Gordon Brown is probably the worst UK Prime Minister ever
When I went to hear Tariq Ali speak last August, it was shortly after New Labour had lost its twenty-fifth-safest seat in Britain, Glasgow East, I think, in a by-election to the Scottish National Party. Ali pointed out that this was the beginning of a backlash to a movement that was based on a pack of lies. It was an 'alternative' that was essentially a continuation of Thatcherism. And now that lie that spawned New Labour has pinnacled in the form of the worst Prime Minister Great Britain has ever had: Gordon Brown.
First: his chief aide Damian McBride was forced to resign after being caught brainstorming with a Labour activist and blogger on what kind of smears could they 100% make up about Conservative adversaries. Proposed lies included claiming that Conservative leader David Cameron has an embarrassing medical condition and sexual innuendo involving female Conservative MPs. Of course this sort of thing happens all the time all over the world, but what is striking is not that political parties would stoop to this level, but that the utter falsehood is so blatant, and that these PR thugs were so out of control and that Brown appeared to be completely unaware that any of this was going on under his nose, to create an administrative calamity of circus proportions.
Second: the Gurkha fiasco. A grassroots movement in support of the Gurkhas, a special regiment of the British Army from Nepal who have been dying for the Britsih Empire since the 1800s, had reached a critical mass in recent weeks. Basically, these soldiers who had fought for Britain were denied the right to live and work in Britain. The vast majority of Britons perceived and were made aware of this injustice and opposed the draconian restrictions. The opposition parties unanimously voted to overturn the existing laws, and twenty-seven Labour MPs voted against their own party, dozens abstained, leading to a predicament for the Prime Minister as embarrassing as it was ludicrous. To ignore the political and popular compass so blindly, well, it's simply farcical.
And finally, and most cartoonish, is the MP expense disaster. The Daily Telegraph have broken an increasingly shocking list of audacious expense claims by all parties (although mostly the Labour and Conservatives). It's impossible to summarize, because each day the Telegraph reveals a new MP's expense more outlandish and outrageous than the last. Humourous highlights include claims for biscuits, sparkly toilet seats, throw cushions and, my personal favourite, 2000 pounds for cleaning a moat. More sinister is the highly controversial second-home allowance, which permits MPs to claim rent on London properties if they live outside the capital. Some claimants live less than 30 miles away and still claim a second home. Others switch their primary residence to their London address to avoid paying tax. Others have switches second homes three or four times, renovate and refurbish them on the public penny, and then sell them off. The entitlement and culture of abuse is impossible to qualify or quantify.
And the public is raging. The fascist BNP party is closer to getting seats in the EU parliament, and possibly in the general election when it is called, which the Conservatives will surely win. Perhaps Thatcher was worse with regards to gutting the poor and working classes of Britain, but the tide never stopped coming in with 12 years of Labour. The place is an utter mess, and Gordon Brown is unhinged, unbuoyed and deadbeat. Is there a worse Prime Minister than Gordon Brown? One more incompetent, more unready, more lost and winnowed, more utterly out of touch? At least Thatcher had a plan (and was elected for it). All Brown has is the empty paper bag of failed neo-liberal, New Labour politics.
I caught the housing expenses thingy today.
They guilty M.P.'s should be flogged, drawn and quartered.
As far as "the worst ever" goes, that would take quite a knowledge of British History, and a lot of qualifications. For example, I think England has had Prime Ministers all the way back to Eddy the oneth. So where do we start, there? or in 1215 with the big chart, Or the 1265, the first elected parliament? Or after that great English Humourist, Olly Cromwell, stepped down as Protector?
Margaret Thatcher was very good at being Prime Minister - and that was the problem in that she got so much of what she wanted accomplished done. We certainly can't say the same about Gordon Brown.
If only the neoliberal voodoo was done right, none of this would have happened. They need Maggie, Ronny and old Irish eyes to show them how its done.
Tony BLIAR is still the most insuferable.
Britain and the USA under Maggie and Ronnie became Meccas of neoliberal ideology. And the same two countries are at the source of rack and ruin for western world capitalism today. It all began in Pinochet's Chile, which Greg Palast described as the neocons' ersatz genesis fable.
The reason I proposed Gordon Brown as the worst PM in history is because he seems to me to represent the nadir of neo-liberal politics in a carnival caricature: PR instead of politics, utter disregard and contempt for democratic consensus, obstinate oppression of minority rights and a culture of entitlement so entrenched, so out of touch, that has allowed elected representatives of the people to believe that cleaning their fucking moat on their fucking Georgian estate is a perfectly acceptable thing to charge taxpayers for on their expense account. Even the more reasonable MPs under the gun can't seem to wrap their head around it. Check out Conservative MP Eric Pickles (ha!) try to explain why he needs a second home allowance when he lives just 37 miles outside of London to the citizens of bloody Newcastle. And he's a sensible one (i.e. doesn't have a moat). And in the midst of all this, Gordon Brown puckers his way through the G20 ignorant or helpless to the house burning down around his ears.
So it's not that he is the most incompetent, or that he has the worst policies (in fact, he has none). It's that his 'administration' represents the end product of decades of neo-liberalism based on the empty rhetoric of Tony Blair and the heartless anti-social practice of Thatcher.
The parallels between Brown and Martin are striking.
If we confine it to this century, as hopeless as Brown is, as perfidious as Blair was, as rapacious as Thatcher was, none have as much blood on thier hands as Asquith and George.
Do you mean the last 100 years, Tommy? This is the 21st century; very few PMs to date.
All this MP kick backs in Britian seem to parallel what is happening here in BC with MLA's, just from a different perspective of gains.
MLA's now leaving politics, whether they choose not to run again, or do not get elected to office, get huge severance packages and a transitional payout worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to each person.
Imagine getting a severence payout, when you are essentially fired, when you are not re-elected.
The last bunch who left during this election, or who did not get re-elected, are going to cost us in BC about 12 million dollars in severence payouts and transitional monies.
"Worst" in what sense? He just raised tax rates on high income earners and his calling for a global "New Deal" in response to the current economic crisis, so, from a progressive perspective, he's far superior to neo-Thatcherite, poodle boy, Blair. If you're talking about being a successful PM, then that's another story.
Do you mean the last 100 years, Tommy? This is the 21st century; very few PMs to date.
(chuckles)
Yeah, I guess we can go with the last hundred years.
The last bunch who left during this election, or who did not get re-elected, are going to cost us in BC about 12 million dollars in severence payouts and transitional monies.
I want my elected representatives and public employees well paid all the way down the line. Holding public office shouldn't cause one pecuniary hardship-- and the resulting rationalizations for corruption.
However, in Britain and in Canada, the days when public office could ruin one financially are long gone. These men and women, particularly those who qualify for the pension, will never have to worry about sleeping over a grate, or scraping the fuzzies off thier food bank potatoes and carrots.
That's why corruption is even more unforgiveable today. I make a joke about flogging, drawing and quartering, but I think it is high time we brought back the sentence of "hard labour" for political corruption and so called white collar crimes.
Of course, politicians both here and in Britain could probably point to the fact that actual convictions on charges of corruption are very rare. But then, they are the ones who decide what constitutes criminal corruption, and what doesn't. They also get to appoint the investigators, the prosecutors and the judges.
Which has lead to a widening of the gulf between what everyone knows is corruption, and what the legal deffinition is.
I hope they don't think they are fooling anyone.
But, they probably do.
Hubris.
I do not think large pay rates does anything to stop corruption, the more money you have the more money you want is the norm, not the exception.
One BC Liberal will be getting 1.4 million in severance, pensions, and transitional funding for example, while Corky will be getting around 764,000.00.
