Anything you can't do

Jacqui Smith still has a long way to becoming the worst Home Secretary in British history. But she's definitely making progress. Out on his own is still Reginald Maudling (left) whose deft handling of Northern Ireland included internment and Bloody Sunday (which he defended stoutly). He was eventually booted out by Ted Heath in 1972 when he was found to be 'eyebrows deep' in a corruption scandal over multi-million pound building contracts.

Jacqui has, of late, shown she has picked up some of the pure bluster and bold dogmatic idiocy of our Reg. Her Achilles heel appears to be her small-minded, self-certainty. A perfect example was her veto-ing of new Immigration Minister, the barely half-witted, Phil Woolas, from appearing on BBC's Question Time. After two weeks in the job, Woolas had shown little, if any, command of his brief and could only supply journos with tough-sounding but illogical statements on immigration.

Officially, she wanted a Minister with more experience of economic matters to be espousing the Government line and demanded Tony McNulty be Woolas's sub. Firstly, McNulty's expertise is police and security matters. Second, any Minister, indeed any guest, on Question Time is expected to be able to pontificate on any area of domestic policy or world affairs. Third, it is not for Home Secretaries to set the panel on political discussion programmes. The Beeb quite rightly told Jacqs they had editorial integrity to preserve and if she wanted an empty chair then so be it. As it was, Roy Hattersley stood in and showed them all how it's done: with patience and good humour.

It was only the next day, it was revealed the Home Office figures on violent crime had been fiddled to project a much more reassuring view of the risk of violence. Crime has certainly fallen significantly in ten years although the public's perception is the opposite. Any suspicion of creative counting by the Government on crime figures was bound to provoke a big press reaction. But even Jacqus was not quite ready for the Sun's banner headline in 160 point letters, "GBH: Grievous Bloody Hypocrisy."

Ms Smith's has put in a consistently amateurish display in recent weeks. Her response to the Lords' thrashing of the 42-days detention clause by almost 200 votes was poor by her own very low standards. But to shout from the dispatch box, "I, for one, take the issue of security seriously," when many of those who opposed it were former senior officers in the security services, was pretty shameful stuff.

On Tuesday, Jacqui was up in front of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights to answer for her speech. Senior Tory MP, Richard Shepherd, could not easily hide his contempt for Ms Smith, particularly as the 'softies' on terrorist included his pal Lord (Peter) Carrington, ex-Foreign Sec and veteran of the D-Day landings. "Why are you as Home Secretary making assertions like this in an important speech?" bellowed Shepherd. "It is an incredible position for a very new home secretary to launch into an attack on people who have been protecting our liberties for a very long time". Her own side called her views merely, "trenchant" while others plumped for the more apt, "offensive."

She made a feeble attempt at defence but had only the refuge of party politics to protect herself with. "My comments specifically were aimed at opposition parties who despite having numerous attempts to engage in a process of bringing us to a consensus has failed to move one jot throughout the whole of the process," she opined. Lord Onslow said she was confusing consensus with people not agreeing with her. Certainly true, but Jacqui Smith also mistakes robust defence with obnoxious arrogance. Just like old Reg.

Don't you forget about me

It's been an amazing year for Cameron. The only major activity his party has engaged in, is publishing six very general policy discussion documents from which one could derive almost any manifesto. And yet the Conservatives have moved from a 10-point deficit last September to a long-established 20-point lead. How do those polls make the smug egotists of his inner Cabinet (Osbourne, Maude, Hague and Gove) feel? Their ears must glow hot in anticipation of their Ministerial briefs and travelling the world as team Cameron.

The problem with Cameron, as Alistair Campbell says in every public utterance, is he's done nothing to earn such a 'winning lead'. Brown's woeful display as PM has been the entire reason for Dave's illusory popularity. Now Brown is enjoying a very good war in the City there has been a minor panic in Tory ranks as their lead rapidly comes under threat.

So it was pure ego and selfism which inspired Cameron to stand up at the crack on Friday morning at Bloomberg's to ditch the days old agreement to support Govt action through the market crisis. (I watched Cameron decrying Brown's disastrous economic management while FTSE flashed above him showing a rise of 400 points that morning.)

Politics is like comedy - timing is everything. Early Friday morning is a really poor time to chose for hitting the news and the weekend papers so it was a bad tactic. But it's a poor strategy too to be shouting, "listen to what I think," when the economic storm is still raging. It's certainly too early to start taking lots of long-term decisions on the resolution. And Cameron will have to eat platefuls more humble pie than even John McCain when it comes to his previous utterances on de-regulation. Haven't seen much of free-marketeer John Redwood lately. It was only two weeks ago, he told Tory conference in Government, they would, "repeal 54 different pieces of regulation in our first de-regulation bill".

