Saturday, December 23, 2006

My Political Review of 2006

It's been a highly eventful year politically, so for those who would like to relive with me the ups and downs of the past 12 months, here's my Political Review of the Year, first published in this morning's Newcastle Journal.

***

IT was the year of Charles Kennedy’s downfall, the year of David Cameron’s rise and rise – and the year John Prescott was forced to give up any remaining claims to be taken seriously.

But the political year 2006 will be remembered, above all, for one over-arching story – the long, slow demise of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

It was a story that took on many different guises. The police investigation into “cash for honours.” The increasingly bitter power struggles with Gordon Brown. Iraq’s descent into chaos following the disastrous war that Mr Blair helped initiate.

But these stories were really all one – the story of a leader who had long outstayed his welcome, yet who, in the vain search for a legacy, continued to rage against the dying of the light.

But to begin at the beginning – to borrow another of Dylan Thomas’s famous phrases – the year kicked off with attention focused on another party leader.

Dissatisfaction with Mr Kennedy’s leadership had been simmering within Liberal Democrat ranks for a while, and before the New Year was a week old it had finally boiled over.

Having belatedly admitted to a drink problem, Mr Kennedy was forced out in a revolt by his own MPs, some of whom probably owed their seats to his personal popularity with the voters.

Sir Menzies Campbell saw off a spirited challenge from newbie MP Chris Huhne to win the leadership, but he lacks his predecessor’s common touch and the party’s ratings remained in the doldrums.

For the Tories, too, it was a testing year, as David Cameron continued his march towards the political centre-ground to the dismay of the party’s more traditional elements.

Like Mr Blair before him, Mr Cameron set out to define himself in opposition to his own party, notably by backing redistributive taxation and highlighting green issues.

It was all too much for some, and his talk of “tough love,” “hug a hoodie” and “letting sunshine win the day” was widely ridiculed.

But it seemed to strike a chord with the electorate, with the Tories ending the year eight points ahead of Labour in some polls – enough to convert into an outright election win.

The Cameron phenomenon was partly, though not solely responsible for the continuing political malaise within Labour.

For the fist time since 1997, Mr Blair was up against someone who looked like a genuine contender for power – but Labour seemed unsure of how to respond to the Tory young pretender.

With all the self-delusion of those who remain in power too long, the Prime Minister continued to see himself as part of the solution rather than the problem.

But the voters begged to differ, and a dismal set of local election results in May saw more and more Labour MPs come to the view that he should stand down sooner rather than later.

Initially, Mr Blair tried to blame the poor showing on the revelation of Mr Prescott’s affair with his diary secretary shortly before the poll, and a row over the deportation of foreign prisoners which had been badly mishandled by Home Secretary Charles Clarke.

He staged a dramatic Cabinet reshuffle in which Mr Clarke was summarily sacked and Mr Prescott stripped of all his remaining powers.

But the view among a growing number of Labour backbenchers was that the person Mr Blair really needed to reshuffle was himself.

It all came to a head in September. A group of previously loyal MPs signed a letter demanding that Mr Blair set out a timetable for his departure.

At first, it seemed the tip of the iceberg. There was excited talk at Westminster that up to 50 MPs would join in and that a Cabinet minister would deliver the coup-de-grace with a Geoffrey Howe-style resignation.

But although the coup attempt faltered, Mr Blair was forced to make clear that he would stand down next summer, and that the forthcoming conference in Manchester would be his last.

The Blairites, furious that their man had been backed into such a corner, attempted to implicate the Chancellor in the plot as relations between Labour’s Big Two plummeted to an all-time low.

It was clear that a patching-up operation would be needed to get through the conference, but Mr Brown’s attempts at conciliation were undermined when Cherie Blair was heard to call him a liar during his keynote speech.

Thereafter, an uneasy truce prevailed. Mr Brown remained on probation, while the Blairites secretly hoped another contender might step up to the mark.

But their great hope, Environment Secretary David Miliband, ruled himself out of the race, while new Home Secretary John Reid also appeared reluctant to join in.

Mr Brown’s succession began to appear increasingly assured, if only from the lack of plausible alternatives.

