Should McDonnell’s challenge worry Gordon?
July 15th, 2006-
Will the move by the “Honour the IRA” MP open up the race?
The last time that Labour left-winger John McDonnell got big headlines was three years ago when at an event to commemorate the IRA hunger striker, Bobby Sands he is reported to have said: “It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.”
On the face of it, then, Gordon should be pleased that the first person to put his hat into the ring for the coming Labour leadership contest is a left-winger who has listed “generally fermenting the overthrow of capitalism” as one of his interests in his entry in Who’s Who.
If the race is a straight Brown v McDonnell then clearly there is no contest and there must be doubts anyway over whether the challenger could get 44 fellow MPs to sign his nomination.
-
The real significance McDonnell’s announcement is that it kills dead the idea that there will be a Brown coronation and opens up the possibility of other more serious candidates coming in. Already there’s talk of a credible left-wing contender.
The big question is whether it also creates a pathway for someone on Labour’s Blairite wing to come into the race.
The Chancellor’s biggest strength in all of this is the widespread assumption that he will succeed and career-minded MPs are, naturally, lining up behind him. It’s going to be quite tough for any contender to find the necessary 44 MPs to sign the nomination.
Brown’s big weakness is the increasing worry about how well he’s equipped to have “a rapport with the middle classes” as Philip Stephens described it in the FT this week. The detail from the latest Populus Poll shows Brown’s Labour trailing Cameron’s Tories by 15% in the South East and the Midlands. Only in Scotland does Labour have an emphatic lead if the Chancellor is at the helm.
My view is that poll findings such as these will play a big part in the contest - just as they did in last year’s Tory election. Cameron would not have stood a chance without the polling evidence that he would bring more votes to the Tories than David Davis. The same will, I believe, apply here.
In the betting you can get 200/1 on McDonnell - but don’t waste your money. Brown is at 0.43/1 with Johnson having eased a touch to 10/1.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I’m disappointed you are dismissing McDonnell. I felt a top two finish for the LDs was a certainty for a moment…
I’d love Mcdonnell to win, but I’m sure Labour MPs aren’t mad.
Apparently the dream is over.
Clearly McDonnell is a joke and I am amazed that anybody, including you Mike, is taking him seriously. According to the Independent today McDonnell had been hoping to announce yesterday that he was mounting a challenge on Blair - but had to ditch the plan because he could find so little support.
I’ve come to the view that it would be very helpful to Gordon if there was a proper election with credible candidates. Labour would also benefit by the exposure of a campaign which would, after all be about choosing a Prime Minister.
Maybe a line-up of Brown, Johnson and Meacher would produce a very good election for the party.
I don’t think that this challenge is particularly good news for Gordon. Not because he will lose to McDonnell, but because, as Mike suggests, it opens up the race. Once there is a contest rather than a coronation the level of uncertainty increases and all sorts of other contenders emerge. Having said that I still think Gordon should win any contest, he will just have to fight a bit harder that’s all.
McDonnell’s challenge isn’t a challenge at all. The whole point of it is to take off the table any further talk of a coronoation. He has already achieved that.
As a Tory activist, I’d love to see a sneaky Brown coronation. There’s no surer way of tipping us firmly over the 40% than for middle-England labour voters to see the tax-and-spend coward accede so easily.
Alas, I doubt now we will get such an easy ride.
The Telegraph: it’s war
I’m surprised Vikki Woods should be surprised by right wing criticism of David Cameron.
[7] As Ms Woods - why am I glad I don’t live in her neck of the woods (West Hill, Putney? Barnes? someone will know)? - points out, in order to win the next election outright, the Tories will have to be as disciplined as NuLab were in 1994-97. IIRC, that meant, among other things, not being seen to read the tribal newspaper - if VW really wants the “18th century head” of Cameron to win, she needs to do her bit by quitting her job and writing for… yes, Uncle Rupert
Re if a Blairite enters the contest against Gordon.
I think the only name who shoul worry Gordon so far is Alan Johnson. He looks good and he has some appeal (even on me and I’m not from his wing of the party/politics). I think Gordon won’t have problems against an ultra-blairite like Milburn
SSP soap opera episode 170:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/otherparties/story/0,,1821116,00.html
Topic moment of the episode: “Mrs Colvin had told the court how she had gone to a hotel in June 2002 and, being a “nosey” person, had gone to poke around the bedroom where she got the shock of her life. “There were three people engaged in sexual acts, none of which I fully understand,” she said. “It was absolutely horrifying to see such a sight. The bed was not a slept-in bed. It was still in its present dress state. There was a woman and two men. All of this I saw in a flash.”
