My "Where Are They Now?" feature for the magazine is now in its fifth month - previous subjects have been Walter Sweeney, Bill Pitt, David Bookbinder and David Bellotti.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Remembering the public hangman
I enjoyed following the career of Peter Bruinvels in the 1980s - it was difficult not to as he was rarely out of the papers - and 20 years on I enjoyed writing about him for Total Politics magazine.
My "Where Are They Now?" feature for the magazine is now in its fifth month - previous subjects have been Walter Sweeney, Bill Pitt, David Bookbinder and David Bellotti.
My "Where Are They Now?" feature for the magazine is now in its fifth month - previous subjects have been Walter Sweeney, Bill Pitt, David Bookbinder and David Bellotti.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Prince of Darkness continues to weave his spell
Apologies for lack of blogging this week - a combination of illness and extreme busy-ness - but here's my weekly Journal column, focusing inevitably on the so-called Corfu capers.
It is no exaggeration to say that, of all the men and women who have influenced the course of political events over the past 16 months of the Brown premiership, the one who had possibly the greatest impact was Shadow Chancellor George Osborne.
It was his audacious plan to slash Inheritance Tax for all but the very-super-rich unveiled in his 2007 conference speech that, more than any other single factor, persuaded Mr Brown not to call a general election that autumn.
Many thought it finally marked the 36-year-old Mr Osborne’s arrival as a genuine player in the front rank of politics - a “Big Beast” in the old Tory parlance.
But if so, the events of the past week have reopened some of the old doubts in the party about whether Mr Osborne’s exalted position in the Tory hierarchy is a case of too much, too young.
The tale of the "Corfu Capers" is an intriguing demonstration of how high society and its tangled network of relationships can impact on day-to-day political events.
It all began when former Hartlepool MP Peter Mandelson, then a European Commissioner, made some critical comments about Mr Brown to Mr Osborne while they were both staying at the Greek villa of their mutual friend, Nathaniel Rothschild, this summer.
When a few weeks later Mr Brown made the dramatic step of restoring the newly-ennobled Lord Mandelson to his Cabinet in his reshuffle, what had been merely a juicy piece of gossip became political gold-dust.
A story duly appeared in The Sunday Times in which it was claimed that the new Business Secretary had “dripped pure poison into the ears of a senior Tory” about the Prime Minister during the holiday.
Mr Rothschild was furious at what he saw a breach of confidence, and got his own back by deciding to reveal what else Mr Osborne had got up to on his holidays.
Specifically, he claimed that Mr Osborne and the Tory chief executive Andrew Feldman had tried to solicit a £50,000 donation to Tory funds from a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, while visiting his yacht.
Mr Osborne has denied this, but "friends" of Mr Rothschild has now made clear that if he continues to query his version of events, he will destroy him, suggesting he has written witness statements from others who were present.
There is no suggestion that it was Lord Mandelson who tried to persuade Mr Rothschild to exact revenge on Mr Osborne.
It seems the merchant banker was simply so enraged by the breach of confidence that he decided to administer what one close associate called a "slap on the wrist."
However Tory leader David Cameron's office was warned following the Sunday Times' story that the Business Secretary knew something "explosive" about Mr Osborne and that the Shadow Chancellor should "be careful."
Mr Osborne has been forced to learn two hard lessons. First, you don’t breach confidences. Second, you don’t mess with Mandelson.
It seems unlikely as yet that the Shadow Chancellor will have to resign, and even though Mr Brown has said he hopes "the authorities" will investigate, it is not entirely clear whether any actual offence has been committed.
But it does focus attention on the Tories' readiness for government and specifically on whether they have yet got the make-up of their senior team quite right.
Already this question has been thrown into relief by Mr Cameron's failure to restore David Davis to the Shadow Home Secretaryship even though his successor Dominic Grieve seems ill-fitted for such a cut-and-thrust role.
Now the focus is on Mr Osborne - and whether someone who looks and sounds a bit less like a merchant banker might be a more convincing advocate for the Tories in the midst of the current crisis.
There has been persistent talk in Tory circles that if he wins the next election, Mr Cameron intends to bring Ken Clarke into a front-line role in government, possibly as Leader of the Commons.
But if he really does intend to employ the 68-year-old bruiser's considerable talents, he should not waste time hanging around for polling day.
He should bring Mr Clarke in now - preferably as Shadow Chancellor so he can deploy all his Treasury experience against Labour as the economic crisis continues to unwind.
Mr Clarke has long harboured a grudge against Mr Brown for the way he failed to give the Tories any credit for stabilising the economy between 1993 and 1997. What better way to get his own back.
The Corfu affair also focuses attention once again on the whole issue of political donations, demonstrating that no party is immune from the problem.
