As Nick Clegg found out a fortnight ago, the debates can indeed change everything - and David Cameron's masterful, statesmanlike, passionate and dominant performance last night has put a spring in the step of Tory activists and voters - and a real reason for undecided voetrs to lend us their votes. My feeling is that Cameron's performance was so strong because he both talked in terms of values (We are on the side of people who do the right thing) and then in specific policies (we will remove benefits from those who can work but who do not). Clegg looked and sounded nervous, and it showed. He was battered on the Euro and immigration; and for benefit of LibDems out there, "old politics" is when you have a promise in your manifesto that you dump live on TV when you realise its unpopular and unworkable. However Clegg did better on domestic policies, such as education. Brown was again better, but he started from a low base; he needs to lose the stats rolling off like a soviet propaganda film and shouldn't ever smile when it isn't appropriate to do so! My favourite bit was actually Cameron's credo about education - the central role of the child and the importance of choice, standards, discipline and funding. That was, according to Mrs Little (who is a teacher herself), the moment he may just have won the election.
This morning we have been bombarded with calls and visits at the Campaign HQ from pleased Tories and also voters coming across to us for the first time. I have just got back from a session with out Mancroft team and the peopel I met whilst leafleting were very positive. The news from the other groups around the seat is very similar.
Mr Cameron - you have given us what we wanted. For the sake of our country we need to win this election. The Hung Parliament is Mr Brown's lifeline, with Mr Clegg throwing the lifejacket to him, so we must get an overall Tory majority. Conservatives, we've got 5 days to make this a reality - let's get to it!
Showing posts with label brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brown. Show all posts
Friday, April 30, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Post Debate Thoughts
I am sure I am the last person in the world to reflect on last night but I thought I would have my two pennies worth.
Firstly some randon thoughts in no particular order - well done to ITV - and indeed all the broadcasters and parties for making it happen. I never thought it would. The rules didn't seem to inhibit proper debate, although I felt the moderator stepped in at some of the best moment. The set was awful. It was good to see the programme without commercial breaks. And I thought it was a little bit strange to see the party leaders - whom we usually only see interact in the House of Commons - caling each other Nick, David & Gordon.
Were there any killer blows - no. Knock out punches? No. Great one-liners? Zilch.
In fact, despite the better format I am not sure that anybody really learnt anything about politics. The left (and I mean, the combined left - LibDems, Labour & Greens) united to pour bile on Cameron, the Conservatives thought he did well. 80% of people thought the Prime Minister did badly. So, basically - your man won (whoever your man is). But - I would like next time for the debate to be slower and more thoughtful. I felt the speed of responses was fast and the pace of the debate was frenetic.
And finally a word about each of them. Clegg was thought to be the winner on the night,no doubt aided by being "introduced" to people and distancing himself from the other two parties. I thought presentationally he did well butwas weaker when challenged on his own policies. He tried to referee stance (used well by Vince Cable) but it didn't work because Cameron challenged him 4 times over Libdem policies. This was much more the media star we were promised when he became leader. He was clearly very well briefed. However - my big criticism would be that he was unable to adapt. For example, when Cameron used the stat about 4,000 educational diktats per year, Clegg still "revealed" the same stat in his answer. He should have acknowledged it from Cameron.
Brown looked the odd one out and sounded the most robotic. Some people said they saw the real Gordon and passion in him; I must have missed it. My view is that his answers were still too formula driven and laden with stats. His insistance that things were not as the general public saw them (defence, crime, immigration) did not go down well and he ought to be have addressed Cameron's repeated point of being in government for 13 years. As one LibDem said, he had low expectations and failed to meet them - I think this is a little harsh but clearly this format is not good for the PM, but he may yet learn. In addition he came armed with a lot of little "one liners" but Labour know you can only use them once!
True Cameron was by far the most polished - I think his experiences at umpteen Cameron Direct town hall meetings will have helped - and some people believe this was his biggest fault. I felt Cameron had the strongest begining (going on expenses straight way was the right thing to do) and ending (positive, up beat). But he did confound my expecations - very few jokes, no yah-boo stuff and little rising to the jibes of the others. He had the most policy to lay out but in that he attracted most criticism and at times became a little bogged down. However, as I said, I felt he did the best (as expected!)
So we now look forward to the second debate with great interest - my rolling scores are Cameron 8, Clegg 7, Brown 4
Firstly some randon thoughts in no particular order - well done to ITV - and indeed all the broadcasters and parties for making it happen. I never thought it would. The rules didn't seem to inhibit proper debate, although I felt the moderator stepped in at some of the best moment. The set was awful. It was good to see the programme without commercial breaks. And I thought it was a little bit strange to see the party leaders - whom we usually only see interact in the House of Commons - caling each other Nick, David & Gordon.
Were there any killer blows - no. Knock out punches? No. Great one-liners? Zilch.
In fact, despite the better format I am not sure that anybody really learnt anything about politics. The left (and I mean, the combined left - LibDems, Labour & Greens) united to pour bile on Cameron, the Conservatives thought he did well. 80% of people thought the Prime Minister did badly. So, basically - your man won (whoever your man is). But - I would like next time for the debate to be slower and more thoughtful. I felt the speed of responses was fast and the pace of the debate was frenetic.
And finally a word about each of them. Clegg was thought to be the winner on the night,no doubt aided by being "introduced" to people and distancing himself from the other two parties. I thought presentationally he did well butwas weaker when challenged on his own policies. He tried to referee stance (used well by Vince Cable) but it didn't work because Cameron challenged him 4 times over Libdem policies. This was much more the media star we were promised when he became leader. He was clearly very well briefed. However - my big criticism would be that he was unable to adapt. For example, when Cameron used the stat about 4,000 educational diktats per year, Clegg still "revealed" the same stat in his answer. He should have acknowledged it from Cameron.
