1894
Well-Known Member
Well done lass !
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/apr/29/gordon-brown-joanna-lumley-gurkhas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog ... ey-gurkhas</a>
* News
* Politics
* Politics blog
Badge politics blog
* Previous
* Blog home
Gurkhas vote: Gordon Brown never stood a chance against Joanna Lumley
Today's Commons defeat is yet another blow to the PM's shaky authority
Comments (18)
Joanna Lumley.
Joanna Lumley is a force of nature, not easily defied during her occasional interventions in British public life. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/Guardian
Clever and glamorous, Joanna Lumley is a force of nature, not easily defied during her occasional interventions in British public life. When she takes up cudgels for the Gurkhas, Patsy the fashion PR suddenly morphs into Vera Lynn, "forces sweetheart" turned forces doughty champion. With hindsight, Gordon Brown never stood a chance.
But tonight's vote is another blow to Brown's shaky authority, on top of all the other ones during the cruel month of April. It wasn't expected and I did not list this morning it in my litany adding up to a tipping point for No 10.
Dr Philip Cowley's specialist website has already provided some context. The 32nd revolt on an opposition motion since 1997 and – ominously – the most significant since January, when 28 Labour MPs rebelled over expansion plans for Heathrow.
Today the killer seems to have been 27 Labour defections and more Labour abstentions, combined with a late Tory realisation that it would be best to back a Lib Dem motion rather than abstain, best to defeat the government on ANY issue than let it escape.
Long-impregnable Commons majorities since the 80s have dulled parliamentary tactics. A 267 to 246 defeat (majority 21) at the end of an emotional debate produced rare cheers and the waving of order papers.
It was a rare triumph for the Lib Dems and a good day for parliament whether or not its vote is a wise as well as a generous one. Governments take their Commons majorities too much for granted. They need periodic kickings.
At PMQs Brown had made a decent fist of defending Labour's record on the Gurkhas: better, fairer pay and pensions for those in Nepal; a better right to settle in Britain, not just for officers but other ranks. Contrary to the Gurkha lobby's claims there will be 4,000 Gurkhas – not 100 – plus 6,000 family members coming to live here, Brown added.
Nick Clegg derided Brown's line – coupled with a call for balance on the immigration and public expenditure dimension to the policy – as "deeply, deeply evasive" and evoked the "simple moral principle" that those willing to die for Britain should be allowed to live here.
That principle opens a lot of doors, the immigration minister, Phil Woolas, conceded in the debate that followed. Clegg's home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, called Brown's statistics "fantasy figures". So did the Lumley-Gurkha lobby gathered on the Green across from parliament.
There is a lot of humbug at work here, not least from immigrant-bashing Tory newspapers – as Labour's Chris Mullin pointed out. One Tory MP with military experience whispered to me in a corridor this week that mass migration of Gurkhas to Britain – his party's policy – would be very bad for Nepal, where their relative wealth, their prestige and worldly experience is much valued. True or not, it was not relevant to the emotional mood that carried the day.
Brown will have to make further confessions to his critics, even though the vote is purely symbolic in practical terms. He is in retreat across the policy piste. When a regime's authority goes it is hard to recover.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/apr/29/gordon-brown-joanna-lumley-gurkhas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog ... ey-gurkhas</a>
* News
* Politics
* Politics blog
Badge politics blog
* Previous
* Blog home
Gurkhas vote: Gordon Brown never stood a chance against Joanna Lumley
Today's Commons defeat is yet another blow to the PM's shaky authority
Comments (18)
Joanna Lumley.
Joanna Lumley is a force of nature, not easily defied during her occasional interventions in British public life. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/Guardian
Clever and glamorous, Joanna Lumley is a force of nature, not easily defied during her occasional interventions in British public life. When she takes up cudgels for the Gurkhas, Patsy the fashion PR suddenly morphs into Vera Lynn, "forces sweetheart" turned forces doughty champion. With hindsight, Gordon Brown never stood a chance.
But tonight's vote is another blow to Brown's shaky authority, on top of all the other ones during the cruel month of April. It wasn't expected and I did not list this morning it in my litany adding up to a tipping point for No 10.
Dr Philip Cowley's specialist website has already provided some context. The 32nd revolt on an opposition motion since 1997 and – ominously – the most significant since January, when 28 Labour MPs rebelled over expansion plans for Heathrow.
Today the killer seems to have been 27 Labour defections and more Labour abstentions, combined with a late Tory realisation that it would be best to back a Lib Dem motion rather than abstain, best to defeat the government on ANY issue than let it escape.
Long-impregnable Commons majorities since the 80s have dulled parliamentary tactics. A 267 to 246 defeat (majority 21) at the end of an emotional debate produced rare cheers and the waving of order papers.
It was a rare triumph for the Lib Dems and a good day for parliament whether or not its vote is a wise as well as a generous one. Governments take their Commons majorities too much for granted. They need periodic kickings.
At PMQs Brown had made a decent fist of defending Labour's record on the Gurkhas: better, fairer pay and pensions for those in Nepal; a better right to settle in Britain, not just for officers but other ranks. Contrary to the Gurkha lobby's claims there will be 4,000 Gurkhas – not 100 – plus 6,000 family members coming to live here, Brown added.
Nick Clegg derided Brown's line – coupled with a call for balance on the immigration and public expenditure dimension to the policy – as "deeply, deeply evasive" and evoked the "simple moral principle" that those willing to die for Britain should be allowed to live here.
That principle opens a lot of doors, the immigration minister, Phil Woolas, conceded in the debate that followed. Clegg's home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, called Brown's statistics "fantasy figures". So did the Lumley-Gurkha lobby gathered on the Green across from parliament.
There is a lot of humbug at work here, not least from immigrant-bashing Tory newspapers – as Labour's Chris Mullin pointed out. One Tory MP with military experience whispered to me in a corridor this week that mass migration of Gurkhas to Britain – his party's policy – would be very bad for Nepal, where their relative wealth, their prestige and worldly experience is much valued. True or not, it was not relevant to the emotional mood that carried the day.
Brown will have to make further confessions to his critics, even though the vote is purely symbolic in practical terms. He is in retreat across the policy piste. When a regime's authority goes it is hard to recover.