Johnson to Truss - some reflections

I have been reserving judgment on the new Prime Minister until we knew the shape of her Cabinet and specifically whether she intended to emphasise party unity and recognise talent by building an inclusive team, or whether she merely intended to prioritise loyalty by rewarding her own supporters.

Well now we know, and even though both Nadine Dorries and Priti Patel have thankfully gone, we have probably the most right-wing Cabinet the country has seen for 100 years or more.

I have watched the long-drawn out tragi-comedy of Boris Johnson's downfall and the equally interminable farce of the subsequent leadership election process with a growing sense of despair for the future of our country.

Here are a few reflections on the transition from Johnson to Liz Truss and why I believe we may have just achieved something that many thought impossible: electing an even worse Prime Minister than the one we have just got rid of.

1. A few months back, post-Partygate but pre-Pincher, some good friends asked me how on earth Boris Johnson was still in office. I responded by saying that many Tory MPs had not yet moved against him for fear that they could end up with someone even worse.

If the MPs had been in a position to control the choice of his successor, the letters to Sir Graham Brady would have gone in much sooner, but there was always a risk that once the decision went to the party membership, they would put in someone even less palatable to the MPs than Johnson.

At that time, the obvious successor and most popular choice among the MPs was Rishi Sunak, but as I explained to my friends, there was never the remotest chance that the party membership would choose him as leader. I'll leave it to your imagination to work out why that was the case.

Tory MPs should have worked this out and ensured that Penny Mordaunt got onto the ballot paper as the Stop Truss candidate. But the momentum was behind Rishi at that stage and the support of the extreme right-wing European Research Group (of whom more below) was enough to see Truss through.

2. All of the above happened because of what now has to be seen as the spectacularly misguided and arguably unconstitutional decision made by William Hague in 2001 to extend the franchise for electing party leaders from MPs to the party membership, copying a decision made by Labour in 1980.

Because of this, we have now ended up with Truss as Prime Minister with the support of less than a third of her MPs, in the same way as we ended up with Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party with the support of only a small rump of his MPs, some of whom only put him on the ballot paper out of a misguided desire to be 'inclusive.'

It is time both parties recognised that we live in a parliamentary democracy rather than a presidency, and that a party leader always needs to be able to command the support of a majority of his or her backbenchers - particularly when a party is in government and electing not just a leader but a Prime Minister. 

The past few weeks have done the Conservative Party absolutely no favours, with decisions affecting the whole country being made by a tiny and very unrepresentative section of the electorate, rather than the MPs who we supposedly elect to Parliament to make those decisions for us. This is not democracy in any meaningful sense.

3. Boris Johnson showed what a political operator he continues to be with a barnstorming speech from the steps of No 10 this morning, in contrast with Ms Truss's truly dreadful acceptance speech the previous day.

As usual, though, there was the complete abdication of responsibility for his own downfall and attempt to blame his colleagues for "changing the rules half way through" (er, they didn't) when really he only has himself and his own character flaws to blame for the premature conclusion to his premiership.

The great irony is that the public would probably have forgiven him a few lockdown gatherings if he had been honest aout the fact they had taken place. Instead he threw his press secretary Allegra Stratton under the bus and pretended they had not happened.  

Although it was the Chris Pincher affair that got him in the end, his premiership was doomed from this point, proving once again the old Watergate truism: "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up that gets you."

4. Athough Truss is a terrible public speaker (look up her 2014 party conference speech on cheese imports and pork markets on YouTube if you don't believe me), that need not necessarily be an impediment to being a great Prime Minister (think Clement Attlee.)

Her speech outside Number 10 this afternoon was a considerable improvement on yesterday's and at least had the merit of being more honest than Johnson's - admittedly both fairly low bars - but it's the content of what she says rather than her wooden style of delivery that really matters.

Sure, she demonstrated that addressing the energy crisis and sorting out emergency care in the NHS remains at or near the top of her agenda, although if today's briefings are anything to go by, the measures set to be announced to freeze energy bills remain somewhat in a state of flux.

But talking about "getting Britain working again" and tackling the issues that are "holding Britain back" merely implies that she is inheriting a country that isn't working and is being held back - presumably by the government of which she has been a part for the last eight years.

5. And so to that Cabinet. By not reaching out to Sunak or his supporters - in fact by sacking every single one of them who previously served in Cabinet - Ms Truss has made her task of uniting the party after a particularly divisive leadership election that much harder.

While the appointment of Kwasi Kwarteng as Chancellor was expected given their long personal history, I'm really not sure what she sees in new Foreign Secretary James Cleverly who, nice chap though he is, has always struck me as an example of reverse nominative determinism.

As was often the case with Tony Blair's cabinets, there are also some square pegs in round holes. Why make Kemi Badenoch international trade secretary when both the education and culture briefs were up for grabs?  Why move Anne-Marie Trevelyan to transport when Penny Mordaunt was available?

Badenoch and Mordaunt were both leadership rivals so maybe Truss didn't want them in jobs where they might have started to feel too comfortable. If so, it's another example of putting party management considerations before the good of the country.

6. But the appointment I am most seriously concerned about - and the one which most clearly signals the direction the government intends to go in - is that of Suella Braverman as Home Secretary. This is an appointment which genuinely fills me with dread to the point of actually making me feel slightly physically sick.

It is clear from her previous comments that Braverman will try to take Britain out of the European Court of Human Rights in order to implement the absurd and immoral policy of deporting economic migrants and asylum seekers to Rwanda, undoing an historic British post-war achievement that was credited in part to Sir Winston Churchill.

Braverman probably owes her preferment to some sort of deal between Truss and the European Research Group to back her rather than Mordaunt in the final ballot of MPs which resulted in Truss and Sunak being the two names which went to the party membership (see above.) 

The ERG have been a consistently malign and divisive influence on British politics over the past six years and if Truss is in hoc to them in any way, it does not bode well for her premiership

7. It follows from all of the above that I believe Truss faces an uphill struggle even to survive the next two years without facing a vote of confidence from her own MPs, let alone get the party into a position from which it can win a General Election in 2024. All of which begs the question: can Boris come back?

You don't have to re-read his leaving speech too many times to see the clues - the references to Cincinnatus, a Roman politician who did indeed "return to his plough" but was also later recalled to power, and the analogy of a rocket booster splashing down in a "remote corner of the Pacific." 

For me this has all the hallmarks of what used to be known in political circles as a retreat to Colombey-les-deux-Eglises, after the quiet French village that General de Gaulle retired to after the war while awaiting the call to return as President of France, which he eventually did 13 years later.  

