear view mirror.
Is it possible that Gordon Brown might create the possibility of reinvigorating his leadership of the Labour Party, by himself calling a leadership election? As John Major did in somewhat similar circumstances in 1995.
Granted it would be a huge gamble. But then the future of just staying the course doesn’t look terribuly rosy. Indeed from GB’s perspective is beginning to resemble a one-way ride over Niagara Falls - and without a barrel.
It has been a great week for this shambolic government, Darling sounded as if he was out of his depth on the Radio, and provided the Forex boys with opportunities to sell £s, and shares in the epectation that it will get worse, and they can buy again when the market finally bottoms out. Darling might manage expectations but only downwards. The result a record weekly fall of the FTSE, and the £ at a low against most other currencies. Relaunch, what relaunch?
If Folly Toyboy thinks that the food inflation is bad, she will just love it when the falling pound kicks up food costs later next spring.
The Labour whips muct be looking over the list of the ill, wondering if there could be another ‘unwanted’ by election. If Brown loses Glenrothes, it could signal that his influence in the neighbouring constituency, and his self proclaimed belief that Scotland is some sort of personal fiefdom has turned into Fife Doom headlines.
Why Broon was ever promoted if the first place is almost beyond understanding, unless Blair wanted to make sure that the Old Labour element was annilalated at the next election.
Hallo Robin. Glad to see you’re bringing your medical expertise to the site with the information that the ’smell of death is accompanied by a ripe corpse’!
I hear plenty of people saying that Brown’s Labour Party is finished but when you ask if they are therefore enthused by ‘Cameron’s Conservatives’ those that don’t recoil might grudgingly say ‘well they can’t be any worse’.
From ‘95 onwards Blair had the electorate excited about him and his policies. Cameron is a country mile away from this. OK Labour are unpopular but remember what happened when Brown took over. The shift in the polls was about 20%. Cameron had no excited following.
It was all about Labour and the same could happen again. A new leader coinciding with a few lucky breaks and those who are reluctantly embracing Cameron ‘because he can’t be any worse’ will be back in play.
David Leterman
–tonight noted the resemblence between Sarah Palin and Tina Fey of “Saturday Night Live” and her own TV show.
–”John McCain and Sarah Palin are really bonding. Today she took him to the mall to buy a new pair of Rockports.”
22. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately contradicts and embarrasses his prime minister (”these are the worst economic conditions for 60 years”) I think we can safely say there is infighting.
Labour are like ten unspayed cats trapped in a sack; and someone’s thrown the sack in the river.
What we’re not seeing is ORGANISED infighting, i.e. proper plots and serious conspiring, like wot we used to have with the Tories under Major. I thought Miliband’s opening salvo was intended to lead to a coherent challenge, and the end of Brown - but the fat lady didn’t sing, she just came onstage, cleared her throat… and then went offstage again. Pitiful.
Why are Labour so crap at conspiring? Why can’t they just knife Gordon? For the reasons adumbrated on here many times.
1. There is no obvious superior alternative to Brown
2. Indeed there is no obvious alternative
3. There are no major ideological splits: if Brown goes and the polls stay dire (as they would) this would reveal the bitter truth - that Labour AND their policies are as unpopular as Brown. Right now MPs can blame it all on Gordon and stay in denial about the failure of “the project”.
4. Labour rules make a challenge very hard
5. A new leader means a general election and certain redundancy for many dozens of Labour MPs
6. They’re all a bunch of girls
So, having thought Brown would go, earlier in the summer - I now think Brown will struggle on. The one thing Toynbee gets right in her piece is that Labour keep giving Gordon these deadlines - until we lose Glasgow East, until the beginning of September, until we lose Glenrothes - but each time Gordon is given more time. It’s intention tremor. They can’t do it.
Which means more prolonged Labour infighting! Hooray! I’m lovin’ it.
27 “The Labour whips must be looking over the list of the ill” - got to be a lot of Labour MPs feeling a tad green about the gills these days.
I think the Queen will make the most of Browns visit to Balmoral this weekend to give him some frank advice. After all she is the boss and she can see like the rest of us that it’s all gone down the pan. When was the last time anyone read any good news coming from the Gov.?
30 concur with all except #6
Because Sarah the Baracuda Palin shows that the Wasilla High girls basketball team could likely wrestle the dispatch box from the current cabinet without due difficulty. Not that the Labour front bench is lacking in baracudas. Just the will to live apparently.
An Alaskan professor’s view of Sarah’s performance on protecting the environment:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/377955_palinenvir07.html
28. One doesn’t know where to begin with your remarks, these days, Roger. You used to be quite sharp, if monstrously deluded most of the time.
But during your absence you’ve turned into a kind of below-par Gabble trotting out piteous spin and wishful thinking, badly disguised as informed speculation.
A BELOW-PAR GABBLE. Think about that.
To dismiss your latest theories:
1. People weren’t that excited by Blair in 95, they just disliked and resented the Tories. If they were that excited, they’d have voted for Blair in their trillions. Remember, Blair actually got FEWER votes in 1997 than Major in 1992. So you’re either saying people were more excited by John Major than Tony Blair, or you’re simply wrong. And embarrassingly wrong.
2. Cameron is now consistently polling as a rather popular leader, and his party has held 15-25% leads over Labour for about six months. The Tories are now in the 45-50% bracket, which is exactly where Blair was in 1995, once you take changes in polling methods into account. So again you are embarrassingly wrong.
What happened mate? Too long in the Villefranche sun?
For once I agree with Polly when she writes that the Labour MPs are spineless faced with the need to remove Brown. They have no sense of the need for action.
She points out that Labour keep putting off the day to judge Brown while Cameron’s lead is becoming “gold plated”. For the Conservative party this dithering is good and each day that Labour delays increases the size of the Conservative majority. Probably adds 1 seat for each week of delay.
Nick P I believe hinted on here that the time to review is next summer. Well waiting that long will just consign another 40 Labour MPs to the dole.
WISH IT TO BE KNOWN that I most certainly do NOT favor striking SeanT with a horse whip, dog whip, bull whip, baseball bat, hockey stick, croquet mallet, hurley, shillaleigh, knobkerrie, penang lawyer, crowbar, sledgehammer, plumbers helper, feather duster or any other conceiveable weapon that may come to hand. Regardless of his trespasses, I love the guy. Truly if platonically.
36 - your last para is what I’m not so sure of. That waiting to settle the leadership question until early or mid 2009 will cause Labour to lose additional seats when the general election finally rolls around. Because could be that a shorter tenure for the new leader (assuming there is one) might work out better on Polling Day. Not predicting this, just saying it might happen that way. Perhaps.
32 “When was the last time anyone read any good news coming from the Gov.?”
Wasn’t that Polly, a few weeks back, telling us to “rejoice, rejoice” at all the wonderous things this Govt. was doing? All those things we ungrateful amoebae were over-looking?
Doesn’t the Olympics seem a long time ago?
35 bit hard on Roger esp #1 because think its true that there was considerable excitement within the Labour Party (not all positive but mostly) for policy review & renewal. And this was communicated to the public by the media, even if the average citizen wasn’t waiting for the next bulletin with baited breath. But #2 is pretty much right on.
139 perhaps frontbench should take up synchronized diving?
38 SSI, what I believe is that each week of delay lowers the “platform” of Labour’s vote. Most people expect a honeymoon for a new Leader but is that honeymoon of a circa 40 seat improvement, built on a platform of 250 or 200 seats? By 2010 Labour could be down to 150.
The sooner Labour replaces Brown the higher their potential seat numbers will be, providing they also take on the challenge of a GE during the honeymoon. A honeymoon that Brown lacked the courage to use.
Polly’s article really sticks the boot in. She is right on the essential points. She is even right that the Tories go unchallenged as Labour destroys itself. Its pitiful(and joyful) to watch. One wonders how bad the Glenrothes result will be.
Re 28 Are the views of the public on Cameron that you relate based on objective research carried out according to BPC rules or are they a more subjective assessment?
I think you are wrong. Cameron is now storming forward in the polls hard as I know that Labour supporters find to admit it. He has played a binder though heaven only knows what life under the Tories will be like for a poor pensioner like myself.
As long as they don’t reinstate the betting tax.
40. But the figures are inarguable. MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR MAJOR THAN BLAIR, EVEN WHEN BLAIR WAS AT THE HEIGHT OF HIS POPULARITY.
New Labour numbskulls like to believe there was this Golden Age when they were Truly Loved; they perceive a huge tide of heartfelt and sobbing approval that swept them into power in 1997.
Simply not the case. The sighs that echoed around the country, that sunny day in 1997, were sighs of relief that the stupid sleazy Tories had gone (I even remember feeling a certain relief myself). They weren’t sighs of adoration for Tony and Cherie. Sure the public felt quite warmly towards the new government, but that was mainly because they weren’t the old government.
Some parts of the media DID fall in love with New Labour, briefly, but that’s a very different matter.
I actually think this is a crucial problem for Labour. They persist in believing this government had a beloved quality that they’ve lost and therefore must regain. They were never loved. They were quite liked in 1997, by 2001 this had already dwindled to apathetic toleration.
Another interesting fact to prove my thesis: Neil Kinnock got millions more votes LOSING in 1992 than Blair got winning in 2001.
As Mrs Thatcher said, “there is no alternative”, either in policy or efficiency. Labour MPs seem to agree.
If Brown goes, does the Party tilt to the right (a greater role for the private sector in delivering services, etc) or to the left (a stronger public sector, restoring trade union rights, etc). Nobody knows.
And how are the abysmal standards of policy implementation to be improved? The latest is in the Times this morning - £330 million earmarked to improve maternity services hasn’t reached maternity units. We see this kind of thing on an almost daily basis, and has to be addressed if the Party is to succeed.
Labour’s real crisis is that no-one in the Party sees how to get out of the present position.
30. Excellent post, Sean. The Labour Party can really sum up whether it is going to change leaders in three questions: why, who, how.
If it doesn’t know what it specifically wants from a new leader (ie not being Gordon is not enough), then what’s the point? Does it want new policies (if so, what mandate does it have for them?) Does it want the same policies better administered?
Secondly, who (if anyone) can deliver what is demanded in the answer to ‘why’? If no-one, what’s the point? If someone, does the cabinet try to stich up another contest or risk it going to a full vote, taking two months and with the possibility of their candidate losing? A secondary question following on is who should then join - and who should leave - the new government, and how are those being dismissed to be handled?
Finally, if the first two questions have satisfactory answers, how is all this to be achieved? In the first place, how is Gordon to be got rid of? A subsidiary question is ‘when?’. If the pieces come into place at any given time, should the Labour Party sieze the opportunity and move immediately, whatever the consequences for governmental planning or local/European elections, or should they wait until the optimum time administratively, which is next Summer.
So far, I don’t think Labour’s even got as far as answering question one, never mind two or three.
SSI @ 7.39 - I don’t see any possibility of that. The political situations are similar, but the differences are sufficient to make it very long odds.
One of the key ones (and the one that Brown himself would quote) is organisational. Major’s re-election bid was conducted among his parliamentary party and lasted about a week. Brown’s would be among the entire Labour Party membership plus affiliates, taking two months and costing a fortune to run.
As big a difference is the kind of people they are. Brown is inherantly cautious when decisions come his way. Unless he has prepared the ground in great detail, he rarely moves; Major, on the other hand, acted with great rapidity both in 1990 and 1995 to sieze the initiative.
Finally, there’s the lesson from 1995 itself. Things did turn around slightly for the Tories after that year (the local election share of votes started improving for example), but so slowly that it still lead to an absolute rout in 1997. In other words, whether or not it made much difference, it got the Tories nowhere near the objective of retaining power.
48. I should also have mentioned that Major in 1995 knew that a formal leadership challenge was extremely likely to occur that November (at the time, the Tory Party held annual elections and only two MPs were needed to nominate a candidate), so it was in his interests to force the issue; it’s much, much more difficult to force a leadership election in the Labour Party and Brown will believe that he can head off a challenge.
44. If we reinstate betting tax, then I will resign my membership!!
48 David Herdson. Yes there are organisational issues which deter a Labour leadership change.
But the PLP either lack the political intelligence to recognise the reality or lack the courage to do something.
Following on from the total votes argument, it’s interesting to chart the fall in Labour’s popular vote through the elections. It seems to me we always look at these things in terms of swings and seats, but popular vote is a fascinating prism, too.
In 1997 Labour got a very robust 13.5m votes. Roughly what Maggie was getting in her prime (and no, I would never say Maggie was loved, Roger - at least not by the country at large - I loved her, but that’s me)
In 2001 they got 10.7m votes, fairly feeble for a winning party - but that was on a very low turnout.
In 2005 they went down another 1.2m votes, to 9.5m. This was historically weedy for a winning party, many fewer votes than some Labour leaders got when losing elections in previous decades.
How low can their popular vote go next time? On a chart the natural curving trend would take them down another million or so to about 8.5m - roughly what the Tories have got in the last two elections.
But I think the Labour popular vote could drop by much much more than that - due to the unwinding of anti-Tory spin, the extreme unpopularity of their leader, their terrible position in the polls, the unfortunate timing of the economic downturn, and the enfeeblement of the Lib Dems. All this plus massive abstention in Labour’s digruntled core vote (if they still have one). And the SNP eating away at their base in Scotland.
I reckon Labour could lose another 2m in the popular vote, taking them down to… 6m? That’s fewer votes than the Lib-SDP alliance got in the 1980s. It’s not much more than the Libs get now.
That’s how bad Labour’s position is.
“Nick P I believe hinted on here that the time to review is next summer.”
Clutching at straws. PERHAPS by then Cameron’s mask will have slipped and revealed his true baby-eating ways. PERHAPS Gordon will have gone away, read the manual and worked out how to make things work - rather than just persist with that bloke-ish trait of pressing on regardless, with the happy refrain of “well, how hard can it be?” PERHAPS the Gods will reveal themselves - by paying off everyone’s mortgage and making free daily deliveries of ambrosia. Oh, and regulating the winter temperature so that no-one gets cold - that would be nice.
On the other hand, what we do know is that coming down the pike between now and next summer is an economy in pain. Inflation will still be high - several points ahead of pay rises (despite the prospect of industrial action over wide sections of the economy). The winter fuel bills will still be a stinging memory. Job losses will be higher, house prices lower. Living standards will still be worse than they are today, even if interest rates have come down by half or three quarters of a point. Credit will still be tight (the only upside being that personal debt levels will have peaked). The feel-crap factor will still be in full swing - and to start the summer, Labour will be routed in the June Euro and local elections. Oh, and most people will be “holidaying” for a week in a caravan in Withernsea. Driving to it in a car they want to replace, but can’t afford to.
Oh yes, a joyous place next summer looks to be for Labour.
Which is why they are going long. No ifs and buts. May 2010 can’t look worse for them. They decided not to pick a fight on a windfall tax this year. What’s the point? They can’t rob that bank twice - and if they do it this year, there will be no replacement cash for winter 2009/2010 - so things will seem worse that year, ahead of the election. No, the cash-grab will come this time next year - so they can tee up some winter help going into May 2010. Food prices may have come down by then (or at least, people will have become more resigned to their new household regimes). House prices might at least have stopped falling. Oil may have settled back to $70 - $80 a barrel. The soldiers will be back from Iraq. Cameron will be lacking any novelty, having spent two years banging on and on about how much better he would be. And he might be bald by then. Oh - and of course, Gordon will have been replaced in late autumn. A much happier outlook - if everything possible breaks Labour’s way. Hey, they may only be 12% behind.
And if this grim shade of rosy doesn’t come to pass? Well, they’re all fecked - so no worse off than today. Just two years of trough-gobbling the richer.
PS Whoops - I meant to say Labour could lose 2-3m - taking them down to 6m+.
My maths is bad, but not THAT bad.
28 Electorally, it doesn’t really matter if people are enthusiastic about the Conservatives or not, so long as people are prepared to vote for them, and to vote against the government. There is, unfortunately, absolutely nothing that the government can do to retrieve its position, as Sean T has succinctly pointed out.
There is something in what you say about the lack of enthusiasm. People aren’t flocking to join the Conservative Party, in the way they joined Labour in 1994-97. Nor is it my impression that many associations are seeing an upsurge in people becoming activists. There is, however, plenty of money around, as people open their cheque books for the party, both nationally, and at constituency level.
But Labour’s position is every bit as bad as that of the Conservatives in 1994-97. Their poll ratings and local election results are, if anything, worse. And local by-elections seem to be showing a further movement away from Labour, even compared to May. And Parliamentary by-election results have been awful.
(52) Sean T
The Union disillusionment with the NuLabour experiment is palpable.
If the Lib/Dems can organise a good strategy, there is room for them to replace Labour.
44 - “a poor pensioner”?
The left are always more likely to admit “enthusiasm” about their politicians because their political views are formed by idealism, so they are a sucker for anyone offering it. The right (in this country) are less likely to fall for things like that.
53, regarding windfall tax: Labour’s leaders (I use the term loosely) may not want a fight over it, but the backbenchers and lefty dinosaurs that run the unions might very well do.
After what happened with the 10p tax debacle, another climbdown is entirely possible.
Shame really. For whatever the reason, not forcing a windfall tax is the right decision.
59 - Only in the sense that the Energy companies hold all the aces. Doesn’t mean that there isn’t scope for questioning their motives.
There is an interesting article in the Times from Matthew Parris today, looking at the state of affairs with an ex-MP’s perspective:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article4686369.ece
Of course, his advice is hardly impartial but he does make some shrewd points about the miasma currently pervading Labour’s affairs.
60 I can’t see any justification for a windfall tax. It would, in effect, be a tax on pension funds and energy consumers, at a time of considerable economic pain.
57
well a bit poorer, Didnt Mike have a cold shower over the VP picks
59 Today programme this morning reported that 120 Labour MPs were signed up to the idea of a windfall tax. It took 140 Labour MPs to force the 10p tax concessions.
55. Sean Fear: Electorally, it doesn’t really matter if people are enthusiastic about the Conservatives or not, so long as people are prepared to vote for them, and to vote against the government.
Exactly what I thought when the supposed “lack of enthusiasm” was rolled out as the Official Labour Spin Line on 1st May. Comforting to know Roger’s still repeating it though.
61 - it makes an interesting point about Brown’s leadership not being simply an “internal party issue”. It is entirely feasible that Labour are doing themselves long term damage, simply by the fact that they refuse to take steps to remove him. The public may not accept that the decision is purely one of electoral arithmetic. He is not just Labour leader. He is also Prime Minister.
62, “a tax on pension funds” - surely making it more likely that Brown, Taxer of Pensions, could end up capitulating?
Its pretty certain zanulab will loose the next election big time.
The real risk the longer it goes on with Brown on top, the chances of a 1993 Progressive Conservative party disappearing act gets greater
Facts
Before election 169 seats out of 295 seat parliament
After 2 seats
Sorry, missed out the Canada reference
62 - the latter is at least open to question though isn’t it? Obviously there is no justification if there is no windfall. But if there is, then there is no certainty that it would be passed on to consumers.
On the Populus poll…
I had a look at the full tables - their weighted totals for “how did you vote last time” are Con 292 (32.2%), Lab 348 (38.4%), LD 193 (21.3%), Oth 73 (8.1%) (percentages excluding Ref/DK/don’t know (and how can you not know?))
Actual vote last time was Con 32.4%, Lab 35.2%, LD 22.0%, Oth 10.4% - therefore it looks like Labour may well still be being over-sampled.
We need a number of Labour MP’s to announce they are leaving the Party to sit as independents. I can see that happening. Maybe the weekend before the Labour conference?
With the obvious proviso that i know little about the workings of the energy market, logically surely the Energy companies should be facing pressure from rising costs which they don’t want to pass on to their customers to remain competitive? Yet they are making record profits.
I think Toynbee et al are missing the increasingly obvious endgame here…
What do the following Prime Ministers all have in common? Blair, Wilson, Macmillan, Eden, Churchill, Chamberlain, Baldwin, MacDonald, Bonar Law, Asquith, Campbell-Bannerman, Balfour, Salisbury?
Answer: they all relinquished the Premiership more or less voluntarily, many on health grounds…
That’s a lot of Prime Ministers, the vast majority in fact. Since 1900, only Lloyd-George, Attlee, Douglas-Home, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher and Major have not taken the option of choosing the manner of their going…
I have said for some time that I expect Brown to join those 13 previous PM’s in the first group. Moreover, from Labour’s point of view, it would be by far the best option. The sense of relief would be palpable across the nation. No-one likes to see another human being in pain night after night on their TV…
Labour would undoubtedly get a bounce, and if that bounce could be timed judiciously, the next election could suddenly be competitive.
That’s why I expect Brown to struggle on until early 2010, and bow to the inevitable. It is not in the interests of the young turks to bring him down; it’s damn near impossible, anyhow, under Labour’s rules, without causing the implosion of the government…
Rather, their best hope is to ensure the succession of an elderly replacement, with presentational skills, and crucially, not another Blair/Cameron/Clegg clone. The latter criterion alone rules out Miliband at the moment…
It’s looking increasingly like Alan Johnson to me. He ticks all the right boxes, and ticks no wrong ones. And from Labour’s perspective, the lower the current profile of the successor the better…
This Energy malarky is an horrendous own goal for Gordon he should never have allowed expectations to rise. Of course we should not raid Company dividends as that would stuff the pension funds yet again. The absurdity is that the Government’s own Warmfront scheme is a fantastic initiative and is tremendously popular and well received, it’s about time they blew their own trumpet for a change instead of all this infighting.
71 - technical point, but those were the UK results, not the GB results.
74 - Yeah but most of them were actually ill.
71 — last digit randomisation naturally oversamples Labour supporters. However, those are weighted figures so should be correct.
74. Yes, but you miss the point well-made by Matthew Parris - how much damage will this haplessly self-destructive and gruesomely inept prime minister do, in the meantime - both to his party and his country?
The shivering, credit-crunched public may not look kindly on Brown being allowed to struggle on, with his fatuous relaunches and U-turns and policy reversals, just so he can “retire with dignity” in 2010, and give Labour a better chance of retaining seats during some ensuing “honeymoon”.
The public might easily punish Labour even MORE for such vacillation and selfishness. And of course throughout these putative twilight years we will see more Labour infighting, as the struggle for Brown’s succession is played out, in full view, over many long bloody months.
In fact your scenario might just be the Worst Possible for Labour.
Who knows?
Heh.
62: Agreed. Also, at a time of companies relocating abroad, I would add that this could actually have a negative effect.
I am constantly amnazed that leftists judge the effect of tax rises by assuming that the only thing which wil change is the tax levied, and that the decision to levy will in itself have no effect on the behaviour of affected parties. E.g. if 1 million cigarette packets are sold per day (a guess!) then raising the tax by 10 p per pack will raise £10K, a lefty would think. But actually, there comes a point where the tax is so big that law abiding citizens buy smuggled fags off a bloke in the pub, or go to Calais once every 6 months, or give up, etc. etc. So net tax take will not be £100K, may even go down.
Same in the windfall tax case I would say. Own goals almost weekly now from this shower…
76. Why the “but” ?
79 Aaarghh 100K clearly!
New Labour came in on a wave of populism. There was great hope about them, so the story goes. And there was. Look back. I was only 12 at the time but even I was excited at least until my Dad told me he didn’t trust Blair at all and I think he also said he thought Blair was vain.
But, on hope, where is the great hope with the Tories? How many would line the streets to touch the hand of David Cameron? Major was a dead duck in 1997 but people really did think Blair and New Labour had something special about them. That is where I think Roger is right, that the Tories don’t have that at all.
However, I do think Cameron is becoming more ‘popular’ (in the rather vague and insecure sense of the personal poll rating, which can change very quickly, especially with somebody who not many people really *know*.). I also think Brown could claw back some ground but there is absolutely no sign that he will, which is where I think Roger relies on sheer hope. In terms of sheer poll numbers, the best bet is probably Harman, although that thought does makes me cringe.
80 - I mean most of them weren’t just using it “illness” as a convenient excuse. So suggesting that Brown will follow suit and step down because of “illness”, requires him to actually develop an illness that we don’t know about.
82. Oh fer f***s sake.
TONY BLAIR, AT THE HEIGHT OF HIS POPULARITY, GOT FEWER VOTES THAN JOHN MAJOR.
How many times do we have to restate this? Yes Blair energised some Labour people, he made parts of the media swoon, but in the real test of public opinion, ACTUAL NUMBER OF VOTES, he got FEWER than John Major in 1992.
Sorry guys, but you weren’t “swept in on a wave of populism”, you were swept in on a wave of Tory unpopularity.
And as for people “lining the streets to touch the hand of Tony”. Urrgggcchhhh. Can someone nudge the puke-bucket my way? Thanks.
82: The tories were tired and jaded in 1997, no-one had any enthusiasm for them. Labour got in, eveyrone was hopeful, a new start, fresh ideas etc etc. Now they are a busted flush. But there is no NEW party to turn to, only the option of going back to the tories. They have changed, but the difference between Blairites and Militant was far greater than the difference between Cameron and Thatcherites.
So no surprise there is a lesser degree of enthusiasm for the tories. People have a deeply cynical view of politicians, the NuLab thing has shown them that there is no magical cohort of politicians who will be “different this time” it’s the same old same old. People will choose the least worst option, which given the dire state of Labour, will be the tories.
A fair question would be why on earth the Lib Dems have utterly failed to generate any enthusiasm for THEM.
78. I hadn’t read Parris’ article before I posted. Interesting that he’s tipping Johnson, though…
The problem with Polly, Jackie, and all the rest, is that they so utterly believe in the NuLab mission to defeat the Tories that they cant see the problem is far beyond just Gordon.
This was put best and clearest by Alistair Campbell himself on Newsnight just a couple of days ago. He repeatedly said that the entire Labour Party needed to stop navel gazing and up its game to fight the Tories.
