Monthly Archives: January 2010

Falling to bits

A Labour colleague and I were walking together along a Commons corridor yesterday evening when we encountered a senior Labour Member whose name had figured prominently in the media commentary last week over the failed putsch.  He immediately began talking to my companion about the events of the Parliamentary Labour party meeting that had taken place earlier in the day, mentioning the Prime Minister in highly critical terms.

I offered to leave, to enable them to continue discussing their private grief, but the senior Member said, “No, don’t worry; everyone knows how we feel, anyway.”

Perhaps so, but to speak that way in the presence of an opposition MP indicates the extent to which the Labour party is falling to bits.

Separated at birth

Wales on Sunday’s Matt Withers notes that the new Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones, is taking a keen interest in the wintry conditions gripping the Principality and wonders whether Mr Jones has “mistaken himself” for chirpy  BBC Wales weatherman, Derek Brockway. 

It has to be said, in fairness, that it would not be an unreasonable mistake to make: 

Brockway

Jones

Something else to worry about

We must recognise that the former Labour General Secretary, Peter Watt, is bound to have an axe to grind against Gordon Brown, given his treatment at the time of the Donorgate scandal.

However, if only a quarter of the allegations about the Prime Minister’s private conduct made by Watt in the Mail this morning are correct, we all have cause to be very concerned indeed.

Gordon in la-la land

Alistair Darling has wasted no time in capitalising on Gordon Brown’s impotence in the wake of Wednesday’s attempted coup.

The Chancellor has briefed both the Times and the Guardian that Britain faces the “toughest spending cuts for 20 years” if Labour continues in office.

Darling – supported, no doubt, by Peter Mandelson – clearly recognises that the electorate won’t buy the Prime Minister’s line that “investment” can continue simultaneously with “halving the deficit”; indeed, the only individual who still appears to accept that fantasy is the PM himself. 

Such a very public disavowal by Darling of the Prime Minister’s stance would, as the Times observes, have been unthinkable a few weeks ago.  His new boldness simply serves to underscore the extent to which Brown is now, post-putsch, in thrall to the cabinet members who lent him their muted support earlier this week.

Labour’s big continuing problem, however, is the very fact that Brown is still there and it’s too late to get rid of him.  Expressions of new realism from Mandelson, Darling and others will be of no electoral advantage to a party whose leader – apparently now about to ask voters for a “full second term” – continues to inhabit a political la-la land. 

Miliband keeps his head down

David Miliband is under fire from all quarters of the Labour party over his conduct during and after the Hoon-Hewitt attempted coup.  “Serial bottler” is one of the milder insults hurled at him.

Certainly, Miliband kept well away from the spotlight until it became evident that the plot had probably failed and his lukewarm statements of support thereafter conspicuously failed to affirm any belief on his part that Gordon Brown is the right person to lead the party.

Miliband’s best opportunity to overthrow Brown was in the feverish summer of 2008 and there is no doubt that he funked it then.  This close to a general election, however, he is probably right to keep his head, so far as possible, below the parapet.  If he had joined the coup and succeeded Brown a matter of weeks before the poll, he would have reaped the wrath of the party if Labour lost.

As things stand, Miliband’s timidity will probably be forgotten in the post-election turmoil.  He still has everything to play for and is wise to keep his powder dry.

Labour’s lack of energy

The news that National Grid is rationing supplies of gas to factories – including the Vauxhall factory at Ellesmere Port – is alarming but, sadly, not unanticipated.  It is a symptom of this Government’s appalling neglect of the country’s energy infrastructure over the last thirteen years. 

Our national gas storage capacity is only 15 days, compared to 90 days in Germany, so, at a time of extreme demand, it is entirely predictable that stocks will be rationed.

One of the first priorities of the next Conservative Government must be to rebuild the resilience of our energy networks.  That won’t be done overnight, so when the lights go out, remember to blame Labour.

Et tu, Dougie?

Jack Straw has vehemently denied the assertion made by Nick Robinson in last night’s Ten o’Clock News that he was one of six cabinet ministers prepared to back Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt’s call for a ballot on a possible Labour leadership contest.  He has accused the BBC of “substandard journalism” and also claims that he has received an apology from Nick Robinson over the matter.  We wait to hear from Robinson if that is indeed true.

Most interesting was the inclusion in Robinson’s list of potential ship-jumpers of the International Development Secretary, Douglas Alexander.  Alexander is regarded as a Brown ultra-loyalist and was, indeed, anointed by Gordon in his leadership acceptance speech as co-ordinator of Labour’s general election campaign. 

If Alexander was indeed willing to ditch Gordon, it would undoubtedly be the cause of the most extreme consternation in the bowels of No. 10. 

Is Hain with Hoon?

Some 24 hours after the Hoon-Hewitt putsch, there is still, so far as I know, no word from Welsh Secretary Peter Hain as to whether he is still supporting Gordon Brown.

Peter is not usually so shy and retiring, so can any significance be read into his failure to make his position clear?

Will Gordon wield the cleaver?