Any hope of a comeback would require the Commons Privileges Committee to clear him of deliberately misleading the House over Partygate, but if it does so, it could be game on.  And since Boris Johnson has already brought down three Prime Ministers, including himself, a fourth would seem no more than par for the course.

A grim night for progressives

Well, it's all over. Here's my take on a grim election for progressives - and where Labour, the Lib Dems and the country go from here.

1. The seeds of what has been a catastrophic defeat for Labour were sown in the disastrous leadership election that took place in the autumn of 2015, following Ed Miliband's defeat on a programme that was markedly to the left of the one Gordon Brown had fought and lost on in 2010. It ought to have been clear to Labour at this point that it needed to return to a more centrist position next time round, and it had three such candidates to choose from with recent ministerial experience in Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham - all of them MPs from the North or Midlands where Labour most needed to win back support. Instead, it chose a grizzled old Trotskyist from North London who had never held government office and carried more baggage than a 747. The theory, oft-heard among the fantasists of the hard left, that Labour lost elections through not being left-wing enough, has now been tested to destruction and found to be the arrant nonsense it always was. The truth is Britain will never elect a hard-left government because, unlike Italy or Greece but like Germany and the US, Marxism is simply not in the country's political DNA. Neither will the British public ever elect someone who they cannot trust with the nation's defences, or someone who, rightly or wrongly, they perceive to have been the friend of terrorists.

2. The normal rules of politics - that elections are won and lost in the centre ground - have thus reasserted themselves, and unless Labour returns there, it is finished as a party of government. That does not mean abandoning its principles or even all of the policies it fought this election on, but it does mean they have to be properly costed and it does mean having a leader who inspires confidence and hope rather than anxiety and fear. Kier Starmer is perhaps unlucky in that, while he would fit the bill, there will be huge pressure for the party to choose a woman this time round. Cooper, whose reputation as a parliamentarian has continued to grow since her 2015 defeat, should certainly stand again, while Jess Phillips is the standout candidate among moderates of a younger vintage. Angela Rayner could be a Kinnock-type figure who comes up to the leadership from the left but then tacks towards the centre, but the choice of Corbynite favourite Rebecca Long-Bailey would indicate that nothing has been learned. Whoever they choose, Labour is going to find it even harder to win next time as, armed with their majority, the Tories will now introduce the boundary changes that have been blocked in the last two hung Parliaments.

3. I do not buy the argument that Labour lost because this election was all about Brexit and specifically because it changed its policy from respecting the result of the 2016 referendum to holding a second one. This will be the main point at issue in the leadership election, and it will be deployed against both Starmer and Emily Thornberry, who are both (in the Corbynistas' eyes) guilty of forcing their dear leader to change tack. The truth is Jeremy Corbyn's handling of Brexit has been a catalogue of misjudgements from the start and a salutory lesson in being careful what you wish for. I say this as a passionate Remainer, but it is clear in retrospect that Corbyn should have backed Theresa May's original deal, which would kept the UK in a temporary customs union while the over-arching trade deal was being negotiated. Had he done so, we would have had a markedly softer Brexit and we might also have been spared the Johnson premiership. Instead Corbyn chose short-term tactics over long-term strategy and party politics over the national interest, and the public has duly punished him for it.

4. Labour also needs to stop blaming the "hostile media" for its repeated election defeats. I don't approve of The Sun or the Mail any more than most people of a centre-left persuasion, but at the end of the day newspapers do not exist in a vacuum; they are commercial entities which reflect what they perceive to be the opinions of their readerships. If a sensible, centrist Labour Party was to re-emerge from this debacle, one with clear public appeal and a leader with positive polling ratings, the newspapers would soon follow suit. The Sun would not have backed Tony Blair in 1997, 2001 and 2005 had its readers not liked him more than they liked the Tory alternatives at the time. Newspapers always want to be on the winning side, because it shows they are in touch with their readers - but Corbyn always looked like a loser.

5. As I said in my earlier post on Wednesday, the big disappointment of the campaign was Jo Swinson and hence I am not surprised that it culminated for her in the loss of her seat. I had high hopes for her when she was elected Lib Dem leader but her handling of the role has been hubristic in the extreme and showed that Lib Dem leaders should always avoid talking about what they will do if they win an outright majority - because it has as much credibility as me saying what I would do as England football manager. From the point of the view of the party, I think her defeat could prove to be something a blessing in disguise, in that it has removed a leader who, sadly, was not up to the job. The choice will now surely lie between Sir Ed Davey - highly experienced but, like Swinson, possibly tainted by having held office in the Coalition - and Layla Moran - unproven, but possibly the fresh face the party needs as it seeks to rebrand.

6. And so to Boris Johnson. He has won the majority he craved partly because of the incompetence of his opponents - see points 1-5 above - but also because once again the Tories have demonstrated that they are the most ruthlessly effective election-winning machine in the democratic world. On the central issue of Brexit, they had a very clear message that could be easily understood and, by doing a deal with Nigel Farage, they united the Leave vote while leaving the Remainers bitterly divided. At times, the Tories' hard-headedness has overstepped the boundaries of what I would regard as decent behaviour, and the rise of political lying has been perhaps the most concerning feature of the entire election. There was a 48-hour period, between his refusal to be interviewed by Andrew Neil and his unsympathetic response to the plight of the boy found sleeping on a hospital floor, when I began to wonder if it was beginning to unravel for Johnson, but it turned out - and this is the hardest thing for me to write in this entire piece - that Dominic Cummings did know what he was doing after all.

7. As to where Brexit goes from here, the big hope of those of us who wanted to avoid a no-deal Brexit and who now want to avoid a no-deal exit from the transition period is that the size of Johnson's majority will enable him to shaft Farage, marginalise the ERG and ultimately pursue a softer version of Brexit than was implied in the Tory manifesto, either by agreeing to extend the transition period or by agreeing to keep the UK more closely aligned to EU rules than the purists in his party would like. Equally, though, it may enable him to pursue a harder Brexit without any fear of it being blocked by Parliament. Given the need to protect manufacturing and jobs in the 'left-behind' towns that have just voted Tory for the first time, my hunch is that his instincts will be towards the former and his 'let the healing begin speech' earlier today appeared to bear this out, but, on this point, it is too early to tell which version of Johnson is going to turn up.

