« Gillian Gibbons is free but two-and-a-half million Darfuris remain refugees from the Khartoum regime | Main | Unbelievable »


Gordon Brown could have avoided all this bad press if he had been decisive and had the courage to immediately sack those involved in money laundering. However it seems Gordon Brown lacks a political killer instinct.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -
It's all good but it's not enough.

Cameron is 1% behind Brown after everything that's gone wrong. Cameron needs what in the eighteenth century was called "bottom". Above all he needs to be enunciating an alternative that genuinely offers hope of something different and better, that even the cast iron cynicism of the current electorate cannot erode.

Vouchers, England, and a quibble-proof referendum on the Treaty.

But I won't hold my breath...

I am convinced that Brown knew what was going on even if not the absolute detail. That would explain his indecision and why he has not sacked Harman.

John Broughton, you are probably right. If he were to sack Harman and she squealed to the press that the prime minister had prior knowledge, it would make Brown's position completely untenable. He would have to go. It looks like she has definitely got something on him and is therefore untouchable.

"David Cameron as sleazy (28%)"

What's sleazy about DC?! This 28% must be prejudiced hardcore Mirror-reading LibLabs! A good measure of how blindly prejudiced some of them are towards us.

Votedave, well said. David Cameron hasn't been in a position where he could be sleazy same goes for Vince Cable. The 57% rating for Brown is pretty damning, I wonder what was Tony Blair's best ever score on the sleazeometer?

"A good measure of how blindly prejudiced some of them are towards us"
I'm not sure it is directed at "us". Isn't it just symptomatic of the "all politicians are sleazy" belief, held by the bulk of the population?

I have quoted below an extract from Quentin Davis resignation letter to David Cameron; Davis comments on Brown can only be viewed with hilarity or amazement:

"I am looking forward to joining another party with which I have found increasingly I am naturally in agreement and which has just acquired a leader I have always greatly admired, who I believe is entirely straightforward, and who has a towering record, and a clear vision for the future of our country which I fully share."

Maybe Mr Davis could be persuaded to give us his take on Brown's wonderful performance so far, and his straightforward manner of dealing with Labour sleaze.

Maybe Mr Davis could be persuaded to give us his take on Brown's wonderful performance so far, and his straightforward manner of dealing with Labour sleaze

Living in the neighbouring constituency to this new Labour MP, I'm not aware of any of his efforts in the press to trumpet the achievements of his Government at all! I was expecting at least the odd hypocritical "Labour does X for local people in Lincolnshire" headline to pop up in the Stamford Mercury at some point.

Perhaps like Mr Brown, he needs to take some time to set out this "towering vision". Or perhaps the poor man is simply embarassed...

I am quoting from an item on the latest BT Yahoo news page:

"A former Labour Mayor and his wife have been jailed for fraudulently claiming state benefits. John Walker, formerly the Mayor of Sefton, was jailed for 15 months and his wife Catie was sentenced to eight months, after the pair plotted to swindle almost £37,000 in Disability Living Allowance and Income Support".

Nice to see yet more Labour sleaze being uncovered.

"43% think Mr Cameron the most competent leader and 42% think the same of Mr Brown."

That is a damning indictment of both party leaders. Cameron should be miles ahead but the voters do not rate him. The Cameroons should not count their red boxes and limos yet....

Brown is NOT tainted with sleeze. He is tainted with corruption.

No, can we use the English language as it is intended instead of BBC leftspeak. Brown IS corrupt.

I think you can forgive people for being unsure how competent Cameron is, he hasn't run a department before after all.

I wouldn't get too worried about that stat.

David Sergeant, you have a very good point on the question of 'Corruption' and the usage of that word. The dictionary says:

lack of integrity or honesty, use of a position of trust for dishonest gain.

Given Labour's record since coming to office the term corruption fits many instances. Sadly we have now become like one of those third world countries that are fighting government corruption. How our nation's standing has fallen in the world. Thanks Labour!

I wonder how Quentin Davies feels now! He gave up a safe seat for nothing.

We believe an ICM/Newsnight poll? That 5 is really an 8, 87% would be more like it.

There is no doubt about it Brown and his adminstration are corrupt.

Harman solicits donations from a straw donor reccommended by Brown's campaign manager.

Hain admits not once but twice that his return to the electoral commission was wrong (if not frudulent) on two seperate occasions.

Wendy Alexander thanks a donor (in her own hand) who is not allowed to donate under laws promulgated and forced through parliament by labour.

And all the rest!

Brown says he does not know. Should that be true then he is neither in control of his party nor is he competent.

Bugger anybody else Brown should go and go now.

