Excellent! :menace:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/03/hazel-blears-gordon-brown-leadership-crisis
Quote
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
Why is this excellent?
Timmay just tainted the Tories.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 03, 2009, 01:07:06 PM
Timmay just tainted the Tories.
I don't think Tim understands what's happening here.
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 01:05:36 PM
Why is this excellent?
It further undermines Brown's power, making an attempt by Labor to replace him as leader all the more likely.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 03, 2009, 01:10:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 01:05:36 PM
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?
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 01:12:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 03, 2009, 01:10:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 01:05:36 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 03, 2009, 01:15:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 01:12:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 03, 2009, 01:10:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 01:05:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 01:05:36 PM
Why is this excellent?
Timmay has a script that automates the posting of news stories, adding a random comment line.
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 :wub: :w00t:
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 01:29:36 PM
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.
Mandelson has gone down in my esteem. Anyone who could show sympathy for Jacqui Smith is an enemy of mankind.
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 02:03:32 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 03, 2009, 01:49:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 02:13:01 PM
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.
At this point I think some Labour party people may be worried that the decline in their party's fortunes could become terminal if Brown is allowed to continue. They will lose the next election regardless, the question curreently being posed is wheter they will ever win another election.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 03, 2009, 02:19:30 PM
At this point I think some Labour party people may be worried that the decline in their party's fortunes could become terminal if Brown is allowed to continue. They will lose the next election regardless, the question curreently being posed is wheter they will ever win another election.
Indeed. He's like Michael Foot without the charisma, integrity or intellgence :(
Well now, Foot was merely guilty of being a socialist in a socialist party :P
Whereas one is completely baffled as to what Brown thinks he is standing for.
The Labour party does have one thing going for it, the Tories are looking pretty clueless as well; but that doesn't help the country though :(
Is there really that kind of feeling around, like it might be the end of Labour?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 03, 2009, 02:19:30 PM
At this point I think some Labour party people may be worried that the decline in their party's fortunes could become terminal if Brown is allowed to continue. They will lose the next election regardless, the question curreently being posed is wheter they will ever win another election.
I'm not all that knowledgeable about British politics, but why do you need a viable Labor Party? Why can't the Liberal Democrats be the mantle for the left?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2009, 03:11:19 PM
I'm not all that knowledgeable about British politics, but why do you need a viable Labor Party? Why can't the Liberal Democrats be the mantle for the left?
Well you don't need a viable Labour party but the decline of one of the big two is a rare event in British politics. The last time it happened was about 80-90 years ago.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2009, 03:11:19 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 03, 2009, 02:19:30 PM
At this point I think some Labour party people may be worried that the decline in their party's fortunes could become terminal if Brown is allowed to continue. They will lose the next election regardless, the question curreently being posed is wheter they will ever win another election.
I'm not all that knowledgeable about British politics, but why do you need a viable Labor Party? Why can't the Liberal Democrats be the mantle for the left?
As Sheilbh says, the electoral system (first past the post) favours a two-party system; getting 20% of the votes in every constituency in the country gets you nowhere. However, there are areas of instability, critical points where the established main parties are vulnerable. Labour's share of the vote, according to opinion polls, is now entering the territory where they could lose many constituencies and suddenly become a minor party.
I think they will recover, but it is no longer the case that they can take this for granted.
[quote author=Richard Hakluyt link=topic=1089.msg48602#msg48602
As Sheilbh says, the electoral system (first past the post) favours a two-party system; getting 20% of the votes in every constituency in the country gets you nowhere. However, there are areas of instability, critical points where the established main parties are vulnerable. Labour's share of the vote, according to opinion polls, is now entering the territory where they could lose many constituencies and suddenly become a minor party.
I think they will recover, but it is no longer the case that they can take this for granted.
[/quote]
Do you think that would be for the best? There is always the danger with a third party that an ideologically less popular party gains power because the other two parties split the majority of votes.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2009, 05:09:48 PM
Do you think that would be for the best? There is always the danger with a third party that an ideologically less popular party gains power because the other two parties split the majority of votes.
I think Labour will still win a lot more seats than the Lib Dems because the Lib Dems gain seats when the Tories lose far more than they do when Labour lose and a resurgent Tory party will take back seats like Winchester that are, naturally, Tory not Lib Dem.
The effect you describe also happens far more on a constituency basis rather than a nationwide basis and I think party support fluctuates far more than in the US.
I actually think that if Labour were to become the third party one of the other two would have to change in a major way. You would have no party that would really represent cities, the working class in any way or the North, Wales or Scotland. You'd have two middle class effete Southern parties fighting to run the country.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 03, 2009, 05:37:45 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2009, 05:09:48 PM
Do you think that would be for the best? There is always the danger with a third party that an ideologically less popular party gains power because the other two parties split the majority of votes.
I think Labour will still win a lot more seats than the Lib Dems because the Lib Dems gain seats when the Tories lose far more than they do when Labour lose and a resurgent Tory party will take back seats like Winchester that are, naturally, Tory not Lib Dem.
The effect you describe also happens far more on a constituency basis rather than a nationwide basis and I think party support fluctuates far more than in the US.
I actually think that if Labour were to become the third party one of the other two would have to change in a major way. You would have no party that would really represent cities, the working class in any way or the North, Wales or Scotland. You'd have two middle class effete Southern parties fighting to run the country.
ii I don't need to know very much about British politics to agree with you.
In order to have a major party practically disappear you need a new party to poach the old's party's base supporters, not just its marginal supporters.
In 1993 in Canada we saw the rise of two new parties, Reform and the Bloc, and the apparent death of two others, the formerly governing PCs (reduced to two seats) and the NDP (reduced to 7 seats I think). PCs lost their firmest base to the right-wing Reform Party, whereas the socialist NDP lost some votes to Reform but mostly to the centre-left Liberals.
Anyways, the PCs without their base never recovered and eventually merged into Reform. BUt the union supporters, socialists, etc were never seriously tempted by the Liberals so the NDP emerged within a couple of elections as a viable party once again.
So yeah, unless some party can position itself for that Labour base in the north and with union supporters I'm not worried about the death of Labour in the long run.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 03, 2009, 05:37:45 PM
You would have no party that would really represent cities, the working class in any way or the North, Wales or Scotland. You'd have two middle class effete Southern parties fighting to run the country.
And this is a problem why?
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2009, 05:49:37 PM
So yeah, unless some party can position itself for that Labour base in the north and with union supporters I'm not worried about the death of Labour in the long run.
I think your comparison's pretty good. I'd say it's less about unions, which aren't strong in this country, than culture. There are places that are Labour because they're Labour. As Kensington and Chelsea will always vote Tory regardless of the Tory party so Gorbals is likely to support Labour. I don't think those areas will ever vote Tory because of memories of Thatcherism devastating those cities and communities. In this Euro election though many may vote BNP. Labour's working class base is, I think, the reason for the policies it has that have caused me and other middle class folks like me most trouble: anti-terrorism laws, anti-immigration stance, ID cards, ASBOs and so on. Those are issues that matter in the communities many Labour MPs represent because they actually live with a higher level of crime and a more ghettoised city than I do. I don't see how two fundamentally pretty liberal, effete Southern parties could ever hope to make any in-roads without a serious change.
However I think the one thing your analogy's missing is the full impact of the expenses scandal. I'm not as sure that the really bad cases will be washed away and the reasonable expense claims will be forgiven. I think there could be a tremendous anti-incumbent vote and given that MPs in safe seats claim up to 50% more on expenses they could be far more in danger than marginal MPs. We could face the very weird situation in this election where marginal seats are still fought in a traditional way over manifestos and local issues but traditional Labour, Tory and Lib Dem strongholds have serious fights with either another party or an independent over that single issue. I think we could face a very British version of the collapse of Italy's tangentopoli. No real principle's at stake and the money in question is petty cash compared to the Italians :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 03, 2009, 05:37:45 PM
I think Labour will still win a lot more seats than the Lib Dems because the Lib Dems gain seats when the Tories lose far more than they do when Labour lose and a resurgent Tory party will take back seats like Winchester that are, naturally, Tory not Lib Dem.
The effect you describe also happens far more on a constituency basis rather than a nationwide basis and I think party support fluctuates far more than in the US.
I actually think that if Labour were to become the third party one of the other two would have to change in a major way. You would have no party that would really represent cities, the working class in any way or the North, Wales or Scotland. You'd have two middle class effete Southern parties fighting to run the country.
