Are you sitting comfortably?

Hang for a bit, Nick, and you will be able to include the destruction of the LibDems.

Is it possible to believe a word Peter Mandleson says ?

"Peter Mandelson has now begun to reveal part of the fascinating story"

No. Peter Mandelson is now marketing his trashy, sordid and downright damaging time in Politics by playing up to his monkier given to him because he was a slippery sod.

Some of the policies he was associated with (lastly in April as the driving force behind the poorly conceived and unfit for purpose Digital Economy Bill) were as scandalous as the expenses saga.

Unfortnately naval gazing Times readers amongst others are starting to legitimize his position by seeing him as a 'baddie' on par with something you'd see in Panto. Time is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

As for your documentary about the days in forming the coalition, I hope it goes well. However as someone who does take an active interest in Politics (more than a casual person may, but not fanatically), I can't help but wonder - in the age of 24 hour news, where pretty much every inch of activity was attempted to be captured during that period, and every pundit has thrown in their two pence worth over the last couple of month (scrutinizing every flick of the eyebrow before declaring "OMG TROUBLE MAYBE AHEAD, CLEGG LOOKED AT CAMERON FUNNY AT BREAKFAST"), think I'd be more passionate about seeing it once a bit more of dust had settled (maybe after six-months to a year instead of barely two months - you know, once they'd actually tested the mechanics of it a bit more)

Ia'm sitting nick But no where as comfortable as a Mr blair or the now Lord Prescott.
This pension i have might end up being means tested towards the end but never mind .
They will say he had a good innings .
After they take their ball home?

Those directly involved in politics. i.e. politicians, journalists, Party members etc, will certainly find Mandelsons book 'facinating'.

However, there are other words that the public might use to describe the past decade ... like 'gruesome rivalries', 'wasted opportunities' 'financial black-hole' and so on.

These are totally different worlds, the world of politics and the world that most of the rest of us inhabit.

We are still mostly bystanders in their 'great game'.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

If the Mandelsnake told me rain was wet I would need to go check it myself.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

There is nothing fascinating about the newlabour story.

It is the disgraceful tale of power crazed, agenda driven, megalomaniacs.

They achieved nothing except notoriety for their shocking abuse of the public purse, waste and squandering on pet projects.

The denouement is this utterly self regarding tome by the man described in the media this morning as someone who would 'eat himself, if he were made of chocolate'.

We are past this shameful and triumphalist period of Britain's political history and have moved onto something more meaningful and real.

It's a great time to be a tory...

It's sad to think that anyone is going to give any time at all to Mandleson's view of anything. But it doesn't surprise me that it's Nick who's doing it...

The adverts where he tries to be ironic, playing on his "Prince Of Darkness" title, are quite vomit-inducing. Seems to me this man finds his role at the heart of Britain's biggest political disaster in generations to be jolly amusing.

To think that the BBC are spending any time (not to mention taxpayer's money) indulging him at all is really sickening.

Peter Mandelson is a master politician of modern times: arguably the best in a generation.

We all have to ask ourselves if we want people like that running our affairs. I would argue not.

Indeed I would argue further that if politics became a profession of honour, truth, justice and respect then it would become quite unnnecessary in itself.

If we had the good sense to arrange our affairs in that more competent manner then dear Peter and his friends - they are not really your friends, are they Peter? - would have had to get to enjoy their careers in another way rather than by that which left the country almost bankrupt.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

And are we meant to believe what Mandleson (Prince of Darkness) is telling us. Because if it is the truth it would be the first time.

13. At 11:27am on 12 Jul 2010, rockRobin7 wrote:
the man described in the media this morning as someone who would 'eat himself, if he were made of chocolate'.

That's quite good, for The Sun.

Basically, all Mandy is doing is adding to the other members of the Social Experiment formerly known as New Labour to criticise it and the former PM as much as possible and in some cases by making as much money as possible.