I really do hope that the arch Anglophobe McDonnell wins the leadership of the Labour party - that really proves how anti-English Labour really are - IRA supporters and this will finish Labour off for good. Bring him on.
John Austin (MP for Erith and Thamesmead) asked Blair to sack Lord Levy as Middle East envoy.
11. That’s similar to hoping that Abramovich’s Fulham-based Soccer Project are relegated. Would be lovely, but won’t happen so no point musing on it.
Sir Antony Meyer all over again!!
14 - From stalking donkey to stalking skunk.
14. It took 14 years before Mrs T was challenged by Sir Anthony; the Dour One’s being challenged before he’s officially a candidate. (I know it’s really a proxy for challenging New Labour, which has been around for about the same time, but still …)
alex. I couldn’t understand the significance of the Vicky Wood article. Rather typical Telegraph article. i must have missed something.
John MacWho? There must be twenty or thirty Labour no-hopers who will be kicking themselves that they didn’t get in first. Fifteen minutes of publicity in an otherwise anonymous career.
I didn’t know who Vicky Wood was so I googled “Vicky Woods” and the first entry was pb.com and ‘Alex’ dated July ‘05!
17. “John MacWho? There must be twenty or thirty Labour no-hopers who will be kicking themselves that they didn’t get in first. Fifteen minutes of publicity in an otherwise anonymous career. ”
Roger, you haven’t understood the whole point of his challengeat all. It’s not fame/publicity (if you had read the Guardian profile about him you would have knew it). It’s about the party direction.
I find a bit irritating that everytime someome challenge New Labour status, there’s always someone who come out with the “publicity” thing.
Agree with Roger 17. After all these pointless years as MP for Hayes and Harlingrad this guy has finally risen to the surface at a particularly scummy moment. I should have thought Gordon wanted someone of substance to trounce, not an obscure backbencher.
Andrea. There must be at least sixty left-wingers who believe that the party has been destroyed by parting from it’s traditional socialist position. They have voted consistantly against the Labour Government. Most believing opposition is more honourable than an accomodation with the electorate. If John Mac…..was following the line you suggest why not put forward someone who could put up a contest? He wont even get enough signitures to be nominated. If anything all he’s doing is making Browns job easier by allowing himself to be ridiculed.
Intereting article Mike. Should Gordon be worried? Don’t know yet. He may bring other more credible chalangers in which may cause gordon a problem. Rather more importantly he may move the center of gravity of the Labour party leftward which would help us no end. However it is too early to see what the impact will be.
I would like MacWho to win of course, but that is no more than very wishfull thinking.
21. Roger, but he’s not doing it for the sake of publicity, but for the direction of the party (even if many would say his preferred direction would be a political suicide). The question you asked has apparently been debated in the Campaign Group with Alan Simpson preferring to back Michael Meacher, but McDonnell not agreeing because Meacher didn’t resign over Iraq.
All you need to know about John McDonnell is that, in the GLC years, he eventually became Livingstone’s leading internal opponent on the left of the party, eventually being sacked by him as Deputy Leader (although McDonnell was a staunch supporter at the beginning of his Mayoralty).
ConHome reports that Caroline Jackson is going to stand down in 2009. I suppose lots of cheers from some tory activists.
But some pro EPP MEPs want to stand again and they want to change the selection process with association chairmen or CCHQ make the decisions.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/07/europhile_meps_.html
24.”(although McDonnell was a staunch supporter at the beginning of his Mayoralty). ”
One of the few MPs to have voted for Ken in mayoral nomination.
25 I’d rather she was deselected.
27. Sean, I think she has urged activists like you to join UKIP because you would be more confortable there
http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200607/eaa67ca4-93b6-4ba7-ac20-218aeb0b935e.htm
Is she morphing into Glenda Jackson? What happens to women called Jackson when they become old?!
I take your point Andrea at 23 and from what you say perhaps his motives are purer than I suggested. But in some ways that makes his action more foolish. For he wont be just humiliating himself but his lack of personal support will marginalize his wing of the party further.