David Sergeant/Tony Makara.
Corrupt no. Thoroughly incompetent and off the plot yes. Still grounds for yellow card at least, and preferably red at the next election.
This administration jaunted in and blethered about "Joined Up Government". You know what, I have not seen a more disjointed bunch of bopheads outside of a crackhouse all claiming to be in full control of their destinies than this lot at the moment. They cannot link cause and effect at all and we are all suffering. David Cameron needs to highlight even more the dislocation between word and deed than he is already doing but without the theatrics of Question Time (which you have to sort of do)

Peter Hain has admitted that he failed to declare donations amounting to thousands of pounds at the time of his Deputy Leadership campaign, he should resign and if he doesn't then Gordon Brown should fire him.

""An ICM survey for Newsnight suggests that twice as many voters see Gordon Brown as sleazy (57%) as see David Cameron as sleazy (28%).""

The 57% "voters see Gordon Brown as sleazy" is evidential.

The 28% "see David Cameron as sleazy" is visceral.

Ask any dyed in the wool, card carrying Labour supporter that question and you will most likely get the same answer. It doesn't revolve around a dictionary meaning of sleazy, rather a gut reaction based on an extreme class divide. It may be that this reaction, driven by a deep seated distrust and aversion to anyone with DC's background, will never be totally overcome, but with a little effort "see him as sleazy" could become "....but they also see him as fair, caring, and sticking up for hard working men and women."

It is this additional viewpoint CCHQ need to develop in the electorate's mind. I'm not seeing evidence yet that CCHQ are working actively to present this persona to the wider public.

Let's have more column inches and TV time showing Cameron caring and passionate about issues which are affecting "normal people" today - committing to restore meals on wheels within three months of winning an election, committing to restore Remploy factories within twelve months, committing to overhaul this country's shabby treatment of the elderly....Britain isn't short of "caring" issues which need addressing.

This 28% must be prejudiced hardcore Mirror-reading LibLabs!

Too true. However, for all we know, DC might be a complete sleaze, but it would take at least a few years of a Conservative Government for us to know. Likewise, on competence we don't know until we have seen him in action (though his party leadership is of course a proxy).

Gordon Brown on the other hand has proven to be both sleazy & incompetent. Therefore the real sad result is that so many of the electorate are willing to overlook the manifest sins of their own tribe.

Is this the real reason why Nick Boles pulled out of the Mayoral primary? Or is it a present for giving Boris a clear run?

James Brokenshire must be wondering if there was CCHQ interference in the Grantham & Stamford selection. He was defeated by two CCHQ-favoured ethnic candidates in Witham (Priti Patel after the Miraj fiasco) and Gillingham (won by Labour defector Chishti). James and Tim Collins, with years of frontbench experience) did not make the final! Of course, the fact that Brokenshire publicly declared for David Davis will have nothing to do with his selection difficulties.

The blatant CCHQ manipulation of candidates - the Approved List, Priority List, European List and candidate selections - is undemocratic at best and corrupt at worst. The voters are not stupid and I am not surprised that over a quarter see Cameron as sleazy.

Nick Boles was ill, diagnosed with a form of cancer, Z lister. That is why he had to withdraw from the mayoral contest. We can all be pleased that he has recovered.

Z lister, Witham was not manipulated at all. Not by CCHQ nor anybody else. James Brokenshire made the final and spoke well.Priti Patel spoke better however and won the members vote easily.Her selection was the clear wish of most association members at the meeting.

Nick Boles had Hodgeson's disease, the mildest and easily treatable form of lymphoma. The cure rate is well over 90% and has been for over 20 years. The chemotherapy treatment is no longer as gruelling as it used to be.

Boles could have fought the Mayoral primary whilst being treated. He certainly recovered quick enough to get the Grantham and Stamford nomination.

"Brown is NOT tainted with sleeze. He is tainted with corruption."

I agree, G Brown has made Shriti Vadera a Junior Minister in the Department of International Development.

I am not sure if you are aware of her background but she came to our attention over Rail Track in Simon Jenkins article in the Sunday Times of the 17th July 2005, most notably regarding project Ariel, Byers plan to renationalise Rail Track. She was seconded to the Treasury from UBS Warburg’s and came to notoriety in her emails on Rail Track such as her email saying...

'Can we engineer a solution through insolvency and therefore avoid compensation'

and Shriti Vadera's emails saying...'the American investor we have to worry about' (the small investors here they were trying to stitch up were obviously of no concern ).

and her email saying that they wanted to make the scheme so complex it would 'lose the tabloids'

It should be noted UBS Warburg’s made £45 million from the floatation of Rail track, held 3 million of their shares, but surprise, surprise managed to off load them just before insolvency had been forced on Rail Track unlike the 250,000 other share holders.

Warburg’s also then appeared as the advisor to Network rail, the successor to Rail Track, for an undisclosed fee. It also handled the £9 billion bond issue the following year.

Another Warburg employee seconded to the Treasury Robert Jennings was given a CBE for services to the transport industry.

So in light of this lady’s appointment it would be hard to suggest that this is a new Government, a new Government which has ditched the spin and manipulation, a Government not tarnished with dodgy dealings and sleaze. Above all I wonder what Labour backbenches, already unhappy at having Ministerial positions outsourced from the party, would feel at having this Lady being given a Ministerial position?