Cameron's argument, Britain should have followed the example of responsible conservatism like ex-Australian PM John Howard, is specious. Australia's relatively stable position is almost entirely derived from selling collossal amounts of raw materials to China. We'll see how they fare as global recession bites this year and next. First Secretary to the Treasury, Yvette Cooper put it well when she said, Cameron has been engaging in "juvenile political games".

Cameron's speech was obviously rushed, it must have been to contain excrutiating lines such as, "we need to do far better in bringing into everyday use technologies that are still in laboratories and developing in the laboratory technologies that haven’t even been thought of yet." Wise words, eh Dave.

New opinion polls are expected in a day or two and Brown is bound to benefit from his 'bank managerial' calm through the crisis. Cameron doesn't like to include many 'grey beards' in his team. It shows more political immaturity and flashes of real arrogance that he cannot take criticism from those who have the experience he obviously lacks. At last, it is starting to show.

Yeah, Whatever

No-one could seriously suggest political speeches are as eloquent as they once were, even in recent history. In US politics, there has been an intense purge of the articulate; John McCain has even made a point of attacking Obama's eloquence. In Britain there is also an embarrassment about using expressive and literate phraseology. There has been an intellectual retreat into using business-like soundbites.

There is no better example than the abysmal over use of the words, 'whatever it takes.' It will have not escaped your notice Brown and Darling have been doing just that in an attempt, in economic terms, to plug the gaping hole in the dam. I've rather lost track of how many tens of Billions have been doled to whom and for what reason.

The use of "whatever it takes" is now pervasive; yesterday Harriet Harman standing in for Gord at PMQs said the Government would, "do whatever it takes to back up our small business sector". The implication of the phrase is a kind of emotional bluntness. HH was trying to say, 'I get how important this is and I want to demonstrate my absolute commitment to its resolution.' But she might as well have said, 'we'll be trying 200 percent'. Or add the ultimate in pathetic verbal gestures, "and I feel very strongly about it."

The words "whatever it takes" are also empty of purpose; they imply, there is no plan, no well-considered strategy, just a pledge to chuck resourses at a problem in the vain hope it goes away.

John F. Kennedy's eloquence easily eclipsed Obama's and its worth reminding yourself of a time when leaders were not scared to be expressive. Here's the link to his inaugural speech in 1961.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html

If you read carefully you will notice within the speech JFK still says the equivalent of 'whatever it takes'. But in those days you would say something like," we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty". Present day speech writers would attack such lucidity with a red-pen demanding several re-writes. Nowadays if it can't be summarised in a three word headline, it's not considered worth saying.

Gordon's Best Speech that Day

The biggest cheer Brown got mid-speech in Manchester last week was when he said "My family are not props but people". The impromptu roar and over-the-head clapping from Ministers like Tony McNulty had me really puzzled. It was obviously a dig at Dave 'the Toff' Cameron. And how relieved were the troops to hear Gordon dare to have a pop. Except his point was totally fatuous. Cameron has allowed one or two shots of the normal 'Dave and the kids' in the market, on the beach. Certainly that staged shot with his wife Sam in Cornwall was pretty nauseous. But these pictures are not so commonplace so anyone could accuse him of exploiting his children's image - rather they show he has some appreciation of ordinary life. It's just with oodles of dosh in the bank he doesn't know anything of the stresses of a tight budget. And then I remembered this shot of Gord with his 'received smile' with wife and wee bairns. So the moral high ground was really no more than Gordon standing on tip-toe.

********************************************************************

What was the big message of the speech they were discussing in the pubs and clubs up and down this great land? Why the New Settlement of course. It has taken Brown and his coterie months to come up with a big idea and the result is instantly forgettable New Settlement. It's a kind of muddled and compromised version of the New Deal I suppose. Except it is only about the vague notion of 'fairness', long gone are those trotskyist principles of social justice and equality. Even a good policy announced on free nursery care for two year olds will take a yawning ten years to deliver. Atlee, Morrison and Bevan gave us the whole welfare state in five.

Overall it was a successful speech, well presented but ultimately lacking and vision for the voters. It was a bit like a good Premiership team who have had a rotten start to the season but then get a good win in the League Cup against Crewe Alexandra. "This could be the kick start to our season," opines the manager, when we all know relegation beckons. That looks certain even with a new manager.

And lead us not into an Election..

No, the picture, left, is not David Miliband estimating Labour's chances of re-election. In fact, his theme was, if anything, defying the fatalism of defeat. If he really believes that, he is not New Labour, he is Evangelical Labour.

