Posts tagged The Guardian

Martin Rowsn on seven days of BA strikes

More than half a million travellers to be hit by strikes on successive weekends from 20 March


Bring on the Robin Hood tax | Polly Toynbee

Everyone but the rich is outraged by the financiers’ billowing wealth. At the budget, Labour can tip the balance back to the people

The budget is 10 days away and yet already the chief secretary, Liam Byrne, appears to have ruled out any new tax rises to deal with the deficit. That is a deeply alarming prospect – and as a political stand, a blunder. If the election squeezes out any honesty about the cuts to come soon, then voters need to know the choices. The Institute for Fiscal Studies warns the likely cuts will wipe out virtually all the extra spending of the Labour era – an unimaginable blow. Unless taxes rise to mitigate that disaster. Whether or not Byrne really meant it, why was he pretending tax rises were off the agenda?

Last week Gordon Brown warned of “bumps in the road” ahead. The man who denied the looming crunch doesn’t say such things lightly. Economists warn that Britain is wobbling on a tightrope over a second recession where spending cuts would precipitate more unemployment and risk sinking the economy into a downward spiral. Mortgage lending figures just plunged, house prices are predicted to fall and export and manufacturing figures were dreadful. Growth figures for this year’s first quarter may have fallen backwards – and they will emerge two weeks before election day. Blame the January snow for lack of shopping – but the outlook could be grim.

The chancellor should be listening to the group of 80 MPs and economists calling for another fiscal stimulus to keep the economy afloat: Britain is one of only two G20 countries withdrawing the stimulus this year. To invest in housing, transport and clean energy with growth and jobs is the Rooseveltian way out of recession and debt. The cabinet debates how to use a windfall from the bank bonus tax and lower than expected unemployment. With an abyss gaping below, of course it must be put back into investment. And this is no time to rule out tax rises.

So far Labour has failed to find the words to express public outrage at the financiers’ billowing wealth while the Treasury is drained. Only weeks since launching, the campaign for a Robin Hood tax on all financial transactions has gathered extraordinary support. It hasn’t been hard, so profound is the untapped public anger at the bankers. This week the European parliament voted for it overwhelmingly – 536 to 80 – supported by the social democrats and the majority conservative EPP grouping: opponents were the ECP rump rightwingers the Tories belong to. Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel support it. Vince Cable will put it into the Lib Dem manifesto. Gordon Brown supports it but, as ever, he wants US support, which is unlikely. Backed here by some 100 organisations from Oxfam to the Salvation Army, Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University came to London this week to promote the tax, urging the EU to go it alone.

Rarely has a campaign gathered such momentum in so short a time: 140,000 have joined and more gather by the day, besieging MPs (RobinHoodtax.org.uk). In this budget, campaigners want a sterling transaction tax, to come in at once. Imposing just 0.005% on every sterling deal is within Britain’s sole control, raising £4bn. If the EU agrees a wider financial transactions tax, it would bring Britain another £4bn – one estimate is £100bn across Europe, to be used at home, in foreign aid and on climate change.

Money must be raised, but deficit panic has become a tulip mania in reverse, a group-think stoked up by those with a strong interest in no change. Frighteners about loss of credit rating are absurd: British debt is borrowed long, without need to refinance for some 12 years, and interest rates are low. But the Conservative’s City friends are good at scaring the public about imminent bankruptcy and they lean hard on the Treasury. Look at the budget demands of the Institute of Directors: cut public spending by 35%, (but ringfence cash for roads, rail and airports). Cut corporation tax on companies to 15%, reverse national insurance and 50p tax rises and cut the protections for agency workers. Make the rich richer and the poor poorer – so who are the real class warriors?

Labour has failed to cash in politically on public fury at the rich who brazenly resist fair tax. HSBC’s information has been stolen on 24,000 private accounts in Switzerland and now it frantically assures clients the contents won’t reach tax authorities: HMRC hopes it does, but where is the Labour tub-thumping? Swiss and Liechtenstein bank doors are jemmied open by theft, but why does the EU tolerate any tax haven secrecy? General De Gaulle sent troops to surround Monaco over hiding tax fraud, and cut off its water: they relented. Meanwhile “respectable” consultants with government contracts advise top earners on avoiding the 50p tax rate by describing income as capital gains, or giving interest-free loans to be written off once the Tories get in and the tax is cut. PricewaterhouseCoopers tells the Financial Times it recommends paying dividends out before 1 April – their corporate social responsibility boasts somewhat at odds with denying cash to the state at a time of national emergency.

Where is the shame? The threat is that top people will flee to tax havens, but HMRC has finally toughened rules for residency. Do the rich relish the life of Guy Hands, the private equity head of Terra Firma who loves his money more than his school-age children and parents he can no longer visit from his Guernsey refuge, avoiding that 50p?

What we face here, which Labour has yet to find words to express, is a war between those who control the money sucked up into their own pockets, against the great majority who are the losers. This is the tidal pull of inequality that Labour tried and failed to swim against. This budget is the time to tip the balance on reward and tax towards the people. The reason the Robin Hood campaign is galloping forward so fast is that everyone but the rich wants that tide reversed. This is a totemic tax: many others are needed too.

The budget should lay out the facts – the country is still in great economic peril. If the deficit were paid off by cuts alone, that means a cut of 17% in every department except schools and aid – unthinkable and unnecessary. Money must be raised: it would be a positive social good to raise it from those still making fortunes out of easy processing and skimming of our money in these hard times. Put the case to the voters and see what they think. Labour has little to fear on this. If this is class war, the other side declared it – so let’s fight it.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Gordon Brown misses his Rosebud moment as publisher shelves study

Suzie Mackenzie shadowed PM for most of his period in No 10 but believed her book should also cover election

An in-depth and intimate study of Gordon Brown during the past two and a half years was this week shelved by its publishers, Bloomsbury.

After shadowing the prime minister for most of his period in No 10, the journalist Suzie Mackenzie told the publishers this week she would not be handing in the manuscript to meet their March deadline and Bloomsbury terminated the lucrative contract.

Mackenzie had been due to publish before the general election, but she said she had always told the publishers she believed the book should include time spent with the prime minister during this year’s election.

Mackenzie told the Guardian: “I had said all along I didn’t think it should be published before June because the book should include the election and that’s what happened. That deadline just didn’t feel right. No 10 staff were always extremely helpful.”

A No 10 aide, alluding to the childhood sledge which was key to Citizen Kane’s character, said: “It is very sad. We know she had extraordinary material. Really good stuff about his mother and father and maybe a ‘Rosebud’ moment.”

