Tuesday, 2 June 2009

Jacqui Jumps

Preferring not to wait until she's pushed, Smith has jumped from the Home Office cabinet post she so richly didn't deserve. Presumably she's decided to spend more time with her bath plugs and to tackle the thorny problem of weaning her husband off his porn habit.

What are the implications of this surprise resignation ahead of the Euro and local elections on Thursday? Well, the Spectator called it yesterday, with James Forsyth prophesying:
Whenever word gets out that a reshuffle is underway, the rumour mill goes into overdrive—no speculation it too outrageous or too thinly sourced to make the rounds. So there’s a danger that Ministers could think, wrongly, that they’re going to be dropped or demoted and decide to get their retaliation in first.
I'm not sure this is quite an example of that - she was an epically useless Home Sec and wanted to quit anyway - but given that Number 10 appears to have totally lost control of not only the news agenda (Queen's snub over D-Day, for instance) but also their own economic policy on the car industry (LDV re-enters administration), it is true to say that it is the first sign of that 'chaos' to which Forsyth referred.

The fact, for instance, that they have another dead man walking in Alistair Darling coming out on Sky this afternoon to try to explain why Smith had gone speaks volumes about how limited Brown's scope for change in any reshuffle now is. Better than half his cabinet, including his Chancellor, are tainted by the expenses scandal, with Geoff Hoon the latest double claimer forced to pay back the cash he nicked. He is also one of the Labour ministers who benefited so richly from the 2004 rule change on flipping that Brown denied all knowledge of in a bizarre exchange during an interview with Adam Boulton yesterday.

As Fraser Nelson says this afternoon, what Smith's departure really does emphasise is Brown's helplessness. He goes on:
This gives her a bit of dignity, and will frustrate Gordon Brown who would have liked to announce this himself. The reshuffle is one of the few weapons left in his arsenal - with Labour's poll rating now below room temperature, he is about to lead the party into what will doubtless be its worst-ever defeat. And he'll look more helpless now; given he can't control his own reshuffles in a timely way.
As it all begins finally to unravel only one question really remains: can Brown hang-on as leader? Now that he has lost what was, apparently, his only 'unique selling point', (however mythical) - his control over his party - I still maintain he will be knifed in the back, shown the door, quietly asked to leave: whatever the method of his removal, he will be removed. Why? Because there are strong signs that it is finally dawning on the Labour donkeys that there is one, consistent, unifying feature of this vortex of national tribulation and political chaos they (we!) are having to suffer - and he lives in Number 10.

Not for much longer.

Monday, 1 June 2009

Labourlost Finally Finds Its Voice

Daniel Finkelstein earlier today noted a startling article on the reborn (and now half decent thanks to Dolly's departure - shame it's too late for them) Labourlist blog. Entitled 'Gutless Brown', it spells out in no uncertain terms precisely where Brown has completely failed and where Cameron has partially succeeded in tackling the expenses scandal. It's a decent analysis not-least because it delivers a reasonably honest appraisal of the state of play (unlike the latest ultra-rogue Comres Indy poll - which stinks, frankly!).

Two things: Labour activists are going to need a hell of a lot more of this kind of clear thinking if they are to have any hope of avoiding a Party-busting total wipeout come the General Election (an election that will, I think, certainly happen this year). They also need to wake-up to the fact that Brown's weaknesses were well-known long ago in Labour Party circles and yet still they thought that foisting this man without a mandate on the British people was acceptable.

As a succession of hideous polls now unequivocally prove, those weaknesses have done what weaknesses always do when they are stress-tested: they become severe liabilities. Brown's is a destructive character. He is antagonistic towards and suspicious of all those around him, save a handful of tainted, equally blinkered acolytes. In his politics, this destructive character expresses itself in a strange mixture of sophistry, browbeating, defensiveness and morose withdrawal. It is hardly suited to public life; that such a personality has been permitted to become Prime Minister of all things provides ample reason for the parlous state of just about every institutional dimension of the UK's existence: the economy, parliament, the Civil Service, Downing Street, the banking system, civic society, the postal service, public service, the NHS, educational standards, family life and so on and so on. All have been catastrophically affected by the influence of one man: J.G. Brown.
...at every turn in recent weeks, and yes, throughout his doddering premiership, Gordon has shown a shocking and at times painful lack of political instinct, which would have allowed a niftier politician (Blair, anyone?) to not only strengthen his own position but also bring about the transformative energy that Brown alluded to in that conference speech.

