But it has left me wondering whether MoS
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Red Dawngate
I make no comment on whether this Mail on Sunday story alleging that John Reid attempted to have sex with "Red Dawn" Primarolo during his drinking days was behind his decision not to contest the Labour leadership, other than to say that we've all done silly things while under the influence, and that if the Brown camp have been puttting this sort of stuff about, it's no worse than what the Blair camp was putting round about "gay" Gordon in '94.
But it has left me wondering whether MoSmuck-raker story-getter extraordinaire Simon Walters might have further instalments in store on why neither Alan Milburn nor Charlie No Trousers Clarke stood for the leadership either, despite confident predictions in the latter case that a challenge would indeed be launched.
But it has left me wondering whether MoS
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Blair - a preliminary verdict
Some of you thought I was being a bit flippant, or even peevish, in my rather light-hearted run-through of Tony Blair's "achievements" the other day. Well, a rather more considered asssessment appears in my column in today's Newcastle Journal and I reproduce it in full here.
***
And so, the deed is finally done. Tony Blair has announced his resignation as Labour leader and on June 27, when he ceases to be Prime Minister, an era in British politics will draw to a close.
As I wrote last week, it's come about four years too late, but let's not quibble about the minor details - the important thing for the Labour Party and the country is that he's going.
"I've been prime minister of this country for just over 10 years. I think that's long enough for me, but more especially for the country," he told his constituents at Trimdon Labour Club in County Durham.
And in what might have been a moment of self-knowledge he added: "Sometimes, the only way you conquer the pull of power is to set it down."
Earlier this year, Mr Blair told the BBC that he would not "beg for his character in front of anyone." Well, it sounded very much to me like he was begging for it on Thursday.
The gist of his farewell message to the nation seemed to be that, even though he might have got some things wrong, he wanted us to believe that he always acted out of the best of motives.
It wasn't one of his greatest efforts, to tell the truth. But it did, however, have the merit of humility, of acknowledging that his premiership had fallen short of expectations.
"The visions are painted in the colours of the rainbow and the reality is sketched in the duller tones of black and white and grey," he said. It's as good a comment on the Blair years as any.
The sense of disappointment, of lost hopes and unfulfilled promise that has accompanied the Blair era is felt by different people in different ways.
For many, it will be the extent to which he allowed his mission to reform the public services to become diverted by the "war on terror," culminating in the terrible morass of Iraq.
For others, it will be his failure to grasp the historic opportunity of his 1997 landslide to fashion a political realignment on the centre-left, or a new relationship with Europe.
For me, it will always be his failure, as the first Labour Prime Minister in 18 years, to heal the social and economic divisions of Thatcherism, and to have presided instead over an increase in inequality.
So what will be Mr Blair's lasting legacy? Well, the case against him is well known, and has been articulated in a fair amount of detail in this column down the years.
In a nutshell, it can be summed up in two words, Iraq and spin - two words that, taken together, have deepened the loss of public trust in politics that has occurred over the past decade.
But what of the case for him? Well, this rests primarily in my view on the extent to which he succeeded in bringing about what has been termed "social justice by stealth."
Mr Blair's admirers argue that, in spite of appearances to the contrary, he was actually responsible for a huge redistribution of wealth to the less well-off that has made a significant and lasting impact on society.
Now admittedly, there is something in this. Much higher benefits allied to new tax credits to the low paid mean around 600,000 fewer children are now below what the EU defines as the "poverty line."
But the very fact that Mr Blair felt unable to boast about this considerable achievement for fear of alienating Middle England demonstrates that he did not, in the end, alter the political consensus.
In any case, the argument that the Blair government was responsible for making a major dent in poverty also depends on whether you define poverty in absolute or relative terms.
Under the former definition, it is undeniably true that most people are much better off under New Labour. But at the same time, it is also undeniably the case that the gap between rich and poor was widened.
Nowhere, of course, is this dichotomy more pronounced than in the North-East. It would be churlish to deny that the region has experienced a major growth in prosperity over recent years.
But with other regions forging ahead at an even faster rate, the economic divide between North and South has widened on most measures during the Blair decade.
His government has been, at best, disinclined to address the North-South gap and, at worst it has actively pursued policies that have exacerbated it, such as the huge transport infrastructure investment in London and the South-East.
And his attempts at institutional reform in the region were a disaster, with the North-East Assembly referendum going down as one of the great debacles of his premiership.
So what next? Well, a curiosity of the week's political events was that Mr Blair did not even manage to stage the most sensational resignation. That distinction belonged to John Reid.