8. While the immediate focus will doubtless be on 'Getting Brexit Done' - in the narrow sense of us actually leaving the EU - the bigger story of the election, and possibly the bigger challenge for Johnson, may well turn out to be the future of the Union, with England and Scotland now clearly pulling in different political directions. Johnson boasts of leading a 'One Nation' government but if he is not very careful he may well turn out to be the Prime Minister who presides over the fragmentation of this one nation into two or even three. He faces a catch-22 which he will need all his political skills to navigate. If he denies Nicola Sturgeon her wish for a second independence referendum next year, the SNP is likely to win big again in the 2021 Holyrood elections and thereby claim an even more compelling mandate for holding the vote. If he gives in to the demand, there is a chance the Scots might actually vote to leave the UK. Given Johnson's propensity for political gambles, he might just calculate that holding indyref2 sooner rather than later would give the Unionist side the best chance of victory - but as we know only too well, PMs who gamble on referendum outcomes can easily come a cropper.

The election I wish wasn't happening

With less than 24 hours to go before the polls open, here are a few random thoughts on the election.

1. I wish it wasn't happening at all. Two months ago, Parliament had Boris Johnson just where it wanted him but it allowed him to wriggle free and call the election he wanted on the day he wanted while he was still at the height of his Prime Ministerial honeymoon. If, as I expect, he wins a majority tomorrow, the question future historians will ask is why Jeremy Corbyn, Jo Swinson and Nicola Sturgeon agreed to the election in the first place. The answer in the case of Sturgeon is obvious - the SNP wants a Johnson majority government so it can continue to fan the flames of Scottish separatism. It is less clear what Labour and the Lib Dems thought they had to gain from holding an election when the Tories were miles ahead in the opinion polls.

2. If there has been a gamechanger in this election, it was the decision by the Brexit Party not to field candidates in Tory-held seats, in return for the Tories giving a pledge to exit the transition period at the end of 2020 without a trade deal if necessary. This has certainly enhanced the prospects of a Tory victory even if the price for the Tory Party has been to have effectively become the Brexit Party. By contrast, the Remainers have not been nearly so hard-headed. Tactical voting may help maximise the anti-Brexit vote to some degree, but if they really wanted to stop Brexit, there should have been many more local pacts between pro-Remain parties - including Labour.

3. Far from "getting Brexit done," Johnson's decision to rule out an extension to the transition - and to make it an explicit manifesto pledge - is almost certain to lead to another Brexit crisis in a year's time in which the country is faced with the prospect of a no-deal exit from current tariff-free trading arrangements with the EU. I do not see how the EU can possibly agree to any sort of trade deal in that timecale unless it is one in which the UK agrees to stay very closely aligned to EU rules while no longer having a say over them - an outcome which, even if Johnson were to agree to it, would be opposed by many of his MPs and which would, of course, render Brexit completely pointless. Tony Blair has been right all along - we can either have the painful Brexit, or the pointless Brexit. There is no third way.

4. In these final days, we are seeing why the Tories were so keen to hold an election this side of Christmas - because there is going to be a winter health crisis and it is going to get worse. If Johnson is re-elected, I confidently predict that by the end of February he will be the most unpopular PM on record and people will be genuinely wondering why they gave this clown another five years in which to wreck our National Health Service.

5. At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, the campaign has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that neither Johnson nor Corbyn is fit to be Prime Minister. Johnson is a proven liar who has already shown in the conduct of his personal relationships that he does not have the right character to lead the country. He has no convictions other than a belief in his own right to rule and when confronted by a genuine crisis - the London Bridge stabbings - he sought to play the situation for narrow political advantage rather than demonstrating national leadership. This, coupled with his refusal to apologise for deeply racist comments and articles made earlier in his political career, or to submit to cross-examination by Andrew Neil, shows the true measure of the man - more Alan Partridge than Winston Churchill.

6. By contrast, I do not believe Jeremy Corbyn is a racist, but by his own admission he has done far too little to tackle the scourge of anti-semitism in his party. For me, this is less an indicator of racism, and more an indicator of his inability to manage the party and the people around him, some of whom, notably Seumas Milne and Len McCluskey, are deeply unattractive individuals who appear to be engaged in some sort of class war. The calibre of the Labour front bench is appallingly low and gives people little confidence that it could form an effective government. Only Angela Rayner, of the leading shadow cabinet spokespeople, emerges from the campaign with any sort of credit.

7. Whatever you think about Johnson or Corbyn, the biggest disappointment of the campaign has been Jo Swinson. After their strong performance in last year's Euro-elections, the Lib Dems finally looked to be back in the game, but after replacing Vince Cable as leader, Swinson completely misjudged the public mood by shifting the party's Brexit policy from second referendum to revoke and then spent the first weeks of the campaign whingeing about not being allowed to take part in TV debates alongside the two main party leaders. In retrospect it is clear that Sir Ed Davey would have been a better leader. That said, though, the Lib Dems appear to have assumed the mantle of the sensible party when it comes to the economy, in contrast to the fantastical spending promises of the Tories and Labour.

8. It follows from all of the above that I believe another hung Parliament would be the best outcome from tomorrow. It would leave Johnson fatally wounded while Corbyn will have failed twice to win an election outright against Tory opponents who between them have come close to wrecking the country. Whichever of them ended up as Prime Minister would have little room for manoeuvre in terms of their more outlandish policies and would probably have no option but to call a second referendum on Brexit ahead of a fresh election. It might sound less than ideal, and it is, but better that than either of the nightmarish alternatives.

From May to Johnson: Some reflections

Some reflections on the departure of May, the accession of Johnson, the reshuffle to end all reshuffles, and what could lie ahead.

1. Theresa May did her best to carry off a dignified departure, but as usual her best was not quite good enough. Her valedictory PMQs highlighted some of the issues that ultimately made her an unsuccessful PM - in particular her inability to think on her feet, and also to master the peculiarly British art of using self-deprecating humour to take the wind out of an opponent's sails.

Asked by Jeremy Corbyn whether her successor should now call a General Election, she could have replied along the lines of "I think I'm the last person he'll be taking advice from about election timing." Instead she called on the Magic Grandad to follow her example and stand down, which was all rather petty and demeaning.

2. That said, history will, as it usually does, judge May less harshly than her contemporaries did. Brexit was not a crisis of her making, and it fell to her to try to clear up the appalling mess bequeathed to her by her predecessor in a way which, rightly or wrongly, she judged would do the least harm to the economy and the least damage to the Union.

