Yawning gap

It is of course with a sense of enormous irony that we view a situation where the NewLabour party members are as undecided as their dithering leader.

We have reached a pretty passe when a party so far behind in the opinion polls can't even pluck up the courage to ask Gordon Brown to go.

There are some clear reasons for this dithering by his underlings; first they have no clear idea what they want to say that is different to Gordon Brown. Second there is no public appetite for any of them more than there is for Gordon Brown. Third nobody would actually believe in anyhting being delivered by this NewLabour NewBoy as they have failed to deliver on so much else.

So for all those calling for what David Cameron and the tories stand for the answer is simple - not a bunch of failed promises to the poor, a wholesale wasting of public resources and multiple quangos.

I'd sooner a chimpanzee ran the country than NewLabour; it would be more sincere, it wouldn't need to be told to eat its leftovers and they don't chew their fingernails.

If any mod reads these comments can you please ask your "techies" to try to fix the previous thread, where all 470 comments have gone AWOL.

Out of interest, does anyone know what happened to 470 posts in the previous thread?

Of course, we were talking about freedom of speech.

The Scotsman's Scottish MP's message to Brown takes Nick's header comment a little further.

In particular, what do you think is behind Jacqui Smith's demand that Labour MPs stop "talking among themselves"? Could it be that at No.2 on the "Portillo List" with her Redditch seat vulnerable to a 3.4% swing, she has simply lost all hope of retaining it? I suspect she now just thinks that "Duff" Gordon will be more stubborn than any possible replacement and so keep her on the gravy train until June 2010.

For the "Portillo List", see my #288 on the previous thread if it recovers or the latest thread on Robin Lustig's blog.

Surely another factor is that the MPs who might make a leadership bid know that whatever happens they'll lose this election, and are sitting tight to take over after then.

Become Labour leader now and chances are you'll be looking for a new job in 2 years.

The statements of support and loyalty are merely dissembling; none of them believes what they say. I agree that if a serious assault emerges, it will be swift, from an unexpected direction and led by someone we don't know terribly well. I also believe Brown could resist such an assualt; if he says "No", what can they do about it? He controls all of the levers.

As for me, I want to see Brown go only if it means an immediate general election to allow us to eject Labour. Otherwise, let him stay in office and wither.

I do love a good Greek chorus

Nobody seems to be talking about the risk of not only losing the next election but a political vacuum within the Labour Party.

As we all know its Labour - but also New Labour. So once Brown is gone with no obvious leader in sight they will all start tearing into each other. So activists will be put off as there is a fractured identity. Donors won't see the point of donating and in any event if there are not many donors they will just be servicing debt.

Meanwhile its probably not lost on Cameron that Britain is changing fast. Scotland could be gone, perhaps Wales later, hence the rumour of negotiation with the SNP.

The electoral system encourages "boom and bust" in the media age. The Tories spent over a decade in the wilderness and now Labour are looking to plumb even greater depths.

Thats not good for the public as they don't get the policies and strategies they want.

If Cameron takes up fairer voting and say did an election deal with the Liberals (I am not a member by the way) then he makes sure the pendulum swings are reduced. It does mean his majority is less next time around. But then he must consider how long the Tories were in opposition last time.

With no activists, no donors, big debts, an identity crisis and a fairer voting system to inhibit regional strength against overall voting intentions Labour may break apart.

What a shame.

Hi Nick, has there been any sign of the chicken run by MP's in marginal seats who are actively seaking out safer majorities elsewhere? I seem to remember this happening with a fair few conservative MP's in the run up to the 1997 general election. Maybe with the election a couple of years away it is too early but some must be looking around.

I see that The Times Online have broken with a story that Miliband and Harman are now actively plotting to oust the PM - that certainly cheers me up. however, does this now bring Europe, and specifically the Lisbon Treaty, back into play in British politics? I assume (rash, I know...) that any new PM would have to go to the country within a few months of being selected by the Labour Party - is that "few months" less than the time it will take the Eurocrats to sort out Ireland? I think it was William Hague who declared that until the Treaty was finally ratified, then the Tories would campaign to have a Referendum within the UK. It seems to me that a Tory general election campaign promising a referendum on Lisbon immediately after being elected would completely put paid to any chances of a further Labour victory.

Perhaps I'm just hoping too hard...

What does emerge from this, very much to everyone's shame, is that the gossip and briefings are all about how the party can get rid of Gordon, who in the party should wield the knife, how do we save the party legacy, how are we going to keep our seats.

I don't recall a single example of anyone asking what is good for the country. It is a silence that speaks volumes about the standards of modern politics.

Re #3 threnodio

I genuinely believe it's a technical problem that happened when I tried to post comment #470 or #471 which I reported some hours ago via the Contact Us links. If incomplete text was uploaded to the database the retrieval stream is probably not closing properly.

Not only have all the comments disappeared but my "User Profile" too, whereas yours is OK. Compare the two by clicking on your own login above one of your comments with what you get when you click on mine.

I think I'll shutdown now and visit the real world for a while. Sorry if it was a word in that "last post" that caused the meltdown.