Was the Home Secretary's decision not to challenge Gordon Brown for the leadership simply an acknowledgement that he is unbeatable? Well, probably.
Mr Blair's generous endorsement of the Chancellor's bid to succeed him yesterday masks the fact that, for months, the Blairites have tried in vain to find an alternative contender.
Ultimately they were defeated by two things - the arithmetic of Labour's electoral college, and South Shields MP David Miliband's reluctance to be their standard-bearer.
So in the end, Mr Blair was telling the truth in his conference speech last autumn when he said he wanted to "heal" the party's wounds to build a platform for election victory.
He deserves credit for that, and for saving Labour, at the last, from a civil war that would certainly have lost it that election.
As the Prime Minister told us on Thursday: "Believe one thing, if nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our country."
For once, in staging the orderly transition that has been so long awaited, he has.
***
And so, the deed is finally done. Tony Blair has announced his resignation as Labour leader and on June 27, when he ceases to be Prime Minister, an era in British politics will draw to a close.
As I wrote last week, it's come about four years too late, but let's not quibble about the minor details - the important thing for the Labour Party and the country is that he's going.
"I've been prime minister of this country for just over 10 years. I think that's long enough for me, but more especially for the country," he told his constituents at Trimdon Labour Club in County Durham.
And in what might have been a moment of self-knowledge he added: "Sometimes, the only way you conquer the pull of power is to set it down."
Earlier this year, Mr Blair told the BBC that he would not "beg for his character in front of anyone." Well, it sounded very much to me like he was begging for it on Thursday.
The gist of his farewell message to the nation seemed to be that, even though he might have got some things wrong, he wanted us to believe that he always acted out of the best of motives.
It wasn't one of his greatest efforts, to tell the truth. But it did, however, have the merit of humility, of acknowledging that his premiership had fallen short of expectations.
"The visions are painted in the colours of the rainbow and the reality is sketched in the duller tones of black and white and grey," he said. It's as good a comment on the Blair years as any.
The sense of disappointment, of lost hopes and unfulfilled promise that has accompanied the Blair era is felt by different people in different ways.
For many, it will be the extent to which he allowed his mission to reform the public services to become diverted by the "war on terror," culminating in the terrible morass of Iraq.
For others, it will be his failure to grasp the historic opportunity of his 1997 landslide to fashion a political realignment on the centre-left, or a new relationship with Europe.
For me, it will always be his failure, as the first Labour Prime Minister in 18 years, to heal the social and economic divisions of Thatcherism, and to have presided instead over an increase in inequality.
So what will be Mr Blair's lasting legacy? Well, the case against him is well known, and has been articulated in a fair amount of detail in this column down the years.
In a nutshell, it can be summed up in two words, Iraq and spin - two words that, taken together, have deepened the loss of public trust in politics that has occurred over the past decade.
But what of the case for him? Well, this rests primarily in my view on the extent to which he succeeded in bringing about what has been termed "social justice by stealth."
Mr Blair's admirers argue that, in spite of appearances to the contrary, he was actually responsible for a huge redistribution of wealth to the less well-off that has made a significant and lasting impact on society.
Now admittedly, there is something in this. Much higher benefits allied to new tax credits to the low paid mean around 600,000 fewer children are now below what the EU defines as the "poverty line."
But the very fact that Mr Blair felt unable to boast about this considerable achievement for fear of alienating Middle England demonstrates that he did not, in the end, alter the political consensus.
In any case, the argument that the Blair government was responsible for making a major dent in poverty also depends on whether you define poverty in absolute or relative terms.
Under the former definition, it is undeniably true that most people are much better off under New Labour. But at the same time, it is also undeniably the case that the gap between rich and poor was widened.
Nowhere, of course, is this dichotomy more pronounced than in the North-East. It would be churlish to deny that the region has experienced a major growth in prosperity over recent years.
But with other regions forging ahead at an even faster rate, the economic divide between North and South has widened on most measures during the Blair decade.
His government has been, at best, disinclined to address the North-South gap and, at worst it has actively pursued policies that have exacerbated it, such as the huge transport infrastructure investment in London and the South-East.
And his attempts at institutional reform in the region were a disaster, with the North-East Assembly referendum going down as one of the great debacles of his premiership.
So what next? Well, a curiosity of the week's political events was that Mr Blair did not even manage to stage the most sensational resignation. That distinction belonged to John Reid.
Was the Home Secretary's decision not to challenge Gordon Brown for the leadership simply an acknowledgement that he is unbeatable? Well, probably.
Mr Blair's generous endorsement of the Chancellor's bid to succeed him yesterday masks the fact that, for months, the Blairites have tried in vain to find an alternative contender.
