Gordon Brown is on the run...

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:36 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Mall memorial planned for Queen Mother Stephen Bates Tuesday January 10, 2006 The Guardian Buckingham Palace yesterday announced plans to build a £2m memorial to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, in the Mall in central London, near her former home at Clarence House and next to a statue to her husband, King George VI. Designers, architects and artists from Britain, the Commonwealth and across the world are being invited to submit expressions of interest for designing the memorial by the end of this month. A selection panel will then draw up a shortlist to prepare costed proposals. Prince Charles, known for his decided views on art and architecture, will be among those deciding on the final commission. Article continues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The site chosen for the memorial will be along the north side of the Mall, between Clarence House and Admiralty Arch, where the George VI statue, erected 50 years ago and showing the king in naval uniform, currently stands. Officials hope the memorial will be in place by the summer of next year, though the recent history of royal memorials has not been a happy one. The Princess Diana Memorial, a water feature by the Serpentine, has been beset by design problems and the earlier, stainless steel Queen Elizabeth Gates near Hyde Park Corner, opened by the Queen in 1993, are described in one website guide as "by common consent the worst gates in the capital". Buckingham Palace yesterday said it hoped to raise the cost of the new memorial by sales of a £5 coin to be produced this year to commemorate the Queen's 80th birthday. Previous fund-raising for memorials to the Queen Mother in Scotland has not been entirely successful: the fund, launched in November 2003, is £400,000 short of its £1m target. Work has, however, started on building a memorial garden at the Royal Botanical Gardens in Edinburgh.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1682924,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/monarc...24,00.html</a> WTF? What's that got to do with Gordon Brown being on the run??? From last year... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Times Online March 16, 2005 £2m memorial to Queen Mother By Simon Freeman, Times Online Gordon Brown today announced plans for a £2 million public memorial to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother outside Buckingham Palace. The monument in The Mall will be financed by the proceeds of a commemorative coin to be struck to mark the Queen’s 80th birthday next year. Details of the proposal - announced, fittingly, as the Queen Mother Champion Chase got underway at Cheltenham - have yet to be finalised. One proposal is, however, to add the Queen Mother's likeness and a new fountain to an existing statue of her husband George VI, which overlooks Horse Guards Parade. The Chancellor told the Commons: “Mr Deputy Speaker, it is right to honour the life and service of the Queen Mother with a permanent memorial to her. “After approval from Her Majesty the Queen, I can announce that the Treasury will allocate the proceeds from a new coin celebrating the Queen’s 80th birthday to a memorial to the Queen Mother to be situated on The Mall.” It is understood that Mr Brown, in his role as Master of the Mint, discussed the memorial with the Queen yesterday afternoon when he outlined his Budget during a confidential royal audience at Buckingham Palace. Talks had also been held with the Prince of Wales at Clarence House, his London residence. The Queen Mother, who died on March 30, 2002, aged 101, was arguably Britain’s best-loved Royal. Mr Brown’s announcement is a measure likely to receive widespread support, particularly among the elderly. Whoever is put in charge of the project will be keen to avoid the pitfalls which beset the last major public project to commemorate a member of the royal family. Mr Brown himself was the chairman of the committee which oversaw the £3.6 million Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain in Hyde Park, which has been beset by safety, drainage and design problems and is presently closed. Andrew Pierce, editor of The Times's People column, said: “This will undoubtedly be a very popular measure but I think if the coin sales are better than expected there will be a clamour for a stand-alone monument. “The Prince of Wales and the Queen will be the key figures in making the decision. Gordon Brown is well aware of the potential pitfalls and I am certain there will be a concerted effort to ensure there is no repeat of the debacle which surrounded Diana’s fountain.” <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/Class/Motoring/context/0,,0-55,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/Cla...55,00.html</a> Gordon Brown is desperate to distance himself from the Queen Mother. As for why that might be so, have a look here <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=2221.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...2221.topic</a>