Changing out Gordon Brown is not the solution-as far as I see it NuLabour don't have anybody else capable of running the UK.
The only solution is a mass cull of senior ministers to be replaced by MP's not tarnished with the NuLabour philosophies of spin and promises.We need a few more people at a senior level who put the country first.
If you got a few more Frank Field's of this world,who understand the issues, at a senior level there may be hope.
Under this new regime budgets should be slashed and Ministers advised that together with their civil servants they need to find economies of scale in their budgets by re-defining much improved business processes and practices within their respective Ministries.
And the government should be MOST ruthless to itself by reducing cost of Government through scrapping the myriad of quangos,think tanks and consultants they employ.If they dont add "value" dont employ them

Whatever happens Labour will be punished because there is no immediate solution that will benefit them or even keep them afloat. If they keep Brown until 2010 they will be accused of not listening and if they get rid of him there's no-one to replace him, as Brown has systematically weeded-out any rivals via his Machiavellian machinations. Even Jack Straw can't save them because as PM he'd be another Brown in style and he commands no loyalty from the other MPs. I have no sympathy with them, this state of affairs is the result of the gradual decay of morality and their respect for the people they are supposed to govern. Someone said (oldnat was it? or Brownedov? I forget) on an earlier blog that their top-down centralised control was balanced by a guiding ethical principle, and now that has disappeared all that's left is hunger for power and their only principle is the all-consuming desire to retain it. I posted an article yesterday from the Guardian re: the current education system and this highlights exactly what the problem is throughout the whole administration. To use schools as an example: in short, they have become statistics-factories for the propagation of the government. Forget about the children, what do they matter? The whole system suffers from this approach, the entire culture of our country has been dominated by box-ticking and red tape for too long. In order for Labour to have any chance of success (ie. avoid complete wipeout) their first priority is to solve the problem of bureaucracy-bloat, and the only way to do this is to abandon top-down centralising measures that lead to panicky teachers, distressed pupils, bad education and false statistics. Do that and the culture will eventually change and things may start (finally) to pick up again.

I actually sometimes leave the computer and this fascinating blog, went out and bought a newspaper. Read that "MPs encourage 'dream ticket' of Miliband and Johnson." I agree: this will be a dream ticket for the tories to oppose. Two plonkers!

Re #5 stumo-
"Become Labour leader now and chances are you'll be looking for a new job in 2 years."

So what's different if "Duff" Gordon stays? At least you might improve your pension and severance pay.

Before I read anyone elses comment I would like to say that this was a good honest peice Nick, well done.

This is about survival full stop.If you are a Labour MP do you kick out Brown and risk losing two years pay.Or carry on and hope for the best and at worst two more years filling your boots. as for Miliband and Harmen do they really want to risk everything for a couple of months at the top.

Most of what keeps the political commentators busy are of no interest to most people. Look at how many people vote in elections for an indication.

If you asked, a lot of people would be more interested in the result of Last Choir Standing than in what an MP thinks of the PM or who is 'minding the shop' while Gordon is building sand castles.

Until political commentators start explaining how the chatter in Westminster will bring the price of bread down then the lack of interest will continue.

Re #8 thegangofone

But as I said on last night's Newsnight blog, the funny thing about fairer voting is that it would actually help some of the labour lemmings to survive

That's why I don't understand with all the kamikaze election plans being leaked nobody says: Fairer voting and completion of devolution - we could do a deal with the LibDems on those and go to the country early to wrongfoot the Tories.

It's simply too late for "Duff" Gordon to try that. Who would believe him?

Re #13 gavin_humph

Your plan might help them a little, but it would have to include change at the top for anyone to take it seriously.

I was interested in hearing the discussion this morning and also reading the argument above. The Lib Dems have never really recovered from ditching Charles Kennedy and I think any labour MP thinking of trying to get rid of the PM should bear this in mind. The greatest sadness for the Lib Dems is that in getting rid of Charles Kennedy in the way they did, they put one of their key policies... proportional representation... on the "back burner". A pity for all of us. In my opinion, there hasn't really been a substantial successor to Kennedy.
I think, in view of the above, any surreptitious Labour attempt to oust the PM would leave Labour in the same situation and could well put some of their key policies into the shade.
I Believe the greatest politicians balance the good of the country with personal ambition. The ambition to do something about the inequalities and injustices in the country is often lost sight of once office is achieved. Thanks to a few great exceptions to this, major social and parliamentary reforms have been achieved over the centuries.

Re #14 power_to_the_ppl

It was oldnat.
Well said both of you.

#10
Your comments about the final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty are interesting, but after the disgraceful way that Labour reneged on a clear manifesto promise to hold a referendum and got clean away with it, probably the final straw for many people including myself that contributed to the precipitous fall in Labour's opinion poll standing, who will now believe any party that makes such a promise? And that as much as anything is the legacy which New Labour will bequeath to the nation; a complete distrust, rather than quiet, healthy cynicism, of anything that a politician says.

The real irony is that those long-time Labour supporters who thought that they saw in the Blair project the salvation of their party's electoral hopes, were really embracing the instrument of its total destruction. After the next election Labour, New or Old, will will be an electoral irrelevance, with a few demoralised MPs stalking the halls of Westminster like wraiths, whilst the nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, and the Tories in England get on with the business of governing. I wonder if Mr Woodward sees his switch to the Labour benches as a shrewd career move now?

What on earth is going on.