You've got Mandy's book, you've got Blair's memoirs due in September, you've got David Milliband slagging Brown off, you've got Charlie Whelan slagging Mandy off, you've got Prescott slagging off both Charlie Whelan AND Mandelson... just like the old days of the Labour snake eating itself from the tail upwards.

After all, as Guido has observed, we've known about the decade of infighting, denied with barefaced lies by minister after minister after minister.

To quote the terrorist-apologising former Foreign Secretary:

"Far from correcting them failings – tactics, spin, high-handedness – intensified; and we lost many of our strengths – optimism born of clear strategy, bold plans for change and reform, a compelling articulation of aspiration and hope. We did not succeed in renewing ourselves in office; and the roots of that failure were deep not recent, about procedure and openness, or lack of it, as much as policy. That is a political fact and now words are cheap but the stakes are high."

You're not going to get an awful lot of truth from Mandy, that much is a fact.

#13 rock robin .
Agree in total .
But at a price.
This despicable rabble haven't the decency two come out and apologize for the terrible mess. a Mr Cameron will try two put right the lackluster
policies left behind by them,
I personally hope he achieves his aims and the poor old libdems succeed in healing over the wounds if indeed there are any.As all roads lead to Rome.
But the going will be tough.
Its still great to be a Tory even if your pension is some what lacking in gold plate.

'Tony Blair's switch from proponent to opponent of a progressive realignment is just one example of how the story of five days in May is, in reality, the story of two decades of British politics.'


Or how the Labour Party turned into a neocon wet dream.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick,

"Peter Mandelson has now begun to reveal part of the fascinating story of the behind the scenes dealing which led to the formation of Britain's first post-war full coalition government"

Not sure what's so fascinating to the average Jo - GB was told by NC that he needed to go, GB was thinking about staying. So? Can't see anything out of the ordinary there myself.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Motorhead once famously gave this description of the back of one of their albums: "noise made by shouting and hitting things".

It seems that Mr Brown's approach to policy formation was somewhat similar.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick Robinson | 10:09 UK time, Monday, 12 July 2010

Peter Mandelson has now begun to reveal part of the fascinating story...

Or, perhaps, better to reflect the spinning top:

Peter Mandelson has now begun to reveal partially the fascinating story...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@8, Freeman wrote:

If the Mandelsnake told me rain was wet I would need to go check it myself.


Technically, rain is not wet at all.


(Just to save you checking:-D)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Peter Mandelson is just another example of the personal gravy train that a lot of politicians jump on.MPs kept details of their expenses from the public gaze for as long as possible, and memoirs are just another money making form of work for them. This is the reality of politics, however good intentioned, many become swallowed by the system, and lose the ideals that brought them into politics in the first place. It wont stop people buying the book!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It's not fascinating, it's disgusting to see politicians who were ostensibly elected or appointed to act in the nation's interest refusing to acknowledge the electoral mathematics. It was an insult to democracy that Brown tried to stay on when the only credible government was a Lib-Dem/Tory coalition.

It is also offensive to realise that for 13 years the country was run with a civil war at the centre of power.

No wonder we are in a mess when the people elected with so much goodwill in 1997 were spending time fighting amongst themselves instead of governing properly.

This also highlights the disservice done by people like you, Nick, who refused to tell the electorate exactly how the country was being run. If we had really known how things were being done, do you think Labour would have won in 2001? or 2005?

The fact that so many of you were supine in the face of Mandelson and Campbell's media management and spin discredits the whole journalistic profession and the BBC in particular.

It's an Outrage..

Sadly, for the supporters of newlabour and Lord Mandleson..the chocolate comment was not made by the Sun newspaper.. but by the Independent.

It's a great time to be a tory...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Mandleson is hardly going to widen the circle of his friends with this piece of work.
Who buys this drivel anyway?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The Lib Dems are obviously much closer to Labour than the Tories, so this coalition must be quite uncomfortable for them. Following the election, as Mandy's Memoirs confirm, some still had hopes that defeated Labour could use the Lib Dems as a life-boat.

