HOW TO RESHUFFLE
As the World Cup begins,
David Hill says politicians should learn from Mr Hoddle's masterly handling of Gazza SO THE WORLD has not ended. Gazza may not be in France, but the World Cup has begun. Scotland have played Brazil. England will beat Tunisia on Monday. All is reasonably well with the world.
But what a time we had in the days that followed Glen Hoddle's bold decision, and how interesting the way in which he took that decision, compared with the Gas- coigne response. The England coach said little more than was necessary both on the Sunday night of the announcement and at the Monday press conference. He had clearly decided that it was best to leave the rest of the world to take sides. He also made the wise decision to allow Gascoigne to do most of the talking.
Predictably this led to headlines about Gazza being drunk on the Saturday night and tales of him having 'lost it' when Hod- dle broke the news to him. I think I detect the hand of the estimable Mr David Davies in all of this. I suspect that the FA's media adviser told Hoddle to keep it simple and rely on those who are close to Gascoigne, as well as Paul himself, to do the work for him.
It certainly succeeded. Gascoigne con- trived to condemn himself out of his own mouth and sympathy quickly began to dis- sipate. Although many well-known figures, from Venables to Lineker, were critical of the decision, most of the sports writers welcomed it — despite being rather quiet on the subject before Hoddle acted. The fans themselves now seem equally sure that the England coach was right. Of course the irony is that we now know that Gascoigne may not have played anyway because of a fractured cheek.
So, a bit of masterly media management: Gascoigne goes; the coach's reputation is enhanced; and everyone has forgotten that, only a few weeks ago, Hoddle was being ridiculed for his reliance on a middle-aged, female faith healer. There are lessons to be learned from all this that go well beyond football. Indeed, at this time of real and anticipated political reshuffles, it may pay both the leaders and the led to draw con- clusions from what happened in La Manga.
Leaders of political parties are regularly faced with the need to reshuffle their pack and think about the future of some of their key players. William Hague did this the other day. There is much speculation that Tony Blair is on the verge of his own team changes. One or two past decisions (from a host that might be analysed) show that Hoddle knew what he was doing.
In 1987 Bryan Gould was the star of Labour's election campaign; very much the equivalent of Gascoigne in Italia '90. But straight afterwards, and to his deep dis- tress, he failed to become shadow chancel- lor. That post went to John Smith. Gould never really recovered. He had a decent campaign during the 1992 election but then fought a futile leadership battle against Smith after Neil Kinnock resigned.
Throughout this time John Smith remained emollient and uncritical. Many would say that this was easy for him as he was so much the favourite. But he clearly left Gould to dig a hole for himself, which he duly did. Soon after the leadership elec- tion Gould announced that he was leaving British politics and going back to New Zealand. He then launched some sour attacks on the party and has continued to do so from the other side of the world. Reputation much reduced. Nothing gained by whingeing. Smith in charge. Team mem- ber damages himself. No chance of a recall.
Let us now turn to Norman Lamont, hero of John Major's successful leadership cam- paign. He clearly saw himself as 'unassail- able', the key player. Too bad for him that someone had to be blamed for VAT on fuel at 17.5 per cent. Not at all surprising that the fiasco of Black Wednesday would haunt him. `Je ne regrette rien,' he said. Hear him singing in the bath. Ah, hubris!
So it became a question for John Major of him or me. Lamont should have seen it coming. A wiser man would have recog- nised both that Major would lose the elec- tion and that time was on his side. He could have gone quietly and plotted his return. Norman was not so wise. He became a bit- ter man, scorned by the man he had 'made% Major rightly remained aloof. Lamont went from bad to worse. Now we have the for' mer chancellor ejected from Kingston, defeated in Harrogate and lurking on the sidelines uncertain of whether or not to become a Euro candidate. Most damaging, he seems determined to do his party no favours. At the time Major had no choice. For Norman it was difficult, but he chose the swift and easy publicity rather than the sensible career path. The scene shifts to the events of the last two weeks. William Hague reshuffles his seriously depleted pack and exit Stephen, Dorrell. In this case no one was surprised because Dorrell had been telling everyone who would listen that he wanted to go. 14e had been the most faceless member of even this front-bench team and clearly had no stomach for the day-to-day grind of opPosi' tion. So far so good. Then, hey Prest°' within 48 hours Dorrell is 'letting It be known' that he harbours ambitions to be the leader of the pro-European Left in the Tory party. What a joke. This is the Toll Wet who conveniently found Eurosceek cism when he was contemplating stand for the Tory leadership only a year earlier' Now he is standing on his head 43.1°' What Dorrell should have done is to retire quietly into the background, then pia ,,48 moment to re-emerge. This could be sou as the result of months of careful consicleri ation and consultation. Move over, Michael and Ken, it's time for the new generation to take over. Instead he has blurted out Ins intentions at the wrong moment and must already be damaged goods. And so to the expected Blair reshuffle.: 8 prime minister totally in charge, choosing s his moment to change the team. He ileeu to say nothing critical of any colleagd., whom he demotes or sacks. He will be eve" more frugal with his judgments than GOP_ Hoddle. But those who do suffer to 0t degree or another should take note of What happened to Gascoigne, Gould, Lain°11 and will happen, I predict, to Dorrell. There is always hope: political careers can be revived. Look no further than Nor man Fowler and Cecil Parkinson. Also now... how Margaret Beckett has responded s„ honourably to the election of Blair an Prescott in 1994. What this should te2:, those who lose is that it makes sense : accept the Prime Minister's decision Cals'is and look to the future. Unless both Pr,..ent and colleagues universally believe that va°'_,. has happened to you is an injustice f: Dreyfus proportions, you can only be defeated in any war of words. to Today, Paul Gascoigne is less likelY. play for England again than he was Way, left Glenn Hoddle's office on 31 Iv' Think about it.
The author was Labour's chief mean spokesperson y this okeesaprerson from 1991 until mid-May
Previous page