Mackenzie was picked by Downing Street to write the book after writing an interview with Brown for the Guardian in 2004, which they felt was an accurate representation of his character. She was afforded intimate access and travelled with the prime minister through all the tribulations of his premiership, including the negotiations in the run up to the G20 summit and as world leaders grappled with the economic downturn.

In their spring catalogue the publishers said Mackenzie’s work was going to be the most “definitive” account of the prime minister.

“Mackenzie does not aim to judge his success as prime minister – or, not only that. Instead she produces an extraordinary , multi-faceted portrait of the growth – political, intellectual, psychological – of Britain’s most intriguing politician.”

After Mackenzie indicated she was not going to be able to meet the March deadline, Bloomsbury were said to be further concerned when her material appeared to have been plundered by the publication of Andrew Rawnsley’s book, The End of the Party, and the prime minister appearing on Piers Morgan’s ITV chat show.

Downing Street has already been in touch with Mackenzie to ask what she intends to do with the material and she is reported to have said she has no plans until after the election.

Two weeks ago Mackenzie went public with a recording of Brown’s foreign policy adviser Stewart Wood, which supported Rawnsley’s allegation – at that time being rubbished by Downing Street – that Brown intimidated staff. Mackenzie’s recording featured Wood saying Brown has once pushed him aside on the stairs inside No 10.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Let’s move to Huddersfield, West Yorkshire

Just another grimy, post-industrial town? Far from it – it’s the new Leeds, don’t you know

What’s going for it?

I’d never thought much about Huddersfield. Just another grimy post-industrial town, I guessed. But then I was listening to Radio 4’s The Food Programme, all about a co-operative of artisan bakers on the edge of town. Hmm, I thought. File that. And then I recalled Incredible Edible Huddersfield, the grow-your-own community movement à la Hugh FW. Double hmm. And then I cross-referenced this information with the Ofsted reports (really very good). Triple hmm. And then the Lady Wife drew my attention to its reputation for doughty Victorian civic buildings. And then I went there. The blind can now see! Huddersfield’s a marvel. A booming uni, the Pennines on the doorstep, a history of community-minded leftiness, a cultural scene especially rich in music and, let’s get materialistic, great, great property at lovely prices. Three words: the new Leeds. Two more: move there.

The case against

Has had more than its fair share of ring roads, cruddy 60s shopping centre. Redevelopment long promised for the centre.

Well connected?

Very. The M62 swings by and the M1’s 20 minutes away. But the real boon is the railway: Manchester (40 minutes) and Leeds (25 minutes); plus services to Barnsley, Bradford, Sheffield, Halifax. Direct, too, to Scarborough, York and Liverpool.

Schools

Splendid. “Good” primaries, says Ofsted: St Patrick’s Catholic, Moldgreen Community, St Joseph’s Catholic, Golcar, St John’s CofE, Crow Lane, Fixby, Moorlands, Nields, Paddock, Scapegoat Hill, Slaithwaite CofE and Wellhouse. “Good” primaries with “outstanding” features: South Crosland CofE, Repton, Rawthorpe. “Outstanding” primaries: Lindley, Newsome, Linthwaite Clough, Rowley Lane and Spring Grove. “Good” secondaries: Fartown, Rawthorpe, Royds Hall, Salendine Nook, King James’s and Almondbury; Moor End “outstanding”; independent Huddersfield Grammar well regarded, too.

Hang out at…

Good local restaurants and cafes, like Vanilla and the Dining Rooms. Me? I’ll have a pint of mild at The Rat & Ratchet, famed for its ales.

Where to buy

The south, north-west and west for best, everything from stone cottages to vast villas. Nice villagey inner urban spots, too.

Market values

Vast detacheds, £750,000-£1.25m. Sizeable detacheds, Victorian villas etc, £350,000-£750,000. Standard detacheds, £150,000-£350,000. Semis, £80,000-£400,000 (big Victorians). Terraces, £50,000-£270,000 (period cottages).

Bargain of the week

Fancy a Victorian mill, all 3,717 sq m of it? Stone built, west of the centre, bit of a project – £430,000, with Walker Singleton (01484 477600).

From the streets

Catherine McGrath “The place has spirit, real diversity and beautiful buildings to boot.”

Becca Spavin “Huddersfield station: a magnificent building with two real ale pubs on the platform.”

Neil ClaksonCoffee Evolution is a great cafe with a funky bar and good for people watching from the window. The monthly poetry nights at the Albert are an institution.”

Alison Munday “A busy town, kept vibrant by the universityand events like the annual Contemporary Music Festival (http://www.hcmf.co.uk/), the Kirklees Mela and the Huddersfield Carnival.”

• Live in Huddersfield? Join the debate at guardian.co.uk/letsmoveto

Do you live in Waltham Abbey Do you have a favourite haunt or a pet hate? If so, please write, by next Tuesday, to lets.move@guardian.co.uk.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Griffin vs Hodge: the Battle for Barking

A former Labour stronghold has become home to one of the ugliest fights in politics. In one corner, a long-standing minister. In the other, the leader of the BNP. John Harris joins them on the frontline

The tube heads east, through Whitechapel, Stepney Green, Mile End, Bow Road. Canary Wharf is there in the near distance, but seems like another world. The train passes through post-industrial remains – rusty gasometers, empty canals – and blocks of flats, from inter-war mansion blocks to the great leviathans put up in the 60s. Finally, the landscape opens out into a grey plateau, and you’re there: most of the way to Essex, into the borough of Barking and Dagenham.

As arranged, Nick Griffin’s bodyguard calls me at 1.30pm, and picks me up at Dagenham Heathway station – whereupon we drive to the home of Richard Barnbrook, one of the British National Party’s leading Barking councillors and their solitary member of the London Assembly. An English flag and a Union Jack fly either side of the front door; inside, the lounge is dominated by two big glass tanks populated by Chinese water dragons and other exotic reptiles.

And there he is, like a Bond villain relocated to the set of the Royle Family: Nick Griffin, 51, here for the day before resuming his current job in Strasbourg and Brussels as the MEP for England’s North West. He is personable, if a little nervous. Depending on your point of view, the scene’s fine details suggest either the banality of evil, or the comfortingly Pooter-esque tastes of the house’s owner: a matter not just of the reptiles, but of Barnbrook’s insistence that everyone, his leader included, walks around in their stocking feet, and the fact that he makes a point of offering Griffin a soft drink: “Do you want an apple juice, Nick?”

“Oh, I’d love an apple juice.”

Eventually, we make our way to the Thames View estate, a blighted housing development cut off from the rest of the borough by the cacophonous A13. Seemingly for my benefit and that of a BNP volunteer making a campaign video, Griffin, Barnbrook and another five or six BNP members – at least two of whom are wearing secret service-type earpieces – approach the few members of the public who are braving the rain, and talk to them about the more difficult aspects of their lives.

In Shannon’s bakery, 60-year-old Shannon Slattery tells them about her daughter, who lives with her four-year-old son in a grim, privately-rented flat full of pigeon droppings that have apparently made the boy chronically ill. They’re on the council waiting list, “but every time, she’s, like, number 200 or 300″. She and her husband Derek now vote BNP: “They talk straight – they stand up for the English.” All this is explained while a few black schoolkids jostle at the counter for cakes, and Barnbrook makes awkward small talk with them: “You going to take some exercise after that? You don’t want to get big round the middle.”

Once a dependable Labour stronghold, Barking and Dagenham is now represented by two MPs who could not be more different: the left’s favourite, and likely post-Brown contender, Jon Cruddas; and Margaret Hodge, New Labourite, and minister at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. They have one thing in common: a long, grinding fight against the British National Party. Since 2006, the BNP has had 12 councillors here – nine of whom are in Hodge’s Barking constituency – and come May it could make it to 26 seats and be handed control of the borough. Meanwhile, Hodge is in the early stages of a general election battle against the far right’s most recognisable and infamous face: Nick Griffin.

Modern politicians don’t talk about such issues much, but the underlying problems here are simple enough. Local life used to revolve around the massive Ford car works, which once employed 50,000, but is now home to a diesel engine plant staffed by only 2,000. Back then, the borough was also a byword for plentiful council housing.

Margaret Thatcher’s Right To Buy scheme changed things for ever, though only once former tenants sold up and moved on. As that happened, thousands of ex-council houses contributed to the cheapest rental market in London, drawing more and more of the economic migrants who now keep so much of the city running. The borough was thus transformed from a largely white community where abundant accommodation ensured that extended families lived within doors of each other, to a multi-coloured milieu in which people at the sharp end had to compete for scarce supplies of just about everything: decent jobs, adequate schools and, most of all, somewhere to live. The result: a tinderbox, where issues get reduced to race and nationality.

One Saturday in January, I follow a crowd of Labour party people on one of Hodge’s Days Of Action: six or so hours of door-to-door calls. She flits between packs of canvassers, talking to the public when required, noting down their sources of anger and concern, endlessly talking about the BNP’s fascist pedigree. To some people now in the habit of voting for them, this is news.

At the entrance to one of the Becontree Estate’s cul-de-sacs, we meet Jackie Morrell, who clocks her MP – and starts shouting. “All the trouble we have down here, and the council do fuck all. We have trouble from black people, but they call us racist: music all hours of the night at one house. At another they chuck dogshit over the fence.”

Morrell is 42: a trained chef, currently unemployed. She lives in a one-bedroom flat with her mother. She’s on the housing waiting list, but way down the queue. She votes BNP. “The reason I go for them is because they go for a lot of my policies.”

Such as? “Stop the immigrants. You’ve got to shut the floodgates.”

“You’re fed up with us lot, then?” Hodge says, and out come a few of her stock lines: “The borough’s changing. But we can make it work. It doesn’t have to be bad.”

Hodge is 65. Born in Egypt, she came to Britain with her Jewish parents, who were refugees from Nazi-occupied Austria. Her father Hans founded the firm that eventually became Stemcor, the world’s largest independent steel trading business, in which she owns a major stake. Having served time as the leader of Islington Council, she became the MP for Barking in 1994. Back then, according to local Labour insiders, she and the local party struck a deal whereby she saw to her Westminster commitments and they focused their attention on the council. In this telling of the story, it was assumed that Labour rule would extend into eternity, so there was little neighbourhood campaigning, leaving the door open for the BNP when local affairs turned troublesome.

So I wonder: how much responsibility does she feel about her party being asleep on the job?

“Oh, of course… I share the responsibility. When I was first the MP in Barking, we were a safe constituency and people felt they could weigh the votes in without bothering… And that included me. I kick myself that I didn’t hear the alarm bells. I wish I’d been tougher.”

Some of the big failures, she acknowledges, happened at the heart of government. “We failed to realise the importance of the quality of life on council estates and the importance of affordable housing… I think we got that wrong. From 2001, I was saying, ‘Housing is the key issue.’ I showed all the decision-makers in the party my research” – she means people right at the top – “and they all thought it was very interesting. Did it change what they did? No.”

A month later, sitting in a pub on the Thames View estate drinking a pint of light ale and bitter, Nick Griffin tells me that Hodge is an easy target: “far more unpopular than Jon Cruddas”, “fantastically wealthy” and the embodiment of the ties that bind politics and big business. Could he win? “I’m not particularly fussed: I’d love to be an MP, certainly. I’d like to represent this place. I’ve been coming down to Barking – in fact, this estate specifically – since I was 17.”

That was with the National Front, presumably?

He goes quiet. “The NF, yeah.”

His plan, he tells me, is to draw media hostility away from other BNP candidates – particularly for the borough council – and thus allow them a relatively clear run. “The flak will only potentially damage my chances here. So in terms of the benefits for the party, and especially our drive to take the council, well, that’s the real prize. It really is.”

When I ask what the BNP might do with local power, he outlines a “sons and daughters” housing policy, and a few measures – from the teaching of “British values” in schools to unspecified work through local youth clubs – that would aim at “integrating” outsiders into his party’s understanding of British life. He mentions “integration” at least twice, so I remind him that, despite being forced to admit non-white members, his party’s constitution still says they are “wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples”. The two don’t sit comfortably together, do they? “They don’t sit particularly well. But this is practical politics as opposed to… um… ideological perfection.”

A more brass-tacks question: are his people up to it? If you look at BNP councillors’ attendance records in Barking, even the best-performing one comes in pretty miserably – at number 28 out of 51.

“It will be a hell of a challenge. Bear in mind that if you look at the stats fully, there’s plenty of Labour councillors who are far, far worse.”

In fact, the bottom seven places are all taken by BNP people. At the last count, the worst performer – one Jamie Jarvis – managed to show up at only 28% of the meetings required.

“Well, Labour councillors don’t have to put up with intimidation, the changing of dates and meetings, and not letting people know.”

This, according to council leader Liam Smith, is ”complete and utter rubbish – these meetings are programmed a year in advance.” And even if it were true, the BNP would still be less than blameless. A good example: according to plenty of locals, one BNP councillor spends a good deal of his time running a guest house on the Isle Of Man. Is Griffin familiar with that case?