He even received a somewhat double-edged endorsement from Mr Blair, who warned Mr Cameron during a Commons debate that a “big clunking first” would soon lay him out on the canvas.

By the year end, it seemed politics had gone into a bizarre state of inertia, with Mr Blair increasingly in office but not in power.

He suffered the humiliation of becoming the first serving premier to be questioned by police over abuse of the honours system, but still he hung on, sullying not just his party’s reputation but that of politics in general.

In an emotional final keynote conference speech in Manchester, Mr Blair had declared that his most important legacy would be a fourth term Labour Government.

But history may well judge that, by his actions during 2006, he greatly reduced the chances of such an outcome.

free web site   hit counter

Friday, December 22, 2006

The Seven Best Things I did in 2006

James Higham has tagged me among others to name the seven best things I have done this year. This seems like a good, last-day-at-work-before-Christmas sort of thing to do, so happy to oblige, James.

  • Watched my son George continue to develop into a right little character.

  • Celebrated my fifth wedding anniversary.

  • Moved to a new role at work, away from the online-print interface into web project management.

  • Built up this blog from nothing to a place in Mr Dale's Top 10.

  • Bought a big family tent and enjoyed a lovely holiday in the Lakes

  • Finished landscaping my garden

  • Although I would rather not have had to do it, helped my sister organise a very moving send-off for my brother-in-law Mitch, who was killed in a road accident on Good Friday.

    free web site   hit counter
  • Thursday, December 21, 2006

    Who is now the "Bus Candidate?"

    There's an interesting if ultimately rather academic discussion currently in progress on PoliticalBetting.com on who might win the Labour leadership if anything were to happen to Gordon Brown over the next few months - if he were to "fall under a No 13 bus" in the traditional Westminster parlance.

    In the context of leadership speculation, the bus is used as a convenient shorthand for (i) a debilitating illness or family difficulty that might put a leadership candidate temporarily or permanently out of consideration, or (ii) the emergence of a sudden scandal that could engulf his or her hopes. Both are possibilities in Gordon's case, though unlikely.

    In the event of GB being forced to pull out, Mike Smithson is backing David Miliband rather than John Reid to emerge as the frontrunner, although Miliband's September statement - "I am not a runner nor a rider for any of the jobs that are being speculated about" - appears to suggest he is not just ruling out a challenge to Gordon but making clear he will not be a candidate for the leadership in any circumstances.

    For my part, I think both Miliband and Reid would struggle to build the kind of broadly based support within the party that would be needed to mount a successful challenge. Rightly or wrongly, they would both be seen as Blairite continuity candidates, and I think that, in the unusual circumstances of a Brown withdrawal, a compromise candidate would be certain to emerge.

    The obvious name that springs to mind here is Jack Straw. He will not stand against Mr Brown, but I have always regarded it as a certainty that he would stand against anyone else. Jack knows his own worth, and as the next most experienced and senior figure in the Government after Mr Brown, he would regard himself as the natural successor were the Chancellor to be put hors de combat.

    Margaret Beckett is also a possibility. She too would never oppose Brown, but she has an unerring habit of being in the right place at the right time politically, and it is more than conceivable that she could come through on the rails.

    There is another factor which would put Straw and Beckett ahead of the likes of Miliband, and that is their age. If Gordon were put out of action, his people would look around for a caretaker leader who could be relied on to stand aside after four or five years, by which time Gordon might have overcome his personal or political difficulties.

    Having observed Gordon Brown from a distance for a number of years, I am convinced he will never give up his ambitions of reaching No 10. And even if he were to be forced to do so temporarily, he will try to arrange things in such a way that he lives to fight another day.

    free web site hit counter

    Wednesday, December 20, 2006

    BlogGems

    An occasional series dedicated to bringing choice quotes from the blogosphere to a slightly wider audience.
    No 4.


    "She has done little of note other than issuing the usual identikit centrally produced Labour MP press releases and attracting unkind whispered comparisons to the density of porcine ordure."