He is right. But even if Labour does that, it still wont be ahead of the Tories - we will just be back into hung parliament territory with the Tories getting more votes.
In this economic situation, it simply doesnt matter which leader Labour have.
82 - That suits the Tories though. One of the things that Blair constantly had to fight against (although often self generated - “end world poverty”?) was the idea that he could achieve anything.
No undue expectations = less disappointment. The only people who are really going to be disappointed are those on the right looking for big tax cuts when in the short term taxes will probably rise. (Boris has just put up fares by 10%).
83. Do you think Brown is well, either physically, psychologically or spiritually?
How long has Jeremy Clarkson been writing a column for the Sun?
His latest offering is scathing of modern Britain.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/clarkson/article1655505.ece
89 - I haven’t a clue. Are you his doctor?
82. Robert Gomm: There was great hope about them, so the story goes. And there was.
And Labour would probably be better off now if there hadn’t been, as the public wouldn’t feel so betrayed.
75. alex: technical point, but those were the UK results, not the GB results.
Yes, that’s true - silly mistake! The GB figures were 33.2%-36.2%-22.6%-7.9%. So Con being undersampled by 1%, Labour undersampled by 2.2%, LD undersampled by 1.3%, Oth oversampled by 0.2%.
77. John L: last digit randomisation naturally oversamples Labour supporters.
Maybe I’m being dim this morning (as my GB/UK error might show!), but I can’t see why that should be.
82. There is an element of “once bitten, twice shy” in the way we look at politicians. One of the problems with Blair is that he raised expectations so high and then in many areas made such little delivery that most of the electorate has much diminished expectations of what any government / leader can realistically achieve.
The Labour Party conference, will be where the fateful decision will be made. Can the Labour Party do what the Tories have been the past masters of, the political assassination. The history of the Labour Party is against it, but there’s a first time for everything.
The man to watch, Jack Straw, (the Vicar of Bray) one of that strange breed of politicians, you can’t quite work out how he got to where he got, and having got there you can’t quite work out how he managed to stay there.
73. The energy companies are essentially a cartel, there’s enough business for all of them. The differences are marginal, switching may be cost effective, but for most consumers, they can’t be bothered.
When privitized the energy companies were able to exploit a flaw, there was no buffer between them and the customer. The regulator was unlikely to argue against them passing on oil price rises to the customer.
There is a solution, to go from a totally liberalised market to a hybrid one.
The energy transmission system both gas and electricity to be taken into public ownership, its cash neutral anway, (isn’t allowed to make a profit) so it being in private hands is irrelevant.
The energy transmission system, (National Grid Transco) would then in effect buy energy from the gas suppliers and power stations via a bidding system, cheapest bids first. Those bids would be strictly confidential, so no supplier would know what the other was bidding. Any attempt to rig or game the market would be treated as a serious fraud.
The energy would then be sold on to the energy companies at a declared price per KWH. That declared price would be placed on the website of National Gird Transco, with the prices per KWH that the energy companies are selling to their customers alongside. The consumer could then see at a glance who was offering the best deal.
A system similar to that F.A.B.S (Flexibility and Balancing System) was tried out with some success, it was not liked by the energy companies, I think, because it didn’t allow them to exploit their market dominance.
70. Energy companies aren’t popular. But in the current political climate, I think they’d find it pretty easy to pass the pain onto consumers and blame the government.
88. Yes, it’s surely an advantage that people have low expectations of you.
86. Parris is always tipping Johnson. He wrote a big thinkpiece before Brown was coronated, saying “I’ve seen the future of politics, and its a postie called Alan” (or words to that effect).
Not sure why he has this idee fixe. Johnson seems a pleasant, harmless enough specimen to me. But the man to save Labour’s bacon? Nope.
Peter Mandelson. He’s the man. Charming, incorruptible, widely admired, beloved by the party, witty and personable, with that down to earth feel, that certain folksiness.
Either him or Keith Vaz. Or maybe Jordan.
Think outside the box, guys!
Has Polly admitted yet that GB was an awful chancellor? Or is that still a step too far?
I don’t think Balfour should be on your list, btw. Nor Asquith or Chamberlain.
94 You could be sure that under such a system, the government would be looking to make a profit. It would be the ideal stealth tax.
Off-topic: Hanna could still be tropical storm strength if she makes landfall in western Ireland or western Scotland around Wednesday:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at3+shtml/031309.shtml?5day#contents
I don’t think the labour party knows what it needss. They have a whole bunch of wants, they want to stay in power, they want to beat the tories (big one that) etc etc. But how to do it is beyond their grasp. Do they keep Gordon and hope for the best?Well, so far this hasn’t worked. Replace him? The polls show no-one else would be much more popular, and the electorate wouldn’t be too happy at the high PM turnover rate. A lot of people call out Alan Johnsons name, however he’s never really been put in a position of power before, and whenever I’ve seen him on question time when put under pressure he tends to start rambling or use the Brown tactic of ignoring the question. His normal bloke on the street persona is good, however whereas Roger etc are obsessd with Cameron’s class and background, and they would love to make the comparisons between them, the electorate don’t care.
82, 85, 88 - I don’t believe that there was any widespread heady enthusiasm for Labour before the 1997 election. After the 1997 election, Labour’s polling improved markedly. From the election in 1997 to April 2000, Labour polled below 50% with MORI just once (and that was 49%):
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/content/turnout/voting-intention-in-great-britain-all.ashx#1997
That suggests that people were pleasantly surprised once they took office.
As alex notes, it would actually suit the Tories to be elected without any great enthusiasm. That would be the most damaging thing for Labour of all, since the Tories would have set themselves a low bar to clear.
84 - seanT: Settle down, sir. I’m not a Labour voter or supporter, except that brief moment in 1997. I have a healthy disdain for Blair, in truth. I wasn’t saying it was a good thing to touch hands with Tony but that people did it, underlining his popularity. Secondly, the Major vs. Kinnock battle dragged people out of their houses and to the ballot box. Blair vs. Major was a whitewash. Every knew the result before it happened. So, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, just looking at the popular vote does not determine that John Major in 1992 was more popular than Tony Blair in 1997.
85 - Jonc: Totally agree about the Lid Dems. I voted for them in 2005 but I’m unlikely to vote for Clegg. They are offer surprisingly little considering they are actually very well placed to inspire people that they are different from the other two parties.
99
No! the regulator would be in effective control, with the right to examine all the operational data on a day-to-day basis. And to ensure that no unfair costs were passed on to the companies within the energy price.
The reason the transmission system should not be in private hands, is to prevent a take over by companies, (certaily foreign ones) of such an important national asset.
The only time a government exploited the ‘Public’ energy system, was when the then Minister of Energy David Howell, (under pressure from the Oil companies) forced British Gas to raise gas prices by 9% above the rate of inflation for four years, 198/84 and took that money in the gas levy: that would not be allowed.
98. Possibly they are special cases, but they all tendered their seals of office, when they might have carried on…
Interesting “no hope this autumn for GB” article in the FT.:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/078557c2-7b68-11dd-b839-000077b07658.html
One point Polly makes is that the Labour party is dying. Not in a slump, it is dying. Its membership is declining at 7% pa. That is almost twice the rate of the LDs and 3 times the rate of decline of the Conservatives.
Since 1997 Labour has lost 250,000 members and now has less than 160,000 (NEC July 08 elections). At 2010’s GE it will have died down to 140,000.
I agree that it would help the Tories to be elected without their being a clamour for it. I do think, however, that the current situation makes their poll lead potentially vulnerable. I say potentially, because as long as Brown continues as he is, the Tories are totally safe.
94 coldstone I agree that Jack Straw is the one to watch but he seems to be particularly spineless. Someone who lacks the substance to strike out but just hitches to someone else’s bandwagon.
107. All parties are dying. Politics is dying, in fact. No-one cares enough, and they know that the mainstream parties are just three heads of the same hydra…
LS @ 92 — last digit randomisation oversamples Labour supporters because … phone numbers are not assigned randomly, and nor are houses.
Imagine a marginal constituency with equal numbers of rich and poor households. The leafy suburb at the rich end of town has numbers starting 888 and the council estate starts 777.
Now, you are a polling company. You leaf through the phone book writing down the first telephone number on each page. This gives you equal numbers of 777 and 888 numbers. You randomise the last digit in order to include ex-directory numbers in your poll. You still have equal numbers of (poor) 777 numbers and (rich) 888 ones, so all is well.
That is why the telephone polling companies (which basically means ICM) use this procedure.
But it doesn’t work because rich people are more likely to be ex-directory than poor people, so the phone book includes more 777 than 888 numbers even though there are really just as many out there in the constituency. Your initial sweep through the phone book will thus select too many 777 numbers, and randomising the final digit will not change a 777 number into an 888 one.
Oh, and poor people are more likely to be Labour supporters, and rich people more likely to vote Conservative.
That is why last digit randomisation finds too many Labour voters.
103. “Every knew the result before it happened. So, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, just looking at the popular vote does not determine that John Major in 1992 was more popular than Tony Blair in 1997.”
“Counter-intuitive” is so often used as a synonym for “I’m talking bollocks”.
If people loved Blair in 1997 that much they’d have turned out to vote for him in their zillions - certainly in greater numbers than they did for Major. They didn’t. End of argument.
I actually think antifrank is more percipient. It is possible people were pleasantly surprised by New Labour in the first coupla years after 97; so, if Labour were at any time really “liked” - it is probably then: 97-99, when they were in their honeymoon, and before the Dome and the first whiff of sleaze. And at a time when people were still very happy to be rid of the Tories.
After 2000 the initial gentle decline kicked in, leading to the weak winning vote of 2001, etc etc
I also take the sensible point, made by several people upthread, that New Labour’s tragedy might have done the Tories a favour. Labour promised so much yet delivered so little, mere competence and no illegal wars would probably keep the Tories in office for the next couple of terms. People expecting less is actually helpful.
How many movies have been tarnished by hype?
Bloggers on this board regularly comment on the high quality of debate here and contrast it to the scurrilous comments on Guido’s board.
Yet you allow at post 12 a comment which compares a Downs Syndrome baby to a cabbage. Pot and kettles.
From that Parris article. Sums it up for the Labour MPs. It is all about the future of the Labour party, not about their short term prospects. Labour MP thinking is = “Yes but no but yes but no but…..”
“The Parliamentary Labour Party, the party nationwide and the trade union movement, should be asking themselves how the 20 months ahead are going to look to an emerging generation and to history.”
Further to 84 - Agree with SeanT.
No one could argue that Tony Blair changed Labour into a credible and election winning machine by 1997 and they won an emphatic victory of course.But…..
As I have said before, the choreographed “common people” touching the hem of Tony’s cloth in Downing Street on May 2nd 1997 were hand picked Labour appartchik’s organised by that great paragon of integrity and honesty Alistair Campbell. Artifice was always there -from the very beginning.
Brown is unloved simply because he is so unlovable. He comes across as a psychologically flawed dithering embarrassment, at a time when the country is really feeling the strain and requires strong leadership.
By not knifing him, Labour MPs demonstrate their complete lack of altruism and regard for the country. Many will eventually lose their jobs, and it is that alone that they are focussed on. They care only about themselves, the country have seen this, and the Party is finished.
Toynbee is perhaps kidding herself if she believes that a change in leadership will make a permanent difference, although there is bound to be some sort of relief bounce following Brown’s departure. She was possibly inspired to write today’s piece in recognition of the fact that time is running out to hold the inevitable autumn election that would follow Brown’s replacement.
110
I was fed up with political parties, until Caroline Lucas became leader of the Green’s (surprised this has received so little comment) At last! a party I could get into bed with.
113
Whoops sorry I’ve lowered the tone.
107 Conservative party membership has fallen almost as fast as Labour since 2001 despite a temporary boost at the time Cameron was elected leader .
116 - Maybe there is also an element of Shakespeare in Labour’s and Brown’s predicament - which has been picked up by Stephen Carter.
Having bundled Blair out the door and imposed by a de facto putsch Gordon Brown, Labour are acutely aware of a lack of moral or electoral authority and legitimacy and this leads to a fundamental questioning of their political self belief and ideological coherence - and maybe even self loathing?
102 - antifrank: Labour were voted in on 44% but the went through the whole of 1995 and 1996 on 50% plus. So the Tories made a late fight back as in 1992, except that this time they were too far behind. They presumably anchored some people tempted by Labour to voting Tory as usual in the campaign. Labour then returned to and even exceeded their pre-campaign poll ratings. That, to me, seems like a fairly heady populism.
Brown and New Labour’s leader games are not the news, just theatre. This is the real news -
The financial crisis looks as serious as any the UK has seen since the second world war. The fall in house prices may yet prove very severe. If household savings were to rise swiftly and substantially, a deep recession would ensue, generating a large expansion in the fiscal deficit. This could well result in a further loss of confidence in sterling liabilities. That, in turn, could generate a bigger run on the pound and a jump in long-term interest rates. This combination might even force the MPC to raise rates. Collapses in financial institutions could then reduce fragile confidence still further.
