Comrades,

I’m sure that you, like me, share a profound sense of disappointment at the loss of the Glasgow East by-election. However, what we must remember is that this was a marginal seat and was always going to be difficult to hold in the mid term. If we look at the sort of people who live there we find lots of very poor, working class people living in public housing. Many are unemployed. Frankly, these are not the sort of aspirational hard working families that are Labour’s core vote. We cannot be surprised that this is not a Labour seat and we should thank everyone involved in the campaign for getting our candidate so close to victory. Indeed, this defeat shows that we are on the path to victory at the next election, just as our defeats at Crewe and at Henley also demonstrated. At this stage in the electoral cycle every defeat is a victory.

Some of you have said that the government is drifting, that we have no plan. This is quite wrong. We have a number of plans. Firstly, wee Jimmy Purnell has just announced plans under our ‘Work shall set you free’ strategy to get the long term sick and disabled back to work. Secondly, under our new defence review ‘War is peace’ we have set out plans to spend £3bn on new nuclear warheads. Furthermore, the cause of peace may necessitate British forces attacking Iran should our bestest friend in the world deem it necessary. Never underestimate the lengths we will go to, the bombs we will buy, the wars we will fight to defend peace. Thirdly, our ‘Freedom is slavery’ policy is enjoying considerable success. We will introduce ID cards, limit the right to protest, lock up terrorists for as long as we like, keep a database of DNA from anyone that a police officer thinks necessary and continue to extradite people to the US on the flimsiest of pretexts without any reciprocal agreement.

Finally, we will limit what we tell people about our successes such as Tax Credits as we don’t want to boast. Also, we can’t have party members knowing what policy is let alone having a role in deciding it. Debate causes disunity and disunity leads to defeat. You don’t need to know in detail what we’re planning just cheer loudly when we announce it. If you don’t like it or don’t understand it, it doesn’t matter. You don’t need to, just trust that we know better. This ignorance is our strength as a party for it promotes unity around my leadership. So, let’s rally around and I’ll get on with the job.

"Imagine, if you will, that a Conservative or Labour MP had uttered these words in the middle of an official parliamentary committee...

There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children. There must be sufficient confidence that the community has the best possible protection against such perverts, and it is important that there be a mature public debate on the issues, but the security of our citizens must be our overriding priority.

From Hansard

I cannot think of anything more sickening than a child being abused. It is comparable to the act of homosexuality. I think they are all comparable. I feel totally repulsed by both.

The remarks in the Grand Committee report do not accurately reflect my views.
Strange you should have been so definitive in your comments then.
While I will be seeking to check the Committee recording, what I clearly intended to say was that child abuse was worse even than homosexuality and sodomy.
Worse EVEN? I should think so seeing as though homosexuality is actually legal in this country.
While I have strong views on homosexual activity based on the Scriptures, it can in no way be equated with child abuse.
Good, we're making progress of sorts.
If that had been the impression I created at the Committee, I would have expected other Committee members to correct me immediately.
They were probably in shock.
At no point have I set out to suggest homosexuality was worse than child sex abuse.
Er, yes you did. Both in the debate and in the Belfast Telegraph this morning. See above.
There can be no comparison between the two. My entire contribution at that Committee meeting was about highlighting the gravity of sex offences and indeed calling for stronger sentences.
Pity you didn't draft your speech more carefully then, isn't it, love?

 I think we can probably find a bit of bi-party agreement here. Finally, I only hope Gordon Brown thought it was worth snuggling up to the DUP to get 42 days passed in the House.

The first reason why the Conservatives may win is simply the weight of history. Since WW2, only the Conservative government of 1979 to 1997 has managed four consecutive wins. However, the history of Labour / Conservative competition on reasonably equal terms is fairly short, dating really only from the war. So, it's possible that over the very long term four term governments could become more common. But, already we hear the frequent repetition of the those fateful words, 'time for a change.' Mr. Cameron's jibe at Tony Blair that 'He was the future once' was both quite funny and clever politics, creating an image of Labour as the ancien regime and his party as the modern, up to date alternative. For progress, vote Conservative.

The second reason is the state of the opinion polls. During the Thatcher era, polls consistently underestimated the level of Conservative support. After the 1992 election polling methodology was subject to rigorous examination. Nowadays, polls give a reasonably accurate snapshot of voting intention. Obviously, one can always get a rogue poll, but the striking thing about polls at the moment is that they consistently show a Conservative lead sufficient to deliver a majority at the next election. 

All is not lost. Possibly. The conventional wisdom is that as the election draws nearer, governments claw back some of the ground lost. That was certainly the case in 1979, but is the conventional wisdom right? Wilson lost in 1970, and there was no evidence of the Major government gaining on Labour in 1997. I offer no explanation for the first case other than to express the view that England losing at football cost us the election is bunkum. The latter case is perhaps more that the country had a settled will that they wanted a Labour government in 1997. Those of us around in '97 knew we were going to win and, certainly my Conservative friends knew they were going to lose big.

What about now? My reading is that I don't think we have reached a 'settled will' situation just yet. I think it's possible that the Conservative lead can be pulled back. The advantage to us from boundary changes is not as big as before, but I think a hung parliament or a very small Labour win  are still possible. Whether we can come back depends on us.

