QuoteWe MPs are fungi, in the dark, covered in manure
A week in the madhouse - the ghastly truth
Austin Mitchell
In the 1980s I wrote Four Years in the Death of the Labour Party. Today four days would be more appropriate. Everything is so compressed with 24-hour news that nervous breakdowns, which could once be gracefully spread over a decade and enjoyed in Switzerland, now take only hours. They go on in full public view. Which may account for the manic fixed grins on ministerial faces as they avert their eyes from the angry mob watching.
Monday, June 1
Week begins at 7am at Radio Humberside (once called Radio Homicide by one of my American researchers). I'm invited to comment on Elliot Morley's decision to step down in Scunthorpe. I regret it and make the obvious point that the witch-hunt, driven by the Torquemada Telegraph, leaves no chance for the accused (as MPs are now called instead of Honourable Members) to get a fair trial.
It's admit and out. Twenty years of devoted work for Scunthorpe count for nothing. Once they've tasted blood the angries demand more. Don't just go. Go now. Put your staff on the street, wind up the office, do not pass go and certainly don't collect the £200, or whatever the resettlement allowance now is. You're to rot in hell, not retire. No matter that the resettlement money is for staff as well as Members. They colluded in crime and deserve nothing.
Later in the day I begin to understand what a mistake it is to defend anything or anyone. Put your head above the parapet and it's shot off. Stay home and say nowt is the only approach. The Grimsby Telegraph is filled with letters denouncing me as a geriatric who's drunk Laphroaig at taxpayers' expense, possibly molested women and certainly achieved nothing for Grimsby in 30 years.
12 noon. Out canvassing. We do old people's dwellings. The reception is good. The oldies are mostly still loyal to Labour, though they don't like Europe. The ties still bind here. There's only one mention of expenses: "Have you brought us some Branston Pickle?"
Tuesday, June 2
Out and about in Grimsby. No hostility, that's reserved for the mail. Folk are generally friendly but fewer people look me straight in the eye. Or am I becoming paranoid? More abusive e-mails but fortunately the phone calls swearing at my staff have stopped.
In a crisis it's better to be at home and keep in touch by television and radio than it is to be at Westminster. Media bring the news of Jacqui Smith and other women standing down. Compass FM ring to ask if this is a plot. How the hell do I know?
7pm. To the local council's development dinner to launch us as Greater Grimsby and boost inward investment. Our business elite gather. My new opponent, the Conservative PPC, is there so I congratulate her on the efforts the Government is making to help her. She looks puzzled. Then advises me to keep Gordon on.
11pm.Home to learn on the phone that the star chamber hearing for Ian Gibson, a much loved and independent MP, was a kangaroo court and over in 25 minutes. It simply refused to listen to him. Gordon must be trying to show himself as virile as Cameron, who has cleverly managed to purge the grandees he doesn't like while protecting himself, his front bench and their big mortgages.
Wednesday, June 3
Early train to London. Hazel Blears has stood down. She's returning to the grassroots. Hope Salford's grass isn't too high. There are rumours that Caroline Flint will go too. It can't be a women's plot. They're not organised enough for that.
Arrive at the Fun Factory. Tell fellow MP Stephen Pound I've come to the House to claim sanctuary. "You can't claim that on the additional costs allowance," he advises. MPs are no longer the elite tribunes of the people. Today they are the sewer cleaners of the constitution, tackling everyone's little problems with the machine. It's a humble job and we're treated accordingly.
Those who know what's going on (or pretend to) are all in transit across the road to the TV cameras. We're the mushrooms of the system, kept in the dark with regular doses of manure thrown over us - and the 24-hour news channels are throwing it.
Inside the Fun Factory there's only gossip and rumour. Rumours tell me that there's a round-robin e-mail (no one approaches me). The Blairites are moving in (and they've certainly taken time off from their day jobs to come to Parliament). Alan Johnson is leading a plot (no sign). Plots are London-bred but today's MPs are there for only three days a week and aren't together long enough to form a coherent view.
It would be nice to have a party meeting so Gordon can tell us what's going on. There was one on Monday that I missed. In the 24-hour news age you need party meetings every day. Preferably twice a day.
Tories gloat. Liberals preach and glow with virtue (as usual). We Labour MPs scoot round, heads down and a piece of paper in hand to indicate purpose. I begin to realise that Gordon has so few people to reshuffle that I might be in with a chance. Power at last. That's only fair after a 32-year apprenticeship.
It's all so unlike the last big wave of Labour panic in 1979. Then we had no majority, but defeat in Parliament and betrayal by the unions brought us all together behind Jim Callaghan, a much loved leader. None of that today. We simply fall apart and run round in circles asking each other if we've heard anything.
