My feeling is that this dual position will split the Conservatives into the moderate centrists and the radical right-wingers in a way that Livingstone avoided damaging perceptions of the Labour party by winning initially as an independent.

The longer this goes on the deeper the divisions will be and the more it will destabilise the chances of the Conservatives either forming the next government or forming a coherent government in case it is victorious and wins an overall majority at the next election.

So my feeling is to give Boris all the encouragement we can in order to infuriate the backroom staff.

To provide aid alone is not enough – Zimbabwe has seen a drastic reduction in food production and the devaluation of it’s currency has left it unable to buy food from abroad, but do you seriously suggest that it is a good idea to hand over large amounts of humanitarian aid to Mugabe so he can continue his repressive and inefficient policy of land reform by feeding the army?

If aid doesn’t get to the people who need it then it doesn’t help them. If it is distributed to the people who have caused the problems then it can accentuate the problems. If it is the wrong kind of aid then the problems remain unsolved. If aid is provided in disproportion to the needs it can upset the system of economic provision (be it market of command economy etc) it can create new problems unrelated to the starting position.

Furthermore the conditionality of aid provision is often used as a political tool for furthering different political ends (Belgium has been criticised for tying debt-relief to economic development contracts, the US is criticised for using it as ’soft’ power to influence diplomatic relations) which fail to address the underlying political, social and economic problems which any country may be experiencing.

The best way to solve African problems is to introduce better governance structures which disincentivise informal practises (such as bribery and piracy) to build up the internal tax base, which can only be done by making processes more transparent and which encourages participation.

The minimum wage is a similarly problematic subject, because its implementation must be adjudged within the context of the overall performance of the wider economy. So for a short period it did indeed advance the cause of the low-paid, but at the same time it raised an economic barrier to employment for those without valuable skills. As increases in the minimum wage have failed to keep up with the level of inflationary increases in the cost of living this barrier could be seen to have reduced, but while efforts to retrain the low-skilled haven’t taken up the slack and have even gone into reverse in some areas the barrier has actually increased and a growing underclass has developed.

There are some good things which can be said of both policies, but because of the way in which they were done the gains have been more than offset by the losses because the level of effective administrative control has not adapted in line with the changing needs, and the situation worsens as more reforms mean the adaption lag increases.

Labour has tried to cross the river but has fallen into the quicksand, now the more it struggles the deeper they sink into the mire.

You are indeed tight that the economy did do whell for a while under Browns stewardship, but not as well as it should have done under the circumstances. The early gains may have been partly due to some of his reforms, but at the same time this concealed the problems that were built into the longer term.

Because Brown oversold his successes (which were not all down to his actions) and undersold any failures he built up a false picture of his economic prowess, thus by taking too much credit in the good times to build up his political capital he has left himself unable to repay the interest now that the economic tide has turned, leaving additional questions swirling around his judgement which he cannot dispel.

It is a paradox of politics that in advancing his cause he has backed himself and his party into a corner, where the problems cannot be solved without admitting his mistakes – so either he will be voted out because people are angry at the problems or he will be voted out because he decieved us. The Labour party can decide either to retain him because they believe we will forgive the mistakes in the hope he can rectify them or they can retain him because they can’t stomach the damage it will cause to their position by admitting they got anything wrong (even if it means they continue with policies which will make the problems worse).

It is typical problem which must be faced when circumstances change.

Just as with Boris Johnson, whose claims that Livingstone were the worst thing to happen to London since the discovery of gin are seen to be less than wholly accurate, politicians often find it difficult to adapt from proselytising their political platform to delivering effective policies once they attain office because the dynamics change.

Charlieman:
This is all good ammunition for the Lib Dems, even if Labour feel unable to fire the bullets.

True – but have you ever seen the Libdem hierarchy attack Tories? Its usually embarassing to watch. They barely raised a squeak against them when they were essentially in agreement with Labour over Russia/Georgia.

Sunny: “Right now, I’d argue New Labour needs to decontaminate itself first before it starts chucking mud at Cameron.”

But let’s not forget about how the right feels about Cameron. Jeff Randall at the Telegraph wrote that he would not trust Cameron with his daughter’s pocket money. The Sun’s business editor merely regarded him as a “poisonous, slippery individual”. This is all good ammunition for the Lib Dems, even if Labour feel unable to fire the bullets.

