Matthew Norman: Anyone would be better than Brown – even Kerry Katona
The mystery is why enough doubt persists for Charles Clarke to feel obliged to launch another Exocet
Friday, 5 September 2008
One of my favourite things about life on this sceptred isle is the limitless British capacity to embrace what once repelled us. It's an extension of Alan Bennett's nostrum that the one requirement to be deemed worthy of the Nobel Prize is reaching 90 years old and being able to eat a boiled egg intact, and I call it Bob Monkhouse Syndrome By Proxy. However derided, distrusted, disregarded and disliked a public figure might be, all they need do is doughtily carry on doing what made them loathed in the first place, and the British veneration for staying power will act as catalyst to convert all those negative feelings into affection.
That metamorphosis is surely underway for a man who has spent years attracting ridicule and contempt for banging on about the identical subject (the monstrousness of Gordon Brown) in the identical tone (visceral personal hatred disguised in a transparent, more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger gown).
Charles Clarke's latest assault is a typically muddled affair, and when he gets it right it is in stating the bleedin' obvious. Everyone agrees that Labour is heading inexorably towards a disaster on the scale of the 1997 Tories (an electoral cataclysm John Major achieved not with the help of a recession, by the way, but in stoic defiance of a very benign economy), and the only scenarios I can imagine that would threaten the inevitability of this are: a) a YouTube film of David Cameron's face, slathered in white powder, emerging from the Frank Bough Memorial PVC Hood at a Max Mosley fancy dress ball; and b) an eve-of-election terrorist strike so atrocious that the electorate is traumatised into holding its nose against the scent of carbolic soap and clinging grimly on to nurse.
But what of the Hail Mary Pass, any surviving Gordon fans might ask of the last second, touch down-producing 60- yard throw with which quarterbacks occasionally turn defeat into victory? John McCain has just thrown one in the fecund form of Sarah Palin, and although it's too early to tell whether it will reach the wide receiver, it seems at least to have given him an outside chance. Why couldn't Gordon conjure up a stunning game-changer of his own?
The answer to that barely needs stating. McCain is a gambler, a proper, crazy, self-destructive gambler known for bringing the recklessness with which he picks a running mate to the craps table, who'd have called a general election last autumn in half the time it takes to boil a caribou hot dog. Of Gordon's ninnyish terror of rolling the dice, enough and more has been written.
So to Charlie we say: duuurrrgh! Of course Gordon is leading his somnambulists to "utter destruction". Of course he should be replaced yesterday at the latest. Of course anyone – Miliband, Johnson, Straw, Jon Cruddas, Kerry Katona, the late Arthur Mullard; even Charles Clarke – would limit the scale of defeat. This much we know.
The mystery is why enough doubt about all this persists for Charles to feel obliged to launch yet another Exocet? Why are his colleagues so loath to act when any replacement PM has zero chance of doing worse than Gordon, and a good chance of restricting the Tories to a majority that could potentially be reversed after a single election cycle, rather than two or three. This will change if and when Labour loses the by-election in Gordon's Fife backyard, but today he is odds against going quickly, and the germ of an explanation for this lies just beneath the surface of the New Statesman article from which "Charlie Says ... Shoot Gordon NOW!!!" is extracted as a bullet point.
This piece of prose is as sparkling a paradigm of unknowing self-destructiveness as you could wish to read. Intended as a paean to Gordon's predecessor, Charlie's demolition of Tony Blair and "Blairism" is as brutal as it's unwitting. Under the paragraph header "Central Achievement", commencing: "We should recognise that Tony Blair was an outstanding Labour Prime Minister", he dwells on how Mr Blair cleaved to the US "even when George W Bush demonstrated crippling incompetence or opposed British policy" as though this act of treason is something to celebrate. He lauds economic policy under the Blair-Brown axis as if none of it has any bearing on the present nightmare so thoughtfully spelt out to us by Alastair Darling. He concludes with "there is no coherent Blairite ideology", as though this too is cause to hunt out the bunting.
There was no coherent Blairite ideology because ideology was the last thing on their minds when Blair, Brown, Alastair Campbell, Peter Mandelson and the rest of that tiny cabal – Charles hovering on the outskirts like the good little Kinnockite he was – adroitly hijacked a political movement. "New Labour" was never more than a device to enable the winning and retention of power, purely for the joy of having power. Any individualism these professional paranoiacs believed threatened electoral success was crushed as lethally as any perceived challenge to the uniqueness of Mr Blair's popularity. Mo Mowlam's career effectively ended the moment the 1998 conference gave her an unscheduled standing ovation.
