Saturday, November 11, 2006

How Could Labour Increase Its Majority?

Every few weeks I take a look at Jeffrey Archer's BLOG to see what he's been up to. It's rather good, actually. I was particularly interested in his entry from 3 November where he recounts a lunch with The Sun's Trevor Kavanagh...

Thursday. I had lunch today at the Tate Gallery with Trevor Kavanagh, former political editor of The Sun, now considered the doyen of the profession. Trevor believes that both Labour and the Conservatives have everything to play for, and that the transition to Gordon Brown before the next Labour party conference will be fairly smooth; but like me, he isn't sure what the outcome of the next general election will be. He feels this will of course depend a great deal on the initial impact Brown has as Prime Minister - though he knows one senior political editor who has taken a bet on Labour increasing its majority.

Come again?! I'd love to know the circumstances under which that would happen. I can only think of three possibilities...

a) LibDems cease to exist due to bankruptcy and their supporters defect en masse to Labour
b) David Cameron is caught in bed with a sheep on the eve of poll
c) Labour introduce all out postal voting

So who is this 'senior political editor'?


Anonymous said...

I'm no psephologist, but I think it is worth hedging one's bets in terms of a labour renaissance.

You mention the Lib Dems - they do not need to go bankrupt; they are on course to self destruct. Their last election result was their high water mark, and they know it.

That is why they were disappointed despite their [relatively] good result. And with the Kennedy cat out of the bag they could easily be annihilated at the next gen. election. I don't have the skills to predict in which marginals this will matter most, and whether the lost lib dem votes will help tory or labour candidates most - but Ming's 'fog of war' and complete shambles on policy is for my money far more significant than anything happening on Cameron's front bench

If you think that sounds crazy consider that there are relatively few labour / tory marginals - many more are fighting over the centre ground.

Anonymous said...

Kavanagh is and always was a prick, and Archer deals in fiction.

They're winding you up.

Anonymous said...

"Come again?! I'd love to know the circumstances under which that would happen. I can only think of three possibilities..."

They hold all their current seats and they gain Bethnal Green

Anonymous said...

Depends when he took the bet. 6th May 2005 perhaps?

Anonymous said...

jeffrey archer has a blog??? thanks for pointing this out Iain. and it makes for some interesting reading.


Anonymous said...

Brown probably has plans for a 'night of long knives' including the liquidation of all opponents: 'Gordalknacht' if you will.
Polly Toynbee will be Minister for Information

Right is right said...

Maybe the editor was from 'A Fucking Idiots Guide To Politics By Dreamers Who Haven't Got A Fucking Clue'???

David Lindsay said...

How about no Tories at all bother to turn and vote (or, at least, bother to turn out and vote Tory rather than UKIP or whatever) in Scotland, Wales, the North, the Midlands, and possibly most of the West Country and much of East Anglia as well? After all, why the hell should they? To vote for what, and for whom, exactly?

There have been very slight Tory gains in Scotland, Wales and the Midlands, but here in the North even the farming seats are turning against the Tories: Westmorland and Lonsdale lost to the Liberals, Beverley and Holderness nearly lost (to Labour, not even to the Liberals), even Hexham (the only seat never to have elected anything except a Tory) now a three-way marginal. UKIP is active and, by its own standards, particularly long-established in Hexham.

Cameron, Vaizey and Gove might register majorities of the kind that Labour MPs used to manage from the miners, but so what? Where are the miners now?

Anonymous said...

You're all talking as though it's 1998. I believe the disillusionment with the socialists is very grave, with the native British feeling pushed aside in their own country - and our country was built and fought for by our ancestors, who we remember and love.

And we would have to be brain dead not to be aware that most inventions in the modern world were invented by us - whether here or in the US or the rest of the Anglosphere. Not in Pakistan or Bangladesh. The legal system of the entire Anglosphere derives from English Common Law. The impertinence of immigrant populations who want to elevate their primitive desert laws proves the point that they do not understand democracy. But they have their apologists - who don't ever come up with any reasoning other than "Shut up!" in Labour.

