The crisis and the mandate
As the struggle by the political parties to nudge a lead staggers to a close, the voters appear to have made two significant discoveries. For the first time questioning the voting system has pushed out beyond the confines of the Liberal Democrats and a few others to become a mainstream discussion.
The second discovery is that the socio-economic crisis is as grave as any since the 1920s. Fewer have discovered that whatever they feel now, they are in the front-line of those who will suffer what are the catastrophic consequences of the banker induced collapse of the global financial system.
Great national challenges have always required both the people and their leaders to pull together either formally or informally. An instance of the latter, whether for good or ill, has been the Conservative support for Labour’s decision to go to war in Iraq.
But a more parallel instance was the Second World War waged against the threat from Hitler. We have not required events in Greece to remind us of the scale of what faces the United Kingdom next – the battle with an annually accumulated national overdraft of some £71bn – adding up to a shocking £1.4tr.
The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg is quoted in this morning’s FT as saying this of any attempt by the Conservatives to govern without an overwhelming mandate: “I think that’s a recipe for profound political and social tensions. Do they really think they can deliver those difficult changes by just turning up their noses at the result on Thursday and saying they have a right to govern regardless?” he asked.
Perhaps I was a pessimist to describe this year’s contest as a ‘none of the above’ election. Perhaps in reality it is an ‘all of the above’ vote. In other words, after the political classes have been caught at the trough each for him or herself, has the time has come for all to pull together in the interests of all?
Mr Clegg is quoted as wanting six cabinet posts, including that of foreign secretary. In other words – given that he is also NOT apparently making electoral reform a precondition, he believes in the need for a formal, strong coalition, not an informal weak agreement ‘to support’.
With polls suggesting an unprecedented third of voters still undecided, the outcome of this vote is still far too uncertain to attempt to call.
Only about 60 per cent of the electorate will vote. Encouragingly, the Telegraph poll today suggests the turn out may, at last, rise. Even so, no party is likely to secure more than just over a fat third of the votes of those who actually turn out.
That is nothing new in British politics. Why, Labour only secured 36 per cent of the vote in 2005 – no one challenged their right to absolute power. So this time around, in the aftermath of the breakdown of trust in politicians, will people find such a result less palatable than in 2005?
Related posts:
- The 'bigot' in the electoral mix
- The X Factor's gift to British democracy
- The year of the broken swing
- Our first post-Obama search for leadership
- Why we should fear the Greek financial crisis
There are 66 comments on this post
Clegg is the only one talking ‘coalition, balanced goverment’ call it what you will. Cameron and Brown just carry on with the same old arrogant ‘i can fix it’. Regardless of the exact result we do need all parties to work together to get us out of this mess.
Clegg has a point – a slim Tory majority would struggle for legitimacy. And if we do have a Tory administration on only a third of the electorate with, as Jon says, ‘absolute power’ this might well consign them to the fate predicted by Mervyn King. Cameron might do well to share the opprobrium by sharing power.
The necessary cuts cannot be made painlessly. Jobs are going to go, and there will be protest, some of which is going to be violent. As the cuts will be in the highly unionised public sector, resistance will be robust and organised.
As the party of the public sector, and the big state, Labour would do well to lose this election. They cannot make the cuts any more than they could cut off their own legs.
An interestin blog once again Jon and an even more interesting claim by Clegg. Assume the polls are correct and the result is a hung parliament with the conservatives having the most seats .Why should they not run a minority government? What right would a party with as few as 80 seats have in parliament ?? Certainly not the right to choose who they went into coalition with.
The best outcome would be for either Labour or Tories to attempt to run a minority government , saying i have more of a mandate than you .
However the problem is that Labour Ministers have let the cat out of the bag ,by saying in a fight between labour and Tories ,Liberals should vote Labour to keep Tories out , and in a seat between Liberals and Tories Labour supporters should vote Liberal with the same aims .It follows on from the possibility of fraud in the postal voting.
It also follows though that a vote for either Labour or the Liberals is a vote for a single party and Brown as Premier.
How about a fixed term coalition of say four years (extendable if needs be) with a new election at the end of year five. That will give the parties a year to disengage and get back to politics as usual.
As for portfolio sharing, the largest party gets the PM and Chancellor posts, the runners up Foreign affairs and defence and the also rans get the Home Office- or some agreed permutation of that.
But then I imagine this coming weekend will see the horse trading commence.
