Campbell and Izzard at the Nottingham Roadshow

Away from the Westminster hothouse, with its ever increasing circles of expenses fraud, its 62 seat majority government struggling to win a Commons vote, and its rapturous remembrance of the Thatcherite victory 30 years ago, the politics roadshow across the country still goes on. Last week, Alastair Campbell and Eddie Izzard joined forces with Nottingham's prospective Labour candidate at Nottingham University, and rather fortunately a former SGS politics student was there to capture the essence. His report of an interesting university meeting featuring a comic force, a spent force and would-be force, follows:

Last Tuesday night I attended a ‘University of Nottingham Labour Students’ event that managed to draw probably the largest crowd of students and professors to a political event that Nottingham University has ever seen. Packing out the Coates Auditorium, the audience (many, like myself , whom I doubt were Labour supporters) came to see the comedian Eddie Izzard host a discussion with Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s infamous ‘Spin Doctor’, and Lillian Greenwood, Labour's would-be MP. That it was billed as "Talking Politics with Eddie Izzard" may well have been the big draw for many, although it was fun to spot the many excited and amusing looking Young Labour members in their classy white polo tops.

Eddie Izzard took the stage first. He spoke of his interest in politics, advocating a very populist agenda and a strong pro-European view. He comes across very well and you could easily see him as a politician if you didn’t know about his cross-dressing ways (although because he is so open about it, it doesn’t seem like a big deal, whereas if your local MP was found wearing ladies clothes at the weekend it would become a massive media bloodbath). He is intelligent, well travelled, is at ease in front of large crowds and, coming from a non-political background, he seems to cut across all the political rhetoric that is so commonly found in Westminster.

Next, Izzard introduced the prospective Labour candidate for the Nottingham South seat, which covers the University. Lillian Greenwood, although perhaps she might become the most influential person appearing for those in the crowd, was the small fry this evening. Although it is harsh to compare her to the very experienced crowd-pleasers Izzard and Campbell, she was nowhere near as relaxed in front of the crowd and her political knowledge seemed limited to her Trade Union background and the Labour Party manifesto which she pledged to uphold if elected. But to be fair, she answered he questions well and seemed like an able and interested person who is willing to spend time and effort to try and serve this country as an MP.

The final third of the show was taken up by Alastair Campbell whom I first saw with Giles at an SGS 6th Form Politics trip to London. He is, as he was then, a very good public speaker with great experience as a Westminster insider. After a brief but amusing discussion between Campbell and Izzard in French, where Greenwood looked about as out of place as you would imagine John Prescott would be, he spoke to the audience about his background and experience in politics. Campbell had amazing influence under Tony Blair and he is a sharp and confident political operator. As a West Wing fan I can easily see bits of the Communications Director Toby and Press Secretary CJ in him, it is the way he controls the discussion and sidesteps any landmines whilst portraying a confident facade and a strong belief in his actions. One interesting point was his denunciation of the media for portraying the British National Party as a legitimate political party linked to the concession that he actually believed the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had something to legitimately add to the political discussion. Talking about the benefits of Labour’s opposition probably played well to the student crowd whereas pro-Labour ‘spin’ seemed to fall flat and sounded like it should have been reserved for Prime Minister’s Question Time.

As a finishing question Izzard was asked why he was supporting Labour and not ‘the other progressive party, the Lib Dems’. His response seemed rather naive for a ‘wannabe politician’. He effectively said he was supporting Labour because the Liberal Democrats had no chance of getting into power and that he was a realist, even proposing that perhaps a Lab-Lib coalition might perhaps be a good thing for this country so that the Conservatives would be permanently out in the cold. His ambition to run for ‘some position, on some platform, somewhere in Europe, within the next 10-15 years’ shows that Izzard still has a long way to go before he is seen as a serious political force.

Cash, SGS 1997-2005.

Something Rotten in the Heart of Whitehall?