Claire Fox made this point a few weeks ago. The high salaries of elected representatives was meant to ensure that the only people who could afford to run for office weren't the idle rich and industry magnates. Indeed, there's nothing wrong with the second home allowance in and of itself: it's only 20 000 pounds a year or something, and it was implemented during a time when raising salaries was unpopular but necessary. The problem, Fox said, wasn't the money, but that these representatives weren't really politicians at all: politicians are principled, ethical representatives of the people and their interests. Instead, what we have is a bunch of ditherers swimming in a mire of PR and glad rags who have nothing in common with the working classes they represent. So we can't conceive of why these schmucks deserve a salary at all. The expense accounts are supposed to aid the job, not to spread hundreds of pounds of horse manure on their bleeding estate pastures.
As for Gordon's tax hike and 'global new deal', this, like every single policy he's tried to pass from 42-day detention of terror suspects to a miniscule VAT sales tax reduction to ease the credit crunch, is empty rhetoric and a panicked lunge. There is no cohesion or continuity with the polices Brown announces, and his 'global new deal' falls on deaf ears because it's a load of hot air. It is meaningless. I mean, this is the man who, as exchequer (Finance Minister), told Britain that 'the days of boom and bust were over'. What a laugh! I certainly agree with taxing the rich (Brown introduced a 50% tax on the wealthy, for those who don't know) but it was clearly a stunt meant to boost his cellaring popularity rating, and was not seriously linked to any robust social or economic policy. He's also cutting education, health care and social programs, and he wants to privatize the Royal Mail: is he still a working-class hero?
It's an interesting question about having blood on his hands. Blood is a tricky and sticky thing. Do people have to die of shrapnel before their blood stains someone else's hands? Brown never made any decision to go to war--indeed, he was against the Iraq war--but look at him now. He's a lost dog in a scorched field, clueless to the dire situations in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka...all ex-of the British Empire, incidentally, limping along wondering why nobody seems to like him or think he's good at his job.
Funny, the high salary, pension and other incentives here in BC were sold as mechanisms to attract the "best and brightest" to public service instead of just to private enterprise.
The commentators in Britain are being pretty unequivocal on Brown's chances in the next election - they are saying he's finished.
This is one of those times where you can safely predict the result of an election in advance (barring any miraculous changes.) This is not like in Canada where Ignatieff and Harper are fairly close and it can go either way (with Ignatieff perhaps having a small edge right now).
He is down about 20 or 25 points in the polls, has less than a year to call the election, and the problems get worse every day.
Recently his Justice Minister had to resign because of an expenses scandal.
The reality is that all parties need to be changed once in a while and because Labour has been in power for over a decade now, it's kind of time for a change. I'm not a Conservative, but the fact is Labour has run out of steam and the Conservatives now have their chance at it.
The only real question is whether Labour manages to become the Official Opposition or not.
The parallels between Brown and Martin are striking.
True - they both pushed out a PM who had won 3 back-to-back majorities because they felt it was their turn to take power. Martin at least was able to get elected as PM once, whereas Gordon Brown has not done so yet, and likely won't.
Both of their parties would have stood a better chance without them. Had Chretien wanted to run again, he would have done better than Martin, and Blair, despite his faults, would have a better shot than Brown.
Neville the appeaser, Thatcher the snatcher and John Major: worst leaders in recent British history bar none
It's an interesting question about having blood on his hands. Blood is a tricky and sticky thing. Do people have to die of shrapnel before their blood stains someone else's hands?
Determining the "worst Prime Minister of the U.K. ever" depends on how you frame the context. From a British point of view, certainly Asquith and George let slip what was left of the Empire by not avoiding WWI, and not being able to position the U.K. as the global leader between the wars. And, one might point to Anthony Eden as worst for advertising to the world that the U.K. was officially under the thumb of the U.S. through the Suez debacle. He even set up a Canadian Prime Minister to rub their noses in it!
Chamberlain-- we have had many discussions about him. I think history has treated him rather unfairly. He appeased Hitler because he had to. There really was no other option at hand.
In today's context, I'd really have to point to Margaret Thatcher, who is a co-signator on the authorship page or our current economic meltdown. And, a very close second (like one of those tightly wound poodles on a leash at Thatcher's ankles) is Tony Blair, who continued her legacy all the way down the line.
Poor Mr. Brown. He's the sap left holding the bag. The worst one can say about him before he becomes a footnote in histories yet unwritten is that he was left a big mess, and he wasn't nearly capable to the task.
But, my vote still goes to Asquith. World War One, human carnage besides, removed Britain, probably foreever, as a major player in international politics. And, it ushered in an economic malaise that the U.K. didn't actually recover from until the mid 1960's.
Asquith also went back on the Liberal manifesto commitment to intoduce women's suffrage, forcing suffragists to stage hunger strikes and face long prison terms. It took that philandering militarist weasel Lloyd George, of all people, to finally bring the franchise to the majority of the British population.
Gordon may be accident prone (or the bad seeds that were planted under Blair came to fruition during Brown's tenancy) but Thatcher was by far the worst PM Britain has ever had.
Asquith also went back on the Liberal manifesto commitment to intoduce women's suffrage,
A Liberal did that? are you sure? It's not like Liberals to dangle socially progressive legislation in front of people, only to yank it away after they get elected.... I'm going to have to look this up.....
My knowledge of British history is dim, so I appreciate the historical context you've offered, Tommy. But it occurs to me that the Great War represented the fruit wrought by European empire, and British imperialism was perhaps the most notable scalp, so to speak. If that case can be made (and I think it can) your argument that Asquith is the worst is similar to mine: Asquith is the end product of imperialist politics, and Brown of capitalist ones.
Thatcher is a pantomime villain. Twelve volumes of the Iron Lady comic book. But she never privatized the NHS like Blair did, and she never touched the Royal Mail, or public transit. That was Blair. And if we compare the disasters of the Falklands to Iraq and Afghanistan, well, the lion's share of dishonesty, disaster and calamity falls squarely in Blair's lap. And at least Thatcher never hid her disdain for the poor and working class. Blair pretended to be their champion, and then gutted them in ways Thatcher only dreamed of. Or, perhaps more accurately, Thatcher prepped Britain so that Blair could finish the job.
Of course, this question is unanswerable, and kind of tongue in cheek (hence 'probably'). Indeed, any superlative applied to a doddering bufoon like Brown doesn't seem aptly applied, does it?
And political conservatives in Britain still refuse to acknowledge that a crisis of capitalism is occurring. Theyre blaming it on Blair and Brown's wanton spending. At 44% of GDP, Britain's debt is still lower than the USA's, and Japan's, and France and so on. And yet British conservatives are still calling for fiscal austerity and return to Friedman-Thatcherite monetarism.
Blair and Brown co-operated with the neoliberal experiment. Conservatives dont want to admit this fact. And it was an experiment conducted around the world. Neoliberal ideology is waning. And I think it will take some time for political conservatives to realize it.
Disaster for Gordon Brown as Labour falls below Lib Dems in new poll
The only real question is whether Labour manages to become the Official Opposition or not.
It should be noted that Labour's support is much more concentrated than the Liberal-Democrats
I caught the housing expenses thingy today.
They guilty M.P.'s should be flogged, drawn and quartered.
Here's a slide show of the MPs that have had to step down:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5350383/MPs-expe...
Banks turn away £1bn of business because of "prejudice" against low cost housing
Shoddy homes built by private contractors rejected for social housing in BritainOn the British M.P. expenses issue, while some instances could be slithered out of by chaulking them up to a missinterpretation of the rules, pushing the envelope, and innocent mistakes, some strike me as undeniable fraud. Claiming interest on a mortgage that doesn't exist is certainly fraud.
How is it that no criminal charges have been laid?
I mean, holy shit.
They'd take some beating with Washington's revolving door policy with Wall Street crooks since Reagan, Clinton and dubya and continuing today. Americans have been soaked for god knows how much money over the neoliberal years. And Canadians have had our fill with crooked-liar politicians bilking taxpayers.
The only real question is whether Labour manages to become the Official Opposition or not.
