This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/24/was-camerons-no-third-term-announcement-just-careless

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Was Cameron's no-third-term announcement just careless? Was Cameron's no-third-term announcement just careless?
(about 1 hour later)
Hearing that David Cameron had casually “done a Blair” on BBC TV and apparently pre-announced his own political death in one of his kitchens at home took me straight back to the chaotic night in September 2004 when Labour’s most successful election winner did something similar. Not quite though, because Tony Blair did it on purpose.Hearing that David Cameron had casually “done a Blair” on BBC TV and apparently pre-announced his own political death in one of his kitchens at home took me straight back to the chaotic night in September 2004 when Labour’s most successful election winner did something similar. Not quite though, because Tony Blair did it on purpose.
All political careers, unless cut short, end in failureAll political careers, unless cut short, end in failure
Still a bad idea though, as Blair would probably confirm with hindsight. Matthew D’Ancona is being generous to his old friend in suggesting it is “an act of both strength and weakness”. It is mostly weakness or, worse, carelessness, as is underlined by the alarmed reaction of cabinet colleagues playing down its significance.Still a bad idea though, as Blair would probably confirm with hindsight. Matthew D’Ancona is being generous to his old friend in suggesting it is “an act of both strength and weakness”. It is mostly weakness or, worse, carelessness, as is underlined by the alarmed reaction of cabinet colleagues playing down its significance.
Why is it so? Partly because I saw close up what happened to Blair after his own announcement, which he deliberately mixed with two barely related statements - one on his heart condition, the other on the purchase of a big new house in Bayswater - to muddle the message he was giving Fleet Street. Most papers led next day’s edition on the heart and house angle. Oh dear.Why is it so? Partly because I saw close up what happened to Blair after his own announcement, which he deliberately mixed with two barely related statements - one on his heart condition, the other on the purchase of a big new house in Bayswater - to muddle the message he was giving Fleet Street. Most papers led next day’s edition on the heart and house angle. Oh dear.
But it is also a mistake for reasons New Labour brain-box Andrew Adonis set out very clearly in a scholarly but brutal memo which he sent to Blair in mid 2006. He spelled out the realistic options for what was routinely – then and now - billed as the “stable and orderly transition” to his political heir-very-apparent, Gordon Brown.But it is also a mistake for reasons New Labour brain-box Andrew Adonis set out very clearly in a scholarly but brutal memo which he sent to Blair in mid 2006. He spelled out the realistic options for what was routinely – then and now - billed as the “stable and orderly transition” to his political heir-very-apparent, Gordon Brown.
“Once you ‘name the date’ your authority will drain away rapidly and be followed by calls for you to bring the date forward to ‘end lame-duckery,” wrote Adonis who added that Blair’s authority remained strong enough to hold on until late 2007 and possibly into 2008, provided he set out a forward looking agenda. By way of contrast Brown had positioned himself on the “compromise everything left” and “looks set to be a weak if extended interlude between you and Cameron.” “Once you ‘name the date’ your authority will drain away rapidly and be followed by calls for you to bring the date forward to ‘end lame-duckery’,” wrote Adonis who added that Blair’s authority remained strong enough to hold on until late 2007 and possibly into 2008, provided he set out a forward looking agenda. By way of contrast Brown had positioned himself on the “compromise everything left” and “looks set to be a weak if extended interlude between you and Cameron.”
Ouch. Mean, but fairly accurate. Blair duly won his third term in 2005 but his authority was indeed weakened. Destabilised by a round robin letter and junior ministerial resignations in September 2006 he announced that the coming party conference would be his last. He went – amid Commons applause and a prolonged lap of honour – announcing his departure on 2 May and handing over after Brown’s unchallenged “coronation” as leader (nominated by 313 MPs no less) on 27 June 2007.Ouch. Mean, but fairly accurate. Blair duly won his third term in 2005 but his authority was indeed weakened. Destabilised by a round robin letter and junior ministerial resignations in September 2006 he announced that the coming party conference would be his last. He went – amid Commons applause and a prolonged lap of honour – announcing his departure on 2 May and handing over after Brown’s unchallenged “coronation” as leader (nominated by 313 MPs no less) on 27 June 2007.
Adonis said more in the memo (Blair prints it in his own memoirs) which has a bearing today. “There are no dignified exits and orderly transitions, just exits and transition,” he warned Blair. The more successful the PM the more likely an undignified exit. Lloyd George, Gladstone, Churchill - he reluctantly resigned at 80 in 1955 after a four year rearguard action – Thatcher of course, Macmillan too, were shambles. Adonis said more in the memo (Blair prints it in his own memoirs) which has a bearing today. “There are no dignified exits and orderly transitions, just exits and transition,” he warned Blair. The more successful the PM the more likely an undignified exit. Lloyd George, Gladstone, Churchill - he reluctantly resigned at 80 in 1955 after a four-year rearguard action – Thatcher of course, Macmillan too, were shambles.