Nick Robinson has just announced on the Ten o’Clock News that Jack Straw, Douglas Alexander, Bob Ainsworth, Jim Murphy and the feet-dragging Miliband major and Harriet Harman were all lined up to join the coup if Hoon and Hewitt’s letter had sparked the hoped-for rebellion.

Such an announcement on prime time TV will only increase the tensions already seething within the cabinet and make the Prime Minister look even weaker. 

Has Gordon the bottle to enact his own Night of Long Knives?  Somehow I doubt it.

Hoon and Hewitt’s helping hand

The first PMQs of the New Year were a more than averagely raucous affair.  The Prime Minister was on slightly better form than usual, although not so outstandingly sparkling as to merit the Labour cheers and cries of “More!” that greeted his characteristically clunky joke:

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman talks about love and marriage, when he is the person who cannot give a straight answer on the married couples allowance: he cannot say, “I do,” or “I don’t,” when it comes to the married couples allowance.

Certainly, by Gordon’s standards it was good, but Dorothy Parker it wasn’t.  Nevertheless, his backbenchers rolled around, seemingly helpless with laughter.  Labour-watchers from the Tory side of the chamber, however, could see that the hilarity was fairly obviously orchestrated by the whips, who were dotted strategically around the Government benches.  Indeed, the loudest cheers and most vigorous order paper-waving were concentrated around the PM’s enforcer-in-chief, Chris Evans lookalike Ian Austin, who sat smirking on the extreme right of the back benches.

Something was up, and before too long we knew what: the vibrating BlackBerries informed us that “Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt to make statement about Gordon Brown’s leadership after PMQs”.

It turned out that Hewitt and Hoon had written to the entire Parliamentary Labour party noting that it was “deeply divided over the question of the leadership” and urging a secret ballot on whether to hold a leadership contest.  The noise from the Labour benches was a whips’ exercise designed to bolster the PM at what must have been a more than anxious moment.

At the time of writing, all members of the cabinet appear to have come out in support of Brown, though David Miliband and Harriet Harman were somewhat tardy in pledging their fealty.  The repercussions of Hoon and Hewitt’s helpful intervention, however, will rumble on for some while yet; they have confirmed openly that the Labour party is divided and politicians know that people tend not to vote for divided parties.  That will unsettle Labour even more.

At the height of the ersatz Labour merriment, the Speaker felt obliged to rise to his feet and remonstrate that “we are not on the hustings now”.

Actually, he was quite wrong.  At least, so far as the Parliamentary Labour party was concerned.

Always look on the bright side

Gordon Brown has accused the Conservatives of wanting to create a “decade of pessimism”.

Which must be deeply distressing to someone blessed with such a naturally sunny personality.

Goodbye Noughties, hello Twenty-Ten

Now that the dreadful Noughties are over, there is much discussion as to how we should pronounce the years of the new decade (the “Teenies”?).  Is this the year Two Thousand and Ten or Twenty-Ten?

As I blogged yesterday, I take the view that it is the latter and will certainly be using it.  Not only in the interest of speed (it is certainly much less of a mouthful) but also because it is the way we have always done it.  The Noughties were an aberration, and it’s all to do with our propensity to pronounce the zeroes in years as “oh”.

For example, how do you pronounce the year 1909?  Is it “One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Nine”, “Nineteen Hundred and Nine” or “Nineteen-oh-Nine”?  I’d be prepared to lay good money it’s the third, because it’s the one that comes most naturally. 

Thus, the Battle of Blenheim was fought in Seventeen-oh-Four and Trafalgar in Eighteen-oh-Five; Asquith became Prime Minister in Nineteen-oh-Eight.  Name any year in the first decade of any century since the twelfth and I bet you stick an “oh” in it.  It’s so much easier to say.

So why were the Noughties different?  Well, probably because the word “twenty” doesn’t end in a consonant.  The “y” at its end functions as a vowel, and when two vowels clash, as would be the case if we said “Twenty-oh-Nine”, it would produce an unnatural, jerky effect, a bit like a glottal stop.  We try to avoid glottal stops, which is, of course, why we say “an orange” rather than “a orange”.

However, with the end of the Noughties and their intrusive ohs, we can now revert to our usual pattern of pronouncing years. 

So “Twenty-Ten” it will be, as far as I am concerned, and I expect that within a few months most people will have abandoned the long form of the date.  I may be wrong, but the acid test, as always, will be: what do the Radio 4 newsreaders say?

Labour’s face

2010 (and I think I WILL say “twenty-ten”, if only in the interests of speed) starts with a hard frost and some cheering news.

The Telegraph reports that Harriet Harman will be one of the principal “faces” of Labour’s general election campaign.  Harman, according to Labour strategists, “could prove important in reaching out to both women and middle England, two groups who are resistant to Gordon Brown”.

An interesting point of view.  In my experience, no politician on either side of the divide is more likely to make the denizens of middle England, middle Wales or middle anywhere else foam at the mouth than the exquisitely correct Ms Harperson.