It should be noted that Labour's support is much more concentrated than the Liberal-Democrats
I'm not sure I would say more 'concentrated' but certainly more 'efficient'. Labour managed to win 356 seats (a majority of 66) with just 35.3% of the vote in 2005, while the LibDems' 22.1% was good for a mere 62 seats (though it was their best result ever and the strongest showing for a third party since the 1920s).
These new polling numbers (Tories 40, LibDems 25, Labour 22) are eerily reminiscent of 1983, where a split in the opposition vote between Labour (which got an anemic 27.6%) and the SDP-Liberal Alliance (forerunner of the LibDems, which scored 25.4%) allowed Thatcher to win a huge majority with 397 seats, despite the fact that the Tories' share of the vote at 42.4% was actually a decrease of 1.5% over 1979. The high Alliance vote (which obviously included some people who voted Tory in 79) did not translate into seats, and they only scored a total of 23, while Labour raked in 209 despite only getting 2% more of the popular vote - proof positive of the more 'efficient' Labour vote.
However, the LibDems have steadily increased their seat count from 20 in 1992 (the first election fought under the LibDem banner) to 46 in 1997, 52 in 2001 and 62 in 2005 - all despite scoring lower popular vote percentages than the Alliance achieved in either 1983 or 1987. I suspect this is the result of encouraging tactical voting and concentrating resources in winnable seats rather than trying to run a broader-based campaign. If the LibDems manage to outpoll Labour 25-22 as this poll suggests, then I do think there is a real possibility that Labour could fall to third place in the seat count - a collapse of the Labour vote would likely not only swing a good number of Labour seats to the LibDems, it would also swing a lot of Tory marginals to them as well.
One other thing from this poll that bodes well for the Tories: Labour 'switchers' appear to be going to the Tories over the LibDems by a nearly 3-to-1 margin. Labour is down 13% from its 2005 vote share, while the Tories are up 8% and the LibDems only 3%. In 2005, virtually all of the decrease in Labour's vote went to the LibDems or nationalist parties, with the Tories basically flatlining at just over 32%. It is possible there has been something of a 'flow-through' effect, with disaffected Tory voters who voted LibDem in recent elections now feeling it is 'safe' to return to the Tories, and those Tory-LibDem swing voters then being replaced (and then some) by Labour-LibDem swing voters.
Liberals suck and are just another conservative party. Brits will never elect them to federal government as long as we're alive. Brits arent as naive about Liberal politicians as Canadians have been for 65 or 70 years out of the last one-hundred.
Then I guess Labour is 'just another conservative party' too. Funny, but I got the sense that Labour was becoming more and more like our Liberals (no principles, no real challenge to the free-market status quo, stays in power through spin and triangulation, weathervane politics, etc) and the LibDems were the party taking principled stands on issues like Iraq and civil liberties.
The LibDems platform calls for lowering taxes on lower and middle-income earners, raising them on the top 10% of earners, replacing council tax with a local income tax, closing income tax loopholes for corporations, cutting stamp duty on properties worth less than 500,000 pounds, and promoting 'green' tax incentives to promote less resource use. They also support universal free education (including grants for post-secondary students) and spending 2.5 billion pounds to cut primary class sizes and a further 1.5 billion pounds on a 'Pupil Premium' to improve education for the poorest 1.5 million children. They want to double Britain's international development budget. They oppose Labour's anti-terror laws and the national identity card, and support an entrenched bill of rights and the decriminalization of some recreational drugs.
Granted, they've never held power so we can't say whether they will deliver on these promises. I mean, it's not like Labour ever broke any promises (cough). But gosh, they sure sound like conservatives, don't they?
Then I guess Labour is 'just another conservative party'.
And then there are differences between countries. For example on social housing, even today's British Labour Party would make Canada's Liberals appear to be stand-ins for a Jurassic Park movie. Come to think of it, New York City has more social housing units for seven million people than Canada has for 33 million. We've had Liberals in power in Ottawa for far too long
Britons would never be fooled into voting the Whigs back into power. Been there done that they have. Recent polls in Britain are just Brits way of telling Labour to try harder next time. And they will. Neoliberal ideology is on the wane around the western world.