You certainly know better than me, and amateur opinion from 5,000 miles away is that the Labor Party is not going to die. But when I look at the parties, whatever there history might have been, you have three middle class effete parties.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 03, 2009, 06:12:24 PM
However I think the one thing your analogy's missing is the full impact of the expenses scandal. I'm not as sure that the really bad cases will be washed away and the reasonable expense claims will be forgiven. I think there could be a tremendous anti-incumbent vote and given that MPs in safe seats claim up to 50% more on expenses they could be far more in danger than marginal MPs. We could face the very weird situation in this election where marginal seats are still fought in a traditional way over manifestos and local issues but traditional Labour, Tory and Lib Dem strongholds have serious fights with either another party or an independent over that single issue. I think we could face a very British version of the collapse of Italy's tangentopoli. No real principle's at stake and the money in question is petty cash compared to the Italians :lol:
Well the thing is that from 1000s of kms away I can't possibly assess the impact of the expenses scandal on an upcoming election. Good God I have no idea.
But looking at the long term the effect of any individual scandal fades into the distance. There you can look at more basic ideas of political identification and various groups and draw some conclusions.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer Save the World, Mr International Harmony Hat shitbag.
My bet is that Brown will continue to drone on about statistics in his sweaty, Soviet Tractor Factory Style charm until catapulted out of office sometime next spring.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 03, 2009, 09:31:16 PM
Couldn't have happened to a nicer Save the World, Mr International Harmony Hat shitbag.
My bet is that Brown will continue to drone on about statistics in his sweaty, Soviet Tractor Factory Style charm until catapulted out of office sometime next spring.
I know that your nation has its reasons not to like the guy, but I like Gordon Brown. I liked Tony Blair too. My impression is that Tony Blair made some unpopular decisions sucking up all the goodwill toward the government, and then handed things off to Brown. Brown seems like a smart guy that could be a good prime minister in other circumstances, but he got dealt a hand I don't think anyone could have been successful with.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2009, 09:44:23 PMI know that your nation has its reasons not to like the guy, but I like Gordon Brown. I liked Tony Blair too. My impression is that Tony Blair made some unpopular decisions sucking up all the goodwill toward the government, and then handed things off to Brown. Brown seems like a smart guy that could be a good prime minister in other circumstances, but he got dealt a hand I don't think anyone could have been successful with.
He put an ally into intensive care for the sake of a headline and three points in a weekend poll. But what can I say. Familiarity breeds contempt.
Brown has been in government for 12 years though and bears the primary responsibility for the dreadful fiscal position that the country is in.
If we cast our minds back to 2007 the country was booming and tax revenues were buoyant. Brown fiddled with the statistics and concluded that it was legitimate to run a deficit of about 3% of GDP in order to support excessive public expenditure.
So, the recession hits and tax revenues fall. Unfortunately for the UK our fiscal position is already rather poor, it rapidly becomes dire.
I think we can, and should, directly blame Brown for this problem. He pissed our money away in the good years and made no preparations for the bad; we will spend the next decade or two putting the public finances back in order. And all of this was predictable, anyone who sincerely believed that the business cycle was abolished was a fool.
I'm surprised Tim hates Labour, seeing how they are the biggest ally of Americans and biggest on international military interventions and fighting terrorism of the three main parties. :lol:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 04, 2009, 12:29:57 AM
Brown has been in government for 12 years though and bears the primary responsibility for the dreadful fiscal position that the country is in.
If we cast our minds back to 2007 the country was booming and tax revenues were buoyant. Brown fiddled with the statistics and concluded that it was legitimate to run a deficit of about 3% of GDP in order to support excessive public expenditure.
So, the recession hits and tax revenues fall. Unfortunately for the UK our fiscal position is already rather poor, it rapidly becomes dire.
I think we can, and should, directly blame Brown for this problem. He pissed our money away in the good years and made no preparations for the bad; we will spend the next decade or two putting the public finances back in order. And all of this was predictable, anyone who sincerely believed that the business cycle was abolished was a fool.
The situation in Ireland is very similar.
Cowen, the Irish prime minister was minister for finance during the boom times, he then took over (unopposed) from a prime minister (Ahern) who public opinion had turned against (due to corrupt dealings in Ahern's case). Cowen had a brief honeymoon period and now him and his government are deeply unpopular.
There are some signs he might be pushed if Fianna Fáil do even worse than expected in the elections tomorrow. The problem for them is that there isn't any likely replacement that'd do much better.
Who are the most likely people to take over from Brown if he's forced to step down?
Quote from: Cerr on June 04, 2009, 01:24:13 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 04, 2009, 12:29:57 AM
Brown has been in government for 12 years though and bears the primary responsibility for the dreadful fiscal position that the country is in.
If we cast our minds back to 2007 the country was booming and tax revenues were buoyant. Brown fiddled with the statistics and concluded that it was legitimate to run a deficit of about 3% of GDP in order to support excessive public expenditure.
So, the recession hits and tax revenues fall. Unfortunately for the UK our fiscal position is already rather poor, it rapidly becomes dire.
I think we can, and should, directly blame Brown for this problem. He pissed our money away in the good years and made no preparations for the bad; we will spend the next decade or two putting the public finances back in order. And all of this was predictable, anyone who sincerely believed that the business cycle was abolished was a fool.
The situation in Ireland is very similar.
Cowen, the Irish prime minister was minister for finance during the boom times, he then took over (unopposed) from a prime minister (Ahern) who public opinion had turned against (due to corrupt dealings in Ahern's case). Cowen had a brief honeymoon period and now him and his government are deeply unpopular.
There are some signs he might be pushed if Fianna Fáil do even worse than expected in the elections tomorrow. The problem for them is that there isn't any likely replacement that'd do much better.
Any party that has "Fail" in its name is not going to do well. :P
Anyway, re demise of the Labour - didn't Tories come third, too, in the 1997 elections?
Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2009, 01:28:37 AM
Quote from: Cerr on June 04, 2009, 01:24:13 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 04, 2009, 12:29:57 AM
Brown has been in government for 12 years though and bears the primary responsibility for the dreadful fiscal position that the country is in.
If we cast our minds back to 2007 the country was booming and tax revenues were buoyant. Brown fiddled with the statistics and concluded that it was legitimate to run a deficit of about 3% of GDP in order to support excessive public expenditure.
So, the recession hits and tax revenues fall. Unfortunately for the UK our fiscal position is already rather poor, it rapidly becomes dire.
I think we can, and should, directly blame Brown for this problem. He pissed our money away in the good years and made no preparations for the bad; we will spend the next decade or two putting the public finances back in order. And all of this was predictable, anyone who sincerely believed that the business cycle was abolished was a fool.
The situation in Ireland is very similar.
Cowen, the Irish prime minister was minister for finance during the boom times, he then took over (unopposed) from a prime minister (Ahern) who public opinion had turned against (due to corrupt dealings in Ahern's case). Cowen had a brief honeymoon period and now him and his government are deeply unpopular.
There are some signs he might be pushed if Fianna Fáil do even worse than expected in the elections tomorrow. The problem for them is that there isn't any likely replacement that'd do much better.
Any party that has "Fail" in its name is not going to do well. :P
It's not actually pronounced 'Fail' but it probably should be. :lol:
Oh yeah! Shit! It's voting day today! Time to put Brown out of a job... hopefully!
Quote from: Cerr on June 04, 2009, 01:27:21 AM
Who are the most likely people to take over from Brown if he's forced to step down?
MPs seem to be coagulating round Alan Johnson. Everyone in Westminster likes him, the media does too, he's a former postman and union to the core and a Blairite. On top of that he doesn't really want to be leader for long so the Young Turks will support him because they don't think it would necessarily harm their chances at the leadership after Labour loses the next election.
QuoteAnyway, re demise of the Labour - didn't Tories come third, too, in the 1997 elections?
No. The Tories got about 30% in 1997 while Labour got 40-5% and the Lib Dems got about 15%. Polls at the minute put Labour behind the Lib Dems at about 20% to the LD's 22%. If that happened in a general election it would be a meltdown. And the Lib Dems generally do better in general elections than the polling between elections suggest because the media have to give them some attention.
Though it might not be great for them because they'd probably lose far more seats if the Tories get lots of votes than they'd gain by the swing from Labour.
This is the best summary I've found:
QuoteGordon Brown faces more trouble this week after four stormy days
Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor
If a week is a long time in politics, the bad news for Gordon Brown is that he is only halfway through this one.
It began with a Sunday morning TV appearance in which the Prime Minister was determined to deliver a clear message — he wasn't about to quit. Indeed, in addition to rescuing the economy he was also going to clean up the entire political system.
Four turbulent days on, his pre-emptive relaunch has foundered amid signs of a fully fledged ministerial mutiny. Gravely weakened and apparently rudderless, Mr Brown is grimly determined to weather the storm.
Sunday's questions in the BBC's television studios were tough. Did no part of him feel that he was the problem? That his party would do better without him? That it was "time to stand aside and let Alan Johnson or whoever it is come in and have a go"?
Related Links
* Labour bloodletting suspended as polls open
* Timeline: four days of misery for Gordon Brown
* Live: Gordon Brown at PMQs
In reply he delivered his prepared script that only he could steer the economy from recession and clean up a Parliament that had offended his "Presbyterian conscience".
The reference to his background as the son of a Church of Scotland minister was a less than subtle attempt to rise above the expenses scandal and remind voters of his personal probity.
Spending a rare weekend at his Edinburgh home with his wife, Maggie, Alistair Darling might have allowed himself a snort of derision. He had read that morning that Mr Brown was preparing to replace him with Ed Balls in a reshuffle on Friday, the day after the elections, when Mr Brown would face the greatest threat from his party.
The Chancellor has been fighting off Mr Balls's claims on his job ever since he was given it almost two years ago. Speculation that Mr Brown would promote his economic guru to No 11 had, until recently, receded after Mr Balls was damaged by the Damian McBride affair. Once the expenses scandal broke, however, it was Mr Darling's turn to see his reputation tarnished as he fought off allegations that he had "flipped" his second home to maximise his Commons allowance. In addition, Mr Darling was aware he was being marginalised within No 10 by a new alliance between Mr Balls and Lord Mandelson. Mr Darling's aides believed that the Business Secretary — increasingly the fulcrum of the Brown Government — could not be relied upon to defend him.
Once the Prime Minister turned his attention to his "relaunch reshuffle" last week it seemed clear that Lord Mandelson had given a Blairite blessing to the promotion of Mr Balls.
As Mr Darling and his allies sought to manage the fallout from the Sunday Times leak, they received news that they were about to be hit by another series of revelations over his expenses. That afternoon The Daily Telegraph sent the Chancellor's aides a detailed list of questions on his claims for his second home allowance for the time he had moved into his grace-and-favour flat in Downing Street.
No 10 watched anxiously as the Chancellor's team struggled to close the story down — not least because Mr Brown had been booked into a round of interviews for Monday.
The issue of Mr Darling's expenses predictably dominated Monday's interviews, which had been intended to showcase Mr Brown's proposals for constitutional reform. The Prime Minister faced an almost impossible task of keeping open his options on the reshuffle while defending his friend from a media onslaught.
Assured that the Telegraph's headline, which claimed that Mr Darling had billed taxpayers for "two homes at the same time", was inaccurate, Mr Brown said there was "no foundation" in it. Mr Darling's officials must have winced. Before them, in minute detail, were details that showed that the text of the article — if not the headline — was broadly correct: he had indeed claimed for a service charge on a property when it was let.
Within an hour of Mr Brown's full support, Mr Darling was forced to endure the embarrassment of issuing an apology and offering repayment. When Mr Brown started using the past tense to describe his tenure as Chancellor it seemed he was all but finished at the Treasury.
But where could Mr Brown put his friend, to whom he owed an enormous debt? David Miliband, in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, also read Sunday's papers with acute interest. Whatever else happened, he decided on Monday that he was not going to be demoted simply to facilitate the promotion of his political enemy, Mr Balls. As he and other senior ministers took their seats the next morning around the Cabinet table, it was becoming hard for them to look each other in the eye as each made their own calculations about the reshuffle. Contrary to claims that the Prime Minister delivered a commanding performance, one senior minister told friends that Mr Brown "only just got through" the Cabinet as he outlined his plans for constitutional reform.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, emerged from No 10 to learn that news of her departure from the Government had been leaked. That added to the sense of gathering crisis.
No 10 immediately suspected Hazel Blears of feeding the media this and other stories of ministers standing down in an attempt at sabotage. Ms Blears was summoned to explain herself in Downing Street that evening. Meanwhile, other Cabinet ministers were openly defying Mr Brown. Mr Miliband fired a warning shot over the Prime Minister's bows, insisting that he wanted to stay at the Foreign Office for at least "four more years".
Inside the No 10 bunker, Mr Brown has been surrounded by comfort blankets — Lord Mandelson, Mr Balls, Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander, trusted confidants of old.
When Mr Brown began his preparations for Prime Minister's Questions he could be forgiven for finding it hard to muster his usual concentration. The cast of officials assembled in the Cabinet Room — led by Jeremy Heywood, his permanent secretary, and Michael Ellam, his official spokesman — to begin briefing Mr Brown. But the Prime Minister had to break off to make calls and hold hurried meetings.
Next door Mr Darling was at a leaving party for aides in No 11. When news came that Mr Brown had sent for him, guests wondered whether the gathering might become a wake for the man himself. Reports vary about what they discussed in their five minutes behind closed doors. Some insist it was a routine discussion about PMQs, others that it was Mr Brown's opening of negotiations about the price of Mr Darling's exit.
Yesterday morning Mr Brown resumed his preparations for PMQs. Soon after 9am they were interrupted by news that Ms Blears had returned to Downing Street — this time uninvited — and wanted to see the Prime Minister. Her resignation, a calculated revenge, was received with cool fury but little surprise. Despite the usual courteous exchange of letters Mr Brown's allies fully expect Ms Blears to denounce him as soon as the polling booths close tomorrow night.
Last night he was aiming to steer somehow to the haven of next week. Listing badly, his premiership is not, yet, sunk.
What may happen next: four scenarios
• Gordon Brown announces he is stepping down at the end of the summer after a disaster in local and European elections. A leadership contest is held in September. The new leader is crowned at Labour's conference and announces that he will hold a general election in the first week in November.
• He is forced out before recess, but senior Cabinet figures, including Alan Johnson, are tainted. This leads others, including Ed Balls, to throw their hats in the ring to succeed him, leading to a bloody leadership battle. The decision is announced at conference, but attempts to heal the party wounds fail. Divided, they lose just as badly as they would have done with Gordon Brown in charge.
• The damaged Prime Minister limps on, believing the public will reward him as the green shoots of recovery are just around the corner. Labour gives up the fight and donors desert, with the unions providing almost all the funding.
• He calls an early election for the second week in October, denying opponents the chance to challenge him. The move wrongfoots party members — and David Cameron — who are surprised he has taken such a bold decision.
The thought of Cameron in power is really quite sickening.
Damn you lib dems, be cooler!
Quote from: Tyr on June 04, 2009, 06:52:26 AM
The thought of Cameron in power is really quite sickening.
Damn you lib dems, be cooler!
Any leader that makes you sick must be good for the country. Just look at Thatcher.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 04, 2009, 12:29:57 AM
Brown has been in government for 12 years though and bears the primary responsibility for the dreadful fiscal position that the country is in.
If we cast our minds back to 2007 the country was booming and tax revenues were buoyant. Brown fiddled with the statistics and concluded that it was legitimate to run a deficit of about 3% of GDP in order to support excessive public expenditure.
So, the recession hits and tax revenues fall. Unfortunately for the UK our fiscal position is already rather poor, it rapidly becomes dire.
I think we can, and should, directly blame Brown for this problem. He pissed our money away in the good years and made no preparations for the bad; we will spend the next decade or two putting the public finances back in order. And all of this was predictable, anyone who sincerely believed that the business cycle was abolished was a fool.
Sounds like Bush.
:o James Purnell's apparently resigned. This is big. He's the leading Young Turk, he wants the job of leader (at some point) and has been very effective in his ministerial roles so far. This could be, rather weirdly, even more important than the resignation of the Communities Secretary as that was more important than the resignation of the Home Secretary.
If young talented minister start thinking it's better outside the cabinet than in it then Brown's fucked :w00t:
Edit: According to Nick Robinson Purnell's resignation letter will be published by the Sun and the Times tomorrow (:mmm:) he apparently wants to force a leadership election in which he won't stand.
