NO U!

Please be fake, please be fake, please be fake…

A YouGov/Telegraph poll tomorrow will put the Tories ahead by 18% - the highest rating since Thatcher’s 1987 peak.  The full breakdown is as follows:

Conservative: 44
Labour: 26
LibDem: 17

The arguments over this poll could run and run - and I suspect they will.  But to add fuel to the fire, allow me to pontificate over the potential results a return like this at the next General Election would give.  By using the Electoral Calculus website, one can instantly get a picture of how the makeup of the House of Commons would be, including a list of seat changes.  This will make for very unhappy reading.

Among those Labour MPs losing their seats are Jack Straw, John Denham, Ruth Kelly, etc.  No wonder Labour MPs are revolting.  Brown is a liability.

Also of note is the halving of LibDem seats: Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne both stand to lose their seats with this kind of result.  Turmoil in both parties is not out of the question.

This, of course, would all be worthless pontificating in most circumstances.  Usually, errant polls like this give rise to a few extra column inches but do not arouse interest beyond the Westminster village.  A minor blip, one might suggest.  But the sampling took place before Wednesday’s humiliating events, and Brown is set to face two further rebellions in the next few weeks.  Factor in the prospect of a Tory Mayor of London by this time next week and a Conservative sweeping of council seats in the local elections.  Those who derided the prospect of Brown being ousted may well be forced to eat some humble pie - albeit a rather more slender portion than Brown might have coming to him.

The Labour party has two options.  Either they boot their loser leader quickly and call a snap election (which, for the record, I believe they would lose) or they keep Brown on and hope the electorate learn to hate the Tories more.  Any Labour MP who honestly believes the latter option is a better policy ought to be looking for a padded cell, not re-election.

This is the time a third party could become a second party.  The SDP nearly managed it in 1983.  Trust the LibDems to have missed their chance once again.  A drunk Charlie Kennedy would have been polling higher than 17%, and standing a really good chance of squeezing Labour.  Clegg has missed the boat.  He’s a loser, too.

With regards to Ali’s previous post I find myself rather “incredulous” as well. How he can claim that he

little [Brown] has done has been more stubborn.

and also deem him a “ditherer” is beyond me.

I also fail to see how allowing to continue a vote that would have most likely been lost and thus most likely destroyed the government could possibly be a less damaging course of action than brokering an agreement with the left that they were content enough with not to continue in their proposed action of defeating the government and thus demonstrating Brown’s inability to pursue the policy he promises to.

I often seem to find myself disagreeing with my esteemed colleagues here on Scribo.  It’s not something I am usually concerned about, but today I am almost incredulous at Vamp’s assessment on the subject of “Brown Caves“.

Unlike most {all, in the case of the right} I see a deviation from the former stubborness of the Labour Party to be a positve thing.

I find Brown’s latest troubles anything but a sign of an end to stubbornness: in fact, little he has done has been more stubborn.  Let’s chart events:

Gordon Brown’s final Budget includes measures that hit the poorest group of workers in the country.

Gordon Brown claims the Budget is tax-cutting.

MPs finally read the Budget and realise that the poorest people are being hit by the change.

Gordon Brown denies anyone will be financially harmed by the Budget.

Rebellion stirs among the backbenchers.

Gordon Brown tells lobby journalists that the rebellion is tiny and not an issue.

Rebellion grows.

Gordon Brown forced to break from engagements in the White House to persuade spineless PPS not to resign.

Gordon Brown still claims the rebellion is insubstantial.

Frank Field reveals the scope of the rebellion: more than enough for a government defeat.

Gordon Brown dithers for a week.

Minutes before PMQs on Wednesday, Gordon Brown reveals plans to “compensate” those who have lost out as a direct result of his budget.

David Cameron mocks him for U-turning.

It becomes clear that the U-turn was a mere sleight of hand: the “compensation” has helped nobody very much.

Gordon Brown pretends all is well with the world.

Tories get 18-point lead in Telegraph poll.

If that is not a record of stubbornness, I will emigrate when I see one.  I also disagree with Vamp’s suggestion that the opposition “were apparently jubiliant yesterday but they were denied the grand scalp of a Commons defeat”.  These events play directly into the Tories’ greatest attack - Brown is a ditherer who is completely out of touch with reality.  Brown is fooling nobody: probably not even himself.  This is far, far more valuable than a commons defeat.