“I’m familiar with these things, yeah. We’re not blameless… At this election, we’ve got more people wanting to stand than we have places to fight… We’ll have a far stronger base than we had before. But inevitably, it’s going to be an enormous struggle… at the present, we’re knocking up against our upper limits.”

There’s no excuse for going to only 28% of meetings and still drawing a £10,000 allowance, is there?

“There’s not. No. No. Sure…”

A church “coffee afternoon” hosted by Hodge in Bastable Avenue, Barking. Around 30 locals have showed up, mostly pensioners, none of whom votes BNP or says they’re minded to. The exchanges with Hodge are stilted and sedate, until she mentions immigration and the room explodes.

“We’ve gone stark raving mad,” shouts one man. “We take in more people than anywhere else in Europe.”

“You can’t even get on the bus,” offers a woman at the same table.

Nearby, another voice bemoans the predicament of his son. “Generations after generations of my family have been here. Even if you build new flats, what chance has he got?”

In 2006, just before the BNP won all those council seats, Hodge caused outrage by claiming that eight out of 10 people in Barking were thinking about voting for them. The response of Labour councillor Liam Smith was not untypical: “We have had people saying they’re considering voting BNP because they feel that once the Labour minister says something, it must be right.” The BNP sent her a bunch of flowers.

“It made me unpopular with people who didn’t like me anyway,” Hodge says. “It gave them something to latch on to. But I think the idea that it was, in any way, the reason why 12 BNP councillors succeeded in the borough elections is… fatuous.”

A year later, she sparked another uproar when she argued that the system for allocating council houses should be changed to favour local people, arguing for policies whereby “the legitimate sense of entitlement felt by the indigenous family overrides the legitimate need demonstrated by the new migrants”. Last month, via an article in the Daily Mail, she pushed the same point again. As her critics see it, this is desperate stuff: a proposal that blurs into the BNP’s policies, and thus makes their drive for respectability all the easier.

“One of the mistakes we made in the past was refusing to tackle some of the issues which draw people to the extreme right,” Hodge says. “If we don’t capture that terrain with our purpose and our values, we leave it to the BNP. And then you get what I get on the doorstep, all the time: ‘Everything the BNP say, I agree with.’ They’re impelled by racism, right? I’m driven by fairness.”

The Sun’s headline, seizing on what she also said about benefits, was Minister: Ban Dole For Migrants, which can’t have done wonders for community relations. “Well, I can’t control the headlines. What I won’t have is, ‘Don’t enter this territory – it’s territory for the extreme right’. I won’t have that. We’ve got to capture it for us.”

In the pub with Nick Griffin, I bring up the reluctance of pensioners round here to vote BNP, based on their memories of the second world war (in any gathering of local seniors, there are scores of people who were bombed out of neighbourhoods such as Stepney and Poplar and given new homes here), and his party’s history of neo-Nazism. “We have things there, sure, yeah,” he says, though reminders of his own backstory are either denied or dodged. For example: yes, he led a National Front march to the cenotaph in 1986 – alongside people who were Sieg Heiling, according to reports – with a banner that said, “No more brothers’ wars”, but that was “about the first world war”.

When I ask where he now stands on what he once called “nonsense about gas chambers” – surely given even more charge because of Hodge’s family history – he pleads the same defence he tried on Question Time: “I genuinely cannot tell you what I used to believe, and why I’ve changed my mind… three times a month I go through France and Belgium, where you’re accessible also to the German courts, and even to say why I’ve changed my mind and become more mainstream would lay me open to a Communist magistrate.”

The subject is batted between us fruitlessly for a few minutes, before we get to the BNP’s campaigning in Barking and its apparent habit of telling lies. Late last year, it falsely claimed Hodge had a personal financial interest in plans – since cancelled – to build a new prison in the borough. “That was an error for which I wasn’t responsible. I didn’t even see it before it was printed. The moment I saw it, we pulled it.”

What about this one, from at least two BNP leaflets, put out in 2006: “Various Labour councils are giving Africans grants of up to £50,000 to buy houses under a scheme known as ‘Africans for Essex’. It is believed that Labour-run Hackney have been conspiring with Labour-run Barking and Dagenham to change the population of this area to ensure safe Labour majorities in the future.”

This most out-there of theories, I remind him, has been conclusively disproved.

“Have you looked at the schools here? What do you mean, ‘Conclusively disproved’?”

The racial mix of the borough may have changed, but African people were never singled out and paid to settle here.

“They weren’t being paid specifically as Africans. But people who were tenants in Hackney were being paid that kind of money.”

Contrary to his own leaflets, he may agree, then: there may have been a scheme whereby home-buying grants were given to families across London, but not because they were African.

“It just happened they all were.”

They weren’t.

“The vast majority of them were.”

They weren’t: 1,300 Londoners took advantage of the scheme, 30 of whom moved into Barking and Dagenham. Seven were white, nine Asian, nine black and the other five’s ethnicity was unclear.

In response, Griffin returns to his theory that recent changes in Britain’s racial make-up have been the product of a politically-motivated conspiracy dreamed up by a Labour government run by “Marxist cranks”, before arriving at a denouement, of a sort. “Let me put all this another way. The middle-class Guardianistas have this concept that the working class are basically happy. They’re OK, until along come these wicked people to stir them up. And it’s basically a way of saying that because these people are working class, they’re stupid and they can’t make up their own minds.”

But when it comes to patronising judgments of his beloved white working class, Griffin himself isn’t wholly in the clear. I read him what he said to two reporters masquerading as French fascists about the white people of London, caught on camera in 1997 by ITV’s The Cook Report: “The people who have the brains and ability got out years ago, one way or another. The people who are left are either the 15% of the population who are happy to put up with it, they’re so decadent they actually like it, or they’re too stupid to do anything about it. They will vote BNP, but you can’t build a movement on those people.”

“I wasn’t talking about this part of London. We were talking about the likes of Brixton and Hackney. People here have still got fight in them.”

That still implies a pretty dim view of white people in Brixton and Hackney. “It’s not a dim view. I feel very sorry for them. But we can’t organise in a place like that. They’re good, decent people. But to organise something, you have to have people who’ve got an unusual flair and spark.”

I repeat his words: “They’re too stupid to do anything about it.” Is he minded to take that back?

“Yes. Yes. I was probably extremely drunk. And I was talking to a Frenchman who didn’t speak very good English, so it had to be simplified.”

In early March, I meet Hodge again in her Westminster office and ask what she thinks would happen if the BNP took control of the council.

“I think Barking and Dagenham would become a no-go area for the rest of the country. That’s the thing that scares me most. Would you buy a house there if you knew there was a BNP council? I think we’d get unrest and violence in the street that we haven’t seen yet, because it would put race at the heart of what the borough was about.”

