Saying sorry is not enough. Action is required

The Telegraph has a had a field day, even though some of their revelations on MPs expenses will be prove inaccurate.  The damage to politicians of all parties has been done.  The point is, what happens now.

It is all very well Cameron going on television (his intervention must have be planned for days) and saying sorry.  What is now required is action.  My guess is that events will now move rather quickly.

As I have mentioned, the party leaders need to get together and this should happen today.  There is no point one party leader trying to out do the other, although Brown will try.  The second homes issue has not been resolved and must be dealt with urgently.  The party leaders should agree to an interim solution ahead of the Standards Committee report.  This should be transparent and monitored independently.

One matter is already clear and requires little debate.  Any MP who has made any capital gain out of a second home paid for by the taxpayer should be required to repay the full amount.  Indeed, MPs should do this on voluntary basis and this should start immediately.  The parliamentary regulations on CGT should be revoked retrospectively and any tax avoided should also be repaid.

All politicians are damaged.  Parliament is damaged.  As Churchill famously put it, “Action this day”.  Nothing else will do.

Make-up if you want to

 

Before we get onto the serious stuff of the day, The Sun has published details of make-up tips used by our ridiculed leader.  They were left in a taxi by a careless aid:

A white A4 sheet listed Mr Brown’s make-up routine if he has to do it himself. It read:

1. Transparent Brush. Foam all over. This is believed to be an illuminating foam to give the PM’s face that certain glow.

2. Small pot under eyes, dimple, creases, blend in. This refers to the use of concealer to smooth out facial bumps and blemishes.

3. Clinique. Super balanced make-up. All over again, like painting a wall, and ears. Shut eyes over lids then with make-up pad smooth over liquid. This tells the PM to trowel foundation over his whole face.

4. Powder (dark brush) terracotta Guerlain, all over. Slap on fake tan bronzer.

All this is gobbledegook to me.  An insider explains:

It’s an idiot’s guide to applying heavy make-up.

That's reassuring.

Reshuffle if you want to

If you seek, you shall find.  The Sunday Mirror believes it has details of Brown's forthcoming ‘nuclear’ reshuffle.  Who’s going where need not bother us, except for these two gentleman.  Mandy may be moved to his ‘dream job’ of Foreign Secretary.  If he is, then it far easier for Brown to dump the part sell-off of the Royal Mail.  Also keep an eye on whether Alan Johnson resists a move.  This will be key to any leadership ambitions he has in mind.

It is the dates that are important:

Mr Brown will carry out the cull within 48 hours of local and European elections on June 4, when Labour fears the party will perform badly.

This implies that Brown will reshuffle on either Friday 5th, the day the local election votes are counted or Monday 8th, the day after the European votes are known.  My guess is that Brown will go for the Friday and leak some of the moves overnight on the Thursday for obvious reasons.

The reshuffle itself may not matter much.  How it is rolled out will.  Friday will be the day that the rumour mill will be in full swing on Brown’s leadership.

If you can tear yourself away from the expenses revelations, the rumours on the reshuffle should enlighten us to what is going to happen to our much ridiculed leader.

Watch this space.

Hello, hello, hello. What do we have here

Yesterday we had this, , “The Westminster chatter is that Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper are likely to feature BIG TIME in The Sunday Telegraph”.  Today nothing on the Balls family finances, but this in a Telegraph leader:

There are those MPs who, despite their good intentions, have none the less fallen victim to an overly complex expenses system that has served to portray their actions in an unflattering light. For example, the receipts submitted by Gordon Brown for the cost of a cleaner, shared with his brother Andrew, fall into such a category. There has never been any suggestion of any impropriety on the part of the Prime Minister or his brother.

Well what do they mean by that?  With a few of the Telegraph’s victims threatening legal action, they appear to be pulling back from some of the implications of wrongdoing.  Surely, the Prime Minister of all people understands the ‘overly complex expenses system’.  Obviously not.  One can only imagine the type of discussions that are going on behind the scenes.

After three days, I still fail to understand the Telegraph’s motives for wanting to get all the lurid details out there.  To date, the details have yet to emerge of any senior Tory MP.  No doubt they will, but they will hardly have the same impact as the revelations already exposed.

Last Friday I asked, Why now?  Have the Telegraph’s motives for exposing the details of MPs’ expenses been that honourable?  Remember the mess they made of McBridegate?  Perhaps their true purpose is to make amends for the not-so-clever-role they played in that particular saga.

PS. Andrew Rawnsley has the best piece I have read on the expenses racket to date:

The MP who claimed for horse manure? Well, why not when so many other parliamentarians ­simply don't give a shit.

Indeed.

No comfort for Brown

Read the polls here if you wish.  I doubt that they mean much on this particular weekend, especially as some of the field work was carried out before the expenses revelations.  However, it is worth noting that the BPIX poll shows Labour dropping to 23%, below the level of it’s core vote.