I never subscribe to this absolutely baseless view. The media tried to spin back in the day that the Tories were in melt down in choosing Cameron, similarly things of this sort were said about Clegg. Cameron has gone on to be possibly the most likely PM after 2010, and Clegg has undone the woes of the last 12-18 months, now while the jury is still out on Clegg, not one person believes the Tory decision was a bad one for the party (as it see’s itself).

If Brown is removed to make way for someone else of course people will capitalise in the short term. But if the policies are good and the direction is better then in 2 years time people will have forgotten that Labour was in melt-down and scrabbling for a win.

I can’t believe you wrote this. Boris already has a reputation for incompetence. Have you not seen him being sent by his party to various parts of the UK to apologise for some gaff or another?

I saw Richard Madeley had him on Richard and Judy the other day. Richard started by saying “I voted for you because I thought it would be a laugh”

Tory central office are shiting themselves over Boris. But I don’t think they need to worry, Boris is seen as a national joke, who will be just one of those people who gets away with it. People even voted for him because he is useless.

It really isn’t about whether Labour finds itself in opposition, just about how soon and for how long.

The party can cleanse itself, it can reform, it can come up with a new direction. The leader can not, the mere act of changing direction will be seen as weakness and will in turn weaken him further. Changing leader on it’s own may not make any difference, this is true, but without getting rid of the leader then changing your spots can’t make any difference.

During a period of sustained global growth Gordon Brown claimed credit for the economy. Now the global conditions have changed he must also take the blame for the state the economy is in. Public debt is spiralling out of control without even mentioning the billions hidden in PFI’s. For the first two years as chancellor he actually made a reasonable (clunking) fist of it. Since then he has been an absolute disaster and the chickens are coming home to roost.

As others have said though, it is the entire labour brand that is seen as toxic. A change of leader will not make an iota of difference.

I for one cannot wait to see this government consigned to the dustbin of history.

He’s pretty close to being my least unfavourite Tory – he did a good job here in Westminster City (name one scandal that hit the City Council during his term as Leader) and I think the Labour and Lib Dem reps at the ALG would give him high marks too.

It’s always been pretty obvious that Cameron wanted him at City Hall to save Boris from himself. If you think of Boris as Kaiser Wilhelm I and Sir Simon as Bismarck you get the general picture. Why didn’t he run for Mayor of London himself, you may ask. Well, he’s about 5 foot 4 and that doesn’t play too well these days – there’s no lobby shouting for the interests of vertically challenged males…

More generally, this kind of problem is built in to the structure of the Mayoralty. There is probably a case for electing a Deputy Mayor – the Yanks don’t say, we’ll choose a President and let him/her appoint a Veep afterwards…

But Brown actively ignored the inflationary issues…put them to one side because he would rather have kept inflation “at 2%”. He for years, along with Darling after him, has made it priority number one to confuse the public and disguise the figures from us so that Labour can appear to be economically more competent than we were.

Now that he can’t hide it, it’s suddenly all the global economies fault, it’s just a very shifty way of operating an economy by anyone’s books.

Type blockquote before and after the quote, and then put after the e. On the latter blockquote, put a / after the < and before the b.

Ben

“Plus, can someone tell me how to get my quotes in nice neat boxes like you lot do?”

- Put

before the quote (then take out the spaces between blockquote and the arrows.

- Put

at the end of the quote (then take out the spaces between the /blockquote and the arrows)

Ben

Inflation that Brown used (and he changed which figure was used) have been “low”, but that doesn’t mean inflation has been low. It’s also worth noting that inflation figures are disproportionately false to the poorer in society. Those of us that can afford to buy consumer electronics and luxuries are probably seeing that rough level of inflation, poor people only buying food and fuel are seeing (and have consistently seen in at least the last 5-6 years) high inflation in their purchases, essential purchases.

I didn’t bother because while I have my suspicions about just how much Brown has to do with them, I am not fully versed to argue about them. I assumed (correctly) others would pick up on them if they were as poor a set of points as I thought.

You should not go just because the media are attacking you. You need strong leaders who can stand media pressure it is the same in soccer or sport.

Except that the media narrative is backed up by polling – showing Labour is doing terrible and so is the PM himself. That narrative is set. He needs to go, no doubt about it.