Hazel Blears' resignation leaves Gordon Brown's premiership in crisis

[jimmy olsen]

Excellent!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/03/hazel-blears-gordon-brown-leadership-crisis

Hazel Blears' resignation leaves Gordon Brown's premiership in crisis

Communities secretary's surprise announcement emboldens Labour rebels collecting signatures for letter calling for PM to resign

[Neil]

Why is this excellent?

[Ed Anger]

Timmay just tainted the Tories.

[Neil]

Timmay just tainted the Tories.

I don't think Tim understands what's happening here.

[jimmy olsen]

Why is this excellent?

It further undermines Brown's power, making an attempt by Labor to replace him as leader all the more likely.

[Neil]

Why is this excellent?

It further undermines Brown's power, making an attempt by Labor to replace him as leader all the more likely.

So you're a big fan of Labour, are you?

[jimmy olsen]

Why is this excellent?

It further undermines Brown's power, making an attempt by Labor to replace him as leader all the more likely.

So you're a big fan of Labour, are you?

A leadership struggle at this time won't help Labor's chances and even if it did, I'd accept that to get rid of Brown.

[Neil]

Why is this excellent?

It further undermines Brown's power, making an attempt by Labor to replace him as leader all the more likely.

So you're a big fan of Labour, are you?

A leadership struggle at this time won't help Labor's chances and even if it did, I'd accept that to get rid of Brown.

You see Tim, Brown is the worst possible person to lead Labour into an election.  About the only parties that he could beat is the BNP and Respect, and even then it'd be a close-run thing.  However, if Labour dumps Brown, they might be able to select someone with some charisma and win the next election, delaying a return to good governance in Britain.

[Syt]

Why is this excellent?

Timmay has a script that automates the posting of news stories, adding a random comment line.

[Sheilbh]

This week is shaping up to be really impressive.  I was thinking recently about the differences between the US and the UK in terms of scandal (prompted by Christopher Caldwell) and our media's (thank you Robert[in]? Gibbs). 

The scandal thing was brought up by Caldwell who said what's amazing, to an American, is how venal the expenses issue is.  The nearest American scandal he could think of was apparently the Congressional Post Office affair, of which I know nothing, in the early 90s.  Even then, he said, it was about slushing funds into campaigns not to clean one's moat or buy a duck-house.  It is striking reading KRonn's thread that this scandal that is shaking Westminster to its core is about such small amounts of money and is about money.  In the US it seems like most scandals are to do with power and its misuses.  I think that says something rather sad about our unimaginative, venal little MPs.  It's pathetic.  The most damning indictment of our MPs is how unimaginative and how low their corruption is.

The media think was that Gibbs attacked the British press for running stories and then waiting for facts to catch up.  I think a lot of the reporting of this current crisis wouldn't have happened in the US because newspapers couldn't publically back things up.  Our news media know their job is as much to entertain as it is to inform.  The perfect example is the decade's worth of stories about the Blair-Brown feud.  I think you could probably count on one hand the number of on the record briefings by named sources about those arguments in the entire ten years.  The rest was gossip, nasty, vicious gossip from 'friends' of the Prime Minister or the Chancellor, or 'senior Labour figures'.  Despite the paucity of reliable facts these stories came out about once a week in one paper or other.  It was also, if not an accurate, at least an impressionist depiction of what was actually happening.  There were very genuine arguments at the top of government that were paralysing the government, we had a fractious dual monarchy for ten years. 

So, at the minute, when we have Nick Robinson telling us that John Reid's 'office' are telling him that he's no plans to go back into government we know that that doesn't mean that John Reid has no plans to go back into government - it's his office for God's sake.  When, in the same report, he says that 'friends' of Alastair Darling are saying he won't be moved from the Exchequer and 'friends' of Hazel Blears are saying that Number 10 is running a spin campaign against her then we know that either those friends are saying that, or the people themselves are.

I don't know that in the US where the media seem to take their job so much more seriously similar reporting could happen - except perhaps on blogs.  I mean we're getting totally unsourced rumours that there are two more Ministers about to resign tonight, Hazel Blears' 'friends' are very angry at her treatment and say she is too, Lord Mandelson is spinning divinely ('poor Hazel, poor Jacqui, they were victimised by the media; nothing to do with Gordon').  I mean half the news is entirely made up of gossip at the minute and it's interesting and informative and fun to watch.

And rather brilliantly we now have a few blogs (unfortunately on the right) like the Spectator that are dissecting the spin and commenting on all the, of course, anonymous, off the record briefings.  Apparently there'll be a lull until local council election results come in tomorrow night - assuming two further Ministers don't resign - at least publically.  But the 'private' conversations and rows will form a great deal of tomorrow's copy

[Sheilbh]

You see Tim, Brown is the worst possible person to lead Labour into an election.  About the only parties that he could beat is the BNP and Respect, and even then it'd be a close-run thing.  However, if Labour dumps Brown, they might be able to select someone with some charisma and win the next election, delaying a return to good governance in Britain.

At this point I think Labour could elect Christ himself and they'd lose the election.  Brown's departure will also hasten an election.  One unelected PM in a Parliament is do-able, two is pushing it.  They'll have to call a snap autumn election.

Edit: I've been planning to post about this but there's just so much it's impossible.  A number of resignations, about 15 MPs saying they'll stand down at the next election, Labour coming behind the Lib Dems in the polls, then a poll that says that Tory support's dropped 10%, plots and counter-plots, rumour and counter-rumour, Lord Mandelson spinning superbly like the still centre of whirlpool.  It's difficult to keep track of.

[Neil]

Mandelson has gone down in my esteem.  Anyone who could show sympathy for Jacqui Smith is an enemy of mankind.

[Sheilbh]

Mandelson has gone down in my esteem.  Anyone who could show sympathy for Jacqui Smith is an enemy of mankind.

Well she jumped before she was pushed, because she wasn't good.  But doing so she knew she would fuck Gordon.  Mandy of course sees things differently:
"I think for ministers it is particularly difficult, they are exposed to intense media scrutiny and sometimes relentless pressure. We've seen that in the case of both Jacqui Smith and Hazel Blears. And there is only so much any normal human being can take"
So the resignation of the Home Secretary had almost nothing to do with Brown and Mandy is constantly repeating the link between expenses and Smith and Blears, in a terribly sympathetic way.  So there's nothing political about it, they just become the faces of the expenses scandal which, as Mandy reminds us, is affecting all parties: nothing to do with Gordon.

Apparently Blears is doing the media appearance tonight, in part she's expected to argue against Mandelson's narrative.  There's also rumours that she may make a personal statement to the House on Friday to outline her reasons for resigning.  Imagine if Hazel Blears is Browns Geoffrey Howe; my respect for her will go up significantly from its current deep freeze.

[Neil]

At this point I think Labour could elect Christ himself and they'd lose the election.  Brown's departure will also hasten an election.  One unelected PM in a Parliament is do-able, two is pushing it.  They'll have to call a snap autumn election.

See, I'd be surprised if Labour wanted to go down that route.  There's no constitutional requirement to go to the polls, and unless there's a statutory requirement I'm unaware of, I can't imagine why Labour wouldn't want to hold out until the last possible moment and hope the recession breaks.  Otherwise, the Tories will take over for five years, during which the recession will almost certainly end, which will get the Tories at least one or two more terms.

[Sheilbh]

See, I'd be surprised if Labour wanted to go down that route.  There's no constitutional requirement to go to the polls, and unless there's a statutory requirement I'm unaware of, I can't imagine why Labour wouldn't want to hold out until the last possible moment and hope the recession breaks.  Otherwise, the Tories will take over for five years, during which the recession will almost certainly end, which will get the Tories at least one or two more terms.

Well a new leader would, possibly, get a temporary boost.  Plus although the next term will probably see the end of the recession it's also likely to require budgetary austerity.  I believe that the current budget increases public spending for this year but then projects a cut of 7% the following year and at least 10% the year after.  So though the Tories may get a boost for having the end of the recession they're going to have to either cut back spending on schools, hospitals and defence or they'll have to raise taxes.  Winning the next election is, for whoever takes office, a poisoned chalice.

There's no statutory requirement - though there's a motion in Parliament calling for an immediate election - but there's a lot of media pressure building.  The Sun, the Mail and the Express have all called for an election while I think the Guardian, the Independent, the Times and the Telegraph have all said it's time for Brown to stand down and/or an election.  The only national paper that still supports Brown is the Mirror.

Hell, the Guardian's endorsed the Lib Dems  for the European elections and I don't think they've endorsed any party but Labour since the 80s.