What we’ve learned from the Sundays

Just when you think life can’t get any worse, it suddenly does.

There we all were, public and politicos alike, positively howling for the cessation of the madness on 6th May, only to return a hung Parliament. Now we learn that the result not only means that the news media are promising to camp outside an empty House of Commons indefinitely, speculating on what Vince Cable’s tie indicates about the willingness of Tories and Liberals to co-operate on fisheries policy, but worse: that we might be re-running the electoral fun in about 18 months time. Or less.

The papers this Sunday are a pale reflection the kind of limbo-induced ennui that teenagers in Broken Britain must feel whilst whiling away the dead hours before they can get to the park bench and the Diamond White, as they attempt to fill the empty pages between now and, you know, something actually happening. For the sanity of the nation, we can only hope that Cameron and Clegg get their shit on, PDQ.

Putting a brave face on it is Observer commentator Nick Cohen who argues that all this could have a beneficial effect on the political landscape. In the less sanguine manner for which we all love him, the Mail on Sunday’s Peter Hitchens calls Cameron’s Conservatives a “cynical fake” and calls for a split between them and “traditional” Tories. The Sunday Times front page has a useful “… as established earlier in the plot” piece with the new information that chief whip, or former chief whip as we now must call him, Nick Brown has informed the Gord that the Parliamentary Labour Party will not wear a deal with the Liberal Democrats.

As various MPs call for Brown to quit, the News of the World has the gen on the leadership bids that are being planned by David Miliboy and Ed Balls, as soon as the PM decides to shuffle off this political coil. And, of course, now we know who both the candidates are, we’re expecting nothing less than a good, clean fight.

Meanwhile, both the Sunday Mirror and the Observer are reporting trouble up t’mill, as they almost certainly don’t say in the Conservative Party. Lord Ashcroft has apparently been complaining that Cameron’s decision to win the Murdoch endorsement by getting behind the Sky campaign for leaders’ debates, in his view, cost the Tories an overall majority. Other offenders fingered for the Conservatives not ruling Britannia as nature intended are Michael Gove, Oliver Letwin and, inevitably, groovy guru Steve Hilton.

Finally, the first potential expenses scandal of the new Parliament is revealed by the Sunday Times. Go on, you’ll never guess …

19 Responses to “What we’ve learned from the Sundays”

  1. captain swing

    I suggest if you are feeling a little down, you have a decko at the right wing press. The Tories are fighting each other like rats in a sack.

    What was to be a mere procession and crowning a few months ago has turned to dust and they are not happy bunnies. Lord Ashcroft is said to be furious with Cameron for doing TV debates and a lack of support over the ‘non-dom’ status row (the latter would have been a sure-fire vote winner)

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/08/david-cameron-faces-tory-anger

    Cameron & the Cameroons are getting it in the neck and blamed, as traditional Tories and the right wing blows a gasket.

    Simon Heffer’s column in the Torygraph is particularly goood for a laugh, the comments section is not sure whether to blame the nutters in UKIP for their defeat or Cameron.

    And a new strategy is emerging for the next election; an alliance with UKIP so the Tories and Farage’s tossers in blazers don’t stand against each other. A sure fire winner that one.

  2. Billy Blofeld

    “And, of course, now we know who both the candidates are, we’re expecting nothing less than a good, clean fight”

    ………. errrrr…… Ed Balls?

  3. Mr. Sensible

    I wouldn’t have expected someone like the MP concerned to be caught up in expenses.

  4. Anon E Mouse

    What a surprise – more words from Sadie Smith that completely fails to address the only issue in town – why won’t Brown go?

    The Labour Party under his leadership descended into an authoritarian run bunch of creeps and thugs in the Downing Street cabal.

    There was never anything even remotely “progressive” about Labour with it’s control freak high taxing surveillance driven society and the people have spoken. End of.

    Like I have been saying on this blog for months now – IT IS OVER. Labour resoundingly lost the election and with his results Clegg is lucky Cameron is even talking to him at all.

    The people in this country did NOT vote for a new electoral system – they voted for the tories with swings not seen since the days of Thatcher and this nonsense about “more progressives didn’t vote blah blah” is just that – nonsense.

    Labour never were progressive, if they were they wouldn’t have approved the third runway at Heathrow – they are just a sad bunch of sore losers who are ready to spend years in the political wilderness.

    Make no mistake the first act of a Tory/Lib government might be to stop the unions funding Labour with big donations – let’s see how the party pays off it’s £29.5 million overdraft then….

  5. John Shields

    If you think the Tories are in-fighting, just imagine what’s happening in the Lib Dem camp! I think the Lib Dem position is very week currently – not much worse than the other two parties, of course, but very weak still. They can’t seek to join a government with Labour: Gordon Brown is obviously a non-starter, as over 70% of the population clearly don’t want him as PM; and would people put up with another ‘unelected’ Labour PM? I doubt it. To do this would be electoral suicide for the Lib Dems: in fact, I would go further – for the good of UK parliamentary democracy, they mustn’t do it. There would be riots. A Lib-Con alliance recognises the only absolutely certain result of this election, namely that Labour lost.

    Which means, they’ve got to reach a deal with the Tories. This is obviously not going to please anyone – Tory voters will be annoyed at any compromise on First Past the Post; Lib Dem voters will be annoyed at anything short of full PR. And both camps probably hate each other anyway. Well, here’s news for the lot of them: neither full PR nor full FPTP are going to result from the Lib-Con (perhaps it should be called ‘Whig’?!) deal. And that’s something everyone’s just got to accept. But, on the positive side, we’ll end up with a Cabinet and government that has been at least partly endorsed by 60% of the population – that’s got to be a victory for democracy, no? I mean, let’s not be children about this: we’re at least getting SOME of our sweeties, even if it’s not the full sweet shop.

  6. Marcus Cotswell

    In the Conservative Party, we’d say “trouble *at* t’mill” if we said anything ayt all, but mostly we wouldn’t say it at all because we’re not left-wing pseudo-intellectuals who think they understand the working classes but secretly despise them.

  7. Robert

    Maybe one of Lord Ashcroft’s sub-sub-subsidiary shell companies is going to arrange to sell contolling shares in one of the sub-sub-sub-subsidiary shell companies to Rupert Murdoch to pay for the Conservative party’s next campaign?

  8. Mary Newsham

    Well Marcus, neither are we. Not those of us who are left-wing and intelligent rather than pseudo-intellectual.We are not people who despise the working classes, largely because we are proud to be part of that demographic ourselves. People who work and who contribute to the country’s coffers through our taxes.People whose work is renumerated at a significantly lower rate than those who have advantage heaped on advantage and believe themselves entitled to limitless privelege.

  9. How West Dorset MP Oliver Letwin is shaping Britain’s future | Real West Dorset

    […] hard to disagree with the content analysis offered by Sadie Smith on the blog Left Foot Forward (although, like her, I think a piece by Nick Cohen in The Observer is excellent – it’s […]

  10. sally edwards

    “Make no mistake the first act of a Tory/Lib government might be to stop the unions funding Labour with big donations – let’s see how the party pays off it’s £29.5 million overdraft then….”

    So the small govt, get the state off our backs tory party would pass a bill to use the said state to decide who can and can’t give money to a political party?

    You just can’t make this stuff up. You have no philosophy at all except what is the best for the tory party. You want small govt, until you want to use the govt to crush your opponents you hate the nanny state until you want to hide behind nanny’s aprons.

    You went into the last election with 80% of the media giving you a fee ride, you had all Ashcroft’s money in the marginal’s, you had a tired govt and a disliked Prime Minister and you managed to scrape 36% of the vote. What a bunch of failures.

  11. Anon E Mouse

    Mary Newsham – Oh please. Grow up. This tribal nonsense is partly the reason Labour lost the election – you need to move on.

    As I have said before, Anthony Charles Linton Blair was our PM (following on from John Major council house / comprehensive school) – and the countesses niece Harriet Harman was educated at the same school as Osbourne. At least his family earned their own money legitimately.

    Labour doesn’t represent the working class when it cripples them with high taxes and forces unelected idiots on them like Gordon Brown. More council houses and comprehensive schools were built under the last Tory government.

    The last 13 years have brought numerous laws in this country that no one asked for by this outgoing control freak government. The Lib Dems and the Tories are actually close on loads of things like that and if your view of not despising the working classes, which Labour clearly do by the way they sucked up to big business, then they wouldn’t have been beaten in the popular vote last Thursday.

    It’s over – get used to it.

  12. John Shields

    People have got to get over the whole Ashcroft thing – it’s no better or worse than the funding arrangements for the Labour, and the only reason that the Lib Dems are able to lecture everyone is that no one gives them any money. The reason Lib/Lab don’t like him is very different to the reason that the public don’t like him. The latter don’t like him because he’s rich. Lib/Lab don’t like him because he’s a sneaky Tory version of Peter Mandelson.

  13. sally edwards

    The Labour party are funded by unions who are made up of millions of British workers. Every union is open about what it stands for and what policy changes it would like made. You can easily find out exactly how much each union has given to a political party.

    CONTRAST

    The tory party is funded by a handful of dubious wealthy individuals, many of which don’t even pay tax in this country. And none of these people have to declare what their political agenda is.

    It is not that difficult to see which is the most democratic. The reason the tories are obsessed by the union money is they want to stamp out any challenge to their belief that they should rule. Tories are like most capitalists. They hate competition, but pretend that they like it.

  14. Anon E Mouse

    sally edwards – And what about the Labour big doners? Lord Paul?

    In light of Brown losing us the election last Thursday can we now PLEASE stop the childish, tribal comments like these.

    As soon as that unelected idiot Brown is gone Labour can start to rebuild the party but this time with a few less Ed Balls and the like and a few more vote winning moderates.

    Their rising from the ashes can only be held back by your union remarks – if members of that union want to donate then let them do it themselves and let the union bosses understand they are there to serve their members and not the political ambitions of Jack Dromey and the like.

    I thought this blog claimed to be progressive?

  15. Mary Newsham

    Anon e Mouse,
    The employment of ‘idiot’ as a useful term in intelligent discussion points to where the growing up maybe needs to happen.

    We don’t elect Prime Ministers, we elect local members and parties.

  16. Anon E Mouse

    Mary Newsham – From the OED:- “idiot • noun 1 informal a stupid person”

    How many examples of his stupidity do you want me to list?

    Selling gold off at a historic low?

  17. Mary Newsham

    Anon E Mouse
    Gold which was, to a large extent, plundered originally.

Leave a Reply