Having left British politics a few years ago, David Miliband is making a comeback of sorts, less than a week after Labour’s conference in September (and less than a month after Labour’s new leader has been elected) as he will be the keynote speaker at the Institute of Directors’ annual convention.
Comments
Not sure that DM will be back. First there needs to be a by-election in a winnable seat, then there needs to be a parachuted selection then a successful by election. Can't see it myself. The appearance at the IOD is just an "I told you so!" to the Labour Party.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/607664444894789632
A good opportunity for a LD and Labour revival.
You've got to be in it to win it; DM can only have a chance if he puts in the hours and returns to Westminster at the first available opportunity. If he does not put his name in at the first realistic by-election, then he won:t have a chance. His track record suggests he doesn't have the bottle ( unlike his brother)!
Indeed I think it quite likely that the number of UKIP MPs will go down next GE.
Indeed it is not impossible that a Tory government could collapse in the aftermath of the referendum, and not go the full 5 years.
Mind you, given the lamentable state of the Out campaign, they have good reason to be rattled. It's probably not too much of an exaggeration to say they've already lost.
I did tell 'em their strategy (if that's not too strong a word) was bonkers.
Government ministers will be free to support the government line.
Given the renegotiation hasn't finished yet that doesn't mean its pre-determine. Cameron has said only if his renegotiation is successful - in which case it makes sense as government policy. To have government ministers say the government failed while the government says it was right would be absurd.
Nobody is pre-judging the negotiation or saying backbenchers need to be mute.
As it happens, I think that Cameron will probably also have no choice, and will allow certainly Conservative MPs, and possibly ministers (although maybe not cabinet ministers), to campaign on either side. If so, it will be the weakness of his political position, not arrogance, which is the determining factor. In other words, reality - the party is split on this issue, and there's no getting away from that.
But, to be honest, I think it's too late. They should have started this three years ago.
This combined with the pushing of there being no status quo (which is a very cutting message - reminiscent of the Conservative-SNP attack line on Labour) could quite easily see an out vote.
They need to keep this as wider debate, about whether we want Westminster to be our primary law maker, whether we want 40 more years of integration and whether the EU does what is in it's best interests instead of ours.
If DC stands up and says that if we vote no he'll use his remaining three years to get the best deal for the UK, irrespective of party allegiance, before stepping down it would calm fears.
This needs to be fought like how the YeSNP fought the Sindy campaign. However the big differences is that Out is starting from a higher base, with a softer audience and much less emotional attachment from the breakee.
Re Cameron's ministers and campaigning as they like, I'll take the word others it was allowed before, but I don't actually see a problem with a PM requiring his ministers to in public at the least not contradict his position if they want to remain ministers in the interim. We all know I think that Cameron will step down if he loses, so anyone going against his recommendation is, in a principled way admittedly, fighting for the of his tenure too. If they already intending to campaign for out they are saying he is going to fail, which would also be incompatible with staying in government, if accurate.
Night all.
http://tinyurl.com/paozsot
I didn't know that Roy Jenkins resigned in protest as Deputy Leader of Labour in 1972 when the Shadow Cabinet supported an amendment in the Commons (from a Tory MP) which called for a referendum.
Why, then, did he agree to the 2015 Scottish Parliament election being put back 12 months to avoid it clashing with the general election?
If Cameron expects a deal, and Merkel expects a deal, I think the deal will be made. I think Cameron and Merkel both have a very good idea both what the UK wants and what Germany and others are willing for us to have. The idea that its likely there's no common ground on that I don't understand. That's wishful thinking from you and goes against all evidence.
I think people are fully capable of comprehending both their regular elections and a straight Yes/No choice at the same time. Its not unusual to have multiple elections on the same day, we had local elections on the same day as the General Election. What caused problems in Scotland in 2007 was multiple elections using different voting systems on the same day.
Actually I doubt it will happen unfortunately. But I would be over the moon if Cameron turned out to be the man to break the Tory party and the issue was the EU.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11658375/Mo-Farah-told-of-Alberto-Salazar-doping-scandal-a-month-ago.html
Whoever is advising him needs shooting. He has been caught out lying now over when he knew about this, even giving the BBC a written statement. That after the whole way he did the press conference was totally wrong, then running off back to the US at the last minute.
Edit: I owe @MikeK an apology for rubbishing his UKIP source for the story last night - as it happens they had it before anyone else!
Thought not. You'd move heaven and earth to make sure he didn't get selected as a by election candidate.
Can I just check I have got the new line right...
Cameron won't survive coalition, and will have to resignCameron won't survive Leveson, and will have to resign
Cameron won't survive the Coulson trial, and will have to resign
Cameron won't survive the IndyRef, and will have to resign
Cameron won't survive the other Coulson trial, and will have to resign
Cameron won't survive the election, EICIPM, and will have to resign
Cameron won't survive the EU ref, and will have to resign
This is going to determine whether Cameron is recorded as an exceptionally good PM or a great one. Holding the Tories together over this is going to take a miracle.
If Cameron expels cabinet ministers for campaigning Out, then it will improve it significantly.
..and it scares the bejesus out of weak lefties
Michael Farron's Dead Cat springs to mind. Cameron is at the G7 - what poker chips do you expect him to play in the negotiation dance? It is not all as it seems. Ever.
/turns off analogy and metaphor mode/
Cameron has been underestimated on here time and time again. We even saw the 'lucky general' meme brought out the other day. He has a very difficult course to navigate wrt the referendum, but he's sailed such courses before.
