When New Labour were first elected Tony Blair risked campaigning during the Uxbridge by-election in May 1997. Blair led from the front even though the Tories were sure to hold the seat. Gordon, author of two books on courage, has ordered 80 ministers and SpAds to go to Crewe and Nantwich this weekend to campaign. He however plans to stay well away chewing his nails.
Gordon avoids elections wherever possible, he chickened out of a contest with Blair for the leadership in 1994, he engineered a coronation unopposed for the party leadership in July 2007 and he bottled holding a mandate producing election in October 2007. Nobody has cast a single vote for him to lead his party or his country.
Gordon is a truly pathetic figure, on Friday morning Labour will have to face up to their mistake. If they can’t win Crewe, where they are testing to destruction the “don’t vote for a toff” approach – “tough on toffs, tough on the causes of toffs” - backed-up by illiberal knuckle dragging dog-whistle policies, they can’t win nationally with Brown. Crewe is 165th on the list of Tory target seats… that should concentrate the minds of 164 Labour MPs…
UPDATE : Blair also visited the tightly fought Eddisbury by-election to campaign in August 1999. Before he stood down Blair told the Labour Party in his final speech to their conference that “there are no rules in politics.” Quite.
Janet Daley’s stunning insights into the character of Gordon Brown in her Daily Telegraph column last year caused disquiet with many on the right because she is seen to be of the right. She firmly bought into Gordon’s project, thinking that he would be intellectually firm in the face of the shallow flim-flammery of Cameron.
She wrote immediately after the Glasgow terror attack:
Mr Brown made a terse and perfectly judged statement. For all its brevity, it conveyed the essential message of calm resolution and national unity: “I know that the British people will stand together, united, resolute and strong.” This was High Seriousness delivered in the old-fashioned way, with spare wartime urgency and without sentimentality.
He even became to her a great, non-neurotic TV performer:
Again, yesterday, in his interview with Andrew Marr, Mr Brown did not put a foot wrong … Interestingly, these were the first television appearances I have seen in which there was no sign of his peculiar nervous mannerism of rolling his tongue inside his mouth that is so beloved by satirists. Has he been trained out of it, or has he been transformed by his role and the state of national emergency? Either way, its absence helps to remove the impression of neuroticism that would not have inspired public confidence.
So no more laughing at Gordon the Great. The next month in August 2007 she contrasted Brown’s biblical strength to the effete Dave. Gordon had, in Janet’s view, the strength to withstand the trials of power:
First the terror attacks, then the floods, now the pestilence. Gordon Brown seems to be undergoing the trials of Job. But in this case, it is not so much his faith that is being tested as the country’s in him. And, my goodness, isn’t he rising to the challenge?
Once again he has appeared on our television screens within hours of terrible news, not just to assure us that he personally is taking charge of the foot and mouth crisis but to thank the authorities in affected communities for their cooperation and competence – to make it clear, in other words, that he is in command but also deeply respectful of people on the ground who must deal with the problems over which they have singular expertise.
Wow! Will this guy ever put a foot wrong?
Reality struck Janet hard in September :
Can Gordon pull it back? This week is the true beginning of the Brown era, as opposed to the fag end of the previous one. With the Queen’s Speech and the first Brownite legislative programme we should get the answer to the political question of the moment: was the New Brown a figment of our imagination, the most transitory illusion ever to capture the imagination of the Commentariat, or was there really something there worth grasping?
Almost a redemptive mea culpa.
The Commentariat collectively, Janet in particular, wrote in the summer of 2007 with all the considered judgement of a herd of sheep. They however would have you believe that they possess valuable insights and good judgement based on their intellect and access to the key players. They have opinions just like everyone, no better, no worse. They merely express them better than most. More often than not their access and close proximity to the subjects they write about clouds their judgement. Mostly their opinions are not worth the chip-wrapping they are written on…
So that was £100,000 of public money wasted on stopping the public finding out what happened to their money.
So now we will find out what all the party leaders
“The head of the Scottish Labour Party, Wendy Alexander, is married to Cabinet minister Douglas Alexander.”
It turns out that the Tory frontbench is awash with covert cash from vested interests. Mortgage brokers funding the office of the Housing Shadow is pertinent. Cameron gave a high ground speech promising transparency and openness only two months ago. Well get on with it. If this is the finest democracy that money can buy, we want to know at least who is doing the paying. No more shadowy cash, if public money is paying we want receipts for every last single penny.
“Follow the money” is the basic rule of politics, where does the private money come from, where does the public money go? Not hard to understand is it? If donors don’t like publicity, don’t donate…
Another Feminist Lecture | Laura Perrins
UKIP Posters Bad Economics But Good Politics | James Delingpole
Tories Losing to UKIP in Scotland | ConHome
UKIPers Will Come Home in 2015 | Sun
Tories Set for Thrashing | Sun
Boris Announcement Imminent | Sun
The Case for Splitting Up CCHQ | ConservativeHome
Why UKIP Should Join a ‘European Union’. | Anna Raccoon
Dave’s Brush With Bed Bugs | Speccie
Farage: No Briton Could Be My Secretary | BBC
Dave and George Can Now Be Seen Together | Ben Brogan
Francis Elliot reports on No. 10 strategy meetings:
“When discussion veers to subjects that Mr Crosby thinks of concern only to the political and journalistic classes, he treats the offender as a pub bore with a tart request to “pass the beer nuts, mate”.”