Left-wing journalist Nick Cohen has long had the New Labour project in his sights (see "Pretty Straight Guys", his searing indictment of Blair's government), but the recent series of shenanigans from the Brown camp has sent him into overdrive. In an article in "Standpoint", entitled "Fear and Filth at Brown's Number 10", Cohen reveals from his own experiences some of the tactics used by Gordon Brown and his associates to intimidate and manipulate their opponents. Resurrecting Robert Harris's comparison of Brown and former US president Nixon, he concludes in this rather stark manner:

For all that I understand the difficulties of my colleagues in Westminster, it remains an indictment of them that until this scandal broke, 99 per cent of the public had never heard of McBride. A full-scale government propaganda operation was under way in plain view of reporters. Partly out of self-interest, but also out of fear of the consequences, most decided that it was prudent to say nothing. Put like this, my argument makes Britain sounds as if it is a police state. The servants of an unscrupulous leader concoct vile libels about opposition politicians and their wives. They plot against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, spreading smears about them almost for the hell it. Journalists on the left-wing press who speak out know that they may risk their careers.

But Britain isn't a police state or anything like one. In real dictatorships people suffer for their beliefs. The only true suffering Brown has inflicted is on Britain's idea of itself. We think of ourselves as a free, plain-speaking people - "a nation not slow and dull, but of a quick, ingenious and piercing spirit," as Milton said. Yet we accept a PM who achieved power not through the ballot box but by bullying his critics and rivals. As with any other bully, all it would take to stop him is for his opponents to call his bluff. That for years hardly any have, says more about us than it does about him.

David Cameron's Right-Wing Government

As Labour circles increasingly engage in talk about the demise of Gordon Brown - and some are suggesting before rather than after the next election - attention is turning towards the likely make-up and intentions of a new Cameron-led Tory government. And for those who thought we might be able to look forward to a new era of cuddly conservatism, the results of extensive research done by the distinctly right-wing Conservative Home website seem to show otherwise.

While Cameron and his leadership team appear to be committed to a programme of progressive, socially aware conservatism (within whatever strictures provided by the budget crisis), the new Tory MPs that will accompany them into power, and populate their lobby fodder on the backbenches, appear to be committed to a return to more full-blooded Thatcherism. These are men and women who are the disciples of Thatcher, who see Cameron's Green agenda as a red herring, are overwhelmingly eurosceptic, want more restrictive abortion laws and certainly favour a continued hard line towards the "war on terror". However, they are also more inclined to civil libertarianism than their predecessors of the Thatcher years, although they appear to favour support for marriage (of the type favoured by Miss California) through the tax system.

Tony Blair secured his Labour vision by controlling the actions of new MPs and the selection of candidates. Cameron's attempts to do likewise with selection of Tory candidates have not been noticeably successful, and he could yet face a resurgence of right-wing confidence - and even obstructionism - once his term of government gets into its stride. As Gordon Brown's experience is currently showing, a prime minister's own MPs have the potential for serious mischief making. And once the Tory Right get going, so will the electorate - none of the Blessed Margaret's Thatcherite successors succeeded in persuading the British voters that a good dose of unadulterated conservatism was the medicine they really needed.

Gaining the Gurkhas Their Victory

It continues to be a torrid political week for Gordon Brown. He'd barely stepped off the plane before he had to face the first parliamentary defeat of his premiership. Parliamentary defeats are not a novelty for New Labour in government - Tony Blair faced four, casting the role of the House of Commons as a genuine check upon a potentially powerful executive into sharp relief. Ironically, there was always a degree of ambiguity about the then Chancellor's role in fomenting some useful backbench dissent. How the now prime minister must wonder why he bothered, as he too sees a House of Commons willing to assert its virility.

The problem for Gordon Brown is that today's defeat was on an issue powered in part by a strong sentiment of attachment to a legendary British regiment, whose campaign has been spear-headed by a still popular and very presentable actress. One has the vague impression that Tony Blair, ever attuned to public feeling as he was, would never have allowed this home grown crisis to get as far as it has. Gordon Brown genuinely lacks a populist touch - for some a positive merit - and seems not to have anyone in his inner circle who can compensate.