” I’d rather she was deselected”
You’re a hard man!
29. yes, Roger. there was an interesting debate on Labourhome about it (and why the Left shouldn’t challenge Brown and concentrate on the deputy race).
” Only in Scotland does Labour have an emphatic lead if the Chancellor is at the helm.”
was SNP and Salmond directly mentioned in the question and possible answer or were they left in “others” in the DC/GB/MC question?
25. Following your link, I noticed a posting from an “Andrea” which said: “Some of these MEPs really are abominable”
)
There must be two Andreas! Surely you would have said “most” rather than “some”. (I’m sure many on this site would!
33.Gladstone, why should I have some “most”? I don’t think all MEPs are abominable!
To be fair, John isn’t that obscure - he’s chair of the Campaign Group. But as andrea notes, some of them would prefer to suport Michael Meacher, who can add some green support to the hard-left ticket. It’s doubtful if there enough MPs to enable them both to stand, and I’d expect it to be one or the other in the end.
Vicky Woods thinks the Today programme is Labourite! rofl… Today, like so much of the media, is simply hostile (they would say ‘challenging’) to whoever they happen to be interviewing. I find it very irritating, even when I disagree with the victim - i want to hear what (s)he thinks without a barrage of heckling by Humphries et al.
How strong is the “green lobby” within the PLP, Nick?
35. “some of them would prefer to suport Michael Meacher, who can add some green support to the hard-left ticket”
and maybe MM would be better placed to get the support of some of the not SCG MPs needed to reach 44. I mean the various Clare Short of this world (people who thought that since Clare is love now, she would become “quieter” and less erratic should be disappointed. She’s always the usual Clare
34. A thousand pardons! I thought that you didn’t like most of the MEPs. No offence meant (and none taken, I am sure).
This is one difficutly for the left. a “broad left” candidate could potentially worry Brown; but who would stand? Short isn’t hugely credible; Robin Cook is dead; Peter Hain’s not that popular and might be seen as too embroiled with the government.
38. Gladstone. Naturally not offended, but why did you get that impression? Do I look like a rabid eurosceptic MEPs hater?!!!
39. Observer. yeah, a popular figure like Cook is not among us anymore, Clare is Clare and that eliminates her and Peter Hain, well, frankly I think the Labour Party doesn’t need nicknamed Peter Vain as leader/deputy leader at the moment!
At what point of the political spectrum is Beckett now (considering how many times she changed her position)? But she’s probably too old (but maybe for deputy?)
Beckett would have been a possible some years ago; but she’s been too much of a “safe pair of hands” in the government to be taken too seriously in that role anymore. Besides, as the debate among Meacher demonstrated, the Campaign Groupers will want someone who showed bottle over Iraq, and John Denham, about the only credible figure who did, is probably too New Labour for their tastes.
40 Andrea my assumptions were obviosly all wrong.
I certainly don’t think that you are “rabid eurosceptic MEPs hater”. You don’t seem the sort of person to hate anything except those things that should be hated, namely, intolerance and cruelty.
I got the impression that I did for several reasons:
a) You seem to me to be broadly in favour of the main idea behind the EU, so you won’t like the Eurosceptics.
However, you are not afraid to criticise the bad things of the EU, such as the democratic deficit and corruption. This condemns a fair few of the past-and-present reptiles of the EU establishment (Cresson, Kinnock, Mandelson to name a few)
b) You had a rant the other day when we were discussing the Conservatives and the EPP. Several of the Tories potential allies got roasted by you for their intolerant attitudes.
c) Correct me if I’m wrong, but you would tend to vote (if you do so at all) for the Socialist group in the European Parliament. However you don’t blindly follow anybody. You will criticise people of the left whenever you think they are wrong.
Taking a,b & c all together , I don’t think that this leaves many MEPs!
Apart from not being a supporter of any political group (item c), these views are also my views.
So much for my powers of character analysis!
Once again. No offence. I am harmless - honest!
42. Gladstone.
a) yes, I generally agree with the EU concept. And yes, it would be foolish not to recognize not everything works well in the EU.
b) yes, the rant against Poland! It seems it didn’t past unnoticed!
c) the thing I can criticize poeple on the left even if I’m on the left (for ex some McDonnell’s ideas are totally XXXX)…I think it become easy because I’m writing on a foreign forum/blog. Not sure why, but I feel less political “competition” not being the parties I end up voting for. Not sure if I’m clear, but it’s a strange thing I can’t really explain it (I’m not mad though, I swear!)
Voting for Socialist group in the European Parliament? yup, I voted for one of their parties at last election. Actually I voted for the Ulivo list (and they’re in 2 different groups in the Parliament). We’ve “open lists” with the chance to give 3 preferences. IIRC I voted for this man:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public/geoSearch/view.do?country=IT&partNumber=1&zone=Nord-Occidentale&id=28365&language=EN
Then for a gay candidate who probably didn’t get many more votes other than mine and I think I didn’t give my third possible preference.
$. Flash, “Clearly McDonnell is a joke” - in which case he will be a totally worthy successor for Blair?
I see John O makes references above to ’stalking Donkey’. But does the Donkey from Kirkaldy know he is being stalked?
43. Fair enough. Signor Panzeri does look a decent guy. And he is only 4 days older than me!
Obviously a full-time MEP as well, not an amateur. Very good. I checked the “Declaration of financial interests” link - and all the answers are “nothing to declare” (if I understand the Italian correctly).
You are lucky than us with “open lists”. We have to take what we are given by the political parties!
45. gladstone. I think you’ve some serious hardworking MEPs too (that’s why I was surprised by the abominable MEPs comment)
On the Declaration of financial interests, a couple of Italian commie MEPs write down in the professional activities section: MEPs….it’s a bit weird. I mean you can suppose that the Euro Parliament knows you’re a MEP without the need to tell them!
yes, I agree that they should have given you open lists.
I think the European Parliament is, by and large, a useless talking shop. All the power seems to be vested in the Commission, so other than providing fodder for internal squabbles, it really matters very little who sits in it.
47. Alastair, who should we root for in tonight’s WW selection?
We made me back a failed candidate in Folkestone!
47 - Perhaps I’d better not say, Andrew - I wouldn’t want to curse any one.
49 - Erm, Andrea rather.
50. Alastair, I won’t become Andrew and I won’t join Conservative Future! How many times did I have to tell you? You haven’t convinced me enough
51 - I don’t give up that easily!!
O/T - Has anyone been following political events in Australia over the last week?
ConservativeHome is reporting that Karen Bradley has been selected for Staffordshire Moorlands.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2006/07/karen_bradley_s.html#comments
How will Lord Bradley react? Maybe he’ll give away her cell number because it’s all of her fault if he lost
Think McDonell will get more support than you all reckon…
20-25% is quite likely, possibly as high as 30-33%?
41. Observer, I think John Denham is the only credible challenger from outside the Cabinet. Even if the hard left do manage to field a candidate of their own, Denham would pick up most of their second preferences. His principled resignation over Iraq and his role as a leading ‘constructive critic’ since then should get him a decent share of the constituency section.
I campaigned for Denham in Southampton in 1987. Then as now he was ‘just to the left’ of the Labour leadership, which is not a bad place for a contender to be.
Alan Simpson finally finished to build his new Eco-House (yes, you don’t need Cameron and his wind turbine)
http://www.alansimpsonmp.co.uk/home.htm
The website for the house will be ready by the end of the month.
Oh Dear, there’s a John4leader site too:
http://www.john4leader.org.uk/
Should the Liberals and Conservatives call for a general election when the leadership issues is resolved? Basically, let the people decide etc…
Would it be good tactics to force it, or is it wise to let whoever takes charge to stew for the next few years?
We are not talking just about a leader of a party here. The Labour party will be choosing our Prime Minister.
Thoughts?
60. Did Labour call for a GE when Major was elected Tory leader (and PM)?
61 Not seriously, I don’t recall.
60. No. Labour has a majority in parliament and won last time having given a clear message that Blair wouldn’t see out the term, so whoever follows has that mandate, as well as a parliamentary one. In fact, it may be worthwhile making it explicit by the incoming PM (i.e. Brown) putting down a confidence motion during his honeymoon period.
61 - Yes, in the sense that Labour put down a no-confidence motion on the day when Mrs. T threw in the towel, which then served as the scene of her magnificent final performance.
