Don't take my word for it, why not pop along to this BBC page and watch Christine Pratt talking. She is the head of an anti-bullying charity and states that three or four calls have been made to the National Bullying Helpline in recent years from staff who are "working directly with him" and that they "have issues and have concerns"..
She continues by saying that statements from people like Mandelson categorically denying that it was occurring is a nonsense and is not credible and what they should be doing is addressing it in more productive manner. To deny it is to compound the stress of those who believe they are being bullied. To outright deny it is not conducive to productive working relationships.
So there you have it, Brown is in denial and his cabinet colleagues are prepared to lie to cover up his indiscretions to help keep him as PM despite the fact he is clearly does not have the mental character necessary to hold such high office.
If you work for Gordon Brown and you too would like to talk to someone, you can also contact the National Bullying Hotline on 0845 22 55 787. Lines are open Monday to Friday 10am - 4pm and Saturdays 10am - 2pm.
Showing posts with label Peter Mandelson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Mandelson. Show all posts
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
The Dark Lord Speaketh
I just flipped over to Sky News to see if anything interesting happened at Gordon Browns meeting with the Parliamentary Labour Party tonight (answer, no nothing interesting did happen...)
Then I spotted this quote attributed to the Dark Lord himself:
Was it Geoff Hoon? Patricia Hewitt? Hazel Blears? Frank Field? Charles Clarke? Caroline Flint? Harriet Harman? Ed Miliband? David Miliband? James Purnell?
Then I spotted this quote attributed to the Dark Lord himself:
Lord Mandelson responded by emphasising the need for unity, saying that they would not allow others to "drive wedges between us".To whom was he referring?
Was it Geoff Hoon? Patricia Hewitt? Hazel Blears? Frank Field? Charles Clarke? Caroline Flint? Harriet Harman? Ed Miliband? David Miliband? James Purnell?
Monday, January 04, 2010
My 2010 Predictions
1. David Cameron will be the UK’s next Prime Minister
2. The UK General Election will be on Thursday 6th May 2010
3. Economic recovery in not be achieved in Q1 2010
4. Guantánamo Bay will not be closed in 2010, though it will continue to gradually reduce it’s inmate population
5. The key political and economic concern in Q3 and Q4 2010 will be Inflation… “Hyper Inflation” will be the prophesised buzz words of concern in the media and blogosphere
6. At least two Labour MP’s will be exposed in the tabloids as having affairs in the lead up to the General Election
7. David Miliband will secure the backing of Peter Mandelson and become the next leader of the Labour Party
8. Vince Cable will become Liberal Democrat leader in 2010 with the backing of Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell.
9. Nigel Farage will unseat John Bercow
10. Here is my very early attempt at some serious Nostradamus forecasting as I predict the GE result in terms of Parliamentary seats.
Conservative Party / UUP – 349 Seats
Labour Party – 212 Seats
Liberal Democrats – 49 Seats
SNP – 12 Seats
DUP – 8 Seats
Sinn Fein – 6 Seats
Independent – 5 Seats
Plaid Cymru – 3 Seats
Social Democratic and Labour Party – 3 Seats
UKIP – 2 Seats
Respect – 1 Seat
2. The UK General Election will be on Thursday 6th May 2010
3. Economic recovery in not be achieved in Q1 2010
4. Guantánamo Bay will not be closed in 2010, though it will continue to gradually reduce it’s inmate population
5. The key political and economic concern in Q3 and Q4 2010 will be Inflation… “Hyper Inflation” will be the prophesised buzz words of concern in the media and blogosphere
6. At least two Labour MP’s will be exposed in the tabloids as having affairs in the lead up to the General Election
7. David Miliband will secure the backing of Peter Mandelson and become the next leader of the Labour Party
8. Vince Cable will become Liberal Democrat leader in 2010 with the backing of Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell.
9. Nigel Farage will unseat John Bercow
10. Here is my very early attempt at some serious Nostradamus forecasting as I predict the GE result in terms of Parliamentary seats.
Conservative Party / UUP – 349 Seats
Labour Party – 212 Seats
Liberal Democrats – 49 Seats
SNP – 12 Seats
DUP – 8 Seats
Sinn Fein – 6 Seats
Independent – 5 Seats
Plaid Cymru – 3 Seats
Social Democratic and Labour Party – 3 Seats
UKIP – 2 Seats
Respect – 1 Seat
Monday, December 14, 2009
Peer Reviewed Literature, Climategate, Copenhagen, Socialism And Tony Blair
With a big tip of the hat to Mr All Seeing Eye, I would like to direct the attention of fellow flat-earthers to the Popular Technology Blog, and via this link they have published links to 500 peer reviewed science papers supporting the sceptic arguments against "Man-Made" climate change. Further confirmation, not that more was needed that claims of the science being settled is a load of nonsense; propaganda for the limited thinker.
As Ed Begley Jr himself advised, with some ferocity, look for and trust the peer reviewed literature... So it would seem that the science is not settled and that more and more sceptics who have kept quiet for fear of losing grants and being shunned by the scientific community are starting to speak out and push their work to the fore. All of the money has always been for those looking to prove Global Warming and Climate Change, but it seems more than a few scientists along the way felt the evidence did not stack up.
Meanwhile in Copenhagen a merry dance is underway, with the African nations apparently not in a cooperative mood. No surprises there really; at the announcement, rather than the lack of cooperation... I think the deals are already pretty much done and have been for some time, all that is left is a moment for a little theatre. The EU is to pledge £6.5bn in money to poorer nations, I have no idea how much the US is chipping in; there is no way they the poorer nations are walking out the door before a deal is done... but after a few days of "tough negotiations" Brown, Miliband et al can come back and claim that they persevered, endeavoured and fought against all the odds and finally came back with a deal that saved the world, well with a little help but more about that nearer the end. Like I say, it is all theatre.
I got to thinking earlier today about how Government debt has doubled in the few years Brown has been PM and it got me angry to think that £1.5bn of our money has been pledged to poorer counties in the "fight against climate change"... not because I have any desire to see poor nations struggle, but because it mirrors almost exactly the kind of backwards policy that is executed and which is killing the UK. Basically poorer nations in Africa are denied the opportunity to sell us many, many products under EU regulations, most notably the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Instead of making good money by trade, they are handed welfare instead. This is a protectionist measure that we are told keeps our food prices down, which does not really make sense because market forces demand that with greater supply that prices fall. Anyway, we deny Africa the chance to trade and the opportunity work their way out of poverty and prosperity. Then when there is some political grandstanding to be done, we dangle a few billion under the noses of the African Governments, and say dance to our tune and we will hand you a cheque.