The sense of outrage is accumulating a head of steam, especially in those areas plagued by immigrant ghettoes and illegal habits like halal butchery on the streets of Britain. No one asked for "multiculturalism" in our monocultural country. No one was consulted, and there is now a sense that islamics have been accorded elevated importance because of their usefulness as a tool with which to intimidate the indignes.

Tony Blair and his ilk have no interest in the islamic immigrants. How many islamic friends do they personally have at their dining room tables in Islington and Notting Hill?

All these islamic special pleading gigs like the muslim council, muslim parliament and other unelected undemocratic rubbish quangoes ... Why? We've had a Parliament for centuries; why do the islamics, from a more primitive society need special representation when they already have representation in the mother of Parliaments?

To cut a long story short - or, as Dorothy Parker once said, "Too late!" - old style socialist voters feel they have been deserted by the party their grandfathers built. They will desert to the BNP in their droves.

So will a large tranche of Tory voters who don't take kindly to having their native land threatened by practitioners of an alien religion that doesn't recognise democracy and whose adherents don't understand the country they were born into - mainly thanks to kowtowing politians - and preach violence to the indigenes on our streets.

Tories will go to the two other parties, as well because both have well-defined, well-articulated intentions. Those are, UKIP and the BNP. My guess, the Tories will go to UKIP if there is one running in their constituency. If not, I suspect large numbers will go for the BNP.

Do not blame the voters. Blame the pusillanimous, power hungry, craven politicians on both sides.

I don't think the socialists will increase their majority. I think they will sluice away votes.

Anonymous said...

Don't underestimate the socialists' dirty tricks. Chippy thugs like Prescott or Broon seem convinced that the Tories are the devil and only Labour has righteousness on its side. We've already seen Labour fighting dirty with postal voting, and the electoral system is rigged in its favour, so who knows what they'll come up with next time? They certainly haven't scrupled to rig hospital closures or the Council Tax against Tories and Lib Dems. Dr David Kelly's life was sacrified by the NuLab spin machine, whether intentionally or not hardly matters. I've always been struck by the nihilism of New Labour concerning everything except winning elections, and I don't think I'm the only one.

Anonymous said...

Very informative. Didn't know Cameron had Welsh roots.

But you're right, it doesn't look good:

Anonymous said...

After hearing what Gordon Brown has said after the BNP trial he has shown that Cheri was right about one thing.

Gordon Brown is a dangerous NUT CASE not fit to govern anything.

All liberal thinking people must in whatever way possible stop this man from gaining power and does even more serious harm to the country.


Anonymous said...

Welcome to the happy ranks of the fans of 'Lord' Jeff's Blog. 'Rather good'? It is a work of genius. You should look carefully at some of the comments Jeff takes so seriously. Irony, I am afraid.

Anonymous said...

We shouldn't kid ourselves into being so bloody complacent. If Dave Cameron keeps making:

a) silly, unconsidered speeches. Take the one last week about "tough love" for instance, or
b) pointless attacks on Blair in the Commons and therefore inviting an even sharper retort that damages his own reputation more, as well as the party...

...then Conservative support will sooner, rather than later, slip slowly into the abyss.

Anonymous said...

Easy, Blair and Bush synch elections and arrange for 'Courtroom TV' hanging of Saddam to help the masses come to terms with their guilt.

Anonymous said...


As long as you and the Tories continue to be complacent and think that victory is a cert, you are helping Labour!

One of the reasons New Labour was so successful was becuase, after 92, they never took anything for granted, always played things down, and carried on working as hard.

This post tells me that the Tories have so far to come if they think they can just walk into office.

It is perfectly possible that Labour could increase its majority, because voter turnout is spiralling downwards which makes more seats marginal, and more up-for-grabs. Ie. it is so much more difficult to predict.

Antony said...