This then is the nightmare. What such possibilities demonstrate is how vital it is to retain confidence in the UK. A weak government is a risk. Any policies it introduces must avoid undermining confidence in the UK’s policy regime and, above all, its commitment to monetary stability and fiscal sustainability. The prime minister knows that, as must the chancellor. They must be seen to keep their heads, even if nobody else does.
Written by Martin Wolf in the FT two days ago.
Alistair Darling has already lost his head (irritated by Brown no doubt). For the sake of the economy, not the polls, Brown and Darling had better hang on for now…and keep their mouths shut, except to offer reassurance.
Obama lawsuit gradually gaining attention…
http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20109071&BRD=1672&PAG=461&dept_id=33380&rfi=6
I’m in a minority as a Tory who actualy rather likes the BBC.
The BBC however knows that many on the right (some of whom may soon be in positions of some influence) consider it so institutionally biased that it is beyond redemption and has to be scraped (sorry I mean “reformed”).
So what do we get in the way of impartial current affairs coverage on the Today programme this morning? The want to know what the public “really” think of Gordon Brown. So they ask a Poetry Group in Dulwich Library.
That some BBC current affairs editor believes the political temperature of the British people can be gauged from a group of poets in a public library in the London Borough of Lambeth demonstrates to me that they either have no idea of the threat they face from angry incoming Tories or that they have already decided the game is up.
For the sake of those of us who would rather that there still was a BBC in 10 years time I hope they soon realise that there is a Britain beyond the readership of the Guardian.
Aren’t we all missing the point? Rusty Brown will not only face electoral humiliation in May/June, but the embarrassment-of-riches in April[?].
Personally I can’t wait until MP’s expenses are published, not least if it occurs in the midst of a technical and/or NBER recession. It will be great fun to see the reaction to the old and new Brotherhood of Labour excess of largesse whilst people are struggling to pay debts, fuel-bills, food - oh, and their taxes!
105 - I don’t think Chamberlain had any choice…
Oh and Campbell-bannerman didn’t last 2 weeks, so couldn’t have carried on for long!
I wouldn’t say that Balfour, Asquith or Chamberlain left “at a time of their choosing”
Balfour lost office because although he had a stonking majority, he and his government were seriously unpopular and he feared a caning at the polls - so he resigned office as a tactic to damage the Opposition, forcing them to choose between a snap election (for which they were woefully unprepared, and might be blamed by the electorate for an unnecessary election) or governing as a seriously minor minority.
As a ruse, it turned out to really suck (see 1906 Liberal Landslide …).
Asquith was forced out by Lloyd-George - he couldn’t really be said to have “gone at a time of his choosing”.
Chamberlain left because of the vote of confidence over Norway - he’d lost the House (despite actually winning the vote) and he knew it.
Illness:
Campbell-Bannerman
Bonar Law
MacDonald
Eden*
Macmillan
Wilson
At a time of their choosing:
Salisbury
Baldwin
Churchill**
Blair***
Forced out, pressured out or voted out:
Balfour
Lloyd-George
Chamberlain
Attlee****
Douglas-Home****
Heath****
Callaghan****
Thatcher
Major****
* - Would have been forced out if not genuinely ill
** - Under sustained pressure from Edenfor at least 2 or 3 years and if it had been genuinely his choice, would at least have stayed on for the next election
*** - Under sustained pressure from Brown for many years
**** - Actually voted out by the electorate
1984=2008: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/06/dl0602.xml
Sorry if this has already been posted, but the latest ComRes/Independent poll finds that voters think only Tony Blair could save Labour;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/only-blair-could-save-labour-now-920805.html
I bet the tea cups are flying in Downing St. this morning!
seanT @ 84: “[Blair] made parts of the media swoon”.
Ah yes, the media.
The Conservatives’ latest policy announcement: inheritance tax allowance up to £2 million.
Is that aimed at attracting disillusioned Labour voters who have had enough of being spied on and pushed around by various public sector jobsworths? Labour voters who must cut back on food and clothes in the face of high inflation and job insecurity? But at least they’ll be able to pass on two million quid to their sons and heirs.
Or is it aimed at television journalists and national newspaper columnists who do own large houses and perhaps a buy-to-let flat or three? Methinks young Cameron is after buying the opinion formers.
@129:
The great unhosed have alarmingly short memories, isn’t it.
121: “Labour were voted in on 44% but the went through the whole of 1995 and 1996 on 50% plus. So the Tories made a late fight back as in 1992, except that this time they were too far behind.”
Assuming the polls were right in that era, and not overstating Labour.
94 That’s a possible idea - the energy market is obviously not competitive, or in a situation with rising raw materieal prices they’d be fighting each other tooth and nail for business, undercutting each other, making smaller profits or even indeed losses. When was the last time an energy retailer went bust?
What we need is for Mr Branson to see the opportunity for a killing and undercut everyone else by 20%, but I expect market entry barriers are too high these days.
Top slicing profits is not obviously a good way to go, in fact it would just paper over the cracks as the underlying market failure would remain. In fact I would imagine that energy company executives wouldn’t mind too much - it would hurt their shareholders, not them, and would enable them to carry on their bad old ways.
At the very least we need a Competition Commission referral.
96 If they want a postie for PM they could do worse than pick mine, she’s certainly more photogenic than Alan Johnson. Unfortunately I wasn’t at my best when I answered the door this morning as I’d just got out of bed, so that’s probably blown my chances. However I must try to order more stuff on line for home delivery…
@132:
The polls always overstated Labour. Probably still do, if our genial host is to be believed.
Which, of course, he is.
110 Rod Crosby. The key fact is that Labour is dying at a much faster rate than the other parties.
Regarding the 7% rate of decline for Labour is actually closer to 7.9% and in past 12 months it has been 10%.
131. Yes, I remember within a few months of Maggie being forced out, a vocal minority started saying she should come back.
Just think, two years into a Cameron government, people will probably be saying; Come back Gordon Brown! :O
And so it continues….
135 Conservative Party membership fell by over 10% in 2007 partly attributable to the steep increase in membership fees to £ 25 .
133
Imagine a windfall tax : many of the companies are foreign owned. They do not give a stuff about UK politics -except as far as it offset profits. they do have a problem if their own Governments see a windfall tax working in the UK: as they will copy it.
So I fully expect them to implement a price rise to reclaim losses from a windfall tax. That is allowable under pricing rules - recovery of an increased cost. And everyone else follows…
Politically it would be devastating for Labour.
My suspicion is that is why there is no such tax.
Looking at the polling position and assuming that the Tories are ahead solely or mainly because Labour are in trouble is the wrong was around.
We have had eleven years of Labour government because the alternative was the Tories. Not because Labour were so popular. This motivation has become weaker as time goes on as the voting figures seanT quotes demonstrate.
Now the Tories are electable again this trend has continued has continued into positive territory for a Tory advantage.
129
Its irrelevant
Blair isnt coming back and I don’t believe it either, its misremembering the halcyon days of 1997.
Its not true because people are so desperate to get rid of Brown, they would say anything.
The real point is where we are now. No one in the Labour Party is strong enough to make a difference, that’s why the cabinet is so weak
138 - What happened in 1997?
112 - seanT: What you are seriously arguing is that Major in 1992 was more popular than Blair in 1997. I think that’s nuts. But then, hey, maybe your argument is counter-intuitive to me.
129 The Independent seems to be hiding the top-level voting figures now, along with the Times recently. Granted they’re not that interesting
Conservative 44% (-2)
Labour 25% (+1)
Lib Dem 17% (-1)
Others 14% (+2)
The most interesting is probably Others +2% to what must be a high 14% but they’re all pretty much unchanged within normal error rates.
Testing, testing
Anyway, 142 - media wise Blair was far, far more popular than Major, but Major got the more actual votes.
Labour must really be in trouble if Blair is seen as the saviour again. Kind of like the Tories were in about 1995 when many of them genuinely wanted the return of Thatcher.
119 Senior rubbish. In 2000 Lab had 311,000 and Conservatives 302,000.
In 2005 C = 253,600 Lab = 1980,00. (published data) So not at the same rate!
2008 Lab = 158,868 and C (probably) = 235,000.
142,112.
One could just as well posit the argument that Major did so well in 1992 only because a significant number of people turned out simply to block Kinnock, who they couldn’t stomach…
141
Wasn’t 1997 the year that Gordo’s first wheeze screwed 5 billion out of pension schemes annually by removing dividend relief ?
A disastrous decision the effects of which have been catastrophic for pension schemes.
112
Illegal wars not according to SP:-
Her religious beliefs extend to a conviction that the Iraq war is God’s will. When she returned to Wasilla in June to pray with her old congregation, she said of the troops being posted to Iraq, including her own son, Track: “Our national leaders are sending them out on a task from God. We have to pray there is a plan and that it’s God’s plan.”
And I do hope you don’t have any of your books in an Alaskan library ‘cos they’ll be on the pyre toot-sweet!!
132 - Richardr: Point taken, thank you.
Well, I didn’t expect Brown to be any good. But surely no-one, not Cameron, not even Alan Milburn or Clarles Clarke, expected him to be as totally disastrous (for Labour) as he has been.
143. Yes, I’m surprised the Indy didn’t make more out of those voting intention numbers considering this is the first poll to be conducted post Brown Relaunch! Shows no movement at all (or what there is is all within the margin for error) People clearly very unmoved by Browns fightback!
142. What I’m saying, quite clearly, is that you are wrong to believe Labour was swept into power on a tide of popularity and love, a time when people yearned to “touch the hands of Tony”.
Because the only real measure we can have of this alleged love is the votes cast - as that’s how voters express themselves. And Blair got fewer votes than Major.
Given that no one in their right minds would claim Major was “loved”, then the same goes for Blair. I’ll happily admit that Tony Blair was liked, in the first couple of years - but no more than that; Tony Blair was also a clever and deft politician who capitalised very well on serious and ongoing Tory unpopularity.
Anyway we’re now going in circles like cider addled rustics at a barn dance. Enuff!
Back OFF topic, I’ve finally watched the Palin speech. Pretty impressive, with immaculate timing. The Dems have a real fight on their hands. I think Palin could REALLY mop up the female vote.
53. Marquee Mark, I think you have it spot on there. Brown will hang on like grim death hoping for a miracle.
SeanT’s post @30 is indeed excellent - except its very unfair to girls.
147 I think that has been overplayed. It removed an arguably unfair double tax advantage for those who happened to save through pensions. Had it happened at a time when pensions were strong, I think it would have just been a known additional cost which would have just reduced the return by a known amount. However coupled with the demographic timebomb, falls in investment returns and changes to accounting rules, it certainly didn’t help. Plus of course all those companies who took contributions holidays when times were good, rather than building up reserves. However, I think pensions would be in pretty much the same mess if the tax relief thing hadn’t happened - I think it made a quantitative difference whereas there has been a qualitative step-change in pensions over the last 10 years.
I meant to refer 149 of course.
153. Yes he will, but I don’t think he will lead Labour over the cliff. He’ll duck that, at the last moment…
He won’t want to be bracketed for all time with Ramsay MacDonald as Labour’s most disastrous leader…
114 - Charlotte Corday.
Only just logged in, and had missed that until you raised it. It has been changed - apologies.
141 Politically, Labour were in a position to impose a windfall tax in 1997, without suffering unpopularity. Now, they’re not. Unless you take the view they’re so unpopular already, that nothing they do now is going to make any difference.
145 Most likely, Conservative membership will have risen slightly by the end of this year.
144: Major got more votes than Blair but a lower proportion of the total vote.
Swiped, hook line a sinker from CIF, but which articulates my thoughts of Polly and her latest volte-face more ably than I ever could.
“All that matters to Polly Toynbee is that Labour remains in power. If they have to jettison the man she was lauding a year ago, so be it. Just as long as Labour is in charge. Stuff the economy. Stuff the electorate. Stuff more than half a millennium of painfully and incrementally achieved freedoms which Labour have overturned in just a decade.
Understand this, Polly. Outside a pathological fringe, nobody wants your government. Nobody cares that you’re desperately trying to save face, having committed yourself to an adulthood of shoring up a party and an ideology that’s ended up doing more damage to Britain in 11 years than any other party or ideology in recorded history. Nobody wants your government. We don’t care if Brown is leader. Or Miliband, or Balls, or Harman, or Blears. These are not competent or honorable or even very nice people. They’ve smashed the country, and they have to go. And by God, they will. “
Hat Tip ‘Snake Farmer’
144 Actually that’s the figures compared with the last ComRes figures for the Indy a little over a month ago. Compared with the more recent ComRes/Sindy poll it’s as follows:
Conservative 44% (-2)
Labour 25% (No change)
Lib Dem 17% (+1)
Others 14% (presumably +1)
153 - seanT: Ha, I really shouldn’t have evoked the image of people touching the hand of Tony! Makes me queasy as well.
153
I’m amazed at you seant I really am, surely what Palins shows quite convincingly is that there is no connection between British Conservatism (what ever that is) and its American counterpart.
