Thirty years too late....

The Guardian reports today on moves towards the formation of a UK football team for the 2012 Olympics. It's easy to see why this idea is being considered now, when in the past it has been vociferously opposed by every major UK sporting body, but from where I'm standing it's about 30 years out of time.

With all due respect to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, a UK football team as constituted today would be basically the England XI. Welshman Ryan Giggs might make the subs bench, but he won't be around for 2012.

I say this with no great relish or desire to do down our Celtic cousins. I was in fact a huge fan of Scottish football in the 1970s and it is a matter of regret that the land of Jim Baxter, Jimmy Johnstone, Billy Bremner and Kenny Dalglish would no longer be able to provide realistic contenders for a UK-wide XI.

But the days when a collection of mining villages west of Glasgow could supply an entire European Cup-winning team, as amazingly happened with Celtic in 1967, are sadly long gone.

I personally would have loved to have seen a UK team when I was growing up as a football-mad youngster in the 70s. England had some decent players then - Kevin Keegan, Colin Bell and Roy McFarland to name but three - but we were always two or three players short of a great team, hence our elimination from the World Cup qualifiers of 1974 and 1978.

How different might that story have been had the national team been able to call on the likes of Bremner, Peter Lorimer, John Toshack, Pat Jennings - still the greatest goalie I have ever seen - and of course, George Best.

Incidentally I reckon Best's career would have been prolonged if he'd had the incentive of meaningful international competition. Given that he'd achieved everything there was to achieve in the club game by 1968, it was hardly surprising that sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll became a more interesting option.

You know what I think? I think Bestie would have played in the '74 World Cup in Germany, and we'd have won the bugger, with Bremner as skipper emulating Bobby Moore's achievement of eight years' previously.

In the 80s, a UK team would potentially have been even stronger. This was the era in which Liverpool dominated Europe and Dalglish, Alan Hansen and Ian Rush would all have been key players in the national set-up. In the 90s, there would have been Giggs and Mark Hughes.

But as for today, I don't see a great deal to be gained from it, beyond raising the possibility of "tokenist" squad places for otherwise inferior Scottish, Welsh and Irish players, and creating a false sense of national unity in a political culture which is far more devolved than was the case three decades ago.

A tale of two elections

It's all change in America, no change at Glenrothes - but which result tells us more about the current state of UK politics? Here's today's Journal column.

---

It was a tale of two elections, one that has seemingly given new hope to the whole world, another rather closer to home that has given new hope for Gordon Brown and his once-beleaguered premiership.

One outcome - the victory of Barack Obama in the US presidential election - was widely expected. The other - Labour's victory in Thursday night's Glenrothes by-election - was rather less so.

The first brought the sense of a fresh beginning for America and possibly the world, encapsulated in the words of Mr Obama's acceptance speech "change has come."

The second, by contrast, conveyed a message of “no change just yet,” at least from the voters of Glenrothes but also possibly from a wider British public that currently seems more content with Mr Brown.

Taking Mr Obama first, it has been notable how much of the coverage of his victory has focused on his colour when it was scarcely an issue in the campaign itself.

I don't deny it's a remarkable achievement for an African-American to become president of a country that 40 years ago denied blacks the right to travel on the same buses as whites, but Mr Obama won because of his charisma, not his colour.

Above all, he won because he successfully presented himself as the change candidate at a time when America appears to be crying out for change.

His republican rival John McCain also lost it by failing to do enough to distinguish himself from the increasingly unpopular George Bush, and also by appearing to be somewhat complacent about the state of the US economy.

Much discussion has already surrounded the impact of Sarah Palin, Mr McCain's surprise choice of vice-presidential nominee, on the eventual result.

On the one hand, she undoubtedly energised the Republican Party’s campaign and enabled Mr McCain to re-connect with a part of its core vote that has always distrusted him.

On the other, she was plainly out of her depth when dealing with foreign policy issues and, for all her freshness as a Washington "outsider," came over as something of a political ingenue.

All things considered, perhaps a 72-year-old man who has had cancer four times should have paid slightly more heed to the need for experience in choosing the person who would have been "a heartbeat away from the presidency."

As for what it means for UK politics, it was predictable that the two main parties would offer wildly differing interpretations of the significance of Mr Obama's triumph.

For Tory leader David Cameron, the important point was the message of change. For Mr Brown, it was the victory of progressive politics over the neo-Conservative right.

Both are plausible enough interpretations, but for me, the sight of British Tories attempting to clamber aboard the Obama bandwagon has been one of the more amusing aspects of the campaign.

No matter that Mr Obama is the most left-wing president since Franklin D. Roosevelt - there's absolutely nothing the ideology-free-zone that is today's Tory Party won't do to get with the zeitgeist.