So once the support of a foreign power in defiance of our national interests had ended Mr Blair's reign as undisputed electoral champion, what remained was a void. No ideology, energy, no passion, no fresh thinking... nothing but the same tired old management-speak mantras, a cabinet of pygmies with not the vaguest political philosophies of their own, and a parliamentary party too conditioned by terror by pager, too instutionalised by all that sullen trooping through the government lobbies, too cowed from all the years of being smacked around for daring to disagree with the likes of Charlie Clarke to assert themselves even in the cause of averting catastrophe.
All it would take to remove Gordon now is a delegation of six cabinet ministers, or four if they were the right quartet. "You go or we go" is all they need say. Five words, and Sarah would be on to Pickfords within the hour. Five syllables to save, 60, 100, 150 seats. It isn't cojones that are required here, merely the human instinct for survival. But even that has been squashed out of them by a decade of bartering their political souls for chauffered Rovers and the run of John Lewis white electricals.
Perhaps that instinct will revive, and the prospect of having to find proper work will reactivate the dormant volcano of self-interest just in time. If not Charles Clarke has certainly had it in Norwich South. Still, he'll be alright, this jug-eared, claret-soaked Monkhouse du jour, now that he's well on the road to becoming quite the national treasure. Even if his consultancy with a plush firm of London solicitors went with his capacious East Anglian seat, there's always a fresh start as cheeky chappie presenter of All New Celebrity Squares, or Charlie Says... Opportunity Knocks!
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited




Comments
29 Comments
Mostly infantile comments from a bunch of J. Arthur Rankers !
Posted by Duncan | 06.09.08, 22:54 GMT
to hear matthew norman sucking up to george galloway the far left extremist who defends racist and facist preachers of hate exposed by channel 4s undercover mosque on dispatches make me think all these politacaly correct middle class leftys like mathew norman with his posh voice should move out of there middle class leafty surburbs and live in the real world withreal people,but it was sick bag inducing to hear this mathew norman sitting next to galloway like his lapdog on friday night on talksport....peter from birmingham
Posted by peter | 06.09.08, 00:16 GMT
I've never read a worse set of comments. Most of the posters appear drunk and/or illiterate - not worth answering and not worthy of the article, which makes a serious point, reinforcing what most voters appear to think.
Posted by Prestonian | 05.09.08, 21:36 GMT
This article is more a vehicle for Normans prose than actually meaning anything. Hijacking a political movement -what does that actually mean?
Posted by kath | 05.09.08, 20:49 GMT
toybear,
Who is we? I am guessing from your anachronistic turn of phrase that you are squarely in the Cameron camp.
I dont claim anything like a masterful analysis of the present crisis. I dont think Gordon Brown is a very good pm but he will be blamed for more than he deserves. It saddens me a bit that out of exasperation rather than vision we will soon have an oily insincere little **** for PM.
Posted by kath | 05.09.08, 19:14 GMT
Kath,
Now you have got all that off your chest, your view on the article was what exactly?
We await with bated breath your no doubt masterful analysis of the present crisis facing Gordon Brown's leadership.
Posted by miss toybear | 05.09.08, 17:11 GMT
toybear, you clearly like to cultivate being snotty, smug and patronising. My dear? Playground stuff.
I should not have responded to your initial comment but you just sounded so annoying and yes I can hear a voice and tone in the written word and sentence structure and yours is one that rhymes with itchy.
Posted by kath | 05.09.08, 16:23 GMT
Kath,
Not the first person to use that phrase? You don't say. Your insight shames me. That's sarcasm by the way.
You and Keith obviously do have a problem about where someone was educated. I am sorry it rankles. But I would suggest that it is your problem, not mine and not one shared by a large number of people.
How I 'sound'? This is text my dear. Please try to understand that how you 'hear' my written words is your choice.
Posted by miss toybear | 05.09.08, 14:59 GMT
MP's will not want an early election and risk losing their perks a
'expenses' fuelled life styles - forget the supposed 'seven
principles' of Public Office, namely,
Selflessness
Integrity
Accountability
Openness
Honesty
Leadership
Objectivity
Posted by Meg | 05.09.08, 14:01 GMT
Marina - at least Lbour of been indiscriminate in who to blame for the ills of society, eh?
I'm personally fed-up of being told to pay my TV licence, not commit benefit fraud, turn my music down on the tube etc etc, which considering I have a job, pay my taxzes (well, the help themselves from my paycheck), pay council tax, have a TV license and don't listen to music on the tube, in frankly ridiculous!
Not that Tories will bring more fun to the party... It's is like choosing between two iditos, both of whom will lie, cheat and stal to get into power, only to do nothing of which they have promised and everything they said they wouldn't. I'm sick and tired of this pseudo-democracy - where is the choice? Where is the power we are meant to retain for ourselves.
We should have a 're-open nominations' option on voting forms.
Posted by Sara | 05.09.08, 13:55 GMT
29 Comments