Nick Boles had Hodgeson's disease, the mildest and easily treatable form of lymphoma. The cure rate is well over 90% and has been for over 20 years. The chemotherapy treatment is no longer as gruelling as it used to be.

Boles could have fought the Mayoral primary whilst being treated. He certainly recovered quick enough to get the Grantham and Stamford nomination.

Posted by: Z lister | December 04, 2007 at 11:18

If Conservative Home ran a competition for the most contemptible, callous comment over a 12 month period, this one from "Z lister" (one can see why) would win it by a mile.

Here here Mr Archer. reprehensible post from Z lister, it is not for him to say what any candidate can and cant do having been diagnosed with cancer

It is an indictment of the extraordinary levels of probity in politics in this country compared with others that you are even suggesting that the government is corrupt. These accusations are being made far too lightly, and they have a corrosive effect on peoples' views of all policitians, as the poll demonstrates.

I can live with insults from the preening, supercilious Mr Archer. His "columns" on this site are self-indulgent tosh.

2 Amazing posts on this thread.Z lister's obviously which is absolutely contemptible and typically from someone who is too cowardly to reveal their real name.
The claim that Britain can demonstrate 'extraordinary level of probity in politics in this country' is equally amazing.Do you really believe that Passing Leftie? Come on, be honest ,do you really believe that?

Do you really believe that Passing Leftie? Come on, be honest ,do you really believe that?

Compared with other countries, yes.

"I wonder how Quentin Davies feels now! He gave up a safe seat for nothing."

I suspect he privately regrets his decision to defect, but will not admit it and so will feel obliged to remain on the Labour benches. He underestimated DC this summer, and didn't realise the Brown Bounce was never going to last for ever.

Johan Eliasch must also feel a right chump, who got enticed into Brown's big tent on some environmetal issues only to find Gordon Brown gave the go ahead for a third runway at heathrow, a sixth terminal and loads of nuclear power stations.

I'm so glad Dave appointed a mate (with FA experience of Whitehall) to run his 'implementation unit', as otherwise he might have had to give the job to someone who, er, had some experience of implementing stuff in Whitehall, and, further err, wasn't a mate. (And people accused Blair of Cronyism! Or perhaps a panel at CCO invited applications for this clearly important post and gave the job to Nick on 'merit'?)

As far as the Mayoral stuff goes, as said at the time, some of us might have had a bit more respect for Boles if he had said, 'I'm quitting the nomination race because plainly I'm not going to win' rather than using the excuse he did.

Even by your standards a nasty post ACT.I sincerely doubt you have any special knowledge of Nick Boles' cancer.

ACT: You make a reasonable point about the job application process for the IO job but I won't tolerate further comments about Nick's cancer. You bring your other arguments into disrepute by pursuing this line anyway.

You can be as hysterical as you want Malcolm. Boles plainly wasn't going to win the mayoral election. Even the most deluded Mod doesn't even bother any more to claim that he would have done. Had Boles ended up as the Tory candidate, such a demonstrably duff campaigner was more than capable of not merely losing to Ken but of taking us to 3rd place behind the Liberals. And he would have done all that as an Uber-Davista, thereby tainting the parent brand. His cadidature was a disaster and it was a good thing it was aborted when it was. He said that his health meant he couldn't run; happily his health has improved enough since that he can run for parliament. You find what I say distasteful. Fair enough. I find what Boles did distasteful - namely his not being up front about why he dropped out of the mayoral race. I say it was politics; he claimed it was his health.

Meanwhile, I note Malcolm, you haven't addressed the central point of cronyism - I wonder why? So who did interview Boles before he was appointed to what is, if we are to take it at all seriously, plainly a crucial job? What actual experience does Nick Boles have that will assist in implementing an opposition manifesto in office? Alternatively, here again is an example of Dave looking out for a mate: Boles' campaigning track record (cf. the lousy result in 2005) saw him rewarded first with A List status, then with his CV being one of the hallowed few forwarded to Grantham. You can say that his having been ill puts him beyond criticism; I say if he's (thank God) well enough to stand for parliament, he's well enough to take criticism.

Our posts crossed. Look Tim, if you want to look out for your mates too (whilst of course leaving up plenty of negative stuff on this about the folk *you* don't like), go right ahead and redact what you will. Whether or not Nick has people 'lookig out for him' goes to the heart of this particular question - is he the right man for the implementation unit? Who can say because who seriously thinks he was given the job on merit?

It seems Wendy Alexander is toast, for the Sunday Herald has eveidence that she knew the donations were illegal weeks before it was revealed.


ACT, you mix in some good points with the rather unpleasant insinuation that Nick Boles was not telling the truth about his cancer. Do you have any evidence for that?

Your points about cronyism are fair enough.


I'm closing this thread.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker