Category Archives: Gordon Brown

The ghost of Gordon Brown

Nothing could underline more vividly the political irrelevance of Gordon Brown than this morning’s economic news.

Inflation has jumped from 1.9 per cent in November to 2.9 in December – the largest rise on record.  Mervyn King has warned that it may rise above 3 per cent, and that the patience of Britons will be “sorely tried”, with stagnant pay levels causing a real-terms decline in living standards.

Meanwhile, Fitch, the credit ratings agency, says that Government plans to halve the deficit in four years are too timid and that it is looking for more positive proposals to cut spending, failing which the UK’s triple-A credit rating will be threatened.

Peter Mandelson understands that there must be deep cuts in expenditure: he has warned that Britain and Europe face a period of “rapid relative economic decline” if governments fail to reduce spending.

Alistair Darling realises that, too: he is to propose spending reductions of around 17 per cent in areas outside health, policing and international aid.

And all the while, Downing Street is haunted by the poor, deluded ghost of a Prime Minister, still gibbering distractedly about “Labour investment” while the real world gets on with real life.

Brown deserted

PMQs today, and an increasingly hunted-looking Gordon Brown resorted to making unpleasantly critical comments about David Cameron’s personal appearance.  This may possibly be the highest-risk strategy yet employed by the PM, who is himself – how can I put it charitably? – a few divisions below  the Cary Grant league.

The most entertaining moment came when the Conservative Member for Westbury, Andrew Murrison, asked a short question that tested the Prime Minister’s geopolitical knowledge to destruction:

Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con): What is the Prime Minister’s attitude to the current situation in the western Sahara?

Brown looked startled and completely baffled; that one had come well out of left field.  Western Sahara?  He knew there was a lot of sand there, and probably a few camels, but further than that…

Uncertainly, and to goading cries of “Answer!” he rose to his feet.  There was no hope of making a dash for it, so he stammered:

The Prime Minister: I am thinking of all the issues that the hon. Gentleman wishes me to talk about in relation to the western Sahara. (Come on, give me a break; it’s been a dreadful week.)

The one thing that I have been worried about is the growth of ethnic violence in these areas. The one thing that we have tried to do is increase—indeed, double—our aid to these areas, and the one thing that we have been worried about is the growth of terrorist groups in these areas. (That’s actually three things, but at least I’ve remembered it’s a dodgy area of the world and that there may have been a spot of bother there.)

That is why we are taking the action that is necessary to dissuade people from terrorism. (On balance, as I’m sure you’ll agree, a better policy than encouraging them.)

I have had numerous conversations with leaders in these areas. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to direct me to a specific point, I will take it up. (Do you think anyone noticed that I hadn’t the foggiest idea what I was talking about?)

Sorry, Gordon, but actually I think they did.

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.

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.

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.

Memo to Gordon: you really need Mandy

This morning’s Telegraph report that a rift has developed between the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson comes as little surprise.  It has been very obvious for some weeks that Mandelson deeply disapproves of the strategy of entrenchment that the Prime Minister, together with the likes of Ed Balls, Alan Johnson and Peter Hain have decided to pursue, and is showing his displeasure through his absence.

Indeed, little has been seen of Mandelson – who was virtually omnipresent in the media in the first half of this year – since the Labour party conference in September.  It was then that he urged delegates that the only way for the party to stand a chance of winning the general election was by welcoming and embracing change:

This will be a “change” election.  Either we offer it, or the British public will turn to others who say that they do.

Of course, we must celebrate our record and be proud of defending it.  We did fix the roof while the sun was shining…

But let us remember that you win elections on the future, not the past.

No doubt to Mandelson’s dismay, however, Brown has apparently decided that the future is the past.  The PM and his allies have pursued an extraordinarily crude, class-based campaign that appears rooted in the mid-1970s.  Peter Hain’s speech to the Welsh Grand Committee last week was a prime example of this unsubtle approach, which must be utter anathema to the urbane, calculating Mandelson.

The Telegraph tells us that Mandelson is now rarely seen in the No. 10 war room, having seemingly become “disengaged”.

