Comments on: Smoke For Victory!

By: Julian Harris

Julian Harris — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:02:02 +0000

So, to confirm, my point was probably better than Tom’s.

By: Bunny Smedley

Bunny Smedley — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:24:20 +0000

Tom and Julian both make very good points.

The funny thing is, if the Tory Party’s loosest of heavy-gauge cannons rolled away over the issue of members’ outside interests, for once this wouldn’t just be seen (at least with the Party) as Ken being Ken – such is the level of front- and back-bench resentment, not only over this particular diktat of Dave’s but of his failure to defend or support his MPs over the recent expenses scandal, that the damage done to Dave might well be more serious – especially if there was any chance at all that the Tory poll lead might sag a bit, because frankly good polls is all that stands between Dave and the desire of most of his Parliamentary party to tear him limb from limb, before setting off to find George Osborne …

By: Julian H

Julian H — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:27:20 +0000

Aye, but what of the consequences of him doing this? Technically Gordo is Mandy’s boss, but we all know where the power really lies.

KC could cause Dave considerable damage if he quit – and he himself has nothing to lose, whereas DC has everything to lose.

By: Tom Papworth

Tom Papworth — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:40:13 +0000

Julian,

Of course he has the power. It is entirely up to the leader who serves in his shadow cabinet; if KC wants to shadow Mandleson he has to obay his leaders’ whims.

In addition, the Tories are not as democratic as us so it is possible (as we have seen) for the leader for force a members’ deselection (though I don’t think he’d go this far in KC’s case).

By: Julian H

Julian H — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:52:53 +0000

Is Dave really going to make him quite BAT? I wouldn’t have thought he had the power. If I was KC I’ll tell him to go self-copulate.

By: Frank H Little

Frank H Little — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:44:44 +0000

Bad timing for Kenneth Clarke, who will have to give up his second jobs – one of which is non-exec director of British American Tobacco – if he wants to stay in the shadow cabinet after this parliament, under the latest Cameron diktat.

By: tim leunig

tim leunig — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:53:25 +0000

Perhaps they could go further, and order people to smoke more cigarettes produced in their town? Or in their road? Or in their own property? A return to subsistence farming, maybe, as a strategy to promote growth??!!

(hat-tip: this is a precis of an excellent letter in the FT a couple of days ago on US buy-American policies)

By: Morus

Morus — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:31:54 +0000

But as well as the disposable income consumed by the habit rather than being put into savings, there must be some benefit beyond cutting life expectancy and thus pensions.

If all public servants smoked and the average life expectancy dropped to 63, would that not mean a much, much smaller state, and affordable tax cuts?!

By: GMB

GMB — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:19:26 +0000

I’m with Tristan. There’s something seriously wrong when someone describes a communist state as having ‘free markets’ – just shows the way that the world is going.

By: Tristan

Tristan — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:25:25 +0000

China is often heralded as the new champion of free markets.

Obviously by people who don’t know what a free market is. Or people who willfully wish to pollute the term even further (leading to people claiming all sorts of things as being market failures when infact the market is so restricted its hardly a market at all – eg banking, railways etc)