Today in Politics: Cherie and the battle of the books
I'm told that Tony Blair spent much of his final weeks in Downing Street censoring the diaries that Alastair Campbell was itching to publish the minute he stood down. No doubt many references to the running battle between Blair and Gordon Brown were excised. It seems that the Blair red pen has been in action again, toning down the memoirs of his wife Cherie, which emerged unexpectedly early at the weekend. Yes, there was some embarrassing material, like her statement that Brown was "rattling the keys" as he tried to persuade Blair to quit. And there was her claim that Blair would have stood down earlier if he had trusted Brown to see through his plans to reform health, education and pensions. All plausible, but hardly great revelations. I suspect Cherie could have produced a much more damaging memoir if TB had allowed her.
Blair tried to impose his red pen on the memoirs of Lord Levy, his chief fund-raiser, but Levy was apparently having none of it. Levy claims in his book that it was "unconceivable" that Brown didn't know about the loans to Labour which prompted the "cash for honours" affair. Yet, as far as I can see, he has produced not a shred of evidence to back up this claim.
For Brown, perhaps the most damaging of the three books in the headlines this weekend was John Prescott's autobiography. Although he apportions much of the blame for the TB-GB tensions to Blair for reneging on promises and hints that he would stand down, Prescott hardly paints a flattering picture of Brown either, describing him as "frustrating, annoying, bewildering and prickly" , "a bloody volcano" and so sulky that meetings had to be abandoned.
Of course, all three books are bound to be self-serving, designed to preserve the bank balances as well as the reputation of their authors. It's no coincidence that the three authors have all given media interviews to elaborate on what they actually put in print - and not only to plug their books. Although it all becomes a blur for newspaper readers, some of their most interesting remarks came in their interviews, not in their books. Despite the media frenzy, I doubt the three books will really shake the world, since for the most part they re-tell a story we already know.
Comments