Dave Hawk's UK Commentary Thread

[Silent Hunter]

There's also the tradition of keeping an MP "hostage" at Buck Palace to ensure Her Majesty's safe return. That job usually goes to a Government Whip- it was Liz Blackman this year.

[Democratic Hawk]

November 9, 2007

There were four by-elections held November 8, 2007:

Babergh District - Hadleigh North: Lib Dem 446, C 261, Ind 138, Ukip 66. (May 2007 - Two seats C 381, Lib Dem 358, Ind 328, Lib Dem 318, Lab 292, Ukip 166, 118). Lib Dem hold. Swing 11.6% C to Lib Dem.

Guildford Borough - Holy Trinity: C 1110, Lib Dem 944, Lab 83, Peace Party 43. (May 2007 - Three seats Lib Dem 1344, C 1284, Lib Dem 1274, 1247, C 1168, 1115, Lab 103, 98, 91). C gain from Lib Dem. Swing 5.7% Lib Dem to C.

According to Wells, the Conservatives have a 2005 notional majority of 0.2% in Guildford [Con 43.5%; LD 43.3%; Lab 9.9%; Others 0.2%]. It is the Liberal Democrats' 3rd target seat.

Tamworth Borough - Castle: Lab 619, C 613, BNP 208, Lib Dem 95. (May 2007 - C 917, Lab 736, Lib Dem 273). Lab gain from C. Swing 4.9% C to Lab.

According to Wells, Labour has a 2005 notional majority of 5.9% in Tamworth [Lab 43.0%; Con 37.1%; LD 14.1%; Others 5.8%]. It is the Conservatives' 52nd target seat.

Telford and Wrekin Borough - Brookside: C 593, Lab 362, No description 114, No description 72. (May 2007 - Two seats C 503, Lab 473, 456, C 396, People’s Association 314, 222, Ind 190, UKIP 178). C gain from Lab. Swing 10.6% Lab to C.

The big swing came on top of May’s main council polls, which put Tories ahead in the votes cast in Telford constituency. They clearly benefited from the drop in the minor parties’ total from 41% to 16.3% in the by-election. Despite its defeat, Labour’s share actually rose by 1.7%.

According to Wells, Labour has a 2005 notional majority of 14.8% in Telford [Lab 48.0%; Con 33.2%; LD 14.1%; Others 4.7%]. It is the Conservatives' 141st target seat.

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

November 11th, 2007

Poll Round-up

There were two polls published this week [all changes on previous poll]:

Populus, The Times, completed November 4, 2007:

LAB 37% (-3); CON 36% (-2); LDEM 16% (+4)

Applying a uniform national swing, on the Electoral Calculus, this would give Labour 343 seats; the Conservatives 241; the Lib Dems 36 giving Labour an overall majority of 36

ICM, Sunday Express, completed November 10, 2007:

LAB 35% (n/c); CON 43% (+3); LDEM 15% (-3)

Applying a uniform national swing, on the Electoral Calculus, this would give the Conservatives 325 seats; Labour 277; the Lib Dems 19 with the Conservatives 1 short of an overall majority

Comment

The first thing that stands out about the Populus poll is that it is pretty much out of sync with other recent polling from YouGov, ICM, Ipsos-MORI and ComRes has shown the Conservatives ahead of Labour, anywhere from 3% to 8%; while the ICM will be disheartening for Labour in support appears to be stalling at 35% having been conducted in the wake of the Queen's Speech, following which Labour might have hoped to regain the initiative on the political agenda. Nevertheless, the increase in Tory support on the previous ICM has come at the net expense of the Liberal Democrats

However, in line with recent polling, Gordon Brown, generally, continues to be ahead of David Cameron on the personal qualities that matter, though he has lost ground; while Cameron has, undoubtedly, gained ground

According to Populus: Brown is thought of by 49% as having what it takes to be a good PM, by 58% as being a strong leader, and by 47% as understanding the problems facing ordinary people; while Cameron was thought of by 40% as having what it takes to be a good PM and by 42% thinking he is strong

According to ICM, Brown is seen as being seen as more courageous by 39% to 33%, better at handling the economy by 53% to 28% and as a strong leader; while Cameron was seen as the most likeable by 46% to 33% and as most likely to get the issue of immigration right by 45% to 30%

All in all, not bad for Brown given the hostile media narrative over the past month. Now where would David Cameron and the Conservatives be had they not being assisted by that, I ask ? But, compared with the Conservatives, Labour, as of now, are in the doldrums

Meanwhile, BBC Newsnight commissioned a poll, by ORB, on immigration to coincide with its 'Great Immigration Debate'. It found that, among other things, only 24% of people think the government is handling immigration well, with 72% thinking they are handling it poorly

Immigration is, at this point, the most salient of issues and it is one on which Brown, the government and Labour are vulnerable

Afterword, on the Economy

Seemingly, economically challenging times, most likely, lie ahead in 2008 as a consequence of the global credit crunch. With Labour stalling in the polls, I suspect that the way it responds to any choppy waters that lie ahead will, ultimately, determine whether or not it wins a fourth consecutive term in office in 2009 or 2010

Economic growth is near certain to slow , but we can, irrespective of partisan affiliation, but hope that a wider recession can be avoided. Should worse come to worst can any wider societal 'trauma', or any 'austere' cuts in public spending, or any 'punitive' tax rises, be avoided? I guess, only time will tell. But it is something on which the government of the day will be judged

Thinking the other day, as I so constantly do, it crossed my mind as to whether Britain would experience what I call the Sixteenth Year Glitch . In 1976, the then Labour government had to go to the IMF and loses its credibility on economic competence; in 1992, under the then Conservative government, the Pound crashes out of the ERM and they lose their credibility on economic competence; 2008 ... ?

Just a thought, of course, considering that this government, yes, a LABOUR government, has essentially made economic stability pretty much its raison d'etre since being elected in 1997, after all

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

November 17, 2007

There was just one by-election held November 15, 2007:

Lincolnshire County - Heighington and Washingborough: C 877, Lab 206, Lib Dem 137. BNP 126, UKIP 52, Ind 21 (May 2005 - C 1750, Lab 1534, UKIP 419). C hold. Swing 20.7% Lab to C.

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

November 18, 2007

Poll Round-up

There was one poll published this week [change on previous poll]:

YouGov, Sunday Times, completed November 16:

LAB 35% (-3%); CON 41% (n/c) ; LDEM 13% (+2)

Applying a uniform national swing, on the Electoral Calculus, this would give the Conservatives 311 seats; Labour 296; the Lib Dems 14 with the Conservatives 15 short of an overall majority

Comment

Well, not much to say other than taking this poll into the consideration alongside must recent polling, Populus aside, it would seem that Conservative support is holding form in the low-40s; while Labour is pretty much stuck in the mid-30s. It's not really telling what will happen as far as support for the Liberal Democrats is concerned until such time as they finally settle on whether Nick Clegg or Chris Huhne is elected leader

Undoubtedly, however, the most marked finding in this latest YouGov is just how far Prime Minister Gordon Brown's job performance rating has plummetted. When asked about how well Brown is performing as PM, 33% say Well / 43% say Badly; giving him a net negative of -10, which is well down on his previous net positive rating of +30. Meanwhile, 46% say David Cameron is performing Well as Conservative Party leader against 31% who say he is performing Badly; giving him a net positive rating of +15. That's quite some turnaround in both Brown and Cameron's fortunes

This poll also highlights voters' increasing economic anxieties. When asked, who would you trust more to raise you and your family's standards of living, 27% say a Labour government led by Gordon Brown, but 32% say a Conservative government led by David Cameron; while 31% say neither

Furthermore, 25% of voters expect house prices to drop in 2008; though 33% expect them to continue rising

Dave

[afleitch]

I am of the belief that Gordon Brown will not lead Labour into the next election. The Blairites will, of course have the last laugh - it is one of them who is most likely to follow Brown probably shortly before an expected GE. Browns problem is that no one really knows what he wants; on schools, on the health service. We do know he forces speech re-writes, pressurises the police into supporting what he wants and pisses off the civil service. His leadership skills are debatable but his skills as an administrator have been shown to be lacking.

It's not suprising he now has a rating lower than his party.

[Verily]

I am of the belief that Gordon Brown will not lead Labour into the next election. The Blairites will, of course have the last laugh - it is one of them who is most likely to follow Brown probably shortly before an expected GE. Browns problem is that no one really knows what he wants; on schools, on the health service. We do know he forces speech re-writes, pressurises the police into supporting what he wants and pisses off the civil service. His leadership skills are debatable but his skills as an administrator have been shown to be lacking.