In other words in other countries, nobody is as far to the right politically as Canada's Liberal Parties have been. Not even in the USA.
Britons would never be fooled into voting the Whigs back into power. Been there done that they have.
I didn't realize that memories of the last Whig government (1855-1858) were so fresh! For that matter, the Liberals last held office in 1922 - d'you figure there are lots of centenarians among the electorate?
Then why is Labour continuing to embrace this 'waning ideology'?
If anything Brown has tried to distance himself from the conservative plan. Brown was the face of neoliberalism in Britain after Maggie. Can we imagine Canada's arrogant Liberals proposing anything as progressive as more social housing after having dismantled the national housing strategy in the 1990s? I dont think so. They need trouncing with another historic low result in federal elections.
Neoliberalism is waning. There were short bursts of economic growth and job creation in the late 90s to start of the 2000's. But it's mostly been riddled with problems and crises. Everyone knows it now including Whigs and Tories in Britain. And Britain still has fptp producing a long-time duopoly of power swapping between Labour and Tories. Even Maggie never received more than 43% of the vote.
Thanks for that analysis, ghoris. I don't share your apparent enthusiasm for the Lib Dems, although you're right that on many issues they seem the most principled. I cringed when Nick Clegg tried to present the LibDems as the 'party of tax breaks'. It was a showman's stunt, and the public knew it.
The Conservatives at times have sounded further left than Labour over the past few weeks. Before the expenses scandal, Cameron was pushing for high-speed rail through major corridors in Britain while Labour was clinging to the ludicrous fifth terminal at Heathrow. Cameron is a charlatan: he's painted himself the law & order PM, the green coddling PM, the physician of 'broken Britain' and now, the hero of political and democratic reform. Meanwhile, Cameron is working on forging a euro-sceptic alliance with the fascist parties of Europe: Jean Marie LePen, Franco apologists and climate-change deniers. Unfortunately, Gordon Brown is far too much of a chameleon and a charlatan himself to call the poor clown on his game. A strong leader, especially one facing obliteration in an upcoming election now a year away at most, would take this opportunity for robust democratic reform, which Brown claims to have always supported: proportional representation, a constitution and a bill of rights.
Instead, he is dithering and huffing, playing more parlour tricks while the theatre falls down around his ginormous ears.
What is this I hear about Brown advocating that Blair becomes the permanent EU President?
Yes, Blair is the top candidate for the EU presidency, which will be created if Ireland ratify the Lisbon treaty on their second go-around. And Brown supports him: why wouldn't he? Blair is finishing his second year as, ironically, the head of the EU's Middle East peace convoy.
Is there an heir apparent to the Labour Party who might stop this slide?
Why is it a permanent position?
Caissa: Well, Blairite Hazel Blears made a move at the beginning of the expense saga, but then she was found to have cheated on the second home allowance and Brown threw her under the bus. There is promising support for David Miliband, who made his own move last August. Other candidates could include Ed Miliband, Shaun Woodward or Alan Johnson. In short, no, there is no clear heir, mostly because you can't easily find a sous-chef in a kitchen on fire.
remind: The proposed EU presidency is not a permanent position. It is a two-and-a-half year renewable tenancy.
Well that will teach me for listening to Christian fundamentalists and their lies. I never thought they would lie about that though, to easy to disprove.
Ouch - three ministers gone in one day! The wheels are really falling off now, and this is right before council and European Parliament elections that are expected to be a disaster for Labour.
The collapse of morale sweeping Labour ranks was laid bare today when Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, and Tom Watson, one of Gordon Brown's closest political allies, revealed that they were quitting the government during a chaotic day that often appeared to be spiralling out of Downing Street's control.
Although Smith's departure had been predicted, the prime minister had hoped to deliver a choreographed reshuffle after Thursday's European and local elections, and instead found himself wrong-footed by a leak that provoked fears among his supporters of an attempt to unseat him.
