Mr Brown's unexpected electoral legacy Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Mr Brown's unexpected electoral legacy
It had been just another hung-parliament day of clandestine comings and goings, more carefully worded communiqués, and further rounds of quibbling about small print. Then Gordon Brown emerged from No 10 and, with a brisk five-minute statement, changed the whole nature of the game.
In announcing his intention to resign as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party, Mr Brown bowed to the inevitable. He had led his party to defeat in the election; until a late rally in the final days, he had fought a lacklustre campaign. That he was still in Downing Street at all reflected the constitutional perversity of a result that had produced no overall majority. Until someone can cobble together a majority – or the Conservatives are left to try their luck as a minority government – Mr Brown has little choice but to soldier on.
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Monday, 10 May 2010
GORDON Brown has announced the Labour Party
GORDON Brown has announced the Labour Party is entering formal talks with the Liberal Democrats over a coalition - but he would step down as leader regardless.
The Tories and Lib Dems have been in talks again today following a frantic weekend of negotiations between the three main political parties.
Nick Clegg faced strong opposition from parts of his party to a deal with the Conservatives, with the Lib Dems seen as closer aligned to Labour on policy matters.
And this afternoon, Mr Brown said Labour will enter formal discussions with the Liberal Democrats over a 'progressive coalition'.
Earlier, East Lancashire politicians said they expected the proposed deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives to go through.
Labour and the Lib Dems would not be able to command a majority, and in the aftermath of Thursday’s poll Blackburn MP Jack Straw said a coalition “doesn’t look like it’s going to fly”.
Mr Straw, who bucked the national trend by increasing his majority in Blackburn, said he had 'other roles to play' should Gordon Brown stand down.
And he insisted Labour’s showing of 258 seats was not as bad as he had feared.
He said: “There have been times in the last six months when I thought we would be back to 1983, when we got 203 seats.
“Obviously Mr Brown will stay as leader as long has he wishes. It’s too early to say what will happen on that front.
“I am not a candidate for the leadership.”
Tory Ribble Valley MP Nigel Evans said he would be “absolutely stunned” if a Lib-Lab pact was formed.
He said: “I just hope that Nick Clegg will do what he said during the campaign, which was to support the biggest party.
“David Cameron now deserves the chance to govern this country.”
Mr Evans, who was re-elected last week with a 14,769 majority, claimed the Lib Dems’ flagship policy of a proportional voting system would lead to more confusion and hung Parliaments.
But he said: “I would be prepared to do almost anything if it was in the best interests of this country, There are no no-go areas.”
Lib Dem Gordon Birtwistle, who ousted Labour to become Burnley’s MP on Thursday, called on the party to “bury the hatchet” with the Tories, put demands of voting reform to one side and focus on improving the economy.
Blackburn with Darwen Council deputy leader David Foster admitted his leader was faced with a “dilemma”.
He said: “Nick Clegg has a responsibility to act as a statesman, but there are also key policy issues we put forward, which in many cases put us nearer to Labour.”
The Tories and Lib Dems have been in talks again today following a frantic weekend of negotiations between the three main political parties.
Nick Clegg faced strong opposition from parts of his party to a deal with the Conservatives, with the Lib Dems seen as closer aligned to Labour on policy matters.
And this afternoon, Mr Brown said Labour will enter formal discussions with the Liberal Democrats over a 'progressive coalition'.
Earlier, East Lancashire politicians said they expected the proposed deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives to go through.
Labour and the Lib Dems would not be able to command a majority, and in the aftermath of Thursday’s poll Blackburn MP Jack Straw said a coalition “doesn’t look like it’s going to fly”.
Mr Straw, who bucked the national trend by increasing his majority in Blackburn, said he had 'other roles to play' should Gordon Brown stand down.
And he insisted Labour’s showing of 258 seats was not as bad as he had feared.
He said: “There have been times in the last six months when I thought we would be back to 1983, when we got 203 seats.
“Obviously Mr Brown will stay as leader as long has he wishes. It’s too early to say what will happen on that front.
“I am not a candidate for the leadership.”
Tory Ribble Valley MP Nigel Evans said he would be “absolutely stunned” if a Lib-Lab pact was formed.
He said: “I just hope that Nick Clegg will do what he said during the campaign, which was to support the biggest party.
“David Cameron now deserves the chance to govern this country.”
Mr Evans, who was re-elected last week with a 14,769 majority, claimed the Lib Dems’ flagship policy of a proportional voting system would lead to more confusion and hung Parliaments.
But he said: “I would be prepared to do almost anything if it was in the best interests of this country, There are no no-go areas.”
Lib Dem Gordon Birtwistle, who ousted Labour to become Burnley’s MP on Thursday, called on the party to “bury the hatchet” with the Tories, put demands of voting reform to one side and focus on improving the economy.
Blackburn with Darwen Council deputy leader David Foster admitted his leader was faced with a “dilemma”.
He said: “Nick Clegg has a responsibility to act as a statesman, but there are also key policy issues we put forward, which in many cases put us nearer to Labour.”
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Prime Minister's Message
Thank you
From: Gordon Brown
Sent: 09 May 2010 10:55:25
To: renu@renukamarley.co.uk
Renu
The past few days have seen us enter a political landscape not considered possible a few short weeks ago – with the outcome of the election leading to no single party able to form a majority government. My duty as Prime Minister has been to seek to resolve this situation, but I also have another important role.
As Leader of the Labour Party I am writing to you to thank you for answering my call. We entered this poll knowing there were an unprecedented number of undecided voters.
Over the course of the campaign you knocked on millions of doors, spoke to people in their homes, their workplaces and delivered tens of millions of leaflets. I could not have asked for a better or more dedicated team, but on polling day you excelled yourselves again - and the excellent results in so many of our most marginal seats are testament to that.
Make no mistake, the voters who heard the case for Labour and chose to trust us with their vote – they heard it from you. This truly was the word of mouth election - whether face to face, via their own communities or online, people heard our message above the roar of a hostile media and a very well funded opposition.
My resolve has not, and will not, change. I pledged to do everything in my power to fight for the people of this country – to secure the recovery, to protect their livelihoods and to continue to fight for a future fair for all.
Let us not forget the passion of the hundreds of thousands of activists who took pride in Labour’s record, and our vision for the future and then with unparalleled conviction acted upon it.
Thank you.
Gordon
From: Gordon Brown
Sent: 09 May 2010 10:55:25
To: renu@renukamarley.co.uk
Renu
The past few days have seen us enter a political landscape not considered possible a few short weeks ago – with the outcome of the election leading to no single party able to form a majority government. My duty as Prime Minister has been to seek to resolve this situation, but I also have another important role.
As Leader of the Labour Party I am writing to you to thank you for answering my call. We entered this poll knowing there were an unprecedented number of undecided voters.
Over the course of the campaign you knocked on millions of doors, spoke to people in their homes, their workplaces and delivered tens of millions of leaflets. I could not have asked for a better or more dedicated team, but on polling day you excelled yourselves again - and the excellent results in so many of our most marginal seats are testament to that.
Make no mistake, the voters who heard the case for Labour and chose to trust us with their vote – they heard it from you. This truly was the word of mouth election - whether face to face, via their own communities or online, people heard our message above the roar of a hostile media and a very well funded opposition.
My resolve has not, and will not, change. I pledged to do everything in my power to fight for the people of this country – to secure the recovery, to protect their livelihoods and to continue to fight for a future fair for all.
Let us not forget the passion of the hundreds of thousands of activists who took pride in Labour’s record, and our vision for the future and then with unparalleled conviction acted upon it.
Thank you.
Gordon
UK Election 2010: Second Places, Swings And Regional Differences Source: by Anthony Wells, UK Polling Report Posted on: 9th May 2010
UK Election 2010: Second Places, Swings And Regional Differences
Source: by Anthony Wells, UK Polling Report Posted on: 9th May 2010
We know the Liberal Democrats didn’t end up increasing the number of seats they hold, but they did substantially increase the number of second places they have, and have more winnable marginals.
The notional 2005 figures had the Lib Dems holding 62 seats and in second place in 188. Following the 2010 election the Lib Dems hold 57 seats, but are in second place in 242.
On the 2005 notional figures the Lib Dems were within 10% of the winning party in 31 seats, now they are within 10% in 45 seats.
Conversely, Labour held 348 seats and were in second place in 151 – a total of 499. Those figures are now 258 and 160 (assuming they retain second place in Thirsk and Malton), a total of 418 and suggesting they have dropped to third place in an additional 81 seats.
Swings needed
Based on the 2010 results, the Conservatives would need a swing of 2% in order to gain an overall majority (meaning they would still need a lead of roughly 11 points over Labour to win an overall majority). In short, any effect from unwinding tactical voting or shifting voting patterns has not made the system kinder to the Conservatives.
However, it has got less kind to Labour. On the notional 2005 result, Labour could have got an overall majority by getting an equal number of votes to the Conservatives. From the 2010 results, Labour would require a swing of 5% in order to gain an overall majority, the equivalent of being 3 psoints ahead of the Conservatives. For Labour to become the largest party in a hung Parliament they would need a swing of 1.7%.
Regional differences
We have past instances of Scotland behaving somewhat differently to the rest of Great Britain (most obviously 1992, when England and Wales swung towards Labour, but Scotland swung to the Tories). This election produced an extreme contrast – in England and Wales there was a swing of between 5-6% from Labour to the Conservatives, in Scotland there was a 1% swing towards Labour, mostly at the expense of the Liberal Democrats, whose vote rose in England and Wales.
