Reports suggest that there is to be a major film of Lady Thatcher’s life. It appears she is to be played by the rather attractive Sienna Miller. Personally, I think there is something wonderfully Chaucerian about the idea of the grocer’s daughter being played by a miller’s prodigy.
The BBC has several details on how the film might come together. However, perhaps the key to understanding what kind of film this might turn out to be, comes from the choice of director:
Hollywood director Oliver Stone, whose previous films include Wall Street, Platoon and Natural Born Killers, is believed to have wanted to make a film about Baroness Thatcher - born Margaret Roberts - for several years.
I can see the Wall Street influence of the 80’s coming through during the Thatcher heyday, the Falklands War and the horrors of Goose Green captured as effectively as were the jungle fights of Vietnam… it could be a blockbuster!
How will it all end?
The last week has seen Brown appoint an election “co-ordinator”, Jon Mendelsohn, but does this mean an election is imminent?
Yesterday’s Economist has a short piece considering the same question. Back in December 2006, I blogged on the same question but has anything changed? In December, there appeared to be five drivers of an early election. How do they look now?
- Brown needs a “victory”. This has changed, a little. Firstly, the two by election victories Brown received have settled nerves. Secondly, it has become clear that the 69-majority Labour holds will be enough to govern effectively as there is insufficient demand for trouble among the ranks.
- Brown wants to govern for as long as possible. No change here. The real question is whether Brown sees any limitation on what he can do with No 10 as long as he is Blair’s heir rather than an elected PM.
- There is a honeymoon period for any new leader. Boy, has this proved to be right. Brown must be pleased as punch about the most recent polls and he should be. The question now is: will it last?
- Brown is right to also think that things are not going to get much better if he waits around. The Tories are beginning to address their longest-running problem under DC by announcing some great new policy ideas. This week will see some more. Internal discipline amongst the Conservatives will hearten Brown, but he knows there is a chance this will be a high-water mark.
- An early election would also mean a short campaign and Labour does not have the resources for a long one. Labour still has over£25m of debt. Time is not likely to sort that out drastically, but an election might. Donors will still turn out when asked, a short campaign costs less and, as the Economist pointed out, the end of the cash for peerages affair means they are unlikely to be put off by fears of negative consequences.
The Balance
That leaves us with four reasons that are as strong as they were before, or stronger, and one that is weaker than in December. As of today, PaddyPower.com, the online bookmaker, is offering 6-1 on a 2007 election. It is still not a 50-50 bet, the chances are an election will not happen, but the odds are shorter than that! And for one reason in particular, the election co-ordinator appointment shows that Brown is thinking about it at least. Brown has had time to consider this option and that is more important in determining his behaviour than his aversion to risk. Besides, the indicators are shifting and the time is approaching where there may be more risk in not holding an election than in going to the polls.
So What?
I also speculated that the most likely dates were in May or October this year, if it were to happen at all. I don’t think that an election is more likely now than I did then, but I am strongly of the belief that the Conservative Party should be prepared - everywhere. The policies are coming, and that is to be welecomed. David Cameron has said the party machine is ready, and that may be true in the bluer parts of the country. But there are also some constituencies lower down the list of likely winners that are still not being allowed to pick their candidates and their are still too many badly organised local associations that need to be pushed to reform themselves or face something more Draconian.
Caroline Spelman, the new Party Chairman, has not been in place long enough to have addressed these issues, but she needs to have a plan and to be seen to be implementing it - soon.
She is going to hate me for this. :0)
The TRG’s very own Director, Clare Whelan, has won the Lambeth Tour de France Cycle Challenge (Councillors category). This morning she went to collect her prizes but is being very cagey about what they are. She is even more tight lipped about whether there are any photos of her engaged in such high-speed, two-wheeled shenanigans.
I am pleased to say that she beat the Labour portfolio holders for Transport and Environment and showed the true Conservative winning drive!
Our congratulations to Clare for leading from the front (as ever).
In the meantime, all photos and details of this event that can be posted here will be greatly appreciated.
Over the last month there has been some criticism of David Cameron from former party donors and candidates, among others.
So, we thought we would run a quick poll to see whether readers of this blog feel the same. Have a look at the options in the poll on the right of this page and vote now by clicking on one of the responses.
In June and July we asked,
“Should media regulation be tightened to lessen the level of press intrusion into political decision making?”
So, it seems that readers of this blog distrust politicians enough that they are only comfortable when the press can keep an eye out for them, too!
Update - 6 August 2007
There is an interesting piece in the FT this morning about freedom of expression for satirical cartoonists, spurred on by the debate over the Danish cartoons of last year.
Camila Batmanghelidjh, Director of Kids Company, highlights the long-term effects of abuse and neglect.
Adult survivors of childhood abuse and neglect are often told not to live in the past, to get over it. It’s easier said than done because the past is intrinsically living in them, it’s inescapable and it colours much of their perceptions. It is this legacy which demands our urgent action to stop child abuse….
…more
Transport is not a sexy issue for most politicians. After all, new infrastructure projects cost a great deal of money, local people and environmentalists are often upset during construction and after they are complete an ungrateful public will fill them to bursting point and then complain there is not enough capacity. And then the cycle starts again.
The problem for them is that transport also frequently comes in the top set of issues about which the public is most concerned so politicians cannot be seen to do nothing.
This is the sort of dilemma that leads to cynicism. The scheme for London’s trains known as Crossrail is now entering another stage of being manipulated for such non-constructive ends.
It is over a decade since Crossrail was first mooted. The project could have been completed by now. Sadly, instead of getting on with it, the government has consistently kicked it into the long grass, having spent nearly as much as the original projected budget on consultants and consultations to prolong the period before needing to make a decision.
As Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling had once lent his support to Crossrail. Now it looks like he is back-tracking once again, as the FT has reported, but the need remains and politicians must learn that the worst option is to not act at all. The rising price of land in London over the last ten years means that the property costs for Crossrail are already higher than the original budget and Londoners and others in the South East have still had no benefit from the scheme. With transport, inaction costs money. As the FT says today,
“Unhappy commuters aside, the state of British infrastructure is a real constraint on economic growth. France cites its sleek infrastructure – ranging from high-speed trains to cheap nuclear power – as one of the top attractions for foreign investors. By contrast, “Heathrow hassle” is proving a compelling reason for international executives to avoid London, and the CBI employers’ body cites infrastructure problems among its top concerns.”
There are not magic solutions to these transport problems. Their large scale means they are costly and some degree of public support remains a requirement of getting them built, particularly given the ongoing issues of the UK’s planning system which makes such projects massively more expensive here than elsewhere. Nor is this just a London issue. Wherever you go in the UK there are businesses and private individuals whose lives are prosperity are constrained by poor transport links of all kinds: road, rail, air and sea.
The UK desperately needs a coherent transport action plan to move us beyond an infrastructure that was laid out in Victorian times. This is a challenge that all major political parties should step forward bravely to meet. The public will thank them for it.
Given that so much has been written about the UK party leaders over the last week and how their poll ratings determine their authority, I have been thinking about why the same is not the case in the US. After all, a quick look through the polls on pollingreport.com suggest about 30% of Americans think he is doing OK and more than twice as many, 65%, think he is doing a bad job!
Contrary to many views, the US President is not unlimited in his power. Congress, the Supreme Court and the federal system all conspire, deliberately, to provide boundaries to what the President may do. So, given that Bush Jnr’s popularity is so low, why is he able still to act with such authority in overseas diplomacy?
The answer is that the race to become the next President is more unusual and less able to predict than any other of the last 50 years. The leading Republican candidates are from the North-East, although no one matching that description has one the Presidency in modern times. The Democrats always need to be from the old-South to win and neither of the leaders match that requirement, either. Whatever happens, there will new rules after this election.
One article I read recently pointed out that Iran makes a habit of continually analysing US politics in more depth than any TV pundit as they attempt to foresee the political climate. The Iranians, like the other players in Iraq and beyond, monitor US politics and try and work out whether future expected changes, like who might be the next President, are good or bad for them. This explains why the Iranians are still willing to deal with the Bush administration over Iraq, in line with the deal announced two weeks ago. Like the rest of us, they have no idea of whether what comes next will be worse for them.
The fear of the unknown outweighs Bush’s current weakness.
