Rebels without a cause

Silent forests

What does the PM’s envoy for forestry do? Or the envoy for Cyprus? Before we had a chance to find out, the country has lost both of them.

A sideshow of this stuttering 'rebellion' is news that some backbenchers had unpaid jobs that, apparently, made them part of the government. It also bandages their mouths against saying anything worthwhile-except possibly on Cyprus or forests.

 The ‘rebels’ are an odd bunch. Some of them are formers ministers. We all understand how they became ‘former’; the puzzle is how they became ministers in the first place.   They are all uber-Blair loyalists. It was today’s turn, in what looks like an arranged rota, for George Howarth to pipe up. He is  parliamentary loyalist of  Olympic standing. Tony Blair mentioned him as the exemplar of sycophantic questioning. That was after Blair had sacked him.

One interviewer suggested to George today that Jack Straw was pulling his strings.  Jack was appointed as a researcher by Barbara Castle because she admired his ‘low cunning.’ Even so, I find the Straw plot explanation unconvincing.

He was the main parliamentary cheerleader for the Iraq War. That is the indelible stain on Jack Straw's record.

Whose turn will it be to 'rebel' tomorrow? Not only are they rebels without a cause but also without a credible leader.

These are dire days adding to the Government's woes. How can the Government, in the most irritating cliché of the rebels, now ‘move forward’ on Cyprus or forests?

Patrick Holford next?

Rightly I was reminded after my Killer Vitamins postings that the UK has voices squawking in harmony to some of the basic ideas of Matthias Rath.

There is the splendid Patick Holford-watch web site. The splendid Gimpy blog confesses, “I am a masochist. This is why I signed up for ex-Visiting Professor Patrick Holford’s health e-news bulletins. Normally these emails consist of a plug for some dubious piece of pseudo-scientific equipment or vitamin supplements from one of the companies Patrick has a financial interest in. However, sometimes you get his thoughts on a new scientific study or perhaps an attack on one of his many critics. These types of things are usually covered by the always-admirable Holfordwatch but Patrick does produce a surfeit of nonsense so this time round I think I will deal with it.

The latest email from Patrick Holford comes with the provocative title “Omega 3’s, not Statins, Cut Risk of Heart Deaths‏”. Ben Goldacre devotes a whole chapter to Holford in his Bad Science book.

The media appear to uncritically adore him and lavishes ridiculously generous mock-serious attention to him.

Are there any real journalists about who could ask him the odd searching question? Or is this sort of thing now frowned upon on radio and telly?

Let anti-science bloom!

Ryder Meldrews

These are exciting days for Newport.

The great tree-lined boulevard is emerging in the centre of the city. It will be flanked by the new University campus. A new Newport vibrant student life will enliven the heart of the city.

The Meldrews are in full moan that the Ryder Cup will not deliver for the city. It will. The credit crunch ensures that some of the developments will be delayed. But they will happen and be there to enhance the city far into the future. The Ryder Cup week will give Newport more world attention than it’s ever had before.

The benefits will not be tangible and immediate but they will be immense.

Comments

[Ian]

The rebels appear to have no exit strategy, which is the worst possible kind of strategy.
However, you have to admire the cheek of the Lib Dems in their sudden right wing surge, just to try to catch some of the former Tory voters drifting back to their first home from a sinking New Labour.
Will a real Labour in England emerge in time?

[paulflynn]

The LibDems are in a strange position, Ian. One of the few perceptions that voters have of them is that they believe in the value of taxes .

This is now not a fashionable view, so they are trying an audacious piece of opportunism. They chance sacrificing much of their principled support. They have always laid great store by their integrity. That claim is looking pretty tattered now.

Their inspiration is election survival because they are terrified of losing seats to the Tories. That is a likely outcome if he present poll story persists. Labour could be helped in many seats with a strong LibDem showing.

[Huw O'Sullivan]

Abandoning core principles to try to get votes it's like new labour all over again.
Never mind, new labour has their slogan, but were better than the tories no matter how bad we are.
Finally we have the novel caring and compassionate tories.

What I wouldn't give for a mainstream left wing party.

[Brian McGrath]

I'm disappointed that you've set out to discredit the so-called rebels. I'm a Labour supporter, but I must say that the much vaunted relaunch is pathetic and, in my opinion, will do nothing to turn round the fortunes of the Government.

[PaulFlynn]

Thanks you Brian McGrath. The old adage still holds good in politics - Don't bark until you can bite'. The Labour Leader can be removed only if there are 70 MPs ready to demand an election. At the moment, the party mood seems to be to let him continue for the time being. If the present attempted coup fails it will have damaged the party needlessly.

While parliament is in session it's relatively easy to measure opinion. A leadership election could be called at many times between now and the period before the General Election in 2010.

I am one of the very few who did not nominate Gordon Brown for leader. Nearly all of the present 'rebels' did.

[PaulFlynn]

Huw, Nick Glegg's demonstrated how wonderfully out of touch he is with the country with his statement that he thought the basic pension was about £30 pounds. By that calculation the minimum wage would be £2 an hour. Is that what tax cuts will do for us.

[Huw O'Sullivan]

The LibDems disappointingly got rid of a decent leader, for reasons that were basically to do with him being honest.
Now just like New Labour they are abandoning long held principles which again are fundamentally about honesty, spending requires funding being the principle loser.

New Labour are in their Major years, which would be disappointing if there was any suggestion that the left could ever reclaim Labour, but there is no such possibility evident, so while saddened at the loss of Labour, I couldn't give a fig for the loss of New Labour.

