Forum Topic

Alex Stafford - where did it all go wrong?

Last night allegedly the former Ealing councillor Alex Stafford was physically manhandled while in tears through the division lobby in the House of Commons by a group including the Deputy Prime Minister and Jacob Rees Mogg. A number of witnesses say they were forcing him to vote against a Labour motion of fracking. Such a vote was likely to end any lingering chance of him retaining his 'Red Wall' seat in the north. In some ways the west London public school boy representing a constituency which previously Labour had taken for granted was the poster boy for a new kind of Conservatism in which working class areas in the North and the Midlands would be levelled up making the party serving the interests of the country rather than just rich, old people from the south. This notion was always built on lies the biggest of which was 'Get Brexit Done' and enabled by Labour's catastrophic decision to pick a totally unsuitable leader. This latter should have served as a warning to Alex Stafford that a bad leader puts you on the road to oblivion but he failed to heed the message and believed Liz Truss was fit to run the country. Assuming greed and opportunism persuade this broken Conservative government to limp on for two years doing further damage, Alex has gainful employment for the next two years but, after that, the option of a safe seat on Ealing Council as a fall-back has long gone.

Gordon Southwell ● 576d37 Comments

Mr Southwell, we'll just have to agree to disagree.Absolute tosh about Ms Rayner btw, especially after listening to just one interview. You come across as no fool and brighter than that, but if you really believe she has changed ........... that's your prerogative.

Rosco White ● 562d

A Leopard never changes it's spots. Unless its a Political Leopard which will change anything to become electable.Happens all the time. Just that memories see to fade first.

Raymond Havelock ● 562d

At the risk of being accused like Mark of 'Lefty Swerves' I'd recommend you listen to the recent In Person interview that Angela Rayner did with Nick Robinson which you will be able to find on BBC I Player. I think, should changing your mind be something that you ever do, you would reconsider your opinion of her after hearing it. I certainly did. It should at least disabuse you of the notion that she is some extreme left wing firebrand waiting to seize power. I really don't know enough about Andrew Bailey to give him my full endorsement and he doesn't appear to have the abilities of his predecessor but I can say that nobody I know who has a working knowledge of the Bank of England and his stewardship of it regards Bailey as a gross incompetent. On the issue of a new Labour government's tax policy, you are right of course that theoretically they would have the power to raise new taxes. The probability is that in reality, our already historically high tax burden will rise further in the near future following the forthcoming fiscal statement by the government and it simply won't be possible for Labour to raise taxes as to do so would compromise growth and mean the amount collected would fall. They may look to make redistributive changes to the tax system but, ever here, there are limits to what they can do. The only way they can increase tax collected is to reingnite growth. The quick and easy way to do that would be to rejoin the Single Market but Starmer, at this stage seems unwilling to committ to this move. Perhaps he is hoping Sunak will be forced to do so before he loses the next election.

Gordon Southwell ● 563d

Educate yourself on Peer To Peer lending and the FCA's "handling" of it, under Bailey .........😆Still waiting to hear from you btw regarding how Rayner has "changed" and how much more Labour is now "United."  🤣

Rosco White ● 568d

"A new Labour government will only be able to determine how government spending is distributed, not how much there will be to spend."Errrr, so they can't raise VARIOUS Taxes?  🤣

Rosco White ● 568d

"I have sad personal experience of Bailey's arrogance and ineptitude"Nah

Mark Evans ● 568d

"As for Mr White, he is once again forming a fixed opinion based on reading a single article he has found on Google in an attempt to appear knowledgeable on a subject"Ha Ha, TOTALLY incorrect Sir! I have sad personal experience of Bailey's arrogance and ineptitude, however investigate yourself the sheer number of preventable scandals ( I emphasise PREVENTABLE ) that happenened on Bailey's watch, and these are the ones we know about!The man is grossly incompetent.