For those of you who are fooled by Brown, consider the sham of a compensation package he laid out yesterday.  Direct financial reimbursement for the employed will occur through an inflation-busting rise in the minimum wage - paid for by employers.  Other minor payouts will occur, but only the Winter Fuel Allowance will be backdated to this Spring.  Forgive my cynicism, but what exactly does backdating Winter payments from Autumn to Spring entail?  Precisely nothing.

Let’s not forget that this is a tax increase, not a surcharge on being poor.  When those hit by it are not properly reimbursed and those who are receive compensation only through their employers, the state is onto a winner.  Even if every person affected by the change came out of the compensation process with as much money as they had before, the government would still have made a profit! What an absolute scandal!

The truth is more startling still.  The government has pulled a profit from screwing over some of the lowest-paid workers in the country, and has saved its skin by screwing over their employers.  This, I fear, is the kind of disgusting stunt befitting a government that has been hanging out to dry for far too long.  If Vamp thinks this is an acceptable way to cling to power, I worry greatly about the long-term future of this country.

No government, however desperate, should ever resort to such dirty tactics as these.  It’s intolerably shameful.  It is a matter of great regret that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the alternatives would behave any differently.

About time.

Unlike most {all, in the case of the right} I see a deviation from the former stubborness of the Labour Party to be a positve thing. It does show that the Parliamentary Labour Party could easily have destroyed their leadership but for concessions but in who’s view is this actually a bad thing? That Brown acknowledged the error of his ways was pleasing and potentially election-saving for the party, although that he has not learnt his lesson enough to refrain from continuing to push the dangerous illiberal plans for 42-day detention is unsettling and a true pity.

With any luck that intention will fade and this will be added to the long list of raised and then dropped New Labour legislative suggestions, but somehow I doubt it. For now let us enjoy the victory of party over leadership and hope that this averts political triumph of the right. They were apparently jubiliant yesterday but they were denied the grand scalp of a Commons defeat. More than can be said for Blair, at least.

For now.

This is a fun channel. The BBC is teaming up with YouTube to bring us the Big Three candidates {yes, that includes Brian Paddick} to questions from what I imagine is estimated as roughly average Londoners. The questions get only a half minute response time or so, which usually ends in rather abrupt ending, but it’s still fun.

My favourite so far is this. It certainly does sound cunning.

By a margin that is not yet clear.

This is hardly news. So far it seems like a solid win for her but no wipe-out, although the vast majority of votes remain uncounted.

Miliband is clearly making the most of his position. Today he has taken on Mugabe in a fashion that reminds me rather of the aggressive stance taken by Zuma, the next in line to the South Africa. Given his target’s careful and longstanding positioning as opposed to “Imperialism” of the west an all out assault, albeit a rhetorical one, is problematic but Miliband seems to have pulled it off.

I’m not surprised.  Tory Troll sums it up well:

Of course The Sun’s endorsement of Boris Johnson should come as little surprise. Boris is in many ways the ideal Sun candidate. Here is a public school toff posing as a friend of the working class. A man who speaks almost entirely in mockney puns without actually saying anything even mildly offensive to Murdoch and his chums.

Quite simply he is a win-win candidate for the paper. If he fails as Mayor then he provides acres of stories and if he succeeds as mayor then nothing is lost. Even if he does fail, a Mayor Boris can blame all of his failures on a hostile Labour government. This in turn would be a plus for Murdoch, as he would have yet another stick with which to whip Brown.

Boris is astonishingly suited to the Sun.  His main policy platform - populism on crime - matches the Sun’s to a tee.  He worships Thatcher - as did they, in the 80s.  They both have similar views on immigration.  Both often verge on jingoism; note how the Sun approvingly borrows Boris’ quips about “Caracas Ken.”  Both hate the EU.  Both have written scurrilously about gays, and supported Section 28.  Both rely on image and bluster (or, in the Sun’s case, twin images emblazoned fully across page 3…) to cover a lack of substance.  Both write bad puns, and think themselves witty for it.  Both…

You get the picture.

And, meanwhile, the Sun has loathed Ken - or, the, “most odious man in Britain,” as they prefer it - since the 80s.  He was never going to win their support, and won’t miss it.

The Sun likes to tout itself as election-winning.  I find the claim questionable at the best of times - but here, it hasn’t made one bit of difference.  Unless it’d done something outlandish, like endorsing Paddick, this was entirely predictable.  The Sun has always hated Ken; meanwhile, it was bound to love Boris.  Its readers presumably agree, or pay so little attention to the Sun’s political coverage that it overly coming out (hah…) for Boris won’t have changed anything much.  So there…