However, even then most people could see the public mood was against this. According to Mandy, Tony Blair warned "There will be an outcry if we stay on" (The Times July 12, 2010, page 8, para 4). As for Brown remaining as Prime Minister, Blair warned that the public would see this as 'a constitutional outrage' (page 10 para 1)

Summarising disquiet about a possible Lib-Lab pact, it was around this time that the expression "coalition of the losers" entered the public debate. I can't be sure who first coined that phrase.... but I have a feeling it was Nick Robinson!

Nick uses an interesting phase 'a progressive realignment'.

There most certainly is a progressive realignment going on in our England.

But it is not quite what the establishment politicians have in mind, as notwithstanding the ostensibly 'new politics' of the coalition, I think that something more profound is happening.

The English appear to be slowly waking from their political slumbers and deciding that it would be quite sensible for the English to govern their own country.

When Tony Blair told Gordon Brown that he could not possibly stay on as PM following the General Election, that was Blairs' faithful 'Middle England' ear partly telling him that the English have had enough of politicians from other countries governing us.

David Milliband appears to understand that Labour in Scotland are splitting away and redefining themselves from English Labour as they try to stem the nationalist political flow up there in Scotland and furthermore Milliband says that Labour (in England) must reconnect with 'Middle England'.

I still think it will be the native Scots who give political 'United Kingdom' the final nudge into oblivion but all of the home countries are on that road.

It is just a matter of time.

A light comedy would be welcome during these difficult times...should read something like a Monty Python script.

Wow - what a lot of moderated comments! Including one of mine which merely stated that I thought that saying you're teliing the whole story "as seen by the key players involved" is not likely to be the real whole story - what's wrong with that mods?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

why so many comments braking the house rules? would have thought anything was fair game when discussing Mandy with his chequered past. see if this one gets thru..........

The realproblem with the storyline is that it varies depending who is telling it and the same person has a different recollection over time. An example was Mandelson's return to the Cabinet and we were told then that Blair endorsed this. Now it seems the reverse is true, or it is being spun that way.

I have also read that Mandelson goofed in the build up to the election in that he believed that labour would lose no matter who was leader, but he never foresaw the possibility of coalition government. This was apparent during the negotiations between the parties when Brown threw the Lib Dems some crumbs by offering only 3 ministerial posts and policy wise ceding very little.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The hour-long programme will air on BBC2 later this month.

Sorry Nick - I should have recognised that this is an ad. for your programme, and that political ideology is irrelevant and off-topic.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Am I sitting comfortably? Not bad Nick,thanks for asking.And yourself?
Everything fine and dandy with you?

I can hardly wait for your forthcoming programme,now that I know that Peter Mandelson is your favoured choice to reveal "part of the fascinating story".

You couldnt have selected anyone better,for he is as we all know,much loved and revered.Respected too for his modesty and total honesty.

Now,is that OK? Is that comfortable enough to pass muster?

Trouble is,I am not comfortable with what I have written,but no doubt it
would find favour with those who are moderating the posts today.

As I type 46 posts have been submitted.
3 are awaiting moderation.
2 are awaiting further consideration.
18 have apparently broken the house rules.

This is nothing short of censorship.

By the way,in answer to Nicks question,no I am not at all comfortable with my licence fee being used for any programme which involves in any way Peter Mandelson.

37. "Paul T Horgan wrote:
It's not fascinating"

But it IS fascinating if you're in the cossited Westminster Village where it's all a jolly jape. Plans and policies are made and fail and affect the real lives of people but not so much if you're a career politician, advisor or commentator. Safe seats, safe pensions, jobs that, if not safe, are just part of a merry-go-round.

And at the end, after ruining people's lives, you can write some memoirs, or become some avuncular figure wheeled out on a Sunday morning to talk about the 'new crop' of politicians, or write a few columns in the papers.

