Saturday, May 02, 2009

Matthew Parris: This Gutless Cabinet

Read Matthew Parris, on form, HERE.

The Prime Minister did notionally consult the Cabinet before pressing the Go button on YouTube. What is scary is that he could have been so utterly confident that no objection could conceivably arise from his senior colleagues.

They must have known - surely they must? - that this idea needed... how shall we say..? a little more work. It was nuts. It was preposterous. It was self-evidently silly. Who in Cabinet thought so? Who spoke up? Who supported them? Did nobody stick to their guns?

And how did it possibly come about that when Mr Brown said or implied “Right. Agreed then”, and made as if to move on, there was none brave enough to give a little cough: “Ahem... I think if you ask around the table, Prime Minister, you'll find a sense of shared doubt about this.”

To help him decide which of his ideas were runners and which not, Tony Blair was emotionally confident enough to invite colleagues to kick him as hard as they could in private debate. Why will nobody do this for Mr Brown?

This week's other Brown debacle, the Gurkha affair, is both different, and the same. I do see how a decision of a fairly specialised kind might not have looked as duff on paper as it did to the backdrop of Joanna Lumley waving her arms around in the sunshine, flanked by bemedalled old soldiers. There were two clear lead departments, and other Cabinet Ministers wouldn't normally wade in. The fault here lay in a failure of contact between the Prime Minister and developing opinion farther down the ranks of his own parliamentary party. This vote hit him out of the blue.

But why had nobody told him? Had he blocked his ears? Were close colleagues afraid to give him bad news? Do these people not talk to each other any more?

One begins to wonder whether any serious discussion at all now goes on at Cabinet level. How surreal this week that it should be at senior levels in the Conservative Party (“the Conservative Party”, Neil Kinnock might have intoned) that an overdue discussion began on whether an expensive new generation of nuclear weaponry is affordable; while a Labour Cabinet is now so sclerotic that this kind of open debate can't happen...

...Here, then, is one good reason why Mr Brown deserves to keep his job. Because were he to relinquish it, it would be to someone who had known his leader's incapacity, seen it often and at first hand in Cabinet, yet never spoke. And that's worse than talentless. It's gutless.

To oblivion, then, with the whole damn lot.

So if Gordon is at some stage toppled, let's just ask Alan Johnson or Jack Straw one question. Why did you remain silent?

24 comments:

Plato said...

He is on top form!

I have just finished watching QT and I don't recall ever seeing an edition where just the mention of Gordon's name brought immediate humfing, and jeering from the audience.

It was astonishing - even Mrs T had supporters as well as haters. Gordon seems to be well either hated, pitied or treated with contempt.

Even Frank Skinner was totally off message - how times change.

JuliaM said...

"To help him decide which of his ideas were runners and which not, Tony Blair was emotionally confident enough to invite colleagues to kick him as hard as they could in private debate. Why will nobody do this for Mr Brown?"

Because Blair, for all I disagree violently with his politics, comes across as human. Someone happy enough with himself to invite critiscism of his ideas, and genuinely value feedback.

Does anyone honestly feel that Brown comes across that way?

From the first time I ever saw him interviewed, he struck me as 'wrong' in some way.

strapworld said...

But, Iain, That man of straw and the postman will tell you, with doe like eyes, 'I did' and you and I could never prove them wrong-unless a colleague speaks out!

Why have not one of this discredited cabinet resigned? That is as pertinent as the question you posed.

But would a Cameron cabinet be any different? I sense that by his treatment of David Davis and Patrick Mercer he is a slave to headlines and cannot abide anyone getting better press than himself? Am I wrong?

David Cameron talks about being straight. Well will he answer me the questions on the EU. Which are very important with the elections next month.

IF the Lisbon Treaty is signed and sealed before the general election just what does he intend to do?

IF he cannot renegotiate, as I believe he will be powerless to achieve renegotiation, what referendum will he put to the British people?

I will not hold my breath for David Cameron to answer. And that, Iain, is my concern about him. I am of the view that he is treating us all with no respect whatsoever!

Mark Thompson said...

Yes, excellent column from Mr Parris as usual.

He makes a very good point. When the Chief Executive is clearly failing, what are the rest of the board doing about it? As far as I can tell, nothing except burying their heads in the sand and pretending everything is fine. They do their party and the country a huge disservice in this way.

Anonymous said...

Might have expected this from Matthew Parris - but not the coruscating piece Polly Toynbee has written for CiF. Oddly, no comments are being accepted!

The Last Straw Man said...

Why Alan Johnson and Jack Straw in particular - because they are heads of the relevant departments, or because they are contenders to become the next Labour leader?

God forbid Jack Straw EVER gets closer to power.

http://thelaststrawman.com

Anonymous said...

Sorry - just noticed that at long last comments on Polly are being allowed.

Daily Referendum said...

This is quite like a post I did yesterday.

Anonymous said...

There is a great comment from a Mr Walton in response to Matthew's prose..

" I think Labour should hold a apprentice type series, for the next leader. The more they panic the more farcical they become.
Alan Sugar could say , Brown makes too many stupid decisions,
and when the going gets tough, he hides, or goes on world tour."

I'm sure the BBC would love that ratings winner. On the other hand 'Big Brother' will soon be upon us, and they need something to give it a bit of spice and the shock of the new...

