Political coverage from Sam Coates on Times Online.
Subscribe to a feed of this blog at:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/politics/rss.xml
A spokesman for the Labour Party was saying earlier this evening that Labour will lose its deposit in the Henley by-election to replace Boris Johnson, which is expected on June 26.
In 2005, the Conservatives got 24,894 (53.5 per cent), Liberal Democrats 12,101 (26 per cent) and Labour 6,862 (14.7 per cent)
In 2001 the Conservatives got 46.1 per cent, Liberal Democrats 27 per cent and Labour 21.1 per cent.
In order to hang on to the £500 deposit, Labour must receive over five per cent of votes cast. Assume turnout remains broadly the same as in the 2005 general election (as broadly happened in Crewe) putting it in Henley around 46,500. Therefore Labour would lose the deposit if they get 2,400 votes or less, the casualty of just 4,000-odd voters peeling away since 2005.
This would be symbolically dreadful for Gordon Brown. But given the kick Gordon mood at the moment, anything is possible, particularly if the Labour Party are planning a campaign as anodyne as this website suggests.
Before elections, all three political parties give their predictions of what will happen. They frequently bear little reaction to what does happens on the night. That's because these briefings are part of the expectations game. Indeed, if a party's predictions have come true, that's likely because they've done extremely badly indeed.
Here is a round-up of what the three parties are currently saying about the 4,023 seats up for election in England and Wales this year.*
Conservatives say: "Modest two figure" increase in seats, though they admit this is on the low side. Aiming for 40 per cent share of the vote (which they got last time). Possible northern gains in Bury. Expecting to lose Coventry and do badly in Slough. Opponents: If Labour lose 200 seats that will be "meltdown" or "catastrophic". Lib Dems may make net gains or losses.
Liberal Democrats say: Net loss, possibly around 80-100 seats. They say 25 per cent share would be "quite hard" although they regularly poll six points above their national share in the opinion polls. Losses to the Tories in rural areas. Focusing on possible gains in Sheffield, Cardiff and Hull. Could lose Liverpool, with just two losses meaning it is a hung council. Opponents: Tories should make 300 gains, Labour around 160 losses.
Labour say: Net losses of 200 seats. Expecting to poll 25 or 26 per cent share of vote.
*NB This is the smallest of the four-year electoral cycle (compared to 10,500 last year when Tories gained 911, Labour lost 479 and Lib Dems lost 246)
Tomorrow Gordon Brown flies to the US, hoping to change the subject after a weekend of articles (mainly comment pieces, notably) about his leadership. Philip Webster, Times political editor, has upsummed his difficulties in a piece for tomorrow, and alighted on one potential explanation (an excuse?) why Labour are doing so badly. The Times has been told that internal focus groups have shown that Labour is being hugely embarrassed by the row over MPs’ expenses, even though it began with disclosures about Conservative Members. Labour MPs in working-class seats tell of constituents who say to them “you are all at it” and are fed up with talk of second homes and John Lewis lists of goods that MPs can claim. That feeling, it is asserted, has led those MPs to listen more intently when their poorer constituents complain of losing out because of the 10p tax decision.
Apologies for light blogging - I have been investigating the future of Lord Dibgy Jones here. However the Red Box will be travelling on Brownforce One, accompanied by its expense account.
Oh dear. Labour Home are reporting problems with the party's new General Secretary, David Pitt-Watson, appointed last month.
At best, his arrival has been delayed, at least until after the party conference in September. At worst, he may never arrive. The Labour Party spokesman has issued a noticeably cautious statement: David Pitt-Watson has not resigned. He has been voted for as the General Secretary of the Labour Party, he is making arrangements to move from his existing employment and this is taking some time to resolve."
If the Labour Party wanted to dampen down speculation he may not be coming at all, why say he hasn't resigned?
LabourHome say: "Various high-level sources are giving out conflicting information - some suggesting that this is simply a complication with the new General Secretary's start date - others asserting the start date delay is a ruse to defer the resignation story until after the May 1st elections. Also in circulation are questions about how much was paid to the recruitment consultancy firm that was contracted by the party to find Pitt-Watson in the first place.
"Pitt-Watson was considered to be Gordon Brown's choice for GS over Mike Griffiths, Political Officer at Amicus Unite, and the recruitment process was surrounded by rumours of NEC members being personally lobbied by the PM and the usual whispers of safe parliamentary seats being offered in return for supporting Pitt-Watson. Rather than restart the selection process again, it is believed that Brownites are considering formalising the position of Acting General Secretary Chris Lennie."
Spencer Livermore, Brown's second longest serving aide, has announced his departure. As a polling guru and strategist, he played a key role helping Labour in successive elections and assisting Gordon in developing Welfare to Work and employment policies. He was also widely liked. Livermore is off to Saatchi & Saatchi and Fallon, the advertising agency where he will be working on the Labour account.
