Brown's curious speech
Here's about why Gordon Brown slipped a reference to Trident into his Mansion House speech.
Bear with me, as it tells you a great deal about relations at the top of this government. (I relayed this in a review of the week in full technicolour on last night's - click here if you want to watch - it's a Sex in the City pastiche starring this very blog).
You may recall that in the best (worst?) traditions of spin, the words Gordon Brown used about retaining Britain's nuclear deterrent were the same as in Labour's manifesto. Except that he added "in the long term". Reporters were told that this really meant that he was in favour of renewing or replacing Trident.
The chancellor had told his spin doctors to convey his support for updating Trident because he feared he was about to be 'out spun' - that the Blairites were about to say that only their man could be trusted to upgrade Britain's nuclear deterrent.
And the reason he did it that day?
He'd just received papers for the first cabinet committee on Trident - and that's why he slipped it in the speech in that curious way.
I'm 
Comments
I hold no brief for Tony Blair whatsoever. He can't go quick enough for me. However I am completely in dispair that someone as petty and vindictive as Gordon Brown will one day be our PM.
Hang on a second: I'm not sure you can complain about "in the best (worst?) traditions of spin", while simultaneously trumpeting a political report given in the style of 'Sex and the City'.
The day politics is reported seriously instead of treated as entertainment is the day voters will start going back to the polls. Big Brother gets more serious analysis than politics does, and issues such as Trident and nuclear power need more objective reporting that doesn't couch everything in smug inverted commas and knowing smiles.
Don't blame the politicians, Nick - take a long hard look at your own contribution to the rise in apathy.
That was a strange and somewhat anti-climaxicle end to this 3 day mystery adventure. Not exactly sure of the relevance of that picture of you Nick- perhaps you are emailing Cameron another one liner to have a go at Mr Brown!
Glad that mystery is over now so we can move onto something new on Monday
Call me naive and sentimental but I am peeved that this Blair/Brown saga appears interminable, with its internecine treachery worthy of the Borgias.
What really worries me is that in both camps, there are flunkies going through speeches, quotes and Political Editors' pants to find just one comma, just one speck of nuance or one scintilla of mutinous spin to pounce on.
It is enough to stop certain people thinking of sex every seven minutes, eh Nick? (cf NR's revelation on This Week)
Nick,
Many, including me, often accuse this Government of importing all manner of Americanisms into domestic politics but the one which they have notably skipped is the dedication to the military anyone aspiring to high office in the US must exhibit.
Do you have any sense that anyone in Government has noticed that the billions they seem happy to spend on a new wave of WMD could provide our convential forces with modern armour, vehicles, airplanes and even the second aircraft carrier which some think will be lost from the FAC project?
I'm not anti-nuclear but it seems to me that when TB follows Bush into Iran we're going to need these a lot more than we will a couple of submarines!
Aaaaah....so Gordon "scooped" Number 10, that's very wicked. Not the sort of thing that could happen in the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Newsroom, I imagine. I can see you all standing politely in line (hiding your copy).
Martin,
I don't think anyone imagines that these things are that much use militarily (although I'm sure that they will come out of the military budget). Surely they are the adornments of geopolitical power, and in a sense a sign of our alliance with the USA and the "strength and influence" we claim to draw from that alliance.
It's not that they'd be of any use in Iraq, it's that their replacement is being done for the same reasons we went into Iraq (well, in my opinion).
Punch above our weight, and all that, which I suspect is a thrill more enjoyed by those doing the governing than by those being governed. If you are horribly cynical (and surely you are not ?), you might think of them as an executive perk, along the lines of a corporate jet, so essential to management status and such a drain shareholders.
I reckon Brown needs a new spin team so that what he really thinks or wants people think he thinks is actually conveyed to the media.
I think renewing the nuclear weapons sets a bad example to the rest of the world, but we must still have some just in case. We should use this as a launch pad to begin the disarmament process and try to encourage others notably the USA and Russia to do the same.
Nick,based on your report, it is clear that Brown is more interested in his own career path than policy. Presumably all Blair now needs to do, in order to push through his policies, is to publish papers for the first of the various cabinet committees to consider. Brown will pliantly endorse them all.
Brown, Blair, Prescott, etc. They have been washed up for years. Just that the people of the country haven't fully woken up to the fact as yet.
But they will when the Government ship runs out of rum.
Am I alone in being sick to death of spin by whatever politician?
I can only hope that Cameron will learn the lesson or is it already too late for an ex PR man?
What the politicians seem to think is that they can put out a big lie and spin out of it as a matter of course. The bigger the lie the bigger the spin needed to get away.
Perhaps they should reflect on the performance of a real top (that is if they can remember their childhood experiences).The larger the top the more devastating the effect it looses momentum and goes out of control.
Kim
>> If you are horribly cynical (and surely you are not ?)
Cynical? Me? Naaah, I just assume everything our current government tells us is a lie and look for the hidden meaning.
