Well, that is probably inevitable anyway. Political honeymoons that last a long time tend to be followed by savage changes in fortune (Nicolas Sarkozy, please note). Gordon Brown enjoyed a bounce in the polls after he killed off, er, sorry, I meant took over from Tony Blair; he was able, however spuriously, to appear all statesmanlike amid the various natural disasters, almost-successful terror plots. But the shooting of the young boy in Liverpool, adding to a spate of gun crimes, has put crime higher up the political agenda, which may hurt Brown; the recognition that Brown has, after all, been finance minister since 1997 and therefore bears a fair share of the current difficulties, is starting to break into the public awareness. And the latest issue which could really wipe the smirk off his face is Europe. His attempt to slyly sign up to a EU Constitution in drag is unacceptable, and thank goodness if it is true that many Labour MPs and some ministers feel the same way.
Seeing is believing, of course. But somehow, I think life is going to get a lot rougher for the government. The question as always is whether the opposition will fully exploit it.
The question as always is whether the opposition will fully exploit it.
Snigger.
You have to be kidding. What does it say about this opposition that a government as HATED as New Labour is in no danger?
There is no chance that the tories will offer a believable alternative.
I’m with Counting Cats on this one. NeuArbeit is hated but has there been a swing to iDave’s ToryLite? Or to Ming’s Mob?
One example – John Prescott. My cat would’ve made a better job of it and not screwed the hired help (he’s a rescue cat and therefore “done”).
So why haven’t these bozos been deep-sixed?
We’re trying our best:
(Link)
Mr Brown has made taxes much higher and more complicated and has vastly increased government spending (and both taxes and government spending were crushing already in 1997).
The “independent” Bank of England is controlled by people appointed by Mr Brown – so the vast credit-bubble increase in the money supply over the last several years must also be laid at his door.
The latest European Union treaty is indeed the constitution by another name – and government ministers, including Mr Brown, are lying through their teeth when they deny this.
So there we have it. Mr Brown stands for taxing, spending and credit bubble expansion. And he also stands for handing over yet more power to the E.U. – whilst telling lies about the matter.
As for the Conservative party……
Well perhaps it is better that I say nothing about a party of which I have been an active supporter since the general election of 1979 (although I wish they would stop asking me for money – the money I steal from the local taxpayers is my only source of income).
Surely, Johnathan, you jest.
The real question is: how will the tories manage to screw up yet another priceless opportunity? What brilliance will they employ to make themselves look even more irrelevant?
Ask yourself instead: WWCD (what would Churchill do)?
The Old Tory would vote UKIP.
Since I don’t live there, my comments are those of an outsider. In all this, I haven’t heard of Cameron’s views on Europe. Does he have any? Is he in favour of a strong Europe, or an alliance called Europe?
And how lucky is London? It is going back to being the world financial center, because of a favourable time zone, AND English is becoming the de-facto world language, even in Europe, despite the British not joining the EU! Perhaps splendid isolation is a viable policy for you once more?
Nick, he’s mostly in favour of lying about Europe. This makes it tough to know what his underlying views are.
eg. His chief leadership campaign pledge was to leave the EPP-ED party in the European Parliament, on the basis that the Conservative party had a nuanced view on federalism and the EPP-ED was wholeheartedly federalist. He later reneged on that pledge.
eg. He regularly talks about withdrawing from the Human Rights Act, suggesting that this would mean that people lost these rights. He has been clear that he would not repudiate the European Convention on Human Rights, however, so we would still have absurd results, it’s just that the rulings would come from Albanian judges sitting in Strasbourg rather than from British judges. With luck, Cameron is right that Albanian judges are better educated, more in tune with British culture, and less likely to produce absurd results. Still, his descriptions of the effects of his policy are uniformly misleading. They are good enough, however, to fool the Economist.
eg. He talks about Britain having a trade policy and suggests that he will have influence over it.
eg…. I should get back to work, but the short answer is that no, we have no idea what Cameron’s honest opinions are. With luck, we’ll find out when he’s a back bench MP writing his memoirs after narrowly losing the next election.
we’ll find out when he’s a back bench MP writing his memoirs after narrowly losing the next election.
Well, the danger there is that if he narrowly loses the election he may be able to spin that as a victory, given that the tories have lost the last few elections by landslides.
He has to be not just beaten, but beaten soundly.
UKIP. Tell all your friends, force all your family. Blackmail them if necessary.
Remember – UKIP.
Force the tories to start talking to them.
“How lucky is London”.
Well locally Red Ken is back (and spending more and more money).
More importantly the E.U. is planning all sorts of financial regulations – so, in a few years, “the City” will be in deep trouble.
You did ask.
As for Mr Cameron – he has been dealt with above.
An “alliance called Europe” – not on offer and never has been.
The E.U. is not E.F.T.A. and was never intended to be.
This morning Mr Osbourne (Conservative party Shadow Chancellor) confirmed, on B.B.C. Radio 4’s “Today Programme”, that the Conservative party will match whatever increase in government spending that the Labour party government comes up with.
He also confirmed that there would be no overall tax reductions by a Conservative party government – and tax reductions in one area would be “balanced” by increases in “green taxes” (which lets the cat out of the bag that such “green taxes” are NOT about helping the environment – as if people changed their behaviour because of them they would not raise the revenue Mr O. is counting on).
So it seems that Mr Brown has nothing to fear on the tax and spend front.