Ultimately they were defeated by two things - the arithmetic of Labour's electoral college, and South Shields MP David Miliband's reluctance to be their standard-bearer.
So in the end, Mr Blair was telling the truth in his conference speech last autumn when he said he wanted to "heal" the party's wounds to build a platform for election victory.
He deserves credit for that, and for saving Labour, at the last, from a civil war that would certainly have lost it that election.
As the Prime Minister told us on Thursday: "Believe one thing, if nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our country."
For once, in staging the orderly transition that has been so long awaited, he has.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Howard nails the real culprit
Probably only political obsessives managed to stick with yesterday's extended edition of Newsnight to the bitter end, but for those that did, there was a real treat in store.
Jeremy Paxman was chairing a studio discussion featuring Howard, Polly Toynbee, Charles Kennedy, Alan Milburn, David Hare and Alastair Campbell. Towards the end, the talk turned to Tony Blair's style of government and the impact of spin and sleaze.
Howard recalled that in the days when the young Tony Blair used to shadow him at Employment and the Home Office, he found him at all times to be absolutely straight and honest.
Then, looking across at Campbell, he declared: "I believe the man sitting there is who's responsible for what changed." Campbell had no response to it other than to accuse Howard of being a sore loser.
Howard's right, of course. Blair must bear the final responsibility as the man who employed him, but it was Campbell whose bullying of journalists and civil servants in the cause of news management did more than anything else to demean our political culture during the Blair years.
And of course, it was Campbell who wanted to get Dr David Kelly's name out in the open in order to "fuck Gilligan," part of the chain of events that ultimately destroyed the public's trust in Mr Blair.
The Guardian's Will Woodward has written a piece in today's Blair Resignation Supplement (not online as far as I can see) the gist of which is that Tony Blair would not have been the same force without Alastair Campbell.
Will is a nice guy who has already gone far in the Lobby and will go further, but he's wrong on this one. Without the baleful influence of Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair might have been a great Prime Minister.
Update: The Newsnight clip is now on YouTube, courtesy of Chicken Yoghurt.
Jeremy Paxman was chairing a studio discussion featuring Howard, Polly Toynbee, Charles Kennedy, Alan Milburn, David Hare and Alastair Campbell. Towards the end, the talk turned to Tony Blair's style of government and the impact of spin and sleaze.
Howard recalled that in the days when the young Tony Blair used to shadow him at Employment and the Home Office, he found him at all times to be absolutely straight and honest.
Then, looking across at Campbell, he declared: "I believe the man sitting there is who's responsible for what changed." Campbell had no response to it other than to accuse Howard of being a sore loser.
Howard's right, of course. Blair must bear the final responsibility as the man who employed him, but it was Campbell whose bullying of journalists and civil servants in the cause of news management did more than anything else to demean our political culture during the Blair years.
And of course, it was Campbell who wanted to get Dr David Kelly's name out in the open in order to "fuck Gilligan," part of the chain of events that ultimately destroyed the public's trust in Mr Blair.
The Guardian's Will Woodward has written a piece in today's Blair Resignation Supplement (not online as far as I can see) the gist of which is that Tony Blair would not have been the same force without Alastair Campbell.
Will is a nice guy who has already gone far in the Lobby and will go further, but he's wrong on this one. Without the baleful influence of Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair might have been a great Prime Minister.
Update: The Newsnight clip is now on YouTube, courtesy of Chicken Yoghurt.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
An underwhelming exit
Like most people of my age, I clearly remember where I was when Margaret Thatcher went. Actually the answer was on a train between Derby and London on my way to a job interview. A woman got on at Leicester shortly after 9.30am and told the carriage "she's gone." I could hardly conceal my glee and managed to get into a row with someone on the seat opposite who clearly thought it was the worst disaster to hit the country since Dunkirk.
Will I remember in 17 years' time where I was when Tony Blair announced his resignation today? I doubt it.
Like Iain Dale I don't think this was one of Tony's best efforts. It seemed to me as if the Great Communicator had said all he really needed to say in his party conference valedictory address last autumn and was flailing around vainly in search of a new line.
In the end, the best he could come up with was "I did what I thought was right for our country." Which, I suppose, has the merit of humility if not that of startling originality.
In common with some other bloggers, I do eventually plan to have a celebratory beer to mark Blair's departure, and to drink a toast to the memory of Dr David Kelly who was driven to take his life by the activities of this wretched regime and for whom today's events represent some sort of delayed justice.
