Commons Confidential: Don't let them eat cake

David Cameron's quest for youth, plus the mystery of Ed Miliband's make-up.

Weighty issues burdening David Cameron include a descent into portliness. In a reverse of Marie Antoinette, the Tory toff pleads: “Don’t let them eat cake.” My snout says that Cameron complains whenever Downing Street apparatchiks eat pastries in front of him. Dave, or Fat Dave, as Old Etonian chums know the Prime Muncher, is losing his battle to keep off those pounds. He realises, with some justification, that extra padding with hair loss is a sign of ageing, just when he craves a youthful appeal.

No 10 staffers are desperate for Cameron’s confidante Gabby Bertin to return from maternity leave to resume her bunwatch. Dough Ball Dave prefers breakfast meetings to be food-free – an austerity policy recently objected to by one hungry Liberian emissary who’d just got off a plane from Africa.

I bring you a private encounter illustrating Barack Obama’s widening rift with Cameron over the Euroscepticism of the ConDem coalition’s Con majority. The White House wants Britain to remain part of the European Union, as does Cameron when pressed – though he never misses an opportunity to snipe at the EU.

A favourite target of Tory hostility is Cathy Ashton, the Brussels Brit who is high representative for foreign affairs. Ashton is held in higher regard in the US than in right-whinge circles this side of the Atlantic. During last year’s Nato summit in Chicago, an informant recalls, Cameron opined snidely: “We don’t see much of Cathy these days.” “That,” replied Obama, “is because Cathy’s a world leader.” Obama may not know “Jeff” Osborne but he has Cathy’s number.

The unlikely heart-throb Lord Wood, a Miliband consigliere voted prettier than the Tories’ pin-up Zac Goldsmith by Telegraph online readers, all presumably awaiting cataract operations, is the recipient of an unusual request. Wood met the correspondent’s call to vote for same-sex marriage but a second request is more problematic: “Additionally, if you knew of any male aristocrat that would like to marry me, much appreciated.” Wood wished the chap luck in his quest for an eligible male aristo and, wisely, declined to play matchmaker.

More on those lasagne by Ed “Beefy” Balls auctioned for £8,500 at a Labour fundraiser. The shadow chancellor promised to chuck in a couple of green salads and serve the dishes in a pinny. Mercifully, he assured me, with his trousers on.

Workers of the world united to save the human race at the RMT. A recording of that left-wing anthem, “The Internationale”, was played every morning at the union’s conference in Brighton.

Does Ed Miliband wear make-up? The Labour leader’s face appeared powdered at the New Statesman’s centenary bash. Mili’s abrupt “No” when your columnist asked only served to fuel my suspicions.

Kevin Maguire is the associate editor (politics) of the Daily Mirror

An artist's impression of Ed Miliband's make-up by Dan Murrell for the New Statesman

Kevin Maguire is Associate Editor (Politics) on the Daily Mirror and author of our Commons Confidential column on the high politics and low life in Westminster. An award-winning journalist, he is in frequent demand on television and radio and co-authored a book on great parliamentary scandals. He was formerly Chief Reporter on the Guardian and Labour Correspondent on the Daily Telegraph.

This article first appeared in the 01 July 2013 issue of the New Statesman, Brazil erupts

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No, William Hague, there's nothing anti-democratic about opposing Brexit

The former Tory leader appears to be suffering from a bout of amnesia. 

William Hague just made an eyecatching claim in the House of Lords during the debate over Article 50. He attacked those Remainers still seeking to restore Britain’s European Union membership in general and Tony Blair in particular, saying that if he had called on voters to “rise up” against New Labour after he lost the election, Blair would have told him to listen to the voters.

To be fair to Hague, it has been sixteen years since he went down to crushing defeat to Blair, so he may have forgotten some of the details. Happily, the full text of his resignation speech the morning after is still online.

Here’s Hague, 2001:

"The people have spoken. And just as it is vital to encourage everyone to participate in our democracy, so it is important to understand and respect the result. The Labour party have won the election and I have already congratulated them on doing so. But they have done so without great public enthusiasm….It is therefore a vital task for the Conservative party in the coming parliament to hold the government to account for the promises they have made and the trust people have placed in it.”

And here’s Blair, 2017:

“I want to be explicit. Yes, the British people voted to leave Europe. And I agree the will of the people should prevail. I accept right now there is no widespread appetite to re-think. But the people voted without knowledge of the terms of Brexit. As these terms become clear, it is their right to change their mind. Our mission is to persuade them to do so.”

And here’s Blair’s last line which has so offended William Hague:

“This is not the time for retreat, indifference or despair; but the time to rise up in defence of what we believe – calmly, patiently, winning the argument by the force of argument; but without fear and with the conviction we act in the true interests of Britain.”

This is funny, because here’s William Hague’s last line in 2001:

"I wish I could have led you to victory but now we must all work for our victories in the future.”

 Here’s what the “you lost, get over it” crowd have to explain: what is the difference between these two speeches? Both acknowledge a defeat, acknowledge the mountain to climb for the defeated side, but resolve to work harder to secure a better result next time.

It’s particularly galling when you remember that taking Britain back in would not require a second referendum but a third: because the Brexiteers, far from losing in 1975 and getting over it, spent four decades gearing up to take Britain out of the European Union.

There’s a more valid criticism to be had of the value of a continuity Remain campaign which appears to hold many of the people who voted to Leave in distaste. Certainly, at present, the various pro-Remain forces look more like the unattractive fringe that lost in 1975 than the well-disciplined machine that won the replay in 2016. But the fact there was a replay in the first place shows that there’s nothing anti-democratic about continuing to hold on to your beliefs after a defeat. What is anti-democratic is trying to claim that the result of any electoral contest, however narrow or how large, means that everyone who disagreed with you has to shut up and pretend you were right all along. 

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