Quote of the day

- Resign!

Shouted by several MPs in the chamber of the House of Commons on the announcement of the Gurkha vote result.

Who would vote Labour now?

From UK Polling Report -

"The Telegraph have published the first voting intention poll since the budget. The topline figures in the YouGov poll, with changes from their last one, are CON 45%(+4), LAB 27%(-7), LDEM 18%(+2). It was conducted between Wednesday and Thursday afternoon."

Labour at 27% is universally seen as a low figure. It seems staggeringly high to me.

Who the f*ck are these people? Do you know anyone - anyone - who says if there was an election tomorrow they would vote for this bunch of corrupt, smearing, bankrupting, authoritarian incompetents? Fair enough, you might not be able to face voting Tory, but surely you'd vote Green or abstain - not positively vote for Labour?

Is this a class thing? A geography thing?

Really: why aren't Labour on, I don't know, 15% tops? What would it take to get their support down to that level? It seems to me, on this evidence, that the entire Cabinet could be found to be running a paedophile ring, and Labour would still be bouncing on 21, 22% in the polls.

Inside the Treasury

- courtesy of the genius of Matt

@andyburnham

Just checked Andy Burnham's Twitter feed.

"in toilets at work shaving off pubes. am collecting them in plastic bag to make sweater for my rabbit!! lol!!

5.46pm from Twitterberry"

I mean, this man's in the Cabinet. Is there nothing we can do?

Viz and the Cabinet

It's one of the key issues of our time, yet one which the so-called serious press has been nervously side-stepping - which Viz characters do members of the Cabinet most resemble? And after some in depth research and analysis, JMP is able to provide some answers.

Harriet Harman is easy. The humourless harridan is 85% Millie Tant; and after recent performances of pathological, transparent mendacity ('Goodwin got his knighthood for services to the Princes Trust'; 'women are suffering more than men in the recession') she must also be counted 15% Aldridge "he's a hopeless liar" Prior.

David Miliband is also relatively easy. The banana-holding schoolboy Foreign Secretary is a 60% Mr Logic and 40% Student Grant.

Ed Balls is, clearly, Finbarr Saunders.

Andy Burnham, quite possibly the biggest knob in the Cabinet against stiff (fnarr fnarr) competition is Terry Fuckwit.

Jacqui Smith is Tracey Tunstall, Fat Slag, of course.

Jack Straw reminds me irrestistably of Playtime Fonteyn.

And Alistair Darling must be one of the Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats.

Any other suggestions welcomed.

Update: dNo nails Tony Blair in the comments as a cross between the Modern Parents and Aldridge Prior.

Analogy of the day

The Chancellor is not an evil man, but is so far out of his depth that sonar systems can no longer track him. Like Mr O'Reilly, the Irish builder in Fawlty Towers, with each attempt at fixing the previous botched job, he creates a new, more threatening, set of problems. In the end, the roof falls in. Where's Mr Stubbs when we need him?

- Jeff Randall, Daily Telegraph

Jack Straw and the Iraq Cabinet minutes

Am I the only person in the blogosphere to think that the use of the Ministerial veto power to override the information Tribunal's decision and prevent the publication of the minutes of Cabinet discussions relating to the invasion of Iraq was entirely right?

Charlie Falconer (one of the few Labour ministers of recent years who you can imagine it would be fun to have a pint with) said on Radio 4 the other day that Cabinet members had to be able to be free and frank in discussion in 'a private space'. 'The critical point is, do you want cabinet government and collective responsibility to continue?' I completely agree with him. This would inevitably be the thin end of the wedge; publication in this case would be used to argue for publication in others. Sooner or later, publication of the minutes would be the default position, and rather than honest discusission, positions would be taken in Cabinet only with a view as to how they would play in the press.

Critics say that Blair practically destroyed Cabinet government anyway. Perhaps he did; but that's not a reason to knee it in the balls further. And as Clare Short's recent comments have illustrated, if you take that line it's likely that you will believe that there will be little of interest in the minutes in any event.

Talking of Short, I'm currently reading her book An Honourable Deception?, which might as well be subtitled, Why I was Right About Iraq And Why Tony Is A Bastard. I have to report that she is a terrible, terrible writer: leaden, plodding prose, sanctimonious and utterly devoid of humour, giving no insight at all into what it's actually like to be a Minister. Think of the polar opposite of Alan Clark and you'll be about right.

Bob Piper comes to Prescott's rescue

Labour councillor and entertaining blogger Bob Piper on Prescott and Goodwin, in an exchange with me in the comments on Mr Dale's blog:

"However, the fact that Prescott has thought through the inevitable consequence of ripping up the contract, rather than just spouting nonsense without thinking, merely goes to show he is a more thoughtful blethering twat than Cameron."