The only way this could happen is if Brown lures back LibDem voters who quit New Labour because it wasn't left wing enough at the same time as maintaining Blair's old vote. If that doesn't happen then Labour's majority has to go down because there are more Lab/Con marginals to lose than there are LD/Lab ones to pick up.

Anonymous said...

Given redrawn constituency boundaries and a further decrease in turn out anything could happen at the next election, including a hung Parliament. I'm expecting the big shift to the BNP and, perhaps, UKIP, for the election after next; so that gives the lib/lab/con bunch a chance to make it illegal to vote for anyone except them.

Anonymous said...

The complexities introduced by the increase in the number of people who will vote for Greens / UKIP / BNP makes a forecast of the outcome of the next election very difficult.

I do not expect that any of these parties will win seats, but they may well allow a challenger to win who would otherwise have lost without their influence

Anonymous said...

I took the bet on Brown of course.

It's up to me who wins you pathetic little 'deomcratic' processes and I have already decreed the outcome.

Brown to have a majority of 100.

Any of you own a media empire that can challenge me

Anonymous said...

It would have to be an underage, endangered sheep. And an illegal immigrant besides.

Archbishop Cranmer said...

His Grace exhorts the Conservative Party not to ignore the increasing rise of 'The Christian Party', which is being particularly vocal on issues like freedom of speech and the diminishing status of the family. While many may (erroneously) lump these sincere believers in with groups like Cornerstone, it would be a grave strategic error to ignore the millions of Evangelicals who are beginning to think that the Conservative Party has ceased to reflect their moral worldview.

His Grace does not support 'The Christian Party', and yet the Conservative Party appears to have little understanding of the extent to which Christians feel alientated by all the main political parties. Like UKIP or the BNP, it becomes one of those 'irritants' which will take just enough votes in marginal seats to significantly affect the outcome of the General Election.

Anonymous said...

Well as most right wing bloggers and supporters, (including Mr Dale) were in the 'I don't think the Democrats will take the Senate' camp. Whose to say who'll get it right on the day. Political prediction very dodgy area, who said in 1997, 'Why is it that apart from John Major I'm the only person in the country, who thinks the Tories are goin to win this election, not by much but they will win it'! Step forward political journalist and forecaster, Mr Bruce Anderson. Who at the last GE said, 'Due to the flawed way the polls are calculated, the Tories are at least 5% ahead of Labour,' It could only be the wonderful, the amazing, the incredible, William Rees-Mogg. How come these people are still in a job?

Anonymous said...

This is not as far fetched as it sounds.

The Electoral system

To begin with the electoral system is tilted against the Conservatives. For instance, in 1992 John Major had a 7.6% lead over Labour and enjoyed a 21 seat majority. In 1997 Blair led by 9.3% and had a stonking 167 seat majority.

Under the current system it is entirely possible that the Conservatives will win more votes and yet Labour will have the majority at Westminster. In fact the system favours Labour and disadvantages the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems even more so. The reason is simple. Labour votes are worth more. The average electorate in Conservative seats (72,715) is larger than in Labour ones (66,665). The average electorate size was 68,492. In England, the Conservatives won the popular vote with 65,00 more votes. (35.7% to 35.5%). But Labour had a majority of 92 seats in England. The distribution of seats clearly favours Labour. Moreover, Labour's support is probably more resilient. For instance, Labour holds more of the 219 'fortress' seats which have a fifty per cent majority.

Minority Parties

Add to that that one in four votes goes to one of the minor parties (i.e. Not Labour or Conservative), creating a healthy sprinkling of minor parties in the Commons. In fact in 2005 the two main parties combined shared of votes was the lowest since 1923. These minor parties are well established. The Lib Dems might be having a little wee difficulty over funding at present, but that will surely pass. In any case those votes are unlikely to transfer to the Conservatives. The Nationalists are firmly entrenched at Westminster, and in the case of the SNP might well consolidate their position further (2005 added two more seats). At the same time, the Conservatives are loosing support to UKIP and worse still the BNP. These disgruntled Conservatives are unlikely to return to the fold while David Cameron remains leader. His soft focus Conservative with liberal social agenda is unlikely to appeal to what I call the "Tory Taliban". UKIP and the BNP might not win seats at Westminster but they will certainly drain away essential support which in marginal seats is likely to prove costly. In 2005 UKIP won 2.3% of the vote, in effect 600k votes. For the Conservatives this is a real dilemma. If they appeal to the Tory Taliban they risk alienating the support of soft centrist voters. William Hague tried a more centrist approach and then when the polls failed to respond dumped it in an attempt to shore up the "core vote". As the previous three elections show voters in metropolitan areas are not overly attracted to a Tory Taliban manifestos. Strident tub thumping right wing manifestos are a turn off. This factor is enhanced by the fact that in general Conservative support is more widely spread across the country, so the loss of voters in the cities has a disproportionate impact.

The English Party?

All but four of the Conservatives MPs sit for English seats. Long gone are the heady days of 1955 in Scotland when the Conservatives for the first and only time won Scotland with an absolute majority of votes. Restoring the party's fortunes in Wales and Scotland must clearly be a priority for Cameron. As Disraeli said the Conservative Party is a national party or it is nothing.

Anti-Conservative Sentiment

Notwithstanding the passage of time, the Conservatives still have an image problem. David Cameron is trying to re-brand the party. But he faces resistance from the Tory Taliban and a simple lack of credibility, particularly amongst the young for whom the Conservatives are "uncool" and "irrelevant". For many older people the Conservatives are associated with the ERM debacle, and the crucifixion of the economy that it caused. The fact that the Conservatives did put the economy back on the rails is ignored, and credited instead to the bragging Mr Brown.

Anti-Conservative sentiment was at its most deadly with the rise of the tactical anti-Tory voter who switched his/her Lib/Labour vote to defeat the Conservative incumbent. Billy Bragg's campaign was a good example of this, but no doubt it went on without any such organisation. However, I think that this factor will disappear. At the last election in 2005 the Lib Dems took four times the number of seats off Labour than the Conservatives(12 to 3). However, the Lib Dems are in second place in 83 Conservative seats and will no doubt be campaigning hard to take some next time around.

Conservatives No Longer the Main Challenger

In fact the rise of the Lib Dems as the main challenger in a large number of seats shows that two party politics is slowly being eroded. The Conservatives are second place in 221 Labour seats. Whereas the Lib Dems are in the same position in 106 seats. In a two party system the Lib Dem figure should be lower.

The Electoral Consequences of Mr Brown

Of course the unknown here is the impact of Gordon Brown MP when if as expected he takes over as leader of the Labour party. While his impact on the wider electoral may be open to debate, it is clear that Brown will have a more positive Labour following than Blair. Brown unlike Blair is a son of Labour who has devoted his life to the Party. He enjoys considerable respect and authority within its ranks. As such the iron discipline which has characteristics Labour since the departure of the laissez faire Kinnock is likely to remain. Labour will still be a formidable electoral machine at the next election. Add the power of incumbency to the electoral advantages, the fresh appeal of a new leader, the efficient party machine and the Conservatives have got a hill to climb.

The Hitch said...

Geoffrey archer has a Blog?
You think he has that ghosted as well?

Anonymous said...

If Brown is about to become implicated in the cash-for-peerages scandal then it's John Reid who will be the next PM. As for the next election, unless David Cameron bucks his ideas up it's a 20-30 seat majority for Labour. Better the devil you know and all that.

Anonymous said...

What jolly fun, children!

Meanwhile, back in the real world, try looking at the facts (awkward things, facts):

(1) A 5% lead in midterm never won any opposition the subsequent GE

(2) The voters will go for the PM candidate who looks and sounds LEAST like TB. That will not be DC but GB. (I've said it before, choosing DC was Maginot Line thinking--a great choice for the LAST time, but now the high road to failure) Watch the Tory lead evaporate when GB gets his new PM honeymoon, just as DC looks like yesterday's other man.