It's not suprising he now has a rating lower than his party.

Possibly, but are the Blairites willing to risk discrediting their faction by losing an election after forcing Brown out? I don't think so. I think Brown will lead Labour into the next election, and it will be a disaster for Labour.

[afleitch]

I am of the belief that Gordon Brown will not lead Labour into the next election. The Blairites will, of course have the last laugh - it is one of them who is most likely to follow Brown probably shortly before an expected GE. Browns problem is that no one really knows what he wants; on schools, on the health service. We do know he forces speech re-writes, pressurises the police into supporting what he wants and pisses off the civil service. His leadership skills are debatable but his skills as an administrator have been shown to be lacking.

It's not suprising he now has a rating lower than his party.

Possibly, but are the Blairites willing to risk discrediting their faction by losing an election after forcing Brown out? I don't think so. I think Brown will lead Labour into the next election, and it will be a disaster for Labour.

It may be an inevitability but I can't speculate on whether it would be self defeating in the long term. It might be better to fight an internal battle before an election that will end in defeat anyway, than after one and during the Conservatives term in office.

As for the Tories, while we are not there just yet, we are closer to not 'if' they will win, but by how much (and, a year or two down the line possibly 'how big') If the 'inevitability' factor reaches pre 1997 heights I see no harm in ousting Brown in a quiet coup.

I also think the next election will be a disaster for Labour

[Filuwaúrdjan]

"A week is a long time in politics" might be a cliché, but it's also semi-accurate. IMO you can predict longterm political trends fairly well (but only if something major doesn't change) and the pattern of shorterm events is fairly predictable, even if the events themselves sometimes aren't, but attempts to predict things over the medium term (ie; when talking in years rather than decades or weeks) are usually just fluff and nonsense.

Despite that, and in the full knowledge that my views are as meaningless as those of everyone else...

1. Talk of a return to factionalism is a little premature (though, of course, it will happen eventually. This is the Labour Party we're talking about, after all). Factions within the Party have yet to properly realign from the Blair years, though it's possible that the process is beginning.
Btw, taking a look at various recent-ish internal elections is actually a good idea if anyone's interested in the murky world of Labour factionalism.
2. Partisan point for the day; Labour's poll rating is actually pretty healthy right now [insert the usual partisan twaddle about political cycles and so on and so forth].
3. Must admit to being concerned at recent developments regarding the LibDems. The apparent [insert usual sceptical comment about out-of-season polls] huge swing from them to the Tories means trouble for us in certain types of marginals (more on this at some later date) and makes a Tory majority much more likely, while their swing to the right up top (at almost all levels of politics; especially pronounced in London where they're part of the de facto Right bloc on the GLA and in coalition with the Tories in more boroughs than thee can shake a stick at) "could" cause trouble for us in the event of a Hung Parliament.

[afleitch]

"A week is a long time in politics" might be a cliché, but it's also semi-accurate. IMO you can predict longterm political trends fairly well (but only if something major doesn't change) and the pattern of shorterm events is fairly predictable, even if the events themselves sometimes aren't, but attempts to predict things over the medium term (ie; when talking in years rather than decades or weeks) are usually just fluff and nonsense.

Despite that, and in the full knowledge that my views are as meaningless as those of everyone else...

1. Talk of a return to factionalism is a little premature (though, of course, it will happen eventually. This is the Labour Party we're talking about, after all). Factions within the Party have yet to properly realign from the Blair years, though it's possible that the process is beginning.
Btw, taking a look at various recent-ish internal elections is actually a good idea if anyone's interested in the murky world of Labour factionalism.
2. Partisan point for the day; Labour's poll rating is actually pretty healthy right now [insert the usual partisan twaddle about political cycles and so on and so forth].
3. Must admit to being concerned at recent developments regarding the LibDems. The apparent [insert usual sceptical comment about out-of-season polls] huge swing from them to the Tories means trouble for us in certain types of marginals (more on this at some later date) and makes a Tory majority much more likely, while their swing to the right up top (at almost all levels of politics; especially pronounced in London where they're part of the de facto Right bloc on the GLA and in coalition with the Tories in more boroughs than thee can shake a stick at) "could" cause trouble for us in the event of a Hung Parliament.

