1st May 1997. Election day and the Tories are in a lot of trouble. Blair wisely had resisted any talk of a landslide, but a 25 point opinion poll lead meant even Blair was secretly confident of a big victory. Sleaze and divisions over Europe had plagued the Conservative campaign. It had been a complete shambles.
But, had it been like watching '...an escape artist who ties concrete blocks to his legs, puts on handcuffs, gets into a lead box, has it sealed and jumps into deep water? You think, How's he going to get out of that? - and you realise he isn't.' How did he 'jump' into the water with concrete blocks on his feet, never mind the fact that he has got into a lead box? I can't really buy the idea of the Conservatives as an escape artist, they were not trying to deliberately thrill the audience, they had just proved to be incompetent. There was something Norman Wisdom rather than Harry Houdini about it all. It just doesn't work does it?
I think Campbell's diary entry is much closer to the mark. It had been a long battle, stretching back to at least 1994 and he captures the relentless quality of it all, 'It was as if we had been fighting a 15-round fight and as the bell rang for the last round, the other guy just didn't show.' I'm not sure about opposition not turning up - wasn't it more like the other guy was having to defend himself from jabs by his own cornermen between rounds?
Typically, Mandelson avoids any overblown metaphors and simply states that 'the Conservatives were bereft of policy, direction or a positive message for the British people...'. prosaic but to the point.
However, my favourite quotation about the Tory defeat is attributed to John Major in Andrew Rawnsley's book, 'Servants of the People.' - I think it says it all about 1997, Major is reported as saying, 'If I had stood unopposed, I would have come second.'
If you can do better than the politicians and pros let me know or why not let me know your favourite memories or quotes from the 1997 election?
Friday 8 October 2010
Thursday 7 October 2010
Page 2 - New Labour 5, Old Labour 1
Two World Wars and One World Cup
I think it is interesting that Blair raises the old football adage, that football is, 'a game played with a round ball, two teams of eleven players, forty-five minutes in each half and the Germans always win.' to describe the Labour party's fear that it would never win another election. (I'm not sure it is an old football adage, just a weak Des Lynam style joke, but then Tony was never really persuaded people he was proper football fan, did he?)
It reminds me how, a couple of years into the Blair government, a London politics lecturer reminisced with me about how he had seen the future when, a young team of Millbank types, including future Secretary of State, James Purnell, had completely wiped the floor with his football team. Supremely confident, very young, well organised, supremely fit and apparently not averse to some less than statesmenlike activities to gain an advantage.
In the early years of New Labour they seemed like the political equivalent of 'the Germans'. I was working in a lowly position as a PA to one of the ruling Labour Group's Committee Chairs (Chair had only recently replaced Chairman, as the first shoots of political correctness pushed through the political wasteland and gave the Daily Mail plenty of material to get outraged by). Whilst Gazza cried (again) and penalties were missed in Euro 96, the ruthlessly efficient 'Germans', including Jame Purnell and Stephen Twigg ran rings around the Labour old guard. They were ruthless in front of their goal, of removing old style Labour supporters and lowering the red flag. Twigg, of course, would go on, in what would was voted as the third greatest ever TV moment ever, unseat Michael Portillo during the 1997 election rout.
Unfortunately, the looney left tag that was attached to Islington was an embarrassment to the modernisers and getting rid of it seemed more important than its proud, but at the time deeply unfashionable record of supporting minority groups and pushing a strong equal opportunities agenda. Such causes are pretty mainstream now but at the time were constantly attacked by the Tories. In many ways Twigg benefitted enormously from the brave policies of councils such as Islington, as he became the first openly gay man to be elected to Parliament.
After 34 years of almost continuous control, Labour lost Islington in 1998.
Rules is rules -
So Mr Blair, can you tell us straight, no quibbling, yes or no, are there rules in politics?
'The first rule in politics...' - Ah! The first rule, so are there more?
'is that there are no rules...' - but doesn't that mean there are rules...I thought you said there are rules? It's as if Escher had decided to stop the doodling and go into prose, you're making my head hurt,
'at least not in the sense of inevitable defeats.' What? Quick, make a u-turn! So there are rules, but only one rule in this particular niche of politics and that rule is that there isn't a rule but then that suggests you think that there are rules, after, all in other areas? Have I understood you?
Even by the standards of politicians I think, at least, three opinions in one sentence (20 words) is an exceptional performance.
...and finally...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFSHdyZckZg&feature=player_embedded#!
I think it is interesting that Blair raises the old football adage, that football is, 'a game played with a round ball, two teams of eleven players, forty-five minutes in each half and the Germans always win.' to describe the Labour party's fear that it would never win another election. (I'm not sure it is an old football adage, just a weak Des Lynam style joke, but then Tony was never really persuaded people he was proper football fan, did he?)
It reminds me how, a couple of years into the Blair government, a London politics lecturer reminisced with me about how he had seen the future when, a young team of Millbank types, including future Secretary of State, James Purnell, had completely wiped the floor with his football team. Supremely confident, very young, well organised, supremely fit and apparently not averse to some less than statesmenlike activities to gain an advantage.
In the early years of New Labour they seemed like the political equivalent of 'the Germans'. I was working in a lowly position as a PA to one of the ruling Labour Group's Committee Chairs (Chair had only recently replaced Chairman, as the first shoots of political correctness pushed through the political wasteland and gave the Daily Mail plenty of material to get outraged by). Whilst Gazza cried (again) and penalties were missed in Euro 96, the ruthlessly efficient 'Germans', including Jame Purnell and Stephen Twigg ran rings around the Labour old guard. They were ruthless in front of their goal, of removing old style Labour supporters and lowering the red flag. Twigg, of course, would go on, in what would was voted as the third greatest ever TV moment ever, unseat Michael Portillo during the 1997 election rout.
Unfortunately, the looney left tag that was attached to Islington was an embarrassment to the modernisers and getting rid of it seemed more important than its proud, but at the time deeply unfashionable record of supporting minority groups and pushing a strong equal opportunities agenda. Such causes are pretty mainstream now but at the time were constantly attacked by the Tories. In many ways Twigg benefitted enormously from the brave policies of councils such as Islington, as he became the first openly gay man to be elected to Parliament.
After 34 years of almost continuous control, Labour lost Islington in 1998.
Rules is rules -
So Mr Blair, can you tell us straight, no quibbling, yes or no, are there rules in politics?
'The first rule in politics...' - Ah! The first rule, so are there more?
'is that there are no rules...' - but doesn't that mean there are rules...I thought you said there are rules? It's as if Escher had decided to stop the doodling and go into prose, you're making my head hurt,
'at least not in the sense of inevitable defeats.' What? Quick, make a u-turn! So there are rules, but only one rule in this particular niche of politics and that rule is that there isn't a rule but then that suggests you think that there are rules, after, all in other areas? Have I understood you?
Even by the standards of politicians I think, at least, three opinions in one sentence (20 words) is an exceptional performance.
...and finally...
I've just found this clip on u-tube regarding the Jackie Milburn story, you decide! Why was a newspaper interview being filmed? Can you explain?
Wednesday 6 October 2010
'My predominant feeling was fear' - Page 1
Tony Blair was afraid. Labour had won a landslide victory, a majority of 179 seats, and yet at this moment of opportunity, TB's 'predominant feeling was fear.' After being handed such an enormous mandate surely we had a right to 'believe all things were possible'. Blair clearly did not. Not only did expectations have to be controlled but so did the celebrations. Even the crowd outside Downing Street to cheer the new prime minister had been 'carefully assembled, carefully managed.' The spontaneous throng of supporters were the campaign team, hurried over from Millbank. Already, nothing could be taken at face value.
It is understandable that a new government should be so concerned with setting the right tone but this was a timid response to the national euphoria and set the tone for the government, much as TB does in his memoirs: 'I had never, held office' - ok, some honesty, it was a big leap, ''not even as the most junior of junior ministers.' Ok, Tony, we believed you, you had never held office. 'It was my first and only job in government' - we know it was your first job! he's not padding the very first paragraph, is he? Is there a lack of substance? Even the first line is amiguous, 'On 2 May 1997, I walked into Downing Street as prime minister for the first time.' When did Blair become prime minister for a second time? Did anyone read this through?
A failure to get the message across, little substance and a lack of self-belief. Ring any bells?