'Brains's conference speech today was, as usual, totally bereft of any decent gags. You've got to pity the delegates; the poor buggers have been hard-arsing it in that conference hangar since Saturday morning with barely a good pun to cheer their spirits. The place looks strangely empty with banks of unused seating - there would probably be a better turnout if they put Mama Mia on instead.

Fortunately for everyone, Ministers have been instructed to limit their speeches to a mere six minutes. The downside is there no other option for them but to regale a list of bite-size soundbites.

Dave began by setting out his family's journey, as if it were the opening two minutes of "Who do you think you are?" The story of his Jewish grandfather being refused re-entry to the country in 1945 (he selfishly went to Belgium in search of his wife and child) reminded us immigration authorities have always employed plenty of officious pencil-necks.

But after the personal bit, everyone was looking for a sign, just a subtle hint of disloyalty or independence of spirit which would indicate his intention to move boldly against the PM. But no dice.

What did come was a personal commendation, " to you Gordon" thanking him for his great efforts in improving the world's aid budget. After so much recent in-fighting, Gordon found it impossible to take the compliment with any grace. Brown's tired and quietly resentful smile of 'appreciation' was like that of the amputee whose surprise present turns out to be a new pair of trainers.

Arse, Elbow?

This entry is something of a post-script to the previous one on Brown's miniscule 'gas giveaway'on Thursday. Gordy was quite clear about who would benefit (albeit marginally) when he said, "all lower income and all pensioner households will be eligible." The DEFRA press release was equally crystal when it said the new energy efficiency scheme would apply to, "those most at risk of fuel poverty, including all pensioners." No journalist checked that fact, they didn't need to, did they? It was only when a 60-year old woman contacted the Conservatives to say she had been refused free insulation, this much heralded policy began to unravel. DEFRA press office have now conceded only those over 70 may apply. Compared to the loss of data discs, failing to call an election, dropping the 10p rate, this may appear to be quite a small drama. But it shows the Government at its most disfunctional.

Whenever there is any well-planned Government press announcement, officials sit down, a couple of weeks before, with press officers. Invariably the first question discussed is, 'who benefits from this'? Naturally all Governments wish to push their new policies to the appropriate constituency. The draft release plus background briefing and detailed Q and A would be seen by more senior officials, press officers, special advisers and very often two Ministers before being given clearance. In this case there was an additonal, supposedly more rigorous stage, of going through No.10 as well. The process, like so many in the Civil Service is lengthy but eradicates risk of saying the wrong thing or at the wrong time.

And yet, here, the first principle point of the statement was wrong. There appears to be immense sloppiness at every level of Government. Ultimately it is Hilary Benn's (pictured above) fault as Secretary of State for Environment, it his Department's policy. But the mere fact that Downing Street allowed this farrago to occur at all, shows the well-oiled machine once ran by Alistair Campbell is now grinding its gears and is nearly out of juice.

I Offer you Peace, Bread, Loft Insulation

To the left is the CEO of an unnamed energy company when told he would have to justify price rises to the regulator OFGEM. The Government is just totally impotent in the face of these huge rises - even the latest wheeze of getting the companies to fund £900m for better insulation can easily be passed onto the consumer. The domestic energy market alone is worth about £30bn so Brown's big boast of "a sea-change" in energy consumption looks empty if not insulting. I would be very surprised if the full amount is even spent as the Government's "Warm Front" scheme has been offering almost exactly the same deal since 2000. This big idea also fails to address those legions of families in fuel poverty who rent and whose landlords are not inclined to pay their share.

Millions of Labour voters are desperate to see the Government flexing its muscles, showing it can match words with deeds and address some of the glaringly obvious social injustices. But Brown always tries to strike a perfect balance between all interested parties and in the end nothing is achieved.

Labour's raison d'etre, its rallying cry, used to be equality. Without it there would have been no equal pay act, race relations act or minimum wage.

Now even the word 'equality' sounds too left-wing. It has been expunged and replaced by the altogther more woolly 'fairness'. A good example (below) is an excerpt from Gordon Brown's message to party members at conference on two week's time.

"I know there are people who feel that modern Britain has been unfair to them. Some of them are right. But there is nothing that is bad about Britain that cannot be overcome by what is good about Britain, as long as we keep faith with our belief in fairness. Throughout our history, this nation has repeatedly demonstrated a proud spirit of cautious and practical optimism and we call on that spirit once again. Fair rules, fair chances, and a fair say for everyone: that is the new deal for this new world." Click on the link below for the full text (if you can bear it).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/08/labour.gordonbrown

Reading the words I was reminded of Robert Donat in the 39 Steps (there's one for the teenagers) when he is compelled to address a public meeting and reels off a series of crowd-pleasing but meaningless platitudes. Brown's vision is similarly opaque. If you forced to summarise his philosophy it would be, "we believe in things in general!"