If Labour is to hold on to the council, it faces problems. In a drive to revive the local party, Hodge says, 13 of Labour’s 36 councillors have been deselected and replaced with “people who see themselves entirely as campaigning in the community”. Her Labour adversaries see it as an act of war against her opponents on the council; in the midst of local rancour, another seven Labour councillors have resigned, and some are threatening to run as independents. Might that split the vote and let in BNP candidates?

“I’m not worried about that. The thing that bothers me is the Christian party.” The latter are a new outfit who want to “honour Christ in politics” by putting up candidates for parliament and the council, and are going for the votes of Barking’s black churchgoers. She has pleaded with them to stand their people down, to no avail: as they see it, her views on abortion, gay rights and stem cell research are just as salient as the great fascist menace.

Inevitably, the BNP campaign against her is not pretty. In leaflets she is portrayed as a witch-like figure in high-heels (“and fat,” she reminds me), handing out goodies to stereotyped immigrants drawn according to the usual far-right rules: bug-eyes, goofy teeth. Bob Bailey, leader of the BNP group on the local council, has described her thus: “Poisonous bitch. Lives in Islington. A multi-millionairess and a foreigner to boot.”

Though Griffin hasn’t mentioned her Jewishness, she claims his people bring it up on the doorstep, via her maiden name, Oppenheimer. By way of a response, he claims the issue is “irrelevant”, and the idea of the BNP playing it up is “a classic Labour smear… there’s plenty of things to hit Margaret Hodge with without getting into red herrings and anti-semitism“. Of late, his party has been trying to shed its history of the latter, in order to court Jewish votes and pursue its loathing of Islam, though Griffin obviously has no end of form. What about his infamous pamphlet Who Are The Mindbenders?, aimed at exposing “Jewish influence and control in Britain’s news and information industry”? “That was a long, long time ago. Under my leadership, the BNP’s got Jewish councillors” – it has one, in Epping Forest – “and Jewish members.” The pamphlet, I remind him, came out in 1997: not that long ago at all. “It is in political terms,” he says.

Back in Westminster, the bell rings for a House of Commons vote on some arcane matter of constitutional reform. Hodge runs off to the lobbies, with her mind presumably on much more important things. “I feel totally passionate, in a way that I’ve never felt about an election before,” she says. “I want to expel them, so Barking and Dagenham in 2010 will be seen as the point where we started to see the decline of this wave of fascism. That would be great, wouldn’t it?”

Belligerent optimism is her message, though as I walk to Westminster tube station, it’s hard to shake off a creeping feeling of unease. Eight weeks remain: at the far end of the District Line, the morning of 7 May may yet feel like the start of a long, splitting headache.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Teach First aims for top of the class

You will progress faster than any other graduate programme. That is the promise one charity is making to encourage high flyers to pursue a career in teaching

They say those who can, teach; or at least that’s the catchphrase the government has long been using to entice graduates into the profession. But despite the fact that teaching has been presented as a recession-proof job choice, the government says it still needs more top calibre graduates to enter the profession.

A recent poll by revealed that many are put off by generalisations about teachers’ low pay and limited opportunities to progress.

While the Conservative party has been calling for teachers to be better qualified, Gordon Brown has reiterated the need for “empathy, understanding, passion”; all of which means one thing – motivated, hard-working graduates are in demand. Teach First, an independent educational charity, seeks to find said grads who can inspire and encourage pupils from poor backgrounds to fulfil their academic potential.

James Darley, director of graduate recruitment at Teach First, says: “There’s an educational disadvantage in the UK, whereby the wealth of a parent determines the quality of their child’s education. We can help change that by putting the best minds into the most challenged communities and help raise the achievements and aspirations of a child’s life.”

Teach First offers graduates a structured and rigorous two-year teaching and leadership development programme – the sort of training that most private sector companies have been forced to axe as a result of the recession. Darley points out: “It’s a scheme whereby you will progress faster than any other graduate programme – if you can deal with a classroom of 30 children disengaged with education, you can deal with a trading floor or an unhappy client.

“You have to not only have the subject knowledge but also be a good planner, organiser and leader and also think about humility and respect. If you are thrown into a community that’s very different to your own, you have to be able to get beyond that, get on their level and understand those children.”

The leadership development programme differs from the traditional teaching route of a degree followed by a post-graduate certificate in education (PGCE) because it instantly takes you out of the university lecture hall and straight into the classroom for hands-on experience, pretty much from day one. By this summer, the charity aims to have trained 2,000 high-flying graduates as teachers.

The programme lasts for two years, graduates receive a training salary of between £17,260 to £21,242, and, on top of that, the course modules count towards a master’s in educational leadership, providing another qualification (the MA is fully-funded provided it is completed within three years of starting Teach First).

The first year involves trainee teaching a 70%-full timetable and completing a number of assessments to acquire Qualified Teacher Status (the equivalent of a PGCE), while the second year involves more teaching in the classroom (as a fully qualified teacher) and completing the leadership element of the course.

After graduating from Oxford University with a history degree in 2008, 23-year-old James O’Donoghue spent a year gaining work experience in schools which spurred him on to apply for the Teach First scheme. Originally from East Sussex, he is now six months into his first year of the leadership development course, teaching history (as a trainee) in an inner city school in Birmingham.

“I’ve always believed that the best way to learn is to do, and I thought it was best to get hands-on experience straight away – the structure of the Teach First programme allows this,” O’Donoghue says. “Teaching isn’t easy, but I’m in a school that is really driven and a lot of people share the same ambition, which is to encourage the pupils to do well.

“I’m learning every single day and while it’s important to uphold Teach First’s message of being role models, you’ve got to recognise that the primary goal has got to be to get your basic teaching right – ultimately, it’s the quality of your teaching that will make the biggest difference to the kids in the classroom.”

For O’Donoghue, Teach First’s leadership development programme is a “very effective form of teacher training” but he stresses it’s not for everyone: “You have got to apply yourself – the nature of this course is so intense, and the stakes are sometimes exposed quite cruelly when it comes to performance. There is a lot of work, but there’s tremendous job satisfaction – for instance, my GCSE year 11 group was struggling, and were initially testing me out to see what they could get away with.

“But then, to get through that, to achieve mutual respect, to see them getting their heads down, asking for feedback, and taking a more long-term view – to knuckle down and work for a qualification that might not have been attainable before – is just incredible, and I’m so happy to see them working hard,” he says.