Check out the crowd outside Downing Street
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/2/newsid_2480000/2480505.stm
On a happier note, I would just like to say how pleased I am that the Tories are experiencing such discomfort over the child benefit announcement and some embarrassment because of the rapid tax allowance u-turn which, I understand will cost more money than the original cuts. Has the well-oiled machine become a little gin-soaked at the conference? The announcement by Osborne on breakfast TV, without, it would appear, consulting senior members of the cabinet (particularly obvious, if you tuned into a classic Paxman interview with Theresa May last night) seemed very New Labour. However, a more striking legacy of New Labour on display would appear to be the Tories decision to disregard the interests of their core support. Will the yummy mummies in the shires be as loyal as traditional Labour voters were?
It is understandable that a new government should be so concerned with setting the right tone but this was a timid response to the national euphoria and set the tone for the government, much as TB does in his memoirs: 'I had never, held office' - ok, some honesty, it was a big leap, ''not even as the most junior of junior ministers.' Ok, Tony, we believed you, you had never held office. 'It was my first and only job in government' - we know it was your first job! he's not padding the very first paragraph, is he? Is there a lack of substance? Even the first line is amiguous, 'On 2 May 1997, I walked into Downing Street as prime minister for the first time.' When did Blair become prime minister for a second time? Did anyone read this through?
A failure to get the message across, little substance and a lack of self-belief. Ring any bells?
Check out the crowd outside Downing Street
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/2/newsid_2480000/2480505.stm
On a happier note, I would just like to say how pleased I am that the Tories are experiencing such discomfort over the child benefit announcement and some embarrassment because of the rapid tax allowance u-turn which, I understand will cost more money than the original cuts. Has the well-oiled machine become a little gin-soaked at the conference? The announcement by Osborne on breakfast TV, without, it would appear, consulting senior members of the cabinet (particularly obvious, if you tuned into a classic Paxman interview with Theresa May last night) seemed very New Labour. However, a more striking legacy of New Labour on display would appear to be the Tories decision to disregard the interests of their core support. Will the yummy mummies in the shires be as loyal as traditional Labour voters were?
Tuesday 5 October 2010
Introduction - 'We need a vision...'
It is easy to mock. When confronted with some of Blair's prose it will be difficult to resist. Let me begin, however, by saying that I do not think that New Labour was a total failure. Anyone who worked in public services during the early 1990s, and then experienced the changes under the Labour government, can not have failed to see the improvements. As the storm clouds of the coalition's assault on the public sector gather, many of the successes are thrown into stark relief and beyond statistical quibbling. Crime, health and education saw vast improvements on most indicators, power was devolved to London, Wales and Scotland and the Bank of England gained independence, yet as Polly Toynbee and David Walker have noted in their recent book, 'The Verdict' New Labour failed to reap the political reward. Why?
It seems to me that a government, intent on controlling the message, failed to inspire the British consciousness with any sense of an overarching philosophy or mission. What did New Labour actually believe in? Blair calls himself, 'not so much a politician of traditional left or right, but a moderniser.' Three election victories suggest that such pragmatism can keep you in power but can it create lasting bonds? In my mind, the mechanics of controlling the message were too apparent and made you question the message itself; this was true before Iraq and how many were really listening anymore after WMDs? It says something about the Blair government that its great pantomime villain was not a cabinet minister or even an MP, but Alastair Campbell, the press secretary. Even after he resigned in 2003, when it became obvious that he was now the bigger story, Campbell remained in the wings of the public imagination casting a shadow of doubt on all government declarations.
The message from the introduction of 'A Journey' is that it won't be a traditional political memoir ('rather easy to put down'). Blair, the moderniser, is interested in leadership and claims he is not interested in putting his term as prime minister into historical context. Thus, he puts his term into historical context. This is the modern politician, pragmatic and not hamstrung by ideology or what has gone before. The notes inside the dust jacket claim that Blair is the dominant political figure of the last two decades. World figure? Clearly not. British figure? One can forgive some publisher's hyperbole, but you don't need to be a political insider to see that Blair's political authority barely extended next door to number 11. Surely, the astonishing achievement of three election victories, for a previously unelectable party, should be enough to sell his book?
The skeleton in the cupboard is Mrs Thatcher. Three election victories which transformed British politics in a way that Blair utterly failed to achieve or even attempt. It is Thatcher who remained the dominant force in British politics long after she lost the Tory leadership; wrecking the Conservative Party and shaping New Labour. Toynbee and Walker suggest that, by 1997, Blair believed, 'Thatcherism had entered the English soul' and New Labour 'capitulated to the market'. A Thatcherite, no, but, in many ways he is the slick bastard child of Thatcher.
In her memoirs, 'Downing Street Years', Thatcher strives to tie her policies and actions to the central tenets of traditional Conservatism stretching back to Edmund Burke. In her hands, history is G K Chesterton's 'democracy of the dead', providing the ideological ammunition to support her own mythology. Ironically, I would argue that what her memoirs demonstrate is that she utterly failed to see the weakness of traditional Conservative social values to control the market forces she unleashed. Tony Blair and New Labour are the political expression of this unforeseen consequence, salesmen rather than inventors. New Labour are the consultants, the advertisers, the branding, the presentation and the soundbites that replaced any sense of cultural restraint. Like Betjeman's 'Executive'*, ("I do some mild developing. The sort of place I need, is a quiet country market town that's rather run to seed."), Blair believes that short-term success is enough justification to ride roughshod over traditions and a historical legacy. Despite Blair protesting that, "my soul is and always will be that of a rebel." I would argue that 'A Journey' is very much of its time - not a book about leadership, but a book about management.
*If you are not familiar with Betjeman's prescient poem 'Executive' - http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/john_betjeman/poems/823
It seems to me that a government, intent on controlling the message, failed to inspire the British consciousness with any sense of an overarching philosophy or mission. What did New Labour actually believe in? Blair calls himself, 'not so much a politician of traditional left or right, but a moderniser.' Three election victories suggest that such pragmatism can keep you in power but can it create lasting bonds? In my mind, the mechanics of controlling the message were too apparent and made you question the message itself; this was true before Iraq and how many were really listening anymore after WMDs? It says something about the Blair government that its great pantomime villain was not a cabinet minister or even an MP, but Alastair Campbell, the press secretary. Even after he resigned in 2003, when it became obvious that he was now the bigger story, Campbell remained in the wings of the public imagination casting a shadow of doubt on all government declarations.
The message from the introduction of 'A Journey' is that it won't be a traditional political memoir ('rather easy to put down'). Blair, the moderniser, is interested in leadership and claims he is not interested in putting his term as prime minister into historical context. Thus, he puts his term into historical context. This is the modern politician, pragmatic and not hamstrung by ideology or what has gone before. The notes inside the dust jacket claim that Blair is the dominant political figure of the last two decades. World figure? Clearly not. British figure? One can forgive some publisher's hyperbole, but you don't need to be a political insider to see that Blair's political authority barely extended next door to number 11. Surely, the astonishing achievement of three election victories, for a previously unelectable party, should be enough to sell his book?
The skeleton in the cupboard is Mrs Thatcher. Three election victories which transformed British politics in a way that Blair utterly failed to achieve or even attempt. It is Thatcher who remained the dominant force in British politics long after she lost the Tory leadership; wrecking the Conservative Party and shaping New Labour. Toynbee and Walker suggest that, by 1997, Blair believed, 'Thatcherism had entered the English soul' and New Labour 'capitulated to the market'. A Thatcherite, no, but, in many ways he is the slick bastard child of Thatcher.
In her memoirs, 'Downing Street Years', Thatcher strives to tie her policies and actions to the central tenets of traditional Conservatism stretching back to Edmund Burke. In her hands, history is G K Chesterton's 'democracy of the dead', providing the ideological ammunition to support her own mythology. Ironically, I would argue that what her memoirs demonstrate is that she utterly failed to see the weakness of traditional Conservative social values to control the market forces she unleashed. Tony Blair and New Labour are the political expression of this unforeseen consequence, salesmen rather than inventors. New Labour are the consultants, the advertisers, the branding, the presentation and the soundbites that replaced any sense of cultural restraint. Like Betjeman's 'Executive'*, ("I do some mild developing. The sort of place I need, is a quiet country market town that's rather run to seed."), Blair believes that short-term success is enough justification to ride roughshod over traditions and a historical legacy. Despite Blair protesting that, "my soul is and always will be that of a rebel." I would argue that 'A Journey' is very much of its time - not a book about leadership, but a book about management.
*If you are not familiar with Betjeman's prescient poem 'Executive' - http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/john_betjeman/poems/823
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)