Monthly Archives: September 2009

Clegg’s big chance: blown

In his speech to the Liberal Democrats’ conference yesterday, Nick Clegg declared his ambition of becoming Prime Minister.  This has provoked a certain amount of hilarity in certain parts of the blogosphere, in which I, for one, do not intend to join.  There can be no higher ambition for any politician, Lib Dem or otherwise, than to become the leader of his country’s government; and a politician without ambition is of no use to his electorate.  So I won’t criticise Nick Clegg for that.

However, Clegg’s speech was unlikely to advance his hoped-for progress toward the door of No 10.  Strangely, it directed much of its fire on the Conservatives, apparently oblivious of the fact that it is Labour who are in government; Gordon Brown was mentioned only four times. 

Clegg, in short, failed to focus on the right target: the discredited Labour party, whose disaffected voters the Lib Dems, as a party of the centre left, should be actively and determinedly courting.  By attacking the Tories instead, Clegg succeeded only in making himself look weak, defensive and lacking in confidence.

And, regrettably, the speech was altogether a rather lacklustre affair.  Where was the passion?  Where was the energy?  Where was the raw anger at what Labour have done to this country?  Where was the hunger to make things better?  If the Lib Dems consider themselves to be a progressive party, where was Clegg’s vision of progress?

If Nick Clegg really is ambitious for himself, his party and his country, he needs to do much better than this.   

For fifty minutes yesterday afternoon, he had his big chance, centre stage, to explain to the nation precisely how he proposes to realise his wholly laudable ambition. 

Sadly for him, he blew it.

Bush would have met Blair

Downing Street is denying that it is “frantic” over Barack Obama’s refusal to engage in bilateral talks with Gordon Brown at the UN summit in New York and is doggedly and unbelievably asserting that there has been no snub to the Prime Minister.

However, if there was any lingering doubt as to the damage that Brown’s inept handling of  the al-Megrahi affair has done to our relations with the United States, it is  now surely dispelled.

Can anyone believe that George Bush would have refused such a meeting with Tony Blair when both men were in power?

May Brown stand down?

I am delighted to find that Virgin trains are now equipped with wi-fi, meaning that I can browse the internet on my journey to London.

This enables me to read a fascinating piece by Joe Murphy of the Standard, who has had an interview with the perennial Brownophobe, Charles Clarke.  Clarke believes, unsurprisingly, that Labour should ditch the PM toute de suite, failing which it faces 10 to 15 years in the wilderness.  Murphy must have caught Clarke on one of his more cheerful days.

More interesting, however, is this report of Brown’s press conference in New York, where he is addressing the United Nations:

Challenged to give a “cast-iron guarantee” that he will be leader at the election, he responded: “The issue at the moment is that the Labour Party has to take this country through a very difficult time and I think we’ll be judged by results.”

Not terribly unequivocal, that.  Perhaps there may be some truth, after all, in rumours that he will stand down before polling day, pleading ill health.

Hart edges ahead

Andrew Davies’s declaration of support for Edwina Hart as candidate for the leadership of the Labour group in the Welsh Assembly considerably strengthens her position.  Mr Davies is a very senior member of the group and carries a considerable amount of political weight.

His description of her as “very decisive” and offering “very clear leadership” was clearly intended to distinguish her from the laid-back style of her most likely principal opponent, Carwyn Jones.

Mr Jones was for some time perceived as a shoo-in as successor to Rhodri Morgan when he finally retires – probably at the Labour party national conference next week.

However, Mrs Hart is a formidable opponent; she clearly has the backing of a number of Assembly members, as well as a strong following in the unions.  Unfortunately, however, she is somewhat unpopular with Labour MPs.

The leadership contest is likely to be  hard and closely fought.  At the moment, my money is (just) on Edwina Hart.

Scotland must surely see it’s all over

Pressure on Baroness Scotland has increased with the resignation of her PPS, Stephen Hesford.

Her performance on TV last night was stumbling and embarrassing.  She must surely now see that she has also lost the confidence of her colleagues.

I would be surprised if she survived 24 hours.

High praise from Mandelson

In blaming journalists for the confusion over the Government’s spending plans, Peter Mandelson also magnanimously absolved the Conservative party from any responsibility:

“I don’t blame the Conservatives. They are just propagandists.”

There will be a lot of happy faces in CCHQ this morning.  To be recognised as a propagandist by Peter Mandelson is probably the highest professional compliment that a spin doctor can be paid. 

Mandelson’s optical illusion

MandelsonPeter Mandelson has given an interview to the Economist in which he asserts that what was thought to be a U-turn by Gordon Brown over spending   is, in fact, nothing of the sort; it is simply a change of “optics”. 

The interview is a development of the theme launched by Mandelson in his Progress speech last week, in which he sought to present Labour as a party of “wise spenders, not big spenders”, who did not believe that you could solve problems “simply by throwing money at them”.

It had never been Labour’s plan, you see, to maintain spending at its former stratospheric levels; it was always intended that it would be reduced.  And that is what is happening now.

But what about Gordon’s  stance of “Tory cuts versus Labour investment”?  Hasn’t he abandoned that?  

Good heavens, no.  Allow Lord Mandelson to explain:

“[It is the Prime Minister’s] firm belief that we need to maintain investment and spending rather than adopt the cuts the Conservatives are advocating.

“But he is equally making clear – and did so before, during and since the budget – that we need to bring down the deficit.”

You may think that, actually, it’s not all that clear.  You may even think that those two statements look like mutually-contradictory hogwash.  But that is where the “optics” come in. 

Because Mandelson is referring not, as you may think, to devices for dispensing the copious slugs of the hard stuff that you will need before you can be persuaded to believe such monumental baloney, but rather to political prisms to enable you properly to perceive the elegance of Labour’s carefully crafted and wholly consistent economic masterplan.

Yes, concedes Mandelson, there has indeed been some confusion over Labour’s spending proposals.  But that is not the fault of Gordon Brown, but that of journalists, who are “not making the truthful distinction between what the Prime Minister is saying is necessary now and what he believes we should do over the medium term.”

So I hope that’s all absolutely clear to you now. 

But if it’s not, and you’re still confused, perhaps you should try polishing your optics.

Unhappy comparison

A person who equates employing an illegal immigrant with forgetting to pay the congestion charge really ought not to be Attorney General.

Can’t Gordon Brown see that?

Scrapping prison is bad news for North Wales

I am extremely concerned by today’s announcement that the Ministry of Justice will not proceed with its proposed plan to build a prison on the former Dynamex Friction site at Caernarfon.

The decision will be very badly received in North Wales, where there is general agreement that a new prison is desperately needed.  The statement by the responsible minister, Maria Eagle, throws little light on why the scheme was abandoned; it speaks vaguely of “potential issues with the site”, but it is hardly a surprise that the site is badly contaminated with asbestos, given that it was a brake linings factory for many years.  Indeed, the fact that the Ministry knew it was buying a problematic site was confirmed in an answer to a written question I tabled last February:

Mr. David Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what account he took of the cost of remediation of asbestos contamination on the Dynamex Friction site, Caernarfon, when selecting it as the preferred location for a new prison in Wales. [257824]

Mr. Hanson: The Ministry of Justice was aware that there would be remediation contamination costs in selecting the Dynamex site at Caernarfon and when such costs are fully quantified they will be taken into account in negotiations with the owner.

The question therefore must be: what caused the Ministry to change its mind?  Given the scale of the loss to the area, Ms Eagle has a duty to clarify the position as soon as possible.

Scotland’s position is untenable

Baroness Scotland is to be fined £5,000 for employing an individual who had no right to work in the UK.  The UK Border Agency has determined that she did not keep copies of documents prescribed to be kept by legislation that Lady Scotland herself helped pilot through Parliament.

Surely even Gordon Brown can now see that his Attorney General’s position is untenable.

Scotland can’t stay in office

The BBC News website reports that the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, is expected to be fined for employing an illegal immigrant; indeed, Guido has just reported that the UK Border Agency has already served her with a formal notice of potential liability.

However the BBC also tells us that, according to Downing Street sources,  Gordon Brown has not asked her to resign, despite this development.

If this is true, it would be another huge error of judgment on the part of the Prime Minister.  I have blogged previously about a constituent of mine who had to pay a fine of £5,000 for employing an illegal worker whose documents appeared entirely in order.  The fine has caused him huge difficulty and nearly resulted in the closure of his business.

My constituent would certainly be incensed if the Attorney General were to continue to enjoy the confidence of the Prime Minister and retain her office; there must be many more like him around the country.

Image problem for Clegg

Speaking of the Guardian poll, there is little that emerges from it to cheer the Liberal Democrats as their Bournemouth conference draws to a close.

Run the poll’s findings through Electoral Calculus and you will find that it predicts a net loss of 26 seats for the Lib Dems, including two in Wales.

Lib Dem election planners may consequently decide that it would be better for them to seek to benefit from the collapse in support for Labour, rather than try to shore up seats under attack from the Tories.

If they do, Mr Clegg will have to adopt a change in rhetoric; calling David Cameron a conman won’t help in vulnerable Labour seats such as Liverpool Wavertree, where, on BBC Breakfast this morning, one lady who was shown a picture of the Lib Dem leader thought he was Peter Mandelson.

Too late for Barry Sheerman

Today’s ICM poll for the Guardian will make generally bleak reading for the Labour party; however, the single indicator that will cause its strategists the most concern is that only 14 per cent of those polled believe that the party is telling the truth about the country’s financial position.

This is unsurprising, given the Prime Minister’s humiliating, cack-handed flip-flop over spending cuts and the revelation that whilst he was accusing the Tories of planning 10 per cent cuts across the board, he had already received advice from the Treasury that he would himself have to make similar cuts if his aim of halving the deficit by 2014 were to be achieved.  Loss of confidence on financial matters is, of course, usually fatal to a government.

The collapse in support for Labour must be attributed in large measure, though by no means wholly, to the personal ineptitude of the Prime Minister; indeed, whilst the party as a whole has a low favourability rating of 31 per cent, Brown’s personal rating is even lower, at 28 per cent.

With the spotlight on Labour at its conference next weekend, there will undoubtedly be further calls from some quarters to drop the pilot, even at this late stage; step forward, Barry Sheerman.

Given the electoral timetable, however, it is now probably too late.  Labour MPs who lacked the courage to dump the PM after the Euro elections will now undoubtedly be cursing their own indecisiveness.

Unkindest cuts

CleggOn Saturday, Nick Clegg told the Guardian that “bold and even ‘savage’ cuts in government spending will be necessary to bring the public deficit down after the next election”.

The word “savage” appears to have caused considerable alarm among senior Lib Dem figures; according to today’s Times:

They believe that the party’s rhetoric on public spending cuts should be closer to that of Labour, which is promising to cut “more kindly” than the Tories.

Asked by the Times whether he would use the word again, Clegg replied:

“I don’t have a timetable. The debate is changing very fast and I’m not resiling from a strategy where we are being very candid.”

Good to have that cleared up so unequivocally.

Not different enough

Speaking of the Lib Dems, Nick Clegg is apparently due to tell delegates at his party’s conference:

“If you want things to be different, really different, you have to choose different. That’s our message.”

Unfortunately, in Wales, that’s Plaid Cymru’s message, too.