1066 votes, and all that

Water

So Davis spoke hahaha.

RW

Good to see you can still remember some of your schoolboy history, Fraser. The vast majority of today's secondary age children would find these references to past events completely incomprehensible.

Is it true the SNP might field Elaine C. Smith, of Rab Nesbitt fame (she played his wife Mary) in Glasgow East? where she lives and is very popular, apparently. That could be a Salmond masterstroke.

Trumpeter Lanfried

Will the Tories field a candidate in Glasgow East, or give the Nats a free ride? (Tempting.)

Ted B

If another Labour MP is meant to be going wouldn't it be in Labour's interest to have the by-elections on the same day to stretch the SNP's resources and probably guarentee the holding of Glasgow East? Even though they'd probably lose the other one it would reduce the bad headlines ("Brown loses 13k majority"). Or is it likely Labour don't actually have the resources to fight to by-elections simultaneously?

Adam McNestrie

Alexander’s resignation shames us all. She hasn’t gone because she technically, but insignificantly, breached the rules – she’s gone because the media and the public have combined to create an atmosphere of cynical accusation. Britain hates its politicians – or comes very close to hating them. For some arcane reason – our self-hatred projected outwards? our resentment at having anyone lead us – it seems to be almost universally accepted either that only corrupt people enter politics or that the life of a politician will corrupt anyone who happens to take it on. Politicians are crooks, peculators and charlatans, everyone of them on the make. MPs are just after a sinecure; they run their offices like PLCs; they laugh behind-closed-doors at the credulity of the voters.

Come on now. This atmosphere has become ridiculous, almost McCarthyite. We all ought to recognise that for the most part our politicians are just like us. Some of them are knaves, some of them fools, most of them are neither – they are just men and women going about their business, trying to make a positive contribution.

Read more of my views my linking to my blog, Just who the hell are we? on wordpress.com, at:
http://adammcnestrie.wordpress.com/

Fraser Nelson

RW, you're right - if Salmond gets Elaine (who turned SNP last year) then Brown could well lose this. And can I just repeat that to lose Glasgow East would be worse than any setback he has seen so far? It's just huge.

Trumpeter, the Tories can field mother theresa in East Glasgow if they like - no one will vote for them. But they will defo field - if only to make SNP victory surer.

What Salmond needs to do is convey to his activists that this is a totemic goal, that if they win here they can win anywhere. It's a ravens/tower thing. If the SNP descend on Glasgow East like Tory activists did in Crewe, dividing the constitunecy into five party and going all out, they can win it. One must remember that Crewe was an organisational victory. The SNP must do one too.

Slim Jim

Adam McNestrie - your defence of the political class is astonishing. They've only got themselves to blame, haven't they? This country has been subjected to the greatest con-trick in political history (new Labour), and they were more than happy to manipulate a compliant media to promote their deceptions and chicanery. I do not doubt that the majority of MPs are decent souls, but collectively, they and the systems that they devise, monitor and regulate themselves are essentially corrupt. New Labour will be regarded by historians as the party that brought British politics to an all-time low. Whoever takes over from them (and it can't be anyone bar the Conservatives, whether in coalition with others or not) will have an incredibly difficult job to repair the damage. Perhaps you disagree, but the polls are telling us another story...

Cassius

Adam McNestrie: I do not understand how commenters such as yourself seem to know what the rest of the populace is thinking. - eg "Britain hates its politicians".
For me alone, a past confidence in the integrity of the vast majority of parliamentarians has now been replaced by a suspicion that corruption and a lack of ethical behaviour are endemic, and that therefore in my eyes the onus is on them to prove innocence.

Tiberius

New Labour is mainly responsible for the low esteeem in which our politicians are held. They are human - they make mistakes and face tempatation like the rest of us particularly, for example, from an expenses and honours system that is poorly controlled or regulated.

The political conditions in 1997 presented Labour with the opportunity to play on these frailties, and they successfully demonized the Tories or anyone else they chose (speakers on race or immigration, slave-driving employers) such that huge swathes of society have spent the last 11 years walking on eggshells to avoid being burned at the stake. Politicians, commerce, education, and our social structure have all suffered from the consequences of Labour's fanatical, almost autistic obsession with its witch-hunts.

With the demise of New Labour, it is to be hoped that society is so weary of these exhausting practices, that the Tories can intall some roll-back and champion commom-sense once again.

Perhaps the drivel from Harridan in Parliament last week can in time come to be seen as the dying breath of New Labour lunacy.

Well I can dream, can't I?

John Page

The Mail suggests the Glasgow East MP is quitting over expenses - which would surely only make things worse for Labour in the by-election.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1030240/Marshall-shock-resignation-rumours-expenses.html

Chuck Unsworth

Adam McNestrie

McCarthyite? Do you know any history at all?

Who has the power here? The public - once every General Election, or the Politicians - each and every day?

What's an 'insignificant' breach of the 'rules'?

You may feel shame. I can feel nothing but delight that this ghastly devious little harridan has finally got her come-uppance. More please.

Max Kaye

Adam McNestrie says: "... for the most part our politicians are just like us. Some of them are knaves, some of them fools."

What's wrong with getting rid of the knaves and the fools, then?

Kevyn Bodman

Fraser,
'a ravens/tower thing'.
I would bet that fewer people would understand this than know what happened in 1066.

Water

"Cameron has had his fun, and can take the summer off" he's earned it. Won't the SNP take solace in the results down here; sure they'll be wanting more of the same. Call it pincer or vice like, the man Mc B is being driven in to middle earth, how soon before the SNP’s fell beasts gobble him up? May take a while, there is enough to go round and in this state the Labour machine, as you say, may not be able to defend itself.

Nicholas

Slim Jim, Cassius, Tiberius and Chuck Unsworth all good posts in response to Mr McNestrie's continuing attempts to swim against the tide in provoking our thoughts.

Tiberius catches the revolutionary aspect of New Labour which exploited spin and media manipulation as a cynical means to an end to a degree not seen since the rise of the National Socialist movement in Germany during the 1930's. It seems to be so firmly embedded in the New Labour psyche that most of its practitioners appear unable now to distinguish between truth and lies. The other legacy of this extraordinary political movement is the belief that the end always justifies the means, the resulting dogma thus literally paving the road to British ruin with New Labour good intentions.

New Labour's posture has been increasingly righteous and its oratory shrill. A paradox to its failing fortunes where humility might have served it better. The ideology driving the policies, often confused and contradictory, has dropped pragmatism, common sense and realism along the way. In the wake of Blair an inferior set of intellects (I use that word advisedly) has occupied the cabinet under a man sadly deluded as to his own capability but determined to be seen to be holding the reins of power - regardless.

This is a man who so jealously guards the privilege of lone command and is so defensive to its criticism that the second front of spin he inaugurated and now presides over is redolent of Stalin or Mao. Every Sunday we are treated to media pre-advertisement of the new and improved policy launches scheduled for announcement in the week. Headline grabbing statements of cloud cuckoo land aspiration intended to achieve one thing and one thing only. A change in the polls. Yet Brown was the man who avowed firmly he would not do this - that announcements would be made to parliament first and then reported in the press, as had been the parliamentary status quo for hundreds of years until New Labour darkened the Palace of Westminster doors. Shame on you, Brown, and as far as I am concerned a blow struck against your mediocre cabal is a blow struck against you - and to be savoured.

So Adam McNestrie, don't generalise a hatred for New Labour by those who can see through it as a hatred for politicians per se.

Harry T.

It says a lot for my hatred of Labour that I'm willing to accept Elaine C. Smith as an MP just to see them lose Glasgow East.

Verity

Read more of my views my linking to my blog, Just who the hell are we? on wordpress.com, at:
http://adammcnestrie.wordpress.com/

Not if you paid me.

Incidentally, you don't seem to know much American history. McCarthy was right and has been so recognised for at least 20 years.

Verity

PS - Clever headline, Fraser.

Ian C

To delay or not to delay?

If the election is deferred until September it will be mid-party conference season and a humiliating loss or nil all draw type result would finish Gordon. If left until October and for either outcome, one of which is most likely, would be even more devastating.

I am looking for odds on GB being removed this autumn and a spring/February election? What price? He cannot survive.