Rosco White ● 568d

I'm surprised to hear you worked in financial services given some of the terminology you have used. I was in the City of London at this point although admittedly not directly in the banking industry and have a vivid memory of these events. Banks weren't undercapitalised because of government policy but because enforcing a level of prudential reserves was impractical in a globalised financial market. If UK banks were forced to increase reserves they would have become internationally uncompetitive. The government recognised the problem and tackled it by regulating the lending market to try to ensure asset quality. Largely this policy worked as mortgage defaults remained low through the crisis and those that did occur were generally through management ineptness as at HBOS and Northern Rock. Other issues in the UK banking industry generally arose from exposures in diversifications internationally or into securities. What the government failed to anticipate was the complete breakdown of the interbank lending market which probably would have poleaxed the banks even if they had higher levels of reserves. 'Light touch regulation' and 'he sold the gold reserves' are newspaper talking points about Brown not something you generally hear from people in the City. If you talk to them they will tell you that by far their biggest problem with the New Labour government was the compliance burden introduced by Darling after the event. I'm not sure how this is particularly relevant to the current situation as the Labour leadership is completely different. They are not hostile to the City of London and, given their relative inexperience, will probably be guided by officials and regulators. The hope would be that they would revive negotiations on a financial services deal with the EU. As for Mr White, he is once again forming a fixed opinion based on reading a single article he has found on Google in an attempt to appear knowledgeable on a subject. Andrew Bailey seems to have handled the recent crisis well and probably more than anyone is responsible for the quick removal of Liz Truss. Ultimately who leads the Bank is irrelevant as their charter commits them to an inflation target and that can't be altered to accommodate government policy. Recent events have increased the Bank's power and made it impossible for any government to work against their aims. A new Labour government will only be able to determine how government spending is distributed, not how much there will be to spend.

Gordon Southwell ● 568d

".... fiscal policy is likely to be more or less dictated by the Bank of England and that probably isn't a bad thing. They will be fiscally prudent despite any inclination they have not to be."Possibly, if Bailey wasn't at the helm.Mr Southwell, you ARE aware that Andrew Bailey left an utter and preventable mess behind from his stewardship at the FCA, aren't you?The man is a Gross Incompetent.

Rosco White ● 569d

Er, no. Not inaccurate. I was working in Canary Wharf at the time of the crash and have first hand knowledge of what happened there, including from people working at the regulatory body.The banks were undercapitalised because the government of the time (New Labour) was in thrall to the way the money was rolling in. Trickle down economics years before Truss! You only had to be there at bonus time to see the farcical nature of that theory.Brown himself regrets not taking on the banks properly. He admitted as much in a a Sunday Times interview this year. He and his colleagues fell for the claims of Fred Goodwin and others that they were overregulated!It was luck that saved other banks from collapsing. Barclays negotiated some dubious financing from the Middle East. HSBC was lucky that it sold its HQ some months before to a Spanish property company called Metrovacesa for an incredible amount of cash. Without that it would have been facing ruin. Former CEO Michael Geoghan told me that himself. The bankers knew problems were on the way but most were in denial.Of course the guys at the top were okay. As Peter mandelson said labour was ‘intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes’!It might seem a long time ago and less relevant now, but all that financial crisis did was to usher in austerity and a lowering of living standards for many across the board. Yes, that was a Tory-LibDem administration but as ever they blamed the previous government for forcing their hand. Doubtless Sir Keir will lay all the blame at the Tory’s door when he gets in. Whether he and his team can improve our lives is a very moot point indeed.

Simon Hayes ● 569d

Despite getting the Rosco White seal of approval, unfortunately much of what Simon has said is inaccurate. The financial meltdown had its roots in collateralised mortgage debt in the States which led to a global contagion. For a very agreeable way to find out what this actually is see Margot Robbie's explanation in the film The Big Short. When it hit the UK our banks were undercapitalised and I think this is what people mean when they say 'light touch regulation'. The reality is that banks were obsessed with return on assets at this time and the UK couldn't really have remained competitive as a financial base if larger prudential reserves were insisted on. Most countries had moved away from this way of managing their domestic banking systems and it probably wasn't practical to do it in the UK. What had been done a lot of restrictions on the mortgage market which meant that the level of default was quite low limiting the ultimate damage. It was poor management at institutions like Northern Rock and HBOS which exacerbated the situation but overall the UK got off relatively lightly — although that doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of pain. If you talk to people in working in financial markets internationally, including people from overseas, there is a consensus that Gordon Brown played a key role in stablising the situation. Obama's administration was only just settling in and Brown apparently took a leadership role in the global effort to ensure that a complete catastrophy was avoided. The notion that somehow Brown lost us loads of money by making a bad call on gold is also a misconception. Gold reserves were something of an anachronism and the decision was a technical one made by Treasury officials for sound reasons. The timing was poor but that was just bad luck. Brown probably had very little to do with the sale other than signing it off. If you want to believe that Brown was a terrible chancellor and lacked fiscal prudence, it would be better to focus on the PPI schemes he was so keen on. These have often provided excessively expensive and many public sector bodies remain burdened with costs relating to them. The abortive attempt to introduce it for investment in the tube network delayed improvements that were much needed. They remain a hidden debt for our country and may partly be behind the downgrades we are getting from the ratings agencies. Brown would probably say in his defense that many schools and hospitals would not have been built if he hadn't used this funding method. We haven't seen much detail of what the next Labour government is planning. The situation is so fluid at the moment that it probably makes sense for them not to but I don't believe a Starmer government would be particularly ideological. On the contrary, with Rachel Reeves at the Treasury, fiscal policy is likely to be more or less dictated by the Bank of England and that probably isn't a bad thing. They will be fiscally prudent despite any inclination they have not to be.

Gordon Southwell ● 569d

Rosco White ● 569d

The last Labour governments, under Blair then Brown, rather messed up the country’s finances. Light touch regulation of the City led to casino banking and the spectacular meltdown of 2008. Brown even sold off our gold reserves at a ridiculously low price. So I’m not optimistic that any future administration will be fiscally prudent, especially once it decides it wants to pursue radical policies.Most ordinary people aren’t particularly interested in politics. That point was made by one political commentator recently, who said that the only thing that engages people is when the cost of their mortgages goes through the roof.The total memberships of the main political parties are minuscule compared to the total population of the country. Most of us don’t buy into the ideologies peddled by left or right. We just want decent public services and to be allowed to get on with our lives without too much stare interference. I don’t believe Labour can govern without trying to push in directions they don’t want to go. It’s certainly happening locally.

Simon Hayes ● 569d

Rosco White ● 569d

Nothing to disagree with there but I would refer back to my earlier point about the discipline that the markets will bring. Gilt yields will be on a hair trigger until the deficit is properly dealt with and the Truss/Kwarteng premium could return if Labour attempts to be over generous on public sector pay.

Gordon Southwell ● 569d

Mr Evans, you are correct about me!  And if Momentum fail to have Sharma deselected, it hardly means they are defeated/have gone away.......... infallible logic Sir! And your selective Lefty Swerves are also noted, care to comment on Ms Rayner and Labour's "Unitedness" too?                      😆

Rosco White ● 569d

Labour might well win the next election but to imagine that Starmer and co will have the magic formula to right the country’s ills is a bit far fetched. History should teach us that government is essentially those in power looking after their own, first and foremost. Labour won’t be any different.

Simon Hayes ● 569d

While I am not saying everything Gordon says is right, he does seem to have made an attempt to find out some actual facts rather than, as you tend to do, make declamatory statements based on preconceived opinions.His views will be put to the test in Ealing Southall where Momentum has long had Virendra Sharma in its sights. From what I hear, he is almost certain to be reselected under as he has the backing of the leadership.

Mark Evans ● 569d

If you genuinely think that Momentum has gone away, that Angela Rayner has changed her ideas, and that the Labour Party is more united than the Conservatives, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions.        😂

Rosco White ● 569d

If you want to participate in grown up discussion please refrain from the juvenile and ill-informed name-calling. As far as I can see Angela Rayner has fallen into line as a loyal deputy and is performing the John Prescott role. She has let pass the defenestration of her boyfriend Sam Tarry which has been part of a broader move by Starmer to put in place centrist candidates. She may be fully on board with the programme or quietly seething at what is happening — neither of us know but Starmer has effectively nullified the strength of the left within the party so she wouldn't have much support if she did try to challenge him. From what I can see, their relationship has settled down into one of mutual respect and she wants to see him as the next Prime Minister and he values her as an authentic working class voice and a capable politician. I might be wrong but not even the hostile sections of the press are talking about a rift between them any more.

Gordon Southwell ● 569d

Classic Lefty Swerve - please explain Angela Rayner?She hardly represents Starmer "regaining control of the levers of power within his party leaving Momentum followers spluttering with rage. "    🤣

Rosco White ● 569d

One of the advantages of the 'boring' side of the personality of Keir Starmer is that he has spent the last two years systematically regaining control of the levers of power within his party leaving Momentum followers spluttering with rage. It seems unlikely that they will be making a comeback soon and candidate selection will reduce their influence further. The unions on the other hand will be harder to manage. Fiscal austerity and pay restraint will be required but the unions particularly in the public sector will be looking to Labour to claw back some of the reduction in pay in real terms that they have experienced. I think Starmer will be aware and any economic plan will incorporate increased pay awards but he will be determined to show that they are costed and that the unions should recognise that potential negative market reaction to over generousity makes them the best deal possible. The uncertainty is will the unions accept — probably they will if inflation is falling sharply but if we are still experiencing price shocks under Labour then it will be hugely problematic for the government. However, the basic problem would be the same under a Tory adminstration.

Gordon Southwell ● 569d

"...having purged the Corbyn faction,..."Well, you may be convinced that Momentum have gone away, but I'm not.Momentum is a VERY powerful and very organised group, they box clever and can with their union support upset the applecart any time they want.  And they are, and will.Angela Rayner as Deputy PM - REALLY?!!!

Rosco White ● 569d

Sorry, one correction to the above. It isn't likely that Labour will take over this year — I meant to say 2023 or 2024. Even if Sunak's government collapsed next month, which is only an outside chance, there may not be time for an election.

Gordon Southwell ● 569d

Not sure I understand the basis for that comment. Looking at it objectively, recent events have demonstrated two things — firstly that if you owe a lot of money to people they gain a say in what you do and secondly the Conservative Party is really a coalition of different groups with wildly conflicting interests. The first means that when Labour take over, as they will this year or next, they will remain subject to the discipline of the markets and will be unable to boost government spending to any great degree. However, having purged the Corbyn faction, Starmer will at least preside over a disciplined and broadly united political party which will be a plus point for financial markets. He may also benefit from falling food and energy prices if Ukraine has totally defeated Russia by then.  The second suggests that the clown show of the past few months is not a phase but an ongoing symptom of the fact that there is no united vision within the Conservative party. Despite his undoubted strengths, Sunak isn't likely to be able to keep the various factions together. He was clearly forced to accept the totally unsuitable Braverman into his cabinet to secure the support of the ERG but other groups are now giving us more details of just what a disaster she has been as a minister. It is on this shaky ground that he may have to force through a range of deeply unpopular policies including the end of the triple lock. Then spending cuts will start to bite and they will be spectacularly difficult to implement without adding to the hardship of a nation which is already really struggling. Sunak will be trying to do this with an illusory majority because he cannot possibly have a programme which gets the agreement of all his MPs and at least half fully expect to lose their seat at the next election so losing the whip has no impact on them. This means that he will always face a struggle to get anything through the Commons, particularly a budget. It will only take 35 MPs rebelling to bring this government down and about 50 of them thought bringing back Johnson was a good idea so they will be stupid enough to do it. Labour will be facing many of the same problems but will be able to implement it without the risk of its government collapsing on a daily basis assuming that their poll lead no more than halves from current levels. No matter what your politics, this is a preferable situation to what we have at the moment so Labour do represent the better alternative.

Gordon Southwell ● 569d

And Labour have the cheek to pretend they are an Alternative Government!  🤣

Rosco White ● 570d

But only a few days ago all the Tory MPs were bullied into voting for more fracking, with chaotic scenes in the lobbies, yet now they're all taken for fools when the policy is reversed. What a shambles - and they have the cheek to pretend they're a government!

Peter Evans ● 570d

The sad, or not so sad post-script to this pantomime is that Sunak has reimposed the fracking ban but Stafford's constituents will not forget that he voted in favour and not be interested in his convoluted explanation for why he did so. He's toast.

Mark Evans ● 570d

I tend to listen to what they say whether they're Left, Right, or Centre, if I think they have the intellect.Oborne does appear to have a brain, so worth hearing his opinions I'd have thought.

Rosco White ● 574d

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPqDp90f6-YI'm never sure about Oborne, he seems like a stereotypical right wing posh tory but speaks from a very different perspective which is more of a dislike of all that is wrong across the whole of UK politics and establishment.

Raymond Havelock ● 574d

Or maybe the infiltration of oligarchs and Press Barons?

Rosco White ● 576d

Interesting, got a link?Anything to do with the infiltration of Politically Correct Liberal Woke thinking and practices?Asking for a friend.    😂

Rosco White ● 576d

Worth watching a piece on camera by Peter Oborne a blue blood tory but of the old school and very revealing about what has happened to the Tory Party and how the likes of Truss, Shapps and Patel have come to the fore.And it's pretty much mirrored in Labour the Lib Dems and other mains parties in the UK.Very disturbing.

Raymond Havelock ● 576d

Gotta laugh, nay, guffaw out loudly, at anyone who seriously thinks Labour could run the country better.Conservatives are a complete crock, but Labour is way crockier.  🤣

Rosco White ● 576d

It seems odd that such an obvious incompetent as Truss could end up as Prime Minister. Even Theresa May had some proper experience running a department even if the top job proved beyond her capabilities. Truss has no intelligence, charm or aura of authority, which makes her elevation all the more baffling.Labour made the same mistake with Corbyn and he was utterly out of his depth even as leader of the opposition, probably not helped by not really believing in the institutions he was participating in. That he couldn’t beat a struggling May should have warned that he’d be trounced by a charismatic chancer like Boris.It’s clear there are plenty in the Conservative party briefing against Truss and Keir Starmer could be PM before 2024 but not through any great efforts of his own, but simply through Tory implosion. His judgment is questionable, particularly his nomination of Tom Watson for a peerage.Watson was a highly vocal supporter of Carl Beech (aka ‘Nick’) whose elaborate fantasies were the main thrust of the Operation Midland into a supposed paedophile ring in Westminster. Watson fully backed Beech’s whacky claims - including witnessing the alleged slow torture and murder of a child by former MP Harvey Proctor - all of which were false. He said some pretty nasty things about the supposed perpetrators, including former Home Secretary Leon Brittan. Yet here he is about to be elevated to the bloated and increasingly marginalised upper chamber.At least he will be in good company, joining ex Tory MP Zac Goldsmith who was another supporter of Beech’s wild imaginings.With people like this running things is it any wonder the country is in such a mess!?Meanwhile the Westminster Punch and Judy show deflects from the utter shitheap Ealing Labour is creating for our borough.....

Simon Hayes ● 576d

You've heard of the Elf on the Shelf and now we have the Arse in a Farce.

Mark Evans ● 576d

He was not exactly a success as a councillor or leader.No fight, No gumption and no evidence of the Conservatives challenging and exposing the antics of Ealing Council be it elected or unelected officials.Very few Conservatives have stood up above the parapet and none of them were political careerists, more the old school types whose interests extend only to the Borough and their direct electorate.  There were Labour councillors who were the same and are just as few.

Raymond Havelock ● 576d