The prime minister can’t say he wasn’t warned. “Unless Gordon Brown changes he
will obliterate Labour,” prophesied Charles Clarke, the former home
secretary, with brutal candour three months ago. The wipeout has duly begun.
The facts speak for themselves - third place behind Nick Clegg’s Liberal
Democrats, a worse result than Tony Blair four years ago at the depths of
the disillusionment over Iraq. And worst of all the Tories appear almost
nice and definitely fashionable for the first time in decades. The victory
of a genial but raffish Etonian toff in London was the stuff of socialist
nightmares.
When Chris Patten, the europhile Conservative party chairman, lost his Bath
seat in the 1992 general election, the right chanted “Tory gain, Tory gain”.
In the wee small hours of Friday as the local election results tolled their
knell, Clarke, a Blairite, was more restrained. But inside his head was
there a voice roaring “new Labour gain, new Labour gain”?
Asked whether Brown can win the next general election Clarke replied “it’s
possible but it will require changes” to his team, message and sense of
purpose. John McDonnell, the voice of Labour’s left, agreed: “Without a
radical change of direction, we are witnessing a Labour government slipping
away.”
Yet what are the chances of the Brown leopard changing his spots? The prime
minister's friends fear the worst. For there is another Scottish politician
he resembles who was hailed as his party’s saviour and singularly failed to
make the grade - his Liberal Democrat chum Menzies Campbell.
“Chatshow Charlie” Kennedy was loved by the voters for his easy manner and
good humour but there was one group of voters he could never connect with:
metropolitan intellectuals. The commentariat warmed to Campbell’s cool
criticism of Blair’s alliance with George Bush. But when the former Olympic
sprinter finally prised poor, alcoholic Kennedy out of his job, he lost his
nerve in the Commons, flopped on air and lost authority. He was good at one
thing but not at many things.
Brown, too, was beloved of worthy left-liberals for his concern for Third
World debt, his intellectual hinterland and his Scottish bank manager’s
sobriety - which contrasted so vividly with that warmongering,
celebrity-obsessed, flibbertigibbet Blair.
The aftermath of Iraq gave Brown his chance, too. The result: at prime
minister’s questions David Cameron has pulverised him and media interviews
have generated all the humanity of a Dalek. On the Today programme last week
he produced yet another shopping list of policies. He doesn’t do a good
“sorry” either. As for celebrity-obsession, how about this homme serieux’s
call the other week to Shakira, the sultry, midriff-baring Colombian singer,
to chat about education.
Is Brown only good at doing one thing at once? He seems to be the Peter
Principle in action: promoted a rung beyond the one where he was capable.
As I wrote last week, if you compare the prime minister’s position now with
John Major, Brown is three months away from that “put up or shut up” moment
when a leadership challenge emerged. Yes, Labour’s history is against it,
but this is the 21st century.
Look what happened when James Callaghan was allowed to choose the timing of
his departure after losing the 1979 election. He hung on long enough to
destroy the chances of Denis Healey, his natural heir. Michael Foot and Neil
Kinnock at least had the grace to clear off without being asked.
In the twilight of Blair’s rule it was made even more difficult to mount a
challenge; under the Labour party rules a challenge can proceed only if the
candidate gains the support of 20% of Labour MPs - that’s about 70 of them.
The bold man or woman who jumps this hurdle must be endorsed by delegates at
Labour’s annual conference. After that, trade unions, Labour MPs and
constituency members would have to be balloted.
So dislodging Brown against his will would entail a bloodbath. And yet the
case for keeping the prime minister is getting harder and harder to defend.
Of course, a Sky viewers’ poll is highly unscientific but when asked whether
Brown should quit 95% pushed the “go” button on Friday.
Labour MPs whistle in the dark about Major’s recovery in 1992 but in their
hearts they recall his collapse in the local elections in 1995, two years
before his 1997 general election disaster. Rather than go over the cliff
with Brown, some Labour politicians may prefer to take the non-lemming path.
This isn’t the only view. Matthew Taylor, Blair’s former chief of staff, a
Brown well-wisher of sorts, ventures on Radio 4 that the prime minister can
recover as captain of the ship if he steers us safely to port through the
economic storm. True, the American financial authorities may have turned
things around across the Atlantic and even our own dozy Bank of England
predicts that the worst of the credit crunch is over - so long as you aren’t
remortgaging or selling your house at 20% below last year’s valuation. And
housing downturns go on for years.
For Labour to revive after 11 years in power, economic recovery is a necessary
but not sufficient condition, however. As Clarke says, the voters simply
don’t know where this government is headed. MPs have told Brown to his face
that they don’t know what he is for either. His cabinet lacks a compass.
Imagine you are a backbench Labour MP unexpectedly elected in your
mid-thirties in 1997 and amazed to be re-elected twice. Now in the late
forties, your job, no, your entire career, looks like history. Not much to
show for the best years of your life. The next time the government closes a
post office in your constituency you will be tempted to tell ministers where
to get off. On issue after issue you will be tempted to rebel. A crisis of
authority for the prime minister beckons.