Verity

Ian C - I agree with you. He cannot last until the GE. His own people seem to loathe him as much as I do, and that is quite a formidable volume of hate.

Chris

1066 votes - one in the eye for Gordon, as somebody said on politicalbetting.com. Mrs Rab C. Nesbit for the SNP, eh? That's the intellectual quality of the case for Scottish Nationalism incarnated, if it happens.

Water

"He cannot last until the GE" I wish I could agree, I don't see him budging till inevitable occurs (though I hope I'm wrong).

Fergus Pickering

Yeah, what is a ravens/tower thing?

RW

Tower of London, Fergus. Ravens. Kingdom lost if they ever fly away. Glasgow East as Labour citadel. Defeat = Collapse of fiefdom. Totemic for SNP.

Fraser Nelson

Fergus, thought you would know that!

http://www.castles.me.uk/ravens-in-the-tower-of-london.htm

TGF UKIP

Fraser, I sense a great deal of hypocrisy on this website presently both from hacks and from Coffee Housers.

Since Thursday I have been waiting patiently for comment on the position of the Chairman of the Conservative Party since new and obviously well founded allegations were made. This is a Tory Party website but while there has been lots about Wee Wendy etc not a peep about Spelman.

To put the matter into context let me quote Guido who is obviously far more capable than The Speccie of taking an impartial and objective view on such Tory matters. "Essentially she only stopped fiddling payments to her nanny when her real secretary grassed her. It really does mean the end now. She fiddled and stopped only when she was reported and she lied about the whole thing when exposed. That is not a tenable position.

There is a whispering campaign to make this a mother versus misogynists issue. It is actually an anti-corruption issue. The Spelmans are a wealthy couple, they could easily afford a nanny - they chose to fiddle from the taxpayer. PLENTY OF LOW INCOME MOTHERS ON BENEFITS HAVE GONE TO JAIL FOR FIDDLING THE SUMS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE."

What is also fascinating comes from Guido's link to Sky who reveal that Spelman's secretary who "grassed" her was the wife of Tory MP Stephen Hammond. I do urge Coffee Housers to go to Guido and link to Sky on this.

It says a great deal to me about the relationship of this magazine to the Cameron Tory Party when neither the Political Editor of The Spectator nor any of his colleagues feel free to pass any comment on the position of the Chairman of the Tory Party when such serious allegations are made.

However, the whole issue speaks even more loudly to the nature of the Leadership of the Tory Party and I would ask Coffee Housers to consider the following.

Just a very few days ago there was a great deal of entirely justifed Coffee House scorn and indignation over the the Harman proposals on "positive discrimination/affirmative action etc" or to put it bluntly women and ethnic minorities to have precedence over white males. I pointed out at that time, however, that all Harridan was doing was codifying what was already Cameron practice and cited the "A"List, "a third of Cameron cabinet to be women" and the gerrymandering of MEP seats in favour of either sitting MEPs or women.

The Spelman case now takes this discrimination though a stage further. Once again putting the issue into context, Patrick Mercer was instantly sacked from the front bench based on the obviously spurious allegations from Labour of racism. Now the plainly tarnished Spelman who is subject to allegations far more serious and sustainable than those attaching to Mr Mercer is in Cameron's eyes truly "unassailable" and unsackable.

If Ms Harman were to instigate an award for the most praiseworthily discriminating employer I would certainly hope that she would give the most serious consideration to Mr Cameron.

Meanwhile, I trust the Spectator's silence on Caroline Spelman will buy it lots of future Tory "scoops."

Kelli

It's a big test for Salmond and his moment to shine and to grab a piece of the big Mo Cameron has.

Tom

Surely if Brown gets a 'Glasgow kiss' in the by election he will have to be forced out. If Labour cannot win in Glasgow East they can't win anywhere. Salmond should use all his political skill to make this by election a referendum on Brown and the Westminster Labour party.

Kathy Miers

This is Glasgows chance to show what they think of Brown and New Labour. He has took Scotland for granted for too long, so how appropriate it could be the Scottish that deliver the final blow to his Premiership.

