Skipper

Already sections of the press are rubbishing Kathy Ashton because she is an unelected politician. As Neil Kinnock has just argued on Today, I'm not sure this is anything to worry about. US Cabinets have been unelected ever sinced 1787 and, whilst there have been arguments over many of them, some have proved to be very effective. Thed key thing is that they are appointed by people who are elected, as indeed was Lady Ashton. I honestly feel our 'talent pool' of members of the legislature is too restricted.

I once interviewed Tristan Garel-Jones, the former Tory Deputy Chief Whip who left me in no doubt that such resources are always distinctly finite. These figures are approximations but it is usually assumed that a third of a governing parliamentary party are not available by virtue of their total unsuitability: excessive drinking, incapable of running anything, let alone a ministry, too old and enfeebled, too young and inexperienced; too ideologically extreme; or too much of a risk to any government because of bizarre attitudes or personal habits. There could be other reasons. Depending on the size of its majority a government might therefore have around 200 MPs who can realistically be put in charge of Whitehall departments and fill the around 100 posts any prime minister has at his or her disposal. This is a much smaller group than one might have originally thought, to be sure.

Given that ministers need time to prove themselves in the job and display signs they are suitable to go on to higher things at cabinet level, even this number has to be qualified. In addition a prime minister has to be mindful of other considerations, representing: Welsh and Scottish interests, especially in their respective ministries; a fair number of women, given their under-representation generally in parliament; a few racial minority MPs; maybe one or two gay MPs; as well as the major ideological or ‘tribal’ interests in the parliamentary party.

Put like this, Sir John Hoskyns’ jibe that ‘governments are formed from a talent pool that could not sustain a single multi-national company’ seems less a spiteful swipe than a bleakly accurate analysis.

Despite New Labour’s huge majority of 179 and 419 seats, Blair did not find it easy to discover much talent within their number. Astute columnists often attested to this fact. Peter Riddell, 19th June 2003 commented on the recent reshuffle, that it revealed ‘the sheer mediocrity of much of the Government… which has ‘few potential stars. On a generous estimate there are at most ten possible Cabinet ministers among middle ranking and junior ministers, mostly competent managerial types like Beverley Hughes, Hazel Blears and Nick Raynsford.’

Andrew Rawnsley, whose Servants of the People, chronicled Labour’s early years, recalls a conversation with a senior official from Number 10 about

‘….the shallowness of the junior ministerial gene pool and how few really good people there were available to the Prime Minister for promotion to the top table.’(Observer, 4/4/04).

We should abandon the narrow notion that all ministers should be drawn from the legislature and look further afield for ministerial talent. The case of Kathy Ashton supports this analysis in my view.

Given the widespread publicity given to it is really is extraordinary that so many people reefuse to accept the central findings of climate change scientists. According to The Times 14th November, only 41% of the cpountry believes climate warming is the consequence of human activity:

poll, undertaken last weekend, found that only two in five people in Britain accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is largely man-made. ..

Among the public as a whole 41 per cent agrees that it is established that climate change is largely man-made. Tory voters are more dubious, at 38 per cent, than Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters (at 45 and 47 per cent). A third of the public (32 per cent) agree that climate change is happening but believes it has not yet been proven to be largely man-made, while 8 per cent think that the view that climate change is man-made is environmentalist propaganda. Fifteen per cent believe that climate change is not happening. Only 28 per cent believe that climate change is happening and is “far and away the most serious problem we face as a country and internationally”, while 51 per cent think that it is “a serious problem, but other problems are more serious”.

Occasionally one's faith in the good sense of one's fellow countrymen takes a hard knock and this is one foe me. How on earth can people deny the resuilts of careful scientific studies by world experts in theior field? No major newspaper questions these facts yet a hard core of deniers insist it's all not so, a figment of environmentalists' selfinterested imaginations. I have to quote The Times again, this time the editorial which says the case is 'overwhelming' and that the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was written by 152 scientists from more than 30 countries and reviewed by more than 600 experts. It concluded that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is due to the observed increase in man-made greenhouse gas concentration. Concentrations of CO2 have increased by more than 35 per cent since industrialisation began, and they are now at their highest for at least 800,000 years. Natural factors alone cannot, on any but the most extraordinary assumptions, get anywhere close to the temperature rises that have been witnessed. Hardly any serious scientists dispute this any longer.

One can only conclude from this that many people just do not want to believe these inconvenient facts and are so addicted to consumption of cars, cheap travel and so forth they are just closing their minds to what might happen to our grandchildren and great grand children.

Another cracking article by Andrew Rawnsley today, the final sentence of which leads this post. He reprises the saga of the Jacqui Janes letter, the resultant phone conversation with Brown and the evident reality of a Sun determination to belittle Brown and besmirch his name and reputation.

That The Sun overdid it is now palpable with even his enemies like Iain Dale- a Conservative (blogger) but a humane one- Mathew Parris- ditto- and the rightwing Spectator all agreeing Gordon has been pilloried unfairly as a busy man of poor eyesight. A more deserving target would have been his private office which allowed the letter to go out unchecked. Number 10 apparently is pleased the pendulum of sympathy has swung in Brown's direction by the end of the week.

Rawnsley points out us however that Brown was never going to be a leader we'd love and so had aimed to win our respect:

You don't achieve that from having people feel sorry for you. Voters want a leader who feels their pain, not one who asks them to experience his. Countries do not want to be led by people they pity.

Most of us felt sorry for John Major- a 'decent' man- as his party imploded around his ears, but we didn't vote for him 'Leaders who attract our pity simultaneously attract our disdain.'