Oh... ;-)
Well, England are out of the World Cup - Blair can finally call it a day.
Dear Nick, why are you working at MFI? Can't the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ stretch to an office for their political editor?
I think Gordon will be the best prime minister we ever had in the last 5 years. I think we support him and if we hold his scottish against him we really are breaking our union and that is just stupid.
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. And that you, Nick, hath been scuppered by the flattery of a shared 'secret'.
Gordon Brown is in a difficult position. He wants to brief as if he is prime minister in order to prove his credentials but is anxious not to appear to be allowing his seething ambition to rock the boat.
So, Gordon briefs, in code: "I will replace Trident."
People shout: "Who the hell do you think you are? You may never become prime minister."
Gordon backtracks quickly and deftly backstabs Tony Blair: "I didn't mean it really, I just said it because Tony's nasty friends were going to accuse me of not maintaining our nuclear deterrent. So it's all his fault."
Playground stuff. Easy.
Jonathan is absolutely right!
The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ now seems to treat "News" as a sub-division of it's Light Entertainment department. Pausing periodically to lament public apathy and cynicism about politics, of course.
To those who claim that the sullen masses would suddenly get turned on by politics if the media only treated it a bit more seriously, let me just say 'Despatch Box.'
I quite like the irrelevant approach of the Week - somehow its quasi satirical style cuts through the b*t. Those sorts of programmes are necessary. But I agree absolutely about the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ treating real news as a sub division of Light Entertainment. Just consider the decision on Sunday to lead both the six o clock and the ten o clock news with Beckham resigning on a day when two British soldiers died in Afganistan, killed by Taliban on the day it began to become clear (pace Christina Lamb in the Sunday Times) just how misguided that little adventure is rapidly turning out to be. It was a turning point, in my view, a moment when it began to become shockingly clear the extent to which the electorate had been kept in the dark about the situation and the degree to which the political classes had failed to hold the Government to account. And what did the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ think was the "main story" of the day? So - keep up the cynical, debunking style Nick. We need more, not less frankness about what our leaders are up to.
"Jonathan is absolutely right!
The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ now seems to treat "News" as a sub-division of it's Light Entertainment department. Pausing periodically to lament public apathy and cynicism about politics, of course."
Get a life, I'm sure the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ have a complaints dept if you want to look for it.
This blog is for discussing Nick's posts, not questioning the stylistic ethos of the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ's political coverage.
Everyone ought to untangle their knickers re the This Week package; it was just a humourous piece - one can't take investigative journalism far enough when the present govt seems pleased to libel opponents into submission. Long live satire in British politics.
More importantly, i see no new posts over this weekend. Surely the Prescott situation deserves a brief mention, if not for the important *allegations* of ministerial impropriety (which may or may not be true) then perhaps for the sheer comedy of this never ending scandal. I would preferably like a ministerial bloodbath - unfortunately the beeb as a whole is ignoring this story.
Of course, Britain doesn't really have an "independent nuclear deterrant" in the first place. If the US withdrew tech support (inc. spare parts, etc), it wouldn't be long before the missiles would be useless.
Jonathan is getting emotional for no reason. The SITC spoof was done for This Week, which viewers will know often has spoof-styled reports to introduce a debate in the studio.
I personally enjoy reading Nicks blogs, his viewpoints and added touches such as bizarre photos or thoughts (naked to interview in 7-8 min, wasn't it, Nick?). This is the point of a blog, to be a bit more personal rather than the more serious, yet equally enjoyable, political articles on the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ News web site.
Talking of which, I still believe the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ News is still of an excellent standard.... has anyone seen the ITV news recently?!
I can't stand ITV News!! So glad Nick moved and I love reading the blogs, very informative! Will say though Dead Ringers impression of Andrew Marr is funnier! Sorry Nick! Did love 'Specs in the City'!!
I could swear the ITV news channel was brought off the air, maybe I'm wrong.
ITV news is full of dramatic reconstructions and fancy designs - much rather the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ news set!
Specs was great, Nick, keep up the fantastic blogging!
(btw that Katie Turner from K Fu?!)
But Anonymous...don't you realise that everyone who posts to a blog needs to get a life?
Union, what Union?
With friends like our Scottish bravehearts, who needs enemies?
Im afraid that thoese who claim the money for Trident will come out of the MOD's budget are mistaken. If that were so then the MOD would be down to just £10 billion for a year. the MOD's budget was £34 billion last i checked. Trident could cost up to £20 billion. that is why the money has to be found from else where, and hence the big debate. Some may say Trident is an expensive 'perk' of government, but it may also help keep our position on the wold stage. Many people in Europe may dissagree but think what the president of Iran may think if the UK gives up its Nuclear weapons. Mabe they should be handed over to the RAF again, it may prove cheaper in the long run. (just an intresting aside, Did you know that the PW cannot order a Nuclear strike. he can only give permission for the Military to decide if a strike is needed.