The surprise resignation of Watson and that of the children's minister, Beverley Hughes, added to the sense of chaos, while two other Labour MPs – David Chaytor and Ian Gibson – became the latest Labour victims of the expenses scandal. Neither will be standing at the next general election.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/02/labour-day-resignation-ja...
It would be nice if alternate Left groups(such as Respect, the Greens, and the Socialist Labour Party)were to make large gains in those elections.
The Greens have a shot at snagging one or two more seats. (I am surprised the usual suspects haven't swooped in with the usual cries of "The Greens aren't left!") Socialist Labour didn't even contest the 2004 elections so I suppose they have nowhere to go but up, although I doubt there will be any signficant gains. I doubt Respect will show much in the way of gains either. In classic far-left style, they have begun to split into smaller and smaller camps over more and more esoteric issues.
The UK Independence Party is likely to be the beneficiary of the anti-establishment vote, as they were in 2004. The BNP may get some of that vote as well.
Regarding Brown's continued problems, Communities and Local Government Secretary Hazel Blears resigned today, apparently because she resented being singled out by Brown over expense claims. Pundits seem to agree that the resignation was timed to inflict maximum damage on Brown. The reshuffle is now being widely painted as Brown's last chance to pull his government out of the fire and apparently will be fairly significant. Darling is expected to be sacked as Chancellor and replaced with Brown loyalist Ed Balls.
The chattering classes in the UK seem to think that a leadership challenge is imminent, with Alan Johnson being seen as the most likely candidate. Johnson of course is denying any interest in seeking the leadership. The question is whether he will challenge Brown directly (as Heseltine did to Thatcher in 1990 and Thatcher did to Heath in 1975) or would some other brave soul or backbencher mount a challenge as a stalking horse for Johnson or others. The classic pattern, at least for the Tories, is for the 'real' candidates to wait to see if the contest goes to a second ballot before getting in, lest they be accused of disloyalty. I don't know how a leadership challenge from within the parliamentary Labour party would work since the last leader to be picked by the MPs was Michael Foot in 1980 - since then leaders have been selected through a complicated electoral college system which includes trade unions, MPs and MEPs, and the rank-and-file. I presume there is some sort of mechanism which would allow a leader to be elected by the parliamentary party and then 'ratified' by the membership (a la Ignatieff) but does anyone know?
Well at least the Tories and Lib Dems will have to go back to campaigning on the left and governing on the right. I didnt like it when they were honest about the rightwing agenda and still winning phony majorities as a result. Too creepy.
This could be stopped if Labour went back to campaigning and governing on the left, rather than doing both on the right.
The problem is, Fidel, that Labour has so totally abandoned its core values and is still so determined to distance itself from its OWN core supporters that it's impossible to make a case that voters have anything to be scared about in a Tory government.
(They do have a lot to be scared of, of course, but it's hard to see with Labour's leadership remaining committed to "triangulation" unto electoral death.)
Yes Blair and Brown abandoned many of the old ways. Britain is still a conservative country. I liken Brits to Ontarians in that they look high and low for reasons to vote conservative. I think British Labour could have done a lot more from the left, but that country is the other source of powerful financiers and neoliberalism. Gordon Brown was considered the tax evasion chancellor and now the bailout prime minister for rich and powerful Londoners.
I think we're seeing the beginning of the end of not just neoliberalism but democracy around the western world. There are rumors that this crash isnt over and more financial terror to come. This is the age of supranational monetarism. Whether we're in the middle of it or the end, I dont know. But I do think it would have been extremely difficult for any fair minded political party to have ruled either the US or Britain since Reagan and Thatcher. I think Labour did make inroads with poverty reduction in England, but now those achievements are at risk with things falling apart. If anything looks good for Britain it's that the debt is 44% of GDP and lower than in most countries hit by this financial 9/11. If there's going to be real change in any western country, it has to be enabled by something really significant happening, like a return to regulated banking and finance and money creation made more democratic and accountable. "Financial disarmament" as Keynes referred to it. It's either that or tax evaders in the UK and North America should be forced to cough up for the rebuilding of a modern and sustainable society. But we not only can't go back to the way it was in the glorious 1960's and mid 70's wrt old world economy of heavy industries, we cant even return to the way it was in the Thatcher and Reagan era. I think this one's gonna leave some bruises. It's the end of an era.
