Liberal Burblings

Archive for June, 2007

The Times reports that Gordon Brown is discussing a “foreign affairs advisory” role with Shirley Williams. I seem to remember some Liberal Democrats acting as advisors to Labour office holders before – for example, Susan Kramer on the Transport for London board. Lord Carlile’s “independent” advisory role on terrorism, although somewhat controversial, is another example. There are great risks involved with this sort of thing, however.

I am sure Shirley can add a great deal of sense to Brown’s foreign policy.

The greatest risk of this would be for her to become attached to an ill-founded foreign policy. Indeed, until Brown makes it very clear that he recognises the mistakes of the Iraq invasion, for which he shares personal responsibility, I don’t see how Shirley Williams can associate herself with the man. I don’t see Brown taking that step in a hurry – not properly anyway. I don’t think we should be seduced by the all the glitz and “shiny new” froth of the Brown entrance into Number 10 Downing Street – remember he’s actually lived there for years! (There is no change in the occupant actually living/sleeping in Number 10 – that’s ironic and emblematic isn’t it?)

Having said that, I think we need to be careful not to reject this proposal out of hand, as we will begin to look very uncooperative in the public’s eyes, especially after the Paddyjob farrago.

It would be reassuring if we could know that Brown is also talking to other parties about such advisory roles. I think it is very dangerous indeed for us to the only party to have people in advisory roles such as this.

I think this offer should be left well alone. I don’t see Shirley disobeying the party leadership on this, by the way. She is just not that sort of person.

Update: The role which was offered (not yet responded to) was as an adviser on nuclear proliferation. I am more relaxed about that. It does not imply endorsement of Brown’s foreign policy, which the initial reports suggested.

Michael Crick played the part of the “cheeky monkey” on BBC2 Newsnight for years. This is the rather ham-acted role of an errant reporter who skirts the fringes of politicians’ entourages with a microphone shouting questions.

The point of the exercise seems to be to demonstrate that the questions aren’t being answered, rather than get some answers.

Michael Crick became inseparable from this role for years. It was impossible to tell where Michael Crick ended and the “cheeky monkey” role started. They were one.

Now Mr Crick has been elevated to the heights of political editor of Newsnight, it is very difficult to imagine that anyone else could perform the “cheeky monkey” role.

But they have found someone in the admirable shape of filmmaker Jamie Campbell. He had some success asking questions of David Cameron until he (Campbell) annoyed him (Cameron).

Now Campbell has followed Gordon Brown for months trying to question him from the sidelines of the Broon’s exits and entrances from buildings. He hasn’t received a single answer bar: “I am very well thank you, good to see you”.

After that fulsome answer. Campbell has been artfully fended off the trail of Broon by a mixture of press office folk, security officials and police.

So, the Broon seems to be inaccessible, a fact explained with great delight by his ex-spinmeister, Charlie Wheelan, who added: “I used to pull the plugs out of cameras to avoid filmed questions.” It’s part the game, he seemed to be saying.

One little shaft of light emerged from that almost pointless exercise in Broon chasing. Outside the Oval cricket ground, Brown’s head of security approached Campbell. The two had got to know each other well over the months. Seemingly unaware of being recorded, the security chappie offered this confidence:

Look, you are trying to talk to him (Brown). But we (Brown’s staff) don’t even talk to him much ourselves. He is a shy and withdrawn sort of chap.

After that, said security chappie offered to go for a drink some time with Campbell. “I think you owe me one now”, said security chappie.

David Cameron ascended to the leadership of the Conservative party promising an end to “Punch and Judy politics”.

Anyone wondering if this was a sincere promise need only to have watched Newsnight tonight. Alan Duncan was up against Quentin Davies.

Duncan was laughing hysterically when the studio came into shot after a filmed segment. He continued to punctuate his appearance with laughter to himself.

He wasn’t kidding anyone. You could see the fear in his eyes.

He suggested Quentin Davies had joined the Labour party to get a peerage. Davies disposed of that one by reminding Duncan that he (Davies) has always voted for a 100% elected Second Chamber. He accused Davies of being “old fashioned”. So what?