Last year we were all agog over whether Newcastle businessman David Abrahams had channelled donations to the Labour Party through associates in the city. Now the spotlight is once again back on the Tories.
What it shows is that attempting to rid British politics of sleaze is a bit like trying to abolish sin
Unless and until we move a situation where political parties are state-funded, these sorts of controversies will surely continue to recur.
For me, though, what has really elevated this story beyond the realms of run-of-the-mill political tit-for-tat has been the involvement - however innocent - of Lord Mandelson.
It has been yet another fascinating example of the Prince of Darkness's almost unique capacity for causing mayhem, even if it is sometimes inadvertent.
We saw this in his Cabinet career with his two resignations. We have seen it in the way he can both electrify and terrify the political establishment in almost equal measure.
Three weeks into his third Cabinet comeback, the man once known as the Prince of Darkness has certainly not lost his lethal touch.
It is no exaggeration to say that, of all the men and women who have influenced the course of political events over the past 16 months of the Brown premiership, the one who had possibly the greatest impact was Shadow Chancellor George Osborne.
It was his audacious plan to slash Inheritance Tax for all but the very-super-rich unveiled in his 2007 conference speech that, more than any other single factor, persuaded Mr Brown not to call a general election that autumn.
Many thought it finally marked the 36-year-old Mr Osborne’s arrival as a genuine player in the front rank of politics - a “Big Beast” in the old Tory parlance.
But if so, the events of the past week have reopened some of the old doubts in the party about whether Mr Osborne’s exalted position in the Tory hierarchy is a case of too much, too young.
The tale of the "Corfu Capers" is an intriguing demonstration of how high society and its tangled network of relationships can impact on day-to-day political events.
It all began when former Hartlepool MP Peter Mandelson, then a European Commissioner, made some critical comments about Mr Brown to Mr Osborne while they were both staying at the Greek villa of their mutual friend, Nathaniel Rothschild, this summer.
When a few weeks later Mr Brown made the dramatic step of restoring the newly-ennobled Lord Mandelson to his Cabinet in his reshuffle, what had been merely a juicy piece of gossip became political gold-dust.
A story duly appeared in The Sunday Times in which it was claimed that the new Business Secretary had “dripped pure poison into the ears of a senior Tory” about the Prime Minister during the holiday.
Mr Rothschild was furious at what he saw a breach of confidence, and got his own back by deciding to reveal what else Mr Osborne had got up to on his holidays.
Specifically, he claimed that Mr Osborne and the Tory chief executive Andrew Feldman had tried to solicit a £50,000 donation to Tory funds from a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, while visiting his yacht.
Mr Osborne has denied this, but "friends" of Mr Rothschild has now made clear that if he continues to query his version of events, he will destroy him, suggesting he has written witness statements from others who were present.
There is no suggestion that it was Lord Mandelson who tried to persuade Mr Rothschild to exact revenge on Mr Osborne.
It seems the merchant banker was simply so enraged by the breach of confidence that he decided to administer what one close associate called a "slap on the wrist."
However Tory leader David Cameron's office was warned following the Sunday Times' story that the Business Secretary knew something "explosive" about Mr Osborne and that the Shadow Chancellor should "be careful."
Mr Osborne has been forced to learn two hard lessons. First, you don’t breach confidences. Second, you don’t mess with Mandelson.
It seems unlikely as yet that the Shadow Chancellor will have to resign, and even though Mr Brown has said he hopes "the authorities" will investigate, it is not entirely clear whether any actual offence has been committed.
But it does focus attention on the Tories' readiness for government and specifically on whether they have yet got the make-up of their senior team quite right.
Already this question has been thrown into relief by Mr Cameron's failure to restore David Davis to the Shadow Home Secretaryship even though his successor Dominic Grieve seems ill-fitted for such a cut-and-thrust role.
Now the focus is on Mr Osborne - and whether someone who looks and sounds a bit less like a merchant banker might be a more convincing advocate for the Tories in the midst of the current crisis.
There has been persistent talk in Tory circles that if he wins the next election, Mr Cameron intends to bring Ken Clarke into a front-line role in government, possibly as Leader of the Commons.
But if he really does intend to employ the 68-year-old bruiser's considerable talents, he should not waste time hanging around for polling day.
He should bring Mr Clarke in now - preferably as Shadow Chancellor so he can deploy all his Treasury experience against Labour as the economic crisis continues to unwind.
Mr Clarke has long harboured a grudge against Mr Brown for the way he failed to give the Tories any credit for stabilising the economy between 1993 and 1997. What better way to get his own back.
The Corfu affair also focuses attention once again on the whole issue of political donations, demonstrating that no party is immune from the problem.
Last year we were all agog over whether Newcastle businessman David Abrahams had channelled donations to the Labour Party through associates in the city. Now the spotlight is once again back on the Tories.
