sketch.sc

Welcome
	HOME \| ARCHIVE \| FACTS \| QUOTES \| COMMENT \| CONTACT
		DO I HAVE TO EVERYTHING ROUND HERE? Monday 5th May 208 All right, Gordon, you are now officially the fat boy crying by the swings and I can't bear it any longer. The Guardian has deserted you and all is despair, so here's what you should do. Listen and learn. There are quite a number of things you can do to retrieve your reputation. The important point behind these suggestions is this: any nicey-nicey innovations (more childcare, longer maternity leave, higher tax credits) will produce no electoral gratitude. People know when you're sucking up to them and mostly they don't like it. They take what you offer and turn back to their own affairs. So the proposals need an edge. And it's important you are caused pain in this process; people will like that. Spend £10bn or so on your relaunch. It’s small change. It’s 1.5 per cent of public spending; if you can’t find that to invest in your future you shouldn’t be CEO. 1. Punish the banks. Very many voters want to see fat cats suffer. You can make them keep the roof over the head of people to whom they have missold mortgages? Incidentally, letting a large bank go bust might be very good for nearly everyone (economies like a bit of creative destruction). But more saliently, ordinary people from all across the spectrum want to see the guilty punished. 2. You will want to impose a windfall tax on the oil companies, but don't. Take some pain. For 12 months, reduce the duty on fuel to keep the price of petrol at under £1.10 a litre. Why should the government get rich when the rest of us are feeling so poor? 3. Sponsor Alan Simpson's amendment to the Energy Bill. This pays people who feed energy into the national grid. Also, reduce people's council tax if they meet recycling targets. Ordinary people will be now be rewarded for doing the right thing as much as punished for doing the wrong thing. So make election days a public holiday while you’re about it. A little festivity will alleviate the Scotch misery that surrounds you. 4. Stop dithering about Iraq. We're there in a very half-hearted way. Withdraw the troops. Put distance between us and the US on this. 5. Have a bonfire of educational directives, allow teachers to teach and heads to manage. But the quid pro quo is that bad teachers should expect forcible re-training and if that fails, the sack. Simplify D1 planning laws to allow "more schools, smaller schools" (that's a slogan, by the way). Have a small school in each town for excluded pupils with specially-trained teachers and twice the per capita allowance for pupils. Oh, and put an extra billion into prison education. 6. Ignore your own whips. Push through a Bill allowing the Commons to vote on the membership of all Commons committees. Pay committee members a premium. Allow committee chairs to force debates. Halve the amount of government legislation going through the House. But insist what is passed is thoroughly scrutinised. Accept some opposition amendments as a matter of principle. 7. Make sure all European legislation is properly debated in the Commons, and have accepted mechanisms by which EU proposals can be rejected. Make sure 15 per cent of such proposals are rejected. Pick some fights you can win. 8. Legalise the growing of heroin in Afghanistan in order to solve the world diamorphine shortage. Use the revenues to tax production and to police the distribution. Suddenly there will be a functioning economy. And because the Taliban hate poppy-growing they will find themselves "on the wrong side of the argument". 9. Announce a Sovereign Wealth Fund, putting £2.5bn a year into it. In a decade it'll be worth £50bn. This fund is sacrosanct because it will eventually be the fund that pays pensions. Too expensive? For goodness sake, man, you're spending £600bn a year! It may be the only real tough long-term decision you'll have ever made. 10. Abolish ID cards. Biometric passports will limit foreigners' access to the NHS and other expensive benefits. Introduce a residency qualification for benefits, especially council housing. And stop talking about the need to "listen and learn". You're no good at it and nobody believes it's any use. The other rule is to do this fairly quickly. The opposition will say it’s panic, but if it’s popular with the public credit will come to you not them. I’m afraid you'll probably have to get Alastair Campbell back to spin all this, not least to your colleagues. PS: 11) Introduce a “public benefit” factor into the Post Office closure evaluations. Issue reprieves for large numbers of outlets. £200m a year for two years . . . and allow post offices more commercial freedom. THE FIRST CASUALTY OF THE RELAUNCHED COUNTER-ATTACKING FIGHTBACK Sunday, 4 May 2008 The Sketch in the Independent tomorow deals with the PM's appearance on the Andrew Marr show this morning. One quote there wasn't space