(3) Without tangible policies DC & the Tories are heading for being laughed off the electoral stage come election day. You may say that will all have changed by then but it may be too late already. Already I hear whispers of DC as 'nice but vacuous'; once painted with that brush, he will find it almost impossible to get rid of and he will be doomed. 'Hug a hoodie' may well already be turning into his political epitaph.

(4) People in Wales, Scotland and the north of England no longer even consider the Tory Party as a serious choice, and I suspect that may be well turn out to be for keeps. If the Tory Party is turning into a party of the South East only, it can never win a GE. Those who don't believe this can happen should go and read Dangerfield's 'Strange Death of Liberal England' to see where complacency on such issues gets you.

(5) On the subject of the Liberals: the LibDems will not evaporate. So long as the Tories are dead in the north, etc, the LibDems, not UKIP etc., will pick up the anti-Labour vote. (Funding problems are not going to change the results much for them, electorally; let's stop grasping at straws.)

And of couse, even if the Labour vote fell and Tory vote rose to give us a hung parliament, there won't really be one: the LibDems are 99.9% certain to make some sort of formal or informal coalition with Labour, not us.

Finally, trying to turn the Tory Party into a pale imotation of New Labour is just stupid. Labour had to copy Thatcher because what she did worked. This is no argument for us to copy what has failed.

That's the real situation, folks.

Anonymous said...

The postal voting will be crucial and it is wide open to abuse.

Anonymous said...

No more electoral certainties, I think.
The voters seem ready to ignore the standard psephological categorisations of "this leafy suburbia/gritty ex-mining country, therefore..."

As to why - have a read of EUreferendum's latest piece 'Uncharted waters'.

The greatest danger to either of the two main parties in future won't be defections to their main opponent or the no-shows, it'll be the spoiling effect of Greens, UKIP, BNP, Respect, Save Our Hospital or whatever that'll cause the biggest headaches.

Anonymous said...

I don't suppose any of you bloggers are low-brow enough to read the News of the World but there is an interesting piece on page 2 about the Conservatives not not making ground in the northern cities they need to take to win the next election.
Also, Fraser Nelson (also in NoW)appears to hint in his column that Gordon Brown's medical records contain information which could be of great interest to the public.

Jens Winton said...

Do not rule out the problems facing Mr. Blair over "cash for peerages". This has the making of our own Watergate-grade scandal, and I struggle to consider the departure of Lord Sainsbury as mere coincidence. This has the making of a BIG problem, and will be a stinking inheritance for Mr. Brown. No wonder there is talk about taxpayers financing political parties, which, I must say, UKIP is dead set against.

James Higham said...

The fly in the ointment is surely DC, who fails to enthuse.

Anonymous said...

"b) David Cameron is caught in bed with a sheep on the eve of poll"

The Welsh vote could swing it.

Anonymous said...

Firsly Iain, as you wll know, the Lib Demc could easily borrow £2.4 million and their debt would still be just a fraction of Tory party debt, so option 1 will never happen.

But overall, I agree with your viewpoint. I cannot see Labour gaining seats. I do remember, however, in the run up to 1997 I believe, Heseltine saying that he beleieve the Tories would have an overall majority of 40 whilst the Daily Mail gave over a whole apge as to why the boundary changes would gift the Tories dozens of seats whilst ignoring what everyone else knoew that they would help Labour, so the Tories have themselves been guilty of talking themselves up in the past.

Anonymous said...

Yes, James Highams. The Tories ignore that Cameron is flatlining at their peril.

If they sacked him and put David Davis in as leader, there would be a surge of enthusiasm for the party.

NuLab would make hey with yet one more change in Tory leadership, but so what? They're leader's going to prison, so maybe they should have changed him quite some time ago.

