Gordon Brown's election problems, and other stories
No Harman-y
All this talk about Gordon Brown’s election problems is very boring. He may have had a bad Prime Minister’s Questions, but that doesn’t really matter. Nobody watches PMQs anyway. Or knows what his “Vision for Britain” is. Only that it consists of Gordon Brown being in power for at least another eighteen months or so.
Instead, let’s talk about Harriet Harman. You have probably forgotten who she is already – she won the Labour Deputy Leadership contest earlier this year. Which surprised me. As a Labour party member I voted in the election, and Harriet’s campaign seemed to be the worst. Worse even than Hazel Blears, and the sight of Hazel Blears on television usually makes me want to gouge my eyes out with rusty spoons. Harman’s campaign seemed to rest on two main planks. The first was essentially “Vote for me because I am a woman”. The second was to say that Labour ought to apologise for the Iraq war. She then denied saying this after she became deputy leader.
Therefore Harman comes across as a loose cannon, who is prepared to say just about anything to anyone in order to please them. In her campaign she claimed she had always “campaigned for equality and social justice.” In fact, when Harman was Social Secretary in 1997 she cut the benefit rate for unemployed single parents (something she had spoken out against in Opposition).
On last week’s Question Time, Harman again confirmed her “loose cannon” status. Asked whether Gordon Brown should have called an election (zzzz…) Harman said she thought that Parliament, not the Prime Minister, should decide when to call an election. Like many of Harman’s ideas, this seems well-meaning but crap. Parliament already has the means to do this, through a vote of no confidence motion. Having fixed-term Parliaments is, however, a separate and better idea.
Furthermore, she doesn’t seem to have talked to anyone before unveiling this idea. Gordon Brown has said nothing about it. On the Labour website there is nothing. Other senior Labour figures have said, you guessed it, nothing. Perhaps we should just put Harriet Harman and Ed Balls in a cupboard or something, and let them out after Labour wins the next election. They will cause less damage there.
End of the Ming dynasty
Liberal Democrat MPs make unlikely assassins, but they have now stabbed two leaders in the back within nineteen months. I feel sorry for Ming Campbell, whose only fault was not his ability or his views, but his age. Now their caretaker leader is Vince Cable, a man who looks like Ming, but with less hair and bushier eyebrows. Potential leaders have until October 31st to throw their name into the hat.
For the moment, however, there is the usual claptrap that is spouted after a leader goes. Lib Dem MPs are continually praising Ming. Party president Simon Hughes, for instance, said that he had brought “purpose and stability” to the party. But if Ming was so good, why was his job “under discussion” - as the aforementioned Mr Cable said the day before Ming resigned? David Laws, Lib Dem spokesman for something or other, appeared on Channel 4 news to praise Ming. When asked who he thought should be the next leader, he replied that it was inappropriate to speculate at this moment in time. If you cannot speculate on who should be your new party leader when there is a vacancy, then when can you speculate?
Well, I am going to speculate now. The frontrunners are Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne. Nick Clegg is a trendy, David Cameron-type. But if you were going to vote for a David Cameron type, wouldn’t you just vote for David Cameron? Chris Huhne, by contrast, is boring. The Lib Dems need a vote winner, someone who the voters recognise. Which is why the new leader should either be Charles Kennedy or Lembit Opik.
By getting rid of Charles Kennedy, the Lib Dems lost their only electoral asset. Bringing him back would be embarrassing, but necessary. If that proves to be too embarrassing, then the Lib Dems should embrace Mr Cheeky Girl as their new leader. He at least is recognised by most of the general public, and this counts for more than policy in British politics today. As Alistair Darling as shown, if you don’t have a policy of your own, just nick the Opposition’s. With Labour and the Tories increasingly similar, there is a need for the Lib Dems to be distinctive. And how much more distinctive can you get than Lembit Opik?
And finally…
Laughing at the Lib Dems is harmless enough, but laughing at Tories is much more fun. They were left £8million in the will of Branislav Kostic. Sadly, he had been suffering from serious mental health problems, and was convinced only the Conservatives could protect humanity from evil spirits. This week a judge forced them to return the money to his family, and ruled that Mr Kostic would not have given to the Conservative Party “if he were of sane mind”. Well, who would?
Cory