for: "I do understand where people come from because I come from the same background myself." Does that endear you to our PM? Gordon came from the same background as you? Were you the son of a preacher living in the largest house in town below the aristocracy? Did your father get 20 minutes a week to preach to the comunity without interruption? And is that why you don't listen? Is that why you know best? Because you have the Word? There was some funny stuff on Sky as well . . . Boulton: "How worried are you about the mood in the Labour party? It's not just the usual suspects like John Macdonnell and John Grogan?" Brown: (Very fast) "That's not the issue." How about this one. Brown: "Everybody knows the 10p rate isn't the way to deal with poverty. It was a transitional measure." Not a long-term decision? How many more of his fanfare policies will turn out to be transitional? Boulton: "The coalition Tony Blair put together is falling apart. Why are people drifting away?" Brown: "It's a tough verdict. It's a varied picture. People want to know that we get it . . ." On Marr he answered that question with the words, "You've got to look at the figures to understand." And with Brown describing the ins and outs of tax credits, Boulton said: "People will say that's typical Gordon Brown! Fantasticslly complicated!" Brown: (Fast) "Not at all." Do you lean in, eager to hear what Gordon is going to say? Or do you lean away going, "Yeah, yeah, yeah." On such distinctions are elections won and lost. WILL WIMBLING BE THE DECISIVE FACTOR FOR BROWN? 3 May 2008 Tessa Jowell says Labour has to stop "all this wimbling around about leadership". She insists Gordon Brown is going to "confound his critics". That'll be quite a trick. Has Brown had it? Can he change? At his age? At the required level? The trouble seems to me insurmountable. Politicians can survive accusations of betrayal, deception, sexual misadventure and certainly of "not listening", getting things wrong, incompetence, stupidity, lying, fixing the evidence, overspending in elections, taking the wrong money (the list goes ever on) . . . but to bore the electorate is the unforgiveable crime Gordon commits every time he opens his mouth. An interjection here: The BBC 5 o'clock news has just carried eight minutes of Boris' inaugural speech at City Hall. EIGHT MINUTES, HARDLY EDITED! Brown wouldn't get eight solo, unedited minutes for the end of the world. When he starts talking, people turn away, turn down the volume, think about something else. Why? The feeling he gives off is that he doesn't talk out, to us, he talks in, to himself. And it's painfully, oppressively dull. He bolts phrases together like he's playing with a meccano set. It's institutional, preferably international institutional. It's billions and trillions. It's committees and progressive consensuality. Nothing has less than four syllables. He wimbles around, I suppose. He is wimbling to oblivion. Tessa may have contributed something to the language. THE STRANGE ATTRACTOR IN TORY POLITICAL HISTORY 3 May 2008 For the second time in a few short years, Boris determines the future of the Conservative Party. When he first got into the Commons, he walked straight into a leadership election. William Hague had resigned and people thought that MPs would vote Ken Clarke and Michael Portilo into the final two, to take their leadership campaigns to the country. But Portillo's canvassing of Boris left much to be desired. He gave him prescient but insulting advice: "You have to decide whether you're a comedian or a politicians." Portillo failed to get into the last two by one vote. I'm assuming Boris' vote was the crucial missing one. Someone called Iain Duncan Smith went into the play-off instead and beat Ken Clarke (and set the Tory back five years in the process). And now Boris has ascended into political Elysium with his own mandate, his own powers, his own budget. If he does well, he will seal a Tory victory at the general election. If he does badly, Labour will use his record to impugn Cameron.The future is in his hands! PS: "Watermelon smiles" and "Piccaninnies". You'd have to be slightly tone-deaf to mistake these remarks for racism. In his elegant, compressed way, Boris is imputing the patronising attitudes to Blair and the Queen. "No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird." "It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies; and one can imagine that Blair, twice victor abroad but enmired at home, is similarly seduced by foreign politeness." MAYBE WE REALLY DO GROW TO RESEMBLE OUR PETS. In idle moments, usually when Tessa Jowell is speaking, we lay our pens down and try and think of MPs who look like journalists. There's no reason for it, but once you've started you can't stop. Here is the list so far. Tim Loughton: Quentin Letts David Burrowes: Tom Bradby Geoffrey Robinson: Robin Oakley Shaun Woodward: George