If that is indeed the case, it can only be to the Prime Minister’s detriment.  He should remember that it was Mandelson’s recall to the colours that saved his bacon after his dreadful summer of 2008, when it was only David Miliband’s cold feet that prevented his being ousted.

This close to a general election, Brown needs Mandelson badly.  He should make his peace with the First Secretary without delay.

International dominoes

The news yesterday that the state-controlled Dubai World Corporation may be unable to meet its interest commitments has had enormous repercussions.  The FTSE sustained its biggest one day fall for over eight months and billions were wiped off the values of HSBC and Standard Chartered, the two British banks with the greatest exposure to the Gulf state.

Yesterday’s events followed unnervingly hard on the heels of the warning earlier this week by the IMF’s managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, that half of banks’ toxic assets remain to be revealed.  The Dubai episode raises the spectre of entire states, rather than corporations, defaulting:  already, investors in countries such as Greece, Russia and Mexico are seeing the cost of insurance against default rocketing.

All this has severe implications for the United Kingdom. Last month, there were concerns that the credit ratings agency, Moody’s, was considering downgrading the UK’s triple-A status.  The Dubai experience may cause those concerns to reappear.   Ken Clarke referred to the consequences in his wind-up yesterday:

Foreigners will eventually have to finance the debt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster explained clearly, with the level of debt being run up by other developed countries, we have to persuade people to have confidence in this country to buy sterling-denominated assets and to finance our debt at an affordable price. Several Members warned about the rising level of debt interest as part of the public debt. Of course, as interest rates are brought back to a more normal level, if we are driven to higher interest rates because we have to sell our gilts and have to get somebody to accept the risk of financing our debt, we will find our economy slowed down by rising interest rates and the cost of servicing the debt will go up, perhaps leading us into a debt trap.

The problem is that, because of the imminence of the general election, the Government – or, to be more precise, Gordon Brown himself  – remains reluctant to admit the full scale of the appalling economic difficulties that the country faces; it maintains the palpably ludicrous fiction that Britain’s structural deficit can be brought under control simply by legislating it away.  Its stance is reactive, rather than proactive, and increasingly divorced from reality.

And that is a stance that will cause huge dangers for this country at a time when whole nations, rather than corporations, start to fall like dominoes.

Adieu, Mandy

Paul Waugh reports that Lord Mandelson is being put forward for the role of EU high representative, now that David Miliband appears to have ruled himself out.  Le Monde has apparently reported that Mandelson himself has “discreetly sounded out” President Sarkozy for the job.

If this is indeed the case, it could hardly be worse news for Gordon Brown.  Not only is Mandelson effectively running the show at No 10, from whence his departure would leave the Government rudderless, but his return to Europe would send out a flashing neon signal that the First Secretary considers the PM a busted flush.

Gordon: you’re fired

Sir Alan – oops, Lord – Sugar, is rapidly becoming a godsend to bloggers across Britain.

He is in the papers again today, having accused women of being more likely than men to discriminate against other women on grounds of gender.  He has also suggested that he would be unlikely to employ a pregnant woman (“Why would anyone give anybody a job knowing … unless it was a temporary job?”), although he later went on to say that “he could imagine why he might want to give a full-time job to a woman expecting a baby”.

Even more interestingly, Lord Sugar has hinted that he might step down as the Prime Minister’s “enterprise champion”:

“Too much negative stuff is really unhelpful. I may decide that this is simply not worth it, when you are giving your time free of charge for no agenda,” he said.

“No agenda”?  So Sir Alan hasn’t got a job description then?

Not surprising, really, I suppose.  His appointment was made in the frenetic couple of days in June after the Euro election trouncing and James Purnell’s resignation, when it appeared that Gordon’s days at Downing Street were numbered.

Sugar was appointed to give the impression that the PM had absolutely not run out of ideas, but, on the contrary, was positively fizzing with them.  Putting the irascible star of The Apprentice in charge of looking after the interests of business seemed a good, eye-catching, idea at the time.

Unfortunately, however, Gordon hadn’t a clue what he wanted Lord Sugar to do and Sugar himself is looking increasingly unhappy in the role.

If Sugar does decide to walk, I won’t blame him.  He is famous for firing potential apprentices; perhaps now is the time for him to fire his boss.