It is very similar to how the benefits and unemployment system in the UK makes it very difficult for people to gain benefit from working should their skills or circumstances rule out anything much better than a minimum wage position. It's being paid to rely on the British State. What possible motivation is there if you are ill educated and trapped on a sink estate to go to work, for an extra £5 or £10 a week. Africa needs to be able to sell to Europe the fruits of it's Labour and be allowed to earn a decent and fair sum for doing so, then we would not need to cut cheques and patronise... plus the other million reasons why trade and work is better than charity and welfare.
It's Brown and the EU I am angry with, we have kept the poor in poverty with the CAP, and like the well known saying goes, aid work has become about taking money from the poor people in rich countries and handing it over to the rich people in poor countries. The world community has socialised the Third World, and through Socialism they are doomed to be poor and downtrodden forever.
But back home and on that £1.5bn, I may have missed it but I do not recall that number being debated in Parliament, and I do not recall a public debate regarding the amount and manner of our charity to poorer nations. Can there really be no law protecting the Tax Payer against such massive pledges from the Prime Minister whilst abroad? Also, seeing as how the Environment is now a sole competence for the EU, why the hell is Brown pledging more than the other big EU nations; does he not realise yet that the 30% of voters that he polls are going to will vote for his Party or no one come polling day and that the other 70% of us will not be bought, seduced or coerced by any manner devisable and splashing cash we can ill-afford at the moment is going to cost him more voters that it could win him? Where is Mandelson through all of this? Isn’t he supposed to be babysitting the PM when he decides to make decisions?
Anyway, mark my words; the deal will be done on time in Copenhagen, though the cost may just keep going up. I have a theory that Tony Blair’s consolation prize for not getting to be EU President will be to step in at the last minute and claim to be the man who brokers the deal with whoever the rogue nation who threatens to derail the show is, probably India…Cue Noble Prize and more speaking engagements. He is already over there as the guest of an NGO. Whilst they are all enjoying their jolly the rest of us will keep the debate going and be thinking about ways to cut our debts so that we can get by during this recession, and furthermore because we know that we have even more Government Debt that we will need to pay off soon. And with the Bankers jetting off to low tax havens now, that leaves the rest of us to clean up and pay for the mess.
As Ed Begley Jr himself advised, with some ferocity, look for and trust the peer reviewed literature... So it would seem that the science is not settled and that more and more sceptics who have kept quiet for fear of losing grants and being shunned by the scientific community are starting to speak out and push their work to the fore. All of the money has always been for those looking to prove Global Warming and Climate Change, but it seems more than a few scientists along the way felt the evidence did not stack up.
Meanwhile in Copenhagen a merry dance is underway, with the African nations apparently not in a cooperative mood. No surprises there really; at the announcement, rather than the lack of cooperation... I think the deals are already pretty much done and have been for some time, all that is left is a moment for a little theatre. The EU is to pledge £6.5bn in money to poorer nations, I have no idea how much the US is chipping in; there is no way they the poorer nations are walking out the door before a deal is done... but after a few days of "tough negotiations" Brown, Miliband et al can come back and claim that they persevered, endeavoured and fought against all the odds and finally came back with a deal that saved the world, well with a little help but more about that nearer the end. Like I say, it is all theatre.
I got to thinking earlier today about how Government debt has doubled in the few years Brown has been PM and it got me angry to think that £1.5bn of our money has been pledged to poorer counties in the "fight against climate change"... not because I have any desire to see poor nations struggle, but because it mirrors almost exactly the kind of backwards policy that is executed and which is killing the UK. Basically poorer nations in Africa are denied the opportunity to sell us many, many products under EU regulations, most notably the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Instead of making good money by trade, they are handed welfare instead. This is a protectionist measure that we are told keeps our food prices down, which does not really make sense because market forces demand that with greater supply that prices fall. Anyway, we deny Africa the chance to trade and the opportunity work their way out of poverty and prosperity. Then when there is some political grandstanding to be done, we dangle a few billion under the noses of the African Governments, and say dance to our tune and we will hand you a cheque.
It is very similar to how the benefits and unemployment system in the UK makes it very difficult for people to gain benefit from working should their skills or circumstances rule out anything much better than a minimum wage position. It's being paid to rely on the British State. What possible motivation is there if you are ill educated and trapped on a sink estate to go to work, for an extra £5 or £10 a week. Africa needs to be able to sell to Europe the fruits of it's Labour and be allowed to earn a decent and fair sum for doing so, then we would not need to cut cheques and patronise... plus the other million reasons why trade and work is better than charity and welfare.
It's Brown and the EU I am angry with, we have kept the poor in poverty with the CAP, and like the well known saying goes, aid work has become about taking money from the poor people in rich countries and handing it over to the rich people in poor countries. The world community has socialised the Third World, and through Socialism they are doomed to be poor and downtrodden forever.
But back home and on that £1.5bn, I may have missed it but I do not recall that number being debated in Parliament, and I do not recall a public debate regarding the amount and manner of our charity to poorer nations. Can there really be no law protecting the Tax Payer against such massive pledges from the Prime Minister whilst abroad? Also, seeing as how the Environment is now a sole competence for the EU, why the hell is Brown pledging more than the other big EU nations; does he not realise yet that the 30% of voters that he polls are going to will vote for his Party or no one come polling day and that the other 70% of us will not be bought, seduced or coerced by any manner devisable and splashing cash we can ill-afford at the moment is going to cost him more voters that it could win him? Where is Mandelson through all of this? Isn’t he supposed to be babysitting the PM when he decides to make decisions?
Anyway, mark my words; the deal will be done on time in Copenhagen, though the cost may just keep going up. I have a theory that Tony Blair’s consolation prize for not getting to be EU President will be to step in at the last minute and claim to be the man who brokers the deal with whoever the rogue nation who threatens to derail the show is, probably India…Cue Noble Prize and more speaking engagements. He is already over there as the guest of an NGO. Whilst they are all enjoying their jolly the rest of us will keep the debate going and be thinking about ways to cut our debts so that we can get by during this recession, and furthermore because we know that we have even more Government Debt that we will need to pay off soon. And with the Bankers jetting off to low tax havens now, that leaves the rest of us to clean up and pay for the mess.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Ken Clarkes Take On Tory EU Policy
James Kirkup describes Ken Clarke as "a walking gift to journalism if there ever was one" and then quotes Ken Clarke from the Commons Press Gallery on David Cameron's new EU policy.