Someone like yourself, with your Libertarian (Libertine ?) lifestyle would be looked on by them as the ,’Devil Incarnate’
Cameron’s endorsment of, ‘Social Liberalism’ gay marriages etc. has severed any links that existed between the Republicans and the British Conservatives.
The detailed data is on the Comres website with voting figures for Labour with a number of different leaders to Brown , Johnson , Balls and Harman would all give a worse result , Milliband and Straw an identical result . Only Blair would improve Labour’s position to 41/31/18/10
156 - There was no double tax advantage. Investment income, on which pension schemes can no longer recoup Advance Corporation Tax, will in due course be paid out as pension, which will be taxed. You might argue that the ability to take a tax free lump sum at retirement is an anomaly, but to introduce a new anomaly rather than abolish that one was to risk other consequences, consequences that have indeed come to pass.
One immediate change that it stimulated was a change in actuarial practice in valuing pension schemes. Actuaries used to value pension scheme liabilities by reference to future income streams. Following the scrapping of Advance Corporation Tax, actuaries moved en masse to a market basis of valuation so that their clients wouldn’t find that the value of their income stream had just gone down by 20%. That was fine in a bull market, but with a 53% drop in equities between 2000 and 2003, it proved catastrophic in the medium term. Pension schemes would still be facing serious problems now, but if ACT had not been scrapped, the discounted rate of income basis of valuation would have survived, smoothing the funding needs of pension schemes and leaving their sponsoring employers much better placed.
119 Not really a fair comparison - the rules have changed as has the cost of membership so you are not comparing like with like. Not everyone increased their DD and as result some people who are still ‘on board’ and paying in money, do not show up as official members.
Labour are incapable of realising the problem is themselves.
As a Party
And with their Party Policies.
So instead they heap it all on Gordon.
The man is a joke as a Leader… BUT they KNEW he would be.
The man is lost ..and incapable of winning versus Cameron… but they KNEW he would be.
So it’s not Brown’s fault. It is the mindset and thinking of the PARTY. Including Polly. And Straw and all the Cabinet. and MPs.
That’s why there will be no insurrection.
They are in denial.
Admitting you are wrong on Gordon means they have to consider their POLICIES as well may be wrong.
The Labour Party are in denial…and if they do open Pandora’s box and admit wrong things will deteriorate from here.
I still expect them to poll sub 20%. Next year when unemployment and house repossessions start in earnest.
163. The trend for Labour and particularly the LibDems is suggestive of a slight decline, with the Tories holding steady…
Sorry Mark..at 168 hadn’t seen your 138.
Harperson’s intervention in Labour’s slide into oblivion is not seismic of itself as she is not a heavyweight inside or outside the Labour party, but it suggests like Milliband she is positioning herself away from the current government’s ‘conversation with the country’.
Put it into the context of the unions making threats to Brown about windfall taxes and cash help for fuel bills, while being the only financial support the party now has, and you can see the ferrets fighting for position post-Brown.
They all seem to expect regicide but also expect someone else to do it.
Clarke won’t do it, nor the Blairites, so who do they think will do it for them?
165. Rubbish. I think Cameron’s liberal conservatism is pretty close to McCain’s maverick Republicanism.
But its hard to make comparisons between American and British politics anyway. Obama is pro death penalty, supports gun owners, and wants to bomb Pakistan if necessary. Not exactly the Guardian, is it?
Moreover, if you look again, you’ll see I wasn’t commenting on Palin’s views. Just pointing out that she put in a terrific performance, for a debutante, and will I think cause problems for the Dems.
I still think Obama’s gonna win, but the fight looks a lot lot harder than it did a month ago.
@165:
Not entirely, Coldstone. The Conservative Party still has its social conservative wing, just as does Labour. It’s just that, in these enlightened times, they’re not in the ascendant.
I suspect that a significantly higher proportion of Labour’s front bench are homosceptic than the Tory one these days.
@173:
I take his point, though, Sean. I am a Conservative (UK-ly speaking), but my mere existence would be considered an abomination by much of the GOP evangelical hardcore.
However, I think that many people tend to overestimate the size and influence of the evangelical base, simply because they whine the loudest.
Rumour from Friends in the North, Fraser Kemp MP may be standing down at the next election.
153 - seanT: Latest on Palin and the female vote posted here yesterday by Phillipe Magnan - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama_mccain
“She earns positive reviews from 65% of men and 52% of women. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that Obama continues to lead McCain among women voters while McCain leads among men.”
It looks like Biden is going on the attack - and not before time. This could make for some very effective ads.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/5/205019/2546/402/588435
Also - Stephen Harper looks set to ask for a dissolution of the Canadian House of Commons tomorrow. The Conservatives are plastering the airwaves with ads before campaign spending limits kick in.
176. It’s not just a rumour. It’s on the local paper today with his declaration to stand down and him thanking the CLP, the party, Labour’s record and blah, blah, blah
169 - hope you’re right on Labour polling sub 20% at the 2009 local elections with GB still in place. Personally I don’t see it - 22 or 23% perhaps. What would be really good would be a fundamental realignment on the left of British politics - we didn’t get it in 1997 thanks to Blair, but if we get it after the next election it will be a small mercy compared to what Britain has got to put up with this shower of a government until May 2010.
Benezir Bhutto’s widower elected President of Pakistan.
173 The connection between British and American politics which has always been tenous, is now non-existant. Most British voters would feel uncomfortable, with the sort of views expressed by particularly the evangelical right, some of whom are the direct descendents of, ‘John of Leyden’
175.
Homophobia will exist in all political parties, as will racism, but I think the Labour Party, (particularly Ken Livingstone) did a little more to ensure that homosexuals were able to admit to their sexuality without the fear that they used to have, than did the Tories.
COMRES Poll/Indy still a low base of 1013 of whom only 60% responded positively and were likely to vote. Surely too small a sample.
Scottish figures (base of 49!!!) show SNP 21%, Lab 37%, Cons 25%, LD 6%. So are the figures for Others worth any credence?
Others for the GB (NI is not included) are BNP3%, Green 2%, SNP 2%, PC 1%, UKIP 1% and Other 5%. This is nonsensical
179. Who is this “Andrea” …. some new troll ??
184 - Hey, that really is a most ungallant way of welcoming a new lady poster (of whom there are far too few). Where’s your manners?
Some pb.com types will be aware of the September talk from a little while back; the month that the move would be on to undo Brown if fortunes didnt improve.
One of the possible signs was the appearance of heavyweights penning articles and so on. I have to admit that I wouldnt know Toynbee from Adam though she excites a few on here, so maybe the September idea does have mileage.
The question is, will it gather speed or just crawl to a halt?
I suspect Labour’s hesitancy over a windfall tax on Energy company profits is prompted, at least in part, by the arguments that could be raised that such a tax would be illegal under the Human Rights Act. Case Law has confirmed that “human” rights are available to corporate bodies. Having sown the wind with this unnecessary legislation, they may now be reaping the whirlwind.
178 - This is what Biden will be given license to do, especially in areas badly hit by the high unemployment shown in yesterday’s figures where he will harvest a lot of votes.
In little more than a few minutes he puts forward a strong case as to why the GOP convention was nothing to do with the audience’s future.
The difference between the two Veeps is staggering. One who is very knowledgeable on global affairs yet able to stay in the shadow of his running mate in the media, the other who isn’t very knowledgeable on global affairs yet who overshadows and marginalises her running mate in the media.
If Palin does not appear on the campaign trail this week then the GOP have lost their opportunity.
Talking about ready on day one, if the Republicans hide Palin away now, from the press and to inject her with the line to take, then any credibility is blown. Firstly, the public need to see her in the same situations as the others, in front of crowds, taking press questions and doing TV interviews, not to do so will be an admission of defeat. Secondly, you can’t make a president in a week, give people the unvarnished version and at least you have the veneer of authenticity.
138. Mark.
On the question of party membership; I dont know about anyone else but, although I am Right leaning and will vote Conservative in the next election, I would never join the Party as presently constituted.
And for the following reason. There are too many Tories who have no notion of a political philosophy. They are vague in attitude and some are too welded to old fashioned rural ways.
In addition there are some tory MP’s who absolutely appalling. The Wintertons for instance.
Untill Cameron can effect some sort of purge, I’ll stay out.
185 That’s not funny, John O.
A few years back, I tried hard to chat her up until somebody pointed out my error. Very embarrassing.
190 PtP. I didn’t realise you were a le$bian ??
Hello all, tonight we are watching the results in a mini-Super Saturday here… 2 byelections for federal parliament (the seats of Lyne and Mayo), and the Western Australian state election.
Lyne is a formerly safe National Party seat on the mid north coast of New South Wales that has, as expected, gone to the extremely popular Rob Oakeshott, who has been the state MP for the main town in the seat. No Labor candidate so makes it easier for an independent, but Oakeshott is massively popular in the area and has a big big following. Results here:
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13827-130.htm
Mayo is the former seat of former foreign minister Alexander Downer. It is blue-ribbon Liberal seat in the Adelaide Hills. Despite the very rigid Coalition:ALP dichotomy of Australian lower house results, I think it is the closest seat in Australia to a Con:LD seat in the UK - there is no meaningful class-based Labor vote and there is a strong “progressive” middle class vote that pops up from time to time to support either Independents, Greens or Democrats. At this stage it looks like a (close) Liberal hold and the Lib candidate has claimed victory. No Labor candidate tonight so easier for the ‘progressive’ vote to eat away at the Libs. You can follow the result at:
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13826-188.htm
WA is the big one of the night - and it looks very tight. Results are here: http://www.abc.net.au/elections/wa/2008/
I’m expecting a very narrow Labor win, with the results not finalised until next week.
190 - Bet you tried the same trick with Mighty Fella! Good to see you back. Lots of smashed plates all over the place I guess….
190 - I made the same mistake in 2006 - not that I chatted him up.
193 John O. The Puntress has something of a reputation with old dogs !!
74 I tend to agree with RodCrosby.
If Brown remains in serious danger of losing his seat in a years time (which he is, if the SNP remains as popular as today), then he would face the humiliation of becoming the first sitting PM to be defeated in his constituency since Balfour. It would be too much for him to bear.
In those circumstamces, I think he will go on health grounds — probably next summer.
Leaving some luckless fool to take over Labour and lead it to defeat.
Wow. A really polemical article by Polly T that only makes you wonder why she was so supportive of Brown in the first place? I suspect she feels cheated by Brown, made to look a mug as were a large proportion of the Labour Party, ll now baring a grudge as do those personally slighted by Brown’s vindictiveness over the years. No doubt they’ll disown him, reward him with the same level of loyalty he has shown to others (that is precisely none) but lacking the ruthlessness to strike, they’ll just soldier on until 2010 with Cameron twiddling his thumbs in Tory HQ, looking at the clock and waiting for his inheritance.
Mike, your argument that Labour shouldn’t attack Cameron directly surely contrasts with your quoted Republican saying that you shouldn’t waste time attacking your opponents’ weaknesses, you should attack their strengths. I think they’re both right. That means Labour should be looking at Cameron’s strengths and trying to find ways to attack him, relating to his ‘niceness’ and moderacy but which will chime with the public. That’s hard. But it’s an area they must focus on.
The problem with Major’s demon eyes campaign was that it was basically contentless, and had no resonance. His strength was that he was moderate. They needed to turn it over and attack him for having no beliefs, no convictions, and being prepared to advocate anything to get elected - much more potent angles.
It sounds like an easy mistake to make.
You think we got troubles! Nothing on the Blow-up coming in Pakistan. Of course we could all be showered with the fallout:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7600917.stm
196. Balfour wasn’t a sitting PM when he lost Manchester East. He had resigned the previous month.
No sitting PM has ever lost their seat, and I don’t really expect Brown to, unless perhaps Salmond stood against him.
It’s the overall damage to Labour that Brown will recoil from. He won’t lead them into the Valley of Death. He loves Labour too much..
192 - Another old pbc favourite returns. Very interesting results: looks dreadful for the Opposition at the federal by-elections, but a large swing against Labor in the State Election. Is Rudd still the master of all he surveys? And are the Libs likely to dump their far from impressive leader?
196 - cannot see that happening and the SNP would not want to waste resources when these can be used elesewhere. AS is not standing at the next Westminster GE.
[148] - The pension payment holidays that companies took in the years of the stock market boom had more to do with the closure of pension schemes. If they’d kept on making contributions, and resisted demands to use the surplus to increase benefits, then any shortfall would have been much lower when the stock market tanked, as it was bound to eventually.
Brown was not the only guilty party.
148 - Interesting though the debate about the “pension fund raid” is, I was referring to the Windfall tax on privatised utilities. Did they pass it all on to their customers?
Isn’t it arguable that if the Energy companies were simply to offload the costs of a windfall tax onto their customers then it’s some sort of proof that they aren’t really operating in a competitive market?
201 Thanks for the correction re Balfour.
Not so sanguine about Brown in Kirkcaldy myself.
Next week World cup Qualifiers.
Lithuania at home look an ok price to beat Austria.
Iceland at home also look interesting as well versus Scotland.
Today Israel at home 13/10 to beat the Swiss dont look bad either given Israel have very useful home form.
John O, you are very kind. I continue to regularly lurk…
The coverage in WA appears to be favouring Liberals more than I had expected… but very early days.
I think the results in Mayo and Lyne are to be expected. Oakeshott is an electoral phenomenon as an independent and was alwyas going to win.
You are right about the big-picture scene though - Rudd stands astride federal politics, and the Libs remain riddled with leadership doubt…
But the WA results show that the electoral cycle has begun to move a notch or two. I’m not convinced it’s enough for a change of government but we will see some of the seats change to the conservatives in coming years.
But federally? No chance, not anytime soon…
208. Oops I meant “STATES change to the conservatives”…
According to Iain Dale, the Unions bosses have told Gordon to go or face a cash crisis. Could this be the tipppppppppppping point?
http://www.iaindale.blogspot.com/
210 cancel that, I think its just a suggestion, I saw the picute and thought it was for real.
210. Are you sure thats not just a theoretical and not a hard story?
212
see 211
Council by election on 23rd here in NW3. The poor old labour folk out in the high street with their little stall getting insulted by people as they try and leaflet. LD’s getting a slightly better reception.
211, more likely to tell him to have a windfall tax, methinks. A new leader might be less malleable.
Just when you think it can’t get any worse for Labour - it does.
I’m quite convinced that all this was inevitable, also that Brown will stay for as long as possible.
After bullying his way to the premiership did Brown really think that the rest of the Labour party were going to sit back and take it?
It’s completely without precedent for a vacancy for Prime Minister to go unchallenged - it happened because Brown’s bullies made sure of it.
Well now it’s pay-back time. There are plenty of Labour party people who I know who are going to do their damnest to make things as bad as possible for Brown - just as he did for Blair.
215
Would there have to be a vote on a widfall tax? I cant see Cameron supporting it?
217, not sure. Cameron (and the Lib Dems) would probably be irrelevent as Labour still (weird though it seems) has an outright majority. The naughty backbenchers will all back it, as will those few loyal Brownites and the ambitious pretenders wouldn’t want to rock the boat by annoying the backbenchs.
217 - yes, the Govt can’t just levy taxes on a whim!
Who does Broon think will invest in electricity generation or distribution if he introduces a windfuall tax? If Russia decides to ’shut off’ gas surplies to the West this winter, will there be enough energy for generation and distribution?
LLoyd George forced out by a Tory backbench revolt after a major foreign policy reverse in Asia Minor, when Bonar Law followed most of the main Tory players at Cabinet level stayed out of the new government.
If Iran kicked off in the next few months, could Brown’s response to such a crisis upset Lab MPs and the Americans? If the US expected some support of action against Iran, and Brown provided it in any shape or form, would his backbenchers say enough is enough?
204
The Pension holidays taken in Conservative days owed much to (Conservative) legislation limiting the size of a Fund’s surplus.
No one Party has all the blame…
220
The Conservatives would support Brown in such a vote:-)
221 Yes I remember that, I am a Pension trustee. IIRC it was limited to 105% of the total funding requirement. The majority of the problem IMHO was Brown steath taxing the pension funds. After 11 yrs its 55 million at basic cost and after increment probably 75 billion. Pension funds have been forced to chuck billions in. Thats why so many are closed/closed to new members.
223
I suspect it is both.
In good years you can save little more than is needed - by law.
In bad years the Funds lose money.
The structure is economic lunacy when investing in stock markets.. (may hay when the sun etc).
But yes: Gordon’s tax is the final killer punch.
may = make…
Mwahaha, my first betting triumph!
If Bourdais makes it to Q3 in the Grand Prix Qualifying I’m a few pounds up, and if he doesn’t, I’m neutral:D
Only playing with a few pounds because (poverty aside) I didn’t want to cock up laying a bet.
226 Morris Dancer. Welcome to the dark side !!
220. I think there is a strong likelihood of an attack on Iran. The neo-cons want to go out with a bang, just witness Georgia and Britain as usual will support them even if no-one else does.
Pension contributions holidays had nothing to do with the subsequent decline in final-salary schemes.
The contributions holidays, generally, applied to both employer and employee. It was that or see the surpluses taxed away.
Brown’s tax raid, the application FRS17 accounting standards and a government-imposed requirement to hold a higher proportion of funds in gilts (handy that as the government had plenty to sell as it increased borrowing!) as opposed to equities provided the killer blows.
175. I think if you look at the Republican party’s policy on gay rights, abortion, creationism in schools, taxpayers money being given to religious groups that only provide services to Christians, prison rehabilitation based on evangelism, etc you’ll find that the evangelicals are plenty strong.
OT: tennis starts at 4pm our time, I’ve chucked 200 quid on Murray 3-1 at 10/1. Makes the match more interesting, and it’s a fairly good value bet imo: basically Nadal never loses over 5 sets, and Murray is extremely unlikely to win 3-0. The sharp tennis books (5dimes and co) give Murray about a 24% chance of winning at a touch over 3/1, but almost all of that 24% exists within a 3-1 Murray win at considerably higher odds (this is a fairly standard strategy when betting against players strong over 5 sets, and nobody is better in that regard than Nadal).
226 - Bourdais goes through
232, just saw:)
I should add that I lost £9 on Roddick against Djokovic, but I got £10 free from Betfair so that doesn’t count:p
228 - Much as they might want to attack Iran, I don’t think the Republican leaders all want to end up in jail.
“The Wall Street Journal” looks at McCain play for Michigan :
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065665837205573.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
229 If the pension was becoming overfunded, would have not been sensible to put some money aside in some other way so it could be added to the fund in future years if necessary?
I didn’t realise that pensions funds were (are?) limited to only 105% of the FR, this seems pretty stupid, surely it’s not hard for the value of a fund to fall relatively quickly by more than 5%?
And IIRC some employers gave their staff a cont holiday - but many did not and only the employer got the benefit.
In my defence I’m an HR person specialising in reward; I have to know something about pension schemes but I’m hardly an expert.
I do wonder if there were systemic issues in pensions. Some employers are now moving away from final salary schemes to career average schemes because they should be more predictable - I do wonder if final salary was OK in an old fashioned labour market where people wanted a job for life and promotion generally happened incrementally, but not in the more dynamic market we currently find ourselves in.
230. But in the minority?
It remains a mystery to me why a nutter like Palin does not yet have more Americans disliking her. I saw a poll that put in at just 11% having an unfavourable opinion of her. Someone who opposes any abortion (except on medical grounds), wants creationism, is anti-gay marriage, a fervent defender of the right to bear arms…… Where is the criticism.
You could say the same for Obama I suppose. You’d think many of his ideas would be unpalatable to large parts of America, but he remains popular. Personality seems to trump ideas. Looking at the conventions, i don’t get the impression there will be much thinking about the policies going on, just ludicrous, empty hysteria for Hillary, Obama and Palin.
198: ‘They needed to turn it over and attack [Blair] for having no beliefs, no convictions, and being prepared to advocate anything to get elected - much more potent angles.’
Of course, there was the Tory PPB that, almost literally, depicted Blair selling his soul to the Devil to get elected. Major pulled it because he felt it was over the top given Blair’s Christian beliefs. Shame - would have been a classic.
238. I think the other problem with it was that if you take the “Blair sells his soul” metaphor to its logical conclusion, the devil ends up being Conservatism.
202. John O, fyi the ABC anticipates a very narrow Liberal minority government in Western Australia now.
238, 239. Surely the line to take with Blair in ‘97 was that he was a vain, showbiz wannabe populist, contrasting with the unfussed, modest and straightforward John. It’s an appeal that has worked well for Merkel in Germany.
The problem with Polly Toynbee and Charles Clarke’s calls for a change of leadership is that they are too late. A large swathe of opinion here argued that Brown would be a disaster as PM and Mike repeatedly has pointed out that there was opinion poll evidence for this, prior to Brown’s coronation. Then came the quite remarkable Brown bounce/honeymoon.
But after a few months the mists cleared and it became clear that the Emperor had no clothes. That was the time to act. Did Toynbee recommend action then? Did Ashley? Did Michael White? Did Straw? Did Miliband? Has Nick Palmer ever acknowledged the shortcomings of the PM? No. All these sages recommended full steam ahead and steady as she goes for the good ship Labour Party, as she sailed hopelsssly forward to inevitable oblivion.
Brown should never have been allowed to lead the Labour Party and is unsuitable for the role. But the Party hierarchy and supporting “journos” are culpable here. Firstly they allowed this to happen. Secondly they were too supine to act when there was an opportunity to rectify the mistake earlier this year. To be fair to Charles Clarke he has from the outset argued that Brown would be a poor choice and has tried to ferment a revolution. But even he should have been stronger and clearer in his views. Now it is too late and not only Brown is to blame.
242 St John
Agreed.
240 Thanks for that. It certainly looks as though the Coalition have taken Western Australia. They’ve got a swing of 5.5%, and needed a swing of 4.5%. Rather a good result, given that boundary changes were very unfavourable to them.
242. I agree St John, but I don’t remember too many dissenting voices on here last year. When I mentioned Stalin I was told to calm down and get a grip.
Of course John Hutton predicted it as well…
“RCP” looks at the Obama campaign in Ohio :
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/Sep/06/obama__seeing_hope_in_ohio__shifts_schedule_there.html
Really it’s Blair’s fault for making him so powerful. He should have moved him from the Treasury when he had the chance, “to broaden his experience”, but took the easy option. People can talk all they like about the “spinelessness” of individuals who didn’t challenge for the leadership in 2007, but the fact is that they would have been very unlikely to have secured the support of 70 MPs.
People can debate the extent that the rigidity of the Labour rulebook prevents “a way being found” to get rid of Brown, and whether they can be circumvented. There’s no doubt that they couldn’t have been circumvented in 2007.
245: ‘…but I don’t remember too many dissenting voices on here last year’
Indeed. I myself was met with a chorus of execration and branded a ‘creature of the night’ for merely stating I wouldn’t employ Brown as my tea boy!
Scotland not doing well in the Football, btw.
246. So did Miliband ‘apparently’. I don’t see how we can blame them though, there was no way Brown could lose. What would be the point of standing in a contest when 75% of the Party (unless it were a John McDonnell) are going to be against you. The blame must lie with the uselessness of the Labour movement and our pathetic old media.
251 - had they been able to force a vote, then they would have had a chance. Brown’s flaws would have been exposed. But they wouldn’t have been able to.
245 Yes, Frank.
Some of us were plain wrong. Guilty as charged, and I ask for several hundred other offences to be taken into consideration.
179 Is that the same Andrea who so much wanted Blair gone and Brown in.
250. More imminent damage to the No.10 furniture on the way?
236. Tax Law did not allow it. And why should it? Allowing overfunding would give companies an incentive to shelter profits from Corporation Tax by continuing payments into an overfunded scheme.
“And IIRC some employers gave their staff a contributions holiday - but many did not and only the employer got the benefit.”
So? Since the employee’s benefits were defined and therefore guaranteed, all the risk of underfunding lay on the employers’ side. It was of no consequence to an employee if the holiday was taken entirely by the employer.
Also, the temptation of a mightily overfunded pension scheme makes a company vulnerable to take-over. There’s no sense in it.
Of course, FRS17 changed that to a large extent and here you need an accountant to explain but AIUI, this standard requires schemes to be fully funded on a current basis and takes no account of future income flows and future liabilities as these change over time.
Imagine you’ve got a young workforce, largely years off retirement. To be fully funded now, instead of when the liabilities fall in the future, makes such schemes much more expensive for employers.
249
I think nearly everyone except Roger was dissenting, it was a just a question of the relative volume of said dissent///
254 No, Dez. It’s Dr Andrea Parma, the brilliant Milanese political analyst whose contributions here have been much missed of late.
256 - Sort of but I doubt that FRS17 “requires” a certain level of funding. What it does is specify how pension fund liabilities should be reported, which has the result of impacting severely on Company Balance sheets.
Does anyone think that Hillary is hoping that McCain-Palin will win the forthcoming election and that Hillary will subtly give her supporters encouragement to vote for McCain? She feels cheated that she was chosen for the Democratic nomination. She feels insulted that Obama declined to offer her the VP post. She sees the enthusiasm for Palin’s candidature, which is to a large extent based on the fact that she is a feisty, articulate, “All American” woman. If McCain wins and Palin is the GOP candidate at 2012 then who better to put up against her than Hillary?
If a significant proportion of Hillary’s supporters vote for Mccain-Palin then it could tip the balance in a tight race.
Latest Rasmussen Tracker :
McCain 46% .. Obama 49%
Note - Obama +2 yesterday. No McCain speech bounce.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Gordon Brown, a man of principle. For years as Chancellor of the Exchequer he turned up at dinners dressed in a lounge suit whilst others were black tie. Yet at the Scottish CBI he donned a DJ. So much for his courage!!!
240 - Just back. Many thanks…yes, I’ve just looked at the ABC site. Couldn’t be closer. Do the Libs control any of the State Parliaments at the moment?