John can you see Labour Tories doing that??/ For by the polls that is what it will be Tories 1st Labour 2nd .That would certainly leave the Liberals where they aught to be , out in the cold.Unfortunately , Labours cynisism with the voting system , they do nor deserve to be even the rump of a party
Jon, for those arguing against a balanced government, using all the best talents, I challenge them to do the following.
Go to the website that gives the current tory shadow cabinet. You’ll find it at http://www.conservatives.com/People/Meet_the_Shadow_Cabinet.aspx
Now ask yourself – how many can I name by only looking at the picture? and as a result of that, are you really willing to let this bunch of people run the country from Friday in the midst of the worst crisis since 1920?
it strikes me, we need as many heaveyweights as we can get.
Saltaire , you could apply that to the Liberals too.I recognise most of Labours ministers and yet you would let that lot carry on running the country.I actually recognise far more Tories than the 2 Liberals i recognise
The trouble with this argument as that I know exactly who all the Labour front benchers are and I can rule them out on that basis. The unelected Mandelson, and Balls, Harman, Rubber Millibands etc.
Jon, in the last 30 years the culture of selfishness, greed and peoples insatiable appetite for material wealth, has been staggering! I remember the ’70s as a kid and, it was when I left school in 1980 that society seemed to drift into this cesspit of one-upmanship.
Under the Conservatives and the promotion of greed is good, a vast swathe of the public set out to mimic the Yuppie clan. Politics and government have since governed with an ethos of serving the better off and positively promoting the scourge of capitalism. The neutering of the Monopolies & Mergers Commission was a deliberate act to allow the rich to dominate resources, supply lines, land and media, etc. This has led to mass inequality and manipulation of the media to portray lies about the state of society. So bad was the Conservatives time in office, it led to the electorate festering with hate over Poll Tax arrogance, social divide & unemployment that, Labour swept to power with a inflated majority. This has allowed blatant arrogance to invoke whatever they’ve liked inc. illegal wars, etc. With the worst recession in history, biggest debt,repeated cuts, MPs/Lords fiddles, Bank bail out con, etc. why vote at all?
Indeed Anthony why vote at all .
I do it so at the end of the day , when all goes pear shaped i can say well i voted .If its my lot i will say well you had your chance now i will vote UKIP or if its the other lot i will say , you see i told you so ,or at least i tried .
I can be as hipocritical as the rest
I’ve made a stab at a cabinet for a hung parliament. Not easy because of a lack of talent among MPs, and a shortage of good women, who would make a coalition work better. So I’ve had to go outside for some appointments
PM Lord Portillo, deputy Shirley Williams
Leader of Commons with brief on electoral reform: Clegg
Business & Industry: Ken Clarke
Chancellor: Cable
Foreign office: Charles Kennedy
Home Office: Dominic Grieve
International development: Hilary Benn
Communities: Estelle Morris
Education: Alan Johnson (appreciates benefits of a good state education)
Environment: Caroline Lucas
Health: David Cameron (giving him the benefit of the doubt)
Defence: William Hague (Deserves a place but not quite sure where)
Transport: Ed Milliband (will give green consideration)
Sport & Arts: Andy Burnham
Regeneration: Susan Hinchcliffe (soon to be labour MP for Shipley and an expert on the subject)
Others tba but definitely no room for Balls, D Milliband, Osborne, Gove, Brown, Mandelson.
Saltaire not a bad shot, but Kennedy for Foreign secretary ???Do you remember George Brown of old .Perhaps a good drunk would do well in foreign capitals
Early reshuffle. Have to find another job for Hague – wasn’t happy with him at defence anyway.
Defence goes to Bob Marshall Andrews – he’ll pay the troops properly, make sure they have decent housing, and most importantly won’t go into another Iraq and will get rid of Trident.
Sorry Bob, no retirement for you
I remember being in the back garden, with a laburnum on one side and lilac on the other side , lying on a lilo listening to a transister radio in the sun and thinking as in the advert ..this is pure unashamed luxury ..and then putting on my red dress feeling as though I was flying as a nimble advert flew a balloon into the air whilst playing ” I can’t let Maggie go”
That is all I needed ,food ,warmth and to be felt loved. WE ALL NEED THAT.
Nice picture. Honeybus were good but I was happy to let Maggie go
Yes we all need Maggie Margaret
I heard on Radio 4 a NEET, who had never worked, say that she was not embarrassed by receiving benefits because “I pay my taxes when I buy my fags and stuff”! We have also all witnessed Mr Clegg becoming the most popular political leader because of his performance on TV.