Goodwin (again)

The attention on Goodwin is obvious naked (and rather unattractive) politics and spin by the Government, to deflect attention from the wider financial crisis, and I can't believe how the mid-market Tory leaning papers, such as the Express and Mail, have fallen for it. Frankly, I don't really care about this one, rather greedy man - in fact, I have a sneaking admiration for his sticking to his guns in the face of massive public opprobrium. (Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his reputation for his pension...) The sums involved are tiny, absolutely tiny, compared to the vast, unquantified liabilities faced by the state under its insurance scheme for toxic loans. Brown and Darling should be in the firing line, not Goodwin.

Quote of the day

Or, to be more accurate, yesterday -

"Because she's mad."

- a "senior Labour source", quoted by Deborah Summers on the Guardian's politics blog, on why Harriet Harman is so disliked in the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Alan Johnson's 'authenticity'

I keep reading, in the context of renewed gossip around the Prime Minister and the leadership of the Labour Party, that Alan Johnson is well-placed and well-thought of because he is 'authentic'.

What does that mean? Is 'authentic' a new codeword for 'working class'?

jacquismithgate

Campbell foresaw Mandy back under Brown

"13 May 2003

...

We [Piers Morgan and Alastair Campbell] discussed my Mandelson show. 'Yes it was interesting. I agree with you he was right to be sacked first time, but not the second, with hindsight.'

'Could you have him back again?'

'I don't think so, no. Everyone would just slate Tony for taking a risk again. But if Tony ever stood down, and Gordon took over leading the party, for argument's sake, then he'd be mad not to give him something.'

- The Insider, Piers Morgan's vastly entertaining 'memoirs in diary form'

Prince Charles in 'being an arse' shock

An eye-opening anecdote from Richard Dawkins:

A friend and colleague of mine was seconded into the civil service to head an important government agency, where his scientific expertise was put to good use. On one occasion, he met Prince Charles at a drinks party and the Prince promptly launched into an attack on his agency. The details don't matter here, it could have been homeopathy or GM crops or any of half a dozen bees in the Royal bonnet. The point is that my friend, as he is well qualified to do, mildly remonstrated along the lines of, "With respect, Sir, I think you'll find you are mistaken. The facts are . . ." Without another word, the Prince simply turned on his heel and walked away. An equerry immediately approached my colleague, a very distinguished scientist and Fellow of the Royal Society, and said, "One doesn't disagree with the Prince."

Jesus.

Dawkins also lays into Charles' notorious desire to be - if he ever becomes king - 'Defender of Faith', not 'Defender of the Faith'. I share his irritation for three reasons.

1. There is no logic in it. Why defend all 'faith'? Why defend Scientology and Islam and Buddhism and Christianity and paganism indiscriminately?
2. On the surface it's drippily wet and inclusive - as Dawkins says, who can doubt it's meant at least in part to 'reach out' to Muslims? - but in fact it elevates all 'faith believers' over non-believers. It posits more expressly than the old formulation that atheists don't need defending. Again - why not?
3. Like mooted plans to make prayers in Parliament 'multifaith', it proposes a change to our constitution without a proper understanding of the possible consequences and implications of doing so.

For more erudite analysis from a Christian perspective, espeically on point 3 above, see Cranmer here.

Your daily cynicism and despair

Hazel Blears on political blogging this week:

"Until political blogging 'adds value' to our political culture, by allowing new voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair."

Now in what way does blogging - which, for the first time in history, allows the citizen to publish his views to a global audience in real time, for free - not allow "new voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge"? For fuck's sake. In its utter lack of logic and use of thought-free buzz-words - anybody want to add some value? - it's a quite incredibly vapid and stupid remark. Oh, am I "fuelling a culture of cynicism", Hazel? So sue me.

What she means, of course, is that political blogging is dominated by right wing men, and she doesn't like them and she doesn't like what they produce. The instinct of this authoritarian government, in the face of this, is to attack the bloggers, and, no doubt sometime down the line, to attempt to 'regulate' them, rather than to rejoice in this new space for democratic debate and encourage left-wing bloggers to meet the challenge of Guido, Dale et al. We've already had murmurings from the EU on blog regulation, which no doubt the Government is quietly encouraging.

Update: I realise I didn't point out above  the sinister use of the phrase "legitimate protest and challenge". It suggests Hazel thinks some political blogging is illegitimate, which is worrying in the extreme.