257 Slight exaggeration, MTF. Some of us expected him to be Blair, minus Iraq and some spin. I for one was shocked at what a poor PM he proved. Around the time, I tended to keep my counsel but expected him to prove the doubters wrong in due course. I’m glad I did. Doesn’t do one’s reputation a lot of good to back too many losers - especially on a betting Site.
260 st john. The polling by Gallup indicates that formerly reluctant Hillary voters are moving to Obama in significant numbers :
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109957/Obama-Gains-Among-Former-Clinton-Supporters.aspx
260 Palin’s an accident waiting to happen, StJohn. I wouldn’t base any betting strategies on her myself.
261 - Jack, I linked to Nate Silver’s calculations of Daily Results in trackers yesterday, they tended to suggest that Rasmussen would drift away from and Gallup drift towards McCain today. I hope he updates them as they are very useful in seeing how the markets will (over)react and in seeing what will fuel the media narrative days before they know themselves!
260 - Hillary want another woman to become the first female on a winning ticket? One who stands for everything she is against? Not a chance, and she’s out on the trail next week to show that.
As for support, Palin is helping with male support not female, when you think about it, it’s pretty obvious why.
261. +1 from yesterday surely jack? either way not great news for mccain
265. Jack W. That article is dated 2/9/08 so predates Palin’s sppech at the GOP convention. There is no evidence yet that a significant proportion of Hillary’s supporters will back McCain because of Palin but if Hillary tips them the wink it could happen and could be crucial. Hilary and Palin both appeal to white, working class voters and Palin has the potential to win over some of the female vote. If only a 1/3 of Hillary’s supporters came over it could make the difference. I think a lot of women wil have been very annoyed with the sexist criticisms of Palin’s candidacy.
266. Peter. Sure it’s a risk but gambling is a risk! I’m happy to gamble on her being the best thing, in electoral terms, since bagels.
267,
Yes she is quite fit.
Surely USA citizens won`t vote using that criteria ?
260. Hillary should just accept that she is a bad campaigner who wouldn’t have stood a chance if her name wasn’t Clinton. Americans vote for people like Dubya, Mr Clinton, Obama and Palin. By comparison, Hillary comes across as cold and remote.
As for her strategy, it wouldn’t surprise me. Never under-estimate the self-interest of the Clintons.
St John - what have been the sexist criticisms of Palin?
259. OK, so maybe the word ‘requires’ is not precise enough in a strict accounting sense but the point, surely, still stands; that FRS17 was one of the three key reasons that final salary schemes became doomed?
The other two being, Brown’s tax raid and the requirement to hold higher proportions of funds in gilts rather than equities, which (despite current FTSE100 woes) over the long run have always provided higher returns.
268 Dan. Obama’s lead was +2 yesterday and he’s added a point.
Although only one tracker, it’s the one that favours McCain most and you’re correct these aren’t the numbers that the GOP wanted to see at the end of their convention. Worse still the much poorer than expected US employment figures have refocused the race on the economy, where voters clearly favour the Democratic ticket.
269 Sure thing, StJohn. Your wallet, not mine!
272. Frank Booth. That as a mother of a young child she should not be running to be Vice President of the United States.
269 - Stjohn there is more than enough evidence to suggest the opposite of what you say. Not least Clinton herself, who I presume is the last word in the matter.
“Hillary releases a statement at the close of McCain’s speech:
“The two party conventions showcased vastly different directions for our country. Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden offered the new ideas and positive change America needs and deserves after eight years of failed Republican leadership. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin did not.
“After listening to all of the speeches this week, I heard nothing that suggests the Republicans are ready to fix the economy for middle-class families, provide quality affordable health care for all Americans, guarantee equal pay for equal work for women, restore our nation’s leadership in a complex world or tackle the myriad of challenges our country faces.
“So, to slightly amend my comments from Denver: NO WAY, NO HOW, NO McCAIN-PALIN.””
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Clinton_amends_No_way_no_how_no_McCainPalin_.html
270 - Err, actually dez I wasn’t referring to attractiveness, just to her position on issues such as abortion and so on. I can see why you would link to what you said though.
“272. Frank Booth. That as a mother of a young child she should not be running to be Vice President of the United States.”
A lot of that is coming from the less than enlightened section of the christian right.
269 stjohn. Polling from other sources also indicates a firming of Obama’s base with women. There has been a small Palin trend by men but it’s at the margin.
Anyone watching the Paralympic Opening ceremony? It’s a bit incredible.
262, I didn`t want Gordon Brown as PM, however I do think he is a decent man.
In future in a less temperent enviroinment, his political career will not be judged as harshly.
Especiallly the help he provided for the working poor, tax credits, and the minimum wage.
This really helped some of my family.
277. ukpaul. She has to say that! My question was “What does Hillary really want?” If McCain-Palin win the 2008 election doeat that improve Hillary’s chances of becoming President in 2012? I think it does.
If Hillary can subtly encourage her supporters to vote McCain-Palin because there is a woman on the ticket, then I think it keeps alive her own hopes of ultimately securing her life time’s ambition.
282 stjohn. Hillary doesn’t do “subtle” and if it were perceived that she was in any way sabotaging Obama’s run for the presidency she would never be forgiven by the party. She gotta give Obama everything and let it play out as it will.
282 - If you think she wants a party that opposes abortion and which has the sort of policies that she has always campaigned against then I don’t know how to convince you otherwise.
I work with mostly women and to suggest that they will vote on gender is incredibly patronising, I wouldn’t even suggest it in fun to them.
I don’t know if anyone has picked up on this but Polly refers to a “…A cabinet of minnows and spineless backbenchers”. Which one of these minnows does she presumably see as prime minister?
283. OK Jack W. I will stick a “ver” in the middle of my subtly.
stjohn@282: The problem is how you subtly encourage your supporters to vote for someone else without alerting party insiders (who will hold a grudge if you sabotage their party) or your opponent’s supporters (who could coalesce behind someone else next time if you annoy them). We’re talking some seriously advanced dog-whistling technology here.
On the potential Hillary dog-whistle thing, probably a bigger risk is that something Hillary says will be _interpreted_ as subtly telling her supporters to vote for McCain. Bearing in mind the basic law of politics that more messages are received than are ever actually sent, this seems quite likely - but will probably only have an effect at the margin.
287. Edmund. Yes, it’s a challenge. But the strategy would be to welcome the prospect of the first female VP.
277 Sorry Paul for the misunderstanding.
Yes was watching dateline London, and they were discussing the paradox of her likeability, against her postion on the issues you mention .
However they were asked if they could ask anyone for dinner out of the four contenders, who would it be at this current time.
They all stated Palin because she was new,and to question her on her beliefs.
285. I think Polly’s had enough! Her column reads as one huge explosion!
Labours conference has all the makings of a blood bath!
Just one more thing on Hillary’s ambitions: You know all new those voters Obama’s registering? All those text message addresses he’s been gathering? All those down-ticket politicians he’s supporting? All those offices he’s opening? That’s his machine. If he loses this year, assuming he’d sit the next one out, he would not be a good person to for somebody planning a primary run to antagonize.
I’m not saying Hillary wouldn’t do it, but if you’re looking for the best cold, cynical, machiavellian strategy for someone who wants to run in 2012, that ain’t it.
256 “Tax Law did not allow it. And why should it? Allowing overfunding would give companies an incentive to shelter profits from Corporation Tax by continuing payments into an overfunded scheme.”
I doubt Tax Law disallowed it. All companies carry reserves. Presumably tax law allows it - but doesn’t allow you to take advantage of tax breaks on pensions.
“So? Since the employee’s benefits were defined and therefore guaranteed, all the risk of underfunding lay on the employers’ side. It was of no consequence to an employee if the holiday was taken entirely by the employer.”
What risk of underfunding? When underfunding was found to have occurred, most employers hurriedly backed out of defined benefit schemes. So there was really no risk at all. Heads we win, tails you lose.
“Also, the temptation of a mightily overfunded pension scheme makes a company vulnerable to take-over. There’s no sense in it.”
‘Tis true, some particularly creative companies have sorted out their own pension problems by taking over another company with a pension surplus. But surely there is sense in prudently carrying reserves?
“Of course, FRS17 changed that to a large extent and here you need an accountant to explain…”
Yes I’d heard of that, couldn’t remember the name.
“Imagine you’ve got a young workforce, largely years off retirement. To be fully funded now, instead of when the liabilities fall in the future, makes such schemes much more expensive for employers.”
True, but that young workforce isn’t going to be working for you when it retires, it’ll be working for someone else. So you cannot longer rely on a stable, demographically predictable workforce, and will probably have to fund a transfer value approximately every 5 or 6 employee years. That’s one reason why I think that relying on final salary rather than career average carried the seeds of its own destruction.
You also haven’t mentioned demographic changes (ie longer-lived workforce) which has massively increased the costs of pension provision, and of course falling investment returns which many funds faced.
285 Maybe she’d prefer a spineless backbencher - Jon Cruddas?
Are there any odds on offer anywhere for a Labour MP defecting from Labour to the Conservatives on Friday the 19th September 2008?
237. Then you just don’t get it.
I believe in God. I am anti-gay marriage (I think civil partnerships are a decent compromise). If I lived in America I would be emphatically pro-gun-ownership. I am a very reluctant supporter of abortion.
So I’m not that far from Palin, and I am probably somewhere near McCain’s position.
If a libertarian whore-mongering ex-jailbird Cornish sex memoirist with a history of heroin abuse can support McCain and Palin, then I fully understand why more mainstream Americans are attracted.
242 - That is why Labour, as opposed to just Brown himself, are in such a dire situation.
Jack Straw, Polly Toynbee, Charles Clarke, etc, even Tony Blair, are all culpable of electing Brown unopposed and in many cases by deafening acclamation. There is nothing the Labour party can do to reverse that, they tied their fate to his a year ago. Replacing him as leader will just lead to a cynical yawn from the public now.
296 I am anti-gay marriage (I think civil partnerships are a decent compromise).
What do you think the difference is between marriage and civil partnership then? Same thing, different name.
Hillary Clinton. Before getting carried away with the suggestion that she wishes to undermine Obama, we should consider the possibility she has her eye on (and may well already have been offered) a bigger prize than VP: the Supreme Court, Senate leadership, or something related to health care.
A number of people on here made the point that while Clinton was the best choice for Obama (because she could deliver a large bloc of voters) it was far less clear what was in it for her. Vice President is generally not much of a job.
The fear is not that Clinton supporters will vote for McCain but that they will not vote at all come November. The idea that a fiercely partisan Democrat like Clinton longs for a Republican win is absurd.
Secular, state-recognised civil partnerships *are* to all intents and purposes gay marriage, and gays should recognise that. No UK or US government in a million years is going to pass a law compelling all churches, synagogues or mosques to throw open their doors and hold homosexual marriage ceremonies.
Gazing into the crystal ball… 2012… Clinton vs Palin….
Now that would be one helluva bun-fight.
301. Clinton would fall down on experience though as Palin would have been VP…….
Poor Johnny Mac, nobody cares about him anymore.
303.
That’s a new smilie as well! 
293 “I doubt Tax Law disallowed it. ”
Well you’d be wrong.
The LD’s will lose two thirds of thier seats at the next election and Clegg and Huhne are doomed - DOOMED!
LD response: Wha
Wha 
Wha 
Nick Clegg = Neil Kinnock!
298. I think marriage has a sacramental element: the holy union of a man and a woman. I confess it is just a question of semantics, but sometimes words are important.
I just feel instinctively and emotionally that men (or women) cannot “marry” each other. And I suspect a lot of people feel the same.
I will also happily confess to a mild homophobia, inasmuch as I reflexively don’t like looking at men kissing (I think this reflex is evolved, rather than conditioned, but I could be wrong). Just makes me feel a touch queasy. That said, as I believe homosexuality is genetic, outlawing it is totally absurd, as well as cruel and unnecessary.
But there is a difference between civilised tolerance of gays - which I wholly support (not least cause, yes, I have many gay and even transsexual friends!) and the kind of enforced celebration of gayness that I sometimes detect in the left. Gay pride marches? - yeah, whatever.
Why don’t we have Sean Has Another 4 Hour Internet Shuffle marches, makes as much sense.
301. b. Ladbrokes prices for POTUS 2012.
Clinton 10/1. Palin 16/1. Romney 20/1. Biden 33/1. Bloomberg 50/1. Schweitzer 66/1. Paul 100/1.
307 - ……and women kissing?
305 - Is there confusion here? Tax law doesn’t prevent you designating funds as reserves - “enhanced pension funds” if you like. What it does do is forbid the creation of provisions.
The distinction being that provisions are charges to revenue in the year, therefore can be used to reduce tax liability. “Reserves” simply refer to how your accumulated profits are reported in the Balance sheet, and are created after tax (ergo no tax advantage in creating them).
Bloomberg is term limited (he’s trying to get around it) so if he doesn’t run for Governor in 2010, I think 50/1 would be reasonable value.