There were some exceptional postings on the previous blog 'What's said and what's not' and I am not at all surprised that they have all disappeared. I wonder if they will ever come back or are they like the PM e-mail link, temporarily taken down, but never returned.

What will become a problem for all those supporting the PM is that their words will come back to haunt them.

For example, the politicians now talk about the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. However, what they do is to preface the comments by referring to combat troops. So, beware they are talking about combat troops.

The same applies to Gordon Brown, I am just getting on with the job. I think that we are going to get a MacMillan moment, you know the one where he was so ill that he had to go, to be replaced by the wonderful Alex Douglas Home.

If only there was a satirical programme like That Was The Week That Was where we could all have a good laugh, it is much better then being driven to tears by all the shinanigans going on.

Bring back the postings because I will have my worst conspiracy theories completely vindicated.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7530594.stm

T A G

You have been rumbled you are Obama in disguise

Re #18 markthename

If you look on my Portillo List, you'll see both Miliband Major and the Harperson are well down it, needing swings over 20% to defeat them, so they have a reasonable chance of survival even if RMS Titanic stays under the control of "Duff" Gordon. Equally it means they haven't much to lose by staging a "coup". Tricky choice.

I don't see that Labour has a lot of choice. Brown has become a liability, the young Turks - if that's what they are - are not going to lay down their political lives for the sake of the party. This really leaves only the old guard.

Those who still have cabinet posts to lose might find that very risky. I have to assume Blair foresaw all this and left parliament as well ensuring that he would not be available.

I was wondering about Prescott coming in as a caretaker, cracking the whip amongst the waverers, telling a few home truths and dragging the party to the left a tad before calling a snap election. He would lose it of course but he might just snatch defeat from the jaws of a rout and go with his reputation more or less intact.

As one of the few remaining Labour activists, I do wish someone else was in charge of the Labour Party. But we are where we are.

According to my MP, Gordon Brown "lost the dressing room" at a meeting of the PLP months ago, when there were audible groans about the 10p tax changes.

But now, in the middle of a media firestorm (which cannot maintain this intensity for much longer) is not the time to change.

I predict he will go in a year's time (having taken the heat, whilst quietly achieving some good things which no-one will notice), with the new leader going for an election in October 2009.

Amen to comment 19. NuLab has brassed off most of the electorate. I believe most of us have lost any trust in politicians. The transparently false doublespeak, most recently exempified by Hazel Blears, is a sad example of the administration and the poitical state of our country. When will the Westminster club appreciate the disdain they provoke? Prescot, Harman, Blears and Des Browne, determing our future. Maybe Ed Ball and Yvette can sort out the housing crisis.
Nick, where do you see your responsiblilites - to expose the hypocracy of politicians and serve the public or to preserve the status quo.

Nick, how could you?

The TV correspondent standing outside the residence of the embattled politician, giving a meticulous description of the event in which someone brought in the milk at 7am, followed by 20 minutes of analysis amounting to nothing at all, is one of our most glorious journalistic traditions.

If journalists admit they just don't know, what next? An August newspaper headline saying "No news today, don't bother buying this"? Hell's foundations quiver. Someone might end up doing something useful if we aren't careful.

Re #24 MalcolmW2

All good stuff

"I wonder if Mr Woodward sees his switch to the Labour benches as a shrewd career move now?"

Borderline, I would guess. He got what he thought was the safe seat of St Helens South for his apostasy but that may fall to a 13.2% swing next time.

#26 - Pot_Kettle

Well for heaven's sake tell him not to shake hands with anyone in uniform or he will have Justin Webb on his back before you can say 'consternoon afterble'

I think what is holding many Labour MPs from speaking publically is that much of the problem is about Gordon Brown's personality faults and more than his decision making and leadership skills.

Saying to a colleague or associate that "basically people dislike you as a person" is a tough conversation. I think he would take this type of conversation very badly. It would also end his political career instantly therefore i am beginning to see why the MPs are so reticent. I don't agree, but can understand it.

I think once a 'major player' comes off the fence then it will all be over very quickly.

Re #25 T A Griffin (TAG)
"If only there was a satirical programme like That Was The Week"

Try "The Now Show" on Radio 4

#26, Griffin

Obama in disguise, Obama in disguise cried Griffin in mock anger. You have it wrong again I am afraid. Obama is Griffin in disguise. There is only one leader of the free world. Obama is a johnny come lately to the cause. Nobody will admit to it but where Griffin leads others follow.

Mind you I am reminded of the French philosopher who saw a crowd in the distance shouting and waving flags.

He, because all philosophers are he, turned to his colleague and said 'I must find out where they are going so that I can lead them'.

Nick,

We are all aware that the pundits and political 'insiders' usually know very little - and usually too late. If one wants a good indication of the political fortunes of Brown (or any other politician for that matter), ask a bookmaker. They're in it for the cash: sentiment and wishful thinking don't come into their calculations.

#20 Brownedov

"we could do a deal with the LibDems on those and go to the country early to wrongfoot the Tories"

If I understand you correctly I don't think the Lib Dems (and I am not a member) would trust Labour after the last episode with Roy Jenkins.

Whilst I think Lib Dems would not want to do a deal with the Tories they do want fairer voting obviously. If they start picking up each others votes in marginal seats its an absolute blood bath for Labour.

Cameron could consider it because the "Tory brand" still needs cleansing.