The official version from Livermore's friends is that he has been preparing to depart since the transition and that Gordon tried to persuade him to stay. They say that there was no rift with Downing Street's new force majeur Stephen Carter, adding that, in his previous job at WPP, Carter offered Livermore a job. Carter, they say, asked Livermore to stay until the election and it was purely his choice to go now.
But there have been signs of tension before today. Livermore did shoulder some blame for the election that never happened (there were reports that he was reduced to tears by Brown over the fiasco) and Andrew Porter on Three Line Whip has a fascinating take on the more uncomfortable end of their relationship. [Carter] moved Livermore out of his office so he could take the space. He also conspicuously omitted his name when introducing the No10 political team to Labour Party staff at a ‘get-together’ last Friday. Reports over the weekend have quoted ‘sources close to Carter’ briefing against Livermore, and we can expect more of the same now his departure has been confirmed.
Four conclusions:
1. It suggests that Carter is shaping up to be an extremely powerful person indeed in Downing Street, and others with long-standing connections to Brown are not necessarily as influential as they once were. I sense tears.
2. Downing Street is, in terms, admitting that Brown's original slimmed-down Downing Street was ill-prepared for the demands that Whitehall placed on it because they failed to realise "everything that department do must go through No 10". Well worth revisiting Peter Riddell's comments from a month ago. Today's changes reinforce the idea that Team Brown had little clue about what life next door was like when he was at the Treasury.
3. The phrase "sources close to Stephen Carter" has entered the lexicon. This is causing tension in No 10: ironic given the amount some of them have spun against others in the past.
4. There will probably be more changes. I'm guessing that others in Downing Street may be worried and may be mounting a fightback.
The Liberal Democrats are feeling injured (again) over their parliamentary and media treatment on the Lisbon treaty. Nick Clegg has adopted a masochism strategy (Newsnight, Today, PMQs) but the consensus is that it is hurting rather than working. It isn't an easy job to defend the party's principled approach - to abstain.
His spinners insist that the media are being unfair because the party is being entirely consistent with the past. But, as Peter Riddell wrote this morning, 72 Conservative MPs who are still in the Commons voted against a referendum in 1993 on the far more significant Maastricht treaty, and all but four are likely to vote for a referendum tonight. Consistency isn't everything.
Jeremy Paxman identified the difficulty last night. Why, if Clegg believes that this is a treaty rather than a constitution - and therefore does not need a referendum - does he not vote with Labour against the Tories' attempts to force one. The Lib Dems say that this is because they are making the point that the real debate should be whether there is a referendum on Britain being in or out of Europe. But this means that they are ignoring the question at hand and taking a position different from the one being asked. The worst of all worlds, it seems.
The real test for them will come later today, however, if there are resignations from the Liberal Democrat front bench. Update: There are three resignations, Tim Farron, justice spokesman, David Heath and Alistair Carmichael, who speaks on Scotland and Northern Ireland
The Liberal Democrat spring Conference in Liverpool promises to be an interesting spectacle.
There is an immediate problem for Brown's vision of a Britain that "unlocks all the talents": Labour are almost certain to miss their 2010 target of halving child poverty from 1999 levels and are not prepared to spend the £3.4 billion (IFS estimate) to make it happen.
Ministers were reported last week to have have conceded this privately, and at least two ministerial aides were confirming as much this weekend in Birmingham. One said: "You will not find people talking about this publicly yet. Ministers accept 2010 is unlikely to be met. But we are working out how best we can demonstrate our commitment to this core Labour issue, which is important to the party. We are working on how best to catch up on the 2020 target [of eradicating child poverty entirely]."
Ministers will not say so publicly, though. At a Fabian event on child poverty on Saturday night, James Purnell bluntly informed the gathering: "I am not going to give a running commentary on whether we will achieve the [2010] target. With 12 days to go the Budget, we are in purdah."
But politically, the strategy seems the reverse. The weekend Gordon love-bombed the issue and talked up his commitment to the subject. Presumably he is muddying the waters and hoping that people forget about the specifics.
When the climbdown formally happens, expect Brown and his team to swear blind that they are still trying to meet the 2020 total eradication target. But there is huge hubris in this approach, given that it assumes that Labour will still be in government and the Conservatives say that the pledge is only an "aspiration" for them. Tears ahead...
Frankly, it is a little thin on the ground at the Labour Spring conference in Birmingham. A smattering of ministers (Kevin Brennan, Ben Bradshaw) on the floor. Gordon seems to outnumber them with advisers including Stephen Carter, presumably his first major Labour outing as intellectual bag-carrier to the PM. In fact, the organisers are so worried about it looking thin on TV that they have ordered Labour staffers to sit in the hall when they aren't busy. And there is a suitably officious official (the best sort), called Alan Olive, reprimanding journalists having whispered conversations at the back of the floor because the hall is so empty of delegates that they are worried about the sound carrying.
