politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Almost all of LAB’s current problems stem from eight years ago today when Gordon Brown recorded this interview
Eight years today an event took place from which, I’d argue, all Labour’s trouble stem – the decision by the then PM to call off what were very advanced plans to have an early general election.
No, Brown would have lost his majority and then gone into the recession with a weak Minority or LD-Labour coalition. By 2012 Labour would have been absolute toast and probably toppled before then.
Labour's problems were always bigger than just one bottled election.
First? It seems a long time ago now. I do hope the Tories get rid of the fixed term parliament act - it was much more fun the way it used to be.
I hope they keep the Fixed Term act. It is not meant to be "fun", politics needs to be predictable and stable.
Do you not think that five years is too long? By 2014 it felt like we well overdue an election. If things are going well then the PM would tend to call an election after four years. We had five year terms after Major and Brown became PM mid term and when the Tories knew they were heading for defeat in 1997. It would have been interesting to see if Cameron would have called an election in 2014 had he had the option to.
Brown was always going to be a disaster as PM, because his personality was completely unsuited to the job. So even if he had called and won an election in 2007, Labour would still have been in trouble.
If I had to point to one moment when he, and Labour, really got it badly wrong, it was just after the financial crisis in late 2008. Having got some credit for stabilising the situation with the bank bailouts, Brown could have gone to the country in early 2009 on a platform of stability and, with Darling as Chancellor, economic prudence based on the need to cut public expenditure in the light of the collapse in tax revenues. Had he done so, Osborne and Cameron would have been reduced to the weak position of agreeing with him but reinforcing his message of 'no time for a novice'.
Instead, Brown went into deficit-denial mode and tried to create the completely fatuous dividing line of 'Labour investment versus Tory cuts'. It was bonkers because anyone with half a brain could see that cuts, Tory or otherwise, were going to be unavoidable. What's more it left Brown's successor with an impossible starting position: how to support cuts whilst opposing them. Labour has never recovered from that dilemma, unable to decide whether to attack Osborne for cuttting too far too fast, or not fast enough. Even McDonnell, amazingly, is hoist on that petard.
I thought David Cameron's speech was excellent today and reminded me why I voted for him. He certainly looks a different man since he won a majority. He is also a very decent man and this came through today.
The media are giving Theresa May a hard time. But once again, they are out of touch with public opinion. I couldn't fault her speech and it was honest.
I thought Theresa Villiers also gave a good speech. Another minister who is growing into the job. She looked quite touched at the warm applause she got at the end.
How grown up this conference was compared to the shambolic, vacuous nonsense, we witnessed last week.
It really was a surreal time, it wasn't just Brown who was deluded, large parts of the Labour party were as well.
Not sure if this has ever been posted on PB before, but it was written at the time by a Labour minister at the Labour conference in 2007.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
That is a frightening responsibility. The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.
It really was a surreal time, it wasn't just Brown who was deluded, large parts of the Labour party were as well.
Not sure if this has ever been posted on PB before, but it was written at the time by a Labour minister at the Labour conference in 2007.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
That is a frightening responsibility. The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.
I thought David Cameron's speech was excellent today and reminded me why I voted for him. He certainly looks a different man since he won a majority. He is also a very decent man and this came through today.
The media are giving Theresa May a hard time. But once again, they are out of touch with public opinion. I couldn't fault her speech and it was honest.
I thought Theresa Villiers also gave a good speech. Another minister who is growing into the job. She looked quite touched at the warm applause she got at the end.
How grown up this conference was compared to the shambolic, vacuous nonsense, we witnessed last week.
Brown was always going to be a disaster as PM, because his personality was completely unsuited to the job. So even if he had called and won an election in 2007, Labour would still have been in trouble.
If I had to point to one moment when he, and Labour, really got it badly wrong, it was just after the financial crisis in late 2008. Having got some credit for stabilising the situation with the bank bailouts, Brown could have gone to the country in early 2009 on a platform of stability and, with Darling as Chancellor, economic prudence based on the need to cut public expenditure in the light of the collapse in tax revenues. Had he done so, Osborne and Cameron would have been reduced to the weak position of agreeing with him but reinforcing his message of 'no time for a novice'.
Instead, Brown went into deficit-denial mode and tried to create the completely fatuous dividing line of 'Labour investment versus Tory cuts'. It was bonkers because anyone with half a brain could see that cuts, Tory or otherwise, were going to be unavoidable. What's more it left Brown's successor with an impossible starting position: how to support cuts whilst opposing them. Labour has never recovered from that dilemma, unable to decide whether to attack Osborne for cuttting too far too fast, or not fast enough. Even McDonnell, amazingly, is hoist on that petard.
Well said Richard. I mentioned few weeks ago that it's easy to forget that when you're out of office for an extended period you have to gain the trust of the voters that you are competent and can run the country.
I got the impression that Alistair Darling rather enjoyed the challenge that he inherited from Brown and was (is) a difficult opponent. Where I disagree with you is that Labour had an impossible starting position. It would have been an awkward year or so of changing direction, but Labour should have challenged Osborne to keep his promise of abolishing the deficit by 2015. They'd have had to suggest other ways to achieve it (possibly tax rises?) but it would have put them in a decent position come 2015 as they'd have been able to point to a broken promise. Of course, this assumes that they could have carried the party with them and in the end they chose the easy option of opposing everything the Tories did.