The Tories would be enthused. At the moment, many Tories are contemplating a UKIP and even a BNP vote. (Of course, so are many Labour voters.)

neil craig said...

d) UKIP or the BNP (particularly the former since the later is more working class) makes serious inroads into the Tory vote.
e) David Cameron comes out against new nuclear & the next year blackouts start.
f) Brown cuts corporation tax & the econmy takes off.
g) Peace in Iraq or at least UK withdrawel.
h) A pre-election deal with the Lib Dems on proportional representation.
i) Tory party split between bicyclists & old Tories.
j) Brown proves trustworthy & seriously intellectual.
k) Lib Dems split & half join Labour while the other half stay independent.
l) Brown offers a £1 billion X-Prize for a UK orbital shuttle & somebody wins.
m) Brown calls for us to quit the EU.

Granted none of these are anything but long odds options but there are a lot of them.

Anonymous said...

Archer's blog is so good that when you click on view my profile up pops a blank sheet of paper...

Anonymous said...

Sophisticated psephological analysis is all very jolly for us intellectuals (with nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon)but after 40 years of tabloid journalism and comprehensive education the British electorate is so stupid that the UKIP is just as likely to draw votes from the LibDems, and the BNP to draw votes from Respect. It will probably be decided on dark wavey hair,a good suit and a nice tie.

Anonymous said...

Nixon. . .Archer. . . with sources like this Iain i do find it quite remarkable that you have not had greater electoral success!

Anonymous said...

Although unlikely, labour could increase it's majority even if the tories increase their votes. Whilst it is true to say that a lot of lib dem seats are either lib dem / tory marginals, think of the last election: Manchester Withington, Leeds Northwest, Chesterfield, an additional seats around bristol etc. The number of Independents in England and wales. They start adding up.

Whilst it is unlikely it is not impossible for labour to increase it's majority while the tories seats plus vote go up.

Some tories moan about cameron not sticking to tory issues etc and they are right about his tough love and hoody speeches. I vote tory and am fucking well affended - Why? when i was 20: 3 hoodies kicked the shit out of me and pissed on my face late at night. Why? I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Believe me, if we had court the buggers and the police could not convict - we would have gone round with a blow torch and pliers and they would not have behaved in this way with some inocent victim again.

Going back to the subject: camerons pitch may scare some right wing tories off but what he needs to do is achieve a different distrubution of votes. That is what labour did in 1997 onwards and the liberal democrats have achieved. Without a realignment of votes the tories are at such a disadvantage they will go knowhere.

Peter from Putney said...

"Every few weeks I take a look at Jeffrey Archer's BLOG to see what he's been up to. It's rather good, actually."

Well, Iain, why wouldn't it be, after all he's sold tens of millions of books!
The thing that will do for Labour at the next GE is Gordon Brown.Whilst most Tories and near Tories have a gruding respect for Tony Blair, in my experience of such voters, almost to a man and woman, they detest Gordon Brown.

Anonymous said...

Some excellent, thoughtful analysis on this thread! Thanks Druid and 2bro2b - and everyone else who had some good, meaty thoughts. Very interesting!

Def Con One said...

Got to be Kevin Maguire who is tipped as Gordon's Alistair Campbell.

Anonymous said...

For almost 4 years, Dutch Labour leader Bos was the most popular politician in the country, enjoying leads in the polls that Cameron so far only can dream of. Just 4 months ago, the considered wisdom was that Prime Minister Balkenende was a dead duck, on his way to poltical oblivion. Now just 10 days from the General Election, polls show that Bos is the least popular of the party leaders and Balkenende seems on his way to his third consecutive GE victory. A lot can happen in politics in just a few months, how ever unlikely it may sometimes seem.

Anonymous said...

We've yet to see what effect UKIP will have under Farage. Could easily be enough to keep the party out of power once again. Got to admit they do talk sense.

Anonymous said...