As with Smith and Blears this is sort of personal as Brown's people have been briefing against them all. They've suggested numerous times that Purnell's gay, which he isn't. He's just young.
Just about to post the very same thing, more or less :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8083585.stm
I'm fairly sure Brown will be out within the month now. The question is, when can we expect a General Election?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 04, 2009, 04:13:28 PM
I'm fairly sure Brown will be out within the month now. The question is, when can we expect a General Election?
Autumn? I think Spring and Autumn are traditional election times. Surely too many people are on holiday and stuff over the summer?
Yes, the autumn sounds right to me. It will take a few weeks to remove Brown and then the new leader will be able to set a date about 6 weeks in the future............so maybe september?
It would feel very odd to have a general election in the summer, I can't recall when this last happened, so I think that waiting till september will not incur many criticisms.
Purnell's letter:
QuoteDear Gordon
We both love the Labour Party.
I have worked for it for twenty years and you for far longer. We know we owe it everything and it owes us nothing.
I owe it to our Party to say what I believe no matter how hard that may. I now believe your continued leadership makes a Conservative victory more not less likely
That would be disastrous for our country. This moment calls for stronger regulation, an active state, better public services, an open democracy.
It calls for a government that measures itself by how it treats the poorest in society. Those are our values, not David Cameron's.
We therefore owe it to our country to give it a real choice. We need to show that we are prepared to fight to be a credible government and have the courage to offer an alternative future.
I am therefore calling on you to stand aside to give our Party a fighting chance of winning. And as such I am resigning from Government.
The Party was here long before us, and we want it to be here long after we have gone. We must do the right thing by it.
I am not seeking the leadership, nor acting with anyone else. My actions are my own considered view, nothing more.
If the consensus is that you should continue, then I will support the government loyally from the backbenches. But I do believe that this question now needs to be put.
Thank you for giving me the privilege of serving.
Yours
Rt Hon James Purnell MP
Apparently no-one knew this was coming. Purnell's friends weren't aware it was happening, neither was Downing Street and he released the letter to the press before he sent it to Downing Street.
Nick Robinson has suggested he might have been speaking to Tony Blair because it 'smacks of Blairite firmness' :wub:
That must be it. Even in these days, where only the prime minister is really important, surely a PM can't withstand half his cabinet resigning.
While the system is pretty much the same, party life and dynamics seem much stronger in Britain than they are in Canada - or at least, much more public with a stronger sense of «a Party» rather than «a Team / a Man ».
On an election day as well, quite amazing.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 04, 2009, 04:39:42 PM
While the system is pretty much the same, party life and dynamics seem much stronger in Britain than they are in Canada - or at least, much more public with a stronger sense of «a Party» rather than «a Team / a Man ».
That is true. The factions within British parties are occasionally important, whereas the only time they ever mattered in Canada was when the federal PCs disintegrated.
The Spectator say that the rumour at the minute is that David Miliband is stepping down tomorrow. I can't think of a situation like this :mellow:
And the Brown Bunker's spin (poor Jim Knight on the news at the minute) is just ridiculous :bleeding:
I've slipped up, should have got some beers in to drink whilst watching the entertainment :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2009, 04:51:55 PM
The Spectator say that the rumour at the minute is that David Miliband is stepping down tomorrow. I can't think of a situation like this :mellow:
And the Brown Bunker's spin (poor Jim Knight on the news at the minute) is just ridiculous :bleeding:
There are no American troops in Baghdad!
Newsnight did a piece on Preston a few minutes ago. In 5 hours of filming and chatting to voters they did not meet a single BNP supporter :cool:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2009, 04:54:22 PMThere are no American troops in Baghdad!
It was like a Soviet Apparatchik:
'This sort of thing
always happens in the run-up to a reshuffle.'
'I believe the vast majority of Labour Party members will be annoyed at the destruction of their work in the run-up to this election by MPS and their expenses and these resignations.'
'I think the Parliamentary Labour Party should stand by the convictions they had when they, overwhelmingly, nominated Gordon. When Hazel did, when Jacqui did, when James did, when I did.'
:bleeding:
Purnell's getting great spin though. The Independent journalist on the BBC just said that Purnell loved the party and has a great sense of loyalty to it, he wouldn't have wanted to sully that by being involved in plots and conspiracies.
Brown's going to be away on Saturday for D-Day celebrations which will, surely, be a dreadful time.
Edit: And Labour's thumbscrews are out to get loyal MPs out issuing statements describing just how much they disagree with Purnell :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2009, 05:01:33 PM
'I think the Parliamentary Labour Party should stand by the convictions they had when they, overwhelmingly, nominated Gordon. When Hazel did, when Jacqui did, when James did, when I did.'
:bleeding:
Their convictions?
"Alright, we've finally gotten rid of Blairhitler, the charismatic leader that was running the risk of tainting us with the electorate as a bunch of police-state warmongers who are friends with George Bush. Now we'll put in Gordon, whose lacklusterness won't rock the boat, and who will only fight one more election. Then we can get on to choosing a real future for the party, one that will keep us in power."
I would say that Brown broke with their convictions by surpassing lacklusterness into dismal territory.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2009, 05:01:33 PM
Brown's going to be away on Saturday for D-Day celebrations which will, surely, be a dreadful time.
That the celebration that Brown "forgot" to invite the Queen to?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2009, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2009, 05:01:33 PM
Brown's going to be away on Saturday for D-Day celebrations which will, surely, be a dreadful time.
That the celebration that Brown "forgot" to invite the Queen to?
Nah it was the French being snobby to us, as per usual. They invited Obama, and it was Obama who reminded them to invite us, at which they pretty much said that the Queen can come along "if she wants".
How rude (and they wonder why no-one likes them!?)!
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 04, 2009, 05:37:50 PM
Nah it was the French being snobby to us, as per usual. They invited Obama, and it was Obama who reminded them to invite us, at which they pretty much said that the Queen can come along "if she wants".
How rude (and they wonder why no-one likes them!?)!
According to the French they sent invitations to the US and UK. Sarko wanted Obama so put work into getting him to visit but they say it was up to the British who came to represent the country. Brown forgot about the Queen.
The French have said several times that who comes from Britain is a British subject that they've no influence on or interest in.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2009, 05:46:17 PM
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 04, 2009, 05:37:50 PM
Nah it was the French being snobby to us, as per usual. They invited Obama, and it was Obama who reminded them to invite us, at which they pretty much said that the Queen can come along "if she wants".
How rude (and they wonder why no-one likes them!?)!
According to the French they sent invitations to the US and UK. Sarko wanted Obama so put work into getting him to visit but they say it was up to the British who came to represent the country. Brown forgot about the Queen.
She served in the British Armed Forces during the war, it's an unforgivable lapse.
Oh my God! The audio on BBC's videos goes up to 11! :punk:
I think Labour's spin is showing. With the exception of David Miliband all the statements of support for Brown sound like they've come from one script.
It's Soivet in its regimentation:
'I am very sad that my friend James Purnell has left the cabinet... However I entirely disagree with him... I believe Gordon is the right person to lead the Party and the Country...' :bleeding:
Edit: Apparently the French (and Americans) have said that dealing with the British government right now is impossible because they're so focused on surviving. I've also read reports that the civil service have stopped pushing through Labour policies because they expect a Tory government within a year.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2009, 05:46:17 PM
According to the French they sent invitations to the US and UK. Sarko wanted Obama so put work into getting him to visit but they say it was up to the British who came to represent the country. Brown forgot about the Queen.
The French have said several times that who comes from Britain is a British subject that they've no influence on or interest in.
There was a very snarky editorial the other day about how they forgot to invite Canada, since Canada was one of the three countries involved in the D-Day landing and has traditionally been involved in these celebrations...
Most comments I have seen from France is that it was yet another stupid move from Sarkozy trying to garner air time and media attention (hence Obama) without any regard to actual diplomacy or historical meaning.
My new favourite (almost accurate quote):
'I'm disappointed James Purnell has let down the Prime Minister, the Party and his Country... Brown is right for the country. This is a man of steel.' :lol:
Edit: Sean Woodward just topped himself:
'We have a man who is strong and able enough to deal with these crises. I mean, look, even President Obama comes to this country to see how Britain is dealing with the recession so he can apply that in the United States.' :lol:
Edit: And more:
Gordon Brown is a man who 'attracts the leaders of the world to come to Britain to learn what to do in this recession'. Jesus wept.
Edit: I've heard a few Labour MPs talking now. They all seem to have been attending party meetings tonight and their local parties are, apparently, unanimously behind the leader :lol:
This is pathetic.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2009, 06:08:56 PM
My new favourite (almost accurate quote):
'I'm disappointed James Purnell has let down the Prime Minister, the Party and his Country... Brown is right for the country. This is a man of steel.' :lol:
Gordon Brown?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sriramkrishnan.com%2Fblog%2Fimages%2Fsuperman_emblem.jpg&hash=41d45a461c87b9f485bc9f1c280092c0c94dcb1f)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.private-eye.co.uk%2Fgrfx%2Flogos%2Fpm_decree_gb.jpg&hash=4cc34e591c285e5cd4c1f33c37047bb748c773f6)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.private-eye.co.uk%2Fgrfx%2Flogos%2Fpm_decree_txt.jpg&hash=9a16955fef6d2b8e700f867cf04d49f0710f2c36)
More like :p
Well, since last this thread was updated the number of people not wanting to be ministers in Gordon Brown's government include Geoff Hoon and John Hutton. Oh, and add Caroline Flint to the exodus as well.
Plus, Labour got savaged at the local elections.
Will Scunthorpe and Hull finally get the political clout they deserve?
Maybe some more might leave after the results ofthe European election? We'll have to wait and see.
The BNP though - they've got 3 seats... one of which was in Leicester!!! :o A while back that city was predicted to have a white minority by 2010 (it probably already does!), so how the hell did they manage to get a seat there haha!
Loved this description of Brown. :D
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article6440451.ece
QuoteJune 6, 2009
A shell of a man, propelled by anger and pride
Gordon Brown has brought his Government and his party to their knees. Shackled together, they crawl hopelessly on
Matthew Parris
Do you remember Konstantin Ustinovich Chernenko? Perhaps not. But he held a most important post. In title, anyway. He was, for just 13 months until March 1985, the leader of the Soviet Union. In title, anyway.
Every Thursday morning, says one sad witness, Chernenko's soon-to-be successor, Mikhail Gorbachev, "would sit in his office like a little orphan nervously awaiting a telephone call from the sick Chernenko: would he come to the Politburo himself or would he ask Gorbachev to stand in for him this time again?"
At his predecessor's funeral, Chernenko "could barely read the eulogy. Those present strained to catch the meaning of what he was trying to say. He spoke rapidly, swallowed his words, kept coughing and stopped repeatedly to wipe his lips and forehead. He ascended Lenin's Mausoleum by way of a newly installed escalator and descended with the help of two bodyguards."
And now, it appears, another living waxwork is to join the grisly ranks in modern history. Another sweating, stumbling shell of a political career, drained of power or genius, impelled and sustained only by anger and pride. Another brittle, prickly carapace gone all squishy inside, surrounded by a plotting politburo, theoretically able to launch nuclear weapons, attend international summits, pat the heads of schoolchildren and kiss the hands of popes and monarchs, but disconnected from the control of anything the Government actually does.
At most, Gordon Brown now has a shade less time left to him than Chernenko. After the 24 hours that lie behind us, the prospect for him of the 12 months that lie ahead is no less pitiable. The prospect for his party is wretched. For his country the prospect is just dispiriting. As I write Mr Brown is supposed to be conducting a press conference. But he hasn't appeared. In theory his conference started an hour ago. This hour just past will almost certainly be the best bit.
This is pathetic. This is toe-curlingly awful. This is so abjectly, senselessly broken-backed that it almost isn't interesting to watch. I've seen poisoned rats die slowly, too, and after a while the spectacle loses the appeal even of the macabre.
It is also an act of supreme selfishness on Mr Brown's part. Wrapping himself like some wingless albatross around his administration's throat, starving his own colleagues of oxygen in his mindless determination that other careers should not live in order that his should not die, he has brought his Government and his party to the ground, broken their legs - and yet still will not release his grip. They must crawl on, shackled together, past the humiliation of Thursday's elections and onward for another year: plans jettisoned, policies stalled, Bills postponed, shelving everything bold, all in the name of mere survival. Mr Brown's survival. Never mind Labour's, never mind the future of progressive politics, never mind the ideas and spirits of capable men and women in and around his Cabinet.
From the corner of my eye I see that the Prime Minister has joined his press conference. He is standing at the podium, waving his arms and saying repeatedly "look". Deathly pale and grinning waxily - that disembodied smile robbed, it almost seems, from another discarded dummy - he is moving and talking with sort of desperate swagger. Across the bottom of my television screen a moving strap conveys breaking news. "Alan Sugar to join Lords." "Look," says Mr Brown, "when the fight is on you don't quit..." "Conservatives gain Staffordshire". "...I've an excellent team..." "Caroline Flint resigns." "...She's done a very good job... " "Geoff Hoon resigns." "...And there's work to be done..." "Margaret Beckett to leave the Government."
"I don't think anyone can say that Glenys Kinnock hasn't done important work as an MEP," he says, as if anyone was saying that. "Conservatives gain Derbyshire." "Ever since I was a boy," he begins his spiel on Values. "Conservatives gain Nottinghamshire." Mr Brown attempts feeble joshing with a Talk Sport reporter. "I suppose you're asking about the Lions tour?" "Labour's Dr Ian Gibson to resign his seat and fight a by-election."If only for those of us who watch and comment on British politics to hold on to our own sanity, surely it is necessary to believe that this cannot continue? And yet I fear it can. Surely the Labour Party - parliamentary, nationwide and in the trade unions - can see that what is at stake extends beyond an unavoidable defeat at the next election and into the first few critical years in opposition? Can they really believe that this is the man to take them across the threshold and into that renewal? Are they looking at the polls? Are they noting that they are rapidly joining the ranks of the fringe parties? Can they not picture those future election counts in which the Labour Party candidate stands among candidates from the BNP, the "Let's Have A Party" Party, and the tall transgender lady with the flashing nipples?
Within less than a decade Labour could become a regional party... "Conservatives gain Lancashire"... a regional party without a region.
Look, as Mr Brown would say, I know that you know that I'm a Tory. And you must know that I rate David Cameron, and believe he can and will be a successful prime minister. And so you may wonder (and I know some Labour MPs who may read me do wonder) if my railing against Gordon Brown is some kind of a Tory bluff. If getting rid of him would strengthen, maybe save, the Labour Party, they reason, why would Parris argue to get rid of him?
It's a reasonable question. I've asked it of myself. There was a moment in the small hours of yesterday morning when I said to myself: "Crikey, it really is going to happen. He's sinking. And Alan Johnson really is going to take over. And for a few months Mr Johnson might dance a pretty dance, and Labour's fortunes might recover. 'Plucky, modest, fair-minded English working-class waif-made-good takes on smoothie-chops Etonian' - here's a media narrative that for a season at least could fly..."
And I worried that by recommending Mr Johnson I might prove complicit in a Tory downfall.
So be it, because it's what I think. Gordon Brown will take Labour into oblivion. If Alan Sugar is the answer, then the Prime Minister is asking the wrong question.
QuoteEd Balls goes to war with Lord Mandelson
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesonline.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F00255%2FEd-Balls385_255666a.jpg&hash=c80472a555e8dd7eab91cfeb689317926da68fd6)
Ed Balls leaves Number 10 after the cabinet meeting
Isabel Oakeshott, Deputy Political Editor
GORDON BROWN'S reshuffle has created a bitter rift between his two most powerful lieutenants, threatening to derail attempts to rebuild his shattered government.
A Downing Street insider claims that Ed Balls "went nuclear" as the prime minister wavered over whether to make him chancellor – and threatened to stop cooperating with Lord Mandelson.
The schools secretary, whose hopes of being moved into No 11 were torpedoed when James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, resigned, is said to suspect the business secretary of deliberately undermining his chances of getting the job.
The episode has fractured the truce between Balls and Mandelson, who had been bitter political rivals but patched up their differences when Mandelson returned to the cabinet last autumn.
The new crisis in their relationship highlights the fragile state of Brown's hastily constructed cabinet as he faces disastrous election results in the European polls, due to be announced tonight. Labour is braced for its worst performance in a ballot for the Brussels parliament.
An ICM poll for the News of the World last night showed that seven cabinet ministers face the loss of their seats in a general election.
Last night Balls described
claims of a rift with Mandelson as a "fabrication", claiming he was the victim of a smear campaign. "Whoever is inventing this rubbish is trying, through lies and malicious fabrication, to undermine the Labour party and the Labour government. Nobody should believe a word of it," his spokesman said.
It comes as two more female ministers consider resigning amid disillusion over Brown's leadership.
Meanwhile, Caroline Flint, the former minister of state for Europe, has launched a new attack on the prime minister.
In an excoriating article for The Sunday Times, Flint, who resigned on Friday, lashes out at the chauvinism of the No 10 cabal, accusing Brown of "utter hypocrisy".
"In my relationship with the prime minister, I have felt that I had to repeatedly prove my loyalty while being prejudged," she says.
She claims women politicians have to "constantly work and work to prove their worth" and accuses allies of the prime minister of briefing against her and her female colleagues, adding despairingly: "Why they act like this I don't know."
Last night there were signs that the revolt by women ministers was widening. Bridget Prentice, the justice minister, and Jane Kennedy, the environment minister, are understood to be considering their futures.
Kennedy said: "After the drubbing we have just had at the elections, I would be amazed if there was a single member of parliament [who was not] talking to their local party to judge what the feeling is in the party."
Five senior ministers – Continued on page 2 Continued from page 1 Jacqui Smith, the former home secretary; John Hutton, the former defence secretary; Hazel Blears, the former communities secretary; Purnell and Flint – have already resigned, three over Brown's leadership, in the greatest crisis of his premiership.
The Sunday Times has learnt that as the future of Alistair Darling, the chancellor, hung in the balance, a succession of cabinet ministers and backbenchers lobbied the prime minister to keep him in his post, leaving Brown fearing more resignations if he pressed ahead with his plan to promote Balls.
Balls immediately agreed to remain as schools secretary when Purnell announced his resignation, privately acknowledging that Brown could no longer afford to risk ousting Darling.
However, a Downing Street insider claims that Balls confronted Brown earlier in the week, as he agonised over whether to give him the chancellor's job, warning the prime minister that he could cease to cooperate with Mandelson if the long-standing plan to move him to the Treasury was abandoned.
"Ed thinks Mandelson ran a covert campaign to stop him. He thinks Peter advised Darling on how to handle everything. He went nuclear and warned Gordon that if he didn't get the job he wouldn't cooperate with Peter any more," the insider said.
The Sunday Times understands that it is not the first time Balls has privately made such a threat. However, despite the latent mistrust between them, the pair have worked closely and effectively together since Mandelson's return. They were both at Brown's side when Purnell resigned and, despite Balls's threat, were both closely involved in Friday's reshuffle.
No 10 fiercely denied a rift, saying suggestions of "any tension" between the two men were "completely untrue". The denial was echoed by a spokesman for Mandelson.
The prime minister is expected to face a stormy meeting of Labour backbenchers tomorrow as rebel leaders continue their quest to collect the 72 names required to trigger a leadership ballot. Meanwhile, there was growing fury at a Brownite smear operation designed to undermine the credibility of critics of the prime minister.
Nick Brown, the chief whip, was yesterday forced to issue a public apology to Alan Milburn, the Blairite former health secretary, after branding him a plotter. Brown had briefed Milburn's local newspaper that he was "active" in attempts to unseat the prime minister.
However, yesterday the chief whip offered an embarrassing retraction after saying sorry in a telephone conversation with Milburn. "We got our wires crossed and it needs correcting," said Brown.
A study by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher of Plymouth University suggests that Labour is on course to lose 140 seats at the next general election, giving the Conservatives a 34-seat majority.
A new survey of Labour grassroots activists reveals that fewer than half want Brown to lead them into the election. One in five is calling for him to quit now, according to the poll of 800 party members carried out by YouGov for Channel 4 News.
Ed Balls has proven seriously inept and incompetent as a Minister, though Gordon highly rates him. He was Gordon's right hand man.
The last few days have changed all that as it was Lord Mandelson who saved Brown's premiership by calling round the Blairite cabinet minister to support him. Apparently the younger Blairites seem him as a 'father figure' and he's close with both Miliband and Purnell. So now Brown's job was saved by Peter Mandelson who is suddenly more powerful over a man who repeatedly tried to destroy his career than he ever was over Tony Blair.
Lord Mandelson was beautifully ambiguous in an interview with one of the papers in the past day or two. He was asked a question about his relationship with Ed Balls and replied 'I'm not here to talk about Ed Balls. I'm here to talk about the future of New Labour and Labour Party.' :lol: :wub:
And the News of the World have a terrifying story, if true:
QuoteREAL story behind the reshuffle
By Ian Kirby
THE Downing Street make-up artist applied an extra thick layer of "pancake" on Gordon Brown's face as he waited to face the world at the end of the toughest 24 hours of his political life.
Meanwhile, ex-Europe Minister Caroline Flint branded the PM a "f****** b******" to aides as she stormed out of government.
Brown's exhaustion and the former Blair babe's rage summed up the chaos of the reshuffle.
Despite all claims to the contrary, there WAS a Cabinet plot to topple Brown. The real trouble started on Wednesday afternoon, when one of his staff called a friend of Pensions Secretary James Purnell to ask: "Would James like to go to Education?"
This call signalled that Schools Secretary Ed Balls-the man Blairites fear will wreck the government-was going to replace Alistair Darling as Chancellor . . . and the Labour Party would erupt into civil war.
On Thursday Purnell kept a mask on his emotions as he plotted a resignation he hoped would spark a revolution.
One of the first people he called was Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who also feared a move. Miliband even called in a favour from US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who telephoned Brown and pleaded with him not to dump his Foreign Secretary.
After Purnell resigned, Miliband pledged his support following persuasion by Peter Mandelson. But it was a deal that smashed Gordon Brown's plans for a wide-ranging reshuffle.
Bully
We can also reveal Flint's stinging attack on Gordon Brown was TONED DOWN after other ex-Cabinet Ministers tried to calm her. And Downing Street tried to keep her resignation secret from reporters quizzing the PM.
Flint stormed out of the government on Friday and accused Brown of using women Ministers as "window dressing." But words like "devious", "bully" and "sexist pig" were floated.
The final text was only sent out after Jacqui Smith and Hazel Blears pleaded with her to tone it down. But the effect was still electric.
She raged: "You have a two-tier government. Several of the women attending cabinet-myself included-have been treated by you as little more than female window dressing."
Inside Downing Street, aides had given reporters copies of the new Cabinet list. "Where's Flint?", we muttered. Number 10 had deliberately kept the development quiet.
But, seconds later, BlackBerries buzzed. "Why has Caroline Flint resigned and said you think women are window dressing?" demanded a reporter. Brown staggered back a step and muttered there were plenty of women in Cabinet.
But he saved his trump card for last. "Besides, I am delighted to announce we have a very strong candidate for Europe Minister, Glenys Kinnock," he beamed.
News that the ex-MEP, wife of Labour's disastrous leader Neil, was back showed Brown had run out friends.
"Are you telling us, you cannot find a single candidate to be Minister for Europe out of 350 MPs?" said one hack.
"Erm, yes" seemed to be the only answer from Downing Street. But Brown had survived . . . for now.
I mean that the Foreign Secretary's apparently getting the American Secretary of State to help him keep his job is pathetic. It sounds roughly par for the course for Miliband but still :bleeding:
Britain really does make the best comedies.
Well, hopefully Flint manages to make herself so toxic that no PM will go near her, and she can languish on the backbenches until the Tories do her in.
Oh and Gordon Brown had a dreadful D-Day. His Obama obsession showed through when he referred to 'Obama beach'.
When the time of his arrival was announced the Brit veterans groaned and, later on, they booed him. Apparently they wanted the Queen.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2009, 08:46:46 AM
Oh and Gordon Brown had a dreadful D-Day. His Obama obsession showed through when he referred to 'Obama beach'.
When the time of his arrival was announced the Brit veterans groaned and, later on, they booed him. Apparently they wanted the Queen.
Damn, can't get much worse than that. :lol:
Well, they're right to want the Queen at their shindig. Stuff like that is what the Queen is for. That's the division of labour. The PM makes decisions and the monarch goes to ceremonies.
Unless the results are more catastrophic than expected tonight, then he's safe. Though John Rentoul thinks there'll be another coup attempt at conference in the autumn.
Incidentally I think Charles Kennedy's points here are very good:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8087415.stm
There's also the fact that the Queen can represent the entire Commonwealth/Empire, whereas Brown is merely a British figure. Bit of a balls-up not having her there IMO.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 07, 2009, 10:04:57 AM
QuoteEd Balls
*snicker*
the Brits are great at names. we should preserve this colourful ethnicity and give them an island to rule somewhere.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 07, 2009, 04:37:19 PMthe Brits are great at names. we should preserve this colourful ethnicity and give them an island to rule somewhere.
Can we have Ireland back?
Glad to see Gordo get fucked again tonight! They lost in Wales for the first time ever! The BNP even got two seats (even though their vote count was apparently down??)!
So, when does Brown resign?
In other news, in Spain the PP has pulled ahead of the Socialists. I guess the Socialists have problems when their terrorist buddies don't help them out.
Good for the BNP, by the way.
Quote from: Neil on June 07, 2009, 09:39:24 PM
So, when does Brown resign?
Sometime next week, hopefully! I doubt he will, mind, as he's power hungry and no other Labour politician wants to throw the boot in to kick him out and then stand and overwhelmingly lose the next general election. It would be political suicide. May as well let Brown take the hit.
Quote from: Neil on June 07, 2009, 09:39:24 PMIn other news, in Spain the PP has pulled ahead of the Socialists. I guess the Socialists have problems when their terrorist buddies don't help them out.
Yeah I heard a little about this. Something about ETA?
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 07, 2009, 09:43:12 PM
Yeah I heard a little about this. Something about ETA?
No, Al-Qaeda.
Quote from: Neil on June 07, 2009, 09:45:26 PM
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 07, 2009, 09:43:12 PM
Yeah I heard a little about this. Something about ETA?
No, Al-Qaeda.
Haha! :lol:
Someone said to me earlier about ETA failing to get a seat in the Basque country, or something, though?? I don't really follow Spanish politics, mind.
Glad to see Europe is going the centre-right route, though, even if I do despise being part of the EU.
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 07, 2009, 09:52:56 PM
Glad to see Europe is going the centre-right route, though, even if I do despise being part of the EU.
I actually enjoyed the EU. I spent a few weeks in Europe last summer, and the whining of American tourists wondering why nobody took the US dollar was sweet music to me. The Euro has proven to be a positive for me.
Sure, the EU does terrible things, like protecting Greek and French agriculture, making airplanes that crash and preventing the murder of Martinus, but it's not all bad.
Quote from: Neil on June 07, 2009, 10:05:18 PM
I actually enjoyed the EU. I spent a few weeks in Europe last summer, and the whining of American tourists wondering why nobody took the US dollar was sweet music to me. The Euro has proven to be a positive for me.
Sure, the EU does terrible things, like protecting Greek and French agriculture, making airplanes that crash and preventing the murder of Martinus, but it's not all bad.
I like the idea of the Euro for a currency to use when on holiday, but not at home haha! The Euro also creates a lot of problems currently as many of the smaller economies (such as Greece) don't have control over their interest rates, and so when their economy is going under there is next to nothing they can do with this respect. This is why I think keeping the GBP Stirling (and getting rid of those stupid Scottish and Northern Irish beer tokens) is beneficial - we have greater control over our economy. So long as the EU is a collection of seperate economies, a single currency will not be beneficial, IMO.
I also like the standardisation of the EU too. It greatly helps, particularly in my line of work (Civil Engineering). I can basically be qualified in any EU country when I finish my degree, which enhances my employment opportunities (of course).
The things I don't like are generally the things with regard to greater political integration. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't to do with the economy then it shouldn't be anything to do with the EU. Simple.
Regardless of all of this, I'd rather throw our lot in with our American cousins (even if they can't distinguish between British and Australian accents!?).
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 07, 2009, 10:13:35 PM
The things I don't like are generally the things with regard to greater political integration. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't to do with the economy then it shouldn't be anything to do with the EU. Simple.
That's rather broad. With the exception of electoral reform and the House of Lords what issue doesn't have something to do with the economy?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2009, 10:21:44 PM
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 07, 2009, 10:13:35 PM
The things I don't like are generally the things with regard to greater political integration. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't to do with the economy then it shouldn't be anything to do with the EU. Simple.
That's rather broad. With the exception of electoral reform and the House of Lords what issue doesn't have something to do with the economy?
Other examples would be a shared foreign policy, shared armed forces, shared immigration policy, etc...
However, I'm on about directly related, as in jobs, the training for said jobs, as well as trade, obviously. IMO the EU should be an organisation that co-ordinates (not dictates) free trade in member countries, and only interferes when it is directly related to the economy.
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 07, 2009, 10:31:03 PM
Other examples would be a shared foreign policy, shared armed forces, shared immigration policy, etc...
However, I'm on about directly related, as in jobs, the training for said jobs, as well as trade, obviously.
I'm not so sure about foreign or defence policy. I think both are linked in to economic issues pretty intimately. How else does Russia have any power over Europe but through the economic leverage she has because of oil and gas. To what extent is trade policy to do with economic policy or foreign policy? Similarly development aid? Now I don't think economics is enough to explain or develop a coherent foreign policy but it's certainly part of foreign policy.
I'd argue immigration is above all an economic issue and, for my money, the creation of a common citizenship in the EU is up there with the single market in terms of very good policy achievements. The right to study, live and work anywhere in the EU is a great achievement.
Though one Martinus will never take advantage of, instead he'll stew in bigoted Poland :(
Of course the economy is pivotal on any number of issues (ultimately all, as we compete for resources for our own survival), though it isn't always directly (as I interpret the direct relationship: resource -> workers -> output). However, we conduct trade fine with other countries around the world without getting ourselves into this jam of selling our sovereignty to Brussels, so why do we need all of this expensive bureaucracy for trading in Europe? We've been a net contributor to the EU since joining the EU, and we've experienced very little (if any) *real* benefit from it.
As for the immigration policy - yes it is economic, usually, though as I said before, the EU isn't a unified market. As such there are many different economies, all of which with different strengths and different weaknesses, all of which with varying needs and desires. If, say, Poland wanted more immigrants to work for it, yet we were at capacity in the UK, then why would we want to allow that backdoor for people from elsewhere to be able to get into the UK where living standards are higher and where (in this example) we haven't enough jobs? Put simply, the market isn't unified to constitute a single manpower pool, and therefore it doesn't constitute a shared immigration policy.
The immigration aspect also doesn't even touch upon the idea of cultural identity - identity being one of the most disregarded aspects, despite it's importance.
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 07, 2009, 10:44:23 PM
Of course the economy is pivotal on any number of issues (ultimately all, as we compete for resources for our own survival), though it isn't always directly (as I interpret the direct relationship: resource -> workers -> output). However, we conduct trade fine with other countries around the world without getting ourselves into this jam of selling our sovereignty to Brussels, so why do we need all of this expensive bureaucracy for trading in Europe? We've been a net contributor to the EU since joining the EU, and we've experienced very little (if any) *real* benefit from it.
As for the immigration policy - yes it is economic, usually, though as I said before, the EU isn't a unified market. As such there are many different economies, all of which with different strengths and different weaknesses, all of which with varying needs and desires. If, say, Poland wanted more immigrants to work for it, yet we were at capacity in the UK, then why would we want to allow that backdoor for people from elsewhere to be able to get into the UK where living standards are higher and where (in this example) we haven't enough jobs? Put simply, the market isn't unified to constitute a single manpower pool, and therefore it doesn't constitute a shared immigration policy.
The immigration aspect also doesn't even touch upon the idea of cultural identity - identity being one of the most disregarded aspects, despite it's importance.
Oh, please... pretty much all of the myths about the UE, condensed in one post.
a) No, you don't need the Union to trade in Europe. But without the Union, British goods and services will be at an instant disadvantage. The Union means no tariffs, no quotas, and no discrimination of any kind based on nationality. Not belonging means the opposite...
b) The 'expensive bureaucracy'. The worst of all the myths. Actually London (the city council) alone employes more people and costs much more money than all the European institutions combined... and those costs are shared between 27 countries. European bureaucrats cost us a couple of peanuts
c) What would constitute "a *real* benefit" for you? I think you are asking the impossible here.
d) Regarding inmigration (or anything else, actually) you have London, and you have the Highlands, and Wales, and Cornualles, and the Scilly islands, and Smallton-on-Thames... you name it. Do they constitute a "unified market" according to your definition? I don't think so...
* * * * *
Regarding Spain, the worst economic crisis since 1945 has made the Socialist lose barely 5%... of which PP managed to net only 1%, the rest going to radical leftists and a new party whose only point is being anti-devolution (the want many powers devolved to the regions to be 'redevolved' to the central government). Of course, PP is claiming victory, but they know this result means they would lose again in a general election. Just compare Spanish results with British ones. PP was expecting a landslide of the same size and got... almost nothing. Rajoy has got 23 MEPs, Zapatero and his allies 24, other parties 2.
If the results were carried over to a general election (and they aren't really the same, because participation in the general elections usually goes from 70% to 80%, in the Europeans goes from 40% to 50%) Rajoy would get a better result than in 2004 or 2008, but he would still be unable to get a majority in the Parliament. Zapatero would be in a much weaker position than now, but he very probably could still get a majority, if only because small parties have always feared a hung parliament and new elections would mean a disaster for them, with most voters deserting to PP and PSOE.
The so-called 'ETA lovers' (extremely radical independentists, probably accepting money and taking orders from ETA) have got very bad results, with only 165,000 votes - 115,000 in the Basque Country, the rest scattered all over Spain - when they would have needed 400,000 to get one seat. I wonder how could they think they had a chance to enter the European Parliament, even with low participation... of course rational, objective thinking ranks low in their priorities!
Another one bites the dust.
Apparently this was the worst result for Labor since 1910. :pinchL
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jun/08/gordon-brown-leadership-crisis-live-blog
Quote10.14am: Sky quotes Jane Kennedy as saying: "I could not give a pledge of loyalty."
10.10am: The BBC are reporting that Jane Kennedy, the environment minister, is leaving the government. We don't know why yet.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 08, 2009, 04:47:03 AM
Apparently this was the worst result for Labor since 1910. :pinchL
Just say 'worst result ever'. Labour wasn't even a real party in 1910. It was what the BNP is today, only with a bit more support.
My favourtite MP and Labour's most impressive/terrifying backbencher, Frank Field joins the fray:
QuoteTrust rather than trick voters
Labour supporters claiming that the European results were not a catastrophe for the party can only do so by inventing a new meaning for the word catastrophe. Whether one looks at them on a national, regional or local level the picture is pitiful.
The results reflect the collapse of support for the Government in the country. They also ring a clear verdict on the EU.
Take the Wirral results, which cover four Labour Westminster constituencies. The Tories romped home with almost 21,000 votes. Labour was in a poor second place with 16,000.
In Wirral there is considerable resentment against the current EU. It may be that all of these natural voters deserted their natural party to support one of the clearer anti-European tickets, but I doubt it.
Even so the two parties standing in the election who hold the strongest views against our present relationship with Europe far out stretched the Labour vote, and almost toppled the Tory vote.
The BNP came in with 4,666 votes and UKIP's vote totalled more than 13,000.
Don't let anyone kid themselves that this was an unimportant election where voters felt they could make a clear protest vote. Unless something changes significantly on a national level these results would be reproduced at a general election.
Labour cannot win with the present Prime Minister. I was one of the seven who would not support his coronation after Tony Blair was shoehorned out of Number 10. But even I didn't think a Brown administration would be as inept as this one.
The Brownites are attempting to terrorise Labour MPs into inaction. If they succeed then we deserve our fate.
It is simply absurd to argue, as does No. 10, that the next leader must call an immediate general election. A new leader, when being invited by the Queen to form a government, should inform the Monarch that he or she intends to return in April of next year to call for a General Election on May 6.
The new Prime Minister would make that a part of a message brought back from the Palace.
Similarly, the failure to deal with immigration and Europe is poisoning our political system. I have set out in the Balanced Migration campaign how we should counter positively the BNP. Similarly, we need to cut loose European politics from our domestic politics. Voters have no party to represent their worries on this score, only the BNP with their evil interests.
:w00t: :wub:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpetersearle.com%2Fimages%2Ffrank_field.jpg&hash=fe1abdeec7049117abac0d6e69f203f1e8075cd7)
Quote from: Alatriste on June 08, 2009, 02:01:22 AMOh, please... pretty much all of the myths about the UE, condensed in one post.
I'm glad I'm thorough.
Quote from: Alatriste on June 08, 2009, 02:01:22 AM
a) No, you don't need the Union to trade in Europe. But without the Union, British goods and services will be at an instant disadvantage. The Union means no tariffs, no quotas, and no discrimination of any kind based on nationality. Not belonging means the opposite...
Rubbish. Look how Norway gets it, free-trade agreement and all of that. That's how it should be.
Quote from: Alatriste on June 08, 2009, 02:01:22 AMb) The 'expensive bureaucracy'. The worst of all the myths. Actually London (the city council) alone employes more people and costs much more money than all the European institutions combined... and those costs are shared between 27 countries. European bureaucrats cost us a couple of peanuts
It's not just MEPs, but also all of the agencies to do with the MEPs, as well as the EU as a whole, which make it expensive. They spend £180 million moving from Brussels to Strasbourg every year! WTF!?
Quote from: Alatriste on June 08, 2009, 02:01:22 AMc) What would constitute "a *real* benefit" for you? I think you are asking the impossible here.
So you concede that any real benefit is impossible? What constitutes a real benefit to me, well the good points of the EU without the bad.
Quote from: Alatriste on June 08, 2009, 02:01:22 AMd) Regarding inmigration (or anything else, actually) you have London, and you have the Highlands, and Wales, and Cornualles, and the Scilly islands, and Smallton-on-Thames... you name it. Do they constitute a "unified market" according to your definition? I don't think so...
Of course not, though they are part of the same economy. An average taken over a smaller area will be more accurate than an average taken over a larger area. To some extent if you continued breaking down the currency to suit each region, etc... it would become impractical. However, it is much better than a large market with hugely varying economies whereby an average is taken over such a large market - working on this average some economies may be well below, with some well above, so that it doesn't work out in their favour with respect to rates, etc...
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 08, 2009, 10:13:22 AM
Rubbish. Look how Norway gets it, free-trade agreement and all of that. That's how it should be.
Norway has to follow almost all EU laws, because they regulate the common market. They don't have a say on those laws.
QuoteIt's not just MEPs, but also all of the agencies to do with the MEPs, as well as the EU as a whole, which make it expensive. They spend £180 million moving from Brussels to Strasbourg every year! WTF!?
I believe the running costs of the EU bureaucracy are lower than the costs of London's government or of, say Copenhagen's. It's pretty cost-efficient given the range of work it does.
QuoteOf course not, though they are part of the same economy. An average taken over a smaller area will be more accurate than an average taken over a larger area. To some extent if you continued breaking down the currency to suit each region, etc... it would become impractical. However, it is much better than a large market with hugely varying economies whereby an average is taken over such a large market - working on this average some economies may be well below, with some well above, so that it doesn't work out in their favour with respect to rates, etc...
Which is why the ECB has been relatively cautious. What's actually important isn't the range of local economies. The US seems to do fine with Michigan and Nevada, Florida and Nebraska all in one currency despite the different economic winds in those four states.
What's difficult for the EU is that there are a range of central bank histories. The Germans have spent the post-war era haunted by hyper-inflation and so their central bank was incredibly hawkish at the merest sign of inflation. At the same time the French and Italians didn't have such historical concerns so one of their routine tricks to get out of economic trouble was to devalue the currency. The Germans prevailed in the debate about what the shape and style of the ECB should be. It is a bank that inherits the Bundesbank tradition and is designed to be hawkish on inflation. This has caused a bit of a wrench for France and Italy but has generally not been that bad. It's also worth remembering that without the Euro, which is a large currency on which it's difficult to imagine a run, Ireland would be bankrupt right now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 06, 2009, 10:54:30 PM
And the News of the World have a terrifying story, if true:
Quote
One of the first people he called was Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who also feared a move. Miliband even called in a favour from US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who telephoned Brown and pleaded with him not to dump his Foreign Secretary.
Hillary pleading at Brown's feet sounds like vicious slander. :angry:
Or is this the 3am call Hillary advertised in her campaign? :(
I understand that Cameron is pulling the Tories out of the EPP and cobbling together some ersatz coalition that includes the Kaczyński twins, of all people.
Just when Brown is busy making the Titanic look like a hovercraft in comparison, the Tories demonstrate why the British people have wisely kept them out of government for 12 years.