It really was a surreal time, it wasn't just Brown who was deluded, large parts of the Labour party were as well.
Not sure if this has ever been posted on PB before, but it was written at the time by a Labour minister at the Labour conference in 2007.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
That is a frightening responsibility. The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.
I've ready it a hundred times, but it gets funnier each time - I just (and I really did) chuckle again out loud in the quiet zone on my commuter train reading your post!
However, Labour were riding two opposite horses - too far too fast and eliminating the deficit - you can't argue both without looking stupid. As they did.
Brown was always going to be a disaster as PM, because his personality was completely unsuited to the job. So even if he had called and won an election in 2007, Labour would still have been in trouble.
If I had to point to one moment when he, and Labour, really got it badly wrong, it was just after the financial crisis in late 2008. Having got some credit for stabilising the situation with the bank bailouts, Brown could have gone to the country in early 2009 on a platform of stability and, with Darling as Chancellor, economic prudence based on the need to cut public expenditure in the light of the collapse in tax revenues. Had he done so, Osborne and Cameron would have been reduced to the weak position of agreeing with him but reinforcing his message of 'no time for a novice'.
Instead, Brown went into deficit-denial mode and tried to create the completely fatuous dividing line of 'Labour investment versus Tory cuts'. It was bonkers because anyone with half a brain could see that cuts, Tory or otherwise, were going to be unavoidable. What's more it left Brown's successor with an impossible starting position: how to support cuts whilst opposing them. Labour has never recovered from that dilemma, unable to decide whether to attack Osborne for cuttting too far too fast, or not fast enough. Even McDonnell, amazingly, is hoist on that petard.
Well said Richard. I mentioned few weeks ago that it's easy to forget that when you're out of office for an extended period you have to gain the trust of the voters that you are competent and can run the country.
I got the impression that Alistair Darling rather enjoyed the challenge that he inherited from Brown and was (is) a difficult opponent. Where I disagree with you is that Labour had an impossible starting position. It would have been an awkward year or so of changing direction, but Labour should have challenged Osborne to keep his promise of abolishing the deficit by 2015. They'd have had to suggest other ways to achieve it (possibly tax rises?) but it would have put them in a decent position come 2015 as they'd have been able to point to a broken promise. Of course, this assumes that they could have carried the party with them and in the end they chose the easy option of opposing everything the Tories did.
Mr. D, you can argue whether Cameron's speech or Osborne's was the one that made the critical difference, but the Conservative conference of 2007 was the most politically successful of modern times. It turned a 10 point Labour lead to a 10 point Conservative lead.
It really was a surreal time, it wasn't just Brown who was deluded, large parts of the Labour party were as well.
Not sure if this has ever been posted on PB before, but it was written at the time by a Labour minister at the Labour conference in 2007.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
That is a frightening responsibility. The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.
I've ready it a hundred times, but it gets funnier each time - I just (and I really did) chuckle again out loud in the quiet zone on my commuter train reading your post!
Any time a Tory displays hubris about 2020, they should be forced to read that article.
It really was a surreal time, it wasn't just Brown who was deluded, large parts of the Labour party were as well.
Not sure if this has ever been posted on PB before, but it was written at the time by a Labour minister at the Labour conference in 2007.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
That is a frightening responsibility. The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.
It's astonishing to think that eight years on one Miliband is out of Parliament, the other looks likely to leave it shortly, Ed Balls is out of Parliament, Yvette Cooper is on the backbenches and Andy Burnham looks as though he has peaked. Only David Miliband has turned 50 (and only just).
The bodies of the young princes are strewn on the battlefield.
It really was a surreal time, it wasn't just Brown who was deluded, large parts of the Labour party were as well.
Not sure if this has ever been posted on PB before, but it was written at the time by a Labour minister at the Labour conference in 2007.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
That is a frightening responsibility. The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.
I've ready it a hundred times, but it gets funnier each time - I just (and I really did) chuckle again out loud in the quiet zone on my commuter train reading your post!
Scotland Yard has apologised for causing distress to the bereaved widow of Lord Brittan for not telling the couple before he died that he had been exonerated of a false rape claim.
In a letter to Lady Brittan’s lawyers, seen by the Guardian, deputy assistant commissioner Steve Rodhouse confirmed that the former home secretary would have faced no further action over the allegation.
It really was a surreal time, it wasn't just Brown who was deluded, large parts of the Labour party were as well.
Not sure if this has ever been posted on PB before, but it was written at the time by a Labour minister at the Labour conference in 2007.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
That is a frightening responsibility. The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.
It's astonishing to think that eight years on one Miliband is out of Parliament, the other looks likely to leave it shortly, Ed Balls is out of Parliament, Yvette Cooper is on the backbenches and Andy Burnham looks as though he has peaked. Only David Miliband has turned 50 (and only just).
The bodies of the young princes are strewn on the battlefield.
It was inevitable, they were up against George Osborne, he's an awesome political strategist.
Haven't watched it yet, was Cams speech that good? I note the article says 07 was the best until today.
I think it was an excellent speech, he really is coming into his own now. That said, let's see some execution against a truly centrist, one nation vision.
The other consequence of the non-election was the resignation of Sir Menzies Campbell as LD leader and the eventual election of Nick Clegg.
Campbell became leader at an age only a year or two senior to Jeremy Corbyn currently but never really settled into the role. We will never know how he would have fared in a GE campaign.