"A laminated poll tax"

So says Chris Huhne of identity cards: the Liberal Democrats have been good on this. Mock-ups of cards for immigrants, which will be issued from November, firstly to non-EU students and marriage visa holders, were 'unveiled' today as the saying goes. They will be told they must have the card when they apply to extend their stay in Britain.

Jacqui Smith tells us that the cards will people "easily and securely to prove their identity". "Allows" is, of course, a deeply ingenuous adjective in the circumstances, as these people will have no choice as to whether to have such a card or not. The message is, at the same time as being misleading, a deeply populist, dogwhistle one -  "We want to be able to prevent those here illegally from benefiting from the privileges of Britain," and the information the cards contain will apparently help HMG to do that.

They will do bugger all to fight terrorism, partly because they won't extend to people who are here for less than three months, and the latest press-release doesn't focus on the T word.

The Conservative position is to oppose the identity card scheme but to support the use of biometrics in immigration documents. I have some sympathy with that, as long as it is recognised that biometrics can be hacked.

Labour are justifying the introduction of identity cards for these groups of immigrants on the express basis of strengthening  immigration control. Hmm. To use groups who do not have the vote as a guinea pigs for this project is nasty. And the information will be held digitally and centrally - let's hope securely, eh? But I still don't see what the purported justification will be when they seek to introduce the cards for the indigenous population in a few years' time. 'Immigration control' as a reason to demand Mrs Jones from Worcester to report to an ID interrogation centre when renewing her passport for a trip to Spain won't really cut the mustard, will it?

It genuinely amazes me that Brown is using up vanishingly rare political capital to progress this fantastically expensive, deeply illiberal project.

Miliband and his shocking preposition

David Miliband is universally agreed to have had a pretty crappy Conference. "Hezzagate"; gurning like a loon at every opportunity; it wasn't a triumph.

But now there is further, deeper evidence that the boy-man is not fit to lead his party.

Attacking - but not actually denying, natch - the BBC's reporting of the Heseltine moment comment, he is reported to have said that "it is something that they should know better than".

Good God. For Chrissakes man, sort it out.

Fairness

So Gordon Brown will continue to push the theme of 'fairness' in his speech today. 'Fairness' is dominating the airwaves today.

I just wanted to say that 'fairness' is such a quintessential Brown/Labour term. It sounds ok - who's going to stand up and say they're against fairness, that they're pro-unfair? - but it means bugger all when you try to analyse it. There's a hint of left red meat, something bit chunkier than Blair-era Labour, but still nothing substantive. When you pick it up it falls apart. It's a blank canvas on which both the BNP and the SWP could paint their colours.

Labour and the polls and Andy "ffs" Burnham

Can they go any lower than polling results giving a Tory majority of 146? Or is it the case that the only way really is up?

Latest received wisdom seems to be that global financial apocalypse is actually good news for Gordon Brown and that he seems more relaxed because of it. You know things are bad when what we've seen in the markets this week counts as a welcome political boost.

Latest putative challenger to the Crown appears to be the featherlight Andy Burnham, who, when he was on Newsnight about a year ago, I had to switch off out of pure embarrassment, such was his inability to string a sentence together. Here's his faux-naive response in the Sunday Times to the question - which would be arrant madness in more normal times -whether he would be interested in the top job:

“Aaahhh, I’ve gone all hesitant. How do I answer that? . . . Who knows what the future holds? This may sound all corny but I have already gone way beyond what I thought I would ever achieve in politics . . . whatever I can contribute to the Labour party I will carry on doing.”

Pass the Capita sick bag. 

NEC ducks its clear duty

The NEC of the Labour Party has refused to issue nomination forms despite requests to do so. It said in its press release -

"The NEC fully endorses the view of the Labour Party's General Secretary and the party's independent legal advisors. A Leadership election when in Government can only be held if requested by a majority of party conference on a card vote, only Labour MPs can trigger the process and the NEC is confident that most MPs know their responsibilities under the rules.

"The Labour Party has followed this procedure for 11 years, as long as we have been in government under these present rules, and it has not required the issue of nomination forms at any time."

Here are the relevant rules (Labour Party Rule Book 2004):

4.B(ii). Where there is no vacancy [for leader or deputy leader], nominations shall be sought each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.

4.D(ii). When the PLP is in government and the leader and/ or deputy leader are prime minister and/ or in Cabinet, an election shall proceed only if requested by a majority of party conference on a card vote.

I can't see any ambiguity. There is a clear duty to seek nominations each year where there is no vacancy.

If I was a Labour Party member, I'd be pretty pissed off over this.

Incidentally, the BBC item on the Rules doesn't mention the duty to seek nominations at all.