Tiberius

TGF: you are not a Tory supporter - this blog and its mainstream are. I don't think it unreasonable to allow the Parliamentary Ombudsman to decide whether she is guilty as charged. The blog's absence of convicting her prematurely is actually matched by its lack of defence, if it's a balanced approach you're looking for.

When the story broke, I actually complained about the lateness of the blog to comment on the story. This is because there are things to say in defence.

(But first, this is no reflection on Cameron, your spiritual arch enemy, because it happened in 1998. To expect him to put this unnecessarily to the forefront is unreasonable).

Firstly, Michael Crick's reputation as an investigative journalist was compromised by his pursuit of IDS and Betsy, a pursuit which proved unjustified when no charges were ultimately made.

Secondly, Caroline Spelman's attackers have to answer who did her secretarial duties before the professional secretary was appointed. Her cat?

Furthermore, this blog has not, for example, made a big hoo-ha over the Balls/Cooper expenses. The Harridan thing is a matter of policy, not personal integrity, and so is more than fair game. As for wee-Wendy, she has actually resigned, so we do have an actual "conviction" to discuss.

As for Mercer, he was speaking about an issue that had contributed to the Tory wilderness years. Politically, he was acting like a dunderhead. It didn't matter whether what he said was true or not - we're all playing a game called politics, and we won't get on if we break its rules.

So I don't think your charge of hypocrisy sticks, tbh.

The real villain of the piece for Spelman, Ball/Cooper and Derek Conway, as I have commented before, is the Parliamentary expenses system which would get the boot from any worthwhile private enterprise.

I would wager, my old sparring partner, that if Spelman goes, ther will be lots of discussion on here about its effect on the Tories' subsequent operational and political position. My guess would be not much in either sphere.

Slim Jim

I was having a look at labourhome.org and there's a thread entitled, 'Gordon must go'. I liked this post from a person called Dingbat:

'I'm afraid to say we're doomed, and frankly we deserve it, big time. Another comment above says that we have to lose to move forwards and that is quite true. We've just gone too far with a lot of the stuff we've done, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. I reckon the biggest issue for the electorate is excessive tax and spend, and now the coffers are empty there's no contingency to fall back on other than yet more borrowing and even higher taxation. A line in the sand was crossed some time ago on tax, and the 10p fiasco simply highlighted this, drew it to the attention of the masses. And the car tax issue is an even bigger ticking timebomb and yet those in charge press on regardless despite the dire warnings. £400+ to tax a £400 car? I don't think so. Also we've not been honest about our true motives in fundraising, and the (actually rather intelligent) public have now seen through this. If we portray a tax as "green" then let's have a green tax and overall revenue neutrality. But oh no, we just keep putting taxes up, and with no visible benefits to those who pay. We've spent more on services true, but much of that has just gone on fuelling public sector wage inflation, with little if any service enhancement. Is it any wonder that we're failing in the polls? We frankly deserve to lose. We spend too much, inefficiently, and we don't listen to what the electorate say. There are issues with the EU too - The irish no should mean no, and the constitution (let's be honest about that - calling it another name was a dishonest fudge) should die now, never to be resurrected. And David Davis has now raised the profile of civil liberties issues that many in our own party have been very uneasy about for a long time now.

So...

We tax too much
We spend too much, inefficiently
We don't listen
We are authoritarian
We're dishonest
We're on the make

I'm not entirely sure all this is Gordon's fault - Tony would probably be suffering just as much from many of these issues had he stayed. And he was a hard act to follow, in terms of his charismatic personality, which Gordon clearly doesn't have.

But frankly we don't deserve to win the next election. The sooner we lose the sooner we can start to rebuild for a subsequent win, so maybe best to accept that, go to the country now and be done with it. If we don't make some very serious changes, we will never recover, and oblivion is Labour's future.

I don't like writing this but it's the way I see it.'

Dingbat

Hear, hear Dingbat! If that is what Nulab supporters are saying, then I think I can hear the fat lady sing...

Verity

Tiberius - If you suddenly found yourself in a war zone, who would you rather have by your side: Cameron or Mercer?

And Cameron did indeed mandate institutional "reverse" (ridiculous term) discrimination with his frilly little A-lists.

