28 August 2005

Unlucky Jack?

According to The Sunday Times (here), the First Minister is a wee bit upset with the Prime Minister:
"THE first minister, Jack McConnell, feels “humiliated and betrayed” by Tony Blair, who, he believes, is “weak” and “untrustworthy”, according to friends and cabinet colleagues quoted in a new biography.
The relationship between the two men has become so strained that they are barely on speaking terms, talking no more than four times a year.
McConnell has accused Blair of ignoring Scotland and claims that the Queen takes more of an interest in devolution than the prime minister.
The first minister is also said to harbour a lingering resentment against Blair after he backed Henry McLeish for the leadership of the Scottish Labour party following the death of Donald Dewar five years ago.
McConnell has told friends that he feels “livid” and “disillusioned” by Blair’s constant putdowns.
Tensions came to a head earlier this year when Blair appeared to mock McConnell — who had been accused in the press of being gaffe-prone — during a speech to the Scottish Labour conference. While praising Gordon Brown and other Scottish Labour MPs, Blair’s only mention of McConnell was to thank him for diverting media flak from himself.
Later McConnell told friends: “I would never publicly humiliate a colleague like that and Blair would never do it to anyone else.”
The allegations are contained in Lucky Jack, a semi-authorised biography by Lorraine Davidson, a political journalist who worked as a press officer for the Scottish Labour party in 1999 and is a former partner of Tom McCabe, one of McConnell’s most trusted ministers."

Now who do you suppose is more damaged by these revelations? I doubt if Mr Blair will even notice the Davidson book. Which rather leaves Mr McConnell open to accusations of petulance - Blair obviously does not treat McConnell with the importance with which McConnell expects to be treated. Is this a surprise? Even if it is true, why encourage a "semi- authorised" biographer to dwell on it?

No comments: