Reshuffling towards oblivion
It’s difficult to overstate just how desperate the cabinet reshuffle shows Gordon Brown as being. Desperate both to win the next election and desperate also to attempt to show that there really isn’t any difference of opinion any longer between the Blairites and the Brownites. Desperate times may call for desperate measures, but the rehabilitation of Peter Mandelson, who for over a decade could not stand the sight of Brown, let alone work with him, was not the way to go about it.
This is not because Mandelson is the uber-Blairite, that he was one of a whole bevy of habitual liars, that he, more than Alastair Campbell, helped to establish the current political culture of spin that has so demeaned politics in the eye of the public, but because he is simply the wrong man at the wrong time. Very few dispute that Mandelson as a minister was effective and good at what he did, whether he was at business, his old and new job, Northern Ireland or as European Commissioner, but there is one quote that more than ever suggests that this is not his moment. He, along with Blair, declared to the City that he and New Labour were “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich.” Well, they did, while everyone else didn’t, and now this is the man to spearhead Brown’s new regulatory agenda. Jesus wept.
Brown’s lack of new ideas could not be more summed up by this latest relaunch. It’s almost as if it was 1997 again, just with Brown in Blair’s position: we’ve got Derek Draper back advising, Alastair Campbell quite clearly helping out but doing so from the sidelines and Peter Mandelson, ennobled and in the cabinet. All we need is for Brown to bring back Lord Levy to glad-hand the business folk and it’ll be as if we’ve gone back to the future. Nick Brown, the uber-Brownite to the Mandelson’s uber-Blairite, is even back as chief whip. The problem with it is obvious: 1997 is long gone, and so are the benign circumstances of that year.
The counter to that argument has been the setting-up of the economic council, half-stuffed with somewhat sympathetic businessmen, but still those that got us into this mess, and the other half with the, err, politicians that got us into this mess. The disastrous appointment of Digby “sod the workers” Jones as the minister for trade, now to be the council’s ambassador, hardly inspires confidence that this will be anything more than a talking shop where the most limited possible re-regulation will be rubber-stamped, all while sticking two fingers up at the PLP, just as Jones’s initial appointment did.
If that wasn’t rewarding failure enough, then Margaret Beckett’s appointment as minister of state for housing is almost tragicomedy. Having presided over the cocking up of the CAP payments to farmers while head of DEFRA, whilst being easily the worst foreign secretary of Labour’s reign, she will doubtless have much to offer just as the repossessions spiral out of control. John Hutton, who was reprising Mandelson’s filthy rich line earlier in the year moves to defence, while Des Browne returns to the backbenches, quite possibly because like Ruth Kelly he intends to vote against the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill when it comes back before the house. Kelly incidentally is standing down as an MP as well, probably because she knows full well the Tories will be taking her seat in any event.
Jon Cruddas, meanwhile, heavily tipped to take the housing job, apparently declined because Gordon was unwilling to countenance the council house building programme which Cruddas believes necessary. Downing Street has denied he was offered any job whatsoever, which ought to tell its own story.
Whilst the day’s manoeuvrings do show just how desperate Brown is, they also prove that for now the attempts to overthrow him have been delayed, if not put entirely on ice. Whether it was because he did enough at the Labour conference or because of the financial meltdown earlier this week, which even prompted the Conservatives to come over all bi-partisan, is less clear. If the rumours that Hazel Blears and especially the female ministers in the cabinet were the ones moving to wield the knife, they still all remain except for Kelly, but have been undeniably weakened. The next big challenge is the Glenrothes by-election, which few still believe that Labour can hold. It may well come down to how big the defeat is that decides whether the move is back on, but no one can claim the Brown is anything other than further personally weakened by having to bring the old team back together.
---------------------------
| Tweet |
'Septicisle' is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He mostly blogs, poorly, over at Septicisle.info on politics and general media mendacity.
