Gordon Brown must be relieved that Labour has slipped in the opinion polls.
The party’s clear lead during the summer suggested that the government could
substantially increase its majority in an early election. The news was too
good for comfort, putting pressure on the prime minister to call an autumn
poll, something which was not in his game plan.
Nor did it fit his temperament and image to renounce the serious business of
running the country for a premature campaign. On top of that there was the
risk – as there is in any election - of losing. If, having waited
impatiently for power for a decade, he then sacrificed it within four months
he would enter the book of political dunces.
He has probably been hoping for reasons not to call an election or, more
precisely, waiting for the temptation to call one to vanish. Labour
(although not Brown himself) has now slipped back a bit, according to the
pollsters, so the prime minister can revert to plan A. That might bring an
election next year, or as late as 2010, depending on how he sees his
prospects.
Even so, it has been a very satisfactory summer for Brown. The mere hint of an
election threw the Conservatives into spasm. Voters would now be hard
pressed to say whether David Cameron has moved to the centre or the right,
or a bit of both. They would be unlikely to believe that the party has
changed much. So the past couple of months have undone much of the patient
work that Cameron had done since becoming leader.
Even if there were a prospect of stability breaking out in the Conservative
party, Brown can sow dissent when he chooses. Last week he gave advisory
positions to two Tory back-benchers. Reportedly, he will also acquire the
services of Johan Eliasch, the substantial Tory donor who has resigned as a
party deputy treasurer. He quit, it is said, because he thinks Cameron has
shifted to the right. Meanwhile, Michael Ancram, the supposedly centrist
former party chairman, launched a strongly worded attack on the leadership
for moving to the left.
The party’s disarray could not be more manifest. Both Eliasch and Ancram chose
to make their headline-grabbing interventions while an October election
still seemed plausible. Evidently, Cameron should not expect the party to
close ranks even when the contest does draw nearer.
Tony Blair’s government used to aggravate the Tories by giving every position,
from Speaker to hospital trust board member, to a card-carrying Labour
supporter. Now Brown has demonstrated how much more mischief he can do by
appointing a few Conservatives with a grudge against their party. He can
repeat the trick almost endlessly.
Still, given the lead that Labour took over the summer, a poll in the autumn
of 2007 will remain one of the “might-have-beens” to be debated in years to
come. Brown might look back ruefully on an opportunity missed if the going
now gets tough.
It seems likely that it will, both abroad and at home. In Iraq, for example,
withdrawing British troops may not prove to be very popular after all. Brown
is taking the easy course by bowing to public and military pressure, but the
mission is ending, if not in defeat, then certainly not in victory.
Not many British prime ministers have had to pull UK forces out from a failed
campaign. Anthony Eden did so from Suez in 1956 and was destroyed by it. If
southern Iraq implodes behind us, if American generals mock our failure and
if US troops have to fill in for Britain in Basra, humiliation may lie
ahead.
It is ironic that when America and Britain invaded Iraq it was hard to
demonstrate how the action was linked to the war on terror. Saddam Hussein
and Al-Qaeda were scarcely connected. But postSaddam Iraq is Al-Qaeda’s
happy hunting ground. In the south we have been fighting a war by proxy with
Iran, a member of the axis of evil and noted exporter of terror. There is no
doubt that Tehran sees British withdrawal as our defeat.
Iran will be a great worry for Brown. President Ahmadinejad has announced
another important milestone in the country’s development of the centri-fuges
that produce enriched uranium. He is emboldened by the humiliation of our
sailors and marines captured by Iran earlier this year and by our departure
from Basra.
More importantly, for all President Bush’s bluster about the success of the
American troop surge in Baghdad, Iran knows that the United States, too, is
on the way home from Iraq. So Washington does not look as if it has the
forces or the political capital to strike Iran any time soon.
However, over the next few years the West must decide whether to sit back and
watch Iran acquire nuclear weapons, or make a desperately dangerous military
intervention. Both options look appalling.
Meanwhile, Britain does not escape the sight of body bags just by quitting
Iraq. In Afghanistan we are sustaining horrific casualties. How we can win
is far from clear. Even if we kill 100 Taliban for every one of our
fatalities we are unlikely to prevail, and we cannot destroy them at that
rate without killing lots of civilians.
We are in Afghanistan largely because we are so worried about the stability of
its neighbour Pakistan. Whether being in Afghanistan helps to prop up
General Musharraf is debatable. It is clearer that the flow of guerrillas
and equipment across the Pakistani border helps the Taliban to fight us.
The instability in Pakistan is the most alarming feature of a disquieting
international scene. Terrorist bombs go off frequently. Islamist extremism
poses a serious threat to the government. Even under pro-western leadership,
it is in Pakistan that terrorists are trained to attack British cities and
it is from Pakistan that nuclear weapons technology has been sold to some of
the world’s worst regimes. At least Pakistan’s official nuclear deterrent
remains in the hands of our ally – for the time being.
It is not just terror that causes anxiety. There may well be new turmoil in
the world’s financial markets. We have so far paid only a small price for
years of overborrowing and unsustainable inflation in global house prices.
British mortgage holders must get used to higher repayments. If house prices
dip, they will feel more concerned about their debts.
In the coming years, government spending will rise much less than it has
recently. Its growth rate will be below that of the economy. It is bound to
affect all those who supply services to the public sector, who have done
well from the years of plenty. Between now and the general election, British
voters are unlikely to feel as prosperous as in any year since 1992.
In retrospect the autumn of 2007 may acquire a rosy hue. It will be seen as
the time when our Iraq nightmare was ending but before other worries crowded
in, and as a moment when we could believe that the good economic times would
endure.
Will Brown wistfully reflect on a golden moment for an election that he passed
up? I doubt it. He is indeed probably destined to wrestle with problems more
serious than those that faced Blair (even remembering the invasion of Iraq).
But as we have seen from Brown’s first months, problems can strengthen a
prime minister as easily as weaken him. In foreign policy especially, Brown
is rapidly acquiring experience and confidence. It is hard for a leader of
the opposition who has never held office to compete.
Cameron can and should do what he can to blame Brown for our coming
difficulties. As chancellor, Brown presided over the credit boom and should
therefore be held to account for the bust. He kept the lid on defence
spending, leaving our army undermanned and poorly equipped.
However, voters look forward more than back. If we are losing the war against
Islamist extremism and if economic hard times lie ahead, electors may want
to cling to the strong man. To stand a chance, Cameron needs to look tougher
than he does. That will not be easy while he cannot control even his own
party.
michael.portillo@sunday-times.co.uk