Brown looked the odd one out and sounded the most robotic. Some people said they saw the real Gordon and passion in him; I must have missed it. My view is that his answers were still too formula driven and laden with stats. His insistance that things were not as the general public saw them (defence, crime, immigration) did not go down well and he ought to be have addressed Cameron's repeated point of being in government for 13 years. As one LibDem said, he had low expectations and failed to meet them - I think this is a little harsh but clearly this format is not good for the PM, but he may yet learn. In addition he came armed with a lot of little "one liners" but Labour know you can only use them once!
True Cameron was by far the most polished - I think his experiences at umpteen Cameron Direct town hall meetings will have helped - and some people believe this was his biggest fault. I felt Cameron had the strongest begining (going on expenses straight way was the right thing to do) and ending (positive, up beat). But he did confound my expecations - very few jokes, no yah-boo stuff and little rising to the jibes of the others. He had the most policy to lay out but in that he attracted most criticism and at times became a little bogged down. However, as I said, I felt he did the best (as expected!)
So we now look forward to the second debate with great interest - my rolling scores are Cameron 8, Clegg 7, Brown 4
Friday, April 09, 2010
Leader on Candidate
Cameron on Little: “We have got a very strong candidate in Norwich South. We showed what was possible with Chloe and we want that to be part one.”
I wonder what Brown would say about Clarke
;-)
I wonder what Brown would say about Clarke
;-)
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Come On Media, Make Up Your Mind!
A curious set of coincidencies today - I went from the car where a news report was attacking the Tory decision to launch a personal attack on the Prime Minister to the house where ITN were doing the same. Then I clicked on iPlayer to watch Cameron's very impressive performace on the BBC Politics show, only for the questions to be about class, background and being a toff.
Either the media want to talk about personalities or they want to talk about policy. They can't have it both ways!
Or it is a case of when the Tories do it about Labour, it's wrong - but when the media do it about the Tories, it's fine?
(By the way - call that a personal attack? I don't think so! Each posters had a policy message - negative, yes, personal, no.)
Either the media want to talk about personalities or they want to talk about policy. They can't have it both ways!
Or it is a case of when the Tories do it about Labour, it's wrong - but when the media do it about the Tories, it's fine?
(By the way - call that a personal attack? I don't think so! Each posters had a policy message - negative, yes, personal, no.)
Saturday, March 27, 2010
"News of the World" Backs Cameron
Another newspaper has tonight come out to support the Conservatives - a direct switch from the paper that urged us to vote Labour in 2005. But I thought it was the reasoning that was interesting and (for a tabloid!!) very well written;
THE General Election is almost upon us. If, as predicted, the date remains May 6, we have just 40 days, including today, to make the most momentous decision about Government in a generation.
Over the coming weeks we'll be bombarded with information, propaganda and, no doubt, downright lies. So let us take stock.
When Labour came to power in 1997, with Tony Blair at the helm and Gordon Brown holding the purse strings, we were all told that things could only get better. We are now entitled to judge that pledge against results.
David Cameron and the Tory Party must be given a chance
Mr Blair himself famously chanted 'Education, education, education!' so let's start with that.
In just the last six years, the education budget has tripled from £21.7bn to £66.7bn of our money. As we report today, there are brilliant individual successes like young maths genius Yasha Ayari Asley. But 225,000 pupils left primary school last year unable to read, write and add up properly.
Tesco's Sir Terry Leahy and Sir Stuart Rose of M&S rightly complain this scandalous state of affairs follows many of them right through their education.
Last year, around 100,000 parents were refused a first choice of secondary school. And around 959,000 16-24s were not in any form of education, employment or training.
What about health? Since 1997 Labour have almost tripled spending on the NHS from £35bn to £104bn (again, our money), and we applaud many separate instances of life saving. But the fact remains that, under Labour, the number of NHS managers is increasing almost three times as fast as nurses.
After a decade of Labour rule, only 49% of cancer patients were surviving for five years after diagnosis - lower than virtually all Europe. MRSA and C-difficile have killed almost 44,000 people since 1997.
So where else does our money go? In 2007-08, Labour spent £23bn on the criminal justice system - a third more than 1997. Our policemen and women are among the world's bravest.
Yet in 2008-09, for example, there were over 100 serious knife crimes a day, almost a million victims of alcohol-fuelled attacks, and 10,000 incidents of anti-social behaviour every day.
And what of Defence? Labour says it has increased spending from £27.5bn in 97-98 to £36.2bn last year. But since they came to power, the number of regular troops have been cut by 21,000. We also have 12 fewer warships and 217 fewer planes. As the death toll in Afghanistan mounts daily bereaved families tell story after story of lack of proper equipment and support.
And as we revealed two weeks ago, despite Mr Brown's assurances to the Chilcot inquiry, defence spending WAS cut and not increased, as the Prime Minister later acknowledged.
Immigration too is an issue that has divided many under this government. Let us be clear, this country owes much of its richness to a great many law-abiding immigrants. But as recently as Friday of this week, Gordon Brown saw fit to release statistics that claim to show a decrease in arrivals.
Those figures have been attacked as misleading, but there is little doubt that total net immigration increased from 48,000 in 1997 to 163,000 in 2008. And after 10 years of Labour there were up to 700,000 illegal immigrants here.