If that was not bad enough for Brown, the interview with Peter Watt, Labour’s former general secretary, will bring  little cheer to Downing Street:

Publicly, Gordon talks about values and his moral compass, but actually the way he conducts himself behind the scenes is anything but that - it’s brutal.

No matter what anyone says, the election had been called and was then cancelled. We had been working on it for weeks. We spent £1.2m in immediate preparations.

Finally, Cameron is raising the stakes over the part sell-off the Royal Mail, saying he may not support any watered down proposals.  Furthermore, Cameron is hinting that if the Government's plans fall he may call for a vote of no confidence:

Yes, as long as the Government doesn't do something crazy and change its mind and do a U-turn. We support part-privatisation of the Post Office... So as long as they don't do something crazy and suddenly change their plans, and as long as they answer reasonable questions about the structures of what they are putting in place, and as long as they are reasonable about how much time the House of Commons has to debate and discuss this.

You are not going to bring the Government down over this. You are going to bring the Government down if there's an issue of confidence.

Cameron knows that Brown will have to compromise over the Royal Mail or drop the plans, so what he says makes Brown look weak.  Calling for a vote of no confidence just emphasises Brown’s lack of authority.  It may make for good parliamentary theatre, but it is meaningless and Cameron knows this.

Putting the expenses revelations aside and how they may influence the polls, the key event is still the June elections.  If the actual results show that Labour’s core vote has been eroded and they finish behind the Tories and the LibDems, Brown’s days will be numbered.  It is worth remembering, as I mentioned below, that Alan Johnson has not been tarnished by the expenses scandal.

Alastair Campbell should be listened to

Alastair Campbell offers some sound advice to the party leaders on his blog, suggesting that in hindsight they should have met when Cameron first suggest this:

Had they been able to agree upon a series of principles to govern MPs' remuneration and expenses, then left the rest to detailed negotiation and consideration by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, politics might have had a route map to a better place than where it is this morning.

Further on:

Of course the Telegraph is a right-wing paper and Labour is the party of government so it is inevitable they will focus as much as possible on those claims which concern Labour MPs, especially ministers. By the time the focus shifts to MPs from other parties, the noise may have abated a little, so in so far as muck sticks, it will stick mainly to Labour.

This raises a number of points.  Is the advice that Campbell is reported to be giving Brown at present being listened to?  Furthermore, Labour is just going to have to swallow what the Telegraph is dishing up at present, no matter how much Mandy complains.

His suggestion that the party leaders should now meet should be taken up.  These drip-drip revelations on expenses are not allowing other important news to gain traction, such as the lead story in the Guardian.

When you get a Tweet like this, “The Westminster chatter is that Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper are likely to feature BIG TIME in The Sunday Telegraph”, you begin to wonder where this will all lead.

What is needed now is decisive cross-party leadership to resolve the matter once and for all.  It should have happened weeks ago before MPs got caught up in the inevitable whirlwind.

Yep, here is a way out of the mess

Drip-drip-drip.  Continue to read the revelations.  Meanwhile, Mathew Parris comes up with a viable solution:

I'd add £30,000 to their salaries (half of which would come straight back in tax) and abolish all their housing and living expenses. And I'd do it before the next election, having secured the tacit agreement of the Opposition not to make too much of it.

And do you know what? After the most almighty hoo-hah for about a week, MPs would still be paid less than many GPs and everyone would lose interest. And at a stroke we would have removed what will otherwise remain a bottomless pit of ammunition for the cheaper-minded sort of MP, for feral parliamentary candidates, for hungry journalists - and for anybody else with an itch to denigrate the honourable profession that, despite this week, politics in Britain still is. Call him what else you like, but does anybody really, really think that Gordon Brown is a crook?

If MPs have any sense they will should back this solution, or similar, and adopt it now.  Parris is right, everybody would then lose interest.  Moreover, we could all move on.

Expenses revelations: Will Brown now survive?

In case you missed it, England won a Test match today and four soldiers were killed in Afghanistan.  Anyway back to expenses.

The Telegraph concentrates again on Labour in further revelations on Saturday.  On doubt the story will dominate the news agenda over the weekend.  Interestingly, Alan Johnson has come out of all this rather well.  Moving on.

Several points.  One, forgetting the YouTube fiasco, do these revelations vindicate Brown’s desire to sort the expense issue out and not wait for the Standards Committee to report?

Two, the public may well react in a negative way towards the main political parties in the forthcoming elections.  This could well drive votes to the minor parties, particularly the BNP, giving them seats in these peculiar circumstances.

Three, back to Brown.  The Telegraph’s revelations could well have an influence in helping Moses survive.  If (and it is a big if at the stage) some MPs are forced to resign, causing by-elections, it well deter a Cabinet revolt.  Furthermore, if the minor parties do well in June, Labour could well argue with some justification, that the expenses issue has distorted the results.

Expenses: Mandy has a point

Mandy has spoken about the expenses revelations:

When you see something like this in a paper like the Telegraph you can either react with sort of boiling anger at the attempt to smear or traduce half the cabinet and you should rail at what motivates a Tory supporting paper to mount an operation like this.

Let's wait and see whether the Conservatives, who this paper supports, [whether it] gives them quite the same prominence, quite the same space that today's paper has given to members of the Labour party's cabinet.

He makes a very valid point.  This not a partisan issue, it cuts across all parties.  The Telegraph will rightly be criticised if it doesn't give the same prominence to Tory MPs’ expenses.  When does the Telegraph intend to publish the next tranche?  It will hardly have the same impact on a Saturday, and if they hold off until next week the agenda could well have moved on.

If the Telegraph has published the expense details with political motives in mind, the repercussions could fairly serious.  Watch this space.

More on the Labour leadership

Steve Richards re-emerges in the Indy today to add his two pennyworth on Brown’s future:

On Brown’s confidence:

The degree to which he is in trouble is highlighted by the most trivial item on the list of recent calamities. After smiling absurdly on the You tube video I am told he is in a state now as to what to do in public appearances. Once he was accused of being too dour and instructed to lighten up. Now he will be worried about lightening up. To smile or not to smile? When that becomes a question of some significance the self-confidence of any public figure is bound to collapse.

This doesn't stand up:

He was a Labour Chancellor for 11 years and then achieved his ambition to become leader of his party, an extraordinary political feat. Most leaders in waiting do not become leaders. Most Labour Chancellors tend not to last for very long. Brown was a long serving Chancellor and a leader in waiting for more than a decade who then became a leader. A bumbling fool does not pull that one off.

Nor was Eden, who waited just as long and looked what happened to him.  Leaders in waiting do not make good prime ministers.

Now we move on to Alan Johnson:

I suspect the only way Labour would change its leader is a variation of the Conservatives' third attempt. If Brown were to resign this summer, it is possible Alan Johnson would get the job unopposed and told to get on with it.

A change of leader is unlikely partly because there has not been a single opinion poll suggesting that Labour's fortunes would improve with a new one, a big difference with the fall of Margaret Thatcher in 1990 when surveys revealed that a new leader would give the Tories a significant boost. Then Michael Heseltine and others were also desperate to become Prime Minister.

This is a significant point.  Thatcher went, not only due to her unpopularity, but also because of her policies.  With Brown it is different.  He has lost his authority, is not a credible prime minister and is ridiculed.

There is something else.  A theme is running through comment pieces of late giving the reasons why Brown will not be replaced.  Apart from John Rentoul, no one mentioned Alan Johnson until recently.  It will interesting to see when the commentators change their tune and start saying Brown should go.

Expenses revelations: Why now?

Read all about it everywhere.  Tweets galore.  One said, “Will try to monitor developments over the next hours”.  Fraser Nelson saying, “Blackberies (sic) are buzzing all over London”.  Oh, for God’s sake.

Well, I did read all about it and follow developments.  Then I asked myself, why now?  Why has a newspaper paid a great deal of money (a figure of £300,000 has been quoted) for information that will be in the public domain in a few weeks.

Benedict Brogan, assistant editor of the Daily Telegraph, said:

"What matters is that we've established that this information is reliable and it is certainly in the public interest that we publish it."

Is it in the public interest to publish now?  What has been gained by doing so?  Haven't we had enough revelations already to know that the system has been abused by MPs of all parties.

Then I read this level-headed piece in The Times, which asks the questions that come to mind of this blogger:

It is not unreasonable to ask a few searching questions about how this information came to be put in the public domain. How, exactly, did these receipts come to be published? Did money change hands? Why is it that, thus far, no senior Conservative has seen details of his claims spread across the public prints? But interesting and important as all these queries may be, none is as pressing is this: how is that we allowed this patently disreputable and abused system of allowances to go unchallenged for so long?

Spot on.  I am far from condoning what has been going on.  I just do not believe it is responsible journalism for these revelations to be published at this time.  To what end?

There far more important matters that should be in the headlines this morning.  Take this one:

Labour's record on poverty in tatters

More mobile phones and printers may have been smashed in Downing Street last night.  On this occasion can I fully understand why.

Enough said.

The lady that trusts Brown

Who would you rather share a flat with?

 

Gordon Brown has claimed over £6,000 for cleaning services over the course of two years.

James Purnell has claimed over £1,600 for a cleaner.

Who would you rather share a flat with?  Over the coming days each household in Britain will be asked to cast their vote.  It is understood that Joanna Lumley will then deliver the results to Downing Street with Phil Woolas holding her hand.

Please note. While this vote is being taken and the result is being collated all normal Government business will be suspended.

Lumley takes over

Only 24 hours have elapsed since Joanna heaped ironic praise on Brown.  Now this, following the rejection of appeals by five Gurkhas for residency:

They had just heard. They had just heard. There seems, if I may say so minister, a gap in communications.

As David Willetts has said:

Today is a very significant day, when Joanna Lumley took over the Government.