Pascoe-Watson Stephen O'Brien: Simon Walters Clive Efford: David Henke Michael Wills: Jeremy Paxman Alun Michael: Michael Crick Steve Webb: Nigel Morris Lindsay Hoyle: Kevin Maguire Dominic Grieve and Stephen Pound both look like Mr Punch. But they don't look like each other. STRAW WATCH Tuesday 29 April 2008 Compare and contrast the skillful shimmy of Labour's next leader with the clunk of the current one: the former apologised to an angry talkback caller who had lost from the abolition of the 10p tax rate: "I am sorry that you have been placed in this position and it shouldn't have happened." When Gordon was asked if he was sorry for the same thing said: "Of course, because it's unfortunate when things go wrong for people and we've tried to sort that out immediately over the last few days. . . That form of words drags us into it; somehow, we're to blame as well. Stephen Byers invented the form when confronted with the fact that he had said the thing which was not on a TV show some years ago: "If people got the impression [that I wasn't telling the truth], that is obviously something I regret." NB: by making such a full, frank and unequivocal apology, Straw bounced the PM. In William Hague's phrase, Straw is "on manouevres". IF NOT BROWN, THEN WHO? 27 April 2008 For the first time (and it's odd it should have taken so long) I've seen Ed Balls on television. Haven't laughed so much for a month. Let us hear no more talk about Balls leading the Labour party. The man is living proof that myxomatosis can jump the species barrier. The eyeballs practically throb at you. And then there's that speech defect he has (his brain). His voice keeps stopping and starting as though the wiring is shorting. He is spectacularly unsuited to a leadership role and this must affect the odds for those around him. Who, then, will be in the running and what are their chances? Charles Clarke. When the Labour party decides to commit hari-kiri, they will use Mr Clarke as the instrument of disembowelment Jacqui Smith. No. Just . . . no. No more likely than Des Browne. Or Hillary Benn (whose staring, mad-chicken eyes terrified people during the election for deputy). Douglas Alexander and Geoff Hoon in their different ways are not suitable candidates, at least that needs no explanation. Harriet Harman, Tessa Jowell, Hazel Blears, Ruth Kelly, Yvette Cooper. These promising raw materials need a talented surgeon to stitch their best features together into a candidate. That candidate could make a useful deputy. Andy Burnham? People talk about Burnham as if he were a contender. He is so lacking in distinguishing features he makes John Major look like a bird of paradise. James Purnell is the other name you hear with Burnham. He certainly thinks he could do it. Truth to tell, he does have something. But there's something spoilt about him, almost petulant. Nonetheless, his odds deserve to be shorter than Burnham. But then, so do mine. John Hutton? Clever, talented, not unattractive in person, but a bit peculiar on television. Not prime ministerial timber. Alan Johnson. Ruled himself out of the running saying he "wasn't up to it". A very attractive proposition, it makes you want to vote for him. But then, he did cave in on public service pension entitlements. And let us not forget he was beaten by Harriet Harman for deputy leader. Nice fellow but he won't do. Alan Milburn. Marginalised himself in the House by refusing to sit with Labour backbenchers. For years in his exile, he'd only stand around the Speaker's chair. The first time I saw him sit down again was when he'd been recalled to be chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster. So he'd be reckless to count on the support of his colleagues. He's clever though, attractive in his way, talks English, but isolation is dangerous and he has become a little eccentric in his speaking style. Ed Miliband. Definitely one to watch, but not this time round. Attractive, plausible, whole-hearted. He's a Dudley Moore to his brother's Peter Cook (but it was Dudley that got the girls and the Hollywood contracts). Who knows what the future holds for Ed? David Miliband. The great white hope of New Labour. He is the one, they croon cultishly, and they may be right. They may not be, too, because there is something geeky about him, and not just in the haircut. He makes funny faces to himself, like an eight-year-old. Do people mind? Will middle England warm to him? Frankly, I don't know. Will they take dictation from him? No. No, they won't do that but he makes a reasonable opponent for Cameron. He's young, personable, highly intelligent, very decent (his performance in the Lisbon debate, whatever you thought of the event itself, was a credit to Parliament). Sense of humour, breath of fresh air, impeccable values for those who like that sort of thing. And he is growing visibly in authority month by month. I'm talking myself into