Then we have the economy. In fairness, Britain and the world has been hit with such a cataclysm of disaster by useless bankers that neither Labour nor the Tories could have emerged unscathed.
Nevertheless, our budget deficit now stands at £167bn, the highest since World War II. Companies are still going to the wall, breadwinners are losing their jobs and homes.
The Prime Minister will be as concerned about all this as we are. He is a decent man, sincere in his beliefs. Yet despite his commitment to 'recovery' yesterday, many believe Mr Brown's earlier reckless spending got us into this position in the first place.
And at a time when the whole nation needs to pull together, his failure to rein in his Party's union paymasters threatens to tear apart any slim chance we have of securing a recovery.
They share an unholy alliance which is not healthy for Labour, and certainly not healthy for Britain.
And against this backdrop of national peril on all fronts we are saddled with a Commons of spivs and expenses chancers. Where the honest MPs are a glittering exception rather than the norm.
True, this shower of time- wasters spans all parties. But as the team in charge, Labour and Mr Brown must shoulder much responsibility.
Overwhelmingly, on all fronts, this country is crying out for change.
Which is why, after much soul-searching, the News of the World believes that David Cameron and the Tory Party must now be given the chance to run the country.
Right now, they are our best hope for a brighter, saner, safer, more honourable future.
We do not make this recommendation lightly. There is much that Mr Cameron still needs to spell out, much he has yet to prove. Many accuse him of inexperience. They said the same of Tony Blair.
And just as Blair arrived with Brown, so George Osborne will have a huge job ahead of him as the next Chancellor of the Exchequer.
His task is both to spend and cut with a sustained assurance that will deliver stability both to families and to the money markets that govern our savings and mortgages.
And it is the job of every Tory MP, new and old, to repay our trust.
To restore dignity to our Parliament, safety to our Forces, comfort to the sick, hope to our children, peace to our streets, confidence to our businesses and pride to our nation.
After the nightmare we have all suffered, Britain deserves better.
We certainly do not deserve a headlong return to the days of Old Labour, of division, strikes and lost opportunity.
This paper backed New Labour to rid the nation of such a blight.
Now, confronted with a renewed threat from old ways, the modernised Tories can be a force for good.
It is time to give change a chance and move forward with fresh vigour and hope.
THE General Election is almost upon us. If, as predicted, the date remains May 6, we have just 40 days, including today, to make the most momentous decision about Government in a generation.
Over the coming weeks we'll be bombarded with information, propaganda and, no doubt, downright lies. So let us take stock.
When Labour came to power in 1997, with Tony Blair at the helm and Gordon Brown holding the purse strings, we were all told that things could only get better. We are now entitled to judge that pledge against results.
David Cameron and the Tory Party must be given a chance
Mr Blair himself famously chanted 'Education, education, education!' so let's start with that.
In just the last six years, the education budget has tripled from £21.7bn to £66.7bn of our money. As we report today, there are brilliant individual successes like young maths genius Yasha Ayari Asley. But 225,000 pupils left primary school last year unable to read, write and add up properly.
Tesco's Sir Terry Leahy and Sir Stuart Rose of M&S rightly complain this scandalous state of affairs follows many of them right through their education.
Last year, around 100,000 parents were refused a first choice of secondary school. And around 959,000 16-24s were not in any form of education, employment or training.
What about health? Since 1997 Labour have almost tripled spending on the NHS from £35bn to £104bn (again, our money), and we applaud many separate instances of life saving. But the fact remains that, under Labour, the number of NHS managers is increasing almost three times as fast as nurses.
After a decade of Labour rule, only 49% of cancer patients were surviving for five years after diagnosis - lower than virtually all Europe. MRSA and C-difficile have killed almost 44,000 people since 1997.
So where else does our money go? In 2007-08, Labour spent £23bn on the criminal justice system - a third more than 1997. Our policemen and women are among the world's bravest.
Yet in 2008-09, for example, there were over 100 serious knife crimes a day, almost a million victims of alcohol-fuelled attacks, and 10,000 incidents of anti-social behaviour every day.
And what of Defence? Labour says it has increased spending from £27.5bn in 97-98 to £36.2bn last year. But since they came to power, the number of regular troops have been cut by 21,000. We also have 12 fewer warships and 217 fewer planes. As the death toll in Afghanistan mounts daily bereaved families tell story after story of lack of proper equipment and support.
And as we revealed two weeks ago, despite Mr Brown's assurances to the Chilcot inquiry, defence spending WAS cut and not increased, as the Prime Minister later acknowledged.
Immigration too is an issue that has divided many under this government. Let us be clear, this country owes much of its richness to a great many law-abiding immigrants. But as recently as Friday of this week, Gordon Brown saw fit to release statistics that claim to show a decrease in arrivals.
Those figures have been attacked as misleading, but there is little doubt that total net immigration increased from 48,000 in 1997 to 163,000 in 2008. And after 10 years of Labour there were up to 700,000 illegal immigrants here.
Then we have the economy. In fairness, Britain and the world has been hit with such a cataclysm of disaster by useless bankers that neither Labour nor the Tories could have emerged unscathed.
Nevertheless, our budget deficit now stands at £167bn, the highest since World War II. Companies are still going to the wall, breadwinners are losing their jobs and homes.
The Prime Minister will be as concerned about all this as we are. He is a decent man, sincere in his beliefs. Yet despite his commitment to 'recovery' yesterday, many believe Mr Brown's earlier reckless spending got us into this position in the first place.