However since Blair is still in No 10, I suppose this small commemoration should wait until 27 June - the day the Blair era will finally come to an end.
Will I remember in 17 years' time where I was when Tony Blair announced his resignation today? I doubt it.
Like Iain Dale I don't think this was one of Tony's best efforts. It seemed to me as if the Great Communicator had said all he really needed to say in his party conference valedictory address last autumn and was flailing around vainly in search of a new line.
In the end, the best he could come up with was "I did what I thought was right for our country." Which, I suppose, has the merit of humility if not that of startling originality.
In common with some other bloggers, I do eventually plan to have a celebratory beer to mark Blair's departure, and to drink a toast to the memory of Dr David Kelly who was driven to take his life by the activities of this wretched regime and for whom today's events represent some sort of delayed justice.
However since Blair is still in No 10, I suppose this small commemoration should wait until 27 June - the day the Blair era will finally come to an end.
Those Blair achievements in full
By way of a farewell tribute to a great Prime Minister, here's a quick reminder of Tony Blair's legacy to the nation.
1. Northern Ireland peace process. It was John Major who started that.
2. Scottish and Welsh devolution. That was John Smith's idea, and Blair implemented it only with extreme reluctance.
3. The minimum wage. That was Keir Hardie's, and Blair fought it tooth and nail.
4. Low unemployment, low interest rates, low inflation. That will be thanks to Gordon Brown, then.
5. Three Labour election victories. The first one a donkey could have won. The third would have been a bigger victory without him.
6. Restoration of London-wide government. Better not let that dangerous Ken Livingstone anywhere near it though.
7. Tackling inequality. Except that he didn't - it got wider.
8. Saving the NHS. Except that he didn't - scores of health trusts ended up in the red.
9. "Education, education, education." Was that really once what New Labour was supposed to be about?
10. Spin, Iraq, cash for honours, politicisation of the civil service, sofa-style government, "Cool Brittania," the Millennium Dome, the "Third Way," and spending his last two years in office obsessing about what he would be remembered for.
Cruel? Maybe. But someone has to balance out all this absurd memorialising that's going on.
May 11 update: This post seems to have polarised opinion in the blogosphere somewhat. Justin from Chicken Yogurt liked it, which is a big compliment in itself, but Paulie from Never Trust a Hippy was rather less impressed.
1. Northern Ireland peace process. It was John Major who started that.
2. Scottish and Welsh devolution. That was John Smith's idea, and Blair implemented it only with extreme reluctance.
3. The minimum wage. That was Keir Hardie's, and Blair fought it tooth and nail.
4. Low unemployment, low interest rates, low inflation. That will be thanks to Gordon Brown, then.
5. Three Labour election victories. The first one a donkey could have won. The third would have been a bigger victory without him.
6. Restoration of London-wide government. Better not let that dangerous Ken Livingstone anywhere near it though.
7. Tackling inequality. Except that he didn't - it got wider.
8. Saving the NHS. Except that he didn't - scores of health trusts ended up in the red.
9. "Education, education, education." Was that really once what New Labour was supposed to be about?
10. Spin, Iraq, cash for honours, politicisation of the civil service, sofa-style government, "Cool Brittania," the Millennium Dome, the "Third Way," and spending his last two years in office obsessing about what he would be remembered for.
Cruel? Maybe. But someone has to balance out all this absurd memorialising that's going on.
May 11 update: This post seems to have polarised opinion in the blogosphere somewhat. Justin from Chicken Yogurt liked it, which is a big compliment in itself, but Paulie from Never Trust a Hippy was rather less impressed.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
And here's what I do in my spare time...
Actually, not. Blogging is what I do in my spare time. But for the past six months or so, getting Lasting Tribute up and running has been my main job. The site, which contains a searchable database of 500,000 death notices and a selection of tributes to famous people, went live earlier today at 16.36. It's very much a work in progress at the moment and numerous exciting future developments are planned.
Much to the amazement of my work colleagues, I managed to sneak a few tributes to dead politicians onto the site, and these can be found HERE.
Much to the amazement of my work colleagues, I managed to sneak a few tributes to dead politicians onto the site, and these can be found HERE.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
My two penn'orth on Gordon's first Cabinet
As Ben Brogan so rightly says, the potential for egg-on-face with this is huge, but since everyone else is at it - well, Iain Dale anyway - here's my current take on where things stand in the Gordon's Government stakes following John Reid's surprise exit.