On the other hand, you have an 'out' vote that is likely to be led by that hopeless idiot, the unelectable (*) Farage. It'll be no contest. Sadly.
(*) Except by party lists.
People who want the EU to be radically different won't be pleased and will campaign for Out, but lose. Europhiles will feel it's not wonderful but hey. In a few years, we'll struggle to remember what's changed.
What will Boris do? He has a career-defining choice to make in the next year or so.
As someone who is inclined to vote out, it is depressing that this is happening, but it seems that 'out' currently has little of any positive value to say. They've had years to prepare for this, and there is an absolute intellectual vacuum at out's heart.
Re an agreement and what it would look like, I've no doubt one will be made and there will be concessions, I think nickplalmer characterises the way these things go well. The key is if that deal will be substantive enough to allay concerns. For me, I highly doubt it will because EU leaders are either contemptuous of the aims of many in Britain or just don't want to go that far. So as difficult as it may be Cameron will have no choice but to present something small as huge.
On Farage: who ever is the official face of Out, it will be Farage who is seen as the spokesperson. He is a media tart and unable to shun the limelight. In his own words: Never has the party been so unified around me"
Mary Burrows, 58, enjoyed £200,000 salary before stepping down last year
Was chief executive of Welsh health board which denied life-saving drugs
Could not get breast cancer drug for herself in Wales so moved to London
Campaigners said it is 'kick in the teeth' for patients who don't have option
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3114654/
Results of devolution!
I think there is some irritation that the EU is being distracted by this issue when the EZ is being threatened by the possible Grexit and the UK response to the Mediterranean refugee crisis is distinctly underwhelming our friends.
The ante is being raised with Greece again who are being threatened with not only a departure from the EZ but from the EU as well. It is possible that Cameron might be told yes, but now really isn't the time. The new references to something legally binding might be straws in the wind for this.
There are also straws in the wind about the global economic situation. If there was a major downturn with our deficit at current levels we, and the government, would be in serious trouble with Osborne criticised for not acting quicker. Such uncertainty ought to be bad for Out but who can say?
The situation greatly favours In but there are scenarios which gives Out a chance.
Wow.
You really are one of the producers.
If he did that for health, imagine what he would do as PM.
Let me repeat: Burnham's scum.
Dr Palmer,
As a man who seems keen on political union in the EU (apologies if I've misunderstood), I wonder if you could clarify something. We've been told that ever closer union was in the original 1957 treaty and was always the aim. Why then wasn't it made explicit and proceeded with rapidly? Was it something to do with the fact that it would have been decisively rejected?
And hence the mission creep.
Some senior Eurocrats are still insisting political union is the aim. Romano Prodi stated within ten or twenty years. Why isn't that being publicised?
As I've said on here before ... softly, softly, catchee maonkey.
Off to Holland for a conference, so signing off for a while.
Post-race piece should be up this morning.
Was astounded to see the papers last night. Cameron appears to have decided on taking one of three paths:
1) securing the renaming of the EU as the British Empire, with France to spend every Sunday celebrating Anglo-Saxon culture, and fees to paid to the UK rather than vice versa
2) campaigning for Out
3) getting brutally murdered by his backbenchers. And frontbenchers
It's undemocratic and really quite surprising. Trying to recall what my position was on this a week or two ago. I think I thought it was possible, but would be a mistake.
As for supporting the Francis inquiry: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2873911/Outcry-Burnham-claims-Mid-Staffs-probe-mistake-Labour-accused-insulting-victims-saying-better-report-never-published.html
So you're wrong.
Mr. Penkridge, that's it. Either he gets the best deal realistically possible, he campaigns for Out, or his party kills him six minutes after the polls close (either in revenge or celebration).
So you're wrong.
I said that he set up the original inquiry, which is entirely correct.
Confidential and public inquiries have their pros and cons. Confidential inquiries are speedier, cheaper and often people are able to speak more frankly.
The 10 hospitals with worse SHIMI (Standardised Hospital Inpatient Mortality Index) than Stafford have not had public inquiries.
It was Labour who brought such statistics into the public domain, in part to drive improvements.
Off to work now, but while I have many disagreements with Labours management of the NHS (it was a major reason that I left the party) Burnhams role is not one of them.
So you're wrong.
It's not as it I repeatedly accused a poster of being a stalker when I lost an argument, is it? Perhaps you should remove the plank from your eye.
Leaving that aside, are you saying that you agree with Burnham over his view on the Francis report?
Stunning victories, within a year of taking power, stabbed in the back (and front) by a bunch of pygmies, who can never defeat him in battle.
It wasn't tragic, fortunately. But could have been. Fortunately the staff at Burton were excellent.
In a candid interview with The Independent, Labour’s interim leader admitted the widespread doubts about the party’s leadership and economic credibility cost it dearly. She said Labour’s much-trumpeted 6m conversations with voters counted for little because the party had the “wrong message.” Many people felt Labour was not talking to them because it raised issues such as zero hours contracts, the living wage and food banks, she said.
http://ind.pn/1Kj9Vsh
I find myself agreeing with you.
Forty five years ago, I was amazed by the one-sided nature of the debate and in an almost childish protest. I voted for OUT despite wanting to be IN. Although I was safe in the knowledge that IN would win easily.
I assumed we were voting for the status quo and that the Tony Benns of the world were being paranoid. The media and politicians all poo-pooed the fears of political union in a manner worthy of General Melchett.
Why should this one be any different?
You really must write an article along those lines. But try to make it at least vaguely historically accurate.