64. Thanks, observer. For “her magnificent final performance”, do you mean her leaving Downing Street in tears?
Her speech in the House, where she steamrollered Kinnock and other Labour interveners for the last time. Many commented on the fact that the very MPs who had overthrown her cheered her stridently.
4. John McDonnell posted in his blog that the Indy article is a “a pack of dishonest, untruths and fabrications” He reported the journalist (Andy McSmith) to the Press Complaints Commission.
That sounds a bit cack-handed on McDonnell’s part. All he should do is deny it, and leave it at that. Getting into complicated fights with journos makes him look little-league.
68. Observer, thanks for the info about MT’s speech.
And McDonnell is always usually OTT in what he say and does. A bit melodramatic too
54, thanks Alastair. Karen Bradley is the daughter of the landlord of the first hostelry I frequented regularly (some years ago!) & I was able to give her some advice about the internal social/political makeup of Staffordshire Moorlands, though she was actually born when her dad had his previous pub in the constituency at Cheddleton, so she has “local” credentials as well as being only the third female elected in the 11 seats which have picked under the ‘new rules’….
… I believe there is a chance of another later today at West Worcestershire.
70. “I believe there is a chance of another later today at West Worcestershire. ”
The WW shortlist is Andrew Griffiths, Harriet Baldwin and Margot James.
No probs, Andrea.
Karen Bradley should be well placed in a seat which should be Conservative after the next election, even if there weren’t a huge swing. The only problem might come from a good UKIP performance.
It just goes to show how far the Tories have come Andrea. 20 years ago girls called Harriet and Margot would be running the garden parties. Now they let them stand for Parliament - presumably so that they can host tea on the terrace.
72. Antony Wells’ figures suggest Staffs Moorlands will become Con after the boundary changes.
73. Margot’s girlfriend can claim among her TV works: Hotter Sex, The Truth About Sex and Do or Diet…I would say better suited for parliament considering “activities” taking place there…she could advice Prezza and Tracy on how to close the door!
Margot’s girlfriend, Andrea? Christ the Tory Party really have come a long way
Alastair will be caught dancing in hot pants soon. They’ll have to change the name from ‘The Conservative Party’ to the ‘All Night Party’.
Is Karen Bradley the person who cheated Keith Bradley out of his seat at Withington by having the same name on the voting slip?
If so -I have family in Withington-she was not very impressive.
77 - that theory is quite silly as the Tory vote in Withington went down quite considerably from 2005 to 2001. So she doesn’t seem to have got too many mistaken votes.
I see that Harriet Baldwin has been selected to replace Sir Michael Spicer in West Worcestershire
But no sign of the hotpants yet Alastair?
80 - Perhaps I could borrow a pair from Mark Oaten or Simon Hughes, Paul. Would that be a turn on for you??
“Harriet Baldwin”
Well lets hope she’s not a mincing metrosexual. I doubt Worcester Woman would understand
Good lord, it’s all got a bit saucy here tonight. I blame the hot weather.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/enron/story/0,,1821114,00.html
A story in to-days Guardian about the Nat West Three. That’s what happens when the contract ends with their PR company! Not quite the delicate flowers we have been led to believe!! Incidentally could Ming Cambell explain why he hasn’t said a word about fourteen minor criminals extradited to the US but suddenly becomes excited when the same happens to three multi millionaire bankers?
84 - sounds pretty tenuous.
Prosecutors are expected to allege that the reference to “robbery” makes it clear that the trio knew they were committing a crime.
Right, because “robbery” or “daylight robbery” would never be used metaphorically to refer to an aggressive but lawful business deal, would it?
84/85 - it is pretty tenuous. And Roger the Lib Dems voted against the Treaty three years ago, and have campaigned against it ever since. It’s just that this time the media picked up on it too.
The notion, which seems to be doing the rounds, that the justice system is not there to serve rich people is one I find deeply disturbing.
84 - Youy cannot defend the US being able to extradite the way we can’t. Why are you so keen to give the US more power in this way?
87 - indeed, the Senate hasn’t ratified the treaty but Britain still extradites in situations where the US wouldn’t.
Being a Lib Dem, I agree with BV re the politics of it re our position. Being a spiteful b***ard, the human interest piece on the Berminghams that was on 10 O’Clock News the other day put me off them completely. The final shot of them looking longingly over their immense estate made me think a bit of hardship in their lives wouldn’t go amiss. Chip on my shoulder - got the whole potato patch, I’m sure.