More unusually there was a significant difference between London and the rest of England. In London the swing to the Conservatives was only 2.5%, compared to 6.1% in the rest of England. Labour’s vote fell by 2.3% in London, but 8.2% elsewhere in London. Perhaps some of it is a Boris effect, but some will also be the high ethnic minority population in London. Labour’s vote seemed to hold up better in seats with a high ethnic minority population, and in some seats with a high proportion of Muslim voters Labour’s vote share increased as the Iraq effect from 2001 faded.
Marginal swing, and a puzzling question
The Conservatives performed only slightly better in marginal seats. In the country as a whole they had a swing of 5.03% from Lab=>Con, in Lab held marginal seats with a majority of under 10% they got a swing of 6%, in Labour held marginal seats with a majority between 10% and 20% they got a swing of 5.13%.
This does raise the question of why they got so many seats – they managed 305 seats, when on a uniform swing of 5% they should have got only 289. If they didn’t do better in the marginals, how come they won more seats than they should have?
There are two reasons. Firstly, while the mean average swing in Conservative marginals where they needed a swing of between 5% and 10% was only 5.13%, the median swing in those seats was 5.84%.
The mean was dragged down by some Scottish and London marginals where the Tories went backwards, but in most seats in that range the Conservatives did slightly better than their average performance across the country.
The other reason is sheer, dumb luck. There were 11 seats where the Conservatives and Labour were within 1% of each other and the majorities were under 500 votes, the Conservatives won 8 of them.
There were 75 seats where the Conservative share of the vote fell.
The final results in Great Britain are CON 37%, LAB 30%, LDEM 24%, Others 10%.
Source: by Anthony Wells, UK Polling Report Posted on: 9th May 2010
We know the Liberal Democrats didn’t end up increasing the number of seats they hold, but they did substantially increase the number of second places they have, and have more winnable marginals.
The notional 2005 figures had the Lib Dems holding 62 seats and in second place in 188. Following the 2010 election the Lib Dems hold 57 seats, but are in second place in 242.
On the 2005 notional figures the Lib Dems were within 10% of the winning party in 31 seats, now they are within 10% in 45 seats.
Conversely, Labour held 348 seats and were in second place in 151 – a total of 499. Those figures are now 258 and 160 (assuming they retain second place in Thirsk and Malton), a total of 418 and suggesting they have dropped to third place in an additional 81 seats.
Swings needed
Based on the 2010 results, the Conservatives would need a swing of 2% in order to gain an overall majority (meaning they would still need a lead of roughly 11 points over Labour to win an overall majority). In short, any effect from unwinding tactical voting or shifting voting patterns has not made the system kinder to the Conservatives.
However, it has got less kind to Labour. On the notional 2005 result, Labour could have got an overall majority by getting an equal number of votes to the Conservatives. From the 2010 results, Labour would require a swing of 5% in order to gain an overall majority, the equivalent of being 3 psoints ahead of the Conservatives. For Labour to become the largest party in a hung Parliament they would need a swing of 1.7%.
Regional differences
We have past instances of Scotland behaving somewhat differently to the rest of Great Britain (most obviously 1992, when England and Wales swung towards Labour, but Scotland swung to the Tories). This election produced an extreme contrast – in England and Wales there was a swing of between 5-6% from Labour to the Conservatives, in Scotland there was a 1% swing towards Labour, mostly at the expense of the Liberal Democrats, whose vote rose in England and Wales.
More unusually there was a significant difference between London and the rest of England. In London the swing to the Conservatives was only 2.5%, compared to 6.1% in the rest of England. Labour’s vote fell by 2.3% in London, but 8.2% elsewhere in London. Perhaps some of it is a Boris effect, but some will also be the high ethnic minority population in London. Labour’s vote seemed to hold up better in seats with a high ethnic minority population, and in some seats with a high proportion of Muslim voters Labour’s vote share increased as the Iraq effect from 2001 faded.
Marginal swing, and a puzzling question
The Conservatives performed only slightly better in marginal seats. In the country as a whole they had a swing of 5.03% from Lab=>Con, in Lab held marginal seats with a majority of under 10% they got a swing of 6%, in Labour held marginal seats with a majority between 10% and 20% they got a swing of 5.13%.
This does raise the question of why they got so many seats – they managed 305 seats, when on a uniform swing of 5% they should have got only 289. If they didn’t do better in the marginals, how come they won more seats than they should have?
There are two reasons. Firstly, while the mean average swing in Conservative marginals where they needed a swing of between 5% and 10% was only 5.13%, the median swing in those seats was 5.84%.
The mean was dragged down by some Scottish and London marginals where the Tories went backwards, but in most seats in that range the Conservatives did slightly better than their average performance across the country.
The other reason is sheer, dumb luck. There were 11 seats where the Conservatives and Labour were within 1% of each other and the majorities were under 500 votes, the Conservatives won 8 of them.
There were 75 seats where the Conservative share of the vote fell.
The final results in Great Britain are CON 37%, LAB 30%, LDEM 24%, Others 10%.