Prime Minister: Gordon Brown
Deputy Prime Minister: Alan Johnson
Foreign Secretary: David Miliband
Chancellor of the Exchequer: Jack Straw
Home Secretary (Minister for Homeland Security): Alistair Darling
Lord Chancellor (Minister of Justice): Hilary Benn
Leader of the House of Commons: Geoff Hoon
Nations and Regions Secretary: Peter Hain
Environment and Energy Secretary: Yvette Cooper
Defence Secretary: Douglas Alexander
Education Secretary: Hazel Blears
Health Secretary: Caroline Flint
Trade and Industry Secretary: Ed Balls
Transport Secretary: Stephen Timms
Work and Pensions Secretary: Ruth Kelly
Culture Secretary: James Purnell
International Development Secretary: John Denham
Local Government and Communities Secretary: Jacqui Smith
Minister for the Cabinet Office (Social Exclusion): Andy Burnham
Leader of the House of Lords: Lord Falconer
Party Chairman: Jon Cruddas
Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Ed Miliband
Chief Whip: Nick Brown
The following will be leaving the Government:
Tony Blair
John Prescott
John Reid
Margaret Beckett
Patricia Hewitt
Des Browne
John Hutton
Tessa Jowell
Hilary Armstrong
Baroness Amos
The big thing I'm unsure about is Deputy PM. I'm not sure Brown wants one, but if Alan Johnson wins the deputy leadership as expected, I think he'll be obliged to have one. This is why I've said all along that Jon Cruddas, who doesn't want the title, is really Gordon's candidate.
I've earmarked a new job for Peter Hain which effectively amounts to overlord of devolved administrations. This is essentially a beefed-up version of his current role as Welsh and Northern Ireland Secretary, taking in also what is now the very thorny issue of relations with the Scottish Parliament.
I thought long and hard about Margaret Beckett, the great survivior of Labour politics. I think Brown will reluctantly ask her to step aside for now, but I wouldn't be surprised to see her back as Leader of the Lords after a General Election.
Finally, I think this is a work in progress as much in Gordon's mind as in everyone else's, and the nature of politics being what it is, the situation will almost certainly change between now and the end of July - so expect to see the odd update from time to time.
Prime Minister: Gordon Brown
Deputy Prime Minister: Alan Johnson
Foreign Secretary: David Miliband
Chancellor of the Exchequer: Jack Straw
Home Secretary (Minister for Homeland Security): Alistair Darling
Lord Chancellor (Minister of Justice): Hilary Benn
Leader of the House of Commons: Geoff Hoon
Nations and Regions Secretary: Peter Hain
Environment and Energy Secretary: Yvette Cooper
Defence Secretary: Douglas Alexander
Education Secretary: Hazel Blears
Health Secretary: Caroline Flint
Trade and Industry Secretary: Ed Balls
Transport Secretary: Stephen Timms
Work and Pensions Secretary: Ruth Kelly
Culture Secretary: James Purnell
International Development Secretary: John Denham
Local Government and Communities Secretary: Jacqui Smith
Minister for the Cabinet Office (Social Exclusion): Andy Burnham
Leader of the House of Lords: Lord Falconer
Party Chairman: Jon Cruddas
Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Ed Miliband
Chief Whip: Nick Brown
The following will be leaving the Government:
Tony Blair
John Prescott
John Reid
Margaret Beckett
Patricia Hewitt
Des Browne
John Hutton
Tessa Jowell
Hilary Armstrong
Baroness Amos
The big thing I'm unsure about is Deputy PM. I'm not sure Brown wants one, but if Alan Johnson wins the deputy leadership as expected, I think he'll be obliged to have one. This is why I've said all along that Jon Cruddas, who doesn't want the title, is really Gordon's candidate.
I've earmarked a new job for Peter Hain which effectively amounts to overlord of devolved administrations. This is essentially a beefed-up version of his current role as Welsh and Northern Ireland Secretary, taking in also what is now the very thorny issue of relations with the Scottish Parliament.
I thought long and hard about Margaret Beckett, the great survivior of Labour politics. I think Brown will reluctantly ask her to step aside for now, but I wouldn't be surprised to see her back as Leader of the Lords after a General Election.
Finally, I think this is a work in progress as much in Gordon's mind as in everyone else's, and the nature of politics being what it is, the situation will almost certainly change between now and the end of July - so expect to see the odd update from time to time.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Reid begs the questions
Last September, in a rousing speech to Labour's conference that had him spoken of as a potential Prime Minister, John Reid said he intended to "play his full part" in helping Labour renew itself in government following Tony Blair's departure. It was a speech that was open to several different interpretations at the time and seems even more so now that Reid has revealed that the only part he will in fact play will be as a backbench MP.
So what's going on? As ever with Reid, there are quite a few theories, and they can be summarised thus.