Rex said...

Would you have told Hitler he had got it wrong?

Well I suppose you would only get a Nokia in the back of the neck from Brown!

talwin said...

I once worked as PA for a chief exec. who was something of a martinet. Although my job was to be found pretty close to the bottom of the totem pole I often got to view those who worked at a higher level.While it would be wrong to say that they confided in me - they usually didn't, I was often the recipient of the raised eyes, the pursed lips, the shoulders shrugged and the pained looks both before and after interviews. If, when in a mood on a Thursday he'd have shouted it was Tuesday - even without throwing something! - they'd have gone along with it.

I'm not suggesting any of this is acceptable, efficient, a good thing or whatever; merely that it may just be the way of the world in some organisations.

Insofar as Gordon Brown is concerned much is revealed in Tom Bower's autobiography.

Dave H said...

"Why did you remain silent?"

Silly question. The answer's obvious: they are terrified of him.

Wouldn't you be afraid to cross a vindictive bully with an extensive record of destroying opposition by any means possible?

Express dissent = career horribly ruined.

No wonder they don't act. It's called Battered Cabinet Syndrome.

Daily Referendum said...

Gordon Brown is a perfect example of what happens when you demand resect, instead of earning it.

You usually find that only arseholes and very poor man-manages demand respect.

Guthrum said...

Never underestimate the personal- we have all worked for or with people who are deeply unpleasant, no personal skills, prone to fits of violent outbursts. It takes an exceptional person to put their job on line to take them on. Look around the the cabinent table- who is there with any moral courage who does not owe their place there to Brown

Anonymous said...

Most of the cabinet are the first class passengers on ZaNu Labour's gravy train. Are you going to risk getting thrown off, when you know that you only have, at most, 12 months more?
They will take everything they can, whilst they can, because many will be trying to find an open Job Centre next year.

Anonymous said...

Given some of the rumours on the internet - maybe MP's expense claims have the potential to derail an alternative Labour leader to Brown.

This is because I recently read a daily mail row in which 3 Backbench MP's were said to be on sucide watch over affairs or Innapropriate financial claims and Four Ministers who have been enjoying closer than working relationships with other ministers whilst effectively double claiming for the same hotel room!

Interesting! Brown's anti-Tory smear operation may have failed but I have a feeling Brown's anti- alternative leader operation is still in tact plus Gordon has the ultimate defence weapon of HH his deputy!

Flemingcrag said...

Mathew is absolutely right all New Labour Government Ministers could not collectively muster the "backbone of a jellyfish".
Alan Johnson, he who he is touted as a possible leader if Gordon was somehow deposed, demonstrated how spineless he was in the lead-up to and in the aftermath of the 2005 election.
He was looking at removing early retirement options in the Public Service against the realisation of many of those in the Private Sector that they were going to have to work until they dropped. The Unions made noises, John Prescott got involved and the issue was kicked into the long grass until after the election. On re-election Alan Johnson with Gordon's approval then announced there would be no changes to early retirement rules in the Public Service.
What is best for the Country never enters the equation when Labour are kowtowing to their Union masters, especially if that Union is Unite.

Roger Thornhill said...

Why?

Collectivists.


This is the problem - they want, expect and demand that we also shut up and obey when Dear Leader speaks and consider dissent to be the worst crime, worse than any flawed policy or negligence.

Jon Lishman said...

This was brilliant (as usual).

Gareth said...

The Cabinet have done their leader's bidding under Brown as they largely did under Blair. There have been few Ministers who were evidently their own man or woman. Robin Cook, Mo Mowlam, Tony Banks and Kate Hoey are the only ones that spring to mind. And three of them are dead.

We have a generation of MPs who have grown up with a nanny state, who have been in politics under the comforting wong of a nanny party and are unable or unwilling to form, voice or hold credible opinions of their own.

It is not that different to any other welfare trap. The party machines made these MPs, and Brown represents the head of the machine. Like children seeking the approval of their parents, they're hardly going to stand up against it are they.

Anonymous said...

Compelling article by Nick Cohen hinting at the full hideousness of Brown and his ghastly cabal

http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/1132/full

Hat Tip: Mike Smithson

Anonymous said...

The Gurkha vote did not hit him out of the blue. It was a deliberate attempt to play to the lowest of his party base, racists amongst the working class, who would happily vote BNP.

Just as Brown still keeps the agenda of dawn raids to spark fears of terrorism, the language he used of thousands of Gurkahs coming in to the Country was reminiscent of anything the mob that listens to Nick Griffin would say.

He picked a wrong target though. The British are proud of the Gurkhas. They recognise them as heroes. All that was generated by Brown playing to the BNP vote (British jobs for British workers) was revulsion. Much deserved.

Anonymous said...

Tony Blair was emotionally confident enough to invite colleagues to kick him as hard as they could in private debate.

In private where? The wv is 'plums.' No kidding.

The Remittance Man said...

Most of the commenters here have got it spot on (as I suspect Mr Parris did too) peope don't stand up to Brown because he's an evil vindictive wee b*****d who hates to be contradicted.

If someone dares to question his opinion it's pretty certain that poor someone won't just get a Nokia full in the mush but will also find Gordon's bootboys spreading lies about them.

Brown may have moved from being Stalin to Mr Bean in the public's eyes, but in his own little milieu he's still Stalin.