Compass, the left-wing pressure group, announces that “new Labour is dead”. It
and its media allies say the prime minister is just “Blair without the
economic boom”. In their analysis, Brown’s abolition of the 10p rate of
income tax at the expense of the child-less working poor did for him. The
left’s solution is to placate the core voter with more redistribution
through higher taxes on business and the upper income brackets. The
Guardianistas want to attack faith schools, city academies and end private
provision in health. But how long could such policies survive the exodus of
more businesses from London to Dublin and a middle-class revolt against a
Swedish-style tax burden with British-style public services?
Bemused loyalist MPs talk about putting the prime minister on probation for a
few more months. So after Brown failed the leadership test over the
election-that-never-was, the competence test over missing data, the relaunch
test in January, the character test over his unfeeling response to our
reduced economic circumstances and, finally, the electoral test of May 1, he
gets the “authority” test.
The Labour party really does believe in positive discrimination - at least for
Brown, a disadvantaged minority of one. Watch this space for signs of his
authority oozing away after the next failed relaunch/reshuffle.
Blairites outside government have the most persuasive analysis. “We have lost
the language of being the party of aspiration,” says one grandee. “We’ve got
to create fairness by allowing middle-income earners to realise their own
aspirations . . . otherwise a campaign based on righting the wrongs of the
10p tax will place us purely as the party of poverty.”
A team change might help. The prime minister for the moment can’t stomach a
reconciliation with his enemies among the so called Blairite ‘ultras’ -
Clarke, Alan Milburn, the former health secretary, and Stephen Byers, the
former trade and industry secretary. These men represent a danger to him:
they have a coherence beyond their numbers.
In the late 18th century the British crown’s right to choose ministers could
be challenged in a moment of crisis. This was called “forcing the closet”.
Likewise when faced with the executioner’s axe, King Gordon I may decide
that admitting the ultras into his closet is the lesser evil.
The axeman is always round the corner. The failure of G. Brown was his failure of nerve to call a general election when he took over; he had everything going for him then. He is now perceived as not having a mandate.
Ian cheese, London, UK
Surely the english deserve better than to have scottish based MPs controlling decisions which affect the english ie rubbish collection, crime, post office closures, council tax. I don't understand why MPs such as Millburn put up with this anomoly.
mike lincoln, wakefield,
Labour need to drop some of their flagship polices. 10p/20p is too late, but we have 42 day detention and ID cards. Why the leadership wants this no idea. No desire from the public. Instead of the 2billion pound+ on id cards, raise personal tax threshold. The best thing any govt can do for the poor
Gary, Stuttgart, Germany
If there is another failure and the axeman cometh what reward for several failures would be bestowed upon the man who sold off the UK's gold reserves at a rock bottom price?
Steve, Bournemouth, England
Ahh.... its that word failure again. So; what will be Browns reward for one more failure - could there be umpteen rewards for failure being lined up in the city and further afield?
Steve, Bournemouth, England
I saw the pm running around the tv stations this morning, he still hasn't got the point that the public ( even nu labour voters ) don't want him as prime minister. He can do all the politcal shows on a Sunday but the fact stillnremains that he huad 11 yrs to listen times up Gordon
John, Clacton on Sea, UK
I agree with most of the comments in that Brown was never a good chancellor. Had he been, he would have seen that things were going down hill for some time. The 10p tax band is a case in point. He had a year to think about it and GOT IT WRONG
M. Cawdery, Portadown, Co. UK, EU.
I was about to make the same comment as Martin from Newmarket but he beat me to it.
How about a new principle, The Gordon priniciple. A term for a man who has been promoted 2 rungs above his capability but was able to fool people with the first rung because he inherited a 'Golden Legacy'.
Pushkin,Durham, Durham, U.K.
It's not one rung - it's two or even three. Brown was not a competent chancellor, he was a lucky one. He was handed a pot of cash and then simply spent it all.
Martin, Newmarket, Suffolk
Gordon Brown can't change, any more than my dog can act like a cat.
I joined the Labour Party shortly before the death of John Smith. Now I am ashamed to admit I ever had anything to do with them. I haven't changed, but something sure as hell has!
Brian, Heysham, Lancs. , UK
So what was the one thing Brown was good at?
Hardly being Chancellor - he ruined the best pensions sytem in the world; complicated the tax system, weighted it in favour of the rich.; squandered budget surpluses.
He was not so much useless as downright harmful.
Michael Corby, London, UK
Gordon brown says he will sit up and take note he had 11 years. Give up gordon. David milliband or john mcdonnel as p.m? My advice call an election get out now while you can. Time is up for labour government its inevitable that a conservative government is not far
anthony williams, plumstead, London
It's a fair comment that labour “have lost the language of being the party of aspiration” - it was really telling that Labour's core councils have been reduced to the most deprived areas in the north
Rob, B'ham, UK