Nick Clegg moved the LDs into a path of convergence with Cameron's liberal conservatism and made the Coalition possible. Had the 2007 election ended in a Hung Parliament, it's much harder to me Campbell forming such an arrangement with Cameron.
Some on here might argue a Campbell-led LD Party would have supported a minority Labour administration - I'm much less convinced given the Iraq War and a decade of Labour Government.
Given what we now know, even if Brown had prevailed in 2007, it's hard not to think there would have been an inevitable change in 2011-12.
The moment when Labour (and the countries) problems were built up from was in 2002 when Brown started an ever-growing deficit during times of growth.
Had that disastrous decision not been taken we'd have entered the financial crisis from a far better position of strength and able to cope with cyclical spending during a downturn. Plus crucially once the downturn was over we could start spending again.
Ultimately Brown spent all the money to the point that there is no money left and Labour's raison d'etre of being the one to spend money when the country can afford to doesn't exist anymore. The country can't afford to and will have to run a surplus for many, many years in order to get our debt:GDP ratio back to the level of 2002 when the tap was turned on.
Less noticeable than a single interview but the problems in Labour are more serious than any one interview or election.
IMO Gordon tried to do two things - buy himself the popularity he feared he didn't deserve, and had no idea what to do with the power he wanted so desperately. Tax credits bought 9/10 families into the client state and he still didn't win.
A killer combo that we're still trying to extract ourselves from.
The moment when Labour (and the countries) problems were built up from was in 2002 when Brown started an ever-growing deficit during times of growth.
Had that disastrous decision not been taken we'd have entered the financial crisis from a far better position of strength and able to cope with cyclical spending during a downturn. Plus crucially once the downturn was over we could start spending again.
Ultimately Brown spent all the money to the point that there is no money left and Labour's raison d'etre of being the one to spend money when the country can afford to doesn't exist anymore. The country can't afford to and will have to run a surplus for many, many years in order to get our debt:GDP ratio back to the level of 2002 when the tap was turned on.
Less noticeable than a single interview but the problems in Labour are more serious than any one interview or election.
I well remember a certain then MP of this parish stating after Cameron's conference speech that it was nothing too special and was looking forward to an immediate election he thought Labour would win. I can't remember if he was convinced there would be an election but he was definitely in favour and confident of victory.
I think it was about that time I suggested tipping Jack Straw at 50/1 to be next Labour leader when the men in white coats removed Gordon.
Scotland Yard has apologised for causing distress to the bereaved widow of Lord Brittan for not telling the couple before he died that he had been exonerated of a false rape claim.
In a letter to Lady Brittan’s lawyers, seen by the Guardian, deputy assistant commissioner Steve Rodhouse confirmed that the former home secretary would have faced no further action over the allegation.
First? It seems a long time ago now. I do hope the Tories get rid of the fixed term parliament act - it was much more fun the way it used to be.
I hope they keep the Fixed Term act. It is not meant to be "fun", politics needs to be predictable and stable.
If politics wasn't meant to be fun, why did *insert deity of choice here* create Lucy Powell?
Lucy Powell seems to be similtaneously bad at PR and bad at policy. Labour were bonkers to have her lead the campaign and Corbyn bonkers to put her in the Shadow Cabinet. Her total package is a disaster and walking timebomb. She is therefore my tip for next Labour leader!
It really was a surreal time, it wasn't just Brown who was deluded, large parts of the Labour party were as well.
Not sure if this has ever been posted on PB before, but it was written at the time by a Labour minister at the Labour conference in 2007.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
That is a frightening responsibility. The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.
It's astonishing to think that eight years on one Miliband is out of Parliament, the other looks likely to leave it shortly, Ed Balls is out of Parliament, Yvette Cooper is on the backbenches and Andy Burnham looks as though he has peaked. Only David Miliband has turned 50 (and only just).
The bodies of the young princes are strewn on the battlefield.
Whatever happened to Sion Simon? Is he doing a Marshall Ney, trying to rally the fleeing Old Guard?
I wonder how '97 would have turned out if Brown had succeeded Smith instead of Blair. Brown would have undoubtedly won in 1997 but how long before he failed/retired and Blai seized the reins?
Or, would a successful Brown, bout=yed up by a reasobaly large election victory have been more like the Brown we see today?
No, Brown would have lost his majority and then gone into the recession with a weak Minority or LD-Labour coalition. By 2012 Labour would have been absolute toast and probably toppled before then.
Labour's problems were always bigger than just one bottled election.
I think that is right, to be honest. Brown's mini-boom over that summer was fundamentally unsustainable: it was caused by that weird succession of crises (floods, foot and mouth, etc.) which allowed him to show off his best strength, and some dubious people temporarily giving him the benefit of the doubt. But the fundamental issues were always going to surface sooner or later: that he didn't pass the "I'd have a pint with him" test which is essential for any leader these days, and that people were bored and tired of a 10-year-old government.
Nonetheless, the contrast between how formidable Brown was considered in say 2004, and how different things looked after he'd been leader for a while, should give pause for thought to those who think an Osborne leadership would be a hit with the public.
It really was a surreal time, it wasn't just Brown who was deluded, large parts of the Labour party were as well.
Not sure if this has ever been posted on PB before, but it was written at the time by a Labour minister at the Labour conference in 2007.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
That is a frightening responsibility. The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.