What the government has lacked since Mr. Brown became Prime Minister has been a consistent narrative. What is this government for, what does it want to achieve? These are questions that so far it cannot give a clear answer to. The appearance is sometimes given that ministers are content with Norman Lamont's situation of being 'in office but not in power.' For us to have a chance, this has to change.

Some of our present problems are of our own making. While the Prime Minister delivers lectures on belt tightening and saving food to the population, the government wastes millions on foreign adventures and replacement for a missile system that isn't wanted. The Prime Minister insists on turning debates about terrorism, crime, ID cards, 10p tax and energy generation into little more than willie measuring contests. 'This is my will, you will obey!' is the refrain from number ten rather than a rational assessment of the objective merits of policy. This macho style hinders policy creativity in ministers and stiffles debate within government over alternatives. Until the Prime Minister is prepared to alter this style of governing, no rebranding or relaunch can ever succeed.

And what of the overarching narrative, what does the government want to do? What's the story? If it's fairness and inequality then great, but make it clear. Defend tax credits with gusto, shout from the roof tops a policy agenda to fight poverty and tackle inequality. And say what ordinary folk are saying, that some at the top in business just have too much money, that some bonusses are unacceptable, that we are not 'intensely relaxed' about super wealth. I'm not arguing that the story ought to be about equality, I'm using that as an example. What I'm arguing is that whatever this government's raison d'etre is, articulate it clearly and back it up with clear policies. Sadly, what we have now is muddle compounded by arrogance, a refusal to listen to friends in the party, and a massochistic desire to resist the gut instincts of the party in the country.

There's one more reason why the Conservatives have a chance. Talent. No one could seriously see Iain Duncan Smith or William Hague as Prime Minister, for the same reason as Michael Foot never stood a chance. They headed a party riven by division and, like us now, unsure of our mission. Mr. Cameron's great achievement is to make the Conservatives look like a serious contender once more. He's done this partly on policy, although I'm sure we all doubt that he'll actually do many of the reasonable things he claims to support, and partly he has some good people around him. Look at the Shadow Cabinet today and despite George Osbourne giving a passable impression of a child wanting to play with the grown ups, it's undeniable that there is some talent on the Conservative front bench. Compare with the actual cabinet; where are our 'big beasts'? James Purnell? Andy Burnham? Hazel Blears? No, didn't think so. Perhaps it's time for the Prime Minister to bury the hatchet with a few folks and promote some talent from the back benches.

So, will David Cameron be our next Prime Minister? I'd say that it is quite likely but absolutely not inevitable. We must find a message, offer a vision and, I think, change course at least a little. Engage with those elements of Labour's winning coalition that have been alienated from us - the working class, the liberal intelligentsia, ethnic minorities. We don't need to retreat into some sort of old fashioned Bennite laager, but we do need to change. And fast. 

Finishing behind the Green Party candidate showed that folks just don't take seriously the government's claims of environmental friendliness. And why should they what with, inter alia, promoting airport expansion and nuclear power and failing to approve the feed in tarrif for micro-generation?

Coming behind the BNP, however, marks a new low and shows just how far the party has abandoned a key section of its electoral coalition to its fate.

The game is now surely up for New Labour. You've been rumbled. Without a clear move in the direction of the agenda being developed by Compass and the broader left, defeat will not just stare us in the face; it'll give us a great big Glasgow kiss. 

With six people receiving valid nominations and the Regional Office advising the GC that the short list should have a minimum of six names on it, this was not hard. The shortlist is therefore:

Solma Ahmed

Katrina Bull

Lilian Greenwood

Zahida Noori

Crada Onuegbu

Christine Shawcroft

Given the advice we had, I think I could have done without the five minute speeches by each candidate.

 Also, what happened to the earlier thread on the selection? It seems to have disappeared completely.

Lilian Greenwood, Christine Shawcroft and Katrina Bull have so far shown their hand by sending members material in the post. Katrina may have only sent stuff to members in the Radford and the Park ward that she represents on the council.

Lilian and Katrina's submissions are very New Labour in tone. Christine is the only one to use the 'S' word. Older readers may remember when Labour people used the word 'socialist' to describe themselves. Christine sets out clear positions that she supports, the other two are more cautious in their wording. There's nothing much to disagree with in Lilian and Katrina's work, but then there's nothing that could inspire either. Christine's will inspire the left but her clear policy positions may put off other wings of the party. Doubtless there will be many more candidates in due course, but for now they are choosing to keep their powder dry.

The process is a bit awry in my opinion and I would be interested to learn if other regions or other seats in the East Midlands have had the same process.

The day on which members finally select the candidate is 13 March 2008. Shortlisting by the GC will be on 21 February. My problem is with the Freeze Date. This has been decided by RO as being 28 February 2007, the date of Alan's letter announcing that he did not intend to seek reselection. To participate in the process one has to have been a member six months prior to the Freeze date, i.e. 28 August 2006. So to vote at the final selection meeting requires 18 months membership of the party. When we're trying to get members engaged and participating in the party this strikes me as plain daft. You only needed six months membership to vote in the Deputy Leadership election, but 18 months to vote for selection of a PPC. I know of at least one GC delegate who will not be able to participate in the process as a consequence of this timetable. The reason why this has taken so long is that RO were so appallingly slow in taking action to start the process once Alan had made his intentions clear. Have other CLPs had a similarly long qualifying period?