Tag Archives: Peter Mandelson

In the postmodern putsch you have to move the victim somewhere – so where for Brown?

Gordon Brown at the World Economic Forum - CC / Flickr

Gordon Brown at the World Economic Forum - CC / Flickr

If you don’t like a politician what do you do with him or her? International organisations are always an option. Could this work for Labour and Gordon Brown?

Let me explain.

Brussels is full of national politicians who no longer had a role in their national capitals; Neil Kinnock was a Commissioner when he reached the end of the road in the UK. Barroso is kept in Brussels precisely because the Portuguese government doesn’t want him back home.

The same applies in other international bodies – Sarko favoured socialist Dominique Strauss-Kahn for the IMF to remove a potent enemy from the French political system. Pascal Lamy is equally out of harm’s way in the WTO.

Yet all of the focus in the UK about the future of Gordon Brown has been not about the Prime Minister himself and the debate has almost uniquely focused on whether there is enough discontent in the cabinet to depose him. I think it’s high time to think of options for a smooth transition out of power for Brown – essentially to find some other role he could be ushered into, something that would make the ending of his time as PM look less like a disaster.

Brown is not liked in Brussels, and he doesn’t really like Brussels either. So an EU role is not a way out. But apparently Brown’s moral compass is locked on international issues and development, so could a role be found for him in the IMF, World Bank or maybe even the WTO or the UN? Lamy, Strauss-Kahn and Zoellick are not up for reselection any time soon as far as I can tell, and it’s not clear whether there could be any sort of UN role. But some creative thinking needs to be done in this regard. If Brown were not condemned to the political wilderness (and even managed a role of greater repute than the king’s in the middle east) then surely the job of Mandelson, Johnson and Miliband would become so much easier?

(Thanks to Andy Carling for the inspiration for this post, over a beer in Brussels this evening)

Email This Post Print This Post

Brown’s reshuffle: Miliband should refuse to move, and Balls should be refused

David Miliband - photo from Facebook page

David Miliband - photo from Facebook page

The British newspapers have been full of analysis of the resignations of Jacqui Smith and Hazel Blears, but the big news is still to come with Brown’s cabinet reshuffle, pencilled in for either tomorrow or Monday next week. For me there are 2 crucial decisions that will determine how all of this works out.

First of all it has been widely rumoured that Peter Mandelson might be moved to the Foreign Office, replacing David Miliband. Aside from the oddity of having one of the major cabinet positions occupied by a member of the House of Lords, I think there is no justification whatsoever for Miliband to be moved. He’s been like a breath of fresh air at the FCO in comparison to Margaret Beckett his predecessor. So Miliband should refuse to move, and if forced out, should resign from Cabinet – and if that happens Brown is surely finished. Miliband’s determination to get to the very top was questioned last summer – he cannot be seen to blink again. If Miliband himself does accept a demotion that’s it for him for the forseeable future – others will have to lead Labour in the post-Brown era instead.

Secondly it has been suggested that Alistair Darling will be moved from The Treasury and replaced by Ed Balls. I’ve never been immensely impressed by Darling and, on expenses matters alone, a case could be made to replace him. But the replacement – if any – should absolutely not be Ed Balls. Brown’s bullying and abrasive henchman was at the Treasury with Brown during the boom times, and has probably already been over-promoted. Putting someone as unquestionably loyal as Balls as Chancellor is cronyism and will further weaken Brown and the Cabinet. If Balls is installed at the Treasury I wonder how many more backbenchers will sign letters opposing Brown?

Let’s see what happens, it’s sure to be an interesting few days.

Email This Post Print This Post

Mandelson cannot resign a life peerage (even if Prentis and Dizzy want him to)

MandelsonA post at Dizzy Thinks caught my eye. Gordon Prentice MP, never one to beat about the bush – has said stated this in a Commons motion:

That this House believes that individuals who are given peerages to enable them to serve as Ministers in the House of Lords should relinquish the peerage on leaving the Government.

Sorry Dizzy and Gordon but while your point could perhaps be correct from an ethical point of view, it’s not right from a legal point of view, for it’s only possible to resign a hereditary peerage – as pioneered by Tony Benn.

Baroness Sarah Ludford, a Lib Dem life peer, is also a member of the European Parliament. From 2009 onwards the EP has a rule that its members cannot also sit simulataneously in national parliaments. So Ludford wanted to leave the House of Lords, but could not resign a life peerage. Hence the The European Parliament (House of Lords Disqualification) Regulations 2008 to withdraw the peerage. Now I’m not sure that’s quite what Prentice was advocating… This issue was also highlighted when I raised the issue of whether Baroness Ashton’s peerage was compatible with the job as a member of the European Commission.

Anyway, what’s the main issue behind all of these technicalities? Essentially Prime Ministers need the opportunity to bring people into government from outside the House of Commons. The way to do this has been to make them life peers in the House of Lords. Wouldn’t it just be easier to appoint people to government, and allow them to be questioned by either house, but not have to make them Parliamentarians? Most other European countries organise their government that way – I would be happy to see that happen, and hence Prentice’s question would cease to be an issue.

Email This Post Print This Post