I've ready it a hundred times, but it gets funnier each time - I just (and I really did) chuckle again out loud in the quiet zone on my commuter train reading your post!
Any time a Tory displays hubris about 2020, they should be forced to read that article.
Had the 2007 election ended in a Hung Parliament, it's much harder to me Campbell forming such an arrangement with Cameron.
But surely that would have depended in part on the arithmetic? I think it's fair to say that Clegg was more open to the idea of going in with the Tories - but surely any attempt by the Lib Dems to prop up a Labour government that had far fewer seats than the Tories would have looked pretty bad? Not that coalition with the Tories worked out too well for them, but then that's another story!
I'm sure Iain Dale and Lord Ashcroft are clutching their publishing run to their chests in cold comfort for all the friends and reputation they've lost.
Meagre pickings if you ask me. They say before embarking on revenge - dig two graves, in this case Dale and Ashcroft are occupying both of them
Mr. Antifrank, it's hard to get publicity. There are tons of writers and books out there. Plus, with an issue like this those who are anti-Conservative (of which there are many) may be quite enticed to buy a book Evil Cameron dislikes.
No, Brown would have lost his majority and then gone into the recession with a weak Minority or LD-Labour coalition. By 2012 Labour would have been absolute toast and probably toppled before then.
Labour's problems were always bigger than just one bottled election.
I think that is right, to be honest. Brown's mini-boom over that summer was fundamentally unsustainable: it was caused by that weird succession of crises (floods, foot and mouth, etc.) which allowed him to show off his best strength, and some dubious people temporarily giving him the benefit of the doubt. But the fundamental issues were always going to surface sooner or later: that he didn't pass the "I'd have a pint with him" test which is essential for any leader these days, and that people were bored and tired of a 10-year-old government.
Nonetheless, the contrast between how formidable Brown was considered in say 2004, and how different things looked after he'd been leader for a while, should give pause for thought to those who think an Osborne leadership would be a hit with the public.
No, Brown would have lost his majority and then gone into the recession with a weak Minority or LD-Labour coalition. By 2012 Labour would have been absolute toast and probably toppled before then.
Labour's problems were always bigger than just one bottled election.
I think that is right, to be honest. Brown's mini-boom over that summer was fundamentally unsustainable: it was caused by that weird succession of crises (floods, foot and mouth, etc.) which allowed him to show off his best strength, and some dubious people temporarily giving him the benefit of the doubt. But the fundamental issues were always going to surface sooner or later: that he didn't pass the "I'd have a pint with him" test which is essential for any leader these days, and that people were bored and tired of a 10-year-old government.
Nonetheless, the contrast between how formidable Brown was considered in say 2004, and how different things looked after he'd been leader for a while, should give pause for thought to those who think an Osborne leadership would be a hit with the public.
Thanks Danny. Yes, I agree - the 13% lead was a chimera. Osborne would have pulled something similar out of the hat during the campaign itself, and Ashcroft (who was still in the tent at the time of course) would have been pouring resources into 80 seats, enough to make the Tories largest party.
I think Brown would have lost the 40-60 "bonus" English marginals Blair won in 2005 to Cameron.
Mr. Antifrank, disagree. Easy shot at more publicity, to garner more sales.
Are sales more important than looking like a complete wet blanket? I guess it depends how desperate you are for the publicity and money.
Murphy is a total a*se with no sense of humour whatever, judging by that article. When people like him have such prickly self-regard laughing at them is the only sensible course of action.
Biggest bet that I lost - I just got greedy. New to this game I placed a £100 @ 33/1 bet early in 2006 on the basis that if we had a GE in 2007 within a Brown honeymoon, I may have to take a few weeks off work. The rest finished up with that interview. That said, when viewed as an insurance premium to something that would have cost me thousands in lost work... not a bad bet I guess?
Top quality thread and it reminds me how much i loathed Brown. You could tell he was lying... his lips moved.
I remember driving back from work with the soon-to-be-Mrs-J and us saying to each other: "thank f**k the infighting's over. Perhaps the government will get back to governing now."
No, Brown would have lost his majority and then gone into the recession with a weak Minority or LD-Labour coalition. By 2012 Labour would have been absolute toast and probably toppled before then.
Labour's problems were always bigger than just one bottled election.
I think that is right, to be honest. Brown's mini-boom over that summer was fundamentally unsustainable: it was caused by that weird succession of crises (floods, foot and mouth, etc.) which allowed him to show off his best strength, and some dubious people temporarily giving him the benefit of the doubt. But the fundamental issues were always going to surface sooner or later: that he didn't pass the "I'd have a pint with him" test which is essential for any leader these days, and that people were bored and tired of a 10-year-old government.
Nonetheless, the contrast between how formidable Brown was considered in say 2004, and how different things looked after he'd been leader for a while, should give pause for thought to those who think an Osborne leadership would be a hit with the public.
Does Cameron really pass the pint test?
I would say moreso than any of Brown, Miliband or Osborne did/do.
The moment when Labour (and the countries) problems were built up from was in 2002 when Brown started an ever-growing deficit during times of growth.
Had that disastrous decision not been taken we'd have entered the financial crisis from a far better position of strength and able to cope with cyclical spending during a downturn. Plus crucially once the downturn was over we could start spending again.