For all the understandable excitement about Mr Obama, though, it is what happened in Glenrothes which says more about the current state of British politics.

That this is an extraordinary triumph for Mr Brown cannot be in doubt, even allowing for the fact that local issues dominated the by-election campaign.

Consider where the Prime Minister was before the conference season two months ago. He had lost three by-elections on the trot, all of them badly, and there was a growing perception in the party that he was a "loser."

Foreign Secretary and South Shields MP David Miliband was openly agitating for his job, while deputy leader Harriet Harman told friends "this is my time."

There was a widespread expectation of an autumn coup against Mr Brown's leadership, and dark talk that up to 15 ministers would refuse to serve come the reshuffle - a rumour which, had it come to fruition, would surely have spelled the end of him.

Even at the end of what was judged a successful conference, the shadow of another disastrous defeat in Glenrothes still hung over him like a sword of Damocles, as I noted at the time.

Instead, Mr Brown now finds himself back in the game and with an outside chance - I would put it no more strongly than that - of winning that elusive fourth Labour term.

Okay, so it's largely down to his handling of the economic crisis - but that fighting conference speech and the coup-de-theatre of Peter Mandelson's reshuffle comeback have certainly played their part.

Up until now, the Brown renaissance, or the "Second Brown Bounce" as some have called it, has been largely driven by a media narrative - a general consensus among the commentariat that the Prime Minister's position has improved.

But there is no substitute for actual real-life votes, and Thursday's result has provided concrete evidence that the "media narrative" is actually not that far off the mark.

In other words, the Labour fightback is no mere media invention designed to make politics more interesting again for readers, viewers and listeners. It really is now under way.

It doesn't prove that Mr Brown is a "winner." But it does show that he is not quite the inveterate loser that some thought he was.

So is it now "game on" for the next general election? Could we soon be back to a position where a hung Parliament, rather than an outright Tory victory, once more looks the most likely outcome?

Well, hang on. One swallow doesn't make a summer, and it's important for Mr Brown and Labour not to get carried away with Thursday night's success.

The truth is that Mr Cameron remains as much an overwhelming favourite to win the next general election as Mr Obama was to win the presidency.

But unlike Senator McCain, Gordon Brown still has time on his side.

A well-deserved victory

Okay, so I admit I didn't originally want Barack Obama to win the US Presidency. I thought he was too inexperienced, and there was something about his very smoothness, his apparent reliance on style over content, that reminded me uncomfortably of Tony Blair. In addition, I had a bit of a sentimental attachment to John McCain on the grounds that for someone of his age to win the presidency would give encouragement to clapped-out old gits everywhere.

But there's no point being churlish about this. Obama deserves his victory if only for having stood up to the onslaught of two of the hitherto most powerful machines in world politics - the Republican machine, and the Clinton machine.

I still don't buy all the silky, JFK-style rhetoric. I've already lived too long and seen too many smooth-tongued politicians worm their way into the affections of the British public to believe in all that stuff. But underneath it all Obama strikes me as a decent sort of man, and if he can restore some stability to American foreign policy and its domestic economy over the next few years he will be well on the way to becoming a great president.

Did he win it, or did McCain lose it? A bit of both I think. Obama clearly came into this election as the "change candidate" and played that hand for all it was worth, both against Clinton and later against McCain. But I think McCain also made errors, notably in failing to do enough to differentiate himself from the increasingly despised George W. Bush and claiming after the collapse of Lehman brothers that the American economy was "fundamentally sound."

Was making Sarah Palin his running mate an error? That's a difficult one to call. She certainly energised the McCain campaign and brought a much-needed touch of glamour, but perhaps a man of 72 who has had cancer four times should have paid slightly more heed to experience in selecting the person who would be "a heartbeat away from the presidency."

As for the most hilarious spectacle in the election, it has to be the sight of British Tories attempting to clamber aboard the Obama bandwagon once it became reasonably clear he was going to win. No matter that he's the most left-wing president since Franklin D. Roosevelt - there's absolutely nothing the ideology-free-zone that is today's Tory Party won't do to get with the zeitgeist.

Hors de Combat

I think I probably owe my readers some sort of explanation as to why it's all gone rather quiet over here of late - rest assured I haven't given up blogging, but I have been rather unwell, as a result of which I simply haven't had the energy or the inclination to think about politics, or much else for that matter.

One rather sad consequence of this was that I had to abandon my annual October walking pilgrimage to the Lakes which has continued, on and off, since 1993. It's been mostly off in recent years - last year I couldn't make it as we were moving house, and this year I was laid-up in bed. Maybe next year....

I'm slowly on the mend now, I hope, so hopefully things will be back to normal round here pretty soon. I gather there's some cotton-picking little election taking place somewhere this week, and I'm sure I'll have something to say about it before too long.

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.

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.