It's bash Boris day, as the sharp-quilled yet perfectly attired Broganblog has highlighted. The attack dogs today are Hazel Blears and Tessa Jowell. Both formerly strong Blairites, they nevertheless get the "leftie-ometer" ringing with quite vicious class attacks on Boris and "Dave". It seems that if you can't do left, do class.
Hazel, in particular, related a frankly rather unpleasant tale of how she ambushed Daid Cameron at Salford Lads Club. He was there to get an autograph from members of The Smiths, who were performing. So the Communities Secretary organised an ambush mob with signs saying "Oi Dave - Eton's Lads' Club is 300 miles that way" and "Salford Lads not Eton snobs". He was forced out of the back door and went home without an autograph. And that night I sent him a photo of me outside Salford Lads Club, with greetings from Salford!
Charming...
Perhaps the most prescient analysis this week comes yesterday from Peter Riddell, who charted Blairism losing its grip under Gordon Brown. He cited Harriet Harman's praise of Fidel Castro and left-wing MPs' enthusiasm for the nationalisation of Northern Rock - because they see it as a welcome lurch to the left - as two examples. Mr Brown does not want a fight with Labour MPs or the unions, unlike Tony Blair who relished such confrontations. The contrast between the two is less about policy – each embraces globalisation – than style. Both are new Labour in their heads. But Mr Brown often likes to display his old Labour heart.
Read it all here. It will be interesting to watch the tone of the speeches this weekend at Labour's half-yearly rally in Birmingham. Will Gordon's team play to this new enthusiasm on the Left, or run away from it? Red Box's leftie-watch has now been activated ...
No wonder things go wrong at Labour Central. At the most recent meeting of Labour's National Executive Committee, Harriet Harman set out the current hierachy: "Harriet Harman suggested trying to rationalise the proliferation of titles and functions which few people inside or outside the party understand. In addition to deputy leader, she holds the title of party Chair. The NEC has its own Chair and a vice-chair. The national policy forum has a Chair and three vice-chairs, but its steering body, the joint policy committee, is chaired jointly by the prime minister and another NEC member. In addition there are six vice-chairs of the parliamentary Labour party, and Ed Miliband is developing the manifesto, with 16 MPs who chair groups which report to him."
One of the few pieces of good news for Parliament was the appointment last week of Jill Pay as the first ever female Serjeant at Arms, the official in tights in charge of Commons security. Popular among her colleagues, the achievement is the result of her years of hard work as she rose through the ranks.
Apparently, however, it nearly didn't happen. When the parliamentary authorities realised that there was a shortlist of one - a woman, gasp - they hesitated and introduced a second name, a retired army type with little experience. But the prospect of an army buffer trumping years of graft appalled the Speaker, who stepped in and ensured that she got the job, something that has gone down well among Labour colleagues.
Parliament has not, however, quite been able to make a virtue of her appointment. Although Pay would be more than happy to be interviewed to tell her story, the authorities are apparently less than keen that she does and have blocked it. Bet that can't hold.
Much sulking over at Labour Party HQ over the selection of a new boss to replace Peter Watt, according to the well-connected editor of Tribune. Gordon wants someone fresh and untainted by donation scandals so he has got outside recruitment consultants to draw up criteria. This curious document demands that applicants come armed with financial expertise, human resource skills and management ability (all city skills) and reading between the lines union time-servers need not apply.* Astonishingly, applicants do not even have to be members of the Labour Party because "many people’s jobs preclude them from party membership".
This alone would be a recipe for meltdown, but Tribune revealed that the full NEC (which in theory makes the decision) was not consulted on the wording of the advertisement or website. It added that Diane Hayter (NEC chair) is particularly cross and the whole application has become bogged down. Labour Central insists that love and peace prevail** and that the NEC "agreed the process". But, crucially, it is silent on whether the full NEC agreed the wording.
Interestingly, a source has suggested that NEC officers knew all but the whole NEC did not - exactly the problem, says a different well-connected mole, who stomps that party staff make the decisions and the NEC acts as a post-decision rubber stamp. The iron fist is back.
*Funnily enough, today's New Statesman says that Gordon Brown is not keen on the post going to Mike Griffiths, the former NEC chairman and a Unite trade union official. He is one of the two people to have openly declared his candidacy, the other being Keith Sonnet, the deputy general secretary of Unison.
**Statement below the fold
Continue reading "Gordon's iron fist puts noses out of joint at Labour HQ" »
|
