Gordon's retribution, Chavez's defeat

The PM gets his own back for Vince Cable's Mr Bean jibe and the blogosphere rejoices as Chavez loses

With Vince Cable’s Mr Bean jibe still ringing in many MPs’ ears, PMQs provided the PM with an opportunity to bite back. Adam Boulton describes the scene: “Vince Cable got lost with lacklustre questions on Northern Rock. Brown got his own back for Mr Bean suggesting Cable was ‘better at jokes than economics’. No pretty footwork but the prime minister was still on his feet at the end of the half hour.”

As the Labour Party funding fiasco continues to niggle the government, Luke Akehurst took offence to a Yasmin Alibhai-Brown article in the Independent which suggested the Labour Friends of Israel were somehow involved. Akehurst describes the article as “winner of most idiotic and unhelpful contribution to the debate on Party funding”, and concludes: “I cannot understand what, other than anti-Semitism, would motivate someone to write a whole column whose only hook was the shared ethnicity of David Abrahams and Jonny Mendelsohn.”

Over in Venezuela, President Chavez narrowly lost a controversial vote that would have changed the constitution to allow him to be re-elected. The condemnation of his attempt, and rejoice at the outcome of the vote, was widespread across the UK political blogosphere.

David T at Harry’s Place writes: “I think Chavez is more of a fool than a monster. Perhaps he is not as bad as some of his strongest critics hold. Nevertheless, I find the adulation heaped upon this rather comic man - more of a Peron than an Allende - in some parts of the Left difficult to understand … This result illustrates that Venezuelans have an affection for a robust democracy, and prefer to keep their leaders on an electoral leash to government by coup.”

While Lenin’s Tomb is more sympathetic, seeing the result not so much as anti-Chavez as more pro-democracy: “The reality is probably that Chavez’s supporters were simply unwilling to turn out to vote for a constitution among whose main priorities was to enhance executive power. This was always the most problematic aspect of Chavez’s reforms. Unfortunately, this result will probably strengthen the rightist opposition, despite the continuing popularity of Chavez and his other reforms.”

Finally, on Monday Iain Dale announced he would be leaving 18 Doughty Street to concentrate on launching a new political magazine and write a book. Let’s hope it does not interfere with his blogging duties.

Owen Walker is a journalist for a number of titles within Financial Times Business, primarily focussing on pensions. He recently graduated from Cardiff University’s newspaper journalism post-graduate course and is cursed by a passion for Crystal Palace FC.
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump's inauguration signals the start of a new and more unstable era

A century in which the world's hegemonic power was a rational actor is about to give way to a more terrifying reality. 

For close to a century, the United States of America has been the world’s paramount superpower, one motivated by, for good and for bad, a rational and predictable series of motivations around its interests and a commitment to a rules-based global order, albeit one caveated by an awareness of the limits of enforcing that against other world powers.

We are now entering a period in which the world’s paramount superpower is neither led by a rational or predictable actor, has no commitment to a rules-based order, and to an extent it has any guiding principle, they are those set forward in Donald Trump’s inaugural: “we will follow two simple rules: hire American and buy American”, “from this day forth, it’s going to be America first, only America first”.

That means that the jousting between Trump and China will only intensify now that he is in office.  The possibility not only of a trade war, but of a hot war, between the two should not be ruled out.

We also have another signal – if it were needed – that he intends to turn a blind eye to the actions of autocrats around the world.

What does that mean for Brexit? It confirms that those who greeted the news that an US-UK trade deal is a “priority” for the incoming administration, including Theresa May, who described Britain as “front of the queue” for a deal with Trump’s America, should prepare themselves for disappointment.

For Europe in general, it confirms what should already been apparent: the nations of Europe are going to have be much, much more self-reliant in terms of their own security. That increases Britain’s leverage as far as the Brexit talks are concerned, in that Britain’s outsized defence spending will allow it acquire goodwill and trade favours in exchange for its role protecting the European Union’s Eastern border.

That might allow May a better deal out of Brexit than she might have got under Hillary Clinton. But there’s a reason why Trump has increased Britain’s heft as far as security and defence are concerned: it’s because his presidency ushers in an era in which we are all much, much less secure. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.