There are 150 places available on the Teach First leadership development programme for a June 2010 start to teach science, maths or ICT. Applicants require a 2:1 or a first and A-levels grade A or B in the subject they wish to teach (science applicants require at least two science A-levels at grade A or B). Apply online by 2 April at graduates.teachfirst.org.uk


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



How business can learn from great leaders in history

Nelson led from the front, Lincoln had a vision, while Mandela built bridges. When it comes to improving skills, history’s great leaders provide lessons for us all, says Jonathan Gifford

History is filled with the achievements of great leaders, but what were they so good at, and how did they achieve the things that made them great?

The short answer is: they were good at some things and rubbish at others. Some really great leaders did nearly all the things that leaders are supposed to be good at; some did only a few. Many were so brilliant at some things, it eclipsed the fact that they were indifferent at others. Which, let’s face it, is pretty much like the rest of us: strengths and weaknesses; talents and foibles; good days and bad days.

Whether you’re a manager or part of a team at work, history’s great leaders still provide lessons for us all. Here are five key attributes that we can work on by examining the past.

Leading from the front: Horatio Nelson

Anybody who takes on an arduous or unpleasant task is leading from the front: making that difficult phone call; volunteering for a tedious but essential task; or demonstrating that you are not asking other people to do anything that you would not do yourself.

Leading from the front what is what Nelson did; it defines him. He lost an eye leading a shore attack in Corsica, when a cannonball impact threw sand and stones into his face. In another shore attack, on Tenerife, he was so badly wounded that his arm had to be amputated. He won fame and glory by leading a boarding party to capture not one, but two, Spanish vessels in the Battle of Cape St Vincent. This is how Nelson gained the unquestioning loyalty of his men.

In one desperate skirmish against the Spanish at Cadiz, which led to hand-to-hand fighting on small boats, Nelson’s life was saved by his coxswain, John Sykes, who used his bare arm to parry a sword blow aimed at Nelson’s head. “Thank God, sir, you are safe,” said the badly wounded Sykes.

When Nelson devised his plan to attack the French and Spanish fleet off Trafalgar by sailing at right angles through the line of enemy ships, instead of lining up for the traditional exchange of broadsides, he knew that his leading ships would be exposed to enemy fire for a desperately long time without being able to return fire. It was customary to place the admiral’s flagship in the centre of the line; Nelson put HMS Victory at the head of the line. He stayed on deck commanding the battle (“No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of an enemy”) and was shot by a French marine from a ship that Victory had engaged. “Thank God, I have done my duty,” said the dying Nelson.

Taking the offensive: Elizabeth Garrett Anderson

Another leadership skill that originates mainly from the military. Who better, then, to illustrate this attribute than an unassuming, middle-class, Victorian lady from Suffolk?

Elizabeth Garrett Anderson took on the entire 19th-century medical profession in her simple desire to be allowed to practise medicine. There was a slight problem: none of the examining bodies would issue the necessary qualification to a woman. In many cases, the examining bodies’ ancient charters had simply never envisaged that they would be faced with this bizarre demand.

However, there was one loophole: the Society of Apothecaries’ charter admitted “all persons desirous of studying medicine”, and a qualification from the Apothecaries allowed one to practise medicine. After much deliberation, it was decided that “persons” did include women.

Garrett Anderson painstakingly assembled the necessary qualifications (no medical school would enrol her on a course). Belatedly, the society realised that she had every intention of gaining her qualifications and that they risked the wrath of the medical profession for having enabled a woman to get on to the medical register. They wrote to say that she would not be able to sit the examinations after all.

Her father threatened to sue, and legal counsel advised the society that its charter did not, in fact, disbar women. Garrett Anderson got her qualification, set up practice off London’s Edgware Road and founded the St Mary’s Dispensary for Women and Children. She became the first woman to receive her medical degree (from Paris University) and later helped to found the London Medical College for Women. She was elected to the first London School Board and, as a final flourish, became Britain’s first woman mayor, of Aldeburgh.

Garrett Anderson is a shining example of how we can take the offensive simply by not taking no for an answer; by accomplishing what we have set our hearts on in the face of entrenched opposition.

Changing the mood: Nelson Mandela

We all quickly recognise the pervading atmosphere, or culture, in any organisation; changing a bad culture can be the hardest thing that managers or workers are called upon to do. Nelson Mandela changed the mood of a divided South Africa that had just stepped back from the brink of civil war and which faced a future fraught with the likelihood of further inter-racial conflict.

Mandela, when standing trial on a charge of high treason for acts of sabotage against the South African state, said: “During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities.

“It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

Despite spending 27 years in prison, Mandela emerged with these ideals intact. In 1994, when the country’s first multiracial elections were held, white South Africans knew that the country’s black majority, disenfranchised for so long by the system of apartheid, would return a predominantly black government. They feared that a repressive white regime would be replaced by a repressive black regime.

In fact, Mandela set out on a symbolic campaign of personal forgiveness and set up the ingenious Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He ran the new multiracial government with a light but decisive touch and set the tone – relaxed, inclusive, cheerful – that would create a new mood in the country.

Boldness of vision: Abraham Lincoln

Leaders need to have a long-term view of where an organisation is headed. For most, that vision need not be dramatic or earth-shattering, but it must be something that people can relate to; something that gives them an understandable purpose. Great leaders from history work on a broader canvas than most organisations. Some have been able to offer a vision that has changed the course of history.

Abraham Lincoln was born in a one-room log cabin in Kentucky in 1809. He educated himself from borrowed books, studying at the end of each day’s labours on the farm. He went on to teach himself law, passed his bar examination and became involved in politics. In 1856 he joined the Republican party, recently founded on an anti-slavery platform. He became the first Republican president of the United States in 1860.

The issue of slavery threatened to split the country in two: the America civil war was about to begin. When Lincoln started his presidency he was desperate merely to hold the United States together. The new nation’s radical experiment in republican government was in danger of fragmenting into a collection of loosely associated states; of ceasing to be a nation.

Lincoln preferred not to address the issue of slavery in states where it was long-established and sought at first only to prevent the spread of slave ownership into new territories, as America expanded to the west. But as the civil war progressed, he realised that the moral issue was in fact the core problem; that the pragmatic solution of merely holding the states together was no solution. The vision that he offered was suddenly clear in his own mind, as it would soon be in the nation as a whole: “a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

Making things happen: Zhou Enlai

A leader’s vision may or may not be that different from the next person’s; what can set them apart is the vigour with which they pursue that strategy.

Zhou Enlai is one of history’s great workhorses. He could have become the chairman of the Communist party of China, but gave his backing to Mao Zedong. When the party came to power, Zhou served as premier of the People’s Republic of China for the rest of his life, and spent most of his time trying to reduce the damage done by the succession of foolish (and often murderous) programmes set in train by his boss, Chairman Mao.

