Alistair Campbell, one time Tony Blair’s spokesman, press secretary and director of communications and strategy has long been open to alcohol being something of a crutch during his time spent in a stressful political working environment.
Given his admittance to this, you can only assume the ‘Rangers v Celtic, An Idea’ letter sent to then Prime Minister Tony Blair, Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam and Scottish Secretary Donald Dewar was perhaps penned at the end of an evening of Rioja consumption rather than after the first glass.
Campbell’s idea which came to light through cabinet papers just released, was to have Celtic and Rangers clash in Belfast – an idea that was bad enough without Campbell’s cunning plan to have both sides wear each other’s colours for a clash Campbell felt would – “In terms of raising publicity for the campaign and in sending out a message, it would be very powerful.”
The letter from Campbell, which perhaps unsurprisingly appears not to have received a response from its recipients, was dated 12 April 1998, just ahead of the Good Friday Agreement of 22 May 1998.
Perhaps Campbell was somewhat caught up in the incredible progress made in reaching such an agreement, yet his assertion that he had a “direct in” at Celtic – no prizes for guessing who that might have been folks – and that Alex Ferguson could pave the way for an approach to the Ibrox club, certainly shows lucidity was perhaps an issue at the time of writing.
Thankfully Campbell’s idea fell on deaf ears, and his commenting that “one or two of the Rangers players to my certain knowledge would have a difficulty with this” was possibly something of an understatement to say the least. One or two Rangers players and millions of supporters from both clubs worldwide may have been a more accurate assessment.
Any time politicians get involved in football it tends to result in a collective placing of heads in hands from supporters across the country. Indeed, it is a scarce and impressive skill to have, to be able to regularly manage to produce a consensus across such tribal divides, but unfortunately it is often an agreement on the idiocy of the idea rather than any embracing of a proposition that sees rare unanimity emerge.
Thankfully this particular ‘idea’ appears not to have even elicited a response from its recipients. Perhaps showing common sense is not always an absent commodity in the world of politics.
Niall J