Time and again, we the rank and file, have had to squirm as the Prime Minister’s political judgement has been exposed as sorely wanting; the election that never was, 10p tax, youtubegate and now his reaction to the expenses scandal.

No one of course suggests that the poisoned system is Gordon’s fault directly (Parliament itself must take the rap for this) but what we can blame our leader for his appallingly lacklustre political response. Just where exactly has he been? As was so often the case in the Blair years when the going got tough, Gordon retreats to his bunker licking his wounds. Surely any party leader with but the merest handful of political nous would have sensed the virtually apoplectic anger of the British people and responded quickly, positioning himself as the man of change he has for so long tried to convince the electorate he is.

Rather, after his rather unfortunate brush with internet video, Mr. Brown returned to the bunker, presumably hoping everything would just be okay. How can he, or those around him at the very least, not have realised that a political vacuum is never left unfilled? That if Brown failed to position himself as that agent of constitutional change then David Cameron certainly would; which is precisely what happened. The good people of Britain could barely turn on their TV screens or radios without seeing or hearing the Tory leader sounding like a veritable expenses Hulk Hogan; I personally lost count of the number of Conservative MPs on which planned to ‘come down on like a tonne of bricks’ by the end of the week.

The point is that Cameron took the decisive action quickly and efficiently, both on offending MPs and coming out with a plan to solve the mess. This is surely why the latest poll in the Times on Saturday reported that whilst a massive 62% of respondents thought the Prime Minister had been personally most damaged by the expenses scandal a mere 5% thought the same true of Cameron (Ed Balls, presumably).

All of this despite the fact it is Conservative MPs with the most egregious claims. Cameron had the political wherewithal to sense the public’s anger, come out fighting and position himself as the change maker, something that Brown just clearly had not the guts to do.
This is all very well, but where is the call for his immediate removal? Where is the honest, clear cry for reform of the Labour party, starting with the rotten leadership and half the PLP? Where is the appeal in this article that the final connection be made by Labour activists everywhere between the state Britain is in - or merely the state Labour is in within Britain if they can't bear that much honesty - and the man they allowed to play with it for so long, first as Chancellor then as PM? I'll tell you where: nowhere. This is the angry Labour blogger's conclusion:
His only chance now is to go all for it, lay out a clear comprehensive stall for wholesale constitutional reform, expose the Tories’ ‘ifs and buts’ and come out with concrete proposals for a transformed political system. He really has little to lose now. You never know, he might actually form a legacy. Alas, I fear the bunker mentality will prevail once more, but we can at least hope. All of this is but the latest example of Brown’s tactical ineptitude. It will surely cost him, as well as us, dearly.
There's some fight in that - but it's aimed completely at the wrong target once again (the 'evil Tories' and 'the system'). What there is far more of is something that is becoming more and more familiar as the Brown disaster continues to unfold: a shrug of the shoulders and more supine drifting from a 'movement' that has lost its way so completely that it no longer seems even to care.

Brown's "tactical ineptitude" is certainly a problem for them, but it's now the least of their worries. If, for example, he is caught in a lie after his denials in this interview about the changes to the expenses rules in 2004 which directly benefited ministers, the remainder of his career could span a matter of days. What is far worse, however, is the almost bovine inability of Labour to grasp once and for all that without him, they stand a chance of limiting the damage to a term or two out of office whereas with him, they might as well tear up their membership cards and call it a day because Labour will be finished for generations.

Alas, I fear the bovine mentality will prevail and Labour will crash into a decline exactly like their Liberal predecessors in the early C20th - and as near-terminal. It will have taken the Liberals a century to recover by the time they beat Brown-led Labour into third place. How long, I wonder, will recovery take for them?

Labour Poll Nightmare

Politicalbetting has the latest Ipsos general election poll. It's an epic shocker for Brown. And after his car-crash interview (motorway pile-up, more like) this afternoon, it's hard to know how he can cling on any longer.

The Speccy thinks Charles Clarke is stirring his lardy frame on the sidelines in anticipation of the post-June 4th bloodbath. They reckon that no one in the cabinet has the Balls to pull the trigger and oust Gord. So it'll have to be Clarke. I still don't buy that meself. He always seems oddly over-rated by the right-leaning press.

But yes, folks, this is how desperate it's become for the Labourites. Oh joy unconfined!

CON 40(-1) LAB 18(-10) LD 18 (4)


Read it and weep, Brown.

Brown: "I Know Nothing About Anything"

Adam Boulton has just nailed Brown live on air. Did Brown know about the rule change for ministers in 2004 which let them make money on their second homes, asked Boulton. Brown denied everything, looking terribly Nixonian. Pressed by Boulton, he repeated the denial and then attacked Boulton for clutching at straws. We shall see.

Brown then denied us our general election again by claiming that he was 'doing the job [he] was elected to do'. Er, when exactly was that, Gordo?

He hasn't 'finished the job', he says. The job of destroying the country in every conceivable way possible, I think he must mean. It was an astonishing, appalling, train-wreck interview for Brown - his worst yet - and one which Labour MPs (and ministers) will have watched with a mounting sense of horror as it went on, with an increasingly rattled and hostile Brown looking more and more isolated. This is a man under siege; or a wild animal, cornered, wounded and ready to lash out.

Brown's expression at the end was telling, therefore, too: he glared at the man who had just beasted him with razor sharp charm with undisguised hatred. Yes, hatred. One day very soon, Brown will crack on air and the violent temper of this dreadful man will be on display for all to see. It very nearly happened today. Again. I wish I could have heard what Brown said to Bolton after the interview. He looked like he wanted to kill him.

==Update==
Politicos have to be careful what they say to Boulton because he's a pretty free spirit who will speak his own mind on his blog (unlike that twat Nick Robinson). So it's probably not a very good idea to try to bully him, as, it appears, I was right in assuming Brown had. Here's a bit of what Boulton says in his blog entry on the interview, aptly titled 'Boiling Brown':
....there are still some questions to which I feel Mr Brown did not give a clear answer:
1) If Hazel Blears’ behaviour over her mortgages was in his words “totally unacceptable” why is she still in his cabinet?
2) Why is her behaviour totally unacceptable when Mr Brown has defended other cabinet ministers, including some such as Alistair Darling who have repaid money?

He says it’s to do with avoiding paying tax, but others also organised their affairs to be: “tax efficient”.

...Mr Brown became heated when I asked him why the Labour Government changed the rules in 2004 making it permissible for ministers to flip the designation on their homes often, to their apparent financial benefit.

Mr Brown threatened that I had better be able to prove “my allegations”, while denying that he had anything to do with the change, or even knew about it.

To make it clear, I am saying that a rule change was made, and that that had the effect of helping ministers improve their financial position.

I do not have the evidence to prove that the two factors were linked.

But I have now asked the Prime Minister and a member of the cabinet why the change was made, and have received no explanation.

Finally, on two other topics in the news some interesting developments:

Following GM’s filing for bankruptcy the Prime Minister says he hopes “most of the jobs at Vauxhall can be saved” - looks like there will be some redundancies then.

And on the Queen’s absence from this week’s 65th anniversary of D-Day – something I still find astonishing given that the Heads of State of both America and France will be present – Mr Brown, who will be attending, said it had nothing to do with him.

More Pontius Pilate than Caligula, then - or maybe the worst bits of both in one man. Hope Sky put the link up soon. I want to see it again!

==Update 2==
Here it is:

Farewell Darling: A Tribute In Toons

In no particular order of fun:



























































































































































And meet your ultra house-flipping, tax evading, smearing, backstabbing, Brownite lickspittle new 'Chancellor', Head Balls.

Who says crime doesn't pay?

Darling Doomed!


Yes, Darling broke the rules by claiming for two homes. He's doomed! As Tory Bear says, bring on the Balls...

This is going to be fun.