it, I notice, but I can't help thinking those old bruisers and battlers in the Labout movement (and in Parliament) don't look up to him. I don't think it's for him, this time round. John Reid. He is the right stuff. He has the qualities to be prime minister. Intelligent, combative, will answer questions when asked, homme serieux. He's a Churchill tank in debate. But he's Scots and I don't know how that goes over in England these days. People say the PLP isn't that fond of him. He might have waited to be sacked, too, rather than handing the position over to Brown's absurd nominee. Which leaves us with (did you think I'd forgotten?) Jack Straw. I've got fifty quid on him I should say, at 16-1. He'll pitch himself as a "caretaker prime minister" to suggest he won't be there long. He's pleasant to look at, he talks English, he can play the prime ministerial part, the House likes him, he can reassure the Labour party, he can appeal to the English up and down the spectrum in his classless way. But above all, I bet on him because he's cunning. As soon as he was sacked by Blair he made best friends with Brown and managed his election so successfully it turned into a coronation. He is inconspicuously on manoeuvres. Now that Brown's in trouble you don't hear a peep out of Straw (failure is infectious, you have to keep your distance). MRS BECKETT, A QUICK EPITAPH 20 NOVEMBER 2007: Margaret Beckett made some pretty wild assertions to the European Scrutiny Committee over the summer (see below). "Nothing's going on!" Was the best. She was saying there were no wranglings, no negotiations, no discussions, no nothing happening around the draft Treaty. It was all "frozen". The Committee found this hard to swallow. Especially when the draft was published the day before the meeting when it all had to be agreed. Last week, evidence given to the European Scrutiny Committee by Lord Williamson told us what we all assumed was the case. The draft Treaty was freely available to governments and was being passed around for comment for about a year. But not, of course, to the people who are there to scrutinise these things, the European Scrutiny Committee. I was wondering whether to work myself up into a lather on this, but then thought she'll have some fine, legal point to justify her flagrant misleading of the Committee. "Ah, but dialogue is not discussion." Something like that. Or, "I thought you meant 'discussion' in the French sense." A FROZEN DEBATE BEHIND A BERLIN WALL. MRS BECKETT AT HER BEST. European Scrutiny Committee. Chaired by Michael Connarty. It has a new life. The man quite obviously cares. He is entirely pro- the project, but also entirely pro- "bringing the EU closer to its people". Unless this pleasant mission statement is the other way round: "Bringing the people closer to the EU". Either way, the poor fellow has only disappointment to look forward to because it ain't going to happen. They had Margaret Beckett in for oral evidence on "new institutional structures". That is, the amending treaty which is to do what the Constitution didn't do (remember it got rejected in two referendums and got withdrawn because Britain would obviously reject it too). What we all think (Euros and Neuros both) is that there is intense EU activity going on over there, trying to get the closest thing to a Constitution through into law, but differently phrased. The Germans sent out a questionnaire suggesting this. Change the language but not he substance, they say. And because it wouldn't be "a constitution" it wouldn't need a referendum. The European Parliament voted 469-141 to adopt their Constitutional Affairs Committee's recommendations on the subject (let's not go into that just now). I merely say that (to show off and) to demonstrate the subject is intensely scrutinised la-bas. Equally certain is that Britain will come under pressure to give up her veto on Criminal Justice. Thus, British criminal law will be made in Brussels. The fact that we can't deport foreign terror suspects has already brought this prospect into disrepute. All of which is to put Margaret Beckett's position into high relief. She's not saying anything about it. She even denies there is anything about which she could say something even if she wanted to. There is "no debate". There are "no discussions". She can't comment on any negotiations because "no negotiations have taken place." She can't comment on these proposals because they don't exist. , "Nothing has been proposed." So, what are the Parliament and Constituional Committee talking about? "Very little," she snapped. "You don't know what's going on!" Bill Cash jeered. "There's nothing going on! she replied, a little wildly. European Scrutiny Committee. Chaired by Michael Connarty. It has a new life. The man quite obviously cares. He is entirely pro- the project, but also entirely pro- "bringing the EU closer to its people". Unless this