You've been rather 'nihilist' of late Al While I can see where you're coming from and I agree with point 3, if Labour's ratings are 'healthy' then the Tories must be on prozac. Holding firm on the low to mid 40's is very good after the summer we've been through. 'Brand' Conservative is sellable even to those who don't like the party or the leader, but who want either change (which, re-arranging deackchairs with Gordon has failed to provide) or the 'vision' thing.

There is something 'incoherent' in the government at the moment and I think that's what seems to be causing them the most trouble particularly with the governments relations with the civil service. I don't think i'm being partisan here in saying I don't have the foggiest idea what they are about. The Conservatives did have this problem but have fairly succesfully set out their stall at the conference at the time when people were watching. Labour focused on 'Gordon' and speculation about an election and policy wise it was the most stagnant Labour conference in years (coupled with an overzealous self imposed media blackout) Now they are playing catch-up. They are simply continuing the 'policy a day' without a follow through, mentality of the Blair era. Except it's now just very obvious.

Long gone are the days when you had to trawl through Hansard and press releases to trip up a government. You can just google a policy and it's entire history, whether there's been a u-turn or it's been pinched from another party and have it torn to shreds on on a blog or in the national news. Labour have left so many abandoned 'announcements' this litter is making this process a whole lot easier and a whole lot more convenient for the press wanting a quick scoop.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You've been rather 'nihilist' of late Al

Can't say I'm too happy about the "nihilist" label, but point taken. Actually I've always been a little like that, just been more open about it recently. Don't know why.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just because one party has healthy numbers doesn't mean that another can't have good numbers and thinking that the Tories numbers are anything other than good for them (and I've actually heard people claim that) is delusional.

Though the big fall in the LibDem vote means that polls are probably even less reliable than normal; most of the changes they've made in recent years were made in a climate in which the LibDems polled closer to a fifth than a tenth. Seems to be the other way round now. And polling firms have always been dreadful when it comes to polling the Third Party of Record, whatever it calls itself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would go further and say that that's what's causing all the trouble. After all, swing voters don't like that sort of thing. IMO there are less of them than most people seem to think, but they have a big impact on opinion poll figures.

[Democratic Hawk]

Undoubtedly, however, the most marked finding in this latest YouGov is just how far Prime Minister Gordon Brown's job performance rating has plummetted. When asked about how well Brown is performing as PM, 33% say Well / 43% say Badly; giving him a net negative of -10, which is well down on his previous net positive rating of +30. Meanwhile, 46% say David Cameron is performing Well as Conservative Party leader against 31% who say he is performing Badly; giving him a net positive rating of +15. That's quite some turnaround in both Brown and Cameron's fortunes

Something, which, seemingly, I overlooked. Cameron's net positive rating is also down from +20 to 15%; though nowhere as marked as Brown's

Dave

[afleitch]

Undoubtedly, however, the most marked finding in this latest YouGov is just how far Prime Minister Gordon Brown's job performance rating has plummetted. When asked about how well Brown is performing as PM, 33% say Well / 43% say Badly; giving him a net negative of -10, which is well down on his previous net positive rating of +30. Meanwhile, 46% say David Cameron is performing Well as Conservative Party leader against 31% who say he is performing Badly; giving him a net positive rating of +15. That's quite some turnaround in both Brown and Cameron's fortunes

Something, which, seemingly, I overlooked. Cameron's net positive rating is also down from +20 to 15%; though nowhere as marked as Brown's

Dave

The +20% rating was immediately post conference. Dropping to 15% is better than we had expected.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't put much stock in approval ratings for U.K figures, but it's interesting to note that neither Brown nor Cameron has very high disapproval numbers. Which is good news for politics as it makes a low turnout election that bit less likely.

[Democratic Hawk]

It's not suprising he now has a rating lower than his party.

As of now, not a good position for Brown, personally, to be in. Can he recover? Possibly

I think Brown will lead Labour into the next election, and it will be a disaster for Labour.

I also think the next election will be a disaster for Labour

What kind of disaster though? Would it be on par with Labour's 1983, 209 seats, or the Conservatives in 1997, 165 seats?