Zhou argued early on that China needed the input of its intellectuals in order to modernise. Mao briefly espoused this idea, encouraging a campaign of criticism of the party by intellectuals. When the intellectuals obliged, Mao purged all “rightists” so viciously that this episode may have been merely a ploy by Mao to flush out his ideological enemies.

Mao went on to launch a series of disastrous programmes: the Great Leap Forward introduced agricultural collectivisation on a massive scale and created the world’s worst famine; it also diverted resources on a huge scale to the technologically illiterate idea of manufacturing steel in backyard furnaces. Mao’s cunning plan to exterminate sparrows (blamed for eating grain) led to a plague of locusts (sparrows eat locusts). Throughout this era, Zhou stayed in power, pursuing his moderate and pragmatic agenda and attempting to mitigate the worst effects of Mao’s policies.

Mao finally unleashed the anarchy of the Cultural Revolution, in which young people were allowed free travel around the country and encouraged to destroy the Four Olds: old customs; old culture; old habits; old ideas. Priceless historical artefacts were destroyed; teachers were beaten; senior officials were denounced and often murdered.

Zhou took to sending party members at risk to a clinic reserved for senior party officials. They were diagnosed with illnesses sufficiently grave to keep them quarantined until the “revolution” came to end. Zhou came very close to being purged but, as China’s industrial output plummeted, Mao backed off.

Zhou began to reassert his modernising agenda and instigated a diplomatic rapprochement with the United States. Zhou died in 1976, eight months before his chairman, Mao, who sent no message to his dying comrade. Zhou is seen as one of the fathers of modern China.

Jonathan Gifford’s book, History Lessons: What Business and Managers Can Learn from the Movers and Shakers of History, is published on 18 March (£14.99, Marshall Cavendish). Order a copy for £13.99 including free UK mainland p&p at the Guardian Bookshop or call 0330 333 68467


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Unthinkable? Hiring more tax inspectors | Editorial

Improve the public finances in a fairer and more imaginative manner than slashing spending. What’s not to like?

Bingo! A particularly unpopular notion at an especially unlikely time. For the popular image of tax inspectors, one could do worse than turn to Lennon and McCartney’s song-cum-professional assassination, Taxman: “If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat / If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.” And it is true that eye-watering cuts in public services lie ahead. Yet hiring more inspectors would be a smart move in these straitened times – the kind of spending that could pay for itself. Most companies see the men and women who bring in revenue as being vital to their business. But at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs there is a chronic shortage of staff, which has got far worse in the cuts. The Guardian’s Tax Gap investigation last year quoted an HMRC source’s estimate that there were “less than 100 inspectors actually tackling avoidance, against thousands of professionals advising companies on how to do it”. Which is precisely the point: the government is outnumbered and under-resourced compared to the City accountancy firms that help businesses and wealthy individuals to reduce their tax bills. Inspectors still in public service know that they could almost double their salaries by turning private-sector poacher. Hiring more tax inspectors is about improving the public finances in a fairer and more imaginative manner than merely slashing spending. Governments often talk about getting more cash by tightening up on tax collection; but they can’t do that without the people.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Liberal Democrats: Deal or no deal? | Editorial

Nick Clegg may not like to talk of hung parliaments, but he must show voters how his party would operate in one

The Liberal Democrats are discovering the perks and perils of being of interest to others. A party with much to say, and normally no one to say it to, now has everyone’s attention, but no simple answer to the one question it keeps being asked. What, people want to know, would Nick Clegg do in a hung parliament? He can respond until he goes blue or red in the face that the question cannot be answered until the nation has voted, and add that all he wants to do is maximise Lib Dem support and the number of his party’s MPs, but that will not stop journalists badgering him for specifics.

The media’s quinquennial interest in the possibility of hung parliaments irritates Lib Dems. They want to talk about their policies and their liberal ideology, not post-election deal-making which may never take place. They do not – unlike many commentators and some voters – define their party in relation to its two rivals. “Neither left nor right but somewhere in between,” the Paddy Ashdown puppet on Spitting Image used to chant to mockery, but Lib Dems have always thought of themselves as somewhere out in front, away from both the other parties: speaking radical language on redistributive tax cuts, decentralised public services and a rebalanced economy.

Yet they will not escape easily from a trap: the more likely a hung parliament looks, the more voters will want to know what sort of government it might produce and the harder Lib Dems may find it to answer the question. In today’s Guardian interview, Mr Clegg says his party would want to be “a radicalising, rather than moderating force” – which he could do from outside government as well as inside it. He tries to tone down the Spectator magazine’s description of him (after another interview this week) as a fan of Margaret Thatcher by accusing her of “wreaking huge social destruction”. He attacks both bankers and unions. He has harsh words for the Conservatives. He distances his party from Tory education policy, which at first glance seems to be an adjusted version of plans also being put forward by the Lib Dems. But his toughest language is reserved for Gordon Brown. “This is the man who wrought the damage, he should not be the person to do the repair work,” he says. He does not sound like a man expecting – or even able – to work with the current prime minister after the election.

Up to a point, this is just necessary pre-election rhetoric. The Lib Dems did well in 1997 by associating themselves with Labour’s call for national renewal. Now they need to dissociate themselves from Labour to avoid being sucked down with what may prove to be a sinking ship. After the election things might be different. “Constitutional niceties will be swept aside if it’s obvious that there’s one party that enjoys a mandate if not an actual majority from the British people,” he says. “I don’t think there will be a photo finish.” But as Mr Clegg prepares to speak at his spring conference tomorrow it is not unreasonable to ask which way his thoughts are running, just as the same question should be put to Labour and the Conservatives.

Ahead of the election, he is right to leave his options open, and right to say that voters will shape the circumstances, not politicians. The party is an independent and strong force, and should be treated as such. Its manifesto will be in many ways the most attractive on offer. It would be a shame if the party found itself losing support during the campaign as voters come to fear the consequences of an inconclusive election. At the very least the Lib Dems need to say that they would respect the will of voters and put stability first. For all the excited talk of coalitions, it likely that a hung parliament would lead to minority government by the largest party with some degree of outside support from the Lib Dems. Mr Clegg has at times come close to saying as much. But for as long as he leaves more room to manoeuvre, people will keep asking him where it might lead him.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Messy, funny and a little bit irritating: Samantha Cameron on ‘the Dave I fell in love with’

Wife of Conservative leader David Cameron steps out of the shadows and firmly into the spotlight

Her buzz words are obvious: “strong” and “reliable”; “passion” and “drive”.