Ultimately Brown spent all the money to the point that there is no money left and Labour's raison d'etre of being the one to spend money when the country can afford to doesn't exist anymore. The country can't afford to and will have to run a surplus for many, many years in order to get our debt:GDP ratio back to the level of 2002 when the tap was turned on.
Less noticeable than a single interview but the problems in Labour are more serious than any one interview or election.
Well, don't forget that Labour's gifts to the nation of mass immigration, ludicrous human rights, leaps and bounds in EU integration, and the asymmetric devolution settlement were all kicked off in their first term.
No, Brown would have lost his majority and then gone into the recession with a weak Minority or LD-Labour coalition. By 2012 Labour would have been absolute toast and probably toppled before then.
Labour's problems were always bigger than just one bottled election.
I think that is right, to be honest. Brown's mini-boom over that summer was fundamentally unsustainable: it was caused by that weird succession of crises (floods, foot and mouth, etc.) which allowed him to show off his best strength, and some dubious people temporarily giving him the benefit of the doubt. But the fundamental issues were always going to surface sooner or later: that he didn't pass the "I'd have a pint with him" test which is essential for any leader these days, and that people were bored and tired of a 10-year-old government.
Nonetheless, the contrast between how formidable Brown was considered in say 2004, and how different things looked after he'd been leader for a while, should give pause for thought to those who think an Osborne leadership would be a hit with the public.
It really was a surreal time, it wasn't just Brown who was deluded, large parts of the Labour party were as well.
Not sure if this has ever been posted on PB before, but it was written at the time by a Labour minister at the Labour conference in 2007.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
That is a frightening responsibility. The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.
That gets more fantastically bonkers with time. Who are these Millibands and Ballses and Burnhams of which they speak? A party eviscerated in 8 years....
Scotland Yard has apologised for causing distress to the bereaved widow of Lord Brittan for not telling the couple before he died that he had been exonerated of a false rape claim.
In a letter to Lady Brittan’s lawyers, seen by the Guardian, deputy assistant commissioner Steve Rodhouse confirmed that the former home secretary would have faced no further action over the allegation.
Brown was always going to be a disaster as PM, because his personality was completely unsuited to the job. So even if he had called and won an election in 2007, Labour would still have been in trouble.
If I had to point to one moment when he, and Labour, really got it badly wrong, it was just after the financial crisis in late 2008. Having got some credit for stabilising the situation with the bank bailouts, Brown could have gone to the country in early 2009 on a platform of stability and, with Darling as Chancellor, economic prudence based on the need to cut public expenditure in the light of the collapse in tax revenues. Had he done so, Osborne and Cameron would have been reduced to the weak position of agreeing with him but reinforcing his message of 'no time for a novice'.
Instead, Brown went into deficit-denial mode and tried to create the completely fatuous dividing line of 'Labour investment versus Tory cuts'. It was bonkers because anyone with half a brain could see that cuts, Tory or otherwise, were going to be unavoidable. What's more it left Brown's successor with an impossible starting position: how to support cuts whilst opposing them. Labour has never recovered from that dilemma, unable to decide whether to attack Osborne for cuttting too far too fast, or not fast enough. Even McDonnell, amazingly, is hoist on that petard.
Well said Richard. I mentioned few weeks ago that it's easy to forget that when you're out of office for an extended period you have to gain the trust of the voters that you are competent and can run the country.
I got the impression that Alistair Darling rather enjoyed the challenge that he inherited from Brown and was (is) a difficult opponent. Where I disagree with you is that Labour had an impossible starting position. It would have been an awkward year or so of changing direction, but Labour should have challenged Osborne to keep his promise of abolishing the deficit by 2015. They'd have had to suggest other ways to achieve it (possibly tax rises?) but it would have put them in a decent position come 2015 as they'd have been able to point to a broken promise. Of course, this assumes that they could have carried the party with them and in the end they chose the easy option of opposing everything the Tories did.
Osborn's said they would eliminate the structural deficit by 2015. It turned out to be bigger so he extended the period. In fact in terms of % of GDP the total deficit is less than half that inherited. On the subject of Brown, he increased spending by 50% in real terms over 10 years. Impossible to sustain.
No, Brown would have lost his majority and then gone into the recession with a weak Minority or LD-Labour coalition. By 2012 Labour would have been absolute toast and probably toppled before then.
Labour's problems were always bigger than just one bottled election.
I think that is right, to be honest. Brown's mini-boom over that summer was fundamentally unsustainable: it was caused by that weird succession of crises (floods, foot and mouth, etc.) which allowed him to show off his best strength, and some dubious people temporarily giving him the benefit of the doubt. But the fundamental issues were always going to surface sooner or later: that he didn't pass the "I'd have a pint with him" test which is essential for any leader these days, and that people were bored and tired of a 10-year-old government.
Nonetheless, the contrast between how formidable Brown was considered in say 2004, and how different things looked after he'd been leader for a while, should give pause for thought to those who think an Osborne leadership would be a hit with the public.
Does Cameron really pass the pint test?
I would say moreso than any of Brown, Miliband or Osborne did/do.
I'm not sure. More than Osborne or Brown, but I think Miliband would be a fairly nice guy down the pub. I just wouldn't want him responsible for anything important.
If the Cameron joke got him riled, the comments are going to make him seethe. Things like:
"You should be flattered he called you 'an academic' rather than 'a pudgy hypocritical mentalist and lukewarm fascist, addled by self-regard and pomposity'.
