When dealing with Blair, get it in writing
It's hardly surprising to anyone that Gordon Brown does not trust the Prime Minister, after all he’s been shafted enough times by him. So Gordon is unconvinced by Tony Blair’s assertion on Monday that he will give his successor ‘ample time’ to settle in to Number 10 before the next General Election. The party is now so dysfunctional that Gordon wants senior party members to witness any assurances that Blair gives about his departure so that he can be held to his word with no wriggle room. And it’s not Just Gordon who no longer believes a word Tony says, ex-Home Office Minister, John Denham, said yesterday in an interview that "people now want to see some evidence of [a stable and orderly transition]".
They needn't worry too much. Tony Blair is now the most unpopular Labour Prime Minister, according to a YouGov survey commissioned by the Telegraph, with an approval rating of only 26%. It is certain that he is finished and won’t last until 2008; it’s just a question of how much longer he can hang on and whether Gordon gets shafted again by a stalking horse in the time Blair has left. May 2007 is seen as a likely date for his departure, but that is barring any more ‘bad headlines’. If the ‘loans’ for peerages scandal throws up more revelations, or if one of his ministers screws up badly, or even if a backbench rebellion causes him to lose an important vote in Parliament, the date of his departure gets brought forward. Let's just hope that as a lame duck on borrowed time he doesn't persue a 'scorched earth' policy.
Blair doesn't have to go if
Blair doesn't have to go if he loses a vote in Parliament - he lost one already. The only antiBlair vote that would count is a motion of no confidence which would precipitate a general election. Personally I would like to see the party move decisively by autumn before Blair has a chance to piggyback on scorching Iran.
Some limited coverage in US re Beckett's performance at the recent Security Council members' foerign ministers' meeting with Condi - all reports are unsourced or from anonymous sources but from what reports I've come across, it wasn't impressive - she reputedly came across as more a public servant rather than a Minister. Make what of it you will but apparently China and Russia are not budging, yet.
Beckett was on Newsnight
Beckett was on Newsnight yesterday too, on her New York visit. She looked totally out of her depth - Condi scrubs up rather well when she wants to, but our Marge had lipstick on her teeth (according to our fashion correspondent) and looked as comfortable as Princess Anne at a tarts and vicars party. All those years screwing up the farming industry hasn't done a lot for her political acumen.
Certainly, if Blair doesn't want to attack Iran, Beckett is an inspired appointment - she won't get the Russians and Chinese on-side in a million years. If he *does* want to attack Iran, he'll go it alone with Dubya after claiming diplomacy has failed, as usual, so she's an inspired appointment.
The other interesting interview was Paxman and the US Ambassador Tuttle (the Republican supporting used-car salesman who doesn't pay the congestion charge). Apart from being as self-evidently stupid and self-regarding as any senior US official these days, he did let slip at one point that it didn't matter that Jack had been moved on because 'Tony Blair runs the government'. Kinda revealing.
That fact that anyones cares
That fact that anyones cares whether the people running the country have lipstick on their teeth says it all. I want someone with a brain, someone who can do stuff, not a performance artist. Maybe Beckett is good, maybe not. It is unlikely that she is good if Tony has promoted her, but who knows?
Attacking a female
Attacking a female politician based on how she looks is very progressive, isn't it? Like it matters a damn.