In the same vein as threnodio in #11 if Cameron is seen to be doing something for the country as opposed to short term party and personal interests he gains long run credit.

Labour are caught in a pincer between the Tories and the SNP.

They are doomed wherever they turn. With or without Gordon Broon they will get a good kicking when the election comes.

Changing their leader is irrelevant. I suspect they know this and that is why they seem so paralysed.

I must be about the only person who quite likes Gordon Brown. He strikes me as intelligent, decent, honest,hardworking with a good heart. Sadly he is not desperately photogenic,humourous or too good with the media. Maybe people want PM's with a slick PR operation these days?

People are so fickle...one minute he is the best Chancellor of the Exchequer ever,with 10 years uninterrupted growth in the UK,the next he is 'washed up' because of international events such as subprime and energy and food prices going crazy. As if they were caused by him!!!

I far prefer him to Blair who was somewhat slimy with a false smile and in retrospect a tad bonkers. Major was a decent chap who liked cricket but was out of his depth as PM. Thatcher was decidedly strange and rather frightening,Callaghan was a buffoon....

No at the moment people here in the UK are very grumbly due to the disappearing pound in their pocket and want someone to blame. I am a bit sad it has to be Gordon.

#28 threnodio

I often agree with you but ....

Prescott "...would lose it of course but he might just snatch defeat from the jaws of a rout and go with his reputation more or less intact."

You are having an off day or you have been to t'pub.

"Croquet Prescott" does not have the gravitas with all elements of the party. He is prone to a gaff. He would get ripped at the dispatch box. He does not interview well. The Unions are not happy with Labour and he won't help with donations outside of them and he can't appease all of the elements of the party.

On the other hand none of the other candidates are that great I suppose.

Harmperson and Max Mosley are forming a new party called the Cruel Party!

re: 36

"He, because all philosophers are he"

Try reading Mary Midgley if you get the chance, she's very interesting!

Amusingly, Marti Pellow would appear to have come out in support of Mr Brown:

https://www.tessellators.com/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=1569

"16. At 2:09pm on 29 Jul 2008, Brownedov wrote:
Re #5 stumo-
"Become Labour leader now and chances are you'll be looking for a new job in 2 years."

So what's different if "Duff" Gordon stays? At least you might improve your pension and severance pay."




Don't forget your Milton chaps,
As the Devil said, before being cast into the pit "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."

What concerns me about David Milliband is that apart from his dodgy politics, he appears to have only recently needed to start shaving his upper lip.

Nick,

You have forgotten the public at large. We could bring the bring GB down.

Brown could not survive a series of well attended protest marches across the country.............

#43.

Oh, I know about Mary Midgley, I was just trying to be provocative! Maybe getting some people to think. You know me by now, surely.

re: 42

Lol I'd rather vote for the BNP than any party that has that loathsome woman in it! She might as well declare right now that if she was to take over from Brown she'd declare a certain part of the male anatomy illegal, and that you'd have to fill in a 50 page form to get a licence for it!

re: 48

Yah, being provocative is half the fun on these blogs! BTW the comments are back up on the previous blog now, lovely jubbly.

#42 - Phoenixarisen

Are they having a whip round for party funding?

Please give him two more years enough rope and we won't see them again for a generation. They have done to themselves what Maggie didn't achieve the obliteration of pink communism. Good riddance to the lot of them richer than ever is Gordon's claim aye laddie and in a right old pickle the difference between now and the Tory years then I could afford a house and pay my bills. Now cannot afford to move house prices to high, petrol, ha I now ride a small motorbike to work. I will have to freeze this winter so I can help my brother heat his house to keep his kids warm. I now have to buy shops own brand or look for the end of date stuff. Going out is a dream of another time gone by I am not on a bad wage but being single every penny coming in is going out. So please let him stay and then we can rejoice in a couple of years when they will be gone forever. Though to be seriouse, do you really think there is anyone in the PLP that has the guts to put their head above the parapit and say pick me, pick me.

#41 - thegangofone

Yes but on the plus side, he might just be mad enough to try. In the asylum, all patients are equal but some are . . . and so on.

#47 - jonathan_cook

He'd probably bang the entire country up for 42 days and hold the election on day 41.

I recognise the bind that Nick and his colleagues are in, particularly when they really do know something but can't provide the evidence. Just so long as they make it quite clear when they are merely speculating (which seems often to be the case), and if it's more than speculation at least provide some indication of the strength of the supporting evidence.

#40 frglee: no, you're not alone though the 'membership' of this site would make you think so. However, your characterisation of Blair and Callaghan are IMO way off beam.

@47
You had better not organise a protest march, that is what 42 days was introduced to combat.

@40 frglee
You have given us an assessment of lots of former PM's but you dont know your economic history very well.

You say GB presided over 10 years of continuous growth. When he took over we had already had 4 years of growth.
He inherited the most healthy economy any chancellor ever has thanks to Ken Clarke.

He kept Kens policies for 2 years so that gets us 6 years of Conservative growth that only leaves him 8 years of his own.

As we can now see his "prudence" failed to set aside money for a rainy day and now those rainy days have arrived he is having to borrow to make up the shortfall in the tax take.