Peter from Putney : You're spot on, Gordon Brown is very unpopular with the gp. Actually he seems to be detested, just conduct your very own focus group in the office/pub and you'll be amazed at the antipathy toward him you discover. Anyone elaborate on the piece in the news of the screws about Brown's medical records? Has he been treated for 'psychological flaws' to use Campbell's euphemism?

Anonymous said...

anonymous 6:57 - No one has elaborated and I was so intrigued I went to News of The Screws, but they didn't have any editorial content. It's all photos. Duh.

Personally, I don't think it's a "psychological flaw". Personally, and absolutely groundlessly, I have a feeling it's something to do with his ability to breed. Just a wild guess not based on anything. But I don't know that anything else would be "of interest to the British public".

Whatever, he is an absolutely repulsive person.

Anonymous said...

Me too Verity ! I now know more about the Britney K-Fed sex tape story than before , but nothing about Gordy's medical mystery supposedly alluded to by Fraser Nelson. Have to Google.

Anonymous said...

Four actually.

d) Allow convicted prisoners to exercise their human right to vote.

One small problem with this analysis, it is said that prisoners tend to be conservative with a small c.

If it meant you getting more votes, Iain, would you not support this?

Anonymous said...

Prisoners have no human rights. They have offended against the human race and are temporarily shriven of their rights.

I must admit, permanently removing their "human" (loose usage of the word) rights would be best. The death penalty is used with great effect in other countries. The executed person, who committed the crime of his own volition, cannot commit another one, because of the death effect.

I cannot for the life of me see a fault in this.

'jailhouse lawyer': I discount your arguements because you don't know how to spell gaol. Comprehensive school?

Praguetory said...

The next election is the one we need to win. It is fallacious to think that we need to "take" the Northern cities to win next time. It would be unprecedented if we made siginificants in Liv/Newc or Manc (those seats wouldn't go blue if we had 50% of the national vote). However, we do need to improve our appeal in the North. The perception of being the party of the Old Etonian or the K&C councillor isn't going to achieve this. We need to give some Northern Tories more airtime/encouragement.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry if I've driven people out to buy the NoW who now feel that they have been cheated with regard to the GB medical files story. It is only a short piece that appears at the bottom of Nelson's left hand column but it says: "We now know Downing Street lied over Tony Blair's heart condition but is Gordon Brown in tip-top shape? There is no way of separating Westminster rumours from reality..." It then calls for the PM to open his medical records to the public as the US President does.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this but he seems to be hinting that there are rumours about Brown's health in circulation. I'm not saying the rumours are true; it could be a smear job from the Reid camp. I was just intrigued by the piece.

Anonymous said...

The ONLY way Labour can win the next election is by massive election fraud. This kind of comment could be groundwork for just such fraud. If Labour "win" again, there will be fucking riots, you heed my words Brown.

Dr.Doom said...

To suggest bestiality of David Cameron and a sheep is most alarming.

Why a sheep would want to be caught out with Cameron is beyond me.

I'd consider that to be illegal and depraved.


Anonymous said...

Sounds like you're on to something Charlotte, thanks for letting us know ! I read it the same as you. Fascinating to see if anyone picks up on it. I've always suspected bully Brown was bonkers, looks like we may get confirmation!

Anonymous said...

He feels this will of course depend a great deal on the initial impact Brown has as Prime Minister - though he knows one senior political editor who has taken a bet on Labour increasing its majority.

It could only be that witch Polly Toynbee

Paul Leake said...

A bet on something very unlikely can still be worth it if you get good enough odds.

Anonymous said...

It is quite cleary George Pascoe-Watson - he became Brown's sheep some time ago and is deluded enough to believe anything the Brown lovies through his way

Anonymous said...

Bless you Mr Dale, I think its terribly naiive of you to believe that the only way Labour will increase their majority is if David Cameron is found in bed with a sheep on the eve of polling.

Hilarious. Labour will hold and increase their majority because the Conservatives have no policies on anything remotely relevant and because Cameron the chameleon is a wet behind the ears cocaine snorting Old Etonian. Best of British and all that.