Politics is not Strictly Come Dancing

I am a great fan of "Bremmer, Bird and Fortune", and particularly enjoyed a sketch in which the Labour leadership issue is transformed into a "Strictly Come Dancing" contest. Tony and Cherie, together with Gordon and Sarah, are, of course, the finalists. Gordon manages some particularly fancy foot work, tripping Tony up, and leaving Cherie to wonder whether "Peter" (Mandelson)might make a better dancing partner.

Cherie Blair certainly tripped up Gordon Brown's flow yesterday at the Labour Party Conference, whether she said "Can I pass" (her own version of events), or "That's a lie", her words in response to Gordon's expression of admiration for her husband, according to a female journalist.

One message to be drawn from the above episodes is that partners can be liabilities as well as assets, and this lesson is particularly pertinent to New Labour.

Several years ago when I had occasion to do quite alot of work around the London local (then mainly Labour) government "scene", it sometimes occured to me that virtually everyone was
someone else's partner. Indeed, I also wondered whether being thus partnered was an unwritten condition for certain consultancy contracts.

The fact is that in the politics of "New Labour" who your partner is really is really matters. After all, we wouldn't even be thinking about the prospect of Gordon Brown becoming leader of the Labour Party and the next prime minister if he wasn't married to Sarah.

Personally, I don't think this state of affairs is particularly good. The last single person to be leader of a major UK political party (the Greens are more progressive in this respect) was Edward Heath in the 1970s. Sir Edward's premiership may not have been spectacular. However, on the international scene his major achievement was membership of the E C, in my view a more positive contribution to British Foreign policy than the legacy of the Blair government.

Moreover, Heath's contemporary, the trade unionist Jack Jones described him as a greater friend of British working people (including those "hard working families" invoked by New Labour), than the Labour prime ministers who preceded and followed him : Harold Wilson (married but childless) and Jim Callaghan (a "family man").

As far as I can make out, the later Sir Edward was a cultured man who knew how to enjoy to enjoy himself. During the years of the Thatcher Government, he was also widely regarded as the most effective member of her majesty's opposition (whilst the Labour Party fought amongst itself). In more recent times, Sir Edward too seems to have enjoyed a dance : for instance, at the opening of an exhibition by the painters Gilbert and George.

The fact is that you don't have to be a family person, married or have a partner to be a good politician. Even if I have to wait a long time, I look forward to the kind of British politics which will again allow a single person - be they straight, gay or, for that matter, bisexual - to be prime minister.

Now, where's my pogo stick....