And at a time when the whole nation needs to pull together, his failure to rein in his Party's union paymasters threatens to tear apart any slim chance we have of securing a recovery.
They share an unholy alliance which is not healthy for Labour, and certainly not healthy for Britain.
And against this backdrop of national peril on all fronts we are saddled with a Commons of spivs and expenses chancers. Where the honest MPs are a glittering exception rather than the norm.
True, this shower of time- wasters spans all parties. But as the team in charge, Labour and Mr Brown must shoulder much responsibility.
Overwhelmingly, on all fronts, this country is crying out for change.
Which is why, after much soul-searching, the News of the World believes that David Cameron and the Tory Party must now be given the chance to run the country.
Right now, they are our best hope for a brighter, saner, safer, more honourable future.
We do not make this recommendation lightly. There is much that Mr Cameron still needs to spell out, much he has yet to prove. Many accuse him of inexperience. They said the same of Tony Blair.
And just as Blair arrived with Brown, so George Osborne will have a huge job ahead of him as the next Chancellor of the Exchequer.
His task is both to spend and cut with a sustained assurance that will deliver stability both to families and to the money markets that govern our savings and mortgages.
And it is the job of every Tory MP, new and old, to repay our trust.
To restore dignity to our Parliament, safety to our Forces, comfort to the sick, hope to our children, peace to our streets, confidence to our businesses and pride to our nation.
After the nightmare we have all suffered, Britain deserves better.
We certainly do not deserve a headlong return to the days of Old Labour, of division, strikes and lost opportunity.
This paper backed New Labour to rid the nation of such a blight.
Now, confronted with a renewed threat from old ways, the modernised Tories can be a force for good.
It is time to give change a chance and move forward with fresh vigour and hope.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
When Sir Trevor met Dave ...
Tonight's efforts on ITV was a good use of an hour and provided a great overview of the man who wants to be our next Prime Minister. As a political observer I preferred the fact that Cameron went for Sir Trevor McDonald, in direct contrast to Brown's choice of his Labour-chum and disgraced former Mirror editor Piers Morgan. McDonald was polite, decent, insightful and yet probing (for example, asking about "that poster" and if Cameron could ever sack Osbourne).
Samantha Cameron came out very well indeed and the programme really enforced the loving and solid nature of their relationship plus her influence on his politics; and the interview with his Mum really illustrated how his childhood has shaped his life. The section on Ivan was touching but not over-the-top.
I didn't feel the behind the scenes footage was very revealing, but what both David and Samantha Cameron had to say was. They came across as very passionate about changing the country, very relaxed, almost normal and clearly enjoying themselves.
I think this programme will have really solidified the Tory base and, hopefully, made others think again about the Tory Leader (he really took the "posh" stuff on and made good on it). Those who have already made up their minds about "the old Etonian" David Cameron won't have budged.
But, as always, I speak as the Cameron faithful and will wait to see what the staffroom has to say tomorrow!
UPDATE: In the comments James has mentioned the lack of policies in this programme - but this effort, like Brown/Morgan, wasn't about policies and it certainly wasn't an hour long PPB. The programme told you lots about the man-who-would-be-PM and the values which drive him. I have always argued we need to policies more up front but this wasn't the vehicle for this.
Samantha Cameron came out very well indeed and the programme really enforced the loving and solid nature of their relationship plus her influence on his politics; and the interview with his Mum really illustrated how his childhood has shaped his life. The section on Ivan was touching but not over-the-top.
I didn't feel the behind the scenes footage was very revealing, but what both David and Samantha Cameron had to say was. They came across as very passionate about changing the country, very relaxed, almost normal and clearly enjoying themselves.
I think this programme will have really solidified the Tory base and, hopefully, made others think again about the Tory Leader (he really took the "posh" stuff on and made good on it). Those who have already made up their minds about "the old Etonian" David Cameron won't have budged.
But, as always, I speak as the Cameron faithful and will wait to see what the staffroom has to say tomorrow!
UPDATE: In the comments James has mentioned the lack of policies in this programme - but this effort, like Brown/Morgan, wasn't about policies and it certainly wasn't an hour long PPB. The programme told you lots about the man-who-would-be-PM and the values which drive him. I have always argued we need to policies more up front but this wasn't the vehicle for this.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Darling & The Bully
Aside from being away when this story broke I haven't really spoken about the Prime Ministerial bullying row because I am not sure if the truth is really ever going to be known and this could decend into allegation, discrediting blows and coutner-allegations. The PM says he didn't do it, Darling says someone else did it, Mandelson blames the Tories and an aide says he did do it afterall. It's probably too late for my two-pennies about this but I would say two things about what has come out of it.
Firstly I don't believe this is what is moving the polls, if indeed they are being moved. We've spent day-after-day on the doorstep afetr this came out and nobody has mentioned it to me at all; the expenses row still comes up more than the bullying one. My experience on the doorsteps - and yesterday I spent the whole day talking to hundreds of people in Earlham - is that Labour are still seriously in trouble. I haven't felt the poll movement shift here in Norwich at all.
And the second is a theme which has been picked up by today's PB thread - the future of Darling himself. Darling has proved to be unsackable, both last year when Balls wanted his job and now when he has slagged off his boss in public. His words will chime with both the Labour Party and the public. If, after Gordon has gone, the Labour party may well seek an experienced head rather than youth and dynamism. If they do, the conventional wisdom is that Straw is the man, but I think darling may well have staked his claim this week.
Firstly I don't believe this is what is moving the polls, if indeed they are being moved. We've spent day-after-day on the doorstep afetr this came out and nobody has mentioned it to me at all; the expenses row still comes up more than the bullying one. My experience on the doorsteps - and yesterday I spent the whole day talking to hundreds of people in Earlham - is that Labour are still seriously in trouble. I haven't felt the poll movement shift here in Norwich at all.
And the second is a theme which has been picked up by today's PB thread - the future of Darling himself. Darling has proved to be unsackable, both last year when Balls wanted his job and now when he has slagged off his boss in public. His words will chime with both the Labour Party and the public. If, after Gordon has gone, the Labour party may well seek an experienced head rather than youth and dynamism. If they do, the conventional wisdom is that Straw is the man, but I think darling may well have staked his claim this week.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Brown the Father
Just when you thought you knew somebody. I know a lot of people believe it to be a cynical stunt, and others pointing out that he said he would never put his children in the spotlight, but I thought that Prime Minister Gordon Brown's interview today (click here) was a beautiful tribute to his daughter who died just ten days old.
Mr Brown doesn't do emotion very well in public but his words will chime with every parent in the country. His words about Sarah were fitting and there is no doubt about the way that Brown, clearly a proud Dad, felt about Jennifer and the impact she made on his life.
He spoke about how he dwells about what Jennifer would be doing had she still been here - going to school, learning to read or being a teenager - and which of us would not be doing the same, almost on a day-to-day basis?
Both the Prime Minister and David Cameron know the pain of losing a child; an unusual bond for two men in their positions.
His interview has really made me see Gordon Brown in a new light today; a surprising light - Brown the Father.
Mr Brown doesn't do emotion very well in public but his words will chime with every parent in the country. His words about Sarah were fitting and there is no doubt about the way that Brown, clearly a proud Dad, felt about Jennifer and the impact she made on his life.
He spoke about how he dwells about what Jennifer would be doing had she still been here - going to school, learning to read or being a teenager - and which of us would not be doing the same, almost on a day-to-day basis?
Both the Prime Minister and David Cameron know the pain of losing a child; an unusual bond for two men in their positions.
His interview has really made me see Gordon Brown in a new light today; a surprising light - Brown the Father.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Brown's Critics Go Wobbly
According to the BBC, the meeting of the PLP went by without note and the rebels stayed silent. I warned they wouldn't have the nouse to go through with the task of removing Mr Brown. Labour MPs have chosen their captain to go down with the ship.
However, what I thought was interesting was the degree to which Brown now relies not just on his cabinet as a whole but a few figures within it.
Note during today's photocall with the Prime Minister launching a stratgey to give out free laptops and internet access to low income families, there lurking in the background was ... Lord Mandelson and Ed Balls. The 2 men currently keeping Brown where he is.
Oh, and during all of this tonight's polls show significant Tory leads. Thank God Labour MPs don't wonder why!
However, what I thought was interesting was the degree to which Brown now relies not just on his cabinet as a whole but a few figures within it.
Note during today's photocall with the Prime Minister launching a stratgey to give out free laptops and internet access to low income families, there lurking in the background was ... Lord Mandelson and Ed Balls. The 2 men currently keeping Brown where he is.
Oh, and during all of this tonight's polls show significant Tory leads. Thank God Labour MPs don't wonder why!
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Don't get excited
The Hoon-Hewitt plot (backed by Norwich MP Clarke) has set Wesminster alight in the snow today. And yet from the excitement of lunchtime it has all fizzled out. Why? Because Labour MPs are spineless and unable to act in the way that the Tories did in 2003 or the LibDems in 2007. Most of their MPs would rather go down to defeat with Brown and have a post-election bloodbath than do so now in the hope of producing a leader who may just save them a few extra seats. OK, that's fine by me and probably fine by Cameron too.
So let's not get too excited; it'll all come to nothing, as usual from Labour.
So let's not get too excited; it'll all come to nothing, as usual from Labour.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Does Brown believe this stuff?
So, Gordon Brown tells Andrew Marr: "Everything I have ever won in my life I have had to fight for."
You can understand the political line of attack behind this; portray Gordon Brown as the great battler in life, compared to David Cameron who has had everything presented to him on a silver platter. In the Downing Street bunker that line made total sense I'm sure.
The trouble is: it doesn't work.
It doesn't work because the class warfare stuff is failing badly.
It doesn't work because Cameron is open about his background and his rebuttle about the importance of family and education is good.
And it doesn't work because it isn't true.
Gordon Brown was selected for a safe Scottish Labour seat and even now will not struggle to get re-elected come the next election. He didn't have to fight for the Labour leadership in 2007 either, prefering a cornonation to an election. In fact, in many ways the opposite it true. Brown shows every signs of hating battles, even choosing to put off an election when he may have won it.
I am not saying he hasn't has problems in his life (his eye sight, for example, and the loss of his daughter) but to portary Brown as one of life's great battlers just isn't true.
If he said this line for political advantage he takes the British people for fools; we can see through it.
If he said this line and believed it, well, that's much more serious ...
You can understand the political line of attack behind this; portray Gordon Brown as the great battler in life, compared to David Cameron who has had everything presented to him on a silver platter. In the Downing Street bunker that line made total sense I'm sure.
The trouble is: it doesn't work.
It doesn't work because the class warfare stuff is failing badly.
It doesn't work because Cameron is open about his background and his rebuttle about the importance of family and education is good.
And it doesn't work because it isn't true.
Gordon Brown was selected for a safe Scottish Labour seat and even now will not struggle to get re-elected come the next election. He didn't have to fight for the Labour leadership in 2007 either, prefering a cornonation to an election. In fact, in many ways the opposite it true. Brown shows every signs of hating battles, even choosing to put off an election when he may have won it.
I am not saying he hasn't has problems in his life (his eye sight, for example, and the loss of his daughter) but to portary Brown as one of life's great battlers just isn't true.
If he said this line for political advantage he takes the British people for fools; we can see through it.
If he said this line and believed it, well, that's much more serious ...
Sunday, December 20, 2009
MORI humiliate pretty much everyone
Overnight political hacks have been having much fun (best summarised here) about a new MORI poll which was claimed to have a narrow Tory lead of 3%, which would fall within the margin of error and could have meant that Brown was level pegging with Cameron, but ended up being a whopping 17% Conservative lead.
The joke was, of course, on everyone - Tories who were scared that the rumours were true were buzzily doing some "expectation managing" and critiquing the work of MORI (regular readers will testify that I hold MORI in no regard at all when it coming to polling; I don't care for the 17 point lead in the same way I didn't care for the 6 point one) and Labour were spinning this was the fightback and that Gordon could still win.
Then the real result was announced and some Tories were left to delcare that MORI was, in fact, spot on and Labour were attacking the MORI methodology.
This has led, rightly, to some saying that the political commentararti ought to wait for results before speculating and looking fools.
In the last few weeks things have gone well for Labour in the narrtive if not the events; Brown has done well-ish at PMQs, the polls were narrowing and the Tories seemed to be underpressure on a number of fronts. Locally here in Norwich the activists were getting bullish, their MPs had a spring in their steps. Good news gave them hope; optimism.
And now? Things have pretty much fallen apart again - the polls are pretty much back to where they were, Cameron is back on the policy frontfoot and the government continues to stumble from disaster to disaster. And Labour MPs? Once again the storm clouds gather over their heads.
The joke was, of course, on everyone - Tories who were scared that the rumours were true were buzzily doing some "expectation managing" and critiquing the work of MORI (regular readers will testify that I hold MORI in no regard at all when it coming to polling; I don't care for the 17 point lead in the same way I didn't care for the 6 point one) and Labour were spinning this was the fightback and that Gordon could still win.
Then the real result was announced and some Tories were left to delcare that MORI was, in fact, spot on and Labour were attacking the MORI methodology.
This has led, rightly, to some saying that the political commentararti ought to wait for results before speculating and looking fools.
In the last few weeks things have gone well for Labour in the narrtive if not the events; Brown has done well-ish at PMQs, the polls were narrowing and the Tories seemed to be underpressure on a number of fronts. Locally here in Norwich the activists were getting bullish, their MPs had a spring in their steps. Good news gave them hope; optimism.
And now? Things have pretty much fallen apart again - the polls are pretty much back to where they were, Cameron is back on the policy frontfoot and the government continues to stumble from disaster to disaster. And Labour MPs? Once again the storm clouds gather over their heads.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Monday, November 09, 2009
Exclusive (biscuit) poll says Gordon set for landslide
Forget the real polling, tonight I have the results of a new and exclusive poll which shows Gordon Brown set to have a landslide fourth term and the LibDems almost wiped out of the Commons.
At tonight's ND Sixth Form open evening I asked visitors to eat the biscuit which represents their favourite and which thus represents the party leader they are most aligned with.
Whilst Dave's biscuit choice has a steady trickle, Clegg's biscuits remained almost entirely in place and Gordon's flew off the plate.
If Gordon is as in touch with the country on other issue as he clearly is with biscuits, I can strongly predict a fourth Labour term and maybe even a Labour Gain in South Norfolk? Who knows...
At tonight's ND Sixth Form open evening I asked visitors to eat the biscuit which represents their favourite and which thus represents the party leader they are most aligned with.
Whilst Dave's biscuit choice has a steady trickle, Clegg's biscuits remained almost entirely in place and Gordon's flew off the plate.
If Gordon is as in touch with the country on other issue as he clearly is with biscuits, I can strongly predict a fourth Labour term and maybe even a Labour Gain in South Norfolk? Who knows...
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Cameron's Bank Balance = Brown's Health?
I have just finished watching Andrew Marr grill Tory boss David Cameron as the party conference opens in Manchester. Marr was, at times, rude and deliberately provocative. Good, I say, that's just the way it should be and people at the sharp end of politics deserve that sort of scrutiny. However, once again, Marr went off political issues - Cameron had been quizzed about Europe, tax, spending & welfare reform to this point - and out of the blue asked Cameron what his personal wealth was.
When Cameron went to give an overly detailed answer, Marr got impatient and asked for a total figure. The question is - why should people know this? Now, being a teacher and a Councillor I am used to the fact that pretty much the whole of my financial dealings are available to anybody who can use google to search for my pay scales. My financial disclosure at City Hall will confirm anything else that is left. I am personally happy for people to know about all of this - but I don't think the private financial details of politicians are necessarily fair game for the public. Why should David and Samantha Cameron's bank balance be a matter for public scrutiny?
Personally I wonder if this was Marr's attempt to balance out his asking last week if the Prime Minister was on medication? His question prompted a tidal wave of anger and the more general point of what is or is not acceptable to ask politicans (including the Prime Minister).
On the Brown issue I back Marr; if the Prime Minister is doing anything which may affect his ability to do the job then he should be open about it. Do we really think that Cameron's bank balance impacts on his ability to do the job? I am not so sure.
If this was Marr's attempt to balance the books between the parties then it was rather bizarre to say the least.
When Cameron went to give an overly detailed answer, Marr got impatient and asked for a total figure. The question is - why should people know this? Now, being a teacher and a Councillor I am used to the fact that pretty much the whole of my financial dealings are available to anybody who can use google to search for my pay scales. My financial disclosure at City Hall will confirm anything else that is left. I am personally happy for people to know about all of this - but I don't think the private financial details of politicians are necessarily fair game for the public. Why should David and Samantha Cameron's bank balance be a matter for public scrutiny?
Personally I wonder if this was Marr's attempt to balance out his asking last week if the Prime Minister was on medication? His question prompted a tidal wave of anger and the more general point of what is or is not acceptable to ask politicans (including the Prime Minister).
On the Brown issue I back Marr; if the Prime Minister is doing anything which may affect his ability to do the job then he should be open about it. Do we really think that Cameron's bank balance impacts on his ability to do the job? I am not so sure.
If this was Marr's attempt to balance the books between the parties then it was rather bizarre to say the least.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
When will Gordon's parliamentary maths not add up?
This week another Labour PPS and now a Business Minister have quit. It seems every week another person or people are jumping out of Gordon's tent. Yet, somehow, these people must be being replaced.
Labour have 350+ MPs and just upwards of 200 peers.
Hasn't Gordon run out of people to do jobs yet? I am amazed there is anyone left to serve!
Labour have 350+ MPs and just upwards of 200 peers.
Hasn't Gordon run out of people to do jobs yet? I am amazed there is anyone left to serve!
Monday, August 24, 2009
The depth of the Tory lead
A Conservative opinion poll lead of 16%, as published in The Guardian, is hardly newsworthy at the moment - but what is worthy of note is the analysis here which shows the Tory Leader ahead in all social classes and all regions. Has there ever been a time when a government has collapsed so completely and amongst even its most loyal supporters? Brown gets back to running the country next week ... welcome home, Prime Minister!
Sunday, March 29, 2009
MPs Expenses: Just Sort Them Out
The continual drip-drip of allegations and snout-in-trough exposures of the recent weeks doesn't damage a single political party - they damage the reputation of politics and with it, democracy as a whole. Voters I have spoken to on the doorsteps in the recent weeks want us to tackle anti-social behaviour, improve school standards, strengthen our society and repair our economy - so the more time we spend on the issue of MPs expenses the less time we are working on the "big issues" and the "tough choices". So come on Gordon, sort it out and do it fast. And to help, beause Gordon is currently keen on advice from the Conservatives, are my plans.
1. Abolish all MPs expenses - don't give MPs a penny more than that which they earn.
2. Cut MPs salaries by 5%, and then link them to the pay rises offered not to a high ranking civil servant but to our nurses and teachers. Might make our MPs think rather more about the impact of their decisions on hard working families rather more.
3. Abolish money for second homes. Parliament - or rather, the taxpayer - ought to buy a big block of flates near to Westminster, do them up and provide them for free to MPs (not unlike Halls for students). There could be larger flats for MPs whose families come and see them during the week. They would all be furnished to a minimum standard (think Travelodge); any extras come from the MP themselves. The flat is owned by the tax-payers and would switch to the new MP should a member lose their seat.
4. Judge the qualification for these flats by the avergae time taken to get to Westminster by public transport (the real journey time, not those claims made by rail companies). Anything up to an hour door-to-door is a reaosnable communte. Anything more qualifies the member for a flat.
5. Put a complete ban - and I mean, complete - on family members working for the MP.
As a Tory, the free market is very much in my thinking; there are no shortage of MPs and there are many, many very good candidates without seats who would do the job. If people don't like the pay and conditions they shouldn't out themselves up for the job. A big bit of being an MP is public service, and that may include taking a pay cut to do the job.
I am a staunch defender of MPs - the overwhelming majority are decent, very hard working and honourable men and women. They deserve our respect as a population and I personally am grateful for the work they do. MPs expenses get in the way of recieveing that respect and should be sorted out as soon as possible.
1. Abolish all MPs expenses - don't give MPs a penny more than that which they earn.
2. Cut MPs salaries by 5%, and then link them to the pay rises offered not to a high ranking civil servant but to our nurses and teachers. Might make our MPs think rather more about the impact of their decisions on hard working families rather more.
3. Abolish money for second homes. Parliament - or rather, the taxpayer - ought to buy a big block of flates near to Westminster, do them up and provide them for free to MPs (not unlike Halls for students). There could be larger flats for MPs whose families come and see them during the week. They would all be furnished to a minimum standard (think Travelodge); any extras come from the MP themselves. The flat is owned by the tax-payers and would switch to the new MP should a member lose their seat.
4. Judge the qualification for these flats by the avergae time taken to get to Westminster by public transport (the real journey time, not those claims made by rail companies). Anything up to an hour door-to-door is a reaosnable communte. Anything more qualifies the member for a flat.
5. Put a complete ban - and I mean, complete - on family members working for the MP.
As a Tory, the free market is very much in my thinking; there are no shortage of MPs and there are many, many very good candidates without seats who would do the job. If people don't like the pay and conditions they shouldn't out themselves up for the job. A big bit of being an MP is public service, and that may include taking a pay cut to do the job.
I am a staunch defender of MPs - the overwhelming majority are decent, very hard working and honourable men and women. They deserve our respect as a population and I personally am grateful for the work they do. MPs expenses get in the way of recieveing that respect and should be sorted out as soon as possible.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Cameron has another "moment"
I am starting to strongly believe that Cameron's leadership is marked by a number of significant moments - things that define him to the general public and, so far anyway, they are greeted with opinion poll bounces. The Inheritance Tax announcement was one such "moment", as was his 07 conference speech (the one without notes). Today, although events elsewhere mean it won't get as much attention, we may have seen another moment - on tax on savings.
Savers have been affected by the necessary reductions in interest rates whilst pensioners have suffered from a decade of Gordon Brown's tax raids. They are currently being championed by, amongst others, the Daily Telegraphy who should warmly welcome Cameron's pledges.
As well as supporting pensioners and savers during this turbulent time of financial turmoil, the Conservatives will take further economic measures to help the victims of Gordon Brown's recession.
The Conservatives' proposals include improving the flow of credit and saving jobs with a £50 billion National Loan Guarantee Scheme, freezing council tax for two years by cutting wasteful government spending, encouraging companies to hire again through a tax break for new jobs, reducing employment costs for small businesses by cutting National Insurance and helping them with cashflow by delaying VAT bills for six months.
Labour's tax and debt bombshells are taking Britain to the brink of bankruptcy. Their answer to the debt crisis is yet more borrowing. It is clear that the longer Labour is in power, the worse the economic situation will become.
Only the Conservatives can make the long-term decisions to get the public finances back under control with the proposed National Loan Guarantee Scheme and an Office for Budget Responsibility which would ensure that no Labour Government could bankrupt the country again.
It's a good plan and Cameron has announced it well.
We'll see how significant a "moment" it is and largely that will depend on the media coverage.
Savers have been affected by the necessary reductions in interest rates whilst pensioners have suffered from a decade of Gordon Brown's tax raids. They are currently being championed by, amongst others, the Daily Telegraphy who should warmly welcome Cameron's pledges.
As well as supporting pensioners and savers during this turbulent time of financial turmoil, the Conservatives will take further economic measures to help the victims of Gordon Brown's recession.
The Conservatives' proposals include improving the flow of credit and saving jobs with a £50 billion National Loan Guarantee Scheme, freezing council tax for two years by cutting wasteful government spending, encouraging companies to hire again through a tax break for new jobs, reducing employment costs for small businesses by cutting National Insurance and helping them with cashflow by delaying VAT bills for six months.
Labour's tax and debt bombshells are taking Britain to the brink of bankruptcy. Their answer to the debt crisis is yet more borrowing. It is clear that the longer Labour is in power, the worse the economic situation will become.
Only the Conservatives can make the long-term decisions to get the public finances back under control with the proposed National Loan Guarantee Scheme and an Office for Budget Responsibility which would ensure that no Labour Government could bankrupt the country again.
It's a good plan and Cameron has announced it well.
We'll see how significant a "moment" it is and largely that will depend on the media coverage.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
A Great Parliamentary Moment ... and the Queen's Speech
The Queen's Speech is usually one of the highlight's of the parliamentary year - but this year it seemed very slimmed down (and as a small state Tory I have no problem with that) but the relative lack of business does demonstrate a certain lack of focus and direction on the part of the government. However, whatever Brown's last full parliamentary year hailed, it was unlikely to beat the statement by Speaker Martin, which really did give us a marvellous parliamentary occasion.
It wasn't really much to do with what he said - although the revelations about the police not having a warrant may cause problems for the Acting Commissioner - but the tone and manner of the Point-of-Order contributions that followed it. What followed was a general cross party debate, where party advantage wasn't pressed and where the primacy of the Commons was at stake. MPs of all sides showed the dignified and serious response that this situation demands. The contributions from former Tory Leaders Michael Howard and Iain Duncan Smith, former LibDem Leader Sir Ming Campbell, former Minister Denis McShane, former cabinet minister Douglas Hogg and Tory grandee Sir Patrick Cormack delivered well presented, relevant and forensic insights into the current problem - demonstrating why our parliamentary democracy needs former frontbenchers to stay in the House to use their wisdom and experience in such a way. And when Ashford MP Damian Green spoke it was to deliver a perfectly crafted and devasting attack on the whole affair.
This clearly isn't the end of the matter and it will go on; however I think a competent performance by Speaker Martin may guarantee his job for a while yet. However if this gets worse then he could yet be in trouble.
What made me smile was the govenrment mortgage plan; not in the Queen's Speech but announced today, knocking the Green affair off the top media slot. Deliberate? From Brown? Hasn't he given up spin?
It wasn't really much to do with what he said - although the revelations about the police not having a warrant may cause problems for the Acting Commissioner - but the tone and manner of the Point-of-Order contributions that followed it. What followed was a general cross party debate, where party advantage wasn't pressed and where the primacy of the Commons was at stake. MPs of all sides showed the dignified and serious response that this situation demands. The contributions from former Tory Leaders Michael Howard and Iain Duncan Smith, former LibDem Leader Sir Ming Campbell, former Minister Denis McShane, former cabinet minister Douglas Hogg and Tory grandee Sir Patrick Cormack delivered well presented, relevant and forensic insights into the current problem - demonstrating why our parliamentary democracy needs former frontbenchers to stay in the House to use their wisdom and experience in such a way. And when Ashford MP Damian Green spoke it was to deliver a perfectly crafted and devasting attack on the whole affair.
This clearly isn't the end of the matter and it will go on; however I think a competent performance by Speaker Martin may guarantee his job for a while yet. However if this gets worse then he could yet be in trouble.
What made me smile was the govenrment mortgage plan; not in the Queen's Speech but announced today, knocking the Green affair off the top media slot. Deliberate? From Brown? Hasn't he given up spin?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)