Personally, any defeat for Labour or victory for the Conservatives is more likely to be on par with 1992. Labour have but to only roll down a hill to lose its overall majority but the Tories have to scale a pretty high mountain to attain a working overall majority of its own

Much can happen, of course, between now and 2009/10. Should the government stear the UK plc through any coming economic storm clouds and the ensuing choppy waters with minimal trauma then Labour will deserve a fourth term. Economic growth seems pretty certain to slow in 2008, but a full-blown recession could very well be averted. Labour will be judged on its effectiveness or lack of it

My great hope for the future, of course, is that whatever the government, Labour or Conservative, is that socialist dogma and neo-liberal fervour play no part

The +20% rating was immediately post conference. Dropping to 15% is better than we had expected.

How could I forget just how overrated and over-hyped Cameron came out of his conference. Not exactly the PM-in-waiting Tony Blair was from the minute he was elected Labour leader

And now it's time to air my biggest beef of recent weeks. How come that the press, worse still elements of the progressive press , jumped all over Labour accusing them of 'stealing' Tory clothes on Inheritance Tax yet when the truth emerged in that the government had considered it's own proposals re-IHT well before Osborne announced his, it attracts barely a mention? And it's Labour who are supposed to be the spinners

This is, of course, is what my gut instincts told me all along which is why I'm feeling pretty vindicated given the vilification I received from another place from suggesting as much

But given immigration fiasco and economic anxieties, the latter of which I hope come to little, I can understand why Labour, at this point in time, are polling around 6% less than the Tories

Dave

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On paper, yes. But these things never quite work like that. I think it is far easier for the Tories to win a majority based on large swings in seats above the nationwide swing (where Labour might pile on the votes in safe seats but not in the marginals)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On that reasoning, the Conservatives deserved a fifth term in 1997 as they steered the economy through not a minor blip but a major recession and on towards sustained economic growth. But they were not given one because they were stale, divisive, mired in sleaze and seen as trustworthy. That's what Labour have to fear, no matter how 'chipper' the economy is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think you can be 'vindicated' for believing the press have been unfair to Labour based on nothing more than partisan gut instinct. Do you honestly think the press was 'kind' to Cameron during the Brown summer when it was tripping over itself to report on what new tie Gordon Brown was wearing? Come off it. The press was doing what the press does. It was not the fault of the press we were in a rut those few months. It was our fault and we did out best to sort it out. Labour would be wise to follow.

As for IHT one swallow, Dave, does not make a summer or rather one jumper does not make a wardrobe with regards to the 'stealing of clothes' as my little running thread on the matter demonstrates If Labour showed a little consistancy and coherency from one day to the next (or in the case of the immigration figures, David Miliband's Bruges speech and the briefing of the police on the detention limit; from one hour to the next) people might place a little more trust in the government and the Prime Ministers ability to lead that government.

[Democratic Hawk]

November 21, 2007

London Mayorals

We've had poll . YouGov/ London Policy Institute, completed November 8, has found:

First Preferences

Ken Livingstone (Lab) 45%
Boris Johnston (Con) 39%
Brian Paddick (LDem) 8%

Second Preferences

Ken Livingstone (Lab) 53%
Boris Johnston (Con) 47%

Northern Rock and Loss of Child Benefit Recipient Personal Data

It's been a pretty lousy week for Chancellor Alastair Darling with Northern Rock dominating Monday and the loss of child benefit recipient personal data from HMCR in transit from Washington, Tyne and Wear, to the National Audit Office, London

First of all, Northern Rock where the concern is to what extent will taxpayers, ultimately, have to pay for the £25bn of emergency funding from the Bank of England in the wake of Northern Rock struggling to raise money on the credit market

The government will be hoping that once a rescue bid has been approved, that the cost to taxpayers will, at best, be nothing at all or, at worst, minimal. Early days to know exactly how this is going to play out. The Liberal Democrats have called for Northern Rock to be nationalised

Secondly, the loss in transit of such confidential data, is more worrying for the government and it is, indeed, the biggest security breach in UK history in that that it affects 25million individuals and 7million families. The Chairman of HMCR, Paul Gray, has resigned.