by **antiaristo** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:03 pm

I'll have something to say about this tomorrow (late here) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Brown: Remembrance Sunday should become 'British Day' Chancellor advocates annual celebration to emulate Fourth of July Patrick Wintour, chief political correspondent Saturday January 14, 2006 The Guardian Flying the flag for tolerance: Gordon Brown says the union flag should be reclaimed from the right. Photograph: Getty Images Gordon Brown will propose today that Remembrance Sunday should be developed into a national day of patriotism to celebrate British history, achievements and culture. The chancellor envisages a "British Day", equivalent to the Fourth of July independence celebrations in the United States. Mr Brown's remarks at a Fabian Society conference sponsored by the Guardian represent his clearest attempt yet to flesh out his personal political programme. In his speech Mr Brown will embrace the patriotism of the US, saying: "In any survey our most popular institutions range from the monarchy to the army to the NHS. But think: what is our Fourth of July? What is our Independence Day? Where is our declaration of rights? What is our equivalent of a flag in every garden? Perhaps Remembrance Day and Remembrance Sunday are the nearest we have come to a British day - unifying, commemorative, dignified and an expression of British ideas of standing firm for the world in the name of liberty." Article continues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr Brown recognises that adding an element of celebration to Remembrance Day - traditionally for mourning Britain's war dead - could be controversial so he is also looking at a new day for Britishness modelled on the celebrations of VE Day. Either way, he believes the British flag needs to be recaptured from the far right. "The union flag should be a British symbol of unity around our values ... and we should assert that the union flag is for tolerance and inclusion." Mr Brown will also give the first clues about his thinking in other areas of policy. He will suggest that: · The government should withdraw further from the appointment of judiciary and clergy, even the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This follows hints that he accepts the need for a check on the government's right to declare war without parliamentary sanction. · Some of the political intensity could be taken from the tuition fees dispute by proposing that students be given extra grants if they agree to serve the community in their gap year before university. · A new constitutional settlement should be considered, including handing power to local neighbourhoods and councils. The chancellor's aides believe that a renewed patriotism, celebrating all the elements of modern Britain, is an agenda that the Conservatives cannot readily follow because in their hands it would look backward-looking and even chauvinistic. He will say the centre and the left have failed to understand that the values on which Britishness is based - fairness, liberty and responsibility - owe more to progressive ideas than to rightwing ones. Mr Brown also appears to accept that an elected Lords is not on Mr Blair's third-term agenda: he will say that Lords reform is an issue to which the party must return in a fourth term. Aware that David Cameron has proposed a form of national volunteering service, Mr Brown will seek to reclaim the issue, pointing to his plans in the 2004 budget to encourage youth volunteering first set out in the Russell commission. The English language, he will say, should be made an essential element of citizenship, through mandatory language courses for jobseekers found wanting. Veterans' groups backed the idea of celebrating Britishness, but opposed confusing that with Remembrance Day. John Hawthornthwaite, national chairman of the Royal British Legion, said: "Anything that would dilute what Remembrance Sunday and November 11 stand for would not be welcome. They have been instituted to remember the sacrifices of those who died for our freedom."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,1686298,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/l...98,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:27 am

Hardly anybody understands the Constitution. That is by design. That is where Mr Brown's neo-fascist design can slip through unnoticed. My friends need to know that "Britain" is a non-existent entity. Mr Brown is trying a bit of bait and switch here. England and Scotland are separate, sovereign nations. - each has its own national Church (Church of England, Church of Scotland) - each has its own national legal system - each has its own High Court (London, Edinburgh) - Scotland has its own national parliament in Edinburgh. England does not. The Westminster parliament is the parliament of the United Kingdom. What the two nations share is a line of succession to the Crown. And that is all. This man, Mr Gordon Brown, is Scottish. He's telling us English what to do about OUR church. It's none of his business. But then the "supremo" of the English Courts is Lord "Charlie" Falconer, who happens to be Scottish as well. My message to both men is this. Fuck off back to where you came from. And take your stinking rotten Scottish Rite Freemasonry and its Talmud based class system with you. The laws of England are MY BIRTHRIGHT under the Act of Settlement. I denounce you both and all your works. OUR Church is the only bar to Camilla Parker-Bowles becoming queen. NO MORE KILLER QUEENS

by **antiaristo** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:47 pm

Nice conclusion from the Observer <blockquote>Quote:<hr>So whatever pageantry might be confected for Mr Brown's holiday, it is safe to assume that satires, mockery and subversion will win the day. Perhaps in anticipation of that, Mr Brown should opt now for 1 April<hr></blockquote>.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:20 pm

Have I struck a nerve? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In Blair’s case he feels a worrying lack of respect for himself, well corroborated in opinion polls, and so he is trying to associate himself publicly with the idea of respect, in an unsophisticated kind of adman dog-whistling. In Brown’s case, he feels a worrying excess of Scottishness, well corroborated in opinion polls, which might well stand between him and No 10, so he is trying equally crudely to make us associate him with Britishness. He is fooling around with our national sense of identity to support his own personal crisis. Scottishness is a nail-biting problem for Brown. Generally speaking most people in England quite like the Scots, even though they seem to hate us. Surveys show we find their accents suggest intelligence and reliability. Politically speaking, however, this easy affection is disappearing fast, as Brown is well aware. Devolution in Scotland and Wales — fought for and introduced by new Labour — has much undermined our common sense of Britishness and fostered instead a new and rather irritable sense of Englishness in the South. Meanwhile Scots feel more Scottish and less British than at any time since 1707, according to some surveys, led astray, possibly, by films such as Braveheart. More importantly the English public is at last beginning to sit up and take notice of the famous West Lothian question — the problem first identified by the then MP for West Lothian, that Scottish MPs at Westminster can vote and carry the Commons on domestic policies such as education and health that don’t affect them or their constituencies. The government has increasingly relied on the Scottish vote to push through purely English legislation, against English votes, and yet the reverse is not true; English MPs have no say over comparable Scottish affairs. This is obviously unfair, as is the fact that more taxpayers’ money goes to Scotland, per head, for public services than in England, following the old Barnett formula. Devolution has only made this long-standing injustice feel worse. In response, a feeling of English separatism is growing; the English hardly need Scotland and Wales and would be much freer and richer without them. It is not only those on the far right, now, who complain of the number of Scots at Westminster and their undue influence. Devolution as of now is plainly unjust. Scottish MPs are overmighty and a Scottish prime minister at Westminster, post-devolution, would find himself in a false position. Remarkably slowly England’s voters are beginning to wake up to all this. The higher their perception of it becomes, the lower will be Brown’s chances of arriving at long last at the summit of his smouldering ambition. So he has to persuade us somehow that he is not all that Scottish at all. No, he’s British. We’re all British (though this leaves out the awkward position of the Northern Irish, who aren’t exactly British.) He might even fly the Union Jack. But these questions are not going to go away. There are ways of resolving them, of course. Why not try genuine devolution? Why not make the Commons English and only English? Why not create a new upper chamber to deal with matters British? But there is no personal incentive for Brown to promote any of that.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1986089,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...89,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:13 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Times January 16, 2006 Prince prepares to take expanded role as Queen trims her workload By Andrew Pierce THE Prince of Wales will hold more regular audiences with the Prime Minister as part of a review of his duties, while the Queen prepares to scale back her public engagements as her 80th birthday approaches. Buckingham Palace is considering giving the Prince more access to government papers, and is to allow him to preside over more investitures, meet more foreign dignitaries and take the place of the Queen in welcoming ambassadors at the Court of St James’s. The Queen, whose birthday is in April, and the Duke of Edinburgh, 85 in June, want to spend less time in London and more at Windsor. The Prince, who held two private audiences with Tony Blair last year, will relish more meetings with ministers, to whom he writes regularly on a range of issues. <hr></blockquote> Here's the thing. The decision about who is fit to wear the Crown of England is a matter for the English parliament and for the Church of England. That IS the Act of Settlement. The English Parliament of course has been abolished. And Mr Blair now plans to spy on English MP's And Mr Brown wants to dis-Establish the Church of England. The decision is NOT for "Buckingham Palace". But the Old Slag has very sharp elbows. This is part and parcel of the desperate effort to get Charlie the Kilt and his mistress safely on the Throne. Before the people find out WHY he murdered his English wife. Which reminds me. Whatever did happen to that inquiry?