As for out of touch, the current PM is the one who thought it would be such a good idea to cut everyones taxes, and partially fund that by increasing the taxes for the lowest paid. Not the most left wing policy in the world.
It prompted revolt of course, what disappointed me there was that the scale of the revolt over the 120 pounds tax was described as unprecedented, when one might have hoped that the scale of opposition to unjustifiable and illegal war, which would lead to thousands, tens of thousands and probably more deaths had prompted less opposition from the members of the New Labour party.
I would suggest to help solve future funding crises that we fund things like pensions from the bottomless purse that funds war and perhaps fund wars from current NI receipts.
Then we could worry about the war crisis whilst people stay warm and cosy with sufficient funds to meet day to day needs.

For me war crimes (of which aggressive war is the first and foremost) outweigh, minor adjustments in tax and extra help in getting lofts insulated.

New Labour is guilty, the Tories were complicit anyone who votes for anything connected with either of them, is endorsing that great crime of the 21st centruy.
Even voting for you Paul, for while you opposed the Iraq war, a vote for you did and could still put the warmongers back in power, a vote for you therefore is effectively an endorsement of those murderous actions.

But never mind, the generality of the electorate seem to care more about trivialities than the great crimes so you all may get lucky and most New Labour policy can continue under the Tories.
Perhaps they could merge and open up the field to some genuine opposition.
Rather than continue the devolving of British politics to the same childish level as exists in the US.

[patrick]

Huw
Paul's prediction in 1997 that Labour would win the election and lose the party is just about right.The moving to the right libs are totally pointless. We all know what that leaves us with ,(and we do have limits) the 'nasty party'.I remember the 90's vividly and to vote for them is unthinkable.So we have Three partys all occupying the same ground.Britain is in dire need of a serious political party taking up the Center-Left.
Perhaps I'll have to start it myself!

[Graham Marlowe]

Why am I never surprised to see Frank Field coming out of the woodwork at moments like this?. He is a very bitter man, motivated by spite. I wish the BBC would stop giving him airtime.

If we get a Tory government it will be thanks to the likes of Field, who has formed a double act with Tory Nicholas Soames for an anti-immigration group.

Any chance of Field crossing the floor?. Please. Let's face it, he is really an old one-nation Tory at heart.

Alan Milburn is another one who seems to want to hasten a Cameron government. I find his contributions especially irritating. here we have a man who has twice run away from government, taking up a consultancy position with one of the private companies he encouraged as Secretary of State for Health daring to presume to tell everyone else what needs to be done.

[PaulFlynn]

Alan Milburn has, in my view, committed the sin against the Holy Ghost in Labour parliamentary terms - by taking a paid job with the enemy while still being an MP. Earlier this year, my committee gave Richard Caborn for a roasting for this.

Frank Field is different. He could well cross the floor. To the LibDems, I believe.

[Graham Marlowe]

Paul, Thinking about the plotters, I have a feeling that at the centrre of this very nasty web, the two big spiders are really David Miliband and James Purnell. Purnell has refused to condemn the plotters, a few times now, and his and Miliband's positions seem to be similar - both young men in a hurry.

I think Jack Straw and Alan Johnson both feel that if they were to become leader they would only do so on a caretaker basis, like Menzies Campbell, or Vince Cable, and they would quickly be cast aside.

Earlier this week (Monday I think) Lance Price ex BBC man and later an employee of NL seemed to be suggesting that NL could win the next election - but only with Miliband in charge. I frankly think he was being either naive or too optimistic. Mr Miliband may look attractive to young women voters, but I don't think the majority of the country would be taken in. I notice that, just like they did with Gordon, his supporters are trying to suggest that Miliband is "to the left of Blair". I rather doubt that myself. The core Labour vote was angry at being taken in twice (before the '97 election I recall Blair supporters suggesting that while he might appear right-wing he wasn't really and would change position after an election win) and I don't think they would fall for the same trick a third time.

[PaulFlynn]

There is a great deal of truth in what you say, Graham.

However, I applaud Price's assertion that all is not lost for Labour in spite of the present gloom. Alan Johnson might stem the tide. He is very popular and has good working class roots. Milliband has a powerful intellect and a refreshing honesty in dealing with problems. We could do worse. Timing is crucial. Whoever the new leader might be, he should still be in the honeymoon of his/her leadership when the election is called.

[Graham Marlowe]

I really wisj Miliband would stop insulting our intel;ligence. It is quite obvious he is making a pitch for the top job, sooner rather than later. A family friendly spread this past weekend in the Mirror, a profile in the Times. Spreading himself thin at the Conference with 11 speeches in three days.

He may have a good intellect, but to be truthful,. I dislike him - bumptious and self importanr, not to mention pusillanimous ("I've always WANTED to support Gordon Brown as Prime Minister").

It is quite plain he is trying to say two things at the same time.

[paul Flynn]

I don't share that view. He could have lined up with the clueless dozen and derailed the conference. Good to hear some of the pundits eating their words this morning and saying the conference will be good for Labour.

Initially opposed to Milliband, I have been impressed by his intelligence and his willingness to debate his corner.

[Graham Marlowe]

I think, Paul, the only reason Miliband didn't join the plotters was that because it was too close to the Conference - if they had taken up the cudgels after his Guardian article in July then I suspect he would have gone for it.

I don't think another right-winger can save Labour at the next election and Miliband is too closely allied to Blair - he even uses similar speech patterns.