Thanks, wires leading to explosives from the 60s. Must have been a Friday afternoon job.
The explanation is more far fetched than any of Blaster Bates' tales.
We'll see - I suspect it is just media reporting that has muddled it a bit. My guess is that there was some leftover det cord from the old 1960s blasting of the routes for the first road bridge. I wondered if the 'wires' were prestressed concrete that hadn't been severed, but the EOD were there.
I can't recall having heard of this happen on a construction site before, at least with alleged demo explosives that are so old. Plenty of cases of explosives found during construction, but those are usually the sort dropped from 10,000 feet and higher.
FPT: I suspect it's a leftover reel of cordtex quietly buried ... but your other option is also possible, as there were some raids on the Forth Bridge (famously one daylight one - my dad recalls seeing a Heinkel being chased over the Lothian countryside by the Spitfires).
German chancellor Angela Merkel has taken direct control of the refugee crisis and signalled that she would stick with her “open doors” policy, despite growing public pressure to control the unprecedented migrant surge.
They have absolutely no understanding of the political climate in this country, do they?
And vice versa. I still can't believe a politician can unilaterally let 1.5m people into her country overnight and remain in power.
Her personal ratings are plummeting and I suspect before long the CDU poll rating will start to fall. At the last nationwide election the CDU/CSU severely underperformed on their poll rating while AfD were up on theirs. A similar repeat would see the former score around 34-35% compared to their current poll score and the latter on around 10%. Personally I think the CDU will have to disown Merkel and reverse the migrant stance before 2017 very much like the Tories did to Maggie in 1990. The CDU won't lose to the SPD because the SPD are useless, but an assortment of leftists could get into to power in a coalition if the CDU under perform compared to the poll ratings.
But surely that would have depended in part on the arithmetic? I think it's fair to say that Clegg was more open to the idea of going in with the Tories - but surely any attempt by the Lib Dems to prop up a Labour government that had far fewer seats than the Tories would have looked pretty bad? Not that coalition with the Tories worked out too well for them, but then that's another story!
Yes of course the electoral arithmetic would have mattered and the fact was the Conservatives needed 127 seats to win a majority which they couldn't manage in 2010 when arguably a lot of things were much more in their favour. The aim would therefore have been to take taken the 30-35 seats needed to deprive Labour of their majority.
My argument is that by 2010 there was a degree of philosophical convergence between the Orange Bookers and the liberal conservatives and indeed it's well known Osborne was hugely impressed by the deficit reduction work done by David Laws and the LD side. I doubt Campbell in 2007 would have felt that way (Vince Cable was his Deputy).
The problem for the incoming Conservative Government is the global crash is starting and 2008-09 will be very tough for any Government.
I'm sure Iain Dale and Lord Ashcroft are clutching their publishing run to their chests in cold comfort for all the friends and reputation they've lost.
Meagre pickings if you ask me. They say before embarking on revenge - dig two graves, in this case Dale and Ashcroft are occupying both of them
They have absolutely no understanding of the political climate in this country, do they?
Germany has been given the opportunity to grow into the largest economy in Europe. She has worked hard for it whilst being protected from many of the post-war pressures. She realises that if Britain was to leave the EU the balance of power would change in Europe, to Germany's detriment. The Euro currency is an artificial construct without logic. It is purely a political artefact, but one which very much favours Germany's economy.
Germany does not like to behave with arrogance on the world stage but her mistakes on migration have resulted her in demanding that other nations share the burden of the consequences of those mistakes. This is a pattern that is likely to be repeated in other spheres in the future. She is now big enough to manage without us.
It really was a surreal time, it wasn't just Brown who was deluded, large parts of the Labour party were as well.
Not sure if this has ever been posted on PB before, but it was written at the time by a Labour minister at the Labour conference in 2007.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
That is a frightening responsibility. The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.
It's astonishing to think that eight years on one Miliband is out of Parliament, the other looks likely to leave it shortly, Ed Balls is out of Parliament, Yvette Cooper is on the backbenches and Andy Burnham looks as though he has peaked. Only David Miliband has turned 50 (and only just).
The bodies of the young princes are strewn on the battlefield.
Whatever happened to Sion Simon? Is he doing a Marshall Ney, trying to rally the fleeing Old Guard?
An MEP. He suffers from choroideremia, which is a genetic eye condition that leads to blindness.
Now this my kind of Top Gun: Captain Balislava, one of #Russia's fighter pilots who bombed brutal misogynists of #ISIL today #KarmaHasAPrettyFace pic.twitter.com/lXlP8GCh1b
LOL I'm watching a US pulp crime TV show and it's got Iris Robinson as the star! I'd forgotten all about her doings.
In January 2010, a BBC Northern Ireland documentary revealed that Iris Robinson had an affair in 2008 and had procured £50,000 in loans for her lover to finance a start-up restaurant. She had failed to declare her monetary interest in the restaurant, despite serving on the council which gave it permission to open.[4][1] Before the airing of the documentary, it was also revealed that she had attempted suicide on 1 March 2009.[5]
They have absolutely no understanding of the political climate in this country, do they?
And vice versa. I still can't believe a politician can unilaterally let 1.5m people into her country overnight and remain in power.
Her personal ratings are plummeting and I suspect before long the CDU poll rating will start to fall. At the last nationwide election the CDU/CSU severely underperformed on their poll rating while AfD were up on theirs. A similar repeat would see the former score around 34-35% compared to their current poll score and the latter on around 10%. Personally I think the CDU will have to disown Merkel and reverse the migrant stance before 2017 very much like the Tories did to Maggie in 1990. The CDU won't lose to the SPD because the SPD are useless, but an assortment of leftists could get into to power in a coalition if the CDU under perform compared to the poll ratings.
I think your recollections are leading you astray. The CDU score in the last election was actually somewhat above most pollsters - see for instance
AfD's score was marginally up as well, though by less than 1%. I remember widespread predictions here and elsewhere that they would easily break through the 5% barrier, which they narrowly failed to do. They are now 1-2% higher and should squeak in next time. They are seriuosly divided and have no realistic chance of getting 10%. However, sadly the left is nowhere near a majority - even if an SPD+Green+Left coalition were imaginable, which it isn't yet, they're on about 43% between them, to around 45% for CDU+FDP (the latter are back over the 5% level) and 6% for the AfD.
Merkel is clearly in stormy waters, but German voting patterns are incredibly stable, and the entire refugee crisis has seen a shift of a couple of percentage points so far. I can't see any outcome other than a further CDU-SPD coalition, and Merkel still looks quite solidly in place.
'Scotland Yard has apologised for causing distress to the bereaved widow of Lord Brittan for not telling the couple before he died that he had been exonerated of a false rape claim.
In a letter to Lady Brittan’s lawyers, seen by the Guardian, deputy assistant commissioner Steve Rodhouse confirmed that the former home secretary would have faced no further action over the allegation.'
When can we expect to get an apology from Watson ?
Disagree that this moment was important. If Brown had gone for it, he would have won and been defeated more heavily in 2012 leading to a Tory majority sooner.
Labour would now be into year 2 of EdM's leadership. The only difference is that Lib Dems would be much stronger (this is not hard).
Now this my kind of Top Gun: Captain Balislava, one of #Russia's fighter pilots who bombed brutal misogynists of #ISIL today #KarmaHasAPrettyFace pic.twitter.com/lXlP8GCh1b
Mr. D, you can argue whether Cameron's speech or Osborne's was the one that made the critical difference, but the Conservative conference of 2007 was the most politically successful of modern times. It turned a 10 point Labour lead to a 10 point Conservative lead.
Not only Osborne's Inheritance Tax declamation - didn't Mr Brown go off to Afghanistan on a highly publicised trip to try and divert attention from the conference? IIRC there was rather a lot of (faux) outrage at the conference when this was announced. There was a gentleman's agreement not to poach conference time.
Comments
Labour's problems were always bigger than just one bottled election.
If I had to point to one moment when he, and Labour, really got it badly wrong, it was just after the financial crisis in late 2008. Having got some credit for stabilising the situation with the bank bailouts, Brown could have gone to the country in early 2009 on a platform of stability and, with Darling as Chancellor, economic prudence based on the need to cut public expenditure in the light of the collapse in tax revenues. Had he done so, Osborne and Cameron would have been reduced to the weak position of agreeing with him but reinforcing his message of 'no time for a novice'.
Instead, Brown went into deficit-denial mode and tried to create the completely fatuous dividing line of 'Labour investment versus Tory cuts'. It was bonkers because anyone with half a brain could see that cuts, Tory or otherwise, were going to be unavoidable. What's more it left Brown's successor with an impossible starting position: how to support cuts whilst opposing them. Labour has never recovered from that dilemma, unable to decide whether to attack Osborne for cuttting too far too fast, or not fast enough. Even McDonnell, amazingly, is hoist on that petard.
The media are giving Theresa May a hard time. But once again, they are out of touch with public opinion. I couldn't fault her speech and it was honest.
I thought Theresa Villiers also gave a good speech. Another minister who is growing into the job. She looked quite touched at the warm applause she got at the end.
How grown up this conference was compared to the shambolic, vacuous nonsense, we witnessed last week.
There was nothing wrong with Osborne's delivery. Anybody who thinks there was is an incorrect deviationist.
Not sure if this has ever been posted on PB before, but it was written at the time by a Labour minister at the Labour conference in 2007.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
That is a frightening responsibility. The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
I got the impression that Alistair Darling rather enjoyed the challenge that he inherited from Brown and was (is) a difficult opponent. Where I disagree with you is that Labour had an impossible starting position. It would have been an awkward year or so of changing direction, but Labour should have challenged Osborne to keep his promise of abolishing the deficit by 2015. They'd have had to suggest other ways to achieve it (possibly tax rises?) but it would have put them in a decent position come 2015 as they'd have been able to point to a broken promise. Of course, this assumes that they could have carried the party with them and in the end they chose the easy option of opposing everything the Tories did.
Even had a dig at Ashcroft (by name!)
The bodies of the young princes are strewn on the battlefield.
Scotland Yard has apologised for causing distress to the bereaved widow of Lord Brittan for not telling the couple before he died that he had been exonerated of a false rape claim.
In a letter to Lady Brittan’s lawyers, seen by the Guardian, deputy assistant commissioner Steve Rodhouse confirmed that the former home secretary would have faced no further action over the allegation.
http://bit.ly/1LyZUdb
The other consequence of the non-election was the resignation of Sir Menzies Campbell as LD leader and the eventual election of Nick Clegg.