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:29 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>11.45am Lords bid to resolve 'West Lothian question' Hélène Mulholland and agencies Tuesday January 17, 2006 A bill being introduced in the House of Lords today could stop Scottish and Welsh MPs voting on issues that affect only England. The legislation - which has little chance of becoming law - is being put forward by the former Conservative home secretary Lord Baker. Lord Baker believes the devolution settlement makes an even stronger case for MPs in the devolved parts of the UK to be barred from having a say over legislative matters only affecting England. The thorny issue of Scottish MPs voting on English questions has been known in Westminster as the "West Lothian question" since the 1970s, when it was raised by the then MP for that area, Tam Dalyell. The problem was highlighted last year, when the government's proposal for a partial ban on smoking in English pubs passed the committee stage in the Commons by a single vote from a Scottish MP, to whose constituency the legislation did not apply, Mr Baker said. Lord Baker - who served in Margaret Thatcher's cabinet as Kenneth Baker - told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that it was "unacceptable" that Scottish and Welsh MPs now vote on issues which do not affect their constituencies: "There should be no legislation without representation," he said. He explained: "The supremacy of Westminster has been divided. You set up an institution in Scotland - the Scottish parliament - with legislation-making powers and the government is putting a bill through parliament to give the Welsh assembly virtually the same powers. "That changes everything, because we have devolved to Scotland control of domestic issues." Mr Baker said in the future the speaker should certificate a bill that defined the territorial extent of a given bill or part of a bill. This would disallow certain groups of MPs - English MPs or Welsh or Scottish or Northern Irish MPs - to debate and vote on a legislative matter if it did not affect their constituencies under devolution. Lord Baker said the process of devolution carried out by Labour since it came to power meant it must now be answered. "The only way we are going to keep the UK together is by not accepting a manifest unfairness for England," warned Lord Baker. The Devolution Acts (199<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> essentially transferred the functions of the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland offices, as departments of UK government, to new, directly elected institutions in the non-English nations: the Scottish parliament, the national assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland assembly. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, devolution is based on the separation of reserved and devolved powers, whereas the Welsh assembly is weaker, with less legislative scope. Attempts to prohibit MPs from different parts of the UK from voting on parliamentary issues could throw the process of voting into confusion, however. Voting MPs are merely ticked off a list by tellers as they walk into the room to vote on a bill. Under the present system, it would be impossible to tell who had taken part in the vote until after it was concluded. Amendments would need to be made in order to preclude Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs walking into the room in the first place to vote on a bill affecting only England. The bill will be debated in the Lords in February, though bills tabled in the Lords rarely make it through the legislative process without receiving strong backing from the government.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1688301,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/uk_new...01,00.html</a> Too little, too late, Mrs Windsor! People who post on this board can believe what they like. But there's a large constituency who read and do not post. They're reacting to what I write like puppets on a string. But it's not going to help. Your family is going to get the payback for all that you've done, Killer Queen. Because they KNOW what you've done. That's a prediction, by the way. Nothing more. I have nothing to threaten anybody.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:53 pm

Love to know the real story on this <blockquote>Quote:<hr>No 10 tight-lipped over Leo kidnap 'plot' · Focus on extremists linked to fathers campaign · 'Plotters warned they may be shot' if plan went ahead Colin Blackstock and Michael White Wednesday January 18, 2006 The Guardian Detectives have investigated a plot to kidnap Tony Blair's son, Leo, after it emerged that extremists linked to the fathers' rights group Fathers4Justice were allegedly intending to snatch the Blairs' youngest child as a form of direct action.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,1689007,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/l...07,00.html</a>

by **firstimer** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:07 pm

I know nothing of the circumstances, but I read it as a threat to Blair to toe the line on A war or some attack that he wants to back out of. When was the last time activists were stupid enough to try to kidnap a child for attention to their cause? Comon, Besides that Kid that was dragged back to cuba dammit! I knew somebody was going to remember that one! (at least he lives, saw him last week on the box. Now I'd be willing to drag certain Neocons behind my truck across the country to celebrate the Second American Revolution, but never would I think that grabbing a kid is going to get some good press and attention to my political beliefs. The public is insulted daily with such transparent folly as this kidnapping story that it qualifies as a repetitive mass ritual of looking the other way. Hunter S. Thompson even thinks there is a season for it, but the kidnappers never pull out the soapbox in that season do they? firstimer