The bottom-line is that this should not have happened . The Conservative's have described it as a 'catastrophic' failure

All in all, a pretty wretched week for the government and if the Conservatives don't come out with double-digit leads in the next opinion polls, I'll be amazed. This government will have to shape-up or it will, for certain, be shipped-out. A general stench of incompetence is rising now to the point that it could become terminal and come 2009/10, Labour are in grave danger of defeat. Much can happen between now and then, of course, but as, of now, things are not looking good

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

November 21, 2007

London Mayorals

We've had poll . YouGov/ London Policy Institute, completed November 8, has found:

First Preferences

Ken Livingstone (Lab) 45%
Boris Johnston (Con) 39%
Brian Paddick (LDem) 8%
 
Second Preferences

Ken Livingstone (Lab) 53%
Boris Johnston (Con) 47%

More-or-less as expected methinks. Will probably get round to adding it to the Mayoral election thread at some point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government not being re-elected has been a real possibility for a few years now. And if it happens it certainly won't be because of recent events; this sort of thing tends only to have a real electoral effect if a lot of people lose money because of it, and, IIRC, Darling has said that people will be compensated if that happens. As such the actual political effect (and the word "actual" is important; journo's have a horrible habit of assuming that individual "events" explain everything...) will, probably, be mostly short-term.

If Labour loses the next election the real reason won't be hard to work out; there's no mystery as to why a decade-old government might fail to get re-elected.

[Silent Hunter]

Why is Darling taking all the blame when this was a weapons foul-up by a civil servant?

[Јas]

Brian Paddick (LDem) 8%

Does anyone else find the yellow font very difficult to read?
If I may be so bold as to suggest a change, both gold and orange are seem more legible...
Gold: Brian Paddick (LDem) 8%
Orange: Brian Paddick (LDem) 8%

Why is Darling taking all the blame when this was a weapons foul-up by a civil servant?

Ministers take all the credit and Ministers take all the blame.

[Jake]

Does anyone else find the yellow font very difficult to read?
If I may be so bold as to suggest a change, both gold and orange are seem more legible...
Gold: Brian Paddick (LDem) 8%
Orange: Brian Paddick (LDem) 8%

Or just use black. We all know (LDem) means what it means without it being colored.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ministers take all the credit and Ministers take all the blame.

There's some truth to that (though "take all the blame" tends to be more common than "take all the credit"; media reporting of politics is almost always negative. Always have thought that it is interesting that historians tend to have nicer things to say about politicians and their policies than contemporary journalists) but I think in this case it's because doing so, even if it's unfair (and it is), fits in with the media narrative about Darling.

[afleitch]

Ministers take all the credit and Ministers take all the blame.

There's some truth to that (though "take all the blame" tends to be more common than "take all the credit"; media reporting of politics is almost always negative. Always have thought that it is interesting that historians tend to have nicer things to say about politicians and their policies than contemporary journalists) but I think in this case it's because doing so, even if it's unfair (and it is), fits in with the media narrative about Darling.

Ministers take the blame because it's what the media and the opposition desire, and as said it fits the media narrative. Labour in opposition were no strangers to hounding out ministers for what in retrosepct, were little things (and should not throw up their hands in disbelief when it happens to them). But at the time they were big, and they fit the 'bigger picture' of the times. It's the same today.

The 'wacky adventures' of the Conservative Party used to be a useful sideshow for the government during times like these. However thats not been the case post-conference and everything is pretty much aimed at them. It is increasingly more like 1992-1997 (In reality 1994-1997) The big difference is we now have the internet. Whether or not that 'big scoop' on the government makes it to the front page of the papers or on the evening news is now largely irrelevant. The issue is pretty much saturated before the day is out and skillful hacks can shut down a story before it hits the front page.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ministers take the blame because it's what the media and the opposition desire, and as said it fits the media narrative. Labour in opposition were no strangers to hounding out ministers for what in retrosepct, were little things (and should not throw up their hands in disbelief when it happens to them).

I think that this problem (whatever this habit, and I agree that it's something that all parties are equally guilty of*, is, it's certainly not a good thing as blaming people who aren't actually to blame isn't healthy) is one of the more unpleasant features of British politics. At a guess it probably has something to do with the adversarial setup of the Westminster system which, while it has its advantages, does have the potential to turn anything into something that can be used for political point scoring.

Or something like that.

*Whenever this sort of thing hits the news, I do wonder whether it's been getting worse in recent decades. I suspect not. More intense, but not so long lasting. Media coverage of politics has got progessively worse over time, but that's largely a different issue.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Btw, the Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys police was resigned the other day. Seems he got himself up to all manner of dodgy things. Including "financial irregularities".

When I heard that someone high up in the police in Wales had been resigned I was very happy as I hoped it was Brunstrom. Tragically not.