Saturday, 1 May 2010
BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill likely to cost more than Exxon Valdez • Oil rig explosion already causing political storm • BP could face criminal charges and ban on activities in US
* Environment
* Deepwater Horizon oil spill
BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill likely to cost more than Exxon Valdez
• Oil rig explosion already causing political storm
• BP could face criminal charges and ban on activities in US
* Digg it
* Buzz up
* Share on facebook (49)
* Tweet this (66)
* Terry Macalister
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 April 2010 22.49 BST
* Article history
'This region needs the Mississippi': the US government declares the incident 'a spill of national significance' Link to this video
Britain's biggest oil company was tonight facing an environmental disaster expected to cost more than the Exxon Valdez tanker spill as thousands of tonnes of floating oil began to reach the US Gulf coast.
As several coastal states declared a state of emergency and dispatched clean-up crews, BP was desperately trying to stem the flow of crude from its damaged offshore platform and to snuff out a growing political storm that has wiped billions of pounds off its share price.
President Barack Obama tonight sent officials from the US department of justice to monitor the company's handling of the crisis, while lawyers acting for victims of two earlier BP disasters in the US called for criminal charges and a ban on its activities there.
Fadel Gheit, an oil analyst at Oppenheimer & Co in New York, said the ultimate costs of dealing with the slick could rival that of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, which led to $3.5bn in clean-up costs and $5bn in legal and financial settlements. "This is a real pickle – it's a really challenging one. It's going to be difficult to choke off this spew of oil. Any solution is going to take time and I really think the cost here is going to be in the billions of dollars," he said.
Eleven offshore workers are missing, presumed dead, after the initial explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig last week, and BP was also severely reprimanded by safety authorities for a pipeline leak in Alaska and fatal refinery explosion.
The scale of the legal backlash facing BP was outlined by Brent Coon & Associates, an American law firm that played a large role in bringing cases against BP for the Texas City refinery fire in 2005. Today it filed a lawsuit on behalf of a rig worker injured in last week's blast, and argued that criminal charges should be brought against the company for its repeated failure to act after a series of industrial accidents in the US.
"They don't learn their lessons, they are the most arrogant bunch of bastards I've ever dealt with," said lawyer Brent Coon. "It's like they just don't care. At some point, we are going to have to put some of these executives in jail and withdraw their right to exploit our natural resources."
The chief executive of BP, Tony Hayward, said the firm, which has seen £12bn wiped off its share price since the accident, would do all it could to clean up and pay compensation. "We are taking full responsibility for the spill and we will clean it up and where people can present legitimate claims for damages we will honour them. We are going to be very, very aggressive on all of that," he said.
A BP spokesman said it was too early to say what had gone wrong or if anyone was responsible until investigations had been completed.
He pointedly referred to Transocean, the owner of the stricken rig, as having responsibility for many aspects of the drilling and declined to comment on any criminal or other legal claims.
The British oil company had outperformed its peers on the stock market last year, with a 24% increase in valuation on the back of a recovery plan implemented by Hayward. He had been forced to introduce what was thought to be much tighter controls of operations in the aftermath of accidents such as the Texas City fire – in which 15 died and 180 were injured – which led to the premature departure of his predecessor, John Browne.
Some believe BP had not been forgiven by some US politicians for lightning takeover raids in the 1990s that saw Lord Browne seize control of key US companies such as Amoco and Arco in quick succession.
But the Texas City fire gave the political establishment strong grounds for criticism after regulators damned the company for poor safety practices.
Gheit said the Deepwater spill was a "gamechanger" for BP. "It took five years for Exxon shares to shrug off the effect of the Exxon Valdez and only seabirds and otters lost their lives in that incident. With the Deepwater Horizon we are talking about eleven workers missing and after Texas City, Alaskan pipeline fractures and other incidents people are going to say there is something systematic here," he argued.Shrimp fishermen in Louisiana are also reported to have filed a class action against BP and others involved in the Gulf drilling accident, although a company spokesman said he could not confirm this.
The gathering political storm was evident when David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Barack Obama, said BP would pay for the clean-up, adding that no new oil drilling would be authorised unless proper safeguards were proven to be in place.
Tonight Alabama governor Bob Riley declared a state of emergency, saying the oil spill posed "a serious threat to our environment and economy". His declaration followed similar actions taken by the governors of Louisiana and Florida.
Meanwhile, Louisiana coastguard officials said an oil drilling rig on its way to a scrapyard had overturned in an inland waterway, but that no injuries or fuel leaks had been reported.
* Deepwater Horizon oil spill
BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill likely to cost more than Exxon Valdez
• Oil rig explosion already causing political storm
• BP could face criminal charges and ban on activities in US
* Digg it
* Buzz up
* Share on facebook (49)
* Tweet this (66)
* Terry Macalister
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 April 2010 22.49 BST
* Article history
'This region needs the Mississippi': the US government declares the incident 'a spill of national significance' Link to this video
Britain's biggest oil company was tonight facing an environmental disaster expected to cost more than the Exxon Valdez tanker spill as thousands of tonnes of floating oil began to reach the US Gulf coast.
