A Certain Style
Henry Porter has been standing in for The Observer’s Andrew Rawnsley, and I wish it would remain so, as Rawnsley is dreadfully turgid. I understand he’s well-regarded by the average political journalist, but boy, he’s dull.
Porter on the other hand is an outspoken critic of Blair’s dictatorial, anti-democratic tendencies and also of the quiet, almost covert way in which New Labour is cutting the heart out of what’s left of the British legal system and making the state, in the person of the prime minister, all-powerful.
Blair, sensing a real threat from this angle of attack and knowing he is weak, obviously considers attack is the best form of defence (at least he’s consistent) and has launched a PR offensive via a heavily-spun public email exchange with Porter in today’s Observer.
There’s not much new here; Blair merely drags out his tired old ‘resolute-leader, law n’order, straight-kinda-guy’ schtick one more time to get a headline, any headline, before the local elections, but buried in the spin and verbiage is this:
Plans are being drawn up for a super-strength variant of the anti-social behaviour order, for those suspected of involvement in organised crime such as drug smuggling or sex trafficking.
Suspects would be forbidden from associating with accomplices or visiting certain places on pain of jail, restricting their liberty in an unprecedented way. Such civil orders can be obtained with less proof than a court conviction.
(For a rundown on that bastard stepchild of legislation, the ASBO, and its pernicious effects, see here.)
I have my differences with the Labour party, heaven knows. I grew up with the party and the T&G union though I’ve since moved far to the left, largely due to advent of the Blairites. Some people I know and like, sort of, are still party members, despite being decent people and still describing themselves as socialists. What I don’t understand is how they can, when their leader is right there, in their very own house organ, The Observer, making policy of the most tyrannical kind on the fly, as though the party didn’t even exist and he were supreme leader.
The blogosphere talks a lot about the cognitive dissonance of Republicans, but what about that of Labourites? Theirs is necessarily even sharper – the Republicans never described themselves as a social justice party, as Labour did and still does. Republicans have only had to go further out, (way further) along a line of reasoning, whereas Labour members have had to do a complete 180 degree flip.
So what is it that keeps them in the party? Is it the cheap beer in the Labour Club? Or do party members think that this whole Blair/Iraq thing is all a horrible dream? That one morning they’ll wake up in the shower a la Bobby Ewing and Honest John Smith will be back in charge? It’s the only thing that can explain their continued ovine passivity in the face of such a perversion of Labour tradition as Blair has commiitted.
What will finally likely to turn the rank and file against Blair? Not the wrecked NHS, the illegal war, the cash for peerages, the generalised corruption, the constant lies and the fact he’d like to be Il Nuevo Capo Di Tutti Capi now Berlusconi’s gone – no, it’s that his wife, noted QC, judge and top earner Cherie Booth, billed the Labour election fund for 7,000 pounds (275 a day) for her personal hair stylist to accompany her on campaign ‘duties’.
CHERIE BLAIR presented the cash-strapped Labour Party with a ?7,700 bill for the services of her personal hair stylist during last year?s general election campaign.
As Labour struggled with outgoings so large that it had to resort to secret loans from millionaires to stay afloat, Mrs Blair made the party pay ?275 a day for a month to keep her hair in shape. The invoice from Andr? Suard, her hairdresser, is declared by Labour as an election expense in its annual statement of accounts for 2005 submitted to the Electoral Commission last month.
The Times understands that his invoice describes the services rendered to Labour?s election effort as ?hair styling for Cherie Blair?. He charged a daily rate of ?275 between April 6 and May 6, the day after her husband won Labour?s historic third term.
The disclosure caused fury last night in Labour?s ranks as the party tried to motivate its demoralised and shrinking membership to fight another difficult round of local elections in which it faces heavy losses. Peter Kilfoyle, a backbench MP and former party official, protested that the bill was twice the sum spent on his own election campaign in Liverpool Walton.
Mr Kilfoyle said: ?This is a real problem. We are almost accepting by stealth a First Lady. We don?t have a First Lady in our constitution, whether the Labour Party constitution or the unwritten British constitution; ?7,000 could have been spent on political campaigning. We spent about ?3,500 on our election [in Liverpool Walton]. It would be a very healthy contribution in many seats.?
I’ve been an election agent and fundraiser, and the thought of having 7,000 quid to campaign with is my idea of heaven. The idea of having seven thousand to spend on my hair… I’m as vain as the next woman, but that’s ridiculous. That it was wasted on the vanity of one overprivileged woman is understandably sickening to ordinary party members: that money represents who knows how many coffee mornings, bootsales, street collections and anguished pleas to union branches for funds, funds that won’t be forthcoming again after this.
I doubt many Labour members earn over 275 a week after tax, let alone for a day. And it wasn’t even worth it – her hairdresser should be ashamed, judging by the pictures. For that amount of money I’d at least expect a little style, a little elan, maybe some extensions – not the bog-standard, school-run, woman in a 4 x 4 in Waitrose car park, one-size-fits-all, brunette, lacquered helmet.
It’s almost enough to make you feel sorry for Labour party supporters – almost but not quite, when one remembers that the left of the party warned them against Blair long ago and were purged from the party and the unions for their trouble. You reap what you sow, lie down with dogs get up with fleas – pick your own proverb.
Henry Porter is on BBC’s Broadcasting House now, discussing the exchange with Blair, and this show is downloadable as a podcast here. Highly recommended.
Read More: Blair Civil Liberties UK Politics