Mr Clarke’s words:
There is talk of a civil war brewing; this may be the case but I suspect this may take some time to happen. The Conservatives can handle lively debate under the roof of their broad church, even if it is no longer encouraged actively. But the real dilemma is not between the factions but in the hearts and minds of potential and loyal Conservative voters. To many, the question is different. What is the lesser of two evils... Five more years of Labour or acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty and accepting Britain as a province in the new EUslavia? Neither play well in the minds of many.
The return of Ken Clarke the front benches prompted much comment at the time. I reluctantly tried to find some positives in the decision myself. I made the point that Clarke needed to land a scalp and live up to the image of the Big Beast. However, what has he achieved since? Lord Mandy loves having Ken Clarke as a Shadow, he has failed to land any big blows and Mandy even joked at the Labour Conference that Ken Clarke privately agrees with all Mandy has said and is doing. What else could be expected from two paid up EU loving foot soldiers?
It's not like Ken Clarke is doing his homework and trying to hold Labour to account. In a recent exchange in the Commons Clarke proclaimed that British businesses were struggling under the burden of over regulation. His designated chaperone retorted with a simple request for Clarke to name three regulations that he would dismantle... Clarke had no answer. Not one. Perhaps Ken Clarke could find some time to have a read of this or even this - He is going through the motions and not trying very hard. It will be a seamless transition when he takes over from Peter Mandelson.
As I was listening to David Cameron last week on his new EU policy, it did not sound like a speech that had been written by Ken Clarke; it sounded like a speech written for Ken Clarke. Ken Clarke is not someone I would pick out as a good representative what Conservative voters want, or how they think.
The new EU policy has only one unarguable plus point so far as I can see...
David Cameron cannot be accused any time soon of being a popularist when writing up policy.
All of this got me thinking that maybe Clarke was not brought back because he is a big beast, but maybe he just knows where the bodies are buried and convinced Cameron to let him back in. After a not very convincing start to his role, he does not appear to be under any pressure to claim any scalps. Just maybe Clarke has the dirt on Cameron already.
After removing the Conservatives from the EPP in the EU Parliament, one could be forgiven for having expected a more robust line when Lisbon was finally ratified from Cameron; he had certianly convinced the likes on Dan Hannan and William Hague convinced that there were some serious intentions there. Yet instead of looking to the Party and to what they want to see, Cameron looked to Clarke and the supporters of the EU and wrote up another chapter in the Conservative EU play book. Was this a reversal or an attempt at Blairesque triangulation?
Agree with me or not; agree with Cameron or don't. But his EU policy is going to define Cameron and the Conservative Party for a generation and the more it is discussed, and the closer we get to Cameron as PM the greater that split will be felt by those who have to chose which side of the line they want to be on.
Mr Clarke’s words:
“We’re going to have a go at repatriating, going back to the old opt-out on the social chapter. People want to be reassured on criminal justice.I wrote down my thoughts after hearing Cameron's speech last week, I have not heard or read anything to make me change my mind. Many Conservatives reaction was supportive of David Cameron, but laced with a not so subtle bitterness which betrayed what was in their hearts, that they were again gambling on the Conservatives coming through for them later on; lying back and thinking of England so to speak.
“I think it’s largely reassurance, myself.
“But I do think we will not be alone. We will have allies.
“So long as you don’t over-dramatise it, done properly, there’s a serious negotiation to be had.
“I look forward to getting the debate back to a bit of calmness and common sense on both sides of the argument.”
There is talk of a civil war brewing; this may be the case but I suspect this may take some time to happen. The Conservatives can handle lively debate under the roof of their broad church, even if it is no longer encouraged actively. But the real dilemma is not between the factions but in the hearts and minds of potential and loyal Conservative voters. To many, the question is different. What is the lesser of two evils... Five more years of Labour or acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty and accepting Britain as a province in the new EUslavia? Neither play well in the minds of many.
The return of Ken Clarke the front benches prompted much comment at the time. I reluctantly tried to find some positives in the decision myself. I made the point that Clarke needed to land a scalp and live up to the image of the Big Beast. However, what has he achieved since? Lord Mandy loves having Ken Clarke as a Shadow, he has failed to land any big blows and Mandy even joked at the Labour Conference that Ken Clarke privately agrees with all Mandy has said and is doing. What else could be expected from two paid up EU loving foot soldiers?
It's not like Ken Clarke is doing his homework and trying to hold Labour to account. In a recent exchange in the Commons Clarke proclaimed that British businesses were struggling under the burden of over regulation. His designated chaperone retorted with a simple request for Clarke to name three regulations that he would dismantle... Clarke had no answer. Not one. Perhaps Ken Clarke could find some time to have a read of this or even this - He is going through the motions and not trying very hard. It will be a seamless transition when he takes over from Peter Mandelson.
As I was listening to David Cameron last week on his new EU policy, it did not sound like a speech that had been written by Ken Clarke; it sounded like a speech written for Ken Clarke. Ken Clarke is not someone I would pick out as a good representative what Conservative voters want, or how they think.
The new EU policy has only one unarguable plus point so far as I can see...
David Cameron cannot be accused any time soon of being a popularist when writing up policy.
All of this got me thinking that maybe Clarke was not brought back because he is a big beast, but maybe he just knows where the bodies are buried and convinced Cameron to let him back in. After a not very convincing start to his role, he does not appear to be under any pressure to claim any scalps. Just maybe Clarke has the dirt on Cameron already.
After removing the Conservatives from the EPP in the EU Parliament, one could be forgiven for having expected a more robust line when Lisbon was finally ratified from Cameron; he had certianly convinced the likes on Dan Hannan and William Hague convinced that there were some serious intentions there. Yet instead of looking to the Party and to what they want to see, Cameron looked to Clarke and the supporters of the EU and wrote up another chapter in the Conservative EU play book. Was this a reversal or an attempt at Blairesque triangulation?
Agree with me or not; agree with Cameron or don't. But his EU policy is going to define Cameron and the Conservative Party for a generation and the more it is discussed, and the closer we get to Cameron as PM the greater that split will be felt by those who have to chose which side of the line they want to be on.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Klaus Video, The Jeers, The Walk Out
Here is the video from the EU Parliament today. It is in Czech language, but hopefully there will be an English Language version available soon.
The key bits:
4:40 - Some boo's
5:18 - MEP's jeer President Klaus
5:50 - Lots of Jeering
6:57 - Some claps, some jeers
7:37 - more Jeers, camera reveals empty seats
7:51 - MEPs visually walking out en masse
This second video shows something else that was revealed today. Independent think tanks have been advising on how much of our laws are actually passed down from the EU. These numbers are usually in the region of 60-90% depending on the study. This, of course is always hotly denied, The Major government made denials, both Blair & Brown have rubbished reports too. Labour MEPs claim it is around 10%.
This video, in an uncharacteristic slip from Hans-Gert Potterings reveals that the EU Parliament puts the number at 75%.
So, today we have again seen that the EU not only has contempt for you and me, they have contempt for anybody daring to voice an opinion in favour of democratic principles such as the need for government to have an opposition. President Klaus and many in the Czech Republic lived many years under the yolk of communist rule. People who have lived in oppression value their freedoms, they bear the scars of totalitarianism in their hearts. It seems they are more willing to speak out as well.
Such a speech should serve as a reminder to those who have power of the costs and responsibilities that that power yields, especially when misused.
The EU though is set up, as Peter Mandleson would describe in the post-democratic form. Power and decision making is not truly linked to the will of the people. Power emanates from the centre. There is no effective checks & balances. There is no opposition voice, dissenting opinions are not allowed.
This is not Democracy!
If 75% of our laws, and all of our courts rulings are subject to their decisions, Britain can no longer describe itself as a democratic nation.
Don't bother writing to your MP, there isn't a damn thing they can do about it.
Update: 22:14. Full English Text of President Klaus's speech, here. Hat Tip, Bloggers for UKIP
The key bits:
4:40 - Some boo's
5:18 - MEP's jeer President Klaus
5:50 - Lots of Jeering
6:57 - Some claps, some jeers
7:37 - more Jeers, camera reveals empty seats
7:51 - MEPs visually walking out en masse
This second video shows something else that was revealed today. Independent think tanks have been advising on how much of our laws are actually passed down from the EU. These numbers are usually in the region of 60-90% depending on the study. This, of course is always hotly denied, The Major government made denials, both Blair & Brown have rubbished reports too. Labour MEPs claim it is around 10%.
This video, in an uncharacteristic slip from Hans-Gert Potterings reveals that the EU Parliament puts the number at 75%.
So, today we have again seen that the EU not only has contempt for you and me, they have contempt for anybody daring to voice an opinion in favour of democratic principles such as the need for government to have an opposition. President Klaus and many in the Czech Republic lived many years under the yolk of communist rule. People who have lived in oppression value their freedoms, they bear the scars of totalitarianism in their hearts. It seems they are more willing to speak out as well.
Such a speech should serve as a reminder to those who have power of the costs and responsibilities that that power yields, especially when misused.
The EU though is set up, as Peter Mandleson would describe in the post-democratic form. Power and decision making is not truly linked to the will of the people. Power emanates from the centre. There is no effective checks & balances. There is no opposition voice, dissenting opinions are not allowed.
This is not Democracy!
If 75% of our laws, and all of our courts rulings are subject to their decisions, Britain can no longer describe itself as a democratic nation.
Don't bother writing to your MP, there isn't a damn thing they can do about it.
Update: 22:14. Full English Text of President Klaus's speech, here. Hat Tip, Bloggers for UKIP
Monday, February 02, 2009
Can Gordon Brown Pledge To Increase Trade With China?
The Times at the end of their piece regarding Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's speech at Cambridge today they say this:
Mr Brown said that his target was to increase British exports to China from £5 billion in 2008 to £10 billion in 2010. He added: “I believe that there is much scope for trade and investment to expand between our two countries even in these most difficult of times for the global economy.”
SkyNews.com have a similar line when they say:
Earlier, Gordon Brown had described the relationship between Britain and China as "a pivotal force" in helping the country through the recession.
"I believe that there is much scope for trade and investment to expand between our two countries even in these most difficult of times for the global economy," Mr Brown said.
"The strength of the relationship between China and Britain will be a pivotal force in helping us through the downturn and a powerful driving force behind our future growth and prosperity.
"We know from previous downturns that a retreat to narrow, short-term protectionist policies would only serve to deepen the global recession and we must not and will not allow that to happen again."
As I understand it, the UK is not in a position to unilaterally make trade deals with a non-EU country as this is an exclusive competency of the European Commission. In fact, before his ennoblement this was the area headed up by Peter Mandelson.
I may be wrong, I will be happy to hold my hands up if I am, (though I don't think I am.) I happen to think that one of the best ways to to put the UK on a path to economic recovery is by enhancing trade with Asia. There is a lot of currency stockpiling in Asia, especially China, by selling to them goods and services that they require, their cash becomes our cash.
So why are The Times and Sky quoting Gordon Brown, instead of challenging him on this? Gordon Brown and Chinese PM Wen Jiabao are free to make as many pledges as they like because they cannot possibly act upon them and the MSM seems unwilling to scrutinise. This, while workers are striking after his inability to act upon his pledge to deliver "British Jobs for British Workers".
Perhaps, and this maybe considered somewhat cynical; but perhaps the £10bn number is not a pledge, but has already been forecasted, and Gordon Brown is simply attempting to take credit for the increase. Maybe, just maybe, Peter Mandleson was able to make that number known to the Government, and the Government is taking trying to take credit for it.
What do you think? Am I a crazy cynic, or am I about right here?
00:05 Amendment: Colours went a bit crazy, plus changed an "If" to an "In" to make more sense.
Mr Brown said that his target was to increase British exports to China from £5 billion in 2008 to £10 billion in 2010. He added: “I believe that there is much scope for trade and investment to expand between our two countries even in these most difficult of times for the global economy.”
SkyNews.com have a similar line when they say:
Earlier, Gordon Brown had described the relationship between Britain and China as "a pivotal force" in helping the country through the recession.
"I believe that there is much scope for trade and investment to expand between our two countries even in these most difficult of times for the global economy," Mr Brown said.
"The strength of the relationship between China and Britain will be a pivotal force in helping us through the downturn and a powerful driving force behind our future growth and prosperity.
"We know from previous downturns that a retreat to narrow, short-term protectionist policies would only serve to deepen the global recession and we must not and will not allow that to happen again."
As I understand it, the UK is not in a position to unilaterally make trade deals with a non-EU country as this is an exclusive competency of the European Commission. In fact, before his ennoblement this was the area headed up by Peter Mandelson.
I may be wrong, I will be happy to hold my hands up if I am, (though I don't think I am.) I happen to think that one of the best ways to to put the UK on a path to economic recovery is by enhancing trade with Asia. There is a lot of currency stockpiling in Asia, especially China, by selling to them goods and services that they require, their cash becomes our cash.
So why are The Times and Sky quoting Gordon Brown, instead of challenging him on this? Gordon Brown and Chinese PM Wen Jiabao are free to make as many pledges as they like because they cannot possibly act upon them and the MSM seems unwilling to scrutinise. This, while workers are striking after his inability to act upon his pledge to deliver "British Jobs for British Workers".
Perhaps, and this maybe considered somewhat cynical; but perhaps the £10bn number is not a pledge, but has already been forecasted, and Gordon Brown is simply attempting to take credit for the increase. Maybe, just maybe, Peter Mandleson was able to make that number known to the Government, and the Government is taking trying to take credit for it.
What do you think? Am I a crazy cynic, or am I about right here?
00:05 Amendment: Colours went a bit crazy, plus changed an "If" to an "In" to make more sense.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Ken Clarke Appointed To Shadow Cabinet
As of Monday 19th January 2008 Ken Clarke will be back in the Conservative Shadow Cabinet. Iain Dale has the scoop here.
The next 10 days will be very interesting. There is going to be something of a backlash amongst Conservative voters, and David Cameron will come under fire for this decision. Ken Clarke has seven, maybe ten days to land a big body blow on Peter Mandelson and/or the Labour Party. If he does this, David Cameron's decision will be vindicated.* If not, then the recent poll results which have been showing an overall Conservative Majority will likely slip back, as the anti-Ken voices from within the Conservative Party get louder. Mandelson and Brown will be prepared for his return, suspect they have some counter punches lined up already.
This is not, in my opinion a clause 4 moment for David Cameron. This is not the Conservative setting a new direction, or casting of the burden of unpopular ideology. This is the moment however that the Conservative Party was honest with itself and who they are and what they stand for. Most have suspected since David Cameron accession that he is Pro-EU at heart and wants to lead Britain from inside the EU. I would rather he were more open about this so that it can be debated, rather than a closed issue which will, in the long run, cause greater frustrations and factions within the Conservative Party.
If I was still a likely Conservative voter, and held my previous concerns, this announcement would definitely send me over the edge…. However, paradoxically, now looking in without a sense of voting allegiance it could be a good move for the Conservatives. The only thing, politically speaking, that I want more than to withdraw from the EU is the complete defeat of the current Labour Government. If Ken Clarke's return ensures that The Conservatives move from narrow election majority, to comfortable majority then it may help put more Conservative MPs in Parliament and may subsequently ensure that I get what I want, an open, national debate on continued EU membership.
Of course, there is the chance also that Labour will on Tuesday announce that they are taking the UK into the Euro, then the Conservative party might possible implode into full scale civil war... and my head would explode from the excess rage surging through my brain.
*Provided that Ken Clarke does not then go off and rattle the Tories by a) Standing on a platform with Gordon Brown & Peter Mandelson to promote the Euro or the Lisbon Treaty. B) declares publicly that ‘smoking does not cause cancer’ or C) launches another ill-fated leadership bid. (If I have missed any, please add to the comments…)
The next 10 days will be very interesting. There is going to be something of a backlash amongst Conservative voters, and David Cameron will come under fire for this decision. Ken Clarke has seven, maybe ten days to land a big body blow on Peter Mandelson and/or the Labour Party. If he does this, David Cameron's decision will be vindicated.* If not, then the recent poll results which have been showing an overall Conservative Majority will likely slip back, as the anti-Ken voices from within the Conservative Party get louder. Mandelson and Brown will be prepared for his return, suspect they have some counter punches lined up already.
This is not, in my opinion a clause 4 moment for David Cameron. This is not the Conservative setting a new direction, or casting of the burden of unpopular ideology. This is the moment however that the Conservative Party was honest with itself and who they are and what they stand for. Most have suspected since David Cameron accession that he is Pro-EU at heart and wants to lead Britain from inside the EU. I would rather he were more open about this so that it can be debated, rather than a closed issue which will, in the long run, cause greater frustrations and factions within the Conservative Party.
If I was still a likely Conservative voter, and held my previous concerns, this announcement would definitely send me over the edge…. However, paradoxically, now looking in without a sense of voting allegiance it could be a good move for the Conservatives. The only thing, politically speaking, that I want more than to withdraw from the EU is the complete defeat of the current Labour Government. If Ken Clarke's return ensures that The Conservatives move from narrow election majority, to comfortable majority then it may help put more Conservative MPs in Parliament and may subsequently ensure that I get what I want, an open, national debate on continued EU membership.
Of course, there is the chance also that Labour will on Tuesday announce that they are taking the UK into the Euro, then the Conservative party might possible implode into full scale civil war... and my head would explode from the excess rage surging through my brain.
*Provided that Ken Clarke does not then go off and rattle the Tories by a) Standing on a platform with Gordon Brown & Peter Mandelson to promote the Euro or the Lisbon Treaty. B) declares publicly that ‘smoking does not cause cancer’ or C) launches another ill-fated leadership bid. (If I have missed any, please add to the comments…)
Thursday, January 15, 2009
What Is The Hurry?
There have been a few opinions in the blogosphere in the last week or so urging David Cameron to have his re-shuffle and be done with it. Where as I understand points being made and that it seems that Cameron is dithering a bit.
I say, why hurry?
There has been some good opinions and debate heard because of this speculation. The MSM does not deem much going on in Westminster to be sexy enough to write about, so we are getting re-shuffle stories.
When the talk moves to Osborne and the Shadow Chancellors job the points made are that Osborne is a good operative, but perhaps not best suited to this particular position. We See instead that the real big beast here is John Redwood, who is doing such a good job in a proxy-shadow chancellor role, especially through his Blog and newspaper work that David Cameron will probably feel safe enough to keep Osborne by his side as Shadow Chancellor.... until elected at least. The Tories are the party with a selection of people who can speak well on the economy. Point being, David Cameron could be viewed as making The Economy his top priority, so much so that he has placed his most trusted and valued advisor in the role to help shape that vision.
Discussion over William Hague has reminded Conservatives that they do have candidates who can play well in the North of England, and that there are people in David Cameron's circle that are not of the Bullingdon Club. Hague is is allowed to speak on EU Sceptic issues (If perhaps not as often as some would like to hear.)
Ken Clarke's heralded return reminds the Conservatives where they were in the 1990's and that if they do attain power they strive to rebut the arrogance that comes from holding office. I shudder at the notion that Ken Clarke could one day be making key decisions on the EU and The Euro - however, he is a conservative and they will get attacked on Europe forever more until the Conservative Party can find a way to talk about it without imploding. Having Ken at the table can remind the top team of the what they can and can not do because of the EU, and how they can avoid stoking the EU debate in the wrong direction. [Though i acknowledge, this is pretty much on Kens terms and for as long as he decides he wants to do that].
I do not share the opinion that Ken Clarke is "The Big Beast", I do not find him a convincing communicator, and I feel he serves as a reminder of a bitter past. Better then that he can talk to those issue directly. He also can bring in support that no other Tory can, something that might tip the balance between a hung parliament and a Conservative Government. As long as Ken Clarke is on board, and David Cameron is honest about the extent Ken Clarke can reach in terms of Ministerial position it may work.
The point to all this is that some of these issues in the recent past would have been very negative talking points in the MSM and the debate would possibly have made the Conservatives look bad to floating voters (EU, Economy, Party Inclusion, Ministers in the Lords etc...). That has not happened. David Cameron has stalled on the proposed re-shuffle, but he isn't having his hand forced on decisions, there is no real question of indecisiveness, only the fear of being perceived as such. Imagine how this would all be playing out in the media if it was Gordon Brown stalling over a re-shuffle.
It also shows that Conservatives do not know how to spin. The official line should be that David Cameron is wading through an extensive list of impressive CV's to determine, in his estimation the very best shadow cabinet available and one in which the people of the UK deserve. This is going to take a little time. The current shadow cabinet is functioning so well that the leader feels no need to make decisions in haste. There, simple really.
I am myself still an undecided voter, but the I just feel it was worth mentioning that the Conservatives are appearing more and more as an electable, desirable party.
I say, why hurry?
There has been some good opinions and debate heard because of this speculation. The MSM does not deem much going on in Westminster to be sexy enough to write about, so we are getting re-shuffle stories.
When the talk moves to Osborne and the Shadow Chancellors job the points made are that Osborne is a good operative, but perhaps not best suited to this particular position. We See instead that the real big beast here is John Redwood, who is doing such a good job in a proxy-shadow chancellor role, especially through his Blog and newspaper work that David Cameron will probably feel safe enough to keep Osborne by his side as Shadow Chancellor.... until elected at least. The Tories are the party with a selection of people who can speak well on the economy. Point being, David Cameron could be viewed as making The Economy his top priority, so much so that he has placed his most trusted and valued advisor in the role to help shape that vision.
Discussion over William Hague has reminded Conservatives that they do have candidates who can play well in the North of England, and that there are people in David Cameron's circle that are not of the Bullingdon Club. Hague is is allowed to speak on EU Sceptic issues (If perhaps not as often as some would like to hear.)
Talk of Alan Duncan's position has reminded Conservatives of a few matters. Firstly he serves as an example of inclusion within the party. Secondly that inclusion is not trumpeted, and points are not attempted to be made off of Mr Duncan's personal business. His position was secured of professional merit, not to pad out the party manifesto or meet a quota. Thirdly, Mandleson's return, in the Lords requires someone to shadow him exclusively. And fourthly, how quick public opinion, especially at the grass roots of the Conservative Party will turn if personal attacks are conducted via the media.
Ken Clarke's heralded return reminds the Conservatives where they were in the 1990's and that if they do attain power they strive to rebut the arrogance that comes from holding office. I shudder at the notion that Ken Clarke could one day be making key decisions on the EU and The Euro - however, he is a conservative and they will get attacked on Europe forever more until the Conservative Party can find a way to talk about it without imploding. Having Ken at the table can remind the top team of the what they can and can not do because of the EU, and how they can avoid stoking the EU debate in the wrong direction. [Though i acknowledge, this is pretty much on Kens terms and for as long as he decides he wants to do that].
I do not share the opinion that Ken Clarke is "The Big Beast", I do not find him a convincing communicator, and I feel he serves as a reminder of a bitter past. Better then that he can talk to those issue directly. He also can bring in support that no other Tory can, something that might tip the balance between a hung parliament and a Conservative Government. As long as Ken Clarke is on board, and David Cameron is honest about the extent Ken Clarke can reach in terms of Ministerial position it may work.
The point to all this is that some of these issues in the recent past would have been very negative talking points in the MSM and the debate would possibly have made the Conservatives look bad to floating voters (EU, Economy, Party Inclusion, Ministers in the Lords etc...). That has not happened. David Cameron has stalled on the proposed re-shuffle, but he isn't having his hand forced on decisions, there is no real question of indecisiveness, only the fear of being perceived as such. Imagine how this would all be playing out in the media if it was Gordon Brown stalling over a re-shuffle.
It also shows that Conservatives do not know how to spin. The official line should be that David Cameron is wading through an extensive list of impressive CV's to determine, in his estimation the very best shadow cabinet available and one in which the people of the UK deserve. This is going to take a little time. The current shadow cabinet is functioning so well that the leader feels no need to make decisions in haste. There, simple really.
I am myself still an undecided voter, but the I just feel it was worth mentioning that the Conservatives are appearing more and more as an electable, desirable party.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Election Thoughts (1)
Lots of twists and turns this week, and there have been nudges and winks indicating that there will be, or won't be, or will be or won't be......... a General Election in February.
Twists and turns isn't the start of it, on two occasions this week I have sat down and tried to put some thoughts onto the blog about where this all might be leading, but news kept breaking taking the story in a different direction.
I do not think there will be an election in February, I of course can not be certain, but I wouldn't completely rule out an election in 2009. By early 2010, general consensus is (for what ever that is worth) that the economy will be bottoming out and the pain of the credit crunch will hitting families hard. Additionally, having run down the clock on a full five year term, Labour know the public psyche recall Brown "bottling it" in 2008.
Having said that, February 2009 could be, just maybe, the best possible time to have an election, if you are a Labour MP, Minister or of course Prime Minister. Look ahead, in your own mind to what we know, or strongly suspect will happen next year, and as the year goes on the news will just keep getting worse and worse for Mr Brown and Labour. Local and EU elections which will [probably] be bad news for Labour, a second Irish referendum on The Lisbon Constitutional Treaty will rightly bring a poor spotlight on Gordon Brown and on the EU, increasing unemployment, declining £, lower returns on savings, increasing public debt. And of course from February Mr Brown will have to curtail use of his favourite line about our economic problems stemming from the US, or risk being the first European leader to fall out with President Obama.
So on that rationale, February starts to look good, get it in before all of the above sets in, and there are potential benefits as well. Mr Brown will be absolutely aching to be the first world leader to get to the White House, and if he can, he will be writing his own headlines in early February. An unknown will be the performance of the High Street over Christmas and the January sales, if based on turn-out at my local shopping centre last week, Mr Brown can be spinning about his VAT cut stimulating Christmas Sales. However, if based on my local shopping centre today, he will it will not be good news, and the Conservatives will have something tangible to add to their assault on The PMs economic record.
I suspect that because February could be circled as a possible time to go before things get worse, Peter Mandleson, and some in his circle will have engineered a few stories and leaks to see what the polls will say. Polls do tend to return different results when an Election is looming. Especially, when the poll is asking respondents what issues they most care about, these will be the key policy areas. It is hard to see anything topping the Economy as the key factor, especially for young families.
However despite it all. Despite reckless borrowing and debt levels to fund yet more Public Expenditure, despite the possibility that Labour might just be able to squeak it in February, I don't think Gordon Brown will go ahead with it. I honestly think that the Prime Minister has concerns about how he will be perceived when electioneering. He will have to go around middle England and ask those people that he has taxed and regulated the hardest to vote for their local Labour MP when the mere sight of Gordon Brown is likely to have the opposite effect. I suspect, whether he would admit it or not that Gordon Brown views Middle England as his natural enemy, his polar opposite and I do not think he will be able to bring himself to go pandering for their votes. Instead, I think he will take one more year acting the role of statesman, travelling the world and seeking our bigger summits. Come 2010 there will probably be a juicy EU job on the table for him, in return for his implementation of the Lisbon Constitutional Treaty in the UK.
OK - all that being said, assume I am wrong for a minute; because if the idea of an election is being gently floated, if they decide to go for it, they will HAVE TO go for it... and I want to play out some more thoughts.
There is one area that might bring results for Labour, and I think it is an area they have moved the chess pieces on in the last year. A little over a year ago, the Conservative Party had two things going for them, a strong shadow leadership team fronted by David Cameron and George Osborne and the fact that the Conservatives are not in anyway associated to Gordon Brown.
A long holiday and a return to cabinet for Peter Mandleson has seen a rejuvenated PM and a more organised, more crafted message. Peter Mandleson has transformed the Conservative approach. They were briefly in the ascendancy, now they do seem to be very cautious, perhaps too cautious to attack Labour policy. My opinion is that there is a real fear that if they come out and say anything at all, they leave themselves in danger of being "SPUN". Thus, in recent weeks, there seems to be only David Cameron making appearances on MSM news, with careful narration following on from other key Conservatives. I am not sure if centralising the Conservative message will work for them. It may work well for Labour, but that is a core trait for them; 'Solidarity' and 'Co-ordinated Communication' on defined issues. The Conservative strength has always been the ability to be the party that can accept more than one line on most matters, it is why the Conservatives tend to be the party that best protects free speech and individual liberties.
Peter Mandleson immediately targeted the Cameron/Osborne alliance, and he has had some success there. George Osborne's position as Shadow Chancellor is under scrutiny. On Conservative and right-wing blogs the debate seems to have moved past if George Osborne should be replaced, to who should replace him. A double whammy hit for Peter Mandleson because the person most floated by Conservative Bloggers (and the Labour Trolls) is Ken Clarke.
Now, I am not a fan of Ken Clarke. I have declared on this blog in its short existence that I am an undecided voter as far as the next election is concerned, but if Ken Clarke is the Shadow Chancellor I will be quick to say I will definitely not be voting Conservative. I do not share the view that Ken Clarke is a "Heavyweight", some of his speeches have been very monotone and uninspiring. Ken Clarke voted against the Tory Line on Lisbon, and appeared with Tony Blair in support of adopting the Euro, which was damaging to William Hagues Conservatives. I do not think I am alone with my assessment, and though I am only speaking to my opinions, I do think that there are a lot other Conservatives who feel the same. I think it is too late to replace George Osborne and not hand Labour another five years; but if he is replaced, George Osborne needs to go to CC HQ for and get started on General Election Strategy and Planning. And if he is replaced, Ken Clarke is not the answer. If George Osborne has to go then I can see no one other than John Redwood being able to take over and be able to show up the Governments economic record, and being widely accepted by likely voters. Despite Ken Clarke and John Redwood having respectively chequered history within the party, when John Redwoods name is floated, there is no instant riposte. This might suggest that his past leadership bids have not left a negative effect on voters. A quick scan of the right-wing blogosphere will also show much admiration for John Redwoods economic predictions on his blog.
Ken Clarke is not someone I would want to see as shadow chancellor - or as chancellor, and despite me being a little bewildered how some Conservatives seem to think he is the missing piece of the puzzle, he would be a good addition to the shadow cabinet. But he would need to have a remit that does not cross into Economic or European matters. If the aim of David Cameron is to have the strongest Shadow Cabinet possible, then Ken Clarke, John Redwood and David Davis should be included.
David Cameron should get someone in the shadow cabinet to shadow Peter Mandleson full-time. Labour would simply be unelectable if Peter Mandleson was to again leave the cabinet under the full storm of a media frenzy. David Davis could return and fill this role, and would probably enjoy and excel in such a role.
David Cameron has done a good job of getting Conservatives of varying opinions to function reasonably well as a shadow cabinet, and has largely brought an end to infighting between Conservatives through the media. It would be too easy for Labour to turn the Conservative Party against itself if Ken Clarke was Shadow Chancellor, in fact, I suspect Conservatives would not need Labour help there. But Ken Clarke is best when he has a challenge, he does garner support from a small section of the Conservative party that seemingly can reach.
If pushed for predictions as to what I have written I would say this.
1. No General Election in February.
2. George Osborne not replaced as Shadow Chancellor.
3. Gordon will be invited to the White House, but with other EU Leaders - spoiling his golden photo-op.
4. Opinion Polls will widen the Conservative Lead in January.
Twists and turns isn't the start of it, on two occasions this week I have sat down and tried to put some thoughts onto the blog about where this all might be leading, but news kept breaking taking the story in a different direction.
I do not think there will be an election in February, I of course can not be certain, but I wouldn't completely rule out an election in 2009. By early 2010, general consensus is (for what ever that is worth) that the economy will be bottoming out and the pain of the credit crunch will hitting families hard. Additionally, having run down the clock on a full five year term, Labour know the public psyche recall Brown "bottling it" in 2008.
Having said that, February 2009 could be, just maybe, the best possible time to have an election, if you are a Labour MP, Minister or of course Prime Minister. Look ahead, in your own mind to what we know, or strongly suspect will happen next year, and as the year goes on the news will just keep getting worse and worse for Mr Brown and Labour. Local and EU elections which will [probably] be bad news for Labour, a second Irish referendum on The Lisbon Constitutional Treaty will rightly bring a poor spotlight on Gordon Brown and on the EU, increasing unemployment, declining £, lower returns on savings, increasing public debt. And of course from February Mr Brown will have to curtail use of his favourite line about our economic problems stemming from the US, or risk being the first European leader to fall out with President Obama.
So on that rationale, February starts to look good, get it in before all of the above sets in, and there are potential benefits as well. Mr Brown will be absolutely aching to be the first world leader to get to the White House, and if he can, he will be writing his own headlines in early February. An unknown will be the performance of the High Street over Christmas and the January sales, if based on turn-out at my local shopping centre last week, Mr Brown can be spinning about his VAT cut stimulating Christmas Sales. However, if based on my local shopping centre today, he will it will not be good news, and the Conservatives will have something tangible to add to their assault on The PMs economic record.
I suspect that because February could be circled as a possible time to go before things get worse, Peter Mandleson, and some in his circle will have engineered a few stories and leaks to see what the polls will say. Polls do tend to return different results when an Election is looming. Especially, when the poll is asking respondents what issues they most care about, these will be the key policy areas. It is hard to see anything topping the Economy as the key factor, especially for young families.
However despite it all. Despite reckless borrowing and debt levels to fund yet more Public Expenditure, despite the possibility that Labour might just be able to squeak it in February, I don't think Gordon Brown will go ahead with it. I honestly think that the Prime Minister has concerns about how he will be perceived when electioneering. He will have to go around middle England and ask those people that he has taxed and regulated the hardest to vote for their local Labour MP when the mere sight of Gordon Brown is likely to have the opposite effect. I suspect, whether he would admit it or not that Gordon Brown views Middle England as his natural enemy, his polar opposite and I do not think he will be able to bring himself to go pandering for their votes. Instead, I think he will take one more year acting the role of statesman, travelling the world and seeking our bigger summits. Come 2010 there will probably be a juicy EU job on the table for him, in return for his implementation of the Lisbon Constitutional Treaty in the UK.
OK - all that being said, assume I am wrong for a minute; because if the idea of an election is being gently floated, if they decide to go for it, they will HAVE TO go for it... and I want to play out some more thoughts.
There is one area that might bring results for Labour, and I think it is an area they have moved the chess pieces on in the last year. A little over a year ago, the Conservative Party had two things going for them, a strong shadow leadership team fronted by David Cameron and George Osborne and the fact that the Conservatives are not in anyway associated to Gordon Brown.
A long holiday and a return to cabinet for Peter Mandleson has seen a rejuvenated PM and a more organised, more crafted message. Peter Mandleson has transformed the Conservative approach. They were briefly in the ascendancy, now they do seem to be very cautious, perhaps too cautious to attack Labour policy. My opinion is that there is a real fear that if they come out and say anything at all, they leave themselves in danger of being "SPUN". Thus, in recent weeks, there seems to be only David Cameron making appearances on MSM news, with careful narration following on from other key Conservatives. I am not sure if centralising the Conservative message will work for them. It may work well for Labour, but that is a core trait for them; 'Solidarity' and 'Co-ordinated Communication' on defined issues. The Conservative strength has always been the ability to be the party that can accept more than one line on most matters, it is why the Conservatives tend to be the party that best protects free speech and individual liberties.
Peter Mandleson immediately targeted the Cameron/Osborne alliance, and he has had some success there. George Osborne's position as Shadow Chancellor is under scrutiny. On Conservative and right-wing blogs the debate seems to have moved past if George Osborne should be replaced, to who should replace him. A double whammy hit for Peter Mandleson because the person most floated by Conservative Bloggers (and the Labour Trolls) is Ken Clarke.
Now, I am not a fan of Ken Clarke. I have declared on this blog in its short existence that I am an undecided voter as far as the next election is concerned, but if Ken Clarke is the Shadow Chancellor I will be quick to say I will definitely not be voting Conservative. I do not share the view that Ken Clarke is a "Heavyweight", some of his speeches have been very monotone and uninspiring. Ken Clarke voted against the Tory Line on Lisbon, and appeared with Tony Blair in support of adopting the Euro, which was damaging to William Hagues Conservatives. I do not think I am alone with my assessment, and though I am only speaking to my opinions, I do think that there are a lot other Conservatives who feel the same. I think it is too late to replace George Osborne and not hand Labour another five years; but if he is replaced, George Osborne needs to go to CC HQ for and get started on General Election Strategy and Planning. And if he is replaced, Ken Clarke is not the answer. If George Osborne has to go then I can see no one other than John Redwood being able to take over and be able to show up the Governments economic record, and being widely accepted by likely voters. Despite Ken Clarke and John Redwood having respectively chequered history within the party, when John Redwoods name is floated, there is no instant riposte. This might suggest that his past leadership bids have not left a negative effect on voters. A quick scan of the right-wing blogosphere will also show much admiration for John Redwoods economic predictions on his blog.
Ken Clarke is not someone I would want to see as shadow chancellor - or as chancellor, and despite me being a little bewildered how some Conservatives seem to think he is the missing piece of the puzzle, he would be a good addition to the shadow cabinet. But he would need to have a remit that does not cross into Economic or European matters. If the aim of David Cameron is to have the strongest Shadow Cabinet possible, then Ken Clarke, John Redwood and David Davis should be included.
David Cameron should get someone in the shadow cabinet to shadow Peter Mandleson full-time. Labour would simply be unelectable if Peter Mandleson was to again leave the cabinet under the full storm of a media frenzy. David Davis could return and fill this role, and would probably enjoy and excel in such a role.
David Cameron has done a good job of getting Conservatives of varying opinions to function reasonably well as a shadow cabinet, and has largely brought an end to infighting between Conservatives through the media. It would be too easy for Labour to turn the Conservative Party against itself if Ken Clarke was Shadow Chancellor, in fact, I suspect Conservatives would not need Labour help there. But Ken Clarke is best when he has a challenge, he does garner support from a small section of the Conservative party that seemingly can reach.
If pushed for predictions as to what I have written I would say this.
1. No General Election in February.
2. George Osborne not replaced as Shadow Chancellor.
3. Gordon will be invited to the White House, but with other EU Leaders - spoiling his golden photo-op.
4. Opinion Polls will widen the Conservative Lead in January.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)