I'd rather see Mercer the Leader of the Conservative Party than europhile Cameron.

TGF UKIP

Tiberius, too near match time to respond in detail, I will come back either later or tomorrow night - I recorded the cricket from last night and still have that to watch.

Meanwhile, I am tempted to say that you are reinforcing my belief that Tiberius is indeed a pseudonym for Fraser Nelson.

Ian C

TGF - it goes unsaid on this 'Tory website' that if she's guilty she gets the chop - no argument. I have argued, along with other Coffeehousers, in defence of Wee Wendy in the circumstances.

Cheap shot, but that was predictable.

Chris

Let it be added, in response to the Spelmaniacs hereabouts, that she referred the matter to whoever it is who deals with these things herself, despite a lapse of time which whoever it is (sorry, can't be bothered to research it) said made it something he wouldn't normally investigate.

And by the way, I called Guido a name that would get this post rejected for putting words into Spelman's mouth, and then attacking her for saying something she hadn't said. That told me all I needed to know about his forensic impartiality in the matter.

Anan

In the words of another Scottish MP: She, and the rest of the Labour party are simply and utterly noaut fit forrr purrrpose.

Pete, Scotland

The more the UK gives up power & control to some European unelected dictatorship the more I am inclined to vote SNP.

Maybe then at least a small part of what is becoming an increasingly irrelevant UK can reclaim democratic accountability over it's politicians Irish style.

RW

The Spelman "story" is just rehashed rubbish, IMHO. Nothing in her employment history will become her like the leaving of it. She was a nonentity promoted above her level. The main point is that once she's out of the way the path is clear for a genuine five-star electoral talent: Eric Pickles.

Ann

Adam seems to think it no matter, or an 'insignificant' matter, if the people who legislate for the rest of us are crooks and criminals. Fortunately, the majority of the rest of the population still disagrees, and abhors knaves and thieves in high office.

McCarthy was right, eh? Right to preside over a fascist inquisition? Oh, dear ...

Ann

"Caroline Spelman's attackers have to answer who did her secretarial duties before the professional secretary was appointed. Her cat?"

Excellent point, and excellent post (as most of yours are). This point alone makes nonsense of all the attacking posts here, whether or not from obsessive Cameron-haters.

Ian C

Pete, Scotland - you have a point. One that is too late for Labour to realise but one the Tories would be foolish to ignore.

Fraser Nelson

TGF, that was below the belt. You can tell Tiberius' style a mile off - he is far less verbose than me. And Pete, be careful - Salmond loves the EU even more than Brown. Hence his oxymoronic "independence in Europe" slogan.

Pete, Scotland

Fraser, I accept that. But the way I see it I have 3 choices:

1. Passively go along with the mainstream UK parties taking us headlong into a EU Superstate without any democratic mandate.

2. Start supporting a smaller, more democratically accountable 'system' of Government of which the SNP would be just a part.

3. Apathy and a feeling that my democratic vote has little value.

At the moment Salmond is trying to be all things to everybody, but woe betide him, or any other party, if he tried to do what this current Government are doing.

I have always believed that the UK was greater than the sum of it's parts but I think Labour are changing a lot peoples' minds about this.

It is Labour that are breaking up the UK not Salmond.

Verity

"Facist",Ann?

People were called to appear before a formal enquiry in Congress. How is that Fascist? After testifying, they went home and slept in their own beds. The American Constitution is rock solid. Britain is sliding into Fascism, but the Americans are protected by their Constitution - perhaps the greatest document ever written in the history of the world. Or sharing that status with their Bill of Rights. If you've never read it, read it and weep, for what has happened in Britain cannot happen in the US.

In Britain, the government is tapping phones and emails. Now, petty functionaries in local councils, for God's sake, are tapping phones and inspecting citizens' rubbish bins! And you dub a formally constituted, legal enquiry held openly in the United States Congress, filmed and on live television "Fascist".

Tiberius

Oh such flattery, Fraser, but there are plenty of good reasons why you're the journalist and I'm, er, not.

Incidentally I thought Matt's piece in yesterday's ST was one of those defining analyses he periodically produces.

Forza Tories!