Perhaps he is right and we need to change our electoral system because we are really in trouble if NEETs and TV audiences that can be persuaded by a ‘song and dance man’, may decide the future government of our country.
Should we not now consider adding to universal franchise? Why should those dependent on benefits have the same say in how taxes are spent as those who are earning those taxes?
Perhaps some form of multiple vote is called for based on, say, your last year’s income tax paid! A base rate taxpayer would have 2 votes and a higher rate taxpayer 3 votes and so on.
I can already hear the cries of horror about this favouring the ‘rich’. Of course that is true. But it would also favour ordinary taxpayers like me who wish to support the needy and stop the scroungers .
In this way, at least those who are growing the economy can have a greater say than those who are shrinking it..
Adrian, the only reason the lib dems would only have 80 seats with almost as large a share of the vote is the scandalous electoral system.
It’s like paying kids pocket money according to age but giving a 10 year old £5, an 8 year old £1 and a 7 year old £4. There would be tantrums and most people would say rightly so.
Saltaire i agree with you , but i believe electral reform should take the form of a set number of constituencies of equal voting numbers.Then even a first past the post system would be a fair reflection on the voters intentions.Under PR as you saw in the European election , you are voting for a list and with some constituencies more Mps , than in other areas.
You are correct but the same could be said in 1997 of the Labour Party.
Then we threw out the Conservatives because of sleaze and treating us with contempt. Now we must do the same with the Labour Party that has turned sleaze and lying into an art form!
If the next Government slides into the mire then we will consign them to the dustbin of history as well.
Give whoever it is a chance.
You could certainly say the same of the Liberals Saltaire , and as for Labour i can name many but not one i would want to run a pi** up in a brewery
‘Some pigs are more equal than others’ could it be possible we are actually heading for a depression? I tend to think so sitting in my rented room with little prospects of a future in England. The government & bankers have built an ivory tower with little regard for those on the ground. The election is pretty much like a jumbo-jet with several pigs fighting for the controls in the cockpit. These piggies may be ‘good stock’ but I have a strong feeling that they will crash whatever happens…
I have a feeling that they will screw the last drop and then say that they couldn’t help it, the crisis labour got them into could not be reversed.. that has been the pattern so far.
Give sympathy for all those in council homes Paul. The poor who sit down all day , get fat , booze , smoke, buy mountains of clothes , have freezer fulls of ready mades, go on holiday twice a year, have sky dishes and a BMW,, but then become ill because they are so poor.
“…the catastrophic consequences of the banker induced collapse of the global financial system.”
It seems to me that you’ve pretty much made up your mind who’s at fault for everything Jonny. Just the bankers eh ? Not slack regulators, or the BoE ? Nor lazy government happy to see people rack up ridiculous amounts of debt, and *encouraging* the banks risk taking in the markets eh ?
That’s very simplistic thinking from C4′s news front man. It’s sloppy and incomplete, and you haven’t joined things up.
I wonder if the voters have made a third significant discovery. That being that the bulk of the current problems that we face come down to the simple fact that there are too many people around. Here, there, everywhere ! And we’re all getting older.
The government’s failure to take control of the money supply, to the extent that apparently around a staggering 97% is now created by the banks in the form of credit, is surely the principal cause of the dire straits we’re now in? The effective privatising of the country’s wealth in this manner means that it’s the financiers – banks, private equity, hedge-funds etc – that really determine the shape of our politics.
I suggest we all need to educate ourselves economically. It’s the economic system that needs to change -from a hideous profiteering outift that needs never-ending growth to feed its voracious junkie profit-fix to one which puts people and planet first. We can do it, and there are proposals around for us to consider: reform the money system by allowing only governments to create same, tax land, thereby directing investment from speculation on bricks and mortar/shares/private equity etc to meaningful productive activity.
We should be on the streets shouting for an end to a political economy which is based on gambling, for that is what capitalism is. We’ve woken up electorally it seems thanks to the debates. We urgently need to do so economically.
Richard , good thinking.If we ran a monthly lottery , starting with the eldest 10%, we could have an involuntary euthanasia society , thereby reducing costs every month, like paying off ones card debt
Palatable or not, the British people will still have to hop on for the next ride. Some resentful, others content with their current life style and the remainder extatic, as it can only mean more money to be made.
The important issues are not being given valuable and very urgent attention.
Why? Why should they? It would only mean more work and less money for the men and women who run a nation with a population of about 60 million in a world population of over 6 billion..
Poverty and unemployment lead to lesser educations, bad healthcare, frustration and crime. I’m talking glovebal figures and the U.K. has its fair share of the above.
adzmundo The Venus Project & CND
None of the parties has addressed the issue of teenage pregnancy, which seems to be an alternative to work. Surely it is time to say that these young girls are the responsibility of their family and should not be “entitled” to free housing etc etc. And the American scheme appears attractive – allowance(s) for the first child only. If you want more pay for them yourself.
jb that is sexist and agist .You are suggesting something i can’t partake of.
jb, I would rather feel exasperated because my tax money was being handed out to breeding teenagers than see them or their children starving on the street. (And Adrian, you are a complete sweetheart, even if you do expend a lot of time and energy in Lib-Dem bashing!)
So have I got this right? All those bright young things coming out of university who can’t get jobs, don’t get a vote. Pensioners who have contributed to this country for years but whose pension is so low that they don’t pay tax, don’t get a vote. Bankers who survived thanks to taxpayers get several votes. John Terry, Chelsea captain and all round philanderer gets several votes. And presumably toff David Cameron and his heiress wife get enough votes to make sure he stays PM for years to come.
Need I go on?
Saltaire at least we would be able to blog
Provided the heiress has overseas connections with mighty industry.
You have got it wrong. I said “add to universal franchise” not do away with it!
Everyone who has registered to vote could vote. Pensioners would probably get their most votes when they were earning most and their influence would diminish as their pensions took over.
Normal taxpayers would have 2 or 3 votes. And, yes, bright young things who are unemployed would only have their one vote until they became taxpayers and earned a greater say in how their earnings are distributed.
It would mean that the most active wealth creators would have the biggest say.
Sam, I had thought that the creation of a Citizens’ Convention, whereby people were actually given a say in decision-making, was a good idea, but it’s suddenly beginning to make me considerably uneasy!!!
Claire, I thought my cabinet of all the talents was a bti left field, but ten votes for John Terry (£150k per WEEK for playing football) is beyond my ken
Try reading the proposal and do some homework on our tax system.
Your envy do you no credit.
John Terry earns that money because Chelsea supporters think he is worth it.
Our country is not made up of 2 groups; rich and poor. The majority are like me who have worked hard to earn a crust and pay our taxes. I think that those who do not contribute should have less of a say in how those taxes are distributed than those who are unemployed.
Well I think I am going to Greece for my hols .. Shirley Valentine reborn… but hey, I don’t want sex…. but I do want a cove , warmth , pistachio nut loaf.. olive and citrus fruit…and sprats .. It’s the only way I can enjoy helping Greece.
And for the House of Commons .Pillow talk BTW I find unecessary. If two people want to be with each other chat doesn’t come into it.
In what all political problem consists? Many people want transformations, all search for a national public ideal. But we know that the society was created on bases of traditional values and moral them moral, ethical, cultural, moral principles. Erroneous aspiration of many people, trying to change internal game rules. The device of the traditional state, is over religion, over ethnic, over party, above class that available positive experience of all previous historical periods of development of classical ideology of the Christian world is historically proved.
Saltaire – what you describe was the reason for the Civil Rights movement in the 60′s. I sense that if the economic downturn into a welfare state spirals further then we will have a similar situation on our hands in years to come. There’s a sense of defeat in the air that suggests that it will take some sort of revolution to escape a very bleak future.
Before there were protests & wars for votes. Clearly the new war of power is media-based and economically driven.
The main difference is millions are poor, without a voice ‘uneducated’ and powerless to raise it. Inside Pandoras box is a ticking time-bomb and it will take a crack team of Jon Snow’s to handle it. How many people are educated from the TV? X factor politics anyone? I’d rather Led Zep. How many people know to change the channel at the right time? Give us all the information>>> Perhaps Chris Martin and Bono would run things better…
Problem is that as a person, Gordon Brown has some very admirable qualities so I would even squeeze him into the cabinet. I think that there are one or two other Labourites who might qualify (Alan Johnson, Ed Milliband). The others should try and hack it in the real world and come back later.
Leaving aside that greed is shameful, isn’t Britain a better place without piles of rubbish, working three day weeks and having blackouts. Sunny Jim wasn’t a bad bloke but he let the unions get the better of him. Lets never get back to that again.