pleasant mission statement is the other way round: "Bringing the people closer to the EU". Either way, the poor fellow has only disappointment to look forward to because it ain't going to happen. They had Margaret Beckett in for oral evidence on "new institutional structures". That is, the amending treaty which is to do what the Constitution didn't do (remember it got rejected in two referendums and got withdrawn because Britain would obviously reject it too). What we all think (Euros and Neuros both) is that there is intense EU activity going on over there, trying to get the closest thing to a Constitution through into law, but differently phrased. The Germans sent out a questionnaire suggesting this. Change the language but not he substance, they say. And because it wouldn't be "a constitution" it wouldn't need a referendum. The European Parliament voted 469-141 to adopt their Constitutional Affairs Committee's recommendations on the subject (let's not go into that just now). I merely say that (to show off and) to demonstrate the subject is intensely scrutinised la-bas. Equally certain is that Britain will come under pressure to give up her veto on Criminal Justice. Thus, British criminal law will be made in Brussels. The fact that we can't deport foreign terror suspects has already brought this prospect into disrepute. All of which is to put Margaret Beckett's position into high relief. She's not saying anything about it. She even denies there is anything about which she could say something even if she wanted to. There is "no debate". There are "no discussions". She can't comment on any negotiations because "no negotiations have taken place." She can't comment on these proposals because they don't exist. , "Nothing has been proposed." So, what are the Parliament and Constituional Committee talking about? "Very little," she snapped. "You don't know what's going on!" Bill Cash jeered. "There's nothing going on! she replied, a little wildly. In the end, she revealed her reason for this phenomenal display of innocence. "The less I say, the more negotiating space I reserve." That's true. It's a perfectly reasonable position for us who are men of the world. That's how the EU works. But to return to Michael Connarty's over-riding point: "this isn't connecting people to democracy. This isn't a transparent process. This is six months of severely damaging the whole process, it's very damaging to spend six months watching a 'frozen debate' happening behind a Chinese Wall." "Behind a Berlin Wall," Bill Cash said (more than once, in case we hadn't got it the first few times). NICE BECKETT QUOTE: "If I did use the word 'meaningful' I didn't mean it to mean anything at all."	TOFFS AT CREWE 8 May 2008 Labour is trying to revive the class war in Crewe, sending two young fellows dressed up in top hats and tails to meet the visiting Tories off the train. But Labour's election candidate is the daughter of the last incumbent and a grand daughter of a peer in the House of Lords: this hereditary principle, alive and well in the Labour party, rather undermines the war effort. UTTERLY MEANINGLESS REMARK 6 May 2008 BBC Headline: Darling 'assures' 10p tax rebels Quote in the story: "a Treasury source said Mr Darling had given a 'categoric assurance that he is intending to help as many people as possible . . . ' WE WILL LOOK AND LEARN AND LISTEN AND LOSE. 3 May 2008 The ministerial reaction to the catastrophe has been very flat-footed. Their world has collapsed and Jacqui Smith, Harriet Harman, Tessa Jowell go on the radio to say the government has been given a "very clear message". What is that, actually? The only clear message I can discern is "Go away, we don't want to talk to you." Their solution is more of the same. More listening. More learning. Gordon Brown's premiership began with a "listening exercise up and down the country". And he cried, doltishly in Downing St: "Let the work of change begin!" It was the first of his lamentable positioning statements ("I'm not Tony Blair" he wanted us to see). Well the work of change is rather more than half way through, by the look of it. THE END OF NEW LABOUR QED Friday, 2 May 2008 Here's the political strategy of New Labour: Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. That's it. To triangulate you take your core vote for granted and make a pitch to your opponent's marginal vote. For Labour that means a Tory-type leader and a Labour-type Chancellor. A Labour-type leader without a Tory-type Chancellor makes no sense for this sort of project. So there we are. The end. THEY CAN'T GO BACK, BUT IT'S A ROTTEN WAY FORWARD Monday 28th April The 42 days detention without charge is to get the Tories "on the wrong side of the argument" and make them look "soft on terror". Public opinion favours Brown. But Parliament doesn't. As usual, he is pulled in two directions. Now his mooted solution is house arrest ordered