For whatever it's worth, there's reports that Alan Johnson, a Labour cabinet minister, is challenging Brown for the party leadership. Were he to prevail, Johnson would likely have to call an immediate general election.
Brown's position becomes more untenable: Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell has resigned from Cabinet and told Prime Minister Gordon Brown to "stand aside".
Purnell is the first Cabinet minister to openly call for Brown's resignation. Jacqui Smith, who resigned on Tuesday, and Hazel Blears, who resigned yesterday, couldn't quite bring themselves to stick the knife in. Nick Clegg's assertion that the government is in a meltdown is starting to look pretty accurate. Labour will, by all accounts, suffer an ass-kicking in today's Euro and local elections, and Brown is expected to sack some key ministers over the weekend, which will no doubt further add to the sense things are spinning out of control. I must say this kind of political high drama is fun to watch - from afar.Revenge of the Blairites, pretty much.
The Blairites are taking revenge against the UK's premier defender(through his actions)OF Blairism. Weird.
They don't get it that it's THEIR crusade to rid the Labour Party of all its core values that's the problem.
Nadeem Walayat of Market Oracle is predicting a smaller than anticipated majority for Britain's Tories in 2010 general elections. He says Britain is headed for a "scorched earth" debt-fuelled recovery by 2010
Bad news for Gordon Brown again. The UK election results for the European Parliament are proving to be disastrous for Labour. Labour are running in third place behind the Conservatives and the UK Independence Party. The neo-fascist British National Party has won its first seat. Labour even lost in once reliable regions such as Scotland and Wales.
Electoral reform could save Labour at next election
Poll shows third of Lib Dem voters might switch their vote
Labour's chances of winning the next general election would be given a significant boost if Gordon Brown ordered a referendum on changing the voting system, according to a new opinion poll.
The YouGov survey shows that almost a third of Liberal Democrats would be more likely to switch to Labour if given a say on voting reform - enough to help the government hold on to a batch of key marginal seats on election day.
In addition, a third of voters who say they are currently "inclined" to vote Labour would be more encouraged to do so if a referendum were to be offered. In all, 17% of the electorate would be more likely to vote Labour if given a say.
As pressure for a national debate grows, the Observer can reveal that Brown is taking personal charge of the debate in government on whether to hold a referendum. The prime minister has written a letter inviting a delegation from the Vote for a Change coalition, which is leading the push for a referendum, to meet ministers to discuss their ideas. He insists that he wants to be "closely involved" in the talks
Not sure how realistic it would be to call a referendum concurrent with the next general election since the UK will be going to the polls, at the latest, in May. Even if the referendum could be held, I think that Labour will only get behind this in a serious way if they know they are going down anyways (and thus won't have to actually implement it) but want to shore up their vote so they are in a position to challenge the Tories for government in 2014 (as opposed to a spectacular Major-in-1997-style flameout). (On the other hand, they can always promise to hold a referendum and then campaign against electoral reform.)
I don't think it would be that likely to succeed either since apart from the merits of electoral reform it just looks desperate.
I kinda like the idea that Liberal supporters could be encouraged to vote strategically for Labour next election. It's a photo-negative of the same terrible irony in Canadian elections.
Party shifts in UK politics can be weird. A group of traditional Labour voters switched allegiances to the Social Democrats(most of whom then became part of the Liberal Democrats)in the Eighties because they thought Labour was too far left. Now, a lot of former Labour voters have been joining the LibDems because they feel Labour's gone too far right.
I'd love to see our 22% stooges in Ottawa considering electoral reform and coalition government. The NDP can't shame them into supporting democratic reforms.