1. He is genuine. He is coming up to 60, wants to take a break from government, and wants Gordon Brown to have the freedom to bring in his own people as he said yesterday.
Probability rating: 2/10. Reid is a politician to his fingertips, and it just doesn't square with what he said last autumn.
2. With the forthcoming break-up of the Home Office, Reid's role is about to diminish and Gordon was unable to offer him anything bigger by way of compensation. There is some speculation that he might have asked for a combined Defence and Homeland Security brief
Probability rating: 6/10. Gordon would have been happy to keep Reid in Cabinet in one of the two Home Office briefs, but not in a beefed-up role.
3. He has been forced out by some impending tabloid scandal. This is the theory currently running on Iain Dale.
Probability rating: 4/10. Reid has a fairly colourful past but it's unclear to me whny him resigning would make a tabloid newspaper any less likely to print something.
4. He is staging a canny tactical retreat to distance himself from what he sees as the impending disaster of the Brown premiership so that he can live to fight another day after the next election.
Probability rating: 7/10. There is no love lost between Reid and Brown and his decision not to serve could be likened to Iain Macleod's under Douglas-Home in 1963.
My conclusion, then, is that this is an act of deep disloyalty on the part of Reid which will weaken Brown and weaken Labour in the run-up to the next election.
If he ever does attempt a comeback, the Labour Party should remember that.
So what's going on? As ever with Reid, there are quite a few theories, and they can be summarised thus.
1. He is genuine. He is coming up to 60, wants to take a break from government, and wants Gordon Brown to have the freedom to bring in his own people as he said yesterday.
Probability rating: 2/10. Reid is a politician to his fingertips, and it just doesn't square with what he said last autumn.
2. With the forthcoming break-up of the Home Office, Reid's role is about to diminish and Gordon was unable to offer him anything bigger by way of compensation. There is some speculation that he might have asked for a combined Defence and Homeland Security brief
Probability rating: 6/10. Gordon would have been happy to keep Reid in Cabinet in one of the two Home Office briefs, but not in a beefed-up role.
3. He has been forced out by some impending tabloid scandal. This is the theory currently running on Iain Dale.
Probability rating: 4/10. Reid has a fairly colourful past but it's unclear to me whny him resigning would make a tabloid newspaper any less likely to print something.
4. He is staging a canny tactical retreat to distance himself from what he sees as the impending disaster of the Brown premiership so that he can live to fight another day after the next election.
Probability rating: 7/10. There is no love lost between Reid and Brown and his decision not to serve could be likened to Iain Macleod's under Douglas-Home in 1963.
My conclusion, then, is that this is an act of deep disloyalty on the part of Reid which will weaken Brown and weaken Labour in the run-up to the next election.
If he ever does attempt a comeback, the Labour Party should remember that.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Ming must go, and Salmond must be stopped
No, I' ve not been ignoring the local elections. But as it happens, this year was the first time since 1989 that I didn't have to cover them live for either a newspaper or a website, so rather than join the live-blogging bandwagon I thought I'd take a step back from it all for once!
I also had a column to write on it yesterday, and since (unlike this blog) that earns me good money, it had first call on my priorities!
Two days on, though, and it seems the dust is now settling a bit, to the point where more considered judgements can be made. The two main conclusions I would draw from the local, Scottish and Welsh elections are summed up in the title of this post.
Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond seems likely to be Scotland's First Minister. He shouldn't be. Ming Campbell seems likely to continue as Liberal Democrat leader. He shouldn't either.
To take Salmond first, he is no doubt entitled to claim some sort of victory from the fact that the SNP has emerged as the largest party in the Scottish Parliament, and as such he is entitled to have first crack at forming an adminstration.
What he is not entitled to claim is that there is a separatist majority either in the Parliament or in the Scottish electorate.
Salmond's commitment to staging and winning a win a referendum on Scottish independence by 2010 is a policy so dangerous and so utterly wrong-headed both for Scotland and for Britain as a whole that he must be prevented from ever being in a position to carry it out.
Whatever their differences on other matters, the future of the UK is an issue of such importance that Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems should now agree to form a Grand Coalition that reflects the unionist viewpoint of the majority of the Scottish people.
To his credit, Sir Menzies Campbell has appeared to rule out any sort of deal between his party and Salmond's unless the referendum pledge is dropped.
Sadly, it is clear from the Lib Dems' dismal performance in the South of England that Ming is the wrong man to counter the Tory revival that is occurring under David Cameron.