What it shows is that attempting to rid British politics of sleaze is a bit like trying to abolish sin
Unless and until we move a situation where political parties are state-funded, these sorts of controversies will surely continue to recur.
For me, though, what has really elevated this story beyond the realms of run-of-the-mill political tit-for-tat has been the involvement - however innocent - of Lord Mandelson.
It has been yet another fascinating example of the Prince of Darkness's almost unique capacity for causing mayhem, even if it is sometimes inadvertent.
We saw this in his Cabinet career with his two resignations. We have seen it in the way he can both electrify and terrify the political establishment in almost equal measure.
Three weeks into his third Cabinet comeback, the man once known as the Prince of Darkness has certainly not lost his lethal touch.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Normal politics returns
Brown to call snap election? Cameron to be replaced by Ken Clarke? Political pundits should stop getting carried away by the idea of a "Brown Renaissance," I argue in my Journal column today.
In last week's column, I wrote that it was unclear whether we are currently living in a period where "normal politics" has gone into abeyance, or whether the political landscape has undergone a permanent change.
In the sense that we don't yet know the extent to which the post-Thatcher free market consensus has been changed by the events of the past few weeks - and won't know for some time - that still holds true.
But in another respect, it was pretty clear that "normal politics" had indeed been temporarily put on hold, as the political establishment rallied round Gordon Brown at the height of the banking crisis.
Briefly, we saw the same sort of bipartisanship that was seen, say, in the wake of 9/11, when the then Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was forced to tear-up his party conference speech and say nice things about Tony Blair instead.
For a fortnight or so, the current Tory leader David Cameron and his Shadow Chancellor George Osborne found themselves in a similar position.
It is often said that the job of an opposition is to oppose, but this is too simplistic. The truth is that sometimes, the job of the opposition is, in fact, to stand shoulder to shoulder with the government.
This week, however, "normal politics" in the sense of the battle between the two main parties returned with a vengeance.
Mr Cameron's speech yesterday, in which he accused Mr Brown of a "complete and utter failure" in economic policy, gave us a flavour of the argument that will rage between now and whenever the next general election finally comes.
"Over the past decade, we have seen a total breakdown of economic responsibility," he told an audience in the City of London.
"We need change to mend our broken economy. This lot cannot do it - not least because they cannot own up to any mistakes.
Mr Cameron said that some people thought his party's decision to support the banking rescue plan meant it now "subscribed to the government's entire economic policy and doctrine."
But he added: "Let me make it crystal clear - we do not. And the complete and utter failure of their economic record has never been more clear to see."
All of this puts in stark perspective the talk of the "Brown renaissance" which has become widespread over the past fortnight or so.
Yes, the Prime Minister has certainly bought himself some breathing space, but talk of a complete turnaround in his political fortunes is still way too premature.
Gossip and rumour are part and parcel of political life, but some of what has appeared on political blogs and even in some national newspapers over the past few days has taken fantastical speculation to new heights of absurdity.
There was talk, for instance, that Mr Brown would hold a snap general election to cash-in on his new-found "popularity" in the wake of the crisis - as if he would even go near the idea after getting his fingers so badly burned last time.
One rumour even had it that backbench Tory MPs have been so angered by Mr Cameron's failure to land a killer blow on Mr Brown over the crisis they planned to replace him with Ken Clarke.
I think that David Davis - freshly vindicated by the collapse of the government's plans for 42-day detention - would have something to say about that, but no matter.
The truth is Mr Cameron is not going to be overthrown this autumn any more than Mr Brown is going to hold an autumn election.
After yesterday, he must know that had he been foolish enough to call one, the whole country would by now have been plastered with posters bearing his picture and the words "no return to boom and bust."
The Prime Minister's only hope is still to play it long and hope that by May 2010, he can actually justifiably claim to have "fixed" the crisis.
Even then, it may still not be enough to secure him another term in 10 Downing Street.
At the risk of repeating what I said a week ago, the prevailing public sentiment towards him may still be a case of "we want you to sort out this mess - and then we want you to go."
The electorate can be an unsentimental lot, and as Winston Churchill found in 1945, saving the country from catastrophe is no guarantee of a further term in power.
If anything is going to do for Mr Brown, it is not an essentially arcane difficulty over whether or not banks will lend to eachother, it is what is happening in what has been dubbed the "real" economy.
People in the North-East know all about that. To paraphrase the old saying about America and Europe, the region is usually the first to catch a cold whenever London sneezes.
It was amusing to hear BBC political editor Nick Robinson say this week that unemployment had not been an issue in British politics for 15 years. He has clearly not spent much of that time in the North.
It is in fact ten years ago this month that the then Governor of the Bank of England, Eddie George, told me that lost North jobs were an "acceptable" price to pay to curb inflation in the South, following a spate of factory closures in the region.