He was at best mediocre as a chancellor, in reality he was more like incompetant

“40. At 3:12pm on 29 Jul 2008, frglee wrote:
I must be about the only person who quite likes Gordon Brown. He strikes me as intelligent, decent, honest, hardworking with a good heart. Sadly he is not desperately photogenic, humourous or too good with the media. Maybe people want PM's with a slick PR operation these days?

People are so fickle...one minute he is the best Chancellor of the Exchequer ever,with 10 years uninterrupted growth in the UK,the next he is 'washed up' because of international events such as subprime and energy and food prices going crazy. As if they were caused by him!!!.”


Yes, I think you are the only person who still likes Gordon Mc Clown.

As someone who has never felt anything but profound contempt and hatred for either him or his nefarious predecessor, can I offer you the other side of the coin.

You say that “one minute he is the best Chancellor of the Exchequer ever, the next he is 'washed up'.”

Your error here is the assumption that he was ever any good as Chancellor.
He took over an economy in good shape which was running a surplus, but which is now hideously in deficit.

Taxation has doubled while productivity is down. Poverty and inequality has increased while standards in health and education have fallen hugely.

By any reasonable indicator, Gordon Mc Clown’s handling of the economy has been poor. He has overseen the flinging of money at many projects, such as the NHS, but to no apparent results.

The only reason that he appears to have been proficient as a Chancellor is because, to put it bluntly, he has lied to us. The productivity has been fudged, the Unemployment figures have been fudged, the inflation rate has been fudged and the borrowing figures have been hugely fudged via the medium of P.F.I. The PM has had the unmitigated gall to criticise banks for ‘off balance sheet activities,’ but that is exactly how UK PLC has been run for years.

If he had done a decent job as chancellor over 10 years, the current international situation would have less power to hurt us as a country. We would be more secure, have greater reserves, less benefit dependency, a smaller state payroll to maintain and flexibility to trim sails and survive.

If the UK were a person it should be someone with no debts other than perhaps a small mortgage, lots of savings and a secure job.

Thanks to Gordon, the house is mortgaged to the hilt, with a couple of secured loans on top and the credit cards and loans are maxed out. The wages are gone the day after payday, there’s no food in the house and we’ve even robbed the kid’s piggy banks.

Yes, the international problems are not his fault, but our lack of preparedness is down to him and no-one else.

1 RobinJd

Chimps are much too intelligent to run the Country.

To be better than the present incumbent can I suggest either a baboon or a sloth would be acceptable and make a better fist of it.

TWTWTW

The difference is that That Was was original to many of us. I wonder what a David Frost in his prime would do to Gordon Brown in an interview now.

Surely the same applies to Jeremy Paxman, I wonder why we no longer see the real interviewers. The long interviews where the likes of Tony Blair could tell us that he is a straight sort of guy.

Is this not the problem for frglee #40 in an earlier posting. You see Gordon was the Chancellor when Blair was PM, he could have stopped the Iraq disaster if he had any guts. If he confirmed that the exercise had his full agreement and that for all subsequent actions he takes joint responsibilty, then my own personal view wil still not change.

He should have spoken out against the war. It is not good enough for any of these people to still be in control. They have blood on their hands and no amount of trying to change the agenda will work. The sooner they are tried for an illegal war, a war of aggression and war crimes then the sooner we can move on. Until that time I will never forgive them for what they done in my name.

In response to #40 - frglee,

"Maybe people want PM's with a slick PR operation these days?

I don't think it is just these days that people have demanded slick PR operations -even as far back as prime ministers Castlereagh and Palmerston people have demanded it. Of course, Castlereagh's policies were generally decent but his poor
oratory skills meant that they didn't go down well. However, Lord Palmerston was great with the ordinary member of the
electorate and got his point across and was well received. So, I don't think it is just these days but goes back to early 19th century Victorian politics.

"People are so fickle...one minute he is the best Chancellor of the Exchequer ever,with 10 years uninterrupted growth in the UK"

Yes, but to the detriment we now face. He spent indiscriminately during a Global Economic Upturn (I'll even capitalise it - as
it is being used so much these days) and took all the credit for the prosperity of the nation. Thus, he has made a rod for his
own back as now it is a Global Economic Downturn and there are no funds for his indiscriminate OVERspending. However, the same conditions which he claimed were in his control when the going was good; he is now denying are in his control now that they are problematic.

Is having a Freudian Oedipus complex a good qualification for being second in command of a political party?

What's said and what's not comments appear to be back. See Griffin says and BBC does. Ah the power of the Griffin!

Please go to #463 of the previous thread. It really does deserve to be read, all joking aside. You see I am fed up with people saying they did not see the economic depression coming.

The only problem is that some people do not recognise me as being an expert. Well I do not have a lot of confidence in the so called experts.

I do love it when commentators come on to the media telling us what they have found out. No, they have spoon fed and duped.

Things can only get better. After the next election, the parliamentary Labour party will be a hard core of about 50 far-lefties (from constituencies where Labour's education policies have already achieved their target of removing the electorate's capability for rational thought) and funded 100% by the Unions.

Who leads them will be as irrelevant as who leads the LibDems, but they should provide a few decades of harmless amusement before they all die of old age.

The conspiracy theories re the "What's said and what's not" were wrong and it's back.

Looks like the parser fell over in the process of mangling my #469 and/or power_to_the_ppl's #470.

browndev@2 wrote:
"If any mod reads these comments can you please ask your "techies" to try to fix the previous thread, where all 470 comments have gone AWOL."