If the Cabinet don’t have the courage to get rid of Brown, then we will have to start placing bets that Joanna will do the job.  Certainly, the hapless Phil Woolas will be look for a career change fairly soon.

Tony doesn't love Gordon anymore

From Benedict Brogan:

Tony Blair has pulled the plug on Gordon Brown. That, we are told, is what lies behind the off-stage mutterings that predict the imminent demise of the Prime Minister. Labour's most successful leader has called time on the one vying to be the party's worst.

The notes being passed back from the first-class cabin where Mr Blair spends most of his time these days say the game is up. The Labour Party that won three landslide elections is in imminent peril of being wiped out for a generation.

Since when did Blair ever think much of Brown?  Not since Brown failed to stand against John Smith in 1992.  That’s when.

A plot exposed

So a plot is on.  First we have Matthew D’Ancona’s Coffee House post, then Alan Milburn’s piece in the Indy advising against the "policies of state intervention" and Dizzy exposing that "The 2020 Vision" website maybe about to be reborn.  All this neatly leads to D’Ancona’s article in the Spectator, which initially details what may happen in June:

Here is the plan: if the local and European elections on 4 June are terrible for Labour, a former Cabinet minister — probably Charles Clarke — will put himself forward as a candidate for the party leadership. Alan Milburn, Stephen Byers and others will urge their parliamentary colleagues to face realities; mayhem, naturally, will ensue.

Off course, Clarke has denied all this, as he would, even if D’Ancona doesn't believe him.  In truth, I doubt that it matters, the exposure of the plan means that it won’t fly.  More importantly, is Clarke the right candidate to put up as a stalking house.  I doubt it.

D’Ancona then moves on, and correctly points out that the only way to remove Brown will be by the Cabinet rebelling, but then has doubts that this will succeed.

And then:

His rise to the leadership by acclamation and his survival in the top job have excused the party the philosophical inquest it knows it must sooner or later conduct but which it would much rather postpone. A horrible fork in the road lies ahead. Labour knows it must decide eventually. But — for now — the slab-like obstacle of the Prime Minister stands between the party and the moment of decision.

For Brown keeps the really searching questions about Labour’s future identity at bay. And they are indeed huge and forbidding questions. Which is why, for all the sound and fury we can expect over the summer, the PM will still survive and fight the general election; and why, if Gordon did not exist, his party would have to invent him.

The philosophical debate can wait.  That is not going to happen until after the election no matter who is the leader.

D’Ancona’s piece is a persuasive analysis and he maybe correct in what he is saying.  However, by accepting his argument Labour keeps a discredited prime minster who has lost his authority and is ridiculed by the media and the public in office for another year.  At the end of that year, barring any unknown unknowns, Labour faces electoral disaster.

The plot will not happen, but a Cabinet revolt should.  The Labour party can swallow D’Ancona’s article if it wants, but by doing so it hands the election to Cameron on a plate.  Perhaps that is the whole point of the article?

Joanna Lumley is a clever girl

 

After meeting Brown, Joanna Lumley says:

The meeting was extremely positive. He is wholly supportive of the Gurkha cause. He is going to come up with a new solution by the end of this month.

I trust him, I rely on him, and I know that he has now taken this matter into his own hands and so today is a very good day.

One can only imagine the trouble that Lumley will cause if Brown doesn't come up proposals that satisfy her at the end of May.

Gordon, don’t mess with this clever girl.  She is on a mission.

Reshuffle fever

From the BBC’s Nick Robinson:

….there hasn't been a specific briefing about it and even if there was one, they tend not to make much difference.

Move along until he gets one.  Any reshuffle now will come across as panic and will get labelled, ‘The Night of Long Knifes Part II’.  If one was going to happen this side of June, it should have taken place soon after the budget.

What a load of Balls

Master Ed Balls on Sky:

He repeated he had known nothing of the smear emails which he found "vile and despicable" and said he had been the subject of smears himself, adding: "I would never get involved in that kind of politics"

It would seem that Ed has learnt much from his leader.

Source: PoliticsHome

Cameron should concentrate on Labour not Brown

Cameron delivered a strong message yesterday at the launch of the his party’s local election campaign:

It is your chance to tell Gordon Brown exactly what you think of him and his tired, incompetent and failing Government.

With every Conservative vote, the message will be simple: Enough is enough. You're the past.

With so many open goals in front of him, it would be easy for Cameron to deliver Brown a knock-out blow.  He would be better advised to concentrate on Labour rather than Brown, who is already discredited.

There needs to be a consistency in Cameron’s approach that will run through a possible change in the Labour leadership.  It would be a mistake to change tack once a new leader is in place.

A question of leadership

Relaunch Tuesday failed to take off.  Perhaps a Downing Street aide forgot to put fuel in the rocket.  Brown is becoming overwhelmed as his political authority drains away.

From our leader we had a ‘still to be thought through’ education plan to force councils to improve schools.  With that, the move to divert attention back onto the policy agenda stopped stone dead as the ridicule of Brown continued.

Fight back Tuesday witnessed a brainless Prescott, Joanna Lumley’s missing letters, a photo in front of swastikas, another YouTube video, and further signs that the Government will fail to get the part sell-off of the Royal Mail through the Commons.  Anything else?

Not only does Brown have little credibility and no authority (he can’t even sack a Cabinet minister that brakes ranks), but any respect for him as prime minister has vanished.  It is an abject failure of leadership that Labour has brought on itself.  Here is Simon Heffer:

A year before Mr Brown became Prime Minister, I was lucky enough to be invited by a Labour-supporting business for what is politely termed some corporate hospitality; and very fine it was too. My host took me aside early on and was unequivocal. Mr Brown could not be allowed to become leader of the Labour Party. His personal flaws were manifest. Aside from his character, his limited understanding of policy outside his own field of economics was a serious handicap. He had, moreover, surrounded himself with some truly unsavoury people. Were he to grab the levers of power, there could be only one result. Everyone knew this, except for his devout followers, whose own rampant personal ambition would blind them to it, even if they miraculously came near to seeing it. We were all in this together: the press had a duty to point out the problem, and to assist the righteous in the Labour movement to head this man off at the pass.

Hopi Sen should realise that Brown has failed.  He just does not have character for the top job.  There is little point rallying around a leader (even if he had the right policies and could get them into the statute book) who will preside over a disaster at the polls.  Labour must do what is right for the party and, dare I say this, for the country.

The point has been passed for concerns to be raised about having two unelected prime ministers in one parliament.  The Labour party rules are irreverent if Brown losses the confidence of Labour MPs.

The present situation cannot be allowed to continue.  The Labour party is doing a disservice to itself by arguing that they should persevere with Brown.

It will not be Balls

PoliticsHome have a poll of who would be the greatest threat to the Tories if Brown was to be replaced before the next election:

Our leader can’t even plan his own succession.  Balls didn't receive a single vote.  The betting markets now have Johnson at 4/1.

Mike Smithson says:

Brown is making a big effort to regain the media narrative and doesn’t look like someone who is preparing to pack it all in.

I then came across this:

And then we have Prescott doing his bit for Brown’s leadership credentials, saying:

He must have the worst ------ smile in the world.

Enough said.

The strange goings on over the Royal Mail sell-off

In the space of less than 24 hours the part sell-off of the Royal Mail has gone through several hoops.  The Sunday Times reported that the vote in the Commons would be delayed.  This morning, the Guardian reports that a deal is being cooked up to turn the Royal Mail into a not-for-profit company in the hope of averting another Labour rebellion.  Within hours, this is quashed by Downing Street and subsequently on the Today programme by the minister responsible, Pat McFaddon.

The original plans, and let this not be forgotten, are Mandy's pet project and have a guaranteed passage though the Commons with Tory support.

Has Brown been rather too clever by half in attempting to seek a compromise with the ‘not-for-profit’ idea in an attempt to buy off Labour MPs, but not squaring matters with Mandy at the same time?

What other explanation could there be for this alternative option being overruled at such breakneck speed?

Will it fall to Mandy to decide Brown’s future?

Yesterday, The Times reported:

Gordon Brown has turned to Lord Mandelson and Ed Balls, his oldest and closest political allies, to beef up his internal support operation after three weeks of Labour turmoil.

The Times has learnt that the Prime Minister asked the two men jointly last week to head a weekly strategy meeting in No 10 to plan the Government’s response to future events and act as an early warning system for him.

Today, Rachel Sylvester says:

It is said that Mr Brown has retreated to his comfort zone and is these days listening more to the left-leaning Ed Balls than to the new Labour Peter Mandelson.

As usual, Brown will only listen to what he wants to hear and that is more likely to become from Balls, rather than the far more astute Mandelson at the present time.

And then:

The one to watch is Peter Mandelson. By bringing his former enemy back into the Cabinet last year Mr Brown locked in the modernisers and ensured his own survival. But if the Business Secretary were to turn on the Prime Minister (either in private or in public) no one could be more deadly.

Spot on.  If Mandy moves against Brown, with the possible support of Alastair Campbell, who has dropped hints on his blog recently that he is not that happy, then Brown is surely finished.  However, Mandy’s suggestion could be that Brown calls for a leadership election as I discussed yesterday.

Moving on:

There are rumours that a Blairite could stand as a stalking horse candidate against Mr Brown after next month's local elections. One former Cabinet minister confirmed to me that this plan was being discussed.

It is one thing to discuss a stalking horse, for a candidate to stand is quite another.  The Labour party would to descend into chaos, far worse than has been displayed to date.  The only way for Brown to be replaced is for a unity candidate to come forward.  No other option is plausible at this stage of the electoral cycle.

With Mandy being in the Lords, he is perfectly positioned to manage the transition.

Tom Harris should worry about Brown

Tom Harris leaves no one in any doubt about his views on Thatcher.  He is entitled to his views and some of what he says is valid.  This made me laugh out loud:

The only reason the Conservatives won in 1992 was that they had had the very good sense to ditch a terminally unpopular leader who had lost her political instinct.

Well said Tom.  If the Tories could see that Thatcher would not deliver a 4th term, what precisely are Labour’s thoughts on Brown’s electoral prospects in 2009?  More to the point Tom, if you don’t think Brown can win an election, what are you and your pals going to do about it?

Isn't it marvellous to watch again

I am in heaven reliving the 1979 General Election on the BBC Parliament channel with David Dimbleby presenting for the first time.  It is truly wonderful to see the class act of David Butler, Robert McKenzie and Robin Day once again.  How they are missed.

I did not see the early hours of the programme.  I was at the historic count with a certain lady in a blue dress.  In those days we listened to the radio when we could to catch the latest news.  A poor substitute for television.  Election nights should be seen as well as heard.

Apart form the obvious historic moments from the night, there is one interview that I remember more than any other.  It takes place on the Friday morning after Shirley Williams losses her seat of Hitchin (I think).  She is interviewed by Robin Day.  The two of them were old friends.   Day guides an emotionally drained Williams through the interview by first positioning her in front of the camera live on air.  I thought it a touching moment.

Looking back to 1979, it should be remembered that when Thatcher came to power she was less popular than Callaghan, and there had been doubts about her within the Tory party.  If the election had been held in late 1978 she may not have won.  Thatcher come to power because of a failed Labour government, not because she had set out in detail her vision and policies for the country.  Perhaps that should be remembered today when some say that Cameron has yet to seal the deal with the electorate. 

Brown’s third way – Call for a leadership election

A pity that John Rentoul has not picked up on the suggestion that could solve Brown’s little local difficulty.  It is this.  Brown should call for a leadership election.

Assume that Brown will not resign or be forced out after 8th June. Therefore, he has to do something to bring the never ending leadership speculation to an end.  Brown could consider using the ‘John Major solution’* to bring matters to a head.

The scenario rolls out by Brown standing up (or goes on YouTube) and announcing that he will submit himself for re-election (or election in his unique circumstances) if another contender comes forward within, say, 48 hours.

Alan Johnson would not stand under these circumstances.  Also, it would be doubtful whether any other candidate would receive the necessary backing or put themselves forward to challenge Brown .  He therefore silences the critics and kills stone dead any further leadership speculation this side of the election.

Perhaps Brown’s ‘newly formed’ strategy team should consider this.

*In 1995 Major called a leadership election to silence his critics and it worked.

The end game: Harman’s “friends” speak out

Not wanting to be out manoeuvred by her Cabinet colleagues, Harriet Harman has let it be known through “friends” that:

….she will not stand aside in favour of a rival considered more appealing to voters. She believes she has as much chance as anyone of winning a leadership contest – particularly given her proven track record in party elections.

Is this the same “friend” who says:

She is totally focused on being a loyal deputy to Gordon.

Which is it Harriet?  Are you planning to stop a smooth transition or are you concentrating on your day job?

Alan Johnson: I am not saying there's no circumstances.

Alan Johnson was on Marr and said:

I am not saying there's no circumstances.

when asked if he would be drafted or would stand for the leadership.  The clip (1m 50 sec for the relevant bit) and report of what he said have appeared with unusual speed on the BBC web site for a Sunday morning.

Johnson has given a clear indication that he would consider being leader of the Labour party at the next election.  The only question now is will Brown go or will he be pushed.

PS.  One other matter.  It is doubtful that there is a co-ordinated Blairite strategy being rolled out to unseat Brown at present.  June is the time for this, not now.

John Rentoul changes his mind

Last week John Rentoul said Labour should leave the replacement of Brown to the last possible moment before the election.  He sighted ‘The Bob Hawke Scenario’ to make his point.  I gave my views as I disagree, but also because Rentoul and I had a debate on the same subject some weeks previously.

Having now spoken to Labour MPs and others, Rentoul changes his mind:

Since then I have spoken to Labour MPs and others who have prompted me to revise the timetable. Every week that the Labour Party puts off getting rid of Brown, said one activist, damages the party further. And when I suggested leaving the change until the last possible moment before a general election, an MP said that would be "cynical and horrible". I think they are right. If it can be done it should be done quickly.

And then:

I still think it is more likely that Brown will go towards the end of this year or early next year.

Then he wishes to see what the Labour rule books say.  John, you have already been there and suggested a solution.

Rentoul has been an astute observer of the Labour party over recent years, and was the first mainstream media commentator to pick up that Brown should be replaced and by whom.  Since the aftermath of the budget, I am surprised that is still having doubts about when Brown should be replaced.  All that has happened this week is that Brown has made matters worse for himself.

John, what is it to be?  Does Brown go in June or does Labour allow Brown to carry on until the new year?

One further matter you and other commentators may wish to consider.  If Brown does not stand down in June or if the Cabinet will not force him out, should he put himself up for a leadership election?

The end game: Further background noise

Apart from the Hazel Blears outburst, these lesser musings will hardly bring much comfort to the Brown bunker.

Denis MacShane writes in the Indy:

I have my views on Mr Brown, and when minister for Europe I knew what it was like to be briefed against. The venom against MPs as fiddling thieving crooks is awesome.

I am a secret fan of Sylvester Stallone and surely today's Prime Minister is Rocky. Battered, beaten, brooding, bruised to bits and at times unable to communicate with the public-school fluency of a Cameron or Clegg but still there bashing on and on and on.

Charles Clarke goes over the top and implies that Brown should sack Ed Balls:

Damian McBride was not a lone gun in the politics of 10 Downing Street. He was part of a poisonous team.

The matter won't be laid to rest until all links with Derek Draper and Charlie Whelan are severed and those Ministers who worked very closely with them are removed from their positions.

The maverick Kate Hoey says she would not be devastated if the Tories won:

A lot of the Labour spin is still 'elect a Tory government and you are electing a Thatcher government'. That isn't necessarily what the public are thinking.

Because the Conservatives have changed their image a bit we don't get that venom that used to come out of people when the word Tory was mentioned.

You're asking me 'would I be devastated?' No absolutely not. Even people who are voting Labour, that Thatcher (comparison) is no more meaningful to them than Tories talking about us and rubbish on the streets and not burying the dead.

Then there is this amusing story of Brown’s latest temper tantrum.

I know now what Mandy means by ‘a sunny weekend’.  Any guests spending the weekend with the Brown’s should make their excuses and leave.  A rather sour atmosphere will be overhanging the breakfast table, not to mention the broken mobile phones littering the floor.

The end game: A significant development

Brown’s authority has now been openly challenged by a Cabinet member.  Hazel Blears breaks cover with her analysis of Brown’s position:

YouTube if you want to.  But it is no substitute for knocking on doors or setting up stall in the town centre.

On the issue of the Gurkhas, she says the government put itself:

on the wrong side of the British sense of fair play, and no party can stay there for long without dire consequences.

and then:

All too often we announce new strategies, five-year plans, or launch new documents, often with colossal price tags attached, which are received by the public with incredulity at best and at worst hostility. Whatever the problems of the recession, the answer is not more government documents or big speeches.

Such is the panic gripping Downing Street, that Blears has since clarified her statement and given her 100% backing to to Brown. Too late.  The damage has been done.

We now have a Cabinet minister who is prepared to go on the record challenging Brown on his presentation and by implication policy.  Blears is defying convention by breaking collective Cabinet responsibly.

The situation for Labour is now becoming dangerous. Not only could Brown be hounded out of office in a very humiliating way, but the Government's ability to perform in a credible way must now be questioned.

The intervention by Hazel Blears is a very significant development.

 

Relax in a taxpayers funded sauna

We taxpayers should be proud how well we look after our MPs, even the ones with with skin conditions:

One Labour MP is said to have claimed the cost of building a sauna on his second home allowance, insisting that a skin condition made it necessary for him to have regular sessions at his home. The unnamed parliamentarian would have left taxpayers with a bill of thousands of pounds.

No wonder Brown panicked over MPs’ expenses.  No matter, it seems that help is on the way for our beleaguered elected representatives.  Some of the ‘important details’ are to be censored.

Royal Mail sell-off is kicked into touch

What a surprise!  The Sunday Times is reporting that the part sell-off of the Royal Mail is being called off.  Brown can’t afford any further back bench rebellions with his authority in tatters:

Following last week’s defeats over the Gurkhas and MPs’ expenses, allies of the prime minister said that the controversial scheme to sell off part of the postal service would be “kicked into the very long grass”.

Labour whips have told the prime minister that, with his authority badly damaged, a Commons defeat over the Royal Mail would be “inevitable” if he put it to the vote.

However, there are good commercial reasons for the sale to not to happen.

One other aspect of this panic driven U-turn is how this will go down with Mandy.  The sell-off has very much been his policy.  Mandy gave a very pedestrian performance on Today when he spoke about looking forward to ‘a sunny weekend’.  If Lord Peter turns against Brown, his days really are numbered.

A lesson for Labour: Why Thatcher had to go

Gushing tributes to Maggie you will find elsewhere on the 30th anniversary of her entering Downing Street, which, by the way, is on 4th not 3rd May.  I remain a fan.  She was my MP for many years.

Eighteen months from an election Thatcher was replaced, having lost touch with both the electorate over the poll tax and her MPs on Europe. An exceptional prime minister, who permanently changed the political weather, had become unelectable.

Having already deposed of election winner Blair, Labour should remember what happened to Thatcher and why, as they consider replacing their failed non-elected leader.

Did John Prescott really mean what he said?

Oh dear.  Relishing his return to the Today programme, John Prescott rather over did it with his criticisms of Charles Clarke:

and Charles, if you’re ashamed to stay in the party it’s obvious what you should do. I’m really staggered.

Having thought about this for a second longer than John Prescott, I am none too sure whether Brown would ideally want an MP to resign the party whip at the present time.

Hardly a wise thing for the former deputy prime minister to have said.

The end game: Alan Johnson speaks out

Alan Johnson, who has suddenly become the favourite unity candidate of the mainstream media to succeed Brown, has given an interview to The Times.  He offers cleverly worded praise of our dear leader:

He also doesn’t think that Mr Brown should give up either. “What Gordon has tried to do on members’ allowances is pick this issue up by the scruff of its neck.

“He’s done the right thing here, he’s doing the right thing in bringing the troops home from Basra, he’s doing the right thing in trying to ensure we get through this downturn. I’ve become a greater admirer of Gordon Brown the longer I spend looking at him in action close up and I’ve never been the secretary of the Brown fan club.”

Note the word ‘greater’ rather than great and his explicit statement that he has never been a Brown fan.

Then we move on to his own ambitions:

When Mr Johnson failed to be elected deputy leader, he said he had lost his ambition for the top job. Could he now be persuaded to be the saviour of his party in its hour of need?

“I’ve got to go and vote,” he replies.

Johnson could have answered by saying that the party should get behind Brown and all leadership speculation is just media tittle tattle.  He would have still made that vote!

Nothing here. Move on

Rumours, anonymous briefings and plots about the Labour leadership continue apace.  This one makes the lead story in the Daily Telegraph.  The much respected Lord Ashdown has given an interview.  The headline is very misleading, ‘Labour MPs plot Lib Dem defection due to doubts about Gordon Brown’.  Digging deep within the article you get to this which quotes Lord Ashdown:

What happens after the election if Labour loses? Very senior people in the Labour Party have told me there will be a heart and soul battle.

There are signs that certain constituency parties are growing really Left-wing. Senior Labour figures have said to me, 'If that happens, I’m off’

The article goes on to suggest that ‘tentative’ discussions have taken place with Labour MPs authorised by hero of the hour, Nick Clegg.

Just what is the point of a story like this, apart from the sensational headline.  Do these Labour MPs have majorities of more than 8000?  If they do not, defection to the LibDems will the last thing on their minds on the night Cameron is swept to power.

The diatribe finishes by hinting on where these ‘tentiative’ discussions have taken place:

There is a very big difference between sounding off on the terrace [of the Palace of Westminster] after a drink and actually leaving your party.

Exactly.  Move on.

The end game: Charles Clarke makes a move

Well that didn't take long.  On Day 1 of the end game, Charles Clarke launches his own thermal nuclear device at the Brown bunker:

There have been things that have been done recently that have made me feel ashamed to be a Labour MP.

I worked over my whole political life to get Labour into a position where it could be a good government.

I do see that fading away - we have to refocus on the steps we have to take. There's a lot around saying Gordon has to improve his performance.

The problem here is with Charles himself.  His missiles don't carry any detonators.  He has little support within the PLP, so I discount him as the stalking horse.

Bob Marshall-Andrews has also fired a few shots in the air.

The point is that tactical Brown no longer has any authority over his party.  Moreover, there are no senior figures jumping up and down in his defence.

Drawing a line in sand is going to be near impossible after this week.

The end game begins: Cabinet ministers break cover

Blame Brown’s advisors.  Blame the chief whip.  Blame anybody apart the man at the top they cry.  What rot.  Brown’s the man responsible for Labour’s horrendous week.

Whilst Mandy winds down for for his sunny weekend, Cabinet minsters have now broken ranks to give their penetrating analysis of Labour’s predicament.  Wonderful stuff that gets nowhere.

Never one to be left out, David Blunkett says Labour is heading for ‘civil war’.  I have some news.  It has already started.  He explains:

We cannot afford civil war.  Both those on the old Left and some of my old colleagues who are described as Blairites, must not look backwards. Those are in the past and we must make our own way. After the last couple of weeks, we need to regroup and have a vision. We cannot afford to wait until after the summer elections. The public are still not convinced by the Tories.

He motors on:

The Damian McBride emails, the public horror at some of the exposure of MPs' expenses claims and an erosion of confidence in politics generally, requires a line to be drawn and the restoration of the antennae. The old battles are over and the need for visionary action is self-evident. So talk of going back to the past is dangerous.

Along with Blunkett’s murmurings, and the noises off from members of the ‘I Can’t Stand Brown Society’ one could conclude that Labour’s leadership campaign has already started.  Alas no, it is just the end game of Brown’s premiership.

Perhaps Mandy will get his ‘sunny weekend’, as the 30th anniversary of Thatcher’s arrival in Downing street is celebrated here, there and everywhere.  Being a bank holiday weekend, maybe we will be in for some surprises.  After all, remember what happened during the Easter break.

Roll on 8th of June.  For Mandy's sake, I hope it is sunny.