John Kampfner drags politics further into the mire
Monday 13th September 2004

The great and the good denounce journalists for dragging politics into the mire. If only they knew. The lobby works in perfect harmony with the various new Labour factions, writes John Kampfner.

All politics, one female minister reminded me, is personal. In this government, it is disturbingly so. The animosities that took root in opposition in the early 1990s have grown, even with the responsibilities of power that should have concentrated the mind. The latest outbreak of hostilities is remarkable for the speed at which a month of calm was shattered on the very first day of term. The resignation of Andrew Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, provided a fresh sub-plot for the bigger battle. This time the Blair/Brown saga is being fought through one of the Prime Minister's closest proxies, Alan Milburn, the Blairites' best hope of stopping Gordon Brown when the time comes

It has become commonplace among the great and the good to denounce journalists for dragging politics into the mire. If only they knew. In the cesspit that is Westminster, the lobby and the various factions of new Labour are working in perfect harmony. Civil servants and those cabinet members of no fixed allegiance are in despair. They had hoped July had marked a turning point - that, whatever the rights and the wrongs, the question of Blair's succession had been postponed, at least until after the general election. They were both right and wrong.

Having survived the many crises over Iraq, the Prime Minister did consolidate his position on the eve of the summer recess, so much so that his inner circle began to lobby him to seize the moment, to "push ahead". The last time they ventured that idea was in April 2003, just after the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad. Give Brown a job he could not possibly accept, such as Foreign Secretary, and promote more true believers, they urged Blair. The hubris subsided as Iraq disintegrated.

The Baghdad bounce begat the Barbados bounce. During Blair's long sojourns in the villas of the rich and famous, the birdie in his ear apparently persuaded him of the need to strike out ideologically (whatever that means in this most un-ideological of governments) and to shuffle the pack. He had already sounded out Milburn about a return to the top flight. He was told that the former health secretary genuinely enjoyed being with his family more, and that any comeback depended on the offer. That is where Ian McCartney's post of party chair came in. McCartney's supporters - ministers, MPs and union leaders - gathered on the House of Commons terrace in a show of strength on the evening of 7 September. The following lunchtime, as Milburn's resolve appeared to be waning, he was urged by John Reid and Patricia Hewitt not to buckle.

The latest bout of frenzied briefings began before MPs returned to Westminster. While Smith had been a recipient of low-level denigration, the most spectacular target was Jack Straw, whose increasing links with Brown provided the backdrop for a character assassination in the Telegraph on 6 September.

What has irked Brown's people more than the personnel question - for example, there is no love lost between him and Charles Clarke, the Education Secretary, although they still rub along - is the way the reshuffle musings were presented. The old dialectic was dusted off: the radical modernisers (Blair, Reid and Milburn) were going to "face down" the forces of consolidation and stasis based in the Treasury. The Chancellor's decision not to exploit Blair's weaknesses over the past 18 months, bailing him out on the eve of war, during the tuition fees debate in January and during Blair's rocky May and June were not, Brown's friends insist, a demonstration of weakness but of loyalty. "He put his personal ambitions second to party unity and he is not being repaid in kind," said one. That Brown could have made his move and did not is incontrovertible.

The talk is once again of a "crunch point" - although, with perhaps only eight months to go before the election, nobody can quite pinpoint what that might entail. There are one or two genuine disputes about policy lurking somewhere in the acrimony. There is a more serious dispute about election strategy - put simply, the extent to which Labour should seek to steal Conservative ground and policies (Blairite) and the extent to which Labour should emphasise the fundamental differences (Brownite). But essentially, this is about individuals.

The latest flare-up came in a week when the Committee on Standards in Public Life reported a "widespread lack of trust in politicians", declaring that many people "feel that party politics is somehow at odds with the public interest". At Prime Minister's Questions on 8 September, Blair and Michael Howard both expressed deep condolences for the victims of Beslan and for three British servicemen killed in Iraq since parliament had last met. Having barely drawn breath, they then entered combat over the reshuffle shenanigans - the stuff of real global importance.



This article first appeared in the New Statesman and may not be reproduced without permission.