While Davies came across as considered and genuine, Duncan came across as snobbish, childish and ever-so slightly unhinged.

Paxman called the discussion a “cat fight” but that is unfair…to cats.

I agree with Clare Short (interviewed on Radio Four’s PM) that it is not entirely necessary for Blair to stand down as an MP purely because of his Middle East envoy role, which is not full time. It doesn’t involve chairing standing talks, for example. It will probably involve just the odd trip, which Blair has managed to fit in with two other roles for years, so fitting it in with one role wouldn’t have been a problem.

He just hasn’t got the patience to carry on has he?

I am sure Brown will welcome it, because it means there is no chance of sulking on the back benches. It is traditional that retiring PMs (e.g Major, Heath, Churchill) stay on until at least the next election (Heath went on far longer). But Blair is no normal human being, of course. He has millions (mainly dollars) to earn.

In reply to Newbury Blogwatcher and others who have suggested that this will overstretch the LibDem by-election machine…Sedgefield and Ealing are so far apart that this hardly arises as a problem. In the main, people who are likely to travel to Sedgefield to help are not the same people who are likely to travel to Ealing to help.

The Hillary Clinton campaign has taken a bit of a risk with a video which parodies The Sopranos (see below and here on the Hillary campaign site). I say “risk” because I find the thing so schmaltzy it is enough to make me mildly ill. I don’t watch the Sopranos, so if you do, you probably “get” it.

The video basically shows Hillary walking into what I believe is called a “diner”, sitting down at the table, then being joined by Bill. They have a short discussion about Hillary’s choice of campaign song, involving some business with a juke box menu which shows the songs which were in contention.

In fact, there are some subliminal messages in the video, which has received quite a bit of coverage. Those messages seem to be: family, supportive husband, Hillary doing wifely things for her husband (like ordering for the table and stopping him from eating onion rings), doing normal American things like wondering into “diners” etc etc. All intelligent campaign messages to get across.

The bit I find particularly nauseating is when Bill Clinton asks Hillary: “How’s the campaign going?” (as if he didn’t know), to which Hillary replies: “It’s like you always say – focus on the good times”. After that, there is a reaction shot (left) from Bill Clinton which makes your toes curl. It’s a sort of wistful, sugary, proud-as-punch smile. Yuk.

Celine Dion’s “You and I” has been picked as the campaign song. Pass the sickbag Alice.

The other choices considered included:

“Superstar” – Carpenters
“Rock this country” – Shania Twain
“Get ready” – Temptations
“I’m a believer” – Smash Mouth (from the soundtrack of “Shrek”)

I am delighted to say that Bill’s favourite was the Smash Mouth track. That would have been a bit of a coup for Britain, given that “I’m a believer” was written by John Peel’s old friend and former drummer of the “Soft Machine”, Robert Wyatt. The Smash Mouth version is a fair attempt at the song, but seems to genuflect more towards the Monkees’ version than Wyatt’s own versions, which are superb (he recently did a remix which is brilliant).

Here is the video in its full glory:

James Blunt’s “You’re beautiful” has been voted the most irritating song of all time. It was closely followed by the “Crazy Frog”.

So, just think on James Blunt. You are more irritating than the Crazy Frog. That is some accolade.

“Shout” by Lulu and “Grace Kelly” by Mika also featured in the poll, by market researchers OnePoll.

It is a matter of great personal disappointment that “Lady in Red” doesn’t seem to have features in the voting.

The full Top Ten (or should that be “bottom ten”?) most irritating songs ever was:

1. You’re Beautiful – James Blunt
2. Axel F – Crazy Frog
3. Mmm Bop – Hanson
4. Mr Blobby – Mr Blobby
5. Birdie Song – The Tweets
6. Shout – Lulu
7. Agadoo – Black Lace
8. Grace Kelly – Mika
9. My Heart Will Go On – Celine Dion
10. La Macarena – Los Del Rio