I will echo the thoughts of no. 56 and say that I am also unhappy with BBC funding being used to enable Nick to provide an hour long programme about Mandelson. Wonder whether this will be allowed to be posted or will removal prove the bias being shown in moderation today.

#13 Rockrobin7
So Robin would i be correct in saying that Peter Mandelson is or was the life and sole of the party.
His face didn't display the same when i last witnessed him leaving no10 downing street ,
Dose his book reflect those last few days of a dieing empire that took thirteen years to build,
And a five minute resignation to send him Merrily on his way?
Please tell us nick we would love to know

Now that politicians are queuing up to say how terrible Gordon Brown was it begs the question WHY on earth did they let him stay in office so long?
Anyone who put personal greed before the good of the country by chickening out of deposing a useless Prime Minister doesn't deserve the leadership and Peter Mandelson has proved that even if he is a clever politician he is absolutely untrustworthy - as if we needed telling.

« Previous | Main
Are you sitting comfortably?
Nick Robinson | 10:09 UK time, Monday, 12 July 2010

Peter Mandelson has now begun to reveal part of the fascinating story of the behind the scenes dealing which led to the formation of Britain's first post-war full coalition government.

Mods,
I'm using original source details from the BBC, so there can be no challenge, can there?

So Mandelson wants to rip/strip apart a political construct that he, Blair and Brown put in place?

Good luck. Just hard to believe that some of my fellow citizens could bring themselves to buy his book.

Not the best example to place before a younger generation anxious to get involved with politics?

Not sure whether Mandelson may still be paid some subsistence fees from the EU because he resigned from a Brussels position.

Anybody out there who knows?

I thought it sounded vaguely familar ... Are you sitting comfortably, then I'll begin ... Listen with Nick ... a programme of stories, songs and nursery rhymes.

Tall stories as recanted by Peter 'the Rabbit' Mandelson, songs by James 'Gordon' Boogie Brown and politically correct nursery rhymes where Humpty Dumpty is put back together again.

Next programme ... Muffin the Mule.

BTW. I guess that Nicks programme will be called Five Darling Days in May.

I am very much looking forward to your documentary, Nick.

It important that we find out as much as possible about how the bright left wing future many of us voted for in 1997, turned into a neocon induced nightmare, and opened the way for the election of what looks like becoming the most right wing government we have suffered under for several generations. The "recollections" of all of the major participants need to be analysed thoroughly, if we are to avoid wasting another opportunity like that in 1997, if it ever comes.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#56 its about job justification

#56 is there an imod or modi that the mods can be referred too, maybe its a rocker then

In my day it out have been down to brighton for a rumble

No14 djlazarus
I can imagine you are quite an expert in 'vomit-inducing' scenarios. Political disaster? only an imbecile would make that charge.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Whooowee! Judging by the number of removed posts, some of the commentators here are either using some very bad language or are being unkind to you, Nick, while ... er, ... using some very bad language.

The mods have become extremely overly-sensitive to criticism directed at their Bloggers as I have discovered recently.

All Mr Robinson is doing is responding to Mandy's cash-in on his time in politics. Not unreasonable, I think, in a summer that is already a bit short on news, especially since the World Cup finished in a whimper and Gove shot himself in the foot. Surprise at Mandy doing it? No.

As Jack Straw says (as recorded by Chris Mullin in his book) "We are the party of the rich, now."

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

63

I agree that the hope many had in 1997 was wasted, and even abused

What makes you say this government is 'very right wing'

How would you resolve the deficit issue?

60. At 4:14pm on 12 Jul 2010, Chloe-in-france wrote:
Now that politicians are queuing up to say how terrible Gordon Brown was it begs the question WHY on earth did they let him stay in office so long?