TGF UKIP

Fortunate, indeed, are those Speccie hacks and editors who can rely on Tiger Tiberius to spring so ferociously to their defence. Clearly, Tiberius, you do not share the Denis Thatcher view of journalists.

However, while it clearly is your alter ego, Fraser, who is the hack I am beginning to quite firmly form the view that your past/present occupation must be that of lawyer or PR man so dexterously do you deploy such specious arguments.

Which takes us back to La Spelman and The Spectator, for if you choose to read my post again you will see that it was not, firstly, about was the guilt, innocence or otherwise of Mrs Spelman or her cat. It was about the absence of any mention on this blog of the developing story.

Putting it into context, the issue had been raised and progressed on the BBC's flagship current affairs programme and while we both might agree on Crick being a particularly loathsome specimen of BBC Leftie the allegations were serious, particularly when the subject was the Chairman of the Conservative Party a position of traditionally great political prominence and prestige.

Moreover, while it might be tempting to just dismiss the Newsnight piece as simply another piece of BBC bias what cannot be by-passed is that the Spelman allegations were recounted with some force by Guido and heavily reinforced with the information provided via his link to Sky.

And here we must put Guido into context. Guido is a Cameron supporting Tory and his blog is vastly more influential and receives many more "hits" than does the Coffee House. However, Guido is remorseless in his pursuit of "snouts in troughs" be those snouts Wintertons, Watsons, Spelmans or Balls.

So when Newsnight and Guido ran as heavily as they did with the Spelman story it was, and is, worthy of remark that this blog chose to make no mention of the developing story when at its centre was the Chairman of the Conservative Party.

(Incidentally, if my memory serves me correctly, along with yourself I too commented on the Speccie's original reluctance to mention the Spelman story when it first broke.)

As I am sure you know, I do have suspicions on the nature of the relationship between Cameron and The Dear Editor and while I am very well aware that proprietors, editors and journalists have almost inevitably , given their great influence, long acted as political players as well as commentators (who has more influence on how the public view the Tory Party - the ubiquitous Fraser Nelson or the invisible Peter Ainsworth?) the difference is that these days we have blogs like this to try to point out that the duty of the editor and his hacks is to their readers and not to their political mates. A relationship of that nature should be left to Kevin Maguire.

This brings me then to the matter of Cameron's position in this for it is Dave who has chosen to hold on to Spelman and in effect give her his protection rather than sack her and for you to claim "But first this is no reflection on Cameron ....because it happened in 1998" is disingenuous and simply unworthy of you Tiberius. Similarly, when you say "As for Mercer, he was speaking about an issue that had contributed to the Tory wilderness years."

To take this latter point first, is there any issue which Labour pinned on the Tories and contributed to the "wilderness years" more than "Tory sleaze" and on the first point it is entirely irrelevant when the alleged irregularities took place it is Cameron who is shielding Mrs Spelman now in 2008. Moreover, do you have the slightest doubt that if these damaging sleaze allegations were concerning one of the male Shadow Cabinet members, his resignation would have been required by now? Perception is all in politics and the detail of the latest revelations in this saga are severely damaging following, as they do, immediately on the Tory MEPs expenses scandal.

I am sure you, too, must feel uneasy at all this political correctness and gender engineering of Cameron and his CCHQ crew. So, too, I would guess must all those able and ambitious Tory women who wish to make their mark on their own merits rather than be known as "Dave's Darlings" and be treated with the same amused contempt by the media as have been "Blair's Babes." That's where special treatment, gerrymandering and special protection ends up.

On one point we do probably agree, that is that Caroline Spelman's departure if and when it comes will probably cause relatively few ripples in the political pond which probably accurately reflects the tokenism of her position and the extemely perceptive view of her by the lovely Ms Lightwater.

As for her replacement, well if he appoints Eric Pickles and chooses to listen to him, we might get rather less PC nonsense from your man Dave in the future.

Tiberius

TGF: last word to you here, except for your 10th para: I don't see the unworthiness of exculpating Cameron over his judgement over a 10 year old allegation. And Mercer was a policy issue, not a personal integrity issue - I feel there is a distinction, the latter being entitled to a defence whether for a man or woman.