by **antiaristo** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:14 am

This is a fabulous result. There is no emnity between the peoples of England and Scotland, and this result proves it. But there IS emnity against those at the top who keep the peope under their thumb. The Queen of England The Queen of Scotland The same person. And her henchmen Blair, Brown and Cameron. Where is the "Cameron Effect" all of the national press have been twittering on about for months???? The Conservative vote actually fell from 4400 to 2700. Personally I would like to see Simon Hughes lead the Lib-Dems. He was knifed by Rupert Murdoch, so I'd like to see the Party show Murdoch that it is they, and not his arsewipe "newspapers" who choose the leader in a democracy. But it is a matter for the Liberal Democrats. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Lib Dems stun Labour in byelection triumph · Dunfermline win restores party composure · Victor says result will 'rock' Downing Street Tania Branigan, political correspondent Friday February 10, 2006 The Guardian The Liberal Democrats were last night celebrating a sensational byelection victory as they overturned an 11,500 majority in what should have been one of Labour's safest seats. Their triumph in Dunfermline and West Fife not only proved they can fight the government in its heartland, but came as a welcome fillip after months of leadership turmoil. Their shock win - with a 16% swing carrying them to a 1,800 majority - is not just a blow to the government but to Gordon Brown personally. Although part of the seat used to belong to the chancellor's neighbouring constituency, and he visited four times over the campaign, his popularity was not enough to hold it for Labour in the face of a low turnout. The party saw its vote plummet from 20,100 at the general election to just 10,600 - while the Lib Dem vote climbed from 8,500 to 12,400. It should have been a straightforward fight. But Labour's campaign was dogged by controversy over proposals to quadruple toll charges on the Forth road bridge and the closure of a local printer manufacturers with the loss of 700 jobs. Labour's anxiety about the seat was underlined last week, when the government's religious and racial hatred bill was defeated in part because so many Labour MPs were absent from the Commons, campaigning in Dunfermline. But whatever the causes, the result will hardly be welcome to Mr Brown, who has been consolidating his position as the next Labour leader and prime minister. The point was underscored by the winning candidate, Willie Rennie, who warned: "[The voters] have sent a powerful message to the government which will rock the foundations of Downing Street - No 10 and No 11. Labour has taken people for granted for too long. There has been too much spin and not enough delivery. It's time Tony Blair and Gordon Brown both got that message: This is a sensational victory." Former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy called the result "a seismic event in Scottish and UK politics". The result is likely to be particularly welcome to Sir Menzies Campbell, the acting Lib Dem leader, who holds a neighbouring seat. Mr Rennie paid tribute to Rachel Squire, the popular and hard-working MP whose death after a long illness triggered the byelection. Catherine Stihler, the MEP seeking to hold the seat for Labour, also paid tribute to Mrs Squire, adding: "This is not what Rachel would have wanted, but I think I know what she would have said: We have to listen to the people and we have to learn." Mr Rennie pointed out that the result was also "deeply depressing" for the SNP, which was only 500 votes behind the Lib Dems last May and had hoped to leapfrog into second place.Instead, its vote - like that of Labour and the Conservatives - dropped. Even David Cameron, the Tory leader, had visited the seat but failed to prompt a Scottish revival for the party. Its vote slumped from 4,400 to 2,700. Mr Rennie is a former chief executive of Scottish Liberal Democrats and an account director for a firm advising charities and businesses. He was runner-up in the Scottish coal-carrying championship. Result Willie Rennie, Liberal Democrat 12,391 (35.8%) Catherine Stihler, Labour 10,591 (30.6%) Douglas Chapman, SNP 7,261 (21%) Carrie Ruxton, Conservative 2,702 (7.8%) Swing from Labour to Lib Dems 16.24% Electorate 71,017 Turnout 34,578 (down 11.21%)<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/story/0,,1706900,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/l...00,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:58 pm

Sorry if this seems tedious, but this really is a huge event in the recovery of British democracy. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> 10.45am update Lib Dems hail victory in Brown's backyard Matthew Tempest, political correspondent Friday February 10, 2006 The Labour party today moved to distance Gordon Brown from the shock byelection defeat in Dunfermline, with the Scottish secretary, Alastair Darling, saying he alone took "full responsibility". Despite Mr Brown living in the constituency - previously a safe Labour seat - and campaigning in it four times, he was today in Moscow for a meeting of the G8, and not commenting on the shock defeat which overturned Labour's 11,500 majority. Instead, Mr Darling put the loss down to a failure to "galvanise [our] own vote" and accepted that a "range of issues", such as tolls on the Forth bridge, had contributed to the defeat. But putting a brave face on the result, Mr Darling insisted that "people were not electing a government". Tacitly admitting the campaign had been hobbled by the row over bridge tolls - in fact a matter devolved to the Scottish parliament rather than Westminster - Mr Darling conceded: "If [people] are concerned about this they vote against you - whether you're directly responsible for it or not." He added: "We got a warm response but not enough. We've got to learn from that. We've got to galvanise your own vote. Some people will have thought 'it's in the bag - it's a safe Labour seat'." "I accept entire responsibility for the conduct of the election campaign." Last night's result - widely unexpected even among seasoned byelection observers - saw the Liberal Democrat candidate, Willie Rennie, take the seat with a 1,800 majority on a 16.2% swing after a bruising campaign. Amid a low turnout, the Tories' vote also slumped from 4,400 in the general election to 2,700. The shock victory comes as a boost for the Lib Dems, whose national poll rating had been dropping following the ousting of Charles Kennedy, and a succession of scandals during the present leadership campaign. Sir Menzies Campbell, speaking alongside leadership rival Simon Hughes in the town this morning, said the result was "very damaging" for Mr Brown. He also joked, "If this is Lib Dem meltdown, then give us more!". A victorious Mr Rennie, an account director for a firm advising charities and businesses and a former runner-up in the Scottish coal-carrying championship, today said the election was symbolic of a turn against Labour. "People are fed up with Labour. They are going to be fed up with Labour in their heartlands because Labour think they will get elected without doing any work at all and this shows that no longer is the case," he told BBC Breakfast. "The Labour party must be very worried about the Liberal Democrat advance, especially right next to Gordon Brown's own seat. "I've got three or four years to prove I am worthy to be the MP in Dunfermline and West Fife and I will be working hard to win more of their trust to make sure I win it next time. This seat can be held for the Liberal Democrats." Asked who he was backing in the Liberal Democrat leadership contest, Mr Rennie said: "I've had quite a busy time over the last few hours and weeks and have not finally made up my mind who I'm going to be backing in this election." Sir Menzies told the programme: "It comes, of course, as a great antidote to the turbulence of the last few weeks and will make an enormous difference to the morale of the party. The Liberal Democrats are back in business." At last May's general election the late Rachel Squire won the seat for Labour with a majority of 11,562. The result was a disappointment for the Scottish National party, which increased its vote share by barely 2% to trail in third place, and a blow for the Tories, who dropped to just 7.8% despite a high-profile campaign appearance by new party leader, David Cameron. The byelection follows a general election advance by Lib Dems last year which left them the second largest party in Scotland in both seats and votes. It brings their Commons strength to 63. Former party leader Charles Kennedy said: "This is a fantastic victory for the Liberal Democrats and a seismic event in Scottish and UK politics. I am absolutely delighted by this result both for Willie Rennie personally and the entire party campaign." The Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, Nicol Stephen, said his party had fought a sensational campaign with a great candidate. The leadership contender, Simon Hughes, said the result "confirms that there are no no-go areas for the Liberal Democrats" while the third aspirant to the Lib Dems' top job, Chris Huhne, said: "Willie Rennie is a class act for Dunfermline and for Scotland. He will be an enormous asset to the growing Liberal Democrat parliamentary party."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/story/0,,1706948,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/l...48,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:57 am

Let me try to explain WHY this is so significant. The Liberal-Democrats have an historic dilemma. Their instincts lead them to the left, certainly well to the left of Blair, Brown & Co. However the majority of their target seats are held by the Conservative Party. The convntional wisdom is that a more progressive agenda will alienate conservatives in their target seats. This "conventional wisdom" has permitted Charles Kennedy (a fully paid-up member of the Scottish Raj) to move the Liberal Democrat Party to the right. BUT if no labour seat is now safe, then we are on the threshold of a reallignment in British politics. The Lib-Dems can be themselves. And Labour can move to the left....or die. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>No Labour seat safe, say Lib Dems after victory in Brown's backyard Kirsty Scott Saturday February 11, 2006 The Guardian They've had precious little to smile about in recent weeks, but the Liberal Democrats thronging the streets of Dunfermline yesterday could barely contain their grins or their glee at stealing one of Labour's safest seats from right under the nose of Gordon Brown. In a result that few predicted possible given the party's annus horribilis, the Lib Dems overturned a solid Labour majority of 11,500 to secure the Dunfermline and West Fife constituency, which is not only home to the chancellor, but the neighbouring seat to his. The talk on the streets yesterday was as much of the snub the result had delivered to Mr Brown as of the Lib Dems' extraordinary byelection success. Mr Brown was in effect Labour's poster boy for the campaign and made many trips to the area to try to maintain the support built up by the late and much admired Rachel Squire. "It's got to hurt, doesn't it," said William Robertson, 83, a lifetime Labour supporter, making his way home with the daily papers. "It's got to dent his chance of being leader." It was left to a subdued Scottish secretary, Alistair Darling, to try to salve Labour's wounds in the light of such a crushing defeat. He blamed local issues that seemed to confound Labour: the ailing town centre, Forth road bridge tolls and threats to the local hospital. "People were sending off a very clear message about a range of matters - they weren't electing a government," said Mr Darling. "When we were electing a government eight months ago we had a good majority in Dunfermline and West Fife and Gordon had a good majority in his seat. What is pretty clear, and it is not just us that is saying it, is that this campaign was dominated by local issues." But the Lib Dems said the result sent out a warning to the government that none of its seats was now safe. The win also proved, they said, that despite their own recent turmoil, the party was still considered a fighting force and a credible alternative. "The important thing is that this is in Labour's heartland," said Sir Menzies Campbell, who joined the new MP, Willie Rennie, and fellow party leadership hopeful Simon Hughes on a chaotic victory stroll down Dunfermline High Street. "You would think this is a seat that would be totally impervious, that Labour would win in all circumstances, yet they have not been able to do that. I think that shows fundamental disillusionment with Labour in Britain and more particularly here in Scotland." The result was a "huge antidote" to the turbulence of recent weeks. "People will say, look we had a difficult period but when the moment came ... we were back in business." Mr Rennie said he had won because he engaged on issues that mattered to local people. "People are fed up with Labour. They have taken our country for granted too long - there is too much spin and not enough delivery. This is a huge message for Labour nationally and just shows that the Liberal Democrats are advancing right across the country - in Labour heartlands and everywhere else." The Scottish National party was shoved into third place, and the Conservativespolled 2,700 votes despite a David Cameron walkabout. But it was the Labour leadership who suffered most. "It's deeply embarrassing for Brown to lose his backyard and it's deeply embarrassing for Blair," said Professor John Curtice, the leading political analyst. "Mr Blair's tenure of Downing Street looks weaker than it did yesterday because apparently this Liberal Democrat challenge is still there. This is new, it's post-Iraq. It is bad news for both of them." If the chancellor was looking for sympathy he would be hard-pressed to find it from some long-time supporters in Dunfermline yesterday. "Years and years ago I used to work at Rosyth dockyard when it was all going to be privatised," said Robert Marshall, 52. "I used to listen to Gordon Brown outside the gates in my lunch hour. I said to my friend then, 'he's feathering his own nest.' He used the dockyard issue to put himself up there and look at it now. It's a shadow of its former self."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1707458,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/l...58,00.html</a> Brown has been outed as a class traitor.

by **antiaristo** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:19 pm

I'm quite excited by this. A couple of months after the Election somebody posted some polling results on the Net. Blair was down about thirty points, the Labour Party a little less. I posted something here remarking on the violence of the move. That was the effect of the Downing Street Minutes. By then the whole country knew Blair had sold them pigswill as intelligence. And he knew what he was doing. I've noticed there has been hardly any polling reported in the UK. All the comment is centred around "personalities". Which means that this result is very interesting. Far from being "rogue", or about local issues, it is in fact a fair indication of what the General Election would have revealled had the people known. Which means the timing of the release of the Minutes is a matter of public interest. Michael Smith published his story I think on the Monday. The Election was held on the Thursday. But Michael Smith, or, let's be honest, Rupert Murdoch had held back that information. They had it (I estimate) between two and four weeks earlier. Rupert Murdoch is a serial criminal, but he never gets prosecuted because he works for the Queen. Rupert Murdoch knifed both English Front Bench candidates for the Lib-Dem leadership (Mark Oaten and Simon Hughes). So who do you think he was serving?

by **slimmouse** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:14 pm

We had the Labour party spring conference up here this weekend. As usual, the exhibition sent its 'delegation' to distribute leaflets, dvds etc regarding 9/11 and the rest of it. I didnt go personally, and whilst I can say that my boss is something of a 'romancer' on occasions, he says he was amazed at the positive response he got from labour party delegates. Things are moving, and quite fast IMHO. An example ; We were also at the Tory party conference, and it absolutely blew my mind how receptive so many of the Tories were to our leafletting etc. But the punchline was delivered shortly afterwards. We stood there telling the Tory rank and file, and of course the MPs where we saw all this ' War on terror ' crap leading us - explaining what we knew in a logical articulate fashion about this whole WOT bullshit and where its going ( police state ) and as sure as eggs are eggs, it happened in extremely quick time thereafter in the fucking house of commons. Blair is there , going on about the dire need for a 90 day detention programme for 'terrorist suspects' that was doomed to failure from the word go, and suddenly a voice shouts from the tory backbenchers ........ "POLICE STATE" I spewed out my coffee, I can tell ya ! Can you even begin to imagine a Tory accusing the Labour party of morphing towards a police state ???? My point being, that with a little determination, then we, the little guys can make a difference. Essentially, I have the ultimate faith in the base of human character. I think its good. We should always remember that , and never be afraid of making our point to the vast majority of the population. Think Pyramid. The few ruling the many. The theives, liars and murderers, ruling the generally honest and decent. Chip away is my best advice to y'all.

by **antiaristo** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:53 pm

I've read the Stan Goff thread, and it shows how lucky we are to have an existing viable third party. It's something we should cherish. This puff-piece from the Observer is a good indication of the desperation and panic at the top of the Labour Party. If you know your constitution you know that the prime minister is "first among equals" (also a Jeffrey Archer title) in the same way as the Chief Justice. So now we're to have "equal firsts among equals". The mind boggles. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Brown now joint PM, says leading Blair ally · Partnership runs Britain - Clarke · Chancellor warns of more bombings Gaby Hinsliff, political editor Sunday February 12, 2006 The Observer Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are now in effect running Britain as 'a dual premiership', according to one of the cabinet's most senior figures and close ally of the Prime Minister. Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, admitted in a remarkably frank interview with The Observer that 'profound' events were unfolding, with Brown given unprecedented licence to set out his stall for the leadership while the Prime Minister was still in office. But he disclosed that he had warned Brown against appearing 'just to cavil' with his colleagues, saying that it was crucial now to show he was a team player. Asked if Brown and Blair were now effectively running a dual premiership, Clarke said: 'That's what Tony would always want, what Gordon should do. To be a great, great leader, that requires [Gordon] to lead - he has to come out and make the speeches, make the arguments.' Brown's new status as joint Prime Minister will be displayed tomorrow when he uses a major speech on national security to disclose that three serious terrorist attacks in Britain have been averted since 21 July - using the evidence of continued threats to justify controversial plans to outlaw the glorification of terrorism and introduce ID cards. The government faces knife-edge votes on both issues this week. But Brown will also warn in return that the intelligence services face far tougher scrutiny, with proper parliamentary oversight of their spending for the first time, a liberalising move that the security services have long resisted. Tomorrow's speech, at the Royal United Services Institute in London, will begin a series of addresses by the Chancellor, stamping his authority across the government. 'Addressing the reality and causes of international terrorism is the great new challenge of our times. Upon succeeding in meeting this challenge, all else depends,' Brown will say. 'So it is right to begin a series of speeches I make about how the Britain of the future will meet the global challenges ahead by addressing this question pre-eminent to our foreign defence and law and order policies, at the core of the very security and safety of our country and vital to the prosperity and future of our country.' Clarke and Brown's relationship has been tense in the past, but they have worked closely together on terrorism and the Home Secretary's candour suggests they have reached a new understanding. The two men discussed before Christmas how to overcome obstacles to Brown's ambitions, Clarke disclosed. 'What are his problems? Problem one: what is his identity as a potential leader? He's doing that very effectively,' he said. 'Problem two, he's in the hands of economic events as they come along. Problem three, in terms of the cabinet, how does he ensure that he's working with and supporting the cabinet - helping colleagues solve their problems rather than being somebody who is just cavilling about what goes on? And my advice is, if he is somebody who appears to cavil people will get fed up, even if it's perfectly justified.' The Brown-Blair deal has been strained by the Dunfermline by-election, with senior Blairites warning that the defeat in the Chancellor's own backyard raises serious questions over his ability to win an election. However tomorrow's lecture marks a vital stage in his evolution. It follows briefings from high-ranking intelligence and police chiefs, and sources close to the Chancellor said he had their clearance to disclose the three foiled threats, but would not give details. 'I want to remind the country that the terrorist threat has not diminished and will not diminish until we defeat it,' the Chancellor is expected to say. 'And while the 7 July attacks showed young British citizens may also resort to violence with little or no warning, a threat all the more serious because it has been the least visible, let us be in no doubt that three attack plans threatening Britain have been thwarted since 21 July.' The disclosure of foiled attacks risks accusations of whipping up fear to get controversial legislation through parliament. Brown will defend the use of biometric identifiers on ID cards as increasingly commonplace anyway. He will link the introduction of ID cards to terrorism, arguing suspects have commonly used multiple identities. But while he will pledge extra funding for counter-terrorism to tackle new threats such as defusing explosives in crowds, his spending review will also consider greater parliamentary scrutiny, including 'the appointment of the relevant committees and their investigative power - at all points building trust in a tough security regime through necessary accountability'. Clarke predicted the war on terror would be a 'long struggle' but al-Qaeda-related terrorism could be ended in his lifetime. He revealed serious concerns that young Muslims were becoming recruited to violent causes within Britain's prisons, saying ministers were moving to combat it. He admitted there was no clear evidence on what turned the 7 July attackers into suicide bombers, but said it was widely believed that 'one factor was people who glorify terrorism'.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1708045,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/p...45,00.html</a>

Gordon Brown is on the run...

Gordon Brown is on the run...

Massive Constitutional Shifts Underway

Re: Massive Constitutional Shifts Underway

Touche

Re: Gordon Brown is on the run...

The Bum's Rush is on..

They're ALL on the run!

Re: They're ALL on the run!

Spring and Fall

The Working Classes

How Predictable!

Reallignment on the Left?

The State of British Politics

Labour party spring conference.

Don't Panic!

Who is online