by a judge. Why go through the rigmarole of putting this through Parliament: he is essentially relegislating control orders. LORDS, LOANS, LIES Sunday 27 April 2008 Two years ago, Jack Dromey made the "shock disclosure" that he didn't know anything about those loans made to the Labour party (loans that were said to be related to peerages for the donors). Dromey's assertion was widely believed, though it was tantamount to saying they'd be better off with a 12-year-old girl as treasurer of the Labour party. He was defended by Jeremy Beecham, chairman of Labour's governing body the NEC: It was "absolutely clear that the reasons that NEC officers, including the elected party treasurer, did not know about the loans had nothing to do with any failings on their part". (If you can follow the triple negative.) But here is Labour fundraiser Lord Levy in the Mail on Sunday today (link). He tears it all to pieces. "[Jack Dromey] phoned me at home to apologise a few days after he had given an interview on television saying that he had been in the dark about Labour's loans. "He hadn't meant to suggest we had deliberately kept the information from him, he said. It was all a "misunderstanding". I listened in astonishment."Although the day-to-day responsibilities of treasurer rested with Matt Carter as Labour's General Secretary, Dromey did have the responsibility of reporting on financial matters to Labour's National Executive Committee. And if he hadn't done so, that was not because the details had been somehow hidden. "The loans were not in some separate, secret cache. They had without exception been paid into Labour's bank account."They were included in the party's regular cashflow reports and other financial documents – all of it material to which Dromey, like his predecessors as treasurer, would have had access." The private briefings from No 11 were that Gordon had kept his distance from donors, didn't know who or how much was involved. He was on a higher moral plane, wasn't he? According to Levy, Gordon knew everything about the donors all along. Gordon used the loans scandal to hurry Blair on his way. And here we are, as we so often are with Gordon, watching the whrligigs of time bringing in their revenges. NOT SPIES BUT IN BATTALIONS David Davis might get a Christmas present yet. What about if the TNT courier who failed to deliver the two CDs . . . was an illgal immigrant? Nothing is too much to hope for. IT'S THE END OF THE BEGINNING, AT LEAST Will Gordon cave on ID cards after the data rape fiasco? He might, you know. But if he does it will be a disaster. Mind you, it'll be a disaster for him if he doesn't. I missed the Major years, as I was out of the country. But what luck, I'm getting a replay. That was Black Wednesday II we've just had. Now there's a long, slow descent into an electoral pit where nothing can go right for the PM. IT'S NASTY BUT IT HAS TO BE SAID Can it be true: 1,189 economic migrants from Eastern Europe are receiving £57 a week income support. And other benefits - housing allowance, child benefit, jobseekeers allowance. It all adds up to £143m a year. Not much? I wonder what it will be next year. My bet is double. No, hang on, it's doubled from last year. My bet is triple. Without wanting to sound mean - is it sensible to be subsidising economic migrants? Isn't that the one thing they're not asking for? SIDE BY SIDE, FOR RICHER OR POORER WENESDAY 18 OCTOBER: Ed Balls was overheard in the lobby saying the court has thrown out the boundary-change appeal to save his disappearing Normanton constituency. If so, he'll be looking for a safe seat somewhere. It's nice next door. It is a pretty seat, nice and safe, and warm, and occupied by his wife, Yvette Cooper. VERY ODD BUSINESS, POLITICS 16 October 2006: The PM's political secretary John McTernan has sent out a briefing note to Labour MPs. In it, George Galloway is quoted praising David Cameron as "pretty impressive". Galloway also says: ""Looked at objectively, I would have to say I can see his appeal. It will play - it is playing right now." Question: Why is the PM's inner circle quoting a Labour renegade's favourable remarks on the subject of the Tory leadership? We know that the Prime Minister has been privately running down Gordon as "not a leader"; and here, conversely, he is building Cameron up. Just thought you might be interested. TORIES WITH A SPRING IN THEIR STEP (BIG MISTAKE) FRIDAY 13 OCTOBER: At close quarters, the Tories have been an aimiable bunch of people these last five years. The further from power that politicians are the nicer they become (to us, if not to each other). But following Cameron's triumph on Wednesday, they are starting their inexorable mutation into an incarnation of George Osborne. They're back. There's a new swagger in the shoulders. This may be fatal. Tories acting like Neil Kinnock are a very unattractive proposition for modern voters.