I know I was distraught. What a loss for British politics that would have been. ;o) We would have to go back to the previous thread where it was all said before repeatedly by the same few people. 470 comments nothing new or interesting to say. Be very careful with that delete button techies ;o)

The griffin is a legendary creature with the body of a lion and the head and wings of an eagle.
As the lion was traditionally considered the king of the beasts and the eagle the king of the birds, the griffin was thought to be an especially powerful and majestic creature.

Griffins are normally known for guarding treasure. In antiquity it was a symbol of divine power and a guardian of the divine.

Greetings everyone, as an avid reader but sporadic contributor to this blog, before I post my tuppence worth, I'd just like to say a big thank you to the regulars who have informed, educated and amused me, often simultaneously. You probably know who you are!

#29 sbudjh
I think the media firestorm you refer to has some way to go just yet, and in point of fact, has probably just begun. The 2008 Summer Recess promises to be compelling I've no doubt.

#40 frglee
Gordon Brown may be all of the things you describe, (a fundamentally good man), however, his public persona in my view, a dry, charmless, bungling, thick skinned and duplicitous control freak is the perception from the majority of people that matter, the electorate.

Assuming his fingertips remain strong enough for him to cling to office until 2010, any "achievements" will doubtless be met with cynicism. That supposes of course he isn't seen off beforehand by the "Piranha Club" of PLP colleagues. Nick Robinson has this blog spot on - in the coming weeks we can all expect to be entertained while he goes about his work sorting fact from fiction.

re: 63

An insightful prediction on your blog, well done! Tell us, for how many years will the Labour behemoth be out of power?

Re #38 thegangofone

I perfectly understand that "Duff" Gordon could not be trusted to carry it through, and the minimum token of faith would have to be a bill virtually ready for royal assent. If a new leader offered it publicly it might be an offer Clegg would find hard to refuse as well as difficult for the new Labour leader to back away from after the election. Any arm-twisting of lobby-fodder by the whips should be easy while they're at staring at certain defeat.

I also agree with both you and threnodio that it would be in Cameron's long-term interests to do such a deal, but I'm not so sure HE would with the prospect of a big HoC majority ahead of him anyway and his backwoodsmen needing arm-twisting on a much greater scale.

40 Freglee

Yes - there are momentswhen I feel sorry for Gordon Brown too - it can't be nice for almost the entire country baying for your blood.....

..... bet then I remember the following:

- GB hounded Blair out of office.

- GB has outlined no plan or vision as PM. Killing Tony off was just for the sake of his own ambition.


Then there is GB's record as Chancellor:

- Stealth Taxes

- Claiming credit for creating the good economic times.

- Tax pensions

- 10p tax

- Gold

- PFI

- Billions spent on unaccountbale Quangos

- Telling us he has stopped 'boom and bust'

Apologies all, a little eager with the Post Comment button before the end of my previous #68.

"Piranha Club" is not my own invention, from memory it was a phrase coined by either Eddie Jordan or Ron Dennis describing the machinations behind the scenes of F1.

To try and balance my previous comments, I can only think off hand of a couple of current labour politicians who break the mould of self serving egoists, Hilary Benn and Frank Field. On the opposition benches, David Davis, (please don't laugh), William Hague and Vince Cable appear to be politicians of intellect and conviction, qualities invisible in the vast majority of the present cabinet.

Strange how Journalists only seem to want to talk to other Journalists when they can not get an answer from the politicians. I assume the great unwashed are not deemed to have an opinion. Does not matter who heads up New Labour, they are all tarred with the same brush. They made a promise in their election manifesto and renaged on it, and will not address the west lothian question. The voters will have their revenge.

GB's high spending as Chancellor is easy to criticize now and I agree that PFI funding was always dodgy. BUT, that spending has to be set against the previous decades of almost criminal under-investment in school buildings, hospital buildings and other public services. Some serious catching up was needed - the public demanded it and even the Tories would have responded to that clamour if they had survived in 1997.

Never mind about not fixing metaphorical roofs when the sun was shining, Labour was fixing real roofs that should have been fixed decades earlier.

Remember it was the Tories who started to sell off council houses and initiated today's property crisis. It was they who de-regulated the buses and privatised British Rail and made us over-dependent on cars and lorries. It was the Tories who privatised Gas and Electricity so that we now pay more for our energy than the Europeans. It was the Tories who deregulated the financial markets which ultimately exposed us to the credit crunch.

Yes, these problems have crystallised on Labour's watch, but they were initiated by decisions taken in the 1980s.

Nick

News just in -

1. Politics is a dirty business

2. MPs are self-regarding and speak with forked tongues

Somebody once said that politics is the second oldest profession and bears a very close strong resemblance to the first.

I see where he or she is coming from but perhaps a bit harsh on the members of the oldest ?

#1 "I'd sooner a chimpanze ran the country"



Actually, this whole New Labour government situation is being to look like a PG Tips advert !

Every time I hear you or others say "A senior minister tells me," I mentally switch off in despair.

The fact that politicians are too cowardly to say things publicly (which we elect them to do) and that journalists are too conniving to name them, says more about our morally bankrupt political system than anything else.

We want names. It is our right. It is not your right to keep them hidden, and MPs have no right to employ any form of skull duggery.