People who have described her as the worst PM ever clearly have never read up on Bute, North, Goderich, Rosebery, Chamberlain, Eden or even Cameron. In the annals of PMs of my own lifetime, she will go down alongside Douglas-Home, Callaghan and Major as decent public servants who were ultimately swept away by events beyond their control.

3. I generally agree with those, such as my old lobby colleague Bill Jacobs, who have argued that behind Boris Johnson's bluff and bluster there lies a very sharp mind. Johnson is certainly the biggest intellect to have occupied No 10 since Brown and possibly since Thatcher, and that actually augurs well in that he will need every one of those brain cells to think his way out of this crisis.

Does he have a cunning plan? Well let's hope so, because as the brilliant Liz Kendall has already pointed out: "Optimism is not enough to get things done - otherwise we'd all be spending today waltzing back and forth over his garden bridge and then jetting off on our holidays from Boris Island in the Thames."

4. Although the new Cabinet is clearly both more Brexity and more right-wing than the old one, I don't necessarily buy the idea that Johnson has snuffed out the Tory Party's One Nation tradition in one brutal afternoon of bloodletting.  There are still more Remainers in it than Leavers, and on every issue except Brexit, I would regard the PM himself as a liberal Tory.

For me the biggest issue was not so much the number of sackings as the number of comebacks by previously discredited ministers. Gavin Williamson (leaking state secrets), Priti Patel (making unauthorised contact with a foreign government without telling the PM) and Grant Shapps (overseeing a bullying culture in the party when Tory chairman) are all back as if nothing had ever happened, which does little to rebuild trust in politics.

5. Sacked Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt must now be regretting not going harder at Johnson during the leadership campaign. Beforehand he promised him the 'fight of his life' but he failed to subject Johnson's Brexit 'plans' to the kind of forensic scrutiny that Rory Stewart or even Michael Gove might have done and also shied away from making 'character' an issue in the contest even when presented with a fairly open goal.

Hunt's dismissal along with those of his supporters Penny Mordant and Liam Fox was politics as Mafia hits. While some inevitably compared it to the baptism scene in Godfather I, the scene that sprang to mind for me was the exchange between Tom Hagen and Michael Corleone at the end of GF2 - "C'mon, you won! Do you have to wipe out everyone?  "Tom, I don't feel like I have to wipe everyone out, just my enemies."

6. I suspect Johnson is genuine in wanting a deal with the EU, but I also suspect he is not so naive as to believe he is actually going to get one. By the same token I suspect he is also not so naive as to imagine Parliament will let the UK leave on 31 October without a deal.

But by my reckoning, all that's already been factored in. The EU refuses an accommodation, the Remainer Parliament blocks no deal, and Boris - who let's not forget is much more interested in power than he ever was in Brexit - has the perfect pretext for calling an autumn election. Brenda from Bristol, be warned.

Tears for a beloved country

I did not vote for Brexit and continue to believe it is the greatest act of political and economic self-harm this country has inflicted on itself in my lifetime, and probably even my parents' and grandparents' lifetimes too. Nevertheless, I respected the result of the referendum and recognised Theresa May's sincere belief that it was her duty to deliver an outcome that reflected the narrowness of the result - namely to take Britain out of the EU, but to do so in a way which minimised the damage to jobs and the economy.

Although I wish we had never reached this point in our history, I would have been happy to see her deal pass the Commons for the simple reason that it would have removed the baleful spectre of a no deal Brexit and all the chaos which that would undoubtedly inflict on businesses both large and small, not just in the disruption of trading relationships with our closest neighbours but more broadly in the recessionary knock-on effects it would have on the economy.

In her resignation speech on the steps of Number 10 today, Mrs May exhorted her successor, whoever it turns out to be, to seek the consensus in Parliament which she herself has found elusive, but this seems a forlorn hope. The truth of the matter is that the political space for a sensible compromise such as May's deal has shrunk dramatically over recent months and we now have two factions who, by turn, are either hellbent on Brexit at any cost or alternatively hellbent on stopping it at any cost.

The forthcoming Tory leadership battle will only exacerbate this. The contenders for Mrs May's crown will now spend the next few weeks seeking to outdo eachother in a virility contest to see who can promise the hardest Brexit, and knowing the nature of the electorate, it is self-evident to me that the candidate perceived to be the most out-and-out no-dealer will win. Boris Johnson's latest comments ruling out an extension to the current 31 October exit date confirm this.

So where does that leave Parliament? The Cooper-Letwin device that prevented a no deal exit in March is no longer available, and since a new PM set on no-deal would not need to bring a Withdrawal Agreement back before the House, the Commons would have little or no opportunity to take control of the process in the way it previously managed.

Virtually the only sanction Parliament would have in such circumstances would be to pass a vote of no confidence in the new PM, but this would require Remainer Tory MPs such as Dominic Grieve to vote to bring down their own government in the knowledge that it would provoke a general election their party would be certain to lose.

Accordingly, I think Mrs May's departure has appreciably increased the risk of a no-deal Brexit followed by the worst recession since the 1930s and the break-up of the UK, given that - irony of ironies - the first consequence of any move to trading on WTO terms would be that the EU would have to erect a hard border in Ireland to stop the UK having a back door into the single market.

I suspect the tears at the end of Mrs May's speech today were not just for herself, but for the country which she - entirely genuinely - so professes to love.

Debts of gratitude

In a year which has seen the departures of so many iconic figures, it's hard to single people out for special mention, but as 2016 draws towards its close, I wanted to express my own debt of gratitude to the ten who have had the biggest impact on my life and that of my family.

So thank you:

• David Bowie, for providing part of the soundtrack to my teenage years and for two songs in particular - Life on Mars and Starman - whose spins on the turntable were the musical highpoint of every sixth form party.
• Abe Vigoda, forever Salvatore Tessio in The Godfather, the greatest movie ever made and that will ever be made. 'Can you get me off the hook, Tom, for old times' sake?' 'Can't do it, Sally.'
• Maurice White, leader of Earth, Wind and Fire, whose dynamic funk tunes in the late 70s and early 80s laid the foundations for my lasting love affair with dance music.
• Tony Warren, creator of Coronation Street, which, in its original incarnation as a gritty portrayal of Northern working-class life as opposed to a vehicle for ever-more ridiculous and sensational storylines, was for a while the best thing on telly.
• Keith Emerson and Greg Lake, two thirds of Emerson Lake and Palmer, whose weird albums pushed the boundaries of prog rock in the 70s and inspired numerous others, including Genesis, to do the same.
• Johan Cruyff, whose exploits for Holland and Ajax thrilled this football-mad youngster in the 70s and whose invention of 'total football' showed the world how the beautiful game really should be played.
• Muhammad Ali, whose dramatic recapture of the world heavyweight title from George Foreman in 1974 was, along with Boycott's 100th hundred and Viren's double Olympic distance double, the sporting highlight of my childhood.
• Gene Wilder, whose magical portrayal of Willy Wonka in the original and best film version of Roald Dahl's tale opened up a world of pure imagination that not only had my son George captivated from an early age, but his dad too.
• Richard Adams, whose creation of Watership Down opened up another magical world for my boy and me to enjoy together. 'We go by the will of the Black Rabbit. When he calls you, you have to go.'

RIP all.

Bye bye Dave, hello Theresa. Some reshuffle reflections

Originally posted on my Facebook page on the day after David Cameron stepped down as PM and Theresa May took the carving knife to his Cabinet.

1. David Cameron remains a class act. Of course, he had no alternative but to step down after accidentally leading us out of the EU, but nothing in his six-year tenure of the office of Prime Minister became him like the leaving of it. I never voted for the man, and probably never would have done, but he even had me in tears during his leaving speech outside Number Ten, with his references to his family followed by the group hug on the doorstep. It was a reminder that behind all the political drama of recent weeks was a very human story about a family suddenly forced to leave their "lovely" home - in little Florence's case, the only one she had ever known.

2. It is good to see that, despite the post-factual, "we've had enough of experts" spasm of the Brexit vote, experience remains a prized commodity in British politics and that the most experienced candidate for the Conservative leadership eventually won the day. Three of the last four Prime Ministers acceded to the top job in their 40s. Theresa May is 59 and I, for one, find it oddly reassuring that once again we have a Prime Minister and Chancellor who are both older than I am.

3. George Osborne and Michael Gove finally have their just reward for their years of plotting and backstabbing. Theirs is a deeply unpleasant little clique and it is completely understandable that Mrs May saw no place for it in her government. I just hope she doesn't come to regret her failure to abide by Michael Corleone's famous dictum - "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Gove and Osborne will be dangerous enemies in the years to come.

4. In terms of other Cabinet departures, I am particularly pleased to see the back of John Whittingdale and Nicky Morgan. Whittingdale's constant efforts to undermine the BBC and attempts to privatise Channel 4 posed an existential threat to two great journalistic and cultural institutions. Similarly Morgan's attempt to force academisation on schools would have wrecked primary education in this country and will hopefully now be consigned to that bit of St James' Park where they can't quite get the mower.

5. Although there have been some well-deserved promotions - Amber Rudd, Justine Greening, James Brokenshire - Mrs May has at times today appeared to value loyalty over ability. There is probably a reason why Damian Green and David Lidington reached the age of 60 without previously achieving Cabinet office. Similarly the appointment of her former Home Office junior Karen Bradley to the culture gig had a whiff of the old chumocracy about it.

6. There are some obvious hospital passes for the Brexiteers Mrs May has promoted. Andrea Leadsom at DEFRA gets the job of explaining to the farmers that Brexit won't leave them better off and that the UK won't be able to pick up all the EU farm subsidies they have enjoyed for so many years. Priti Patel at International Development gets to run a department which, three years ago, she suggested should be abolished.

7. In any reshuffle there is always one bit that doesn't go to plan and this year it concerned Jeremy Hunt. It seems clear he was on his way out of the Department of Health only for rumours of his demise to prove greatly exaggerated. My guess is that Mrs May had someone else in mind for the job and that someone turned it down. Either way an opportunity has been missed to detoxify the junior doctors' dispute by moving a man who has become a hate figure.

8. In terms of reorganising Whitehall departments, Mrs May has made a good start but should have gone further. The Cabinet is far too big and ideally needs to be slimmed down to about 12-15 members. Liam Fox's new international trade role and Priti Patel's international development role should ultimately be combined, as Ms Patel has herself previously suggested. Separate Cabinet ministers for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and English local government are a hangover from the days when everything was run from Whitehall, and should surely be replaced by a single Department for Devolution - although I could understand if Mrs May decided that was one for another day.

9. Looking at the bigger picture, the May government's success or failure will ultimately depend on how it responds to the three key post-Brexit challenges: stablising the economy, refashoning Britain's role in Europe and the world, and preserving the Union. In terms of the first, Philip Hammond is exactly the kind of solid, dependable figure who will reassure the markets and has already announced a welcome shift away from Osbornomics by postponing the deficit reduction target indefinitely. In terms of the second, David Davis is absolutely the right person to negotiate our departure from the EU, and if anyone can refashion Britain's role in the wider world, Boris can.

10. Finally, the Union. Those who know me well know that my principal reason for voting Remain on 23 June was the fear that a Leave vote would break up the UK, and if Mrs May's words outside Number Ten on Wednesday and her decision to visit Scotland today are anything to go by, she shares that concern. The Union is indeed a precious, precious bond, but one which has been stretched to breaking point over the course of the Cameron years. If Mrs May can repair those bonds, and manage not to go down in history as the last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I think that will be quite some achievement.

Corbyn's leadership predicted on this blog in 2006!

Looking back over some old blog posts today, I came across this gem from 2006.  A propos of a discussion of who might succeed Tony Blair and whether Alan Milburn might put up as a challenger to Gordon Brown, the former Reading MP Jane Griffiths appears to predict Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the party.

Former politics professor Bill Jones, who blogged as Skipper, was less than impressed by the suggestion!  The original blog post is here.

Healey: The antithesis of the machine politician

My Journal column may have gone, but life and politics goes on, and since this blog is now the sole remaining outlet for my political writing, it is here that any periodic musings on the state of the nation will be appearing.

I could not, of course, let the death of Denis Healey pass without comment.  On my Facebook page I described him yesterday both as my political hero and without doubt the greatest Prime Minister Britain never had.   As those are bold statements I feel the need this morning to amplify them a bit.

There have been many politicians I have admired down the years - Roy Jenkins, Tony Crosland, David Owen, Charles Kennedy and Robin Cook to name but five.  What was it that made Denis stand out in particular?

I think it was probably summed up in the word he himself used - his "hinterland."  A WW2 hero and genuine polymath, Healey was the very antithesis of today's machine politicians who progress effortlessly from uni to MPs' research assistant to parliamentary candidate without experiencing anything resembling the real world.

Opinions will invariably differ about whether Denis was a great politician.  His tendency to make unnecessary enemies at the height of his career in the 70s and early 80s probably cost him the leadership of the Labour Party, but it was that very refusal to 'play the political game' that made him, in my eyes, such an attractive figure.