Campbell became leader at an age only a year or two senior to Jeremy Corbyn currently but never really settled into the role. We will never know how he would have fared in a GE campaign.
Nick Clegg moved the LDs into a path of convergence with Cameron's liberal conservatism and made the Coalition possible. Had the 2007 election ended in a Hung Parliament, it's much harder to me Campbell forming such an arrangement with Cameron.
Some on here might argue a Campbell-led LD Party would have supported a minority Labour administration - I'm much less convinced given the Iraq War and a decade of Labour Government.
Given what we now know, even if Brown had prevailed in 2007, it's hard not to think there would have been an inevitable change in 2011-12.
Had that disastrous decision not been taken we'd have entered the financial crisis from a far better position of strength and able to cope with cyclical spending during a downturn. Plus crucially once the downturn was over we could start spending again.
Ultimately Brown spent all the money to the point that there is no money left and Labour's raison d'etre of being the one to spend money when the country can afford to doesn't exist anymore. The country can't afford to and will have to run a surplus for many, many years in order to get our debt:GDP ratio back to the level of 2002 when the tap was turned on.
Less noticeable than a single interview but the problems in Labour are more serious than any one interview or election.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/07/joy-of-tax-david-cameron-joke-conservative-conference
A killer combo that we're still trying to extract ourselves from.
I think it was about that time I suggested tipping Jack Straw at 50/1 to be next Labour leader when the men in white coats removed Gordon.
When will Tom Watson apologise for his smearing?
Or is that a carrot?
Should be worth watching.
Or, would a successful Brown, bout=yed up by a reasobaly large election victory have been more like the Brown we see today?
Nonetheless, the contrast between how formidable Brown was considered in say 2004, and how different things looked after he'd been leader for a while, should give pause for thought to those who think an Osborne leadership would be a hit with the public.
Meagre pickings if you ask me. They say before embarking on revenge - dig two graves, in this case Dale and Ashcroft are occupying both of them
*My wife is a centrist, very similar political history to Plato.
I think Brown would have lost the 40-60 "bonus" English marginals Blair won in 2005 to Cameron.
How naive we were. The infighting just got worse.
It takes mere seconds for that lot to do damage.
Either way, it's been a terrible time for the alleged suspect, their family and the alleged victims. Only Exaro News and Tom Watson have been smiling.
Hopefully the smiles will be wiped off their faces soon.
http://news.yahoo.com/uk-exit-eu-disaster-schaeuble-201925596.html
They have absolutely no understanding of the political climate in this country, do they?
And vice versa. I still can't believe a politician can unilaterally let 1.5m people into her country overnight and remain in power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e6mzH0Y4G8
"You should be flattered he called you 'an academic' rather than 'a pudgy hypocritical mentalist and lukewarm fascist, addled by self-regard and pomposity'.
German chancellor Angela Merkel has taken direct control of the refugee crisis and signalled that she would stick with her “open doors” policy, despite growing public pressure to control the unprecedented migrant surge.
My argument is that by 2010 there was a degree of philosophical convergence between the Orange Bookers and the liberal conservatives and indeed it's well known Osborne was hugely impressed by the deficit reduction work done by David Laws and the LD side. I doubt Campbell in 2007 would have felt that way (Vince Cable was his Deputy).
The problem for the incoming Conservative Government is the global crash is starting and 2008-09 will be very tough for any Government.
It must have bothered him to the core that virtually *everyone* beat the LDs this year.
Germany does not like to behave with arrogance on the world stage but her mistakes on migration have resulted her in demanding that other nations share the burden of the consequences of those mistakes. This is a pattern that is likely to be repeated in other spheres in the future. She is now big enough to manage without us.
Captain Balislava, one of #Russia's fighter pilots who bombed brutal misogynists of #ISIL today #KarmaHasAPrettyFace pic.twitter.com/lXlP8GCh1b
— Mark Sleboda (@MarkSleboda1)
October 7, 2015
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/politbarometer.htm
AfD's score was marginally up as well, though by less than 1%. I remember widespread predictions here and elsewhere that they would easily break through the 5% barrier, which they narrowly failed to do. They are now 1-2% higher and should squeak in next time. They are seriuosly divided and have no realistic chance of getting 10%. However, sadly the left is nowhere near a majority - even if an SPD+Green+Left coalition were imaginable, which it isn't yet, they're on about 43% between them, to around 45% for CDU+FDP (the latter are back over the 5% level) and 6% for the AfD.
Merkel is clearly in stormy waters, but German voting patterns are incredibly stable, and the entire refugee crisis has seen a shift of a couple of percentage points so far. I can't see any outcome other than a further CDU-SPD coalition, and Merkel still looks quite solidly in place.
'Scotland Yard has apologised for causing distress to the bereaved widow of Lord Brittan for not telling the couple before he died that he had been exonerated of a false rape claim.
In a letter to Lady Brittan’s lawyers, seen by the Guardian, deputy assistant commissioner Steve Rodhouse confirmed that the former home secretary would have faced no further action over the allegation.'
When can we expect to get an apology from Watson ?
Labour would now be into year 2 of EdM's leadership. The only difference is that Lib Dems would be much stronger (this is not hard).
But thanks for demonstrating the level of credibility Russia Today analysts have.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/07/exclusive-russian-jets-intercept-us-predator-drones-over-syria-officials-say/