MPs who believe that this is how they should conduct their political business are lacking in the moral fibre to conduct their political affairs.

They should be parted from their fat salaries (and yes, to the rest of us they are fat salaries) and sent on their way.

Two strories in the papers today caught my eye about how we are governed.

The first was about David Camerons holiday in Cornwall, and how he won't see the real Cornwall - which apparently away from the tourist areas in the holiday season is "broke" and defined by the EU as one of Europes poorest areas.

This is the same Cornwall, which in another story, was spending £467,000 on a new logo for the new Cornwall supercouncil.

It says a lot abot the priorities of the authorities running the country today. This is "Browns Britain" ..........

You've had the Good Times - now things are not so good. History will have a much better view of Gordon Brown that the current political commentators both in the BBC and especially the Daily Mail. They forgot to blame the PM for the dolphins coming up the river. ARe they slipping.?
I'm not a politcal person, but having reached the age of 73, i can remember a time when writers/broadcasters were at least even-handed. now I think they are downright unfair.
close down the BBC and the Daily Mail for a month and we may get some accurate reporting from the rest.
One thing for sure - you are not doing Scotland any favours. We will be much better of under "Feartie frae Fyfe" (Alex Samond's words) then "Ba'heid frae Buchan"

If you want a real laugh read Evan Davis' blog with his forcast for 2008

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/evandavis/2007/12/2008_looking_ahead.html

One of the interesting things is how accurate his bloggers are compared to the Economics Editor of the BBC who was "spinning for Gordon" so as to speak.

Don't know how Nick keeps a straight face on the Today programme.

As is sit here reading the "BBC" website, clicking the politics link.
I see the picture used for atleast 2 different pages meaning the exact same thing!

Anyways...

In this Blog there are a lot of people that have the same belief of whats gone wrong with the Labour Party. It doesnt take a dictionary, and google to work out EXACTLY why we are as we are.

Yes Labour, and yes i voted for them in 1997, yes trusted Blair and still now i remeber Conservative Political Campain "demon eyes" they put on billboards and posters of Blair with the Evil eyes and shocking "

911 happened, the war on terror, Iraq, now we have on us, food shortages, fuel/energy poverty, house shortages, inept mortgages, and the credit crunch. How can any Government say that going to war "even if it was right" can explain the global market?

Not without looking at their feet and saying "size nein" boots!

#67

Please note the Griffins also guard the entrance to many Cities. I find the ones at the entry to the Street of Shame, namely Fleet Street, very glorious. I do not look anything like the wonderful mythological creature to which you refer but if I was going to have any surname then Griffin is one of which I can be truly proud. I know pride comes before a fall!

#79 - geminiDISMAYED

Has the possibility not occurred to you that these were illegal immigrants disguised as dolphins? I would lock them up for 42 days. Real dolphins would not survive of so you could deport the rest without fear of acting unjustly.

Although Gordon must ultimately take the blame for the government's woes, the real problem is Labour's unpopular policies and its disastrous handling of the economy.

Gordon has always marketed himself as the slayer of 'boom and bust'. How hollow that sounds now...

It's ironic that having helped push Blair from office, Gordon now finds himself on the receiving end.

As they say, what goes around, comes around.

Shouldn't be too long until the publication of 'The Decline and Fall of the Labour Empire'. Look forward to reading that!

I quite like the idea that Ministers say different things in public and private.

That, although they may abide by Cabinet solidarity in public, they fight like cat and dog for different views within Cabinet meetings.

Presumably Brown felt it was proper to argue that the removal of the 10 pence tax rate was a good thing behind the scenes and in public debate. What a chump! Being consistent is only politically worthwhile if you are right.

(TB ditched his opposition to the EU, nuclear weapons, etc.)

What amazes me is why the Treasury, with its team of highly expensive advisors, economists and accountants couldn't have come up with a solution that didn't require even more claims for credits.

Surely there could have been some approach to mitigate the impact in a simpler way.

#28 - your comments about Prescott are correct, but I think the media would crucify him.

As a minister he is totally ineffective. But as a party politician and motivator he is very good.

I don't think he is going to worry about things too much. He has a nice fat pension to retire on. Why confuse things by running for PM?

re: 86

I'd love to know their reasoning behind it. I can't see how anyone could have thought that doubling the tax on the lowest earners was a good idea under any circumstances, or how anyone could have thought that taking out a 2.7 billion loan--- that we'll have to pay for, no less--- to 'fix' ie. not fix the problem was a good idea either. I'm completely baffled, I can't even provide a tentative theory as to why they did it (discounting gross incompetence and contempt for us) let alone a justification.

Been away from the Pirhana Pool for a while but see its no different to when I left. Lets just sat a tad "right of centre"

On a serious note I do really worry (I should get out more) about the media's influence on the government of our country. I'm beginning to think the media could bring down a government or a prime minister quite easily.

Its the media speculation that actually feeds more speculation untill that speculation becomes self fulfilling. As more fuel is thrown on the flames the bigger "the story" becomes and the more the media frenzy grows.

Every government in history hits problems sooner or later (usually economic) but that does not take away their mandate no matter how much opposition party's clamour.

I loved Hagues comments which were sometbing on the lines of "we need an election now so we can have a REAL Government"

Presumeably he meant the Tories.