Romney 20/1 is value, because I fully expect him to be the nominee if McCain loses. Schweitzer is great value at 66/1, as if Obama loses, he and Warner will be front runners.
Fraser Kemp retires - meaning all 3 Sunderland seats will have new MPs next time. I wonder how many will still be NuLab:))
307. lol. Very good. Yes I quite like looking at women kissing. Indeed, as readers of my memoirs will know (Millions of Women are Waiting to Meet you, Bloomsbury available here
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Millions-Women-Are-Waiting-Meet/dp/074758219X
,) I especially like looking at women kissing when one of them is a dominant figure in uniform - a dentist, say, or a teacher - and the other women is petite and subservient and is wearing no clothes.
WTF is that about? I have NO idea. I have thought long and hard for an evolutionary, sociobioliogical explanation for this: why men like looking at lesb1ans, and I confess this is the one place Darwin and E O Wilson seem to fail me (and usually they are infallible).
311 - I’d agree with Romney as being a definite candidate but, again, I expect him to fall short. Looking at the convention and the reaction to Palin gives me just one conclusion, the GOP is now a party where the religious element is in control and, as such, Huckabee will, if he plays it right, be well placed to be next time’s nominee.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2694220/Government-paid-charity-to-produce-eco-town-fact-leaflets.html
Slightly off topic, but this, surely, is an example of how the government has politicised and monetised previously apolitical aspects of British life. It extends far beyond the civil service.
Gordon Brown has thrown obscene amounts of tax payers money at the non productive public sector and a ‘fiscal’ creep has extended even into the charity sector.
I hear the chief exec of shelter a couple of weeks ago on R4 and got the feeling that he was far from politically neutral, in fact he was still fighting the battles of the 1980s railing against Tory housing policy.
I hope this third (or fourth) column of non governmental people and bodies who have the Labour government to thank for their positions and funding are swept clean by DC, if the polls prove accurate.
Rant over !
307. I will also happily confess to a mild homophobia, inasmuch as I reflexively don’t like looking at men kissing.
Sean, whilst I realise you are a *Hetrosexual* diarist, nothing more - nothing less: It would be interesting to monitor your Brain activity when watching films of a specific genre involving Male-Female, female-female and male-male activity.
I know what you mean about male - male activity it is not something i like watching. Male - Female: No prolems. Female- Female interesting one: that does not *seem* right either! Though I will still watch it.
Personally I am not to worried what people do i.e. Civil Partnerships/ Marriage. One has to take a Liberal view of these things!
310. Alex are you an accountant?
Then let’s stop talking about reserves and provisions and take us back to the late ’80s early ’90s when Contributions Holidays to employers pensions funds were current.
It’s my recollection that the government viewed excessive funding into employer pensions schemes - well beyond their liabilities (FRS17 or whatever standard applied at the tim) - as an attempt to avoid Corporation Tax liability. And that seems a logical viewpoint, as what would be the point of overfunding a pensions beyond its actuarial needs in line with pension tax law, if not to shelter profits from Corporation Tax? After all, an overfunding in a ‘fat’ year could be balanced by an underfunding in a ‘lean’ one at the expense of the Treasury.
264 Moi! PFP, never, but then again I always loathed Brown. I can tell you, I was praying to the almighty that he would bottle the election tthat wasnt. At the time the Brown bounce seemed incredible to me. I began to wonder about the electorate!!!
Incidentally, I wonder if the order of the party conferences will be significant?
I think Mike raises a good question about whether it would be in Labour’s long-term interests to call an early election. It’s a strong case you put. There’s only one qualification. You often point out that governments need not necessarily recover as the election approaches, citing 1995-7. Nevertheless, they do usually. In two years, hopefully the UK will be at least growing again, and unemployment may no longer be rising. So there is every chance of a recovery. I’m certainly not claiming that Labour is likely to win the next election - far from it - but I think it could be closer than an election now. That tendency to recover would have to be set against any credit that Labour gets for calling an election early for the reasons you suggest, and any benefit from a new leader.
Another point is that although the memories of Labour will be coloured by the final period, the last year or so has hardly been a happy one. It’s better than the next year is likely to be though.
I am still think there is a 60% chance of a super rate income tax of perhaps 3 to 5 p per pound in Darling’s autumn statement. Just on high earners, of course.
Why?
Brown has denied his ‘old Labour’ supporters on the back benches and in the unions: he had rejected the windfall tax or the cash boost for heating bills. Only the third leg of their demands is still standing.
The whizzo idea on mortgages and first time buyers will cost nearly a billion and the kitty is empty. While higher tax rates are unproductive in the long term they can bring in cash in the short term. And Brown is not worried about long term effects.
It will allow Darling to announce a really horrific - but massaged - set of borrowing figures for the government and if accompanied by a flimflam cut in spending ( to allow some cut in corporation tax?) the package will be heralded as ‘getting to grips with the global credit crunch fall out’.
And the added attraction for the party and Brown is that it will spike the SNP guns on their countrywide 3p rise in income tax in Scotland to get rid of the council tax. If they still go ahead the tax crunch will be heavy and not felt in England.
It won’t sell in the real world but in the twilight zone of the PLP it will be hailed as a triumph?
The problems they face for 2009/10 are even worse as all those short term fixes for the 10p fiasco and the fuel escalator freeze have to be paid for permanently or dropped, with taxes rising accordingly for the poorer earners, or replaced by heavier taxes on the middle income taxpayers. The cost? 4 to 6 billion for the ‘compensation’ and the short fall in income taxes as the recession bites?
Just what you want before an election.
318 apologies PTP!
317 - Quite. The suggestion above was that in addition to funding their schemes upto the legal maximum, companies could, if they so wished have voluntarily put aside extra reserves as insurance against their funds underperforming in future.
This would bring no tax advantages and therefore could not possibly have been “forbidden” by tax law.
A 58-year-old candidate for Glenrothes suggests a party that isn’t expecting to win and hold the seat for another 15 years …
320 - I suppose the other advantage would be that the Tories would be under pressure to commit to repealing it - which would allow them to be portrayed as caring only about the rich.
316. I wrote an article about this in the Times a few years ago: the Ugh! feeling I get when I see men kissing. It was pegged to a gay snog in Eastenders.
The article got a fair amount of interesting response. Some people insisted, and with cogent arguments, that my reflexive Ugh! was conditioned: something I had learned.
Perhaps it is, but I still didn’t - and don’t - quite buy it. The reflex feels instinctive to me: a recoil. Ugh! Like chimps freaking out when they see a snake.
Some of the gay people who commented on the article said they felt exactly the same Ugh reflex: when they saw heterosexuals kissing! Curiouser and curiouser…
But basically I agree with you. Tolerance is key. We’re all sinners.
311 & 314. A couple of good suggestions. I’ve added;
Warner 25/1
Huckabee 66/1
322 - interestingly some local authorities like to do this (those with money) because it gives them an excuse to maintain decent levels of reserves (which they can then earn substantial extra interest income on). Justifying the maintenance of high reserves rather than giving it back to the tax payer is always a bit of a political problem.
Whether companies are looking for an excuse to avoid paying higher dividends is another matter…
321 That’s OK, MTF. You are spared the customary £1 fine.
313. Part of the polygamy hang-over. Humans are herd animals and there are damn few of those where status is not reflected by multiple (exclusive) partners. Tends to hold for primitive societies, too.
So… when you’re too knackered, the wives do their own thing…
326 Erm….would that be ‘good’ for Ladbrokes, or for us, Shadsy?
318. I have always seen Brown as Shallow and useless: that Autumn election last year was never really a starter.
Indeed as I repeatedly pointed out the Labour party were not recruiting staff or indeed have the money for an election. It was all Bullshit, Labour MP’s were not at battlestations either: Crick on Newsnight Identified Labour MP’s in marginal seats not activly prepared for an election.
Elections take a lot of work and effort and I am surprised Labour thought they could get away with hoodwinking people into thinking an election would be called. That ‘bounce’ last year can be attributed to people waiting to see how Brown turned out as PM.
Interestingly, If we believe Labour posters that there would have been a GE last year and Brown had *won* - can you imagine the state the UK would be in after 5 years of Brown! Argh!
325 - As someone whose MA was focussed on Tolerance as a concept in Political Philosophy, I can reliably inform you that it is not considered Tolerance *unless* you in some way disapprove.
The virtue of tolerance is a case of restraining the instinctive reaction to act in a way that would be intolerant.
326 - What’s my price Shadsy?!
309 Well, in the words of Woody Allen “What about the love between two women? That’s my favourite kind.” Actually, I’ve never been able to work out why men should find l*sbianism appealing, but it clearly is appealing.
New Thread
308, will these odds remain fairly static for a while or should they be pounced upon immediately?
I know odds can change quickly, but the event is a long way off.
329 Thanks, B. That’s the first plausible explanation I’ve ever heard. I will enjoy this evening’s viewing all the more for knowing that.
332 One of my bugbears is the insistence that tolerance isn’t enough, but that people are entitled to “respect”. Respect isn’t an entitlement, it’s something you earn.
329. Yes, OK, sure - but why do I like… lesb1an….. dentistry???
lol.
It’s probably a good thing Mike has started a new thread. Off to watch West Wing.
Ciaociao.
114. Yet you allow at post 12 a comment which compares a Downs Syndrome baby to a cabbage. Pot and kettles.
I was specifically and exclusively referring to the fragrances which I have perceived through my high-tech Smellyvision (as I was asked to do). The word “cabbages” referred to the lower bodily functions of a baby, and was meant to be a joke. It did not even occur to me that there might be any connection with Down’s syndrome, and I didn’t even rememeber that at the time I was writing it. So apologies if any offence was caused - perhaps I should have written “egg sandwiches” instead.
Meanwhile:
Sarah Palin - sunflowers
John McCain - dusty old books
Barack Obama - chilli powder
George Bush - fresh tarmac
Ralph Nader - watermelon
338 - “I’ve just been for “Zoom” laser tooth whitening, coz I am bored, rich and vain. And it’s cheap in Bangkok.”
Speaking of dentistry, are you still popping pills for the pain?
296, etc:
I am anti-gay marriage (I think civil partnerships are a decent compromise). AGAINST BOTH
If I lived in America I would be emphatically pro-gun-ownership. AGREE
I am a very reluctant supporter of abortion. UNFORTUNATELY SOMETHING I CARE NOT A JOT ABOUT
I also believe in low taxes.
Unfotunately no new state polls I could spot so UPMYASS not out tonight, plus it’s the witching hour so time to nip out for a few beverages.
323. But they chose a 60-year-old candidate for Ealing Southall.
295. Why that particular date?
325. My reaction to seeing two men kissing would depend on whether I fancy them or not.
Re the pensions debate. I work in the field and my take is that there are a number of factors which have caused the collapse in employer sponsored final salary provision.
Economic conditions; principally sustained low inflation/interest rates gave rise to historically low long bond yields upon which the discount rates that actuaries use to value pensions liabilities are based. This resulted in a rise in the value of liabilities which is still being played out. However, as inflation seems to be back we might expect this to ease over the next few years.
Accounting rules; FRS 17 (and now IAS 19) require companies to recognise pension surplus/deficit straight on to the P&L. Moreover, the purists who dominate the accounting regulators insist that actuaries have to discount using corporate bond yields when calculating liabilities. And also that assets are marked to market. The combined effect is that very volatile numbers appear in company accounts and given that uncertainty on this scale in the mature businesses which have substantial pension liabilities is the bete noir of FDs this has been a powerful driver to curtail the accrual of any further liabilities. Hence according to Association of Consulting Actuaries figures there are now less than a million private sector employees in active membership of open final salary schemes.
Regulation; it is just ridiculous. I have to use a specialist computer programme just to locate the applicable legislation for the most basic functions of advising pension scheme sponsors and trustees. Employers do just give up in despair.
Lawson’s surplus laws; didn’t help.
Brown’s abolition of ACT credits; didn’t help.
Someone said above that, “much loved but anomalous tax free lump sum” aside pension schemes do not get tax relief. In the parlance the UK operates the “EET” system - input is exempt, roll up is exempt but it all comes out in the wash when the output is taxed. This represents a deferral of tax, not tax relief. There is no better system really. The Germans operate TTE and pretty much all corporate pension provision there is on the company’s books, which is hardly satisfactory.
Sorry for the long boring pensions post. What chances of some hot Sarah Palin-Carla Bruni girl on girl action over the next political cycle?
As someone pointed out above, apart from
Eek! Screaming children at my feet made me forget longevity improvements. People, poor Glaswegians aside, are really, really living longer which does add to costs big time.
The economic and demographic factors are probably beyond any government apart from in the sense that they control wider fiscal and social levers. But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that private pension provision, which do not forget has hitherto been a voluntary undertaking by employers giving rise to the thick end of a trillion pounds of pension assets in the UK, is in a worse state now than when government and regulators started sticking their oars in in the early 70’s.
There may be occasionally almost risk free money on the Presidential market on Betfair. It was just possible to make 11p(!) by backing Biden at 1.65 and laying Obama at 1.63. It might be worth keeping an eye of them in case they get even more out of step.