Because his defenestration would probably have triggered an election. Most of them (incredibly, not all of them) knew they would lose and that they, personally, were in danger of losing their seat. In the event, they were fortunate that the timing could have been worse. Two years or maybe even one year earlier, New Labour would have been buried.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

67. At 4:57pm on 12 Jul 2010, IPGABP1 wrote:
No14 djlazarus
I can imagine you are quite an expert in 'vomit-inducing' scenarios. Political disaster? only an imbecile would make that charge.


Could you explain why the New Labour Project (that is what they called it themselves) was not a political disaster?

A couple on here have mentioned false hope, and it does seem to have entered with bitterness almost making Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher look like best friends....(I did say almost)

As you suggest only an imbecile would suggest that it was a political disaster, I imagine defending it against that charge would be pretty straightforward

It is a serious question, so please try and answer it properly

I will not be buying this book. As I am highly unlikely to read it twice and not very likely to use it as a reference, I will borrow it from the library and retain the option buy it later when it's been remaindered by the publisher.
I would like to know why most other people who want to read it don't do the same.

No63Stanblogger.
Try not to be so sensible.You are in danger of confusing the right wing loonies that spend so much time on this blog.

47. At 2:45pm on 12 Jul 2010, Justforsighs wrote:
Wow - what a lot of moderated comments! Including one of mine which merely stated that I thought that saying you're teliing the whole story "as seen by the key players involved" is not likely to be the real whole story - what's wrong with that mods?

I suspect that many of us don't match their target Blogger Profile.

Have the usual suspects got it all out of their systems yet?

I wont buy the book, probably not many will...

Bit of a yawn all round...

Next topic please,Nick.

76.

Hear Hear !

Mandleson, Blair, Brown were the guys who created "NewLabour".

Campbell helped to spin it into something apparently acceptable.

What a waste of the opportunity for a party to deliver a lot during more than a decade.

And how sad that current aspirants for the Labour Leadership are queueing up to say that they "Really weren't committed to whatever the Great Leader said".

How does that work?

I don't give one. Would like to find a government from whatever political environment that allows my children to have a decent life.

Given a few weeks, I could chop out of existence a lot of rediculous QANGOs - or to start with the rather silly people appointed to high-paid jobs with no practical expertise and then chop away at the underlying structure.

Anybody else out there with more than 10 grey cells who couldn't cut a lot of the wasteful spend?

I am confused by this

Bank of England policymaker Adam Posen said that Britain was at risk of returning to recession, in part because of looming fiscal austerity and problems in the euro zone, according to an interview published on Monday.

If he thinks that, then why did he vote for a rate rise?

Seems to be incompatible with the view given to the Newcastle Journal

#74 I might be that only an imbecile would not think it a political disaster. It was certainly an disaster on all other fronts unless it was part of the plan to bankrupt the country to achieve revolution?

The New Labour experiment was shown to be a disappointing failure years ago, with it's own survival being its only purpose.

This is hardly news, even if it is Lord Mandelson now saying what many people already know, and have known for a very long time.

I read the first extract of M's book in the Times today - all about what happened "behind the scenes" in the days between the election and the Lib Con coalition deal being sealed. Was all very interesting and surprisingly unsurprising (if that's not too much of a twister) and I will certainly make an effort to watch Nick's documentary on the subject. David Cameron doesn't come out of it particularly well since he barely features; guess that's because he was on the tory side and M can't really tell us much about what was happening there. Pity, since I'm betting a lot of it was pretty reprehensible and deeply cynical - and if it was, we ought to know. Why don't we know, actually? (about possibly nefarious goings on in the tory camp during those all important few days in May). Why the secrecy? Makes you wonder.

re #84
Ooh Saga! Your slip is showing!

66. At 4:56pm on 12 Jul 2010, IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:
#56 is there an imod or modi that the mods can be referred too, maybe its a rocker then

In my day it out have been down to brighton for a rumble
--------------------------------------------------------
Funny! I was just yesterday looking at a scooter magazine online. On the page that I searched for info on scooters, price increases, etc, etc I find the Ed complaining about being ripped off by national newspapers and broadcasters doing 'lazy journalism'.

And when we complain, they get huffy!

Harrumphhh!

84.

Saga

Stop winding them up, you'll only make them worse...

.........

It has been estimated that private construction companies have wasted about £100 million tendering bids for schools which will no longer be built, and it will lose the industry £39 billion in the long-term.

Confusion still reigns over what happens next.What a mess and what a complete incompetent...

Surely you are missing the point. All large political parties are coalitions, so it is hardly surprising that there is infighting. It is not unique to new Labour. In fact the recent history of politics in this country has been characterised by party in fighting. Labour was unelectable from 1979 until the early 90's because of their in fighting. The Tories were unelectable from 1997 to about 2006 for the same reason. Infighting is generally less active in governments than in oppositions, but after the third election victory it usually gets out of control and governments bring themselves down.

The problem with large parties is that they are essentially coalitions behind closed doors.

I suppose we must feel some pity for our brethren of the right. This was to be their day. Their hour in the sun. The culmination and proof of their accusations about the perfidy of New Labour.
True to form the left brethren exude an 'intense relaxation' about Mr Mandelson's 'revelations' somewhat bursting the bubble. Typical.
Meanwhile a large white cold object has been spotted near the Health Department. No, not Mr Lansley. The no messing about with the NHS tip that showed, apparently concealed fundamental changes which were hidden below the water.
It seems that Mr Mandelson is not the only politician whose 'true' objectives were somewhat shrouded.

88.

Absolutely right.

#87 craigmarpool wrote:
"It has been estimated that private construction companies have wasted about £100 million tendering bids for schools which will no longer be built, and it will lose the industry £39 billion in the long-term.

Confusion still reigns over what happens next.What a mess and what a complete incompetent..."

On the first point, what's the source of this, or did you just make it up? 39 billion profit? I don't think so (or if it's true Labour planned to waste even more money than even I could have believed).

On the second point, I'll complete your sentence for you. What a complete incompetent Partnership for Schools Quango.

We now know that it was this 30 million a year quango (head of which is paid £216,000 a year) provided the information to Gove, and not his own civil servants. Clearly this quango hasn't a clue.

On a general point, we know Labour approved all sorts of projects in the last few months to make life difficult for the next Government, and against Civil Service advice. The costs of any such cancellations should be put firmly where it belongs, i.e. with the outgoing and discredited Labour Government, and in this case with Balls in particular.

So one more quango the coalition can get rid of.

88

Spot on

I referred to this in my post 68, which has been referred for some reason, no idea why???

The Liberal part of the Lib Dems and the left of the Conservative are pretty close in many ways

In view of recent history, it seems likely to me that Labour will have another civil war, and could be unelectable for a decade or so

The public will be unimpressed by the distancing going on, as it will look weak

That is to say, if they really disagreed why did none of them challenge Brown, or equally, why did they all say that the Brown stories that leaked out were not true, when the majority knew that they were

Labour sem to be pinning their hopes on the coalition falling apart, and if it doesn't it seems to me that Labour will be up **** creek

84. At 6:31pm on 12 Jul 2010, sagamix wrote:
I read the first extract of M's book in the Times today - all about what happened "behind the scenes" in the days between the election and the Lib Con coalition deal being sealed. Was all very interesting and surprisingly unsurprising (if that's not too much of a twister) and I will certainly make an effort to watch Nick's documentary on the subject. David Cameron doesn't come out of it particularly well since he barely features; guess that's because he was on the tory side and M can't really tell us much about what was happening there. Pity, since I'm betting a lot of it was pretty reprehensible and deeply cynical - and if it was, we ought to know. Why don't we know, actually? (about possibly nefarious goings on in the tory camp during those all important few days in May). Why the secrecy? Makes you wonder.