Meanwhile. Surely the whole Bush government should go down with Enron if there was any real justice in the world.
Well, this is “tough liberalism”… they don’t have to be nice people to deserve a fair trial!
The after-effects of Enron have been interesting. For all the pasting the accountancy profession took at the time, Arthur Andersen got all the blame and all in all it’s turned out very well for the other major firms. They get their share of Andersen’s business, and also do pretty well from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the legislative (over-)reaction to Enron which gets them an awful lot of consultancy fees doing the extra paperwork that’s now needed.
76. Paul, she had a great advice for some your MPs: “Skeletons are only in closets if you put them there”
77. Roger, Keith Bradley lost because he was clueless. He thought he was safe and in the last week realized the libdems were running him close. But he was too late.
His after defeat reactions were OTT
84. because otherwise these three “bankers” would get off with a six and a half million pound swindle. i have a difficulty with crimes of fraud which are seldom prosecuted sucessfully here. It seems that if you can spend a million on a PR firm you are a better class of thief than a social security fraudster.
92 - best make sure they have no access to any of their so-called “evidence” in this country, eh, lest they be mistakenly acquitted of the crime you appear so certain that they have committed.
Would you care to put a number on the maximum annual salary that entitles someone to due process of law?
92 - Presumably you weren’t replying to yourself at 84.
None of that is any reason to allow the US to have greater powers than the UK and no reason why British politicians shouldn’t let the US off lightly in this matter.
Just because we have two different systems doesn’t mean you can ‘pick and mix’ your legal systems to get the effect you most desire.
92 - oh, I see… your new justice rule is, Innocent until proven guilty unless you’re rich in which case you had it coming.
An interesting Labour link here: http://liberalengland.blogspot.com/2006/07/nat-west-threes-labour-links.html
It’s clear that none of you have read the piece in the Guardian. Here is an excerpt that answers book value at 92 and part of Pauls 95;
“Yesterday the head of the Serious Fraud Office, Robert Wardle, expressed astonishment that the men had become a “cause celebre”.
“In this case most of the evidence is in America - the main witnesses are there, as are most of the documents,” he said. “Even if you think the new extradition arrangements are unfair … in this case the evidence that was produced would have been enough to secure extradition even under the old act.”
Paul at 94. Are you saying that the men should avoid justice to teach the Americans a lesson? Or is it that you don’t think the American justice system is good enough to be allowed to prosecute British citizens.
Well, the SFO say so, so no need for due process then.
It has been widely reported that the “PR story” of the Bankers is part of the Downing Street smear machine. Presumably having told Mr Bush that they would be off, they had to be off.
I suppose innocent until proven guilty remains - unless NuLab decides otherwise.
As even 93 year old women lying in hospital know, no smear is too small for NuLab, and any rumour will be shoved in places here by Tony’s little ray of sunshine AKA Roger.
96. Roger, I don’t know if the NatWest 3 are guilty or not! But I do know that their case has highlighted another rushed ill thought out piece of legislation from Labour. Why have the Americans still not ratified this treaty even when its a lot fairer to their citizens?
Firstly, I thought it was 20% required to get nominated for the labour leadership, so 70 MPs. If it’s only 44, that’s 15%, then realistically there could be four contenders in a Labour leadership contest in general. It means that if there are likely contenders, there’s a good chance of someone managing to make the grade, and even in this case there may well be three contestants. Is there alternative vote here? In other words, do you have to choose whether, for example, you can risk backing Johnson without letting in the left-wing candidate? Or can you vote Johnson 1, Brown 2, left-wing candidate 3? Htat makes a significant difference.
I thought Brown made a mistake with his Trident announcement, as it makes a challenge from a serious candidate far more likely.
96 - When the system is equal then the government should address questions of extradition on merit. As it isn’t, they should refuse until there is equality.
The fault lies with the US in their attitude to this, allied with this government’s lackadaisical attitude to legislation.
100. Gavin, 20% are needed when there’s no vacancy (so to run against Blair), while 44 are enough when there’s a vacancy (so when Tony steps down)
good article on the NatWest 3 in the Sunday Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2272011_3,00.html
Wasn’t there an Englishman recently charged with murdering his American wife and child. If i remember he was sent back a few months ago. Where was Ming?