As several coastal states declared a state of emergency and dispatched clean-up crews, BP was desperately trying to stem the flow of crude from its damaged offshore platform and to snuff out a growing political storm that has wiped billions of pounds off its share price.
President Barack Obama tonight sent officials from the US department of justice to monitor the company's handling of the crisis, while lawyers acting for victims of two earlier BP disasters in the US called for criminal charges and a ban on its activities there.
Fadel Gheit, an oil analyst at Oppenheimer & Co in New York, said the ultimate costs of dealing with the slick could rival that of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, which led to $3.5bn in clean-up costs and $5bn in legal and financial settlements. "This is a real pickle – it's a really challenging one. It's going to be difficult to choke off this spew of oil. Any solution is going to take time and I really think the cost here is going to be in the billions of dollars," he said.
Eleven offshore workers are missing, presumed dead, after the initial explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig last week, and BP was also severely reprimanded by safety authorities for a pipeline leak in Alaska and fatal refinery explosion.
The scale of the legal backlash facing BP was outlined by Brent Coon & Associates, an American law firm that played a large role in bringing cases against BP for the Texas City refinery fire in 2005. Today it filed a lawsuit on behalf of a rig worker injured in last week's blast, and argued that criminal charges should be brought against the company for its repeated failure to act after a series of industrial accidents in the US.
"They don't learn their lessons, they are the most arrogant bunch of bastards I've ever dealt with," said lawyer Brent Coon. "It's like they just don't care. At some point, we are going to have to put some of these executives in jail and withdraw their right to exploit our natural resources."
The chief executive of BP, Tony Hayward, said the firm, which has seen £12bn wiped off its share price since the accident, would do all it could to clean up and pay compensation. "We are taking full responsibility for the spill and we will clean it up and where people can present legitimate claims for damages we will honour them. We are going to be very, very aggressive on all of that," he said.
A BP spokesman said it was too early to say what had gone wrong or if anyone was responsible until investigations had been completed.
He pointedly referred to Transocean, the owner of the stricken rig, as having responsibility for many aspects of the drilling and declined to comment on any criminal or other legal claims.
The British oil company had outperformed its peers on the stock market last year, with a 24% increase in valuation on the back of a recovery plan implemented by Hayward. He had been forced to introduce what was thought to be much tighter controls of operations in the aftermath of accidents such as the Texas City fire – in which 15 died and 180 were injured – which led to the premature departure of his predecessor, John Browne.
Some believe BP had not been forgiven by some US politicians for lightning takeover raids in the 1990s that saw Lord Browne seize control of key US companies such as Amoco and Arco in quick succession.
But the Texas City fire gave the political establishment strong grounds for criticism after regulators damned the company for poor safety practices.
Gheit said the Deepwater spill was a "gamechanger" for BP. "It took five years for Exxon shares to shrug off the effect of the Exxon Valdez and only seabirds and otters lost their lives in that incident. With the Deepwater Horizon we are talking about eleven workers missing and after Texas City, Alaskan pipeline fractures and other incidents people are going to say there is something systematic here," he argued.Shrimp fishermen in Louisiana are also reported to have filed a class action against BP and others involved in the Gulf drilling accident, although a company spokesman said he could not confirm this.
The gathering political storm was evident when David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Barack Obama, said BP would pay for the clean-up, adding that no new oil drilling would be authorised unless proper safeguards were proven to be in place.
Tonight Alabama governor Bob Riley declared a state of emergency, saying the oil spill posed "a serious threat to our environment and economy". His declaration followed similar actions taken by the governors of Louisiana and Florida.
Meanwhile, Louisiana coastguard officials said an oil drilling rig on its way to a scrapyard had overturned in an inland waterway, but that no injuries or fuel leaks had been reported.
Liberal Democrat leader rejects tactical voting, and says the race for PM is between him and Cameron
Nick Clegg: we have taken Labour's place in UK politics
Exclusive: Liberal Democrat leader rejects tactical voting, and says the race for PM is between him and Cameron
Nick Clegg campaigning in Derby
Nick Clegg campaigning in Derby. Photograph: Darren Staples/Reuters
Nick Clegg today makes a bold pitch to Labour voters, claiming that the Liberal Democrats have supplanted Gordon Brown's party to become the natural home of progressive politics in Britain.
In a Guardian interview, Clegg accuses David Cameron of having no agenda for progressive reform of the country, and says the Lib Dems and Labour come from the same historical tradition.
He says he is rejecting all talk of tactical voting and is instead "going for broke" to maximise his party's share of the vote.
Clegg insists that the tectonic plates of politics are shifting, and the choice has distilled down to a vote for his party or a Conservative party that will "cast the country adrift".
The Lib Dem leader appears to suggest that any post-election arrangement with the Tories would be a coalition of convenience rather than principle when he asserts: "There is a gulf in values between myself and David Cameron," adding: "They have no progressive reform agenda at all – only an unbearable sense of entitlement that it's just their time to govern."
During the two years of his leadership, Clegg has successfully maintained a position equally distant from the Labour and Conservative parties, but today he emphasises that the Liberal Democrats have shared progressive history.
His remarks go further than before in suggesting that if he feels the electorate has given him a choice, his instinct will be to form an alliance of some form with Labour. He holds out no hope of securing electoral reform from Cameron.
He says: "What is striking is despite all the blather from Cameron over the past few weeks, he has made up his mind strategically to set his face against any profound reform of the political system. I think this will prove to be the biggest strategic error he has ever made, because one thing you cannot do is set your face against change when the demand for that change is so powerful that it is coming from millions of people.
"In terms of its DNA, the Conservative party is now the party of entrenched vested interests of politics."
Saying that he is now aiming for more than 100 gains on the party's 63 MPs, and even the largest share of the vote, Clegg says: "I don't think the choice is between Conservative and Labour – the choice is now between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats." Clegg's hopes of gaining more than 100 seats were confirmed by a Harris poll of voting intentions for the Daily Mail today, which put the Conservatives on 33%, the Lib Dems on 32%, and Labour in third place with 24%. If this poll result were reflected in the election, it could give the Lib Dems 137 seats.
While many progressives are calling for anti-Tory tactical voting by Lib Dem supporters in the key 100 Labour-Conservative marginals, Clegg rejects this advice.
He argues: "In an election where the tectonic plates are moving so quickly and so radically, people have got to go with their gut instincts. Once in a while there are elections where people should be released to do what they want, and I think this is one of those elections – I really do." He denies this shows he is willing to put his chance of overtaking Labour ahead of preventing a majority Tory government. "The Tories are nowhere near getting an overall majority. We are absolutely going for broke so far as the share of the vote is concerned."
He also makes it hard to see the basis of a Tory-Lib Dem coalition. "I think if you look at the debate last night, there is just a gulf between what David Cameron stands for and what I stand for – in terms of values, in terms of internationalism, in terms of fairness, in terms of progressive tax reform, in terms of political reform, in terms of simply living in denial, as does Labour, about a major problem of their creation in the immigration system."
Asked if the same gulf existed with Labour, he says: "I have always accepted the first part of Roy Jenkins's analysis which says that historically Labour and Liberal Democrats are two wings of a progressive tradition in British politics." But Clegg maintains his party cannot be an annexe of Labour, and there is a fundamental difference between the two parties over the individual and the state.
"There are some people in the Labour party that now get [it that] progressive politics has to be about empowerment, reducing dependency on the state, increasing social mobility through individual empowerment, releasing power from the centre politically – but it is not where the Labour party lies at heart. Listen to Gordon Brown's final message last night – it was: 'You're not allowed to take a risk on anyone else.' It's a very dismal, cramped and depressing message. That's why polls are putting us ahead of Labour, and that'll crystallise in the next few days into a two-horse race." Clegg insists that politics has been changed permanently by this election.
"I personally think both the Tories and Labour face profound crises of identity because they are both based on assumptions of mass support that have now evaporated. The arrogance of both the Conservative and Labour party that it's somehow their birthright to speak on behalf of millions of people. That's gone."
Exclusive: Liberal Democrat leader rejects tactical voting, and says the race for PM is between him and Cameron
Nick Clegg campaigning in Derby
Nick Clegg campaigning in Derby. Photograph: Darren Staples/Reuters
Nick Clegg today makes a bold pitch to Labour voters, claiming that the Liberal Democrats have supplanted Gordon Brown's party to become the natural home of progressive politics in Britain.
In a Guardian interview, Clegg accuses David Cameron of having no agenda for progressive reform of the country, and says the Lib Dems and Labour come from the same historical tradition.
He says he is rejecting all talk of tactical voting and is instead "going for broke" to maximise his party's share of the vote.
Clegg insists that the tectonic plates of politics are shifting, and the choice has distilled down to a vote for his party or a Conservative party that will "cast the country adrift".
The Lib Dem leader appears to suggest that any post-election arrangement with the Tories would be a coalition of convenience rather than principle when he asserts: "There is a gulf in values between myself and David Cameron," adding: "They have no progressive reform agenda at all – only an unbearable sense of entitlement that it's just their time to govern."
During the two years of his leadership, Clegg has successfully maintained a position equally distant from the Labour and Conservative parties, but today he emphasises that the Liberal Democrats have shared progressive history.
His remarks go further than before in suggesting that if he feels the electorate has given him a choice, his instinct will be to form an alliance of some form with Labour. He holds out no hope of securing electoral reform from Cameron.
He says: "What is striking is despite all the blather from Cameron over the past few weeks, he has made up his mind strategically to set his face against any profound reform of the political system. I think this will prove to be the biggest strategic error he has ever made, because one thing you cannot do is set your face against change when the demand for that change is so powerful that it is coming from millions of people.
"In terms of its DNA, the Conservative party is now the party of entrenched vested interests of politics."
Saying that he is now aiming for more than 100 gains on the party's 63 MPs, and even the largest share of the vote, Clegg says: "I don't think the choice is between Conservative and Labour – the choice is now between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats." Clegg's hopes of gaining more than 100 seats were confirmed by a Harris poll of voting intentions for the Daily Mail today, which put the Conservatives on 33%, the Lib Dems on 32%, and Labour in third place with 24%. If this poll result were reflected in the election, it could give the Lib Dems 137 seats.
While many progressives are calling for anti-Tory tactical voting by Lib Dem supporters in the key 100 Labour-Conservative marginals, Clegg rejects this advice.
He argues: "In an election where the tectonic plates are moving so quickly and so radically, people have got to go with their gut instincts. Once in a while there are elections where people should be released to do what they want, and I think this is one of those elections – I really do." He denies this shows he is willing to put his chance of overtaking Labour ahead of preventing a majority Tory government. "The Tories are nowhere near getting an overall majority. We are absolutely going for broke so far as the share of the vote is concerned."
He also makes it hard to see the basis of a Tory-Lib Dem coalition. "I think if you look at the debate last night, there is just a gulf between what David Cameron stands for and what I stand for – in terms of values, in terms of internationalism, in terms of fairness, in terms of progressive tax reform, in terms of political reform, in terms of simply living in denial, as does Labour, about a major problem of their creation in the immigration system."
Asked if the same gulf existed with Labour, he says: "I have always accepted the first part of Roy Jenkins's analysis which says that historically Labour and Liberal Democrats are two wings of a progressive tradition in British politics." But Clegg maintains his party cannot be an annexe of Labour, and there is a fundamental difference between the two parties over the individual and the state.
"There are some people in the Labour party that now get [it that] progressive politics has to be about empowerment, reducing dependency on the state, increasing social mobility through individual empowerment, releasing power from the centre politically – but it is not where the Labour party lies at heart. Listen to Gordon Brown's final message last night – it was: 'You're not allowed to take a risk on anyone else.' It's a very dismal, cramped and depressing message. That's why polls are putting us ahead of Labour, and that'll crystallise in the next few days into a two-horse race." Clegg insists that politics has been changed permanently by this election.
"I personally think both the Tories and Labour face profound crises of identity because they are both based on assumptions of mass support that have now evaporated. The arrogance of both the Conservative and Labour party that it's somehow their birthright to speak on behalf of millions of people. That's gone."
It's a revelation. That moment when you find the party you want to run for might be a tad racist
Series: Guardian diary
Previous | Next | Index
Diary badge
Diary
It's a revelation. That moment when you find the party you want to run for might be a tad racist
* Digg it
* Buzz up
* Share on facebook (11)
* Tweet this (7)
* Stephen Bates
*
o Stephen Bates
o The Guardian, Thursday 29 April 2010
o Article history
Diary illustration
• In what may count as the quickest conversion since Saint Paul, the Kenyan-born pastor James Gitau (pictured), who less than three weeks ago was campaigning for the BNP, is now standing instead for the Christian party, after making the surprising discovery that the BNP is a bit racist. It seems like only yesterday – it was, in fact, April 10 – that Gitau was strolling round Barking with Nick Griffin, but within the week he'd seen the light. It may be that the BNP's refusal to appoint him as its candidate in Croydon had something to do with it, but that's where he's standing now, under his new colours. He told the Croydon Guardian that he had joined the BNP because it was the only party that boldly speaks against sodomy in public, but he was at pains to add: "I don't hate homosexuals. I love them. They are my friends ... we're all sinners." Hallelujah, but he's still keeping his hotline to Griffin: "I am giving him advice that racism is not the way forward."
• Let's hope Nick gets the message. It seems doubtful that some of his supporters will. Here's one Claire Khaw – whose background, interestingly, is Malaysian Chinese, and who is acting as cheerleader for Jeffrey Marshall, the party's candidate in London's Bethnal Green and Bow – engaging in some recent banter on Facebook: "I see no harm in introducing a form of slavery with those who don't have the right papers and aren't British citizens. After five years they are free to go. They can re-enslave themselves for a further five years and thereafter become British citizens. It would solve the Labour shortage ... Then everyone would be happy." Mark you, Marshall sounds lovely, too: on record as saying, the day after David Cameron's son died, that it would be a kindness to kill children with disabilities. Wonder where he got that idea?
• And, while we're on the subject, mystery surrounds the identity of Peter Strudwick, last seen making a speech at a BNP meeting in Essex that was gushingly reported by the Brentwood Gazette, which claimed he was a former leader of Westminster council. The council says it has no record of anyone of that name ever being a councillor, let alone leader. Searchlight, the anti-fascist magazine, thinks Strudwick might actually be a chap called Sam Swerling, who was a Tory Westminster councillor for four years 30 years ago, and was at that time chairman of the rightwing Monday Club. In an article online Strudwick claims he was a councillor for "many years", which seems strange. In the unlikely event he's a Guardian reader, perhaps one, either or both of them might like to get in touch to clear the matter up.
• That's enough nasty rightwingers for one day. Kelvin MacKenzie, star columnist at the Sun, is £94 lighter in the wallet after accusing Trevor Phillips, head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, of splashing out public money to that amount on a bottle of wine while entertaining someone to lunch. "Couldn't it simply have been the house red ... he thought: 'The taxpayer's coughing for this.' Makes you throw up, doesn't it." Not half as much as MacKenzie himself, since being told Phillips bought the bottle with his own money. He's written him a cheque andpromised to set the record straight in his column but hasn't got round to it yet, so remember where you read it first.
• Hats off to author Dominic Shelmerdine, who says he saved Mark Thatcher from death in Chelsea yesterday lunchtime. "I said to him if he'd been successful with that coup in Equatorial Guinea he'd have been lauded as a hero in the press and he said, yes, probably. Then he nearly walked in front of a car." I think we can all agree Shelmerdine's done the nation a favour.
• And from the too much information department: Lou Reed, interviewed by Record Collector magazine: "OK – you have one more question. I have to be someplace. I'm having a testicle removed, so I'm a little nervous."
Previous | Next | Index
Diary badge
Diary
It's a revelation. That moment when you find the party you want to run for might be a tad racist
* Digg it
* Buzz up
* Share on facebook (11)
* Tweet this (7)
* Stephen Bates
*
o Stephen Bates
o The Guardian, Thursday 29 April 2010
o Article history
Diary illustration
• In what may count as the quickest conversion since Saint Paul, the Kenyan-born pastor James Gitau (pictured), who less than three weeks ago was campaigning for the BNP, is now standing instead for the Christian party, after making the surprising discovery that the BNP is a bit racist. It seems like only yesterday – it was, in fact, April 10 – that Gitau was strolling round Barking with Nick Griffin, but within the week he'd seen the light. It may be that the BNP's refusal to appoint him as its candidate in Croydon had something to do with it, but that's where he's standing now, under his new colours. He told the Croydon Guardian that he had joined the BNP because it was the only party that boldly speaks against sodomy in public, but he was at pains to add: "I don't hate homosexuals. I love them. They are my friends ... we're all sinners." Hallelujah, but he's still keeping his hotline to Griffin: "I am giving him advice that racism is not the way forward."
• Let's hope Nick gets the message. It seems doubtful that some of his supporters will. Here's one Claire Khaw – whose background, interestingly, is Malaysian Chinese, and who is acting as cheerleader for Jeffrey Marshall, the party's candidate in London's Bethnal Green and Bow – engaging in some recent banter on Facebook: "I see no harm in introducing a form of slavery with those who don't have the right papers and aren't British citizens. After five years they are free to go. They can re-enslave themselves for a further five years and thereafter become British citizens. It would solve the Labour shortage ... Then everyone would be happy." Mark you, Marshall sounds lovely, too: on record as saying, the day after David Cameron's son died, that it would be a kindness to kill children with disabilities. Wonder where he got that idea?
• And, while we're on the subject, mystery surrounds the identity of Peter Strudwick, last seen making a speech at a BNP meeting in Essex that was gushingly reported by the Brentwood Gazette, which claimed he was a former leader of Westminster council. The council says it has no record of anyone of that name ever being a councillor, let alone leader. Searchlight, the anti-fascist magazine, thinks Strudwick might actually be a chap called Sam Swerling, who was a Tory Westminster councillor for four years 30 years ago, and was at that time chairman of the rightwing Monday Club. In an article online Strudwick claims he was a councillor for "many years", which seems strange. In the unlikely event he's a Guardian reader, perhaps one, either or both of them might like to get in touch to clear the matter up.
• That's enough nasty rightwingers for one day. Kelvin MacKenzie, star columnist at the Sun, is £94 lighter in the wallet after accusing Trevor Phillips, head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, of splashing out public money to that amount on a bottle of wine while entertaining someone to lunch. "Couldn't it simply have been the house red ... he thought: 'The taxpayer's coughing for this.' Makes you throw up, doesn't it." Not half as much as MacKenzie himself, since being told Phillips bought the bottle with his own money. He's written him a cheque andpromised to set the record straight in his column but hasn't got round to it yet, so remember where you read it first.
• Hats off to author Dominic Shelmerdine, who says he saved Mark Thatcher from death in Chelsea yesterday lunchtime. "I said to him if he'd been successful with that coup in Equatorial Guinea he'd have been lauded as a hero in the press and he said, yes, probably. Then he nearly walked in front of a car." I think we can all agree Shelmerdine's done the nation a favour.
• And from the too much information department: Lou Reed, interviewed by Record Collector magazine: "OK – you have one more question. I have to be someplace. I'm having a testicle removed, so I'm a little nervous."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)