Sprinkle in the references to his being “incredibly funny and really interesting and clever”, too, and Samantha Cameron’s election-honed lexicon is near perfect for getting those boxes ticked for her husband on polling day. Which, presumably, is the purpose behind this, her first ever television interview.

The wife of the Conservative leader David Cameron steps out of the shadows and firmly into the spotlight tomorrow night when she is grilled – well, gently sautéed – by ITV’s Trevor McDonald about life with “Dave”, the would-be prime minister.

On their first meeting: “It was a sort of holiday romance”. On her attraction to him: “He was quite different from any of my friends”.

On “Dave” the husband: “He’s definitely not perfect and like any husband he has lots of very irritating habits.”

And on his prime-ministerial ambitions: “So much of the Dave that I first met and fell in love with is Dave the politician. “.

After Gordon Brown’s highly personal interview with Piers Morgan last month, Conservative Central Office will be anxiously monitoring reaction to Mrs Cameron’s performance, particularly now that the papers have branded her “SamCam”.

Could Cameron’s good-looking 38-year-old wife even depose the formidable and accomplished “tweeting” PR, Sarah Brown, to become Britain’s favourite political wife?

This interview is the first of some eight high-profile events to be conducted by Samantha Cameron. As David Cameron himself tells Sir Trevor: “I think you’re about to see, in the election … probably a lot more of Samantha as the trail gets hotter.”

She’s his “secret weapon”, so how is he going to deploy her?, questions Sir Trevor. “Well, she’s one of those secret weapons that will have a pretty clear view of how she wants to be deployed,” replies Cameron.

Of aristocratic heritage, a high-powered businesswoman in her own right, and a working mother – Ivan, the first of their three children and who suffered from severe epilepsy and cerebral palsy, died aged six in February last year – she has hitherto steered clear of such direct politicking. But that all changed with Sir Trevor.

Just as Sarah Brown has humanised Gordon as “my husband, my hero”, Samantha’s interview serves to flesh out Dave, the man.

“I’d say one of the brilliant things about him is he loves cooking. But he, you know, he makes a terrible mess,” she says.

“He is not very good at clearing up as he goes along. He is not very good at picking up his clothes. He’s a terrible channel flicker. I have to be quite firm about him not fiddling with his phone and his BlackBerry too much, ‘cos it can be, you know, quite annoying.”

She continues: “He’s a fantastic dad. [The children], they really make him laugh.” She gives insight, too, into their work-life balance, he as party leader and she as creative director of the upmarket luxury goods firm Smythsons, as they split their busy lives between homes in north Kensington and Chipping Norton in Oxfordshire.

“We do have very different jobs … But we talk a lot at home. His job is fascinating … when he comes home for supper, there’s always lots to talk about.”

The couple have been together 18 years, meeting through Cameron’s younger sister Clare, a close friend of Samantha’s and who invited her to join them on a family holiday in 1992.

At the time, Samantha, the upper-class bohemian daughter of the Lincolnshire landowner Sir Reginald Sheffield, and a descendent of Nell Gwyn, was studying art at Bristol Polytechnic, and hanging out and shooting pool with musician friends.

Cameron was based in London and working as a special adviser to Norman Lamont, who was the Conservative chancellor at the time. She was 21 and he was 25.

“He was quite different from any of my friends and anyone who I’d sort of met before,” she says. “And I found him really fascinating. He had a very serious job, but he was, you know, he was incredibly funny and really interesting and clever, and we just got on really, really well from day one.”

Two years later they were engaged. “I was very young when we got engaged. I was only 23. But I think I felt fairly confident that … Dave was the one for me for, for lots of reasons. He’s a very strong kind of reliable person.”

On his decision to enter the leadership contest for the Conservatives, she said: “I was very encouraging. It’s a big commitment. But I really felt he was right for the job. I thought he had the right views, he had the passion and the drive.”

Acknowledging that their life together has not been without tragedy, she says: “We’ve been through some fairly tough times – and I can honestly say that I don’t think in all that time he’s ever let me down. And he’s always been incredibly strong, and kind and supportive.”

Now it is her turn to be publicly supportive. “If he did become prime minister I would be incredibly proud of him. And, and our life would change – and that is daunting – I’m sure we would have to make sacrifices.

“But for me personally it would be a huge honour to do everything that I possibly could to support him and make sure that he could do the job to the very best of his abilities.”

Analysis
Soft soap, and other handy hubby hints

It’s stretching it a bit, isn’t it? You look at David Cameron, someone tells you that he’s not very good at clearing up as he goes along, and that’s the most annoying thing about him.

I mean, sure, I bet he doesn’t do a lot of washing up. If she’d said: “He has this insufferable sense of entitlement, which extends to a high-handed failure in all aspects of domesticity,” I would buy that more, even thought it would effectively mean the same thing.

This, though, it doesn’t even sound that personal. It sounds like she’s flicked through Take-A-Break, put together a compendium of innocuous things women say about men, chosen the most innocuous and ta-da! Here he is, a three-dimensional human being, not-very-convincing-wart and all!

Sarah Brown, meanwhile, said on Mumsnet last month: “I am protective of our big family Sunday lunches round the table. No exceptions made, no football for DH [darling husband] or Moshi Monsters for the boys!”

Sure, because that’s exactly what he looks like. A man who has to be torn away to the table, because otherwise he’d be yelling at the telly. Anything you’d like to add to this picture? Perhaps he’s in his underpants, drinking a stubby? Or is that Homer Simpson? Sorry, ladies, but this is all so unlikely.

Michelle Obama set this scene. Under the cover of the critiquing her spouse, she exclusively revealed he has no fashion sense; he sometimes makes annoying remarks; and on occasion, this tendency and the ignorance coincide, exploding like potassium permanganate in an annoying remark about her wardrobe. The formula became: don’t say he’s perfect. That sounds a bit Stepford Wife and will damage your credibility, and not just as first lady. But likewise, don’t say anything that might be meaningfully true. Where do you think you are, Relate? This is the campaign trial.

It’s an absolute knife-edge between something that sounds like a believable aspect of a human being, but could be used against him by an opponent (“a bit flaky”; “tiny penis”) and something so saccharine they might as well have left first lady at home.

Personally, I think Sam Cam fell off this particular knife (she doesn’t even call her husband straightforwardly messy! He’s messy while he’s cooking. Even when he bad, ladies and gentlemen, he good). Better luck next knife.

Zoe Williams

Trevor McDonald meets David Cameron on ITV1, Sunday 14 March at 10.15pm


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds