25 July 2008

Glasgow Defeat Is Good Result For Labour.

There could not be a clearer signal to get rid of Brown than...
losing a seat where last time we got over 60% of the vote. Yet still, Labour MPs are in denial. I don't know what grip Brown has over them - Brown has the staying power of a Kremlin leader.

Short of Brown losing his own safe seat in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Labour vote share less than Glasgow East) - something that is now looking increasingly possible in the massacre that faces Labour in 2010, yet MPs continue to refuse to listen and depose him as leader. 'Come back Blair, all is forgiven' now sounds a plausible cry.

Surely, this latest defeat will shake them to their senses. If not Labour will be crushed in 2010 and it will be their fault - MPs fault NOT the membership who they refuse to listen to. GIVE US OUR SAY! Without a democracy in the party, how can we ever get one in the country.


  1. Interesting.

    Who d'you think will be the next leader? And will he or she own up to the fact that Nulab's economic miracle was just a property price bubble (copyright Barber, Lawson), which you posted about years ago?

  2. Mark, Whoever is leader, it would take a miracle to win in 2010. This no more 'boom and bust' stuff from Brown made me spit my coffee over the living room when I first heard it, to hear it now just makes me laugh.

    Brown spent public money in 2000 just at the right time - insulating us from the dotcom debacle. But the credit crunch is much bigger and borrowing will have to balloon just to maintain current public spending.

    Yet still Brown pretends we are 'prepared for the worst'. Absolute codswallop from a man who should never have become leader.

    I think Alan Johnson would be a good stop-gap leader to carry us to the next election. He could repair a lot of damage that Brown has done by speaking more openly about our mistakes (and actually being believably sincere about it). I think if we choose Johnson and the polls became closer then we should call a snap election even if we were destined to lose. I really don't think waiting till 2010 is going to help us.

  3. Mark, just to add - some of the backbenchers and 'young turks' in the cabinet who were pushing for an autumn election last year must be furious at Brown's dithering.

    You are absolutely right about debt and the housing market - it was obviously overvalued. I have been predicting a recession and housing crash every year since 2001 and every year (until now) I have been wrong - but I knew it had to come and the longer it took the harder it would be. Talk of 30% falls in prices were laughed at a few years back -not now - yet it was all so predictable. Why do we always believe the hype of never-ending price rises.

  4. I think it is politically impossible for Labour to replace Brown without an election. Replace your leader once without an election, you can get away with, as there are plenty of historical precedents - Churchill/Eden, Wilson/Callaghan, Thatcher/Major. But you can't do it twice and not expect huge public disquiet. That's why I think you are stuck with Brown until the next election.

  5. Stephen: You forget Sir Alec Douglas Home - he wasn't even an MP when the Tories made him PM in 1963 (even their MPs didn't elect him). So it is pointless to talk about precendents - we have no written constitution so Labour can do whatever they like until 2010. What is accepted is what works. The Tories were facing similar electoral armmageddon in 1990 under Thatcher, replaced her with Major and 2 years later won. At the time this was said to be 'unprecedentted etc and that they 'should' have had an election. There is no reason why Labour cannot replace Brown with someone more popular (considering the state of the party Michael Foot could do better than Brown) and then go on and do well in the next GE in 2010. People have short memories - if they like the replacement better than Brown - he will probably do better. I don't see how Labour could go any lower than this - it seems they don't have a seat in the country that is safe under Brown - so what have Labour got to lose? I tell you what, Cameron and the Tories don't want to see Brown removed - which should tell Labour members all they need to know.

  6. Sir Alec D-H, good call, people forget about that one (I am pretty sure there were three Tory PM's in one parliament)

  7. But Neil, your hoped-for putsch has one problem - who are you gonna put in his place?

  8. Sorry, I see you've suggested Johnson, but it won't be him - it'll be the devil AKA David Miliband, the most loathsome, insincere, fake politician in the land.

  9. I don't think the public would accept another leadership coup, Brown will have to resign. My own choice as leader would be Johnson, he's not seen as part of the old regime and fresh enough to look and feel new.He also has a habit of not indulging in 'politic speak' and actually addressing the issues.Brown even sends me to sleep and I'm a party member!!

    Another reason to pick Johnson is quite basic and straightforward. He's English.It's no use pretending that a Scottish PM with a Scottish seat isn't a problem for us, it is.

  10. Hello Neil:

    I was interested in your point of view I saw on the B4L site and thought I might have a gander!

    Is that OK? or are you going to do a 'BOB Piper' on me too? ;O)

    I would be interested to hear what you thought of Gordons little speech outside the conference he was at, about being the 'right man for the job' & 'getting on with the job' & 'listening to the British people' etc, etc.
    Was this the same speech he gave after Crewe & Nantwich?

    It's interesting that you say he should never have become leader of the Labour Party; does that mean you preferred Tony Blair, despite the Illegal Iraq War?

    BTW....I see B O B! has replied to you over on B4L......I have also left a comment, just in the interests of a 'balanced' viewpoint, you understand.
    I do realise that as he's Labour whilst I'm 'ex Labour'......my credit rating will probably be lower with you, however, you do seem to be less slavish in your support for Brown which probably explains why YOU don't have to censor your thread.

  11. SH: Maybe you and Bob should come to a truce - you obviously have wound each other up.

    As for Bob's policy on swearing. Not a fan of too much swearing but in context it is ok. Saying that, if Bob is clear in saying no swearing on his blog then that is something you should accept.

  12. Oh well!

    I take it you didn't read the posts to see that it was not I that indulged in swearing first.

    But then as I said......Bob's Labour whilst I'm not!

    But thanks for replying anyway.

  13. SH: I did read the post on B4L. Bob was out of order to send a nasty email but I would just take it in your stride. Good Luck.

  14. Hi Neil,

    Yes, you're right of course.


    Keep well.