Austin Mitchell is Labour MP for Great Grimsby
Mainly posted for the headline, though I thought the whole thing pretty fun.
Better than Fungi from Yoggoth. :cthulu:
:lol: Nice article. When do the results start coming in?
Well it's only council elections tonight but the first results should be in about an hour and a half. The EU election, not until Sunday.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2009, 03:50:39 PM
The EU election, not until Sunday.
I encourage all Swedish voters to vote Pirate. :pirate
:lol:
For Tim and other curious foreigners the BBC's got good coverage. As someone who spends entire flights watching the map, I'm especially looking forward to this gadget working:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/local_council/09/map/html/map.stm
:mmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2009, 04:16:43 PM
As someone who spends entire flights watching the map
OMG!!! :yeah:
It's 6 in the morning and only a couple of results are in, what's going on :mad:?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 05, 2009, 12:12:34 AM
It's 6 in the morning and only a couple of results are in, what's going on :mad:?
GO TO BED.
I just got up :D
Labour already down 23 seats! It's going to be a good day! :D
Found this link at a Guardian blog, BNP is beating Labour and the Lib Dems in some wards. :(
Good thing it's first past the post.
http://www.hertsdirect.org/actweb/election/latest.htm
Lib Dems have taken Bristol City Council. Labour's moved into third :o
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2009, 06:07:20 AM
Lib Dems have taken Bristol City Council. Labour's moved into third :o
Yeah, they were the first to report, is that a shocking result? All the forecast for the election have been very bad for Labour.
Also, why are results so slow? In the US they'd be almost all in by now.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 05, 2009, 06:09:20 AM
Yeah, they were the first to report, is that a shocking result? All the forecast for the election have been very bad for Labour.
It's a wee bit of a surprise. If Labour are doing worse than the Tories in Bristol then it's bad for them.
QuoteAlso, why are results so slow? In the US they'd be almost all in by now.
Well they only started counting this morning and we still use ballot papers in this country. What normally happens is that you have an hour or two of early results (often councils that do some counting on the night like Lincolnshire) and fevered prediction. Then there's a flood and for about 2 hours there's a new result every couple of minutes.
What I don't get is why we mark the papers with a pencil. Surely it's better to use pen, just so that you know it won't get rubbed out. Saying that, we never know if our vote gets counted anyway.
Brutal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jun/05/local-elections-european-elections
QuoteThe election results seem to be disastrous for Labour, but not brilliant for the Tories either. The BBC has just flagged up the projected national share of the vote. Labour is on 23%, which seems to be its worst performance for decades; the Tories are on 38%; and the Lib Dems are on 28%.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 05, 2009, 09:14:14 AM
Brutal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jun/05/local-elections-european-elections
QuoteThe election results seem to be disastrous for Labour, but not brilliant for the Tories either. The BBC has just flagged up the projected national share of the vote. Labour is on 23%, which seems to be its worst performance for decades; the Tories are on 38%; and the Lib Dems are on 28%.
Not sure how accurate that is given that the Lib Dems have *currently* lost seats. See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/local_council/09/map/html/map.stm).
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 05, 2009, 10:05:54 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 05, 2009, 09:14:14 AM
Brutal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jun/05/local-elections-european-elections
QuoteThe election results seem to be disastrous for Labour, but not brilliant for the Tories either. The BBC has just flagged up the projected national share of the vote. Labour is on 23%, which seems to be its worst performance for decades; the Tories are on 38%; and the Lib Dems are on 28%.
Not sure how accurate that is given that the Lib Dems have *currently* lost seats. See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/local_council/09/map/html/map.stm).
That map's off, it shows far more than 7 councils colored in.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 05, 2009, 10:11:20 AM
That map's off, it shows far more than 7 councils colored in.
Because more than 7 councils' results have come in. The statistics on the side indicate the specific number of councillors, etc... from certain councils, though the map indicates where each party has won.
Anyway, it'd be good having Cameron's Tories in power with the opposition of the Lib Dems. Cameron is, for all intents and purposes, a liberal himself; albeit with a conservative ribbon.
Ouch, Labour's lost 144 seats so far. That's close to a 60% loss rate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/local-election-results-map-2009
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 05, 2009, 06:48:21 AM
What I don't get is why we mark the papers with a pencil. Surely it's better to use pen, just so that you know it won't get rubbed out. Saying that, we never know if our vote gets counted anyway.
Hey mang, who are you?
With 32 of 34 councils called Labour has lost 268 seats. :pinchL
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/local-election-results-map-2009
Just when you think it couldn't get any worse, the Dutch have beaten us at cricket :mad:!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/8082343.stm
Admittedly only the debased twenty20 form, but even so :(
Surely brown has to go now ;)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 05, 2009, 02:26:24 PM
With 32 of 34 councils called Labour has lost 268 seats. :pinchL
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/local-election-results-map-2009
The LibDems have lost seats as well. It seems that for some reason, the Tories are destined to rule Britain again, unless something odd happens between now and the general election.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 05, 2009, 04:09:53 PM
Just when you think it couldn't get any worse, the Dutch have beaten us at cricket :mad:!!!
How does that happen? That's like Mexico beating the US at football.
:lol:
Ken Livingstone thinks it's the olden days again. He sounds like a member of one of those fringe ultra-left parties that are always splitting up.
QuoteWhile Labour Party and trade union members were out campaigning for Thursday's elections, a narrow clique of hard right-wingers were doing everything in their power to sabotage Labour's campaign and carry out a coup against the Prime Minister.
The rank and file and the party will have nothing but contempt for these people.
The elections show that the British people want more radical measures to protect them in the economic crisis and decisive action to end the abuse of MPs' expenses.
The parliamentary plotters have nothing to contribute to protecting ordinary people from the economic crisis. Their criticism of Gordon Brown is that he is not Thatcherite enough! And many lost all personal credibility by abuse of the MPs' expenses system.
The splitters should be brushed aside so that the party can focus totally on winning the general election.
All hail Lord Adonis.
http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=79034
I love Brit silly names.
Quote from: Neil on June 05, 2009, 04:46:23 PM
:lol:
Ken Livingstone thinks it's the olden days again. He sounds like a member of one of those fringe ultra-left parties that are always splitting up.
Kenin's always sounded like this.
Lord Adonis is actually rather highly rated but it's still pathetic that to fill his Cabinet Brown has to use so many Lords. This is the least democratic cabinet since the war and while I don't mind a Lord or two in the cabinet this is getting ridiculous.
It's also offensive to anyone's intelligence when Harriet Harman calls Glennys Kinnock a fresh face. She's been in the European Parliament for a decade and a half. Before that she was the wife of the former Labour leader, and then European Commissioner, Neil Kinnock who led the party for around 10 years from 1983-4. The idea that someone who's been a fixture at the very top of Labour party politics since Gordon Brown first became an MP is, in any way, a 'fresh face' is just ridiculous.
What's more I'm really pissed off at the people who have the admirable instinct to rally the party right now, but do it by trashing Purnell. John Prescott said Purnell's not a Blairite he's a 'careerite' that's bullshit. Purnell's a highly rated Minister who's returning to the backbenches while numerous other people who doubt the leadership of the Great Gordo are keeping onto their Ministerial Rovers (Miliband, Darling, Johnson especially), that's the act of careerism.
If Brown doesn't go - which is a hideous possibility tonight (though we have more awful results due on Sunday and he's out of the country on Saturday) - then when there's a Labour leadership election after the election Purnell will be one of the very few people who can say he genuinely tried to stem the bleeding. I've liked him and tipped him for leader for a long while now. I still hope he's the next leader or, at least, next leader but one. All respect and hope I had for Johnson and Miliband's rather dissipated, Andy Burnham's gone down in my estimation too.
He's lost four cabinet ministers, has to depend on appointed peers to find any talent to fill the table and he still won't go. He's like the terminator :bleeding:
I'll try and find a Spectator blog post from Fraser Nelson which highlights the problem with Gordon Brown.
Edit: Sorry he's lost 6 cabinet level ministers not 4.
Found it:
QuoteFacing Brown's spending deceptions
Fraser Nelson 9:12pm
I was at Brown's press conference today and decided to tackle him on the way he spun the last Budget. Off topic on a momentous day like today, I know, but it was towards the end of the conference and the old rogue may be gone within a month. I may never get another chance to tackle him directly on the way he has misled the public over the huge cuts he has planned for us post-election.
It seemed all the more relevant because his theme was that he is an honest chap. "Candid", he said. He quoted his father telling him "always be honest". And then he claimed that the choice at the next election was between a party of cuts and one of investment. So when my turn came to ask a question, I addressed what is - in my view - one of the worst falsehoods he is peddling.
Labour's planned cuts were so well hidden in the Budget that no Fleet St newspaper either spotted them on the day or spoke about them subsequently. Yet the Institute for Fiscal Studies did pick up on them, and I blogged their discovery at the time. To remind CoffeeHousers: Brown had Darling mislead the House in claiming spending would rise by an average 0.7pc a year in 2011-14. The truth is that it will be cut by an average 2.3pc a year over this period - actual cuts of £22bn a year. Brown has never admitted this, nor have the Tories raised it - fearful of being asked what they would cut. As a result, the public is being kept in the dark about the sharpest spending contraction in UK postwar history.
How do you pose a question like this? If you generalise, you give him a get out clause. So I decided to give it to him in detail, thus:
"Prime Minister, you say you're being candid with us today. And you are quoting your father saying, 'Always be honest'. Why then haven't you mentioned the cuts that you plan after the election? The Budget proposed what the Institute for Fiscal Studies claims is 2.3% cuts year after year after year. A cumulative 7% over three years, across government. This is a hugely significant fact that will directly affect public services. All I want to ask you, Prime Minister – and please "always be honest" – is the IFS right? Do you plan 2.3% cuts in public services for three consecutive years?"
"Not at all" he replied, "Public spending is rising every year. Let's be absolutely clear about that" – and went on about spending today. "And in every year in the future of public spending it will continue to rise." Predictably, he then moved on to those wicked Tory cuts. "And I think you yourself wrote an article only a few days ago saying that if the Conservatives cut public spending their plan was to cut public spending by 10%".
The sheer scope of Brown's mendacity can overwhelm a guy. He is attacking his own Budget: Labour plans 7% cuts but because the Tories would spare health (and not spend more than he plans to) they would cut 10%. So I shouted out at him: "Your budget. Your cuts."
But what No.10 do is to have a chap with a microphone on a rod, who takes it away from you when the Dear Leader has had enough of your question. Only Brown has a mike, so his comments are always heard. He continued, saying that under the "Tory cuts," "schools close, hospitals close". But this is what would happen under his cuts. If he thinks that the cuts he has proposed in Budget 09 would lead to such closures, it is a matter of national importance.
He then moved to take another question. So I started shouting out again: "No, Prime Minister, this is an important point. It's in the national interest to discuss it." He then tried to flag me down. "I know you want a second point like everybody else, but please." But I was making such noise that the No10 microphone guy came back to me. "You misled us in the first question. This is important to get accurate." Brown kept trying to shut me up, waving his hand: "Please, please. I've said..." Soon enough the mike guy worked out what was going on, and skidaddled. I was mute.
The point I was trying to make is toxic to Brown's election narrative. He wants it to be spending v cuts, whereas the truth is that - going off their current plans - each party would impose identical cuts. The only difference is where in public services the axe falls: debt interest, Brown's parting gift to this nation, is not discretionary. Brown's strategy is to hope Tories will be honest about their cuts, while he covers his up.
About five years ago, when I was at The Business, one of Brown's aides told me that no one would take me seriously as a journalist because I was so "off beam" writing about Brown's destructive economic agenda while others were praising him to high heaven. I did feel a bit Speaker's Corner today, shouting out at him over the coming radical spending crunch that is simply not an issue, anywhere, because Brown has done such a good job putting the media off the scent. In fact, I doubt if anyone watching this exchange would have known what I was getting worked up about. So to this extent, my intervention was a failure.
We spend some time here in Coffee House tearing up figures, and exposing Brown's deceptions. Quite a few of you rightly ask, "Why don't you journalists do your job and raise it with him?" Well. all I can say is that today, in what may well have been my last chance, I did try. And I can't say I got very far.
P.S. Someone has kindly captured my exchange with Brown on YouTube, with the caption that I "nailed" him - which, as you can see for yourselves, is not quite the case. But here's the footage of me trying to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAr5zu7YdRA
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2009, 06:23:37 PM
Kenin's always sounded like this.
Yeah? How does he get anyone to take him seriously?
QuoteLord Adonis is actually rather highly rated but it's still pathetic that to fill his Cabinet Brown has to use so many Lords. This is the least democratic cabinet since the war and while I don't mind a Lord or two in the cabinet this is getting ridiculous.
I find the existance of Labour peers to be offensive. Then again, the cabinets of old that were full of peers were a million times more talented than the current batch.
QuoteIt's also offensive to anyone's intelligence when Harriet Harman calls Glennys Kinnock a fresh face. She's been in the European Parliament for a decade and a half. Before that she was the wife of the former Labour leader, and then European Commissioner, Neil Kinnock who led the party for around 10 years from 1983-4. The idea that someone who's been a fixture at the very top of Labour party politics since Gordon Brown first became an MP is, in any way, a 'fresh face' is just ridiculous.
It's shocking that a Kinnock could get a job with a respectable party at all, given Neil's reprehensible politics. I guess if the Mosleys can work, the Kinnocks can as well.