Finally, a word on the 'plot'. It seems MPs are plotting to elected an anti-Brown candidate as chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party in place of Brown loyalist Tony Lloyd. If either Barry Sheerman or the impressive young Parmjit Dhanda, are elected, then according to Observer sources, 'the prime minister would have little option but to stand down'. Well, I've heard so much about plots and each time it's been 'Brown's last warning'; I really don't think there is either time enough to do the deed or anything like the necessary bottle in the PLP to do it.

So the independent review body has reecommended that the Ashes cricket series and other sports be made free to air, rather than remain the preserve of Sky Sports, accessible only to those who can afford the subscriptions. Owen Gibson today gives the details of how Sky will be stripped of its broadcasting monopoly, possibly as a tit for tat regarding The Sun's change of party allegiance.

However, such a move, if the advice is taken will cause much consternation:

The England and Wales Cricket Board has claimed plans to add Ashes cricket, home and away international football qualifiers, Wimbledon and Open golf to the list of events reserved for live broadcast on free-to-air TV will have a "disastrous impact" on grassroots funding for every sport.

Cricket coaches have complained the loss of the Sky deal will lose the game £75m in funding and will lead to scores of staff being sacked. The county game is all but moribund, as anyone who has visited one will testify; it is only the lifeblood of Sky cash which is keeping the game breathing. It's a nice dilemma. Most viewers would love to see international cricket, rugby and soccer free to air, yet most administrators in these sports will shed anguished tears about the viability of their sports without those huge dollops of Sky money.

So who should be heeded: the masses of sports lovers or those who run them? One argument is that free to air will inspire so many youngsters to play the sports their respective futures will be assured. On the other hand, loss of fundsing might mean futuree stars might mature to find the infrastructures of these sports have melted away in the meantime, leaving no clubs for them to join and pursue a sporting career. As a hopeless sports addict, I hope some compromise solution can be found.

[Don't you think the Ashes urn is such a pathetically small trophy to brandish and brag around? Compared with, say the Rugby League Challenge Cup it's a joke but that's whny cricket, with its quirky eccentricities is such an enduringly addictive past-time to some of us I suppose]

I maybe sounded a bit too critical of Brown in my last post and have been roundly taken to task by my blogging colleague Paul Linford in the comments box:

"I think the way the Sun has hounded the Prime Minister over this is quite scandalous and I'm surprised to see you giving succour to it. Gordon is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't in these situations. For goodness sake give the guy some credit for good intentions."

Having observed the awful hounding of Gordon Brown yesterday and today I have to ruefully agree with Paul. It is so obviously a Murdoch press operation to wound Brown via exploiting a mother's grief for her dead son. Nick Robinson added to my regret for criticising today when he pointed out that the PM is blind in one eye and has only 50% vision in ther other. His hand writing is poor because of this and not through carelssness and certainly not callousness.

He is a very well intentioned and highly moral person. This doesn't mean he should not resign and let someone else lead the party to a less catastrophic defeat, but it does mean he's been picked on unfairly. Incidentally, while on the subject of Afghanistan, I emailed Simon Jenkins regarding Ashdown's warning that our withdrawal would lead to the collapse of Pakistan, give nuclear weapons thereby to the Taliban and destroy NATO. His reply began by dismissing Paddy's scant knowledge of the area and concluded as follows:

"The idea that Pakistan "will fall" is rubbish. As for the Taliban having nuclear weapons, that depends on the truth of the first statement. As for staying in Afghanistan indefinitely in order to prop up Nato, that has to be the worst reason of all!"

It's a nice touch for prime ministers to write personally to the families of sevicemen killed in action, but Gordon Brown's effort(pictured) has attracted harsh contumely from the mother of Jamie, the soldier concerned and the now officially hostile Sun newspaper. The Sun condemns such sloppy drafting counting twenty spelling and other errors.

Maybe this is nit-picking by a rightwing newspaper, criticising a desperately busy man, but it does seem sensible not to send out letters of condolence which make matters worse rather than provide comfort. One thing which strikes me is Gordon's handwriting. Mine has never been good and I'm no graphologist, but I such an expert has interesting things to say about the character of someone who writes such tortured, cramped and indecipherable characters. If you check out the linked article, you'll find the thoughtful Sun has provided just such expert in the person of an Elaine Quigley. She concludes 'I think he means well but he winds himself up so much it comes out all wrong'. Too true Elaine.

Having given my account of why we should get out of the war in my last post, here is my version of the arguments why we should stay.

1. Nuclear threat: if the west withdraws it will give the Taliban a golden chance to win not just Afghanistan but Pakistan too and access their nuclear weapons. Al-Qaeda did terrible things with commercial aircraft- imagine what they might do with nuclear weapons. Possibly Pakistan might be persuaded to render their nuclear arsenal unobtainable but this is still a major danger.

2. NATO might collapse: such a break up of NATO unity might ruin the alliance and UK would lose the basis of its defence since 1949.

3. Afghan people: we would be condemning a benighted people another dose of extreme Islam- something which 70% of them say they oppose.

4. US Alliance: we might ruin our close connection with the USA, again a major aspect of our security since the middle of 20th century.

The case for withdrawal seemed to me to be irrefutable when I first constructed it but further thought produced the above points of which I think maybe the first is the clincher. But, like Jackie Ashley today I do think the war in unwinnable and that an exit strategy will eventually have to be found, if not by Brown, then by Cameron when, as seems likely, he becomes prime minister.