I am puzzled by you. You spent several posts over the weekend questioning my name, and then told me that you knew more than most posters, and were indignant when I suggested that something that you had posted was illogical

Having read your post above, it seems utterly illogical, and as anti-Conservative as anything written in baser language, and it is pure tribalist pap

84 - "David Cameron doesn't come out of it particularly well since he barely features; guess that's because he was on the tory side and M can't really tell us much about what was happening there. Pity, since I'm betting a lot of it was pretty reprehensible and deeply cynical - and if it was, we ought to know. Why don't we know, actually? (about possibly nefarious goings on in the tory camp during those all important few days in May). Why the secrecy? Makes you wonder."

Good grief. Give it a rest with these idiotic allegations. You were doing that all through the elction campaign. You've blown the toshometer up this time.

Cameron isn't mentioned much so "doesn't come out of it particularly well" so you can speculate that there must have been something reprehensible going on with, as is usually the case, no evidence to back up what you are saying.

Here's a little clue as to why Mandleson is unlikely to know anything about Cameron's dealings. Labour and the Conservatives weren't talking to each other about a coalition. Duh!

#80 I'd cut CAFCA-SS and the Family Courts that would save billions

I was at the 1997 conference in Reading, just before the election. I arrived with Mo Mowlem. She was complaining about not being 'in the loop' and didn't appear at all well at the time. She sat in the bar alone and was concerned about the way 'the boys' were carving everything up for themselves and didn't think it boded well for the future. The whole event was odd, with earnest young men in black suits rushing about organising us delegates and setting up so called 'consultative' groups, where we could 'discuss' aspects of policy. Gordon Brown walked imperiously, carrying a brief under his arm like a Roman senator, across the conference lobby floor in the midst of a phalanx of black suited young men and earnest looking young women with clip boards.

Tony Blair didn't appear until he came onto the stage to make his speech. The impression he gave me was that he wasn't that he was neither totally confident about what he was saying nor totally convinced by the content of his speech. Blair seemed to me then and through his term in office to be unconvincing as a Labour leader and too pragmatic in policy terms. Even at that early stage, the Brown/Blair thing was hovering like a dark cloud over proceedings. The seeds of my fear for the future success of the Labour government had been planted and were subsequently to be realised.

We need to be better grounded as a party from now on. The world is changing rapidly and their is no place for the lightweight shallow politicking of the New Labour era. Let the dead bury the dead, I say.

JohnHarris66 @ 91.


I do not, unlike some here "just make it up"


From the BBC News website:

"Noble Francis, economist at the Construction Products Association, says construction companies want to end the confusion about what is going to happen to the school building programme.

He said there needed to be clarification about how specific decisions were reached - with estimates that building firms had "wasted" £100m in winning bids that have now been cancelled.

Mr Francis says that the industry expects an overall loss of £39bn from the scrapping of the scheme."

No need to apologise.

It looks like I'll be in a queue of one (if you can technically call that a queue) to get my signed edition.

96

She was a bright lady, and would have been horrified at the events at that time

Very sad

I never liked Robin Cook, yet when he resigned I was hugely impressed, and it is a further shame that he died when he did, as I doubt he would have allowed the Brown PM period to pan-out as it did without commenting

The analogy of Roman symbolism is very apt, and to me, it seems that you are in a minority, at present, in realising that the Labour Party needs to decide what it wants to be

The 5 potential leaders all realise that Brown = Bad, yet none of them, to me, seem to realise that it is also New Labour as well that is tarnished, and the public want politicians to do things, and I think this is why many will be forgiving of the coalition if they make mistakes, as the public want stuff done

Obviously, this doesn't apply to the many Labour supporters who just want them to fail

Many in Labour still seem to think that they will easily win the next election

In view of your clarity, I would be interested in your view

Mo Mowlam, a dignified and missed politician, along with John Smith

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

98

Not sure about queue of one, although an Agenda with one item, is an Agendum

If that helps