Today's defeat not only illustrates the success of a well aimed, well funded pressure group campaign (which AS-level politics students would be well advised to study closely), but it also raises up the first successful Lib Dem-Conservative collaboration. Nick Clegg can claim a real victory for the Lib Dems with this motion, but it is interesting to see him and Cameron share a press conference with Lumley, giving each other space to say their peace and coming across as the epitome of sensible political co-operation. Perhaps their joint experience with Gordon Brown a few days ago, when he bawled at David Cameron for asking questions about MPs expenses at Prime Minister's Questions, and then had to listen to Clegg calling time on an unhelpful meeting, has thrown them more closely together. Whatever the reason, their obvious ability to work together when necessary can only be an utterly depressing sight for the Labour Party.

Even worse for the prime minister, a quick glance at the names of some of his own Labour rebels might suggest a quiet raising of the Blairite standard. Fresh from criticising the Budget, former Blairite minister Stephen Byers is also a rebel on the Gurkha motion, along with another former Cabinet minister, Andrew Smith. An ally of the Justice Secretary has been one of the organisers. And the worst news of all? The Cabinet minister responsible for dealing with this hapless situation is none other than Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. Now is that really who you want in the front line on a sensitive issue?

Opposing a Bad Leader

Inspired by my recent visit to a Russia that was far more laid back and cosmopolitan than when I last visited, back in the dying days of communism, I began reading the campaigning journalist Anna Politkovskaya's "Russian Diary". Her diary casts a pall over post-communist Russia, as she reveals the increasing levels of corruption and the authoritarianised 'democracy' that Russia now has in place. Opposition becomes a rarely heard voice, limited to a few brave souls risking life and limb to criticise the policies of the Dear Leader, Comrade Putin himself. He may have inherited the ashes of the communist state, but he has been happy to learn his political lessons from Lenin and Stalin, this former director of the FSB. Politkovskaya is relentless in her expose of the inadequacies and harshness of the Russian political system, and equally damning of the wretchedly inadequate opposition. Not surprisingly, hers was a lonely voice, and also not surprisingly, she was murdered in 2006. Opposition in Russia is a dangerous business.

Opposition in the UK, meanwhile, seems almost too ridiculously easy, which does beg the question of why some of Cameron's team struggle to make hits (Michael Gove, for example, was universally seen to have missed an open goal in his questions to the Stalinist sounding Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families yesterday). This is not to suggest that the opposition in Britain has a task any less important than that pursued by the late Anna Politkovskaya. They may be far from risking their lives, but they still have a duty to expose the inadequacies and failings of the government. It's their job, after all. But where Politkovskaya was pursuing a ruthless and highly efficient government machine, the more one reads of Gordon Brown the more one is tempted to the view that he took his political lessons from Coco the Clown.

We are only on Tuesday, and already the Prime Minister has been snubbed by the president of Pakistan, admonished by the Prime Minister of Poland, and had to withdraw his hasty and ill thought out attempt to save parliamentary face over the increasingly embarrassing MPs' expenses affair. This after a week with a budget that has seen his polling figures plunge. The budget itself contained a supremely cynical measure - the 50% top rate of tax - that was designed to cause trouble for the Tories, but has instead generated unrest within his own party. Stephen Byers and Charles Clarke have openly condemned it, Frank Field has tabled a motion demanding a coherent strategy to balance the budget, and Tony Blair's murmurings are becoming ever louder. Even Brown's attempts at communication to the youtube generation have been met with ribaldry.

Gordon Brown waited and plotted impatiently for ten years to reach the top spot. While waiting, he controlled the British economy unchallenged and hamstrung Tony Blair's domestic agenda as much as possible. His decline now is far worse than that of his wretched Tory predecessor John Major, with whom he is all too often compared. Major was a relative newcomer who inherited a disunited party, whose legitimacy was put in doubt by the Thatcherites who opposed him, and whose constructive engagement in Europe tore a fault line in the party. He twice won election amongst his peers to the party leadership, and won a general election in his own right. Brown, meanwhile, as he fumbles ever more ferociously around his Downing Street bunker, has never won an election in his own right - not even the Labour leadership. What is worse, as the most powerful and long-lasting Chancellor since the war, he cannot claim to be the victim of circumstance. Everything pointed in the right direction for him, from his crowning as Labour leader (his acolytes - men like Damian McBride - had crushed the opposition) to his unprecedented experience of operating the levers of government.

Political careers, said Enoch Powell, all end in failure, and his is a salutary commentary on Gordon Brown. But Gordon Brown's premiership is also a salutary lesson for British politics generally. He evinces all the desires of an authoritarian leader - a would-be Putin. Fortunately for his country, the entrenchment of liberal democracy merely makes him the target of a rising tide of derisory criticism. Opposition to Brown requires no heroism at all, and perhaps it is this that the ghost of Anna Politkovskaya will look upon with a wry smile of regret.

Bloggers' Triumph?

Not much time to comment on the weekend's story about Damian McBride, except to observe that it might be the first time in this country that political bloggers - in this case Guido Fawkes - have managed to break a story. Even here, though, there is a little murkiness, as Fawkes apparently went to the mainstream press with his revelation rather than simply break it on his website. According to the Telegraph, he was looking for a bit of cash to accompany his scoop, although he denies it.

As for McBride, he's every bit as posionous as he's made out to be, but why is anyone surprised that a Downing Street politico might be looking at ways to smear his opponents. The depths of the smears may be distasteful, but the practice is as old as politics.

Back to blogging more regularly after the Easter break - having trekked across the Pennines last week (well, bits of), am currently in Mother Russia getting the feel of a slightly different political temperature!

Jacqui Smith's Expenses

The porn films watched by her husband may only amount to £10 worth of extra expenses, but this is in addition to a few other movies which the Home Secretary 'mistakenly' claimed for, to say nothing of the second home allowance that she claims for her actual home in Redditch. There is more than the whiff of sleaze hanging over the lady; more than the whiff of a public servant ransacking the public purse for all she's worth while she can.

And while the Opposition stays rather quiet - they're worried about their own MPs' expenses after all - David Davis has about got it right when he says there would be less strident calls for her to go if she were actually any good at her job. As remarked here previously, she is a dismally underwhelming performer in one of the top offices of state, over-promoted and incapable. But then, I guess if she'd been any good, she'd have had the wit to avoid her present controversy wouldn't she?

UPDATE: I see that the BBC's Nick Robinson has made a couple of interesting points about the Smith case on his blog. First, he comments that she has been has been "poring over her home, constituency and office diary to plot where she had spent each night in the past year." Which must be quite a considerable task, taking her away from the minutiae of running the Home Office - one not so happy impact of this whole affair on the conduct of public affairs. Second, he outlines the gap between the political and non-political worlds:

"To many MPs, she's a likeable working mum who didn't expect to be elected in '97; whose husband agreed to sacrifice his career to make hers possible; who works such long hours that she spends more days away from her family than with it and who knows that she's on course to lose her very marginal seat and thus, her job, income and allowances, at the next election.

To many voters she's a minister "on the take" who is not satisfied with a fat salary, a chauffeur and two homes but also claims more by employing her husband, calling her family home her second home and submitting bills for porn films."

Now this is a salutary point. Robinson is in a position rather different from most of the rest of us, where his regular contact with politicians allows him the opportunity to understand their 'human' side, and provide a more balanced picture of their actions. He rightly says that it is in all of our interests to close the gap between public and private perceptions of the political world. But who is repsonsible, at least in part, for the gap in the first place? So much of that public perception is down to the way MPs are reported in the media. If journalists have the opportunity to understand the nuances of political existence, would it be too much to expect them to do their job and convey that through their writing? Or are they enjoying Stanley Baldwin's famous "prerogative of the whore" too much? There are many lessons coming out of the Jacqui Smith affair - not all of them for MPs alone.