An alternative history of Britain in the 1980s would have had him as Prime Minister in place of Margaret Thatcher, using the benefits of North Sea Oil to build a Swedish-style social democracy instead of the American-style market economy we became.  I happen to think Britain would be a kinder and fairer society now had that been the case.

Could it have happened?   Probably not. Denis's best chance of becoming PM probably came in 1976 when Harold Wilson retired, but he came a poor third behind Jim Callaghan.   By the time Callaghan stepped down in 1980, the left was in disarray and the Thatcherite hegemony was in full swing.

Denis as leader in place of Michael Foot might have limited the scale of Thatcher's victory in the post-Falklands election in 1983, but I don't, in all honesty, think he would have stopped it.

Where a Healey leadership would have made a bigger difference is in terms of the internal politics of the left.  Had he succeeded Callaghan in 1980, the marginalisation of the hard left would have begun five years earlier than it actually did, and the impact of the SDP breakaway would have been greatly reduced.

In this respect, it is tragic that Denis should have lived to see the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader - an outcome he sought to prevent in what proved to be the last political intervention of his career.

Ever since I first launched this blog more than ten years ago, the footer has contained a quote from Denis's autobiography 'The Time of My Life' - a comment about his old friend and rival Roy Jenkins which says just as much about himself.

"He saw politics very much like Trollope, as the interplay of personalities seeking preferment, rather than, like me, as a conflict of principles and programmes about social and economic change."

Why do I like this quote so much? Well, partly because it references Trollope, but mainly because it sums up in a single sentence the tension which makes politics such an endlessly fascinating business.

It is, more often than not, Jenkins' definition which prevails. But Healey's definition of politics is the way it probably ought to be. 

It's the end of an era for me - but what about Labour?

Today marks a bit of an end of an era for me as I have filed my last Saturday politics column for The Journal after 18 and a half years.

The column was launched by my former editor Mark Dickinson shortly after I joined the paper as political editor in 1997, and his successor-but-one Brian Aitken agreed to keep it going after I left the staff in 2004.

I will miss the opportunity to hold forth on the week's political events, but all good things come to an end and I will always be grateful to The Journal for having given me an outlet for my writing for so many years.

Anyway here's the final column, which focuses on the fallout for Labour from Jeremy Corbyn's leadership election victory. The pay-off line is a Journal in-joke, but I am happy to explain it anyone who wants to know.

 http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/news-opinion/maybe-labours-ids-moment-maybe-10085396

Opposition parties pay bitter price for 2010 mistakes

Labour hobbled itself in Thursday's election by choosing the wrong brother as leader in 2010, while the Liberal Democrats lost their political identity by joining the coalition. Here's my election round-up which will appear in today's edition of The Journal.

---

SO we all got it wrong.  All the speculation about hung Parliaments, deals with the Scottish National Party, questions of what would constitute a ‘legitimate’ minority government – in the end, it all proved to be so much hot air.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats are not the only political institutions that will need to take a long, hard look at themselves after the biggest general election upset since 1992.   So will the opinion polling industry.

Its continued insistence that the two main parties were running neck and neck, and that we were duly headed for a hung Parliament, ended up framing the main debate around which the campaign revolved in its latter stages.

Had the polls showed the Tories with a six-point lead, the debate would not have been about whether Ed Miliband would do a deal with Nicola Sturgeon, but about whether the NHS would survive another five years of David Cameron.

There were many reasons why, to my mind, the Conservatives did not deserve to be re-elected, not least the divisive way in which they fought the campaign.

By relying on fear of the Scottish Nationalists to deliver victory in England and thereby setting the two nations against eachother, Mr Cameron has brought the union he professes to love to near-breaking point.

Preventing this now deeply divided country from flying apart is going to require a markedly different and more inclusive style of politics in Mr Cameron’s second term, in which devolution and possibly also electoral reform will be key.

Thankfully the Prime Minister appears to recognise this, although one is perhaps entitled to a certain degree of scepticism over his sudden rediscovery of “One Nation Conservatism” yesterday morning.

But what of the opposition parties?  Well, it is fair to say that both suffered more from mistakes made not during this election campaign but in the aftermath of the last one.

Make no mistake, this was an eminently winnable election for Labour, but it would have been a great deal more winnable had the party chosen the former South Shields MP David Miliband as its leader in 2010 ahead of his younger brother.

That said, Ed fought a much better campaign than many anticipated and stood up well in the face of some disgraceful and frankly juvenile attacks by certain sections of the national media.

What may have swung the undecideds against him in the end was his apparent state of denial about the last Labour government’s spending record, while I shouldn’t think the tombstone helped much either.

Of course - Stockton South aside - Labour continued to perform well in the North East on Thursday, and the party also had a reasonably good night in London.

It was the East and West Midlands that proved particularly allergic to Mr Miliband’s party, and it is here that whoever emerges from the forthcoming leadership contest will need to concentrate their energies with 2020 in mind.

Mr Miliband has facilitated that contest by swiftly falling on his sword, and with deputy leader Harriet Harman also set to stand down, the party will now be able to choose a new team to take it forward.

After such a shattering defeat there will doubtless be calls for a completely fresh start, and new names such as Liz Kendall, Dan Jarvis and Stella Creasy will come into the frame alongside some of the more usual suspects.

As for the Liberal Democrats, well, the Tories’ cannibalisation of their erstwhile coalition partners seems to prove once and for all that Nick Clegg made a catastrophic misjudgement in taking them into government in 2010 – as some of us warned him at the time.

He has also been rightly punished by the electorate for what many saw as an appalling breach of trust over university tuition fees.

The upshot is that a party which achieved a fifth of the national vote under Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy has not just lost nearly all its MPs, more seriously it has lost its identity.

The laws of political dynamics will ensure Labour eventually bounces back from this defeat, just as it did in 1964 and 1997.  For the Lib Dems, though, the future is much more uncertain.

Five reasons why I'm backing a Lab/Lib coalition

Yesterday I outlined why I don't think the current Tory-Lib Dem coalition deserves to be re-elected.  Here's why I hope a Lab-Lib coalition will emerge in its place.

1.  Labour has fought the most positive campaign. Call me old-fashioned if you like, but I still believe that politics should be about sharing a vision of a better world rather than promising to protect us from nightmares - the politics of hope versus the politics of fear. While the Tories have relied on negative campaigning and the tired old tactic of better-the-devil-you-know, Labour has set out a positive case for change, outlining how they would change this country for the better. Even if you don't agree with all the details, this is the right way to do politics and it deserves to succeed.

2.  Ed Miliband has exceeded expectations and has demonstrated that he is ready to be Prime Minister. Despite being subjected to the most disgraceful and frankly juvenile abuse from certain elements of the national press, the Labour leader has held up well under pressure.  As someone said on Twitter today: "I’m sure Cameron eats a bacon sandwich really well. But he’s overseen a million people visiting food banks. I know which matters more."  Ed M may never have that easy rapport with the public that Tony Blair had in his pomp, but in a contest with Cameron he wins hands down, simply because he is more in touch with the lives of ordinary voters.

3.  Labour is the only major party committed to repealing the 2012 Health and Social Care Act. I've heard it argued by health service professionals that the horse has already bolted on this, and that the unleashing of private sector forces into the NHS cannot now be undone.  Well, maybe, but it can be contained.  The Health and Social Care Act - that massive, top-down reorganisation the Tories promised us would never happpen - was a deceitful piece of legislation that set out a route-map towards a system of privatised health care that few people actually want.  It needs to go so we can rebuild our NHS according to the principles on which it was founded.

4.  Contrary to the received wisdom, Labour's policies are actually more business-friendly than those of the Tories. People who do not realise this are faling to see the elephant in the room, namely David Cameron's commitment to an in-out referendum on European Union membership in 2017.  The uncertainty created by this will wreck the so-called 'recovery' and prolong the economic pain for those households, businesses and regions who have yet to see its benefits.  On the question of the deficit, there is very little to choose between the two big parties and, since 2010, Labour has moved significantly in the direction of greater fiscal responsibility.

5.  In coalition with the Liberal Democrats, Ed Miliband would lead a social democratic rather than a socialist government.  Nick Clegg has been absolutely right in this campaign to position the Lib Dems as a moderating influence on left and right, maintaining his equidistance between the two big parties and appealing to the centre ground which is where British politics should continue to be anchored.  Many see Clegg as a Tory collaborator but to be fair, he has made it clear he will talk first to whichever party has the most seats.  For the other reasons set out above, I hope - and pray - that this will be Labour.

Five reasons why the Tories do not deserve to be re-elected

Despite having a very good local constituency MP in Pauline Latham, here's why I won't be voting for her party on Thursday.

1.  The Tories have fought a negative and uninspiring campaign characterised mainly by telling lies about Labour's tax plans, lies about Labour's 'relationship' with the Scottish National Party, and a complete lack of candour about their own plans to slash welfare benefits in the next Parliament. Apart from a brief period around their manifesto launch, when David Cameron brought his 'sunshine' agenda back out of cold storage, the party's campaign has focused almost exclusively on spreading fear rather than hope. Such an approach is unworthy of a major political party and does not deserve to succeed.

2.  David Cameron has failed to engage with the public at any level, turning the campaign into a series of carefully-managed photo-ops rather than the conversation with the voters it should have been. His disdainful treatment of the regional press - for instance keeping local journalists in a room while he toured a factory - has been well-documented on HoldtheFrontPage, but is symptomatic of a wider reluctance to engage, of which the scrapping of the morning press conferences and his refusal to debate Ed Miliband head to head are also part and parcel.  The British public deserve better than a Prime Minister who is seemingly afraid of the voters, afraid of legitimate questioning by the media and afraid of what an opponent he has repeatedly sought to denigrate as not up to the job might do him in a one-on-one encounter.

3.  The Tories cannot be trusted with the National Health Service. Having pledged not to introduce a top-down reorganisation of the NHS at the last election, they then passed the Health and Social Care Act 2012.  This provides a route-map towards a nightmarish future in which the NHS ceases to exist as an organisational entity, with health care commissioned by GPs from a panoply of mainly private providers.  Once the profit-motive becomes embedded in our health service, it will be impossible to maintain it as free at the point of delivery.  Private providers have shareholders to please and profit margins to meet, and this will inevitably get passed on to patients.

4.  George Osborne's management of the economy has led to an uneven recovery which has widened the divide between the haves and the have nots and kept wage levels depressed while the cost of living has increased. The economic statictics may tell a positive story for the Conservatives, but the experiences of people at the sharp end tell another and small business people, public sector workers and anyone living north of Watford Gap have seen very little evidence of recovery at all. For all the Chancellor's talk about creating a 'Northern Powerhouse,' the economic divide between the North and South of the UK has grown over the past five years, with potentially baleful repercussions for the unity of the British state.

5.  The Tories' reckless promise of an in-out referendum on European Union membership in 2017 will create two years of uncertainty in the business community which will further paralyse already sluggish economic growth in the UK.  The Europe question was decisively settled by a previous generation in 1975 and millions of British jobs and livelihoods now depend on EU membership.  The issue does not need to be reopened now just so Mr Cameron can appease his recalcitrant backbenchers or seek to win back a disaffected, xenophobic minority who have temporarily deserted his party for Nigel Farage and UKIP

Tomorrow, I give my five reasons why I'm backing a Labour/Lib Dem coalition as the best election outcome.

The Mid Derbyshire Hustings 2015

Five years ago I produced this blog post about the election hustings for the new Mid-Derbyshire constituency organised by Churches Together in Duffield.

Churches Together has since renamed itself the Duffield Christian Council and last night I took myself along to the follow-up event at Ecclesbourne School in the village to see how this year's candidates measured up.

On the stage were Pauline Latham, defending the seat for the Conservatives after five years as its MP, and the four opponents hoping to wrest it from her.

They were Nicola Heaton for Labour, Hilary Jones for the Lib Dems, Martin Fitzpatrick for UKIP and Sue McFarlane for the Greens.

As was the case five years ago, the result is probably a foregone conclusion. Pauline is going to win and, having been a hard-working and reasonably effective constituency MP since 2010, there will be many who say it's no less than she deserves.

She has been particularly effective on local planning issues, helping to reduce the number of homes planned for green belt land in Belper and opposing similar plans in Allestree, and this came through in her response to the first question, which concerned farming and planning.

Nevertheless I think even Pauline would confess to having been outshone by the Green Party candidate, Sue McFarlane from Belper, who on this and other issues spoke with the genuine passion of someone who clearly cares deeply about her local area.

I scored each candidate from 1-5 on their answers to each of the eight question plus their closing statements, and Sue emerged as the overwhelming winner with 38 points out of a possible 45.

The other candidates each had their moments.  Nicola, the youngest of them by about 20 years, showed great maturity in dealing with a question about defence after Pauline had attempted to claim that the SNP would block Labour from renewing Trident.

Nicola, who is a councillor in Nottingham, neatly skewered that one by pointing out that, with both Labour and the Tories in favour of renewal, there was "no need to involve the SNP" in the decision at all.

UKIP's Martin Fitzpatrick came over as eminently sensible and thankfully did not try to blame everything on either the EU or foreign immigrants

The Sheffield businessman also got the biggest applause when the candidates were asked what Private Members' Bill they might introduce, arguing that spending on the NHS and Defence should be taken out of the annual spending round and instead determined by agreed, cross-party 20-year plans.

Hilary Jones, the former leader of Derby City Council, was the only candidate who openly described herself as a Christian and who spoke of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which will almost certainly have won her a few votes from an audience largely composed of churchgoers.

But in truth, with only one rather vague question devoted to "Christian values," there was little opportunity for the candidates to display their credentials on faith-related issues.

Disappointingly, there were no questions about any of the specific issues that have greatly vexed evangelical/charismatic Christians over the course of the last Parliament, and when members of the audience attempted to raise some of those issues from the floor, they were slapped down by the organisers.

I'm not sure why the Duffield Christian Council appeared to be so afraid of allowing a more interactive debate, given that the event was only advertised through local churches.  Were they expecting Rentamob to turn up, or something?

As the Christian Institute points out in its excellent election briefing this has been a perplexing election for many Christians, mainly as a result of the redefinition of marriage by the current coalition and the loss of trust in politicians that this engendered.

Says the Institute: "The redefinition of marriage is plainly contrary to the Bible. But it was also introduced in a deceitful way. The political leaders hid their true intentions at the last election: for example, none of the three main parties at Westminster included same-sex marriage in their manifesto in 2010.

"So there has been a huge breach of trust. In 2010 the political parties knowingly sold Christians a false prospectus. Christians are perplexed by all of this."

In an election in which many Christians have felt disenfranchised, it was odd that the Duffield Christian Council, of all organisations, seemed equally reluctant to allow them to have their say.

Does Labour want regional devolution - or a truly national health service?

Pains me to say it, but Osborne has played a blinder over the £6bn Greater Manchester health funding deal and in so doing posed a real political dilemma for Labour.

Here's this week's Journal column.

http://www.thejournal.co.uk/opinion/paul-linford-george-osborne-seems-8737333

The time for internal debates has passed, Alan

The forthcoming election is, first and foremost, about the future of the NHS and whether, under a majority Tory government, it will by 2020 have ceased to be a direct provider of healthcare altogether.  Which is why Alan Milburn should really have kept his mouth shut.

Here's this week's Journal column:

http://www.thejournal.co.uk/opinion/paul-linford-alan-milburn-should-8553467

Could 2015 be a year of two elections - and three PMs?

My preview of the political year 2015, first published in yesterday's Journal.
 

---

It is Thursday, December 31, 2015. The newly-elected Prime Minister sinks contentedly into an armchair at 10 Downing Street, pours himself a drink, and reflects on a tumultuous year in British politics.

Not since 1974 had there been two general elections in a single year. Not since 1852 had there been three Prime Ministers in one year.

Suddenly there is a knock on the door. “The Deputy Prime Minister is here to see you, Mr Johnson,” says the PM’s chief of staff.

“Ask her to wait in the drawing room,” the Prime Minister replies. “I’ll be along in just a moment.”

The Prime Minister had not, of course, expected to end the year in this exalted position. David Cameron and Ed Miliband had led their respective parties into the May general election and he himself had not even been on his own party’s front bench.

But the public had demonstrated its distinct lack of enthusiasm for both Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband by delivering a second successive hung Parliament. The Conservatives were, once again, the biggest single party.

But the parliamentary arithmetic was far more complex than the 2010 contest which had resulted in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition.

While the Lib Dems’ representation dropped from 57 to 29, with Nick Clegg’s Sheffield Hallam seat among the casualties, the Scottish Nationalists had won 22 MPs and Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party ten.

The result was stalemate. The SNP’s new leader at Westminster, Alex Salmond, was as good as his word and refused to make any accommodation with the Conservatives.

Meanwhile the Tory and Lib Dem parliamentary parties refused to make any accommodation with each other, such was their mutual loathing by this stage after five tense years of coalition.

Mr Farage’s ten seats, together with those of the Ulster Unionist parties, were enough to cobble together a bare parliamentary majority – but there were two conditions on which the Ukip leader absolutely refused to budge.

The first was that the referendum on British membership of the EU was to be brought forward to 2016. The second was the immediate resignation of David Cameron as Tory leader.

So it was that, after several days of high politics and low skulduggery, Theresa May was installed as Britain’s second female Prime Minister, in what was in part an attempt to forestall the inevitable leadership challenge by Boris Johnson, newly returned to the Commons.

But the government’s position was so precarious that everyone knew there would soon have to be a second election – with Labour also set to go into the contest under a new leader after Mr Miliband fell on his sword.

A summer of political turbulence followed, with Mrs May disappointing those admirers who had once seen her as Britain’s answer to Angela Merkel by appearing to be at the mercy of both Mr Farage and Mr Johnson.

The Tories seemed bent on self-destruction as party activists, angered at the apparent “coronation” of the new premier, demanded she submit to a leadership contest with the London Mayor.

By the time the election came, in the first week of November, it was clear that the public was fed up with multi-party government.

Mr Farage’s machinations over the summer months had brought accusations that the Ukip tail was well and truly wagging the Tory dog and the public mood appeared to have turned somewhat against the Ukip leader.

His cause was not helped by warnings from several major employers, including Nissan, that they would quit the UK if the 2016 referendum on EU membership resulted in a no-vote.

The election duly delivered the clear verdict which the previous two had failed to do, giving the new government a slim but comfortable working majority of 23.

All of which brings us back to 10 Downing Street and the arrival of the new Prime Minister’s deputy for a New Year’s Eve pow-wow with her boss.

“So, any regrets?” said Stella Creasy, herself newly-elected to the role occupied for the previous eight years by Harriet Harman, and now seen very much as Labour’s rising star.

“Well,” replied Alan Johnson, “I never wanted the job, of course, but when 150 of your MPs simultaneously post messages on Twitter saying you’re the only person who can save the party from another election defeat, what on earth can you do?”

“The best man won in the end, Prime Minister,” said his deputy reassuringly, and wished him a very Happy New Year.