Monthly Archives: June 2009

Labour’s fool’s gold

Gordon Brown’s nonsensical argument in yesterday’s Mirror has been comprehensively answered and demolished by George Osborne, writing in today’s Times.

Osborne acknowledges that a Conservative government will indeed make cuts, as will a Labour government, too, should the British electorate feel inclined to return one.

The argument, says Osborne is not between “cuts” and “investment”; it is between honesty and dishonesty:

We should have the confidence to tell the public the truth that Britain faces a debt crisis; that existing plans show that real spending will have to be cut, whoever is elected; and that the bills of rising unemployment and the huge interest costs of a soaring national debt mean that many government departments will face budget cuts. These are statements of fact and to deny them invites ridicule.

Osborne is of course entirely right.  Voters are sick of being treated as children.  They know that, whoever wins, the national belt will have to be tightened.  The Prime Minister deludes himself if he thinks that they will vote for a party that denies them the truth and promises them fool’s gold.

I strongly urge you to read Osborne’s article; it sets out very clearly the real dividing lines between the parties.

Voice of experience

I had thought that Denis Healey, notorious as the Chancellor who wanted to “tax the rich until the pips squeak”, had gained wisdom in his great old age.  Sadly, it would appear not. 

Appearing on Desert Island Discs, Healey is wholly unrepentant over his abject mishandling of the British economy in the 1970s:

He defended his role in going to the International Monetary Fund for assistance in 1976, dismissing suggestions it was a national humiliation as “absolute baloney”.

He added: “You join the IMF as an insurance policy. Drawing on insurance when you need it – there’s nothing wrong with that.”

Quite so; no humiliation whatever in having a crowd of foreign bankers march in, tell you that you haven’t a clue how to run your own economy and then proceed to do it for you.   And what’s the problem with having international confidence in sterling destroyed?   People can be so unreasonable.

He is also extraordinarily, not to say perversely, bullish about Labour’s electoral prospects:

“There are many problems the Labour Party has at the moment about winning the next election, but I don’t think what’s happening to the economy is one of them.

“After all, we are doing better than any other European country.”

It will be an interesting exercise for PhD dissertationists a century hence to discuss which Chancellor was the more inept: Healey or Gordon Brown. 

Not a lot in it, so far as I can see.

Brown reverts to type

Gordon-Brown-001If Gordon Brown truly did wish to “address his weaknesses”, as promised in his grovel last Monday to the PLP, he would have abandoned the spin that got him into such trouble last Easter and led to the auto da fé of Damian McBride.

Instead, he persists in treating the people as fools, writing (or, more probably, authorising) a ludicrous piece in today’s Mirror, in which he dubs David Cameron “Mr Ten Per Cent” and declares that “Cameron’s cuts will make the recession worse”.

Brown knows full well that it is Labour’s own budget projections that make spending cuts inevitable; furthermore, every respected commentator knows it, too.  Yet he persists in trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate.

Everyone knew that Brown would be bound, sooner or later, to revert to type.  But less than a week is really going it, even by his own abysmal standards.

Prescott the peacemaker

John Prescott

John Prescott’s blog post today on the Labour Go Fourth website purports to be a plea for unity within the party.

In fact, it serves only to:

(a)    highlight the divisions within Labour;

(b)    point the finger at those Prescott believes to be responsible for those divisions (Clarke, Reid, Milburn);

(c)    question the loyalty of David Miliband;

(d)   question the judgment of Peter Mandelson in giving his interview to the Telegraph this morning.

In other words, it has precisely the opposite effect to that apparently intended by Prescott.

Well done, John.

Northern exposure

Early start tomorrow:  flying to Tallinn, Estonia, to join the Welsh select committee on its inquiry into ports.  We will be visiting three countries – Estonia, Finland and Sweden – and returning on Thursday.

The weather in Scandinavia looks pretty foul – 55°F or thereabouts and lots of rain – so the crossing from Tallinn to Helsinki on Tuesday should be interesting.

I’m taking my laptop with me and will try to keep blogging during my absence.

Mandelson, bringer of jollity

mandelsonPeter Mandelson has given an interview to the Telegraph that will doubtless come as a huge morale boost to his titular boss, the Prime Minister.

In it, the First Secretary and Lord President  opines that Mr Brown will face further difficulties over his leadership in the autumn, around the time of the Labour party conference.  For what it’s worth, I think he’s probably right.

Mandelson also offers the PM some helpful advice on personal development, urging him to show more leadership, listen to advice and  try to adopt a sunnier outlook:

“I believe in leadership and in being decisive.

“Secondly, in listening to people and respecting official advice you receive.

“And thirdly, introducing a bit of humour and jollity to your work.

”You don’t have to be too grey or serious the whole time. You can do your work and enjoy it at the same time and include people along the way.”

Jollity?   Maybe that is the real Mandelson, but I can’t say that I’ve ever considered him a particularly jovial character.  I can’t recall too many instances when I’ve turned on Newsnight to find him facing Jeremy Paxman and thought to myself: “Ah, there’s good old Mandelson, God bless him; now we’re in for a bit of light relief.”

No, I can’t really say Lord Mandelson has done much over the years to contribute to the gaiety of our national life. 

Except for one recent occasion, but, out of due consideration for his feelings,  the less said about that the better.

The British way

Went to a fund-raising barbecue in Dwygyfylchi yesterday evening. 

The sun, which had flickered sporadically earlier on, had decided to call it a day and it was decidedly chilly.  There was a hint of drizzle, too.  The midges were biting.

Everybody sat around in fleeces and windcheaters, enjoying the burgers and sausages and having a wonderful time.

This is, beyond question, the finest country in the world.

Too crunchy for Carter

According to today’s Times, Lord Carter of Barnes will soon be leaving the Government, which he joined only last October, to make a “lucrative return to the private sector”.   The Times speculates that he may be appointed chief executive of ITV, in succession to Michael Grade.

Readers will recall that Carter was a recent witness before the Welsh select committee, when he impressed me with his articulacy and his mastery of management-speak, most particularly the memorable line: “This is where the question starts to get crunchy.”

Carter is the PR wizard who was drafted into Downing Street in January, 2008, to try to revive Gordon Brown’s flagging Prime Ministerial career, already in a serious tailspin only six months after its commencement.  Seemingly, the enormity of the task (or possibly opposition from within the Downing Street spin machine) defeated even Carter’s formidable communications skills; he was soon transferred to Lord Mandelson’s DBERR, where he was charged with producing the Digital Britain report, the final version of which is due to be published next Tuesday.

Carter was appointed a minister in Mandelson’s new mega-department, DBIS, only last week, so, if his departure from government is confirmed, it will come as something of a surprise.

On the other hand, perhaps it won’t.  Carter struck me as a bright, personable sort of chap, with a huge enthusiasm for his work.  Ten months in the No.10 bunker followed by another eight with Mandelson must have been almost terminally dispiriting.

Indeed, given how deeply traumatic and depressing the last eighteen months must have been, even the £1 million salary that the Times says he can expect at ITV seems pretty meagre compensation.

William the Conqueror

Brilliant speech by William Hague in this afternoon’s debate  on the motion for the dissolution of Parliament.  It sounded all the better after a particularly wooden and partisan speech from Peter Hain, to whom the lot had fallen to reply to the debate.

William, by contrast was devastating in his criticism of the Government, yet at the same time wonderfully funny.  This is a flavour of his speech:

The Lord Mandelson, denied the opportunity to become Foreign Secretary by the sad combination of a Prime Minister too weak to remove his Foreign Secretary and, equally, a Foreign Secretary too weak to challenge the Prime Minister, has gone around instead collecting titles and even whole Departments to add to his name. His title now adds up to, “The right hon. the Baron Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham, First Secretary of State, Lord President of the Privy Council and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills”. It would be no surprise to wake up in the morning and find that he had become an archbishop—[Laughter]. That is exactly what happened with Cardinal Wolsey.

We are left with a Government held together solely by fear. The Prime Minister is unable to remove Ministers in whom he has lost faith, for fear that they will quit altogether; Ministers are unwilling to challenge a Prime Minister in whom they have lost faith, for fear that they will no longer be Ministers; Labour Back Benchers are unwilling to remove a Prime Minister in whom they have certainly lost faith, for fear of having to have an election—and all of them are living in fear of one Minister with a very long title for whom, at the last election, no one in the country ever voted at all.

That is the situation. The Government are locked together in an embrace of mutual terror and diminished legitimacy, but their refusal to face the voters can no longer be defended. There comes a point when democratic renewal is indeed necessary, and the country knows and understands that that is now.

