Labour Leadership/Deputy Leadership Election thread

[afleitch]

Other MPs who've said they would stand against Gordon Brown in order for a "fair transition of power"

Which roughly translates to  'we don't want the public to realise how, in comparison to even the Tories our leadership election appears a little dated and involves those 'troublesome' trade unions which don't play well with the swing voters.' Thats probably part of the reason as to why Prescott has not been dumped.

[afleitch]

And the same goes to the amusing idea that the policies of a future Tory-led Government would be anything like those of the post-1997 Labour Government.

I don't think that it is an amusing idea at all. A nfuture Tory government will not be like Labour in every or even the majority of aspects policy wise, but it cannot be suggested that what Labour has done, for good and for bad will be ignored or rolled back by the Tories. Labour, when it came to 1997 is well known for not rolling back certain Majorite or Thatcherite policies (particularly when it came to the economy). Likewise I expect PM Cameron to maintain a degree of Labour policy or the structure that it has implemented, while implementing its own policy and applying a new interpretation of existing policy.

[afleitch]

Why do our Tory friends assume that they will gain seats next time?

IMO Labour could gain seats against the trend when the anti war vote comes back. Seats like Shrewsbury & Atcham (10% swing to Lib Dem), also I think Withington, Chesterfield, Rochdale and Yardley could come back as well.

While I have no doubt that Labour will regain seats they lost to the Lib Dems and may see a swing towards them in seats like Crawley for example, I believe any Labour gains will be offset by sustained losses to the Conservatives. There may be the odd upset, similar to the Tories gaining Aberdeen South in 1992 for example, but even the slightest move to the Tories would see Labour seats fall.

[afleitch]

Re: Essex, thank god they sorted out Braintree by removing Witham (even if it did include all but the north of the council) and they pulled Chelmsfords boundaries in tighter. Essex is always going to be a bit difficult with each review, and if the Thames Gateway gets underway South Essex (And North Kent the Medway area) is going to look very interesting in 20 years time.

[afleitch]

In an interview with the Times, Blair has apparently refused to name an exit date, has said that he won't quit at Conference (drat), and has apparently called on people to "let me get on with my job".

A "Thatchering" is looking increasingly likely...

May 2007 is most likely if this is the case, even if Labour perform better than expected in Wales, Scotland and the locals (though I'm not quite sure what the expected level will be) The Scottish Labour Party will not be pleased' it was reported today that they wish to undertake a 'Blairless' campaign (which leaves them a bit rudderless as McConnell is no peach at the moment either)and insiders have said that if Blair announced a departure date it would make for a less awkward campaign.

[afleitch]

Anyone know on what day in the next year or so he would have outlasted Thatcher?

[afleitch]

It seems as though 17 "normally loyal" M.P's have signed a letter calling on him to quit; one was Chris Bryant and another was Sion Simon.
And Albert Owen (M.P for Anglesey/Ynys Mon) has confirmed that he's written a private letter asking for the same thing.

Meanwhile 49 M.P's have signed another letter, supporting an orderly transition and all that.

As long as it's not a grandious affair. His 'long goodbye' nationwide media tour outlined in the Mirror (which will probably not go ahead now) would have been stomach churning. If you step down, you go gracefully (and perhaps cry in the ministerial car)

If he wants to know exactly what his legacy is, wait a few decades

[afleitch]

'Mili-bland' has of course tried to throw out a tidbit to help alay fears. But it almost immediately reminded me of Michael Howard shoring up IDS in those final few months....

[afleitch]

It's emerged that Tom Watson (best known for the spoof teens section on his blog, and for his role in the Hodge Hill by-election) was one of the 17. He is currently a junior Defense Minister...

Surely if thats true he must resign from the government. Or at least be sacked?

The government seems to have 'reshuffled' itself to death. But he's a brave man for speaking out, though he is sadly expendable.

[afleitch]

REJOICE!

LET THE VERY PUBLIC INFIGHTING (POSSIBLY WITH THE UNIONS BACK IN THE SPOTLIGHT) BEGIN!

...if this is true

[afleitch]

The public infighting has been going on for a few months now...

But now it takes on a new dimension Middle Englanders spit out their cornflakes after reading about 'How Unions will decide whos going to be our PM.' Now you and I know the system seems to work perfectly well and is as historically balanced as you can get, but Mrs Gloucester and Mr  Loughborough don't know that and it will get spun pretty badly once the leadership election itself nears

[afleitch]

Sun political editor says: Early election may be called in Spring 2008

Stephen Pound MP: Blair has to maintain control, Labour MP's don't understand the concept of 'discipline' : 'Two phonecalls already on behalf of people' with regards to the leadership (?)

[afleitch]

Yeah, I'd been thinking that, presuming a new P.M from summer/autumn next year, spring '08 is likely.

Will the new boundaries be officially in place in by then?

[afleitch]

The government needs a new direction, not just a new leader. I am concerned that the next year will see the government effectively paralysed; why bother to support 'Blair's' agenda in the Commons when he's not going to be there months down the line? If I were a cabinet minister, junior cabinet minister or even a back bencher, I'd be spending the next 6 months or so shoring up my position, making friends with Mr X's 'people' - that's how these things happen regardless of who is in power.

The government has had 1 year to begin to implement it's 2005 manifesto; it may spend the next year effective rudderless and without authority. What happens, as has happened all too often in the past few years, if a minister steps out of line. or does something damaging to deserve the sack? Blair can do it, but it has no meaning and he gains and looses nothing from it. If I were the minister I wouldn't worry as I know I'd have a chance next year to be part of Labour's 'revolving door' cabinet under a new leader.

Blair has to go now, for the sake of the legislative process and effective leadership as well as his party.

[afleitch]

Various updates... Johnson will run for Deputy and will likely endorse Brown for Leader.
It now looks unlikely that we'll see a serious challenger for Brown, although it still can't entirely be ruled out.

Gordon is safe in the knowledge of his victory. That's why he has spent the last few weeks speaking outwith the brief of his portfolio (while Blair lays low waiting for the police to come a knockin') and declaring himself as robust against terror (the refuge of politicians with sod all else good to talk about)

That aside, Labour really has to be seen to have a contest of some sorts or it just looks terrible in the media

[afleitch]

 

I think we will be the natural party of government.

LOL... oh the arrogance!

With the partisan dealignment which has characterised the electorates of most western democracies over the last decade or so do you have any idea how antiquated the concept of any party being "the natural party of government" actually is?

It was the belief that the Conservatives had in being the 'natural party of government' that deservedly caused them to humped in May 1997- most Tories were genuinely shocked at the scale of their loss with some I've known believing Labour would have a small majority and they'd be back on the government benches five years down the line. Complacent Labour members thinking they are somehow indestructable is probably the best weapon the Conservatives (or the SNP for that matter) have.

[afleitch]

I get the impression some hacks in the newspapers want us to get excited about the deputy leadership contest ignoring the fact theres no leadership contest. As long as the candidates don't start to think we care and go all flash on the internet (with the exceptions of Hazel, the silly moo)

[afleitch]

They seem to be going hell for leather in what's really, as we would call, a 'wee pretendy' race.

[afleitch]

Al objects to making threads about polls, so I'll put it here:
Labour 39
Tories 36
LD 15.
First clear Labour lead (though still within MoE) in a while.

From the wonderful people at MORI. Though at least they admit to not wishing to make a projected vote share (this poll is not) but a snapshot of recent movement. As a result they are very volatile. More bad news for the Lib Dems though.

[afleitch]

Sky News say it's Harman

[afleitch]

She's won.

[afleitch]

At least this pointless affair is over Of course now I'm going to have to learn how to draw a caricature of Harriet Harman.

EDIT: May I also add, on behalf of my fellow Conservatives, thank you for electing Harriet Harman.

[afleitch]

Can anybody explain for my benefit why this race was important?

It wasn't. It did not interest anyone outside the 'Westminster Village' or the party itself and was a sideshow to distract the media from the fact that Gordon Brown was elected as leader and therefore Prime Minister completely unopposed.

[afleitch]

Whether Harman becomes Deputy Prime Minister or not depends

Don't say that; it gives the Liberal Democrat front bench misplaced hope

[afleitch]

Brown will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the US; Cameron, on the other hand, would wilt if he thought there was a vote or two to be had from doing so

Cameron has laid out his approach to the US in far more depth than Brown has. Standing 'shoulder to shoulder' does not mean following the US blindly on every foreign policy (even Thatcher knew that; Grenada for example) It is the duty of the British PM to protect our foreign interests and promote our own foreign policy, not make it subservient to that of the US President.

Cameron has stated he will be critical of US foreign policy when he feels it is in Britains interests. That is always preferrable to blindly following whatever comes out of the White House.