I said when Ming became leader that I thought he was the wrong choice but I was prepared to see how he performed in the job before casting judgement. The overwhelming evidence is that he isn't cutting the mustard.
If it's too soon for a return to Charles Kennedy - in top form again on Thursday's Question Time - then it's time Chris Huhne was given the chance to see what he can do.
I also had a column to write on it yesterday, and since (unlike this blog) that earns me good money, it had first call on my priorities!
Two days on, though, and it seems the dust is now settling a bit, to the point where more considered judgements can be made. The two main conclusions I would draw from the local, Scottish and Welsh elections are summed up in the title of this post.
Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond seems likely to be Scotland's First Minister. He shouldn't be. Ming Campbell seems likely to continue as Liberal Democrat leader. He shouldn't either.
To take Salmond first, he is no doubt entitled to claim some sort of victory from the fact that the SNP has emerged as the largest party in the Scottish Parliament, and as such he is entitled to have first crack at forming an adminstration.
What he is not entitled to claim is that there is a separatist majority either in the Parliament or in the Scottish electorate.
Salmond's commitment to staging and winning a win a referendum on Scottish independence by 2010 is a policy so dangerous and so utterly wrong-headed both for Scotland and for Britain as a whole that he must be prevented from ever being in a position to carry it out.
Whatever their differences on other matters, the future of the UK is an issue of such importance that Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems should now agree to form a Grand Coalition that reflects the unionist viewpoint of the majority of the Scottish people.
To his credit, Sir Menzies Campbell has appeared to rule out any sort of deal between his party and Salmond's unless the referendum pledge is dropped.
Sadly, it is clear from the Lib Dems' dismal performance in the South of England that Ming is the wrong man to counter the Tory revival that is occurring under David Cameron.
I said when Ming became leader that I thought he was the wrong choice but I was prepared to see how he performed in the job before casting judgement. The overwhelming evidence is that he isn't cutting the mustard.
If it's too soon for a return to Charles Kennedy - in top form again on Thursday's Question Time - then it's time Chris Huhne was given the chance to see what he can do.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
He wouldn't, would he?
Tony Blair to stand down as MP as well as PM next week? Not so say Tom Kelly and John Burton.
But if it is true, well, wouldn't that be the final kick in the teeth for the poor bloody voters of Sedgefield who have provided the vehicle for his parliamentary ambitions for the past 24 years?
Blair has always denied that he was a carpetbagger, that he alighted on the old mining seat as a convenient means of getting into Parliament and then spent as little time there as possible.
On the contrary, he has always stressed his County Durham background and his commitment to the North-East of England, although he hasn't always been able to translate that commitment into policy assistance for the region.
The least Blair now owes the people of Sedgefield who re-elected him in 2005 is to see out his term as their constituency MP.
I may be crediting the guy with far too much in the way of decency, but I just can't believe he would reward their steadfast loyalty to him by leaving them in the lurch in this way.
But if it is true, well, wouldn't that be the final kick in the teeth for the poor bloody voters of Sedgefield who have provided the vehicle for his parliamentary ambitions for the past 24 years?
Blair has always denied that he was a carpetbagger, that he alighted on the old mining seat as a convenient means of getting into Parliament and then spent as little time there as possible.
On the contrary, he has always stressed his County Durham background and his commitment to the North-East of England, although he hasn't always been able to translate that commitment into policy assistance for the region.
The least Blair now owes the people of Sedgefield who re-elected him in 2005 is to see out his term as their constituency MP.
I may be crediting the guy with far too much in the way of decency, but I just can't believe he would reward their steadfast loyalty to him by leaving them in the lurch in this way.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Major tells it like it is
As is probably obvious from the last but one post, I always had a sneaking admiration for Sir John Major, and certainly nothing became him in the office of Prime Minister like the leaving of it ten years ago today. He has been as good as his word too - unlike his own predecessor he has resisted the temptation to meddle and has genuinely "left the stage."
That said, he has never been afraid to express his view that New Labour has demeaned politics far beneath the level achieved by his own administration and that, in this respect, his treatment at the hands of the spin machine in the run up to May 1997 constituted a fairly major personal injustice.
Sir John's views on spin are worth listening to because he correctly identifies this as the defining characteristic of the Blair government - and the main reason why the hope and expectation that marked that bright morning a decade ago has turned to cynicism and loss of trust.
His article in today's Times is pretty much on the money, and I will quote part of it here - my italics.
That said, he has never been afraid to express his view that New Labour has demeaned politics far beneath the level achieved by his own administration and that, in this respect, his treatment at the hands of the spin machine in the run up to May 1997 constituted a fairly major personal injustice.
