Party Political Animal

Craving attention? Get emotional – preferably on TV. Admit to some illness, show some fallibility.

Oh sorry, Alistair Campbell already did that. So this time he was shedding a very public tear about the Iraq Inquiry.

“I don’t think people care about the truth any more” blubbed Blair’s former spin-doctor. Indeed not, Alistair.

Of course Campbell’s  spinning served primarily his own career and did more than anything to hang new Labour out to dry – remember that No.10 documentary which presented the spinner as the true master and Blair his flunky?

“I’ve been through a lot on this” wailed Campbell.

We all have, mate. Not least the parents and wives of dead soldiers and airmen who don’t have the luxurious consolation of celebrity interviews.

Oh, I should add that Cambell has just launched a new novel.

Gordon Brown was at it too.

Any parent can understand the anguish of a bereaved father. But Gordon Brown must have been asked before he went onto the Piers Morgan interview whether he minded questions about the tragic death of his baby. He could have refused questions about his family.

Maybe I’m just a sad old cynic, but I am pretty certain Brown and his media people weighed up the political pros and cons and decided it might just humanise Brown’s rusty old image if he could be seen to be emoting.

Cameron did the same at his conference last year, though he stopped short of squeezing out a tear. It would be far better if politicians kept their family affairs, however sad and tragic, to themselves.  Then their complaints when the media intrude on their private lives might  be more convincing.

So Judge Cherie Booth-Blair went easy on a man because he was religious and so could be assumed to be of good character.

She, above all, should know that being religious does not prevent a man from being a liar, prevaricator and a lot else besides. After all, Judge Booth is married to the very-publicly religious Tony Blair.

Don’t say you don’t read it all here first. Alistair Darling is planning the biggest round of public spending cuts since Jim Callaghan in 1978 – that’s right, not since dear old Maggie, whose cuts were dwarfed by those forced on her predecessor.

So why did the Tories need to outbid Labour’s cuts – especially when the economy is so painfully flaccid? That question has been posed in this blog many times before.

Guys, you worship at the Shrine of Blair in so many things – so why not follow his example on this? In ‘97, Blair short-circuited charges of Labour profligacy by promising to match Tory spending plans.

Now Osborne and Cameron need only say that Labour will leave such a mess – and they will – that the Tories have no choice but to stick to Darling’s tough spending plans. No chance then of ‘Tory Cuts’ scare campaigns scaring away Motorway Man, or whoever the latest daft marketing-shite is telling the Tories to target.

That Cameron and Osborne felt the need to differentiate themslves from the government on this shows lack of judgement. Yes, blame the mess on Labour. Yes, propose (belatedly) policies to prevent the same happening again. But out-cutting them? That would be wrong for the economy and bad politics.

Get a grip guys – no wonder the polls are closing!

The PM is right – the AV voting system combines the benefits of single member constituencies with an element of proportionality. It’s one, but not the only cure for our putrid body politic.

But why should anyone trust Brown and Labour on electoral reform? They shafted the Lib Dems on PR after 1997 and have had 13 years to come up with something. Funny that Brown leaves it until the point of departure to decide that now is finally, absolutely the right time for change. Bit obvious, really.

I’m groping for the right word – ah, that’s it – cynical.

Last week we had the spectacle of a politician who I’m sure is painfully faithful to his wife  – I’m equally sure Cherie would make it extremely painful if he ever cheated on her. Yet how many people would say that Tony Blair was an honest politician or did a good job for his country? Not many, I suspect.

Then we had an England captain who was unfaithful to his wife – like 90% of his fellow footballers – but who does an honest and good job as captain of England.

Unfaithful in private but honest at work; faithful in private but dishonest at work. Who would you prefer?

So John Terry cheated on his wife with the ex – that was ex, as in former – girlfriend of Wayne Bridge.

That’s a matter for JT and his wife. If the lady in question was Bridge’s current girlfriend, it might affect Bridge too and maybe then JT’s England captaincy should be in question.

Everyone knows that top footballers – and even golfers – are shaghounds. I’d be amazed if 90% of premier league footballers hadn’t cheated on a wife or girlfriend sometime in the past 12 months.

OK, so JT is England captain and should be a role model. But to claim he should be markedly more pure than his teammates is bollocks. It’s like saying that journos working for the  moralising Daily Mail should have more irreproachable private lives than, say the Sun’s hacks. Do they? I doubt it.

In a few months England play in a World Cup finals in which they have a realistic chance. The media should lay off JT. JT, in turn, might consider it wise regretfully to resign his Dad of the Year prize.

In the meantime, playing away once more, JT’s goal against Burnley was the best riposte to those who say he should be sacked from the captaincy – and a nice slap for Burnley bore Alistair Campbell.

So what?

For three work days in a row a local council “works” van has parked up on the grassy area opposite my house to hide away from most eyes while the workers do nothing. The first day 4 workers come, get out (with a snow shovel) polish a park sign, run behind a fence to relieve themselves and then sit in the van for 30 minutes. The next day two guys this time just reading a paper in the van. OK – I think maybe they are on a tea break – but given there isn’t any more park land around here I’m not sure why they are on the estate.

Then on Monday – the next working day2 workmen come again in a van and park up at 11:20. By 1:00pm I am getting a little ticked off. Given there are play areas and cycle paths and pavements covered in ice, I really am ot sure council workers should be sleeping in their council van for 90 minutes.

So I call the parks department. Apparently the vans can be tracked and when he called me back he told me the exact time they arrived, when the engine was switched off and when turned on again.

I of course said I have no problem with people taking a lunch break. But 90 minutes seems excessive – and as far as I can see nothing has been done on the estate at all. The parks manager agreed the workmen had been a little naughty, but then the following words really shocked me. “Of course at this time of the year there isn’t much work for our area”.

Hang on. Ive already heard the local council blaming the county council for a lack of grit. People don’t get people dont care what level of Government is responsible – they just want something done. But now we hear that one department doesn’t have much work on they don’t get them doing something else? Obviously there isn’t going to be much grass cutting in January with inches of snow and ice on the ground. But how about this as an idea. Those who look after the grass in parks might like to get a little busy clearing the ice and snow on the paved areas in the same parks rather than saying there isn’t much work to do.

Another example of why council dont get it, and why council tax goes up each year.

In 1997, John Major did something no previous PM had – he offered the opposition leader a televised debate. Blair clucked around for a bit and then backed away.

Received wisdom at the time was that a debate favours the opposition – it raises their status to that of the PM. But at the time Major was so desperate – and the Tories so sure of Blair’s core flakiness – that they took the risk.

Against expectations, Blair refused. Why? Because he was so far ahead at the time that he could only lose ground if he slipped up in the debate or came across – heaven forbid – as insubstantial.

Now Brown’s offer to the Tories is similarly desperate. The PM’s advisers reckon Cameron is so far ahead that he can only lose ground – and not just because the Lib Dems are also getting in on the act, which could raise their profile to the detriment of the Conservatives. They hope the Tory leader makes a gaffle or Brown appears more authoratative and prime-ministerial.

I’m not sure the Tories have much to worry about. The offer is desperate. The background for the government is the worst in memory. And Cameron, for all his faults, is a smart and professional enough politician to get through it. The X Factor, however, it won’t be.