By contrast Harold Wilson (1976), Stanley Baldwin ( 1937) and Lord Salisbury (1902) all went in their own time, but their reputations were quickly trashed by posterity. All political careers, unless cut short, end in failure, as Enoch Powell wrote. And he should know. Adonis has done a lot of reading.By contrast Harold Wilson (1976), Stanley Baldwin ( 1937) and Lord Salisbury (1902) all went in their own time, but their reputations were quickly trashed by posterity. All political careers, unless cut short, end in failure, as Enoch Powell wrote. And he should know. Adonis has done a lot of reading.
Cameron is not widely loved by his party, though he is rated the best leader by voters, a familiar combination for which Denis Healey and Ken Clarke can vouch. The Guardian’s Nick Watt reported only on Saturday that a “Save Dave” strategy is being prepared by loyalists who want to prevent a leadership challenge if the 7 May election does not give the Tories a majority – the maths don’t work for that - or the prime claim to remain in power by one means or another.Cameron is not widely loved by his party, though he is rated the best leader by voters, a familiar combination for which Denis Healey and Ken Clarke can vouch. The Guardian’s Nick Watt reported only on Saturday that a “Save Dave” strategy is being prepared by loyalists who want to prevent a leadership challenge if the 7 May election does not give the Tories a majority – the maths don’t work for that - or the prime claim to remain in power by one means or another.
Cameron’s blunder (if that is what it was) makes it easier, not harder for such would-be plotters. To reasonable folk it can be presented as a suitable acknowledgement that he will not quit after winning (touch wood, Dave) the promised 2017 EU referendum but go on to serve a full 10 years like Blair did. But not all folk are reasonable.Cameron’s blunder (if that is what it was) makes it easier, not harder for such would-be plotters. To reasonable folk it can be presented as a suitable acknowledgement that he will not quit after winning (touch wood, Dave) the promised 2017 EU referendum but go on to serve a full 10 years like Blair did. But not all folk are reasonable.
By naming potential successors he will have inflamed passions – love and hatred – as well as raising the awkward practical question of whether he steps down before the 2020 election – or afterwards. What did Labour do after losing in 2010? Stage a protracted leadership contest which walked away from the Blair legacy and allowed the new coalition to establish its own narrative for the recession: Labour’s fault, not the bankers.By naming potential successors he will have inflamed passions – love and hatred – as well as raising the awkward practical question of whether he steps down before the 2020 election – or afterwards. What did Labour do after losing in 2010? Stage a protracted leadership contest which walked away from the Blair legacy and allowed the new coalition to establish its own narrative for the recession: Labour’s fault, not the bankers.
Timing is a form of discretionary power previously held by the incumbent PM. The 2010 Fixed Term Parliaments Act which set the date of the next election – May 7 2015 – was designed to prevent a coalition partner cutting and running away. But it gave away a valuable weapon in Cameron’s hand, one he might well have used to sort out the “who governs?’ issue instead of running a protracted, unwanted, long election campaign this past year. Timing is a form of discretionary power previously held by the incumbent PM. The 2010 Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, which set the date of the next election – May 7 2015 – was designed to prevent a coalition partner cutting and running away. But it gave away a valuable weapon in Cameron’s hand, one he might well have used to sort out the “who governs?” issue instead of running a protracted, unwanted, long election campaign this past year.
In saying he will not go “ on and on” as Margaret Thatcher threatened to do before the palace coup of 1990 ( that didn’t do her much good, Blair said in his memoirs) Cameron has avoided one pitfall and stepped into another. Blair gave an ill-judged newspaper interview (“Blair defies his party..”) which added to his woes. I wonder how sick in the stomach Cameron felt when he saw himself in his Cotswold kitchen on TV. In saying he will not go “on and on” as Margaret Thatcher threatened to do before the palace coup of 1990 (that didn’t do her much good, Blair said in his memoirs) Cameron has avoided one pitfall and stepped into another. Blair gave an ill-judged newspaper interview (“Blair defies his party..”) which added to his woes. I wonder how sick in the stomach Cameron felt when he saw himself in his Cotswold kitchen on TV.
There will be no more kitchen jokes about Ed Miliband’s domestic arrangements at Wednesday’s final PMQs.There will be no more kitchen jokes about Ed Miliband’s domestic arrangements at Wednesday’s final PMQs.