Sir John's views on spin are worth listening to because he correctly identifies this as the defining characteristic of the Blair government - and the main reason why the hope and expectation that marked that bright morning a decade ago has turned to cynicism and loss of trust.
His article in today's Times is pretty much on the money, and I will quote part of it here - my italics.
"I view politics now through the eyes of an outsider. And much of what I see is uncomfortable. Political promises ring hollow. The political parties seem isolated and remote. In the last two general elections the turnout dropped from a healthy 80 per cent to a modest 60 per cent. Public disaffection is widespread.
"All parties bear some blame but the culpability of the present Government is clear. When Labour came to power, they brought with them all the black arts of sharp practice and spin that they had perfected in opposition. One of the most dismal legacies of the new Labour mission has been to turn government into a marketing exercise. The electorate now know they were sold a pup.
"I am not naive about politics. Spin – putting a gloss on events – is as old as politics itself...but it’s gone too far. Spin today is often downright deceit. For all its faults, old Labour had a soul; new Labour only has sound-bites and apparatchiks, careless of constitutional proprieties, who will use any unscrupulous trick to benefit the Government.
"This downward spiral began when Labour trashed the Government Information Service and politicised news management. Until then, no one doubted the No 10 spokesman. Now, if No 10 tells you Friday follows Thursday, wise men check the calendar. The consequence of this sophistry is profound and damaging. If, tomorrow, this Government told Parliament that our nation was under threat and we must go to war, would Parliament or the public rally behind it without independent corroboration? I think not – and that is unprecedented."
The Gould decade?
Comment is Free today features a somewhat preposterous counterfactual by Neil Clark speculating on what sort of country we would now be living in if Tony Benn rather than Blair had just chalked up 10 years in power.
I have already posted a comment to this effect HERE but it seems to me that a much more plausible alternative history would have Bryan Gould celebrating a decade as Labour premier - for the simple reason that unlike Benn Gould could actually have become Labour leader in the 90s.
In 1992, he was offered a deal by John Smith under which Smith promised to support him for the deputy leadership if he stood aside from the leadership race and allowed Smith a coronation. Had Gould agreed to this, he would have become deputy leader and thus acting leader when Smith died.
Blair or Brown would still have challenged him for the leadership, but there is just a chance that Gould might have been able to put together enough of a coalition to hold onto the job. Had he done so, he and not Blair would have become Prime Minister on May 2, 1997.
I have already posted a comment to this effect HERE but it seems to me that a much more plausible alternative history would have Bryan Gould celebrating a decade as Labour premier - for the simple reason that unlike Benn Gould could actually have become Labour leader in the 90s.
In 1992, he was offered a deal by John Smith under which Smith promised to support him for the deputy leadership if he stood aside from the leadership race and allowed Smith a coronation. Had Gould agreed to this, he would have become deputy leader and thus acting leader when Smith died.
Blair or Brown would still have challenged him for the leadership, but there is just a chance that Gould might have been able to put together enough of a coalition to hold onto the job. Had he done so, he and not Blair would have become Prime Minister on May 2, 1997.
Were you there?
Well, I was, but with the hacks on the other side of the street rather than the cheering crowds pictured here. It was possibly the craziest day of my entire working life. I had gone up to Newcastle the day before to cover the election for my paper, The Journal, and worked through the night with colleagues to produce our election special edition. At 6am I got on the London train, arriving back in my office in the Press Gallery at 9.30am. Then it was off to Downing Street to hear John Major's graceful exit. At that stage I reckoned I would be at work at least another 8-9 hours, so I envied him being able to go off and watch cricket on such a beautiful day.
Eventually the new Prime Minister arrived in triumph, having kissed hands at the Palace minutes earlier. "I should tell you that earlier this morning, I was invited by Her Majesty the Queen to form a government," he informed us in a slightly self-deprecating way, before going on to make his much-parodied statement about governing as
By mid-afternoon, the details of the first Cabinet appointments were emerging and by 5am we were back at No 10 for the new government's first Lobby briefing. Alastair Campbell strode in to the basement room to general cheering from the hacks, who still, at that stage, regarded him as one of them. Asked how the new Prime Minister felt, he replied: "He realises that he has been given a remarkable opportunity to unite the country." It was a phrase that has always stuck in my mind.
I finally arrived back at my flat in Islington that night at 8pm, having had no sleep for 36 hours except for a few snatched moments on the train. It had been hugely satisfying, if rather exhausting, to have watched history unfolding at such close quarters, though not an experience I necessarily wanted to repeat. But of course, four years later, in June 2001, I did!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)