Well said, Cheryl

Also at Welsh Questions, Cheryl Gillan paid a very heartfelt tribute to the former Welsh Secretary, the sentiments of which, I am sure, were shared by Members on both sides of the House:

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): As this could be the last time that I am at the Dispatch Box under your auspices, Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to thank you for your courtesy towards me and my Front-Bench team and for your service to this House, and to wish you well?

In welcoming the return of the new Secretary of State, I also wish to express my admiration for his predecessor. I have enjoyed working with the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), a decent and straightforward man. We will miss his common sense and dedication to Wales. I wonder what sort of Prime Minister we have, who can so easily dispense with his services.

Hain to the rescue

HainWelsh Questions today, and the return of Peter Hain to the dispatch box as Secretary of State.

Nothing had changed; he was his old, combative self, abrasive almost to the point of rudeness.  Almost every answer contained a swipe at the Tories, with dire warnings of the “spending cuts” that will ensue if the wicked Tories are elected to power – a theme developed later by Gordon Brown at PMQs.  Clearly, this is the new, last-throw-of-the-dice, Labour strategy of despair.

The Daily Post carried an interesting interview with Hain a few days ago. In it, he was remarkably frank about the dog’s breakfast Labour have made of running the country:

“We haven’t been governing well for too long. The Gurkhas issue was symptomatic of that.

“I’m not going to blame an individual for that; it was the government as a whole.”

Awfully good of Peter not to point a finger at any particular colleague, but to say, rather, that all of them are incompetent.  But why stop at the Gurkhas?  There are raftloads of ways in which Labour have fouled up.  Readers may, for a bit of fun, care to suggest a few.

Anyway, Peter has decided things can’t go on this way; magnanimously and self-sacrificingly, he has decided to intervene and shake the whole dozy shower up:

“It was clearly a big mistake and we can’t afford to repeat it. That’s why I have come back to government.”

Well done, Peter; it’s so good to see a man putting country before self.  And I’ve no doubt that the country is duly, sincerely grateful. 

Last refuge

Gordon Brown, according to the BBC, is actively considering plans to reform the electoral process, replacing first past the post with the “fairer” alternative vote system.

Governments usually consider electoral reform when they are pretty sure that they are about to lose a general election. In political terms, voting reform is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I find it hard to see what could be fairer than an electoral system under which the person who gets the most votes actually wins.

Cue howls of outrage from hordes of affronted Lib Dems.

Business as usual

The ineptitude that has plagued the Prime Ministerial career of Gordon Brown manifested itself again today, less than 24 hours after he assured the Parliamentary Labour Party that he would henceforth “play to his strengths and address his weaknesses”.

Glenys Kinnock, who had been the surprise choice as Europe minister in the wake of Caroline Flint’s petulant resignation, was obliged to resign from the European Parliament over a month early because of a rule that precludes Euro MPs from sitting in another Parliament.  Her mandate as an MEP was not due to expire until 11 July.

Given the recent criticism over his performance, one might have thought that the Prime Minister would have sorted out the administrative intricacies of the new appointment before making his announcement; on the other hand, perhaps he simply didn’t have the time to do so, such was the rapidity of Ms Flint’s departure.

Failure of the will

Gordon-BrownThe hesitancy that has been the principal cause of Gordon Brown’s downfall has infected the rest of the Parliamentary Labour party.  At a meeting in the House today, they thumped the desks and gave a further reprieve to the man who has just presided over the greatest defeat in the party’s history.

Brown has apparently promised to “play to his strengths and address his weaknesses”; in other words, to become a wholly different person.  It is so pathetic as to be comic.

But this collective failure of the will on the part of the Labour party is, from the country’s perspective, deeply worrying.   This Prime Minister is finished; he is a shell of a man going through a simulation of government, but, in truth, not governing.  And all the while, the country suffers.

Yet Labour are prepared to give him another chance because, as Barry Sheerman indicated with astonishing frankness on Newsnight this evening, there is nothing better on offer.

The Labour party is now  in the throes of the greatest crisis it has ever known.   If it sticks with Brown, the crisis could prove terminal.

Helpful intervention

Frank Field has now weighed in and pronounced his own judgment on Gordon Brown’s leadership:

Labour cannot win with the present Prime Minister. I was one of the seven who would not support his coronation after Tony Blair was shoehorned out of Number 10. But even I didn’t think a Brown administration would be as inept as this one.

The Brownites are attempting to terrorise Labour MPs into inaction. If they succeed then we deserve our fate.

Frank Field is a hugely important figure, commanding respect across the political spectrum.  His intervention, just before the PLP meeting,  will displease Brown mightily.