    - Labour Watch, on the failure of Gateshead East and Washington West MP Sharon Hodgson to be selected for the new Gateshead seat.

    free web site hit counter

    Tuesday, December 19, 2006

    Poll: Should Brown call snap election?

    I must say I'm genuinely torn on this one. The Tories argue that Gordon Brown, or whoever else takes over as Labour leader, should call an immediate general election to give themselves a separate mandate from Tony Blair. Since we appear to live in an increasingly presidential system, there is some force to their argument.

    Against that, part of me thinks Labour won in 2005 in spite of, not because of Mr Bliar, and that therefore it's the party as a whole which has the mandate to govern for a full parliamentary term.

    Anyway, this seems like one to leave to you, the readers, partly to help me settle an argument in my own head and partly to demonstrate that, thanks to www.pollhost.com I can now introduce polling functionality onto this blog.

    I hope visitors will make use of it, as it's a feature I intend to do much more with in the New Year.

    Should there be a General Election if and when Tony Blair steps down as Prime Minister
    Yes
    No
    Free polls from Pollhost.com
    free web site   hit counter

    Monday, December 18, 2006

    Some Ashes reflections

    "It will all be over by Christmas," they said when World War One broke out in August 1914. It wasn't, of course, but the 2006 Ashes series is, after Australia today won back the urn in the quickest possible time.

    So what went wrong? Well, in a sense, it's more a case of what went right for Australia. They were the better team, and this time they performed to the best of their abilities. I always thought that as long as they did that, they would win, given that in 2005 they collectively had an off-series and still only managed to lose to us extremely narrowly.

    They have also strengthened their team since 2005. Stuart Clark has come in for Jason Gillespie and on occasions looked Australia's best bowler. Mike Hussey has brought some real steel to the middle-order and become the most difficult player in their side to get out. And Michael Clarke - nicknamed "pup" by the Aussie tabloids - has finally blossomed into a great batting talent.

    Nevertheless, England could have made much more of a fight of it had we (a) not suffered injuries to three key players, and (b) not shot ourselves in the foot by daft selectorial decisions. Here's my list of six things that might, just might, have made a difference.

    1. The Captaincy. I don't think we missed Michael Vaughan greatly as a batsman, but we did miss his shrewd captaincy. In his absense, the selectors decided to go with the gung-ho approach of Andrew Flintoff, but they should have gone with the more cerebral Andrew Strauss. For one thing, I think the captaincy would have enhanced his form as opposed to inhibiting it in Freddie's case, and for another, I think he would have out-thought Ponting in the way Vaughan did in 2005.

    2. Simon Jones. On the first day of the last Ashes tour, in 2002, the Welshman suffered a tour-ending injury while fielding. This time, he didn't even make it on the plane. England have badly missed him on both occasions. At times during 2005, he was our most dangerous bowler, and would surely have thrived in Australian conditions.

    3. Marcus Trescothick. Whatever it was that happened to "Banger," it was very sad not only from his personal point of view but from England's. Some cricket-watchers who should have known better actually suggested that his absense would strengthen the team. Balderdash. His 431 runs in the 2005 series made him England's second highest run scorer after KP, and he was sorely missed.

    4. Selection. There is much that could be said here, but fundamentally, we failed to recognise that two of the stalwarts of our 2005 triumph, Geraint Jones and Ashley Giles, were woefully out of form. Clearly Panesar should have been in the team from the start, and in retrospect so should Read, even given his batting shortcomings. Duncan Fletcher has much to answer for here.

    5. Troy Cooley. Was England's bowling coach during the 2005 series before moving to the same role with Australia this time round. His departure could probably not have been prevented - he is an Aussie after all - but it is clear that without his guidance, our main strike bowler Steve Harmison became a shadow of his former self.

    6. The Batting Order. Until Trescothick's breakdown, Paul Collingwood wasn't even in the Test XI. Then, suddenly, he was batting at four, the place normally occupied by the best batsman in the team. Colly did us proud with a double-ton at Adelaide, but Kevin Pietersen is our best player and should have been in the No 4 slot. Instead, he just kept running out of partners.

    And that's about it. More offbeat analysis from the excellent Middle and Off's Ashes Blog.

    free web site hit counter