The lost leader's lament

This BBC interview with the former Labour leadership contender Bryan Gould has been around for a few days but I think it's well worth a read, if only for his less-than-flattering views of the current crop of leadership hopefuls.

On John Reid: "It would be frankly amazing if he became the next Prime Minister."

On David Miliband: "He seems to be more of a back-room intellectual who lacks the political touch."

On Charles Clarke: "The most serious challenger in terms of ability but he has been behaving in a bizarre way recently."

On Alan Milburn: "Government didn't seem to suit him - he became more pompous".

Neither does Gordon Brown emerge unscathed, with Gould appearing to damn the Chancellor with faint praise. "He's got deeper roots than Blair with the party, more affection for the party than Blair, but the reason he was dumped as a leadership candidate by Peter Mandelson in 1994 was because Tony was more voter friendly."

His most complimentary words are reserved for Jack Straw whom he praises as "a politician to his fingertips", before adding obliquely: "I don't think he's got charisma or the personality to be prime minister, but that's not to say that someone without personality can't become the prime minister."

I rated Gould very highly during his time in British politics and was sorry to see him depart to the world of New Zealand academia, although I don't doubt that the move has proved a happy and fulfilling one for him personally.

In 1992, he was told that he would get John Smith's backing for the deputy leadership if he agreed to stand aside and allow Smith a free run at the leadership, but refused and was ultimately elected for neither post.

This begs the interesting counterfactual question whether, had he accepted the deal and thereby become Acting Leader at the time Smith died, Gould might have actually become leader instead of Tony Blair.

My bet is that he would, at the very least, have held on to the deputy leadership, and gone on to become a senior figure in the Blair administration, with John Prescott's Cabinet career following a similar path to that of Frank Dobson.

Saddam should be spared the hangman's noose

Tony Blair says he is "against the death penalty, whether it is Saddam or anybody else." Nevertheless, the Government appears content to allow Iraqi justice to take its inevitable course, and the former Iraqi dictator's days on earth are now surely numbered.

The inconsistencies in the Government's supposedly "ethical" stance have already been well highlighted by Guido Fawkes. As one poster on Guido's blog put it: "If you are against the death penalty, you at least need to be consistent."

My consistent position, for what it's worth, is that I am against the death penalty, whether it be for a guilty man like Saddam Hussain or a wholly innocent one like Mirza Tahir Hussain.

As a Christian I believe that the only way to break the cycle of violence is not vengence, but forgiveness. It may sound idealistic, not of the real world, but in actual fact we see this principle played out again and again in the real world of international politics, and in life generally come to that.

Other interesting, thoughtful contributions from the blogosphere today - both for and against Saddam's execution - have come from:

Skipper
Mars Hill
John Wilkes
David Cox
Rachel from North London

I'm happy to go with this from Rachel: "Personally, I'm not comfortable with the death penalty. Even for crimes against humanity. He should rot in jail, thinking on what he has done. As should others, who cold-bloodedly ordered actions resulting in the deaths of thousands, based on ''policy'', posturing and lies."

November 7 Update: I really ought to add a link to this piece by Adam Boulton whose heroic questioning of the Prime Minister yesterday was broadcast journalism at its best.

Some have accused Adam of "rudeness" but they should remember that the Prime Minister was initially seeking to avoid giving an answer to the question by hiding behind Margaret Beckett's coat-tails. This was pretty shabby behaviour in my view from someone who has always prided himself on strong leadership and leading from the front, not least on the whole issue of Iraq.

It won't be The Sun wot wins it for Dave

Ever since the 1992 election and the claim that "it was The Sun wot won it" for John Major's Tories, a legend has grown up around the Rupert Murdoch-owned red-top and its perceived level of political influence.

In my view, its election day splash on that occasion (pictured left) was probably the single most disgraceful piece of journalism of the last 30 years. So far as I could make out, the only people who had actually said they were going to "leave Britain" if Kinnock won were Andrew Lloyd Webber and Phil Collins, neither of whom would have been any great loss and one of whom later emigrated anyway.

But in what turned out to be a very tight election race that was ultimately decided by a few hundred voters in a dozen or so marginal seats, I would concede that the Sun's relentless rubbishing of Kinnock probably did have an effect.

Now, with another tight race in prospect in 2009/10, there has been much recent comment over the Sun's apparent hostility towards David Cameron, notably from Mike Smithson, whose PoliticalBetting.com is currently the top political blog in my view, and BBC pol ed Nick Robinson.

Both Nick and Mike speculate that the paper has turned decisively against the young Tory leader following his decision to vote for an inquiry into the War in Iraq and his "tough love" speech of last week, citing as evidence this piece in Saturday's paper by Deputy Political Editor Andrew Porter.

But should Cameron be worried? Well, it is certainly the case that, back in the 1970s, The Sun played a big part in bringing its mainly working-class readership on board the Thatcher bandwagon, and as I have already said, its demonisation of Kinnock almost certainly swung a few votes in '92.

I would go further and say that its subsequent decision to back Labour in 1997 - having previously regarded the party as totally unfit to govern - did send out an important subliminal message to the wider electorate about the extent to which the party had changed.

But would a similar decision to back Cameron now send out the same message about the Tories? Probably quite the reverse.

The Sun's recent attacks on Dave have come from the right, lambasting him for failing to support "Our Boys" and for what they see as a "soft" approach to law and order. As everybody in politics knows, this is just exactly where Cameron wants to be attacked from.

It follows, to my mind, that Cameron ultimately has more to gain from not obtaining The Sun's endorsement at the next General Election than from getting Rupert's thumbs-up.