Maybe the region's economy is more resilient these days, but if history is anything to go by, the North-East is once again likely to be in the eye of the economic storm.
The region's construction industry has already been badly hit by the crisis, but that is surely just the start.
I suppose those who are set to lose their jobs in the forthcoming months could always go and lag roofs for a living, as the Prime Minister helpfully appeared to suggest this week.
But as Mr Cameron might say, if he had actually fixed the roof while the sun was shining, they wouldn't need to.
In last week's column, I wrote that it was unclear whether we are currently living in a period where "normal politics" has gone into abeyance, or whether the political landscape has undergone a permanent change.
In the sense that we don't yet know the extent to which the post-Thatcher free market consensus has been changed by the events of the past few weeks - and won't know for some time - that still holds true.
But in another respect, it was pretty clear that "normal politics" had indeed been temporarily put on hold, as the political establishment rallied round Gordon Brown at the height of the banking crisis.
Briefly, we saw the same sort of bipartisanship that was seen, say, in the wake of 9/11, when the then Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was forced to tear-up his party conference speech and say nice things about Tony Blair instead.
For a fortnight or so, the current Tory leader David Cameron and his Shadow Chancellor George Osborne found themselves in a similar position.
It is often said that the job of an opposition is to oppose, but this is too simplistic. The truth is that sometimes, the job of the opposition is, in fact, to stand shoulder to shoulder with the government.
This week, however, "normal politics" in the sense of the battle between the two main parties returned with a vengeance.
Mr Cameron's speech yesterday, in which he accused Mr Brown of a "complete and utter failure" in economic policy, gave us a flavour of the argument that will rage between now and whenever the next general election finally comes.
"Over the past decade, we have seen a total breakdown of economic responsibility," he told an audience in the City of London.
"We need change to mend our broken economy. This lot cannot do it - not least because they cannot own up to any mistakes.
Mr Cameron said that some people thought his party's decision to support the banking rescue plan meant it now "subscribed to the government's entire economic policy and doctrine."
But he added: "Let me make it crystal clear - we do not. And the complete and utter failure of their economic record has never been more clear to see."
All of this puts in stark perspective the talk of the "Brown renaissance" which has become widespread over the past fortnight or so.
Yes, the Prime Minister has certainly bought himself some breathing space, but talk of a complete turnaround in his political fortunes is still way too premature.
Gossip and rumour are part and parcel of political life, but some of what has appeared on political blogs and even in some national newspapers over the past few days has taken fantastical speculation to new heights of absurdity.
There was talk, for instance, that Mr Brown would hold a snap general election to cash-in on his new-found "popularity" in the wake of the crisis - as if he would even go near the idea after getting his fingers so badly burned last time.
One rumour even had it that backbench Tory MPs have been so angered by Mr Cameron's failure to land a killer blow on Mr Brown over the crisis they planned to replace him with Ken Clarke.
I think that David Davis - freshly vindicated by the collapse of the government's plans for 42-day detention - would have something to say about that, but no matter.
The truth is Mr Cameron is not going to be overthrown this autumn any more than Mr Brown is going to hold an autumn election.
After yesterday, he must know that had he been foolish enough to call one, the whole country would by now have been plastered with posters bearing his picture and the words "no return to boom and bust."
The Prime Minister's only hope is still to play it long and hope that by May 2010, he can actually justifiably claim to have "fixed" the crisis.
Even then, it may still not be enough to secure him another term in 10 Downing Street.
At the risk of repeating what I said a week ago, the prevailing public sentiment towards him may still be a case of "we want you to sort out this mess - and then we want you to go."
The electorate can be an unsentimental lot, and as Winston Churchill found in 1945, saving the country from catastrophe is no guarantee of a further term in power.
If anything is going to do for Mr Brown, it is not an essentially arcane difficulty over whether or not banks will lend to eachother, it is what is happening in what has been dubbed the "real" economy.
People in the North-East know all about that. To paraphrase the old saying about America and Europe, the region is usually the first to catch a cold whenever London sneezes.
It was amusing to hear BBC political editor Nick Robinson say this week that unemployment had not been an issue in British politics for 15 years. He has clearly not spent much of that time in the North.
It is in fact ten years ago this month that the then Governor of the Bank of England, Eddie George, told me that lost North jobs were an "acceptable" price to pay to curb inflation in the South, following a spate of factory closures in the region.
Maybe the region's economy is more resilient these days, but if history is anything to go by, the North-East is once again likely to be in the eye of the economic storm.
The region's construction industry has already been badly hit by the crisis, but that is surely just the start.
I suppose those who are set to lose their jobs in the forthcoming months could always go and lag roofs for a living, as the Prime Minister helpfully appeared to suggest this week.
But as Mr Cameron might say, if he had actually fixed the roof while the sun was shining, they wouldn't need to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)