So Cameron, Osbourne Hague et al would be "real government" Really.

By the way, on the subject of "mending the roof while the sun shines"

Just how much do exponents of the great soundbite feel should have been squirelled away, I've never heard George say how much he would have had in readiness, where it would have been "saved from" and why more importantly the Tories are still sticking to Labour's spending plans which is the real question?

PLEASE PLEASE don't anyone come on and respond that its because "he hasn't seen the books"

Post 89. Eatonrifle.

In your penultimate paragraph you raised the question about why Osbourne is seeking to maintain Labours spending plans for the first two years................that is plainly wrong as it is simply a continuation of failed high tax and wasteful spending policies. You can guess what I think they should do!!!

However, with regard to your question about what the Tories would have done for the last ten years..............well that's simple too.....

Labour should have simply stuck to the Conservatives spending plans not just for the first two years after the 1997 election but for the entire 10 years!!!!!!!!!

That way Govt spending would not have risen from £300Billion in 1997 to £600Billion in 2007 and we would therefore now have something in the kitty for the bad times.

Many other countries did this............but we didn't!

I can't wait to see Bottler Brown's Memoirs.............

"How I singlehandedly ended Boom and Bust Economics in Britain"

What a joke!

90# said

"However, with regard to your question about what the Tories would have done for the last ten years..............well that's simple too....."

But clearly that isn't what the current Tories would have done otherwise they'd not stick to Labours plans when in office.

What I think you mean is that your type of Tory hero, Thatcher, Tebbitt, Joseph would have done that but that isn't who you have now is it?

So in effect the current Tory party still stick to Labours spending plans which is why I said that is the real question. Why if they are so flawed and damaging to the country?

re: 89

"I loved Hagues comments which were sometbing on the lines of "we need an election now so we can have a REAL Government"

Presumeably he meant the Tories."


Presumably he meant a government whose priority is governing, rather than on clinging onto power for power's sake. Presumably he meant that we should have an election in order to remove a washed-up gang of chancers who slowly but surely continue to destroy British freedoms: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." You may have heard that quote before.

The money that should have been squirrelled away is the money that has been consistently wasted on illegal wars and quangos, vast IT projects, 10(?) reviews into the NHS, etc, let's not forget all the stealth taxes either or the 2000 quid Beckett spent on her pergolas etc etc etc. To summarise: the money this shambles of a government has poured down the drain.

90#

By the way if Osbourne and Cameron daren't alter Browns spending plans doesn't that make them even bigger "bottlers".

It seems pretty disingenuous to me to heap critcism on the Government's running of the economy and then say but we'll stick to their spending plans.

Some would say guttless or perhaps just clever electionearing, a bit like "labour isn't working" with the dole queu at 1.5 million only to add another 2 million in 2 years.

Prepare for deja vu everyone

92#

Are you really suggesting that if the Tories win power as seems likely BUT after three years are being battered by the media and oppinion polls they'll hold an election rather than "cling on to power"

Yeah right!

British Parliamentary term 5 YEARS, you know like 1992 to 1997.

re: 93

It's not just the wasted money, as if that wasn't bad enough, it's the benefits-dependent underclass that they have created and the ridiculous amounts of bureaucracy that they have introduced. Oh yeah and that hideous monster Political Correctness, which is a distinctly Nu-Labour creation. They should all be 'whipped with rhinoceros-hide whips dipped in brine' (to quote the great Philip Larkin) for that one alone.

95#

I can't believe you feel government "waste" started in 1997 or that having a percentage of the population as "benefit dependent" only occurred in the last 11 years.

As for political correctness I'd say its more to do with societal change than a "creation" of New Labour.

wasn't the outcry about Labour's "Toff" campaign a case of "political correctness" but when it suits why let hypocracy get in the way.

re: 94

Well Labour are quite simply not up to the job are they? Brown has removed any potential threats to himself and now he's blown it there's no-one of any standing left. There should be an election because they are criminally irresponsible and incapable of governing, simple as that.

Today I visited a good exhibition from the National Portrait Gallery in Kirkcudbright. Included was a portrait of Thatcher - no special protection or guards etc; an unthinkable situation several years ago in Scotland.

Things change, and the venom disappears.

However, your political spats are rather gentle affairs, as you squabble over which group of people with broadly similar policies are going to manage your affairs. Angels and pins, or a Marks and Spencers shareholders meeting come to mind.

Scottish politics is currently really vicious (great spectator sport) because it centres round a huge issue - independence. People are passionate because, whichever side you are on, it's a matter of principle, and both sides think that the fight is winnable soon.

Given a choice (and its one that will be made by our southern friends and neighbours), I'll settle for Cameron, as being more annoying than Brown (you feel sad, not angry, when one of the family gets dementia), or Hague (much more electable outwith Cameron's Home Counties).

I'll now follow Bilbo's example at his 111th birthday party. Goodbye.

re my #98

Of course, when you take the magic ring off .....

re: 96

No, government waste and benefits-dependency didn't start in 1997 but they escalated from there and got progressively worse, which you cannot refute.

The outcry wasn't because of political correctness but because the Labour gang were indulging in irrelevant mudslinging, which they did because they're dead on the inside and have nothing to offer except worthless top-down centralising policies. They've been in power too long, gone stale, and now they need to go!