What really made The Sun a great newspaper in its own way was the political culture which spawned it, which gave it ample opportunities for the kind of dragon-slaying that was its forte.

In the 70s it railed against union power, to great and ultimately decisive effect. In the 1980s it was "loony lefties" (including, it should not be forgotten, supporters of gay rights). In the 1990s, it was Europe.

Now, in a political culture in which everyone is falling over eachother in a mad rush for the centre-ground, there is less need or demand for that style of confrontational political journalism.

In short, The Sun has become a newspaper just like any other. Influential, yes - no paper with its number of readers could fail to be. But a maker or breaker of governments and oppositions no longer.

More on Martin

Following on from last Thursday's post, a fuller analysis of Michael Martin's record as Speaker, and the reasons why he has never managed to become a national treasure like Betty, can be heard in my Week in Politics Podcast, available HERE.

Brown coronation: what's changed, exactly?

The BBC doesn't normally do speculative leadership stories, being content to leave that sort of thing to the written press, so Political Editor Nick Robinson's report of yesterday to the effect that Gordon Brown now looks unlikely to face a Cabinet challenger for the Labour leadership was bound to make people sit up and take notice.

Helpfully, Nick has reproduced the essence of his report on his blog today, in a piece entitled The Future's Brown.

I can't fault his analysis. But where I would slightly differ from Nick is in his assumption that there has really been any great change in the position relating to the leadership since the end of the Labour Conference five weeks ago.

There hasn't, in my view. What has changed is the media's perception of it.

Here's what I wrote at the time. "Mr Brown has largely repaired the damage done as a result of the abortive "coup" against Mr Blair three weeks ago, though he remains on probation for good behaviour....if he continues to behave himself over the next eight months, he might, just might yet get that endorsement from Mr Blair which would kill off all potential serious challenges."

Contrast this, for instance, with the view of the Daily Mail's Ben Brogan who wrote: "The truce is tosh. Tony Blair and his closest supporters are running a stealth campaign to get doubts about the Chancellor's personality and character up in lights. John Reid is emerging as the "Stop Gordon" candidate with the blessing of Number 10."

Both are perfectly respectable points of view, but where I think some commentators went wrong was, firstly, in failing to read the signal in Mr Blair's speech when he said he wanted to "heal," and secondly, by misinterpreting Dr Reid's speech on the closing day as a leadership bid.

As I said on this blog at the time, that was only one of several interpretations, and that Reid's phrase "I intend to play my full part" could be translated merely as a statement of his intention to remain in a senior role under Brown.

My conclusion, then, is that the song remains the same. Gordon has the conditional backing of everyone that really matters. But they still reserve the right to challenge him if it all goes wrong.

The polls, as ever, are the key. If they start to show that Gordon can't beat Cameron but that Reid, Alan Johnson or even David Miliband could, then much of what has been said or written thus far could count for little.

Mr Speaker Martin

I have had always had rather mixed feelings about Michael Martin, both as a man and as Speaker of the House of Commons. On the one hand, I have an instinctive sympathy towards him as a victim of the media snobocracy that invariably sets out to destroy anyone from a working-class background who has the temerity to achieve high office.

One particular public school educated parliamentary sketchwriter, for instance, has been running a vendetta against Martin for years that is based on pure class warfare.

I also have to say that my wife and I were very struck by his hospitality in inviting not only all the Lobby journalists but also their partners to a reception at Speaker's House shortly after his election, and for his courteousness and friendliness to all on that and subsequent similar occasions.

But against that, it has to be said that behind the smiling face and hearty handshakes lies a man whose pettiness apparently knows no bounds.

It was Martin who, as chairman of the House of Commons Administration Committee during the mid-90s, was behind the infamous ban on journalists using the Terrace. On another occasion, when chairing a Commons Committee, he insisted on a public apology from a journalist who had inadvertently strayed the wrong side of the line separating MPs from the press bench.

More importantly, in his conduct of the office of Speaker itself, there have simply been too many questions about his partiality towards the Labour Party for comfort.

Then again, such partality is scarcely surprising given the original circumstances of his election courtesy of a "Peasants Revolt" by backbench Labour MPs hacked off by Mr Tony's attempts to tee-up the Speakership for Sir Menzies Campbell as part of his ongoing flirtation with the Liberal Democrats.

I have been accused on Guido's blog of making this up - by an anonymong, natch - but analysis of the voting figures in the Speakership Election show that, by and large, Martin's support came from Labour backbenchers and assorted ministerial Brownites who jumped on the bandwagon in a bid to give Blair a bloody nose.

What is certainly the case is that Martin has never managed to become a non-partisan figure in the way Betty Boothroyd and George Thomas did. Today's blogospheric postings on the subject divide on broadly party lines, with Labour bloggers Mike Ion and Paul Burgin backing his handling of yesterday's PMQs row, and the Tories' Iain Dale arguing it's time for him to go.

As left-of-centre blogger, I am not about to buck that trend. Contrary to what Nick Robinson says, I think Martin was right to stop David Cameron asking questions about the Labour succession, not necessarily because it doesn't relate to the conduct of Government business, but because it's simply a waste of his time and ours.

If and when Blair is ready to give that crucial endorsement - and I suspect that won't be until the contest is actually up and running - he'll announce it in his own time and in his own way, and he won't be giving Mr Cameron the exclusive.

Until then , the best thing the Tory leader can do is accept the Speaker's ruling, stop banging on about it, and go and find himself some policies instead.