· Other posts by Septicisle
Filed under
Blog ,Labour party ,Westminster
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
Isn’t there a sinking ship element too? In that the central fact about Mandelson and Beckett is that should Labour lose the next general election their careers are over. For Cruddas- if Labour lose- he has a good chance for senior office or a possibility of the leadership. To some extent I can’t see why you would want to be a high profile minister in domestic policy under Brown at the moment- given that the economy is heading downwards and probably the political fortune sof the Labour party too
He, along with Blair, declared to the City that he and New Labour were “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich.” Well, they did, while everyone else didn’t
“everyone else didn’t” may be a popular meme, but it’s still bollocks. Labour did a pretty good job of allowing City people to get filthy rich whilst also allowing almost everyone else to do financially very well: http://www.poverty.org.uk/04/index.shtml
Mandy was there at the beginning, here’s back for the end. Some poetic symmetry in that I guess…
john: you are of course right, that was a rhetorical flourish which went a little too far. Certainly the middle classes have enjoyed a decade of virtually unprecedented financial stability, but those which Labour promised to help the most have not done anywhere near as well.
john b,
I doubt that the figures you quote reflect capitalisation, which the top 10% are very good at accquiring, and the bottom 10% have no conception of. The statistics you quote are all about income, and nothing to do with assets?
It would be interesting to know if money gained in a city bonus 10 years ago that went directly to something appreciable, like a house in a good area, was not, perhaps, worth a damn sight more in the capitalisation of the rich, than the poor who couldn’t even but a basement flat in the area. I suspect it would be.
Income is really not the name of the game. It is overall wealth that is.
I’d imagine, john b, that if you had an enormous estate somewhere, with production facilities and the like, on that estate you could live like a lord and not have an income at all. Which is, of course the ambition of any free born man. And if you did need to buy anything, you’d probably just barter for it.
As you ought to appreciate, income, in a taxable form is an irrelevance to a truly rich man.
He or she can avoid it, if they want to.
Despite their resources, oil and gas and suchlike, being overseas, it seems to me that the creme de la creme of our plutocracy live in exactly that grace and favour hidden dimension of our reality.
So, it might be bollocks, but is more complicated bollocks than you’d lead a good pleb to believe.
Hmm. You’re right, kinda, but it’s basically only relevant to the top 10% – for everyone else, wealth is a house and a pension at best. And “fucking the top 10%” is not a policy goal in its own right (rather, the point is to tax them to the extent where you get the maximum revenue without them running off to Dubai, Dublin or New York).
the point is to tax them to the extent where you get the maximum revenue without them running off to Dubai, Dublin or New York).
Or preferring lower stress, lower income jobs, or doing less work, or being paid in something less easily taxable, etc…
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
- Reshuffle Thoughts… | Ministry of Truth
[...] this reshuffle could be viewed as an act of desperation, and that may conceivable prove to be the case – but necessity, not to mention desperation, is [...]
- Berta Lloyd
Liberal Conspiracy » Reshuffling towards oblivion http://tinyurl.com/yjkezft
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Why Quantitative Easing doesn’t make common sense
» Barclays was also bailed out – Diamond doesn’t deserve a bonus
» Ten myths about private rented housing
» Even on the left, morality has its limits
» The NHS bill could be a Waterloo moment for the govt
» Ken Livingstone and gay rights – it just isn’t an issue
» Abu Qatada deportation: what about our principles?
» New study shows a Robinhood tax would boost growth
» In defence of Sky News’ re-Tweeting ban
» Another reason to continue banker bashing
» An attack on the wind industry is an attack on UK jobs
|
3 Comments 14 Comments 24 Comments 30 Comments 21 Comments 13 Comments 49 Comments 11 Comments 77 Comments 5 Comments |
LATEST COMMENTS » Frances_coppola posted on Why Quantitative Easing doesn't make common sense » Meet My Sweet posted on Ed Miliband tried to persuade against Iraq » x posted on High pay - in football and banking - shouldn't be about morality » Charlieman posted on High pay - in football and banking - shouldn't be about morality » Charlieman posted on High pay - in football and banking - shouldn't be about morality » Cylux posted on Abu Qatada deportation: what about our principles? » Frances_coppola posted on Why Quantitative Easing doesn't make common sense » Cylux posted on Abu Qatada deportation: what about our principles? » Bob B posted on Ed Mili: We need a new post-Thatcher "settlement" for Britain » diogenes posted on Why Quantitative Easing doesn't make common sense » Charlieman posted on Why Quantitative Easing doesn't make common sense » diogenes posted on Why Quantitative Easing doesn't make common sense » Trooper Thompson posted on Ed Mili: We need a new post-Thatcher "settlement" for Britain » Trooper Thompson posted on High pay - in football and banking - shouldn't be about morality » Chris posted on Ed Mili: We need a new post-Thatcher "settlement" for Britain |