But we definitely need firm leadership to sort out the current mess.
i wouldn’t want any of Labours leaders serving in my local pub.I would be worried they would water down the beer
One party has said that if they don’t do what they promised to do then in 5 years we can kick the b*ms out. Worth taking them up on their word I’d say. After all 13 years of the old lot has got us nowhere.
“The crisis and the mandate” – top title.
The references to the 1920′s and then Hitler are chilling. Yes, Big Coalitions of Big Men were then required, but doesn’t that flatter today’s chancers?
This is a Big Moment – we (the electorate) fully grasp that – do they?
In the end, it’s not about expenses; it’s about hubris-to-the-max. Churchill could afford to ditch Halifax; if we had a Halifax, we’d consider ourselves lucky.
This is why we’re holding back – not because we’re thick, but because we’re left with a choice of spivs.
I think the salient point here may be that, although the rest of us are paying for our mistakes, the bankers are still partying!
and no politician, or political interviewer has ever, person to person, really grilled any of the “guilty individuals”,- certainly in public, (I know there are supposed to be good reasons for retaining successful investment bankers and the like, at all costs.) What interests me is what they think of themselves when gazing in to the shaving (or make up) mirror. Are they racked with guilt and shame, and secretly handing back some of the money?-or are they comfortable with their rewards, either experiencing complete denial or is there some element of psychological displacement that allows them to rationalise and justify what they have done? If Christians, they must reflect on the biblical reference to the camel and the eye of the needle.If atheists, and they have no hereafter to consider, then it might make sense to grab what they can from the only world they know. People will happily admit to being lustful or lazy, but rarely to being selfish or greedy. Can they understand why ordinary decent people continue to be shocked by their avarice, or do they not care? They are unlikely to all be sociopaths or even psychopaths-perhaps they are, or are they just “nasty people”.
I think Clegg’s approach to a coalition represents a pragmatism typical of his generation. It is interesting to see what themes the media emphasizes in the final days of the election campaign. One of them is seemingly about generations…of voters and candidates. I quite liked this piece in the Independent yesterday (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/jonathan-pontell-cleggs-rise-is-the-sound-of-generation-jones-clearing-its-throat-1961191.html) which addresses this theme. The main point is that Clegg and Cameron are both part of the emerging generation between the Boomers and Xers: Generation Jones.
When you research Generation Jones, which I just did, you find that this concept/term has gained much traction in several countries. An overview of Genjones in the UK can be found here: http://www.generationjones.org.uk/
A hung parliament would be the best result for the people of this country – no more being run by a dictator, whether that be Blair then Brown, or Cameron and prior to 1967 the various Conservative leaders down the years.
Until Parliamentary rules are changed forever, set up by the people – we ordinary people/voters (not the appointed MPs/Lords/friends of Parliament) make the rules and the MPs abide by them including their pay and expenses- then this country and the running it will never get out of the mire and severe problems within.
The fiasco with the banks and the ridiculous way the politicians want to sort out the financial deficit is so absurdly inept. I can find ways in the system to claw back billions each and every year by sensible and tight spending without losses of jobs to the ordinary workers.
I fully agree with the increase in tax allowance to £10,000 proposed by Vince Cable/Nick Clegg. It makes common sense – in fact it should be £11,500 with tax at 20% from £20,000 and then at 22% at £28,000 and 24% from £32,000 and above this as suggested already and already in place up to £80,000 when a higher tax band would take place — they can afford it, we can afford it.
Why are the Labour Party whinging about the less well off and tax credits — those in need will still get them anyway in benefits but they either are too blind to see or are deliberately misleading people because by raising the initial tax threshold to £10,000 then so many low paid workers would be a lot better off than the pennies they receive now after filling in numerous forms and waiting in queues to get the present pittance they receive now.
The Lib-Dems are right in a lot of what they say but not everything, and we cannot go on being governed by parties that use the Whip to push through bills that should not be in existence.
The Lib-Dems are right in a lot of what they say but not everything, and we cannot go on being governed by parties that use the Whip to push through bills that should not be in existence.
Actually we are not in a democracy- have not been for such a long time if ever. People selected for representation in towns/cities/regions are foisted upon the electorate by the parties and not selected locally as should be the way. We should know and trust who we want to elect in a local area, not have outsiders come in to take, perhaps, a safe seat just so a friend of the party leader can have their own way taking no account of the local people’s wishes.
I suppose Plato got it right – once a group gets to a figure of about 20 then democracy goes out the window and self interest takes over.
It is a nice little vote catching offer , supposedlyfinanced until you look how?Increase in higher rate tax and tax avoidance measures????? Do they really think that will pay for it .I just saw a pig in yellow fly past my window .
Re the present financial state it can be rectified by abandoning or reforming some of the ridiculous contract offered to huge conglomerates (take PPP for example- ill thought out and only fed the directors and their cohorts of the huge companies involved, and then bailed out by badly drawn out- perhaps deliberately written so these companies couldn’t lose out- contract/s. If they ran out of money then why are the Balfour Beatty’s et al still in existence? They still have the money, so they should give it back.
All Government buildings, be them in Westminster, or HMRC buildings, Police and Fire Stations, rail industry bldgs and work, council properties including town halls up and down the country can all be run far more cheaply with work getting done far quicker without the huge conglomerates getting the cream of the money. This in itself would push billions back into the economy.
I sometimes wonder how many MPs will be sitting on the boards of these conglomerates and banks as directors or non-execs for extra income when they leave Parliament (lots I suppose) and at our expense.
Gordon Brown – one of the worst chancellors we have ever had. He promised much but failed miserably, never kept his word or used his head when he should have done, did things at the wrong time, and just tinkered badly round the edges. Did he ever work in economics- I wonder sometimes, I really do. I think he was inept and let the people of this country down – let us down, like his cohort Blair and the war billions wasted so some of them could make money. I voted for Blair thinking he would change the country for the better, more’s the pity.
No we do not have democracy so a hung parliament would be best – it would force them to work together. Vince Cable as chancellor makes sense. In a hung parliament then the positions should be shared on the Cabinet proportionally, with the views of the people adopted. Not everyone thinks the same and some won’t see any difference or benefit, perhaps me, but it is the right way forward and should be sorted out very quickly or this country will go under financially. Some laws will have to be changed immediately, not favourable for some but for the country and the people a boost that will be necessary.
Bloggers ask why Osborne has been kept out of the limelight , yet i have seen more of him than either Cable or Darling , during the last four weeks .Could it just be that the Liberals and Labour no more want their financial plans scrutinised than do the Tories
There is much more that needs to be done and saaid and I wish the newsreaders and TV experts would be more direct with their questions without just airing their own points of view to make themselves look good on television( John Sopel for eg) – or how else will you get honest answers.
Regards, jimko. I’ll be back.
Arguably, Gordon Brown made the best speech of his political career in Manchester today and your editorial team decided to make light of it. He highlighted 50+ achievments over the labour term in office. A very strong rallying call to the British electorate and just a 5 second glimpse talked over by Jon. The BBC news coverage was way ahead.
Robert , speeches are easy, but what use is quoting Greek philophosers, who the majority of the population will not have heard of .50+ achievements ??? I can not think of one , but if you care to come back with say his 5 best achievements we can discuss them
Surely some mistake! Adrian has told us that C4 news is biased towards labour. Or could it be that every party thinks the media is tougher on them than on their opponents?
Saltaire, do you watch Jon through rose coloured glasses .He even admitted to his bias , and i can respect him for that..Plus he has done me a big favour.I used to fire off e.mails (long before the election process) complaining and get a standard reply ” your complaint has been noted and forwarded to the newsroom”. There was never any follow up.That is why i came to Snow blog , to see if i could get my views across ..So thank you Jon.
I haven’t read any blogs suggesting Jon is biased against the Labour party , or for that matter the Liberals, so they obviously do not think so Saltaire
Well said, Adrian.
Sam, I love your cabinet, and can Dianne Abbot be in it?
Claire, I can’t imagine that Michael Portillo would ever be PM and not have Diane Abbott in his cabinet. I love to watch them – they give poltiics a good name.
How about giving her the job of celaning up politics?
Claire do not be taken in it is only an old kitchen cabinet and i suspect Saltaire just wantd Dianne for cleaning and washing up
You be brave and stay in a coalition with me
Typical, Adrian. Right to the end, still misrepresenting my views with cheap innuendo.Next you will be offering Claire flowers and chocolates courtesy of Lord Ashcroft.
But I get the impression she’s too wise for that. She’ll stick to the left of centre no matter what wicked temptation you come up with
Oh, Adrian, can this be true? And just when I was about to suggest to Sam that he has another reshuffle, appoints Diane as Deputy (Michael can get a little too bullish when she’s not around and I’m sure there’s plenty of other stuff Shirley could do), and puts YOU in charge of cleaning up politics, as it’s obvious you’ve missed your way by not becoming a politician!