There ought to be no doubt about the result of the next election. Labour
should be a shoo-in. The Tories have fewer seats than Michael Foot won in
1983 and need an enormous swing to unseat the government. Given how the
votes fall, if Labour and Conservatives won identical support Labour would
win comfortably. Having changed its leader, Labour should have partially
satisfied the public yearning for change, as the Tories did when they
replaced Margaret Thatcher with John Major.
The recession does not disqualify Labour. So far it affects only some of the
population and the government turned the crisis to its advantage when the
banks collapsed last autumn and when the G20 met in London this spring.
Unlike in 1997 there is little enthusiasm for the opposition. While the
scandal of MPs’ expenses affects all parties, the most memorable examples –
moats, duck islands and servants’ quarters – concern Tories. Those cases,
and the fact that the Conservative front bench is largely Etonian, undermine
years of work to present the party as modern and distanced from past sleaze.
So it is remarkable that most people expect the Conservatives to win – and
possibly by a landslide. It must be that David Cameron is avoiding mistakes
while Gordon Brown makes many.
Cameron made two excellent strategic judgments. Had he not moved the
Conservatives to the centre ground, the party would stand no chance. In the
middle years of this parliament, had he surrendered to media pressure and
announced detailed policies he would look a fool now because the slump has
changed everything.
However, the Tory response to the economic crisis was less sure-footed.
Perhaps it is unfair to expect an opposition to sound plausible when events
are moving so fast and into uncharted territory. Yet Vince Cable managed it
for the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives’ opinion poll lead in recent
months owes less to their own credibility than to the slapstick incompetence
of Brown, Jacqui Smith and Hazel Blears. Cameron’s statements on the economy
left room for doubt about both his grasp and strength of purpose.
Luckily for him, the expenses debacle has opened a new political front.
Unexpectedly, this festering cesspit of an issue has enabled Cameron to
shine. He has been merciless in ending the careers of Anthony Steen, Sir
Peter Viggers and Douglas Hogg. He may relish accelerating the modernisation
of his party by pulling the plug on old Tory “bed-blockers”.
More impressive still has been the laying-down of the lives of his friends. He
must be saddened to see Andrew MacKay and Julie Kirkbride hounded from the
Commons, but there is no room for sentiment. Cameron could not allow his
election campaign to be dominated by their efforts to cling on, as Major’s
was in 1997 by Neil Hamilton’s prolonged demise in Tatton.
For any opposition leader, the hardest thing to do is prove that you would
make a capable prime minister. Before 1997, Tony Blair imposed his authority
on the Labour party. Voters got the message. If he could bring that unruly
bunch to heel, he could govern Britain. Cameron is using the same device
today. Until now he had little need or opportunity to crush his party. This
crisis enables him to be ruthless, wins him admirers and silences doubters.
So media commentators last week had to take seriously his speech on
constitutional reform. It succeeded rhetorically in presenting Tory policy
as an answer to our present discontents, arguing that the fury against MPs
is a symptom of a broader public frustration. People feel powerless against
a nannying government and the remedy is to return responsibility to them.
Speeches that try to make 17 points sometimes have less impact than those that
make just one. In an effort to be comprehensive about reform, Cameron
necessarily tumbled into list-making. But the speech showed a clearer vision
than Brown’s and it enabled him to argue that proportional representation
(suggested by Alan Johnson) merely moves the decision on who will govern
from the voter to the smoke-filled room.
The devolution that Cameron promises is to “individuals, neighbourhoods and
communities”, not to local authorities. The Conservative schools policy is a
case in point: it rests on empowering parents against councils. The snag is
that individuals, neighbourhoods and communities can rarely be strong enough
to resist the state.
What is needed from Cameron is a clear statement that as prime minister he
would be happy to enjoy less power than Brown does today. There is much talk
that the Commons must regain its role as the people’s bastion against
government, but the truth is that parliament is now so weak that even Frank
Field as Speaker would not be able to claw back influence unless Downing
Street lets some go.
This is territory where Brown cannot compete. Nobody will believe the leader
formerly known as Stalin if he announces that the legislature should grow at
the expense of the executive. But Cameron could say it and be believed. He
will certainly need to go much further than he did last week. He needs, for
example, to renounce the government’s monopoly on initiating legislation.
Also, the Commons lacks any career ladder other than the patronage of Downing
Street. The salary of £65,000 is too high for young new entrants and too low
for those in mid-career with families. Most MPs can increase their pay only
by joining the government, so only when their party is in power and only by
pleasing the whips. The Commons must reward seniority. It should have
powerful committees, well resourced and chaired by a member who is highly
remunerated. A massive reduction in the number of MPs – beyond the 10%
mentioned by Cameron – would finance such changes easily.
Ideally, Britain might follow the American model, where the executive is drawn
from outside the legislature. Being in the House of Representatives or the
Senate is a career in itself, immune to government patronage. But those who
hold office must be approved by confirmation hearings.
While Cameron calculates his next initiatives, Labour awaits catastrophe in
this week’s European and local elections. Those Labour MPs not forced out by
scandal fear defeat next May. But they face disaster not because of the
recession nor because the electorate loves Cameron, but because Brown has
become a figure of ridicule. Given the underlying electoral arithmetic,
Labour should win next year if it had a different leader.
Decisive and courageous action is required so the following scenario is highly
unlikely. On hearing Thursday’s results, Harriet Harman, Labour’s deputy
leader, must ring around the cabinet, beginning with the Milibands but
forgetting to call Ed Balls. The cabinet should then resign en masse. If it
does, even though there is no precedent in Labour history and no provision
in the party’s constitution for removing a sitting prime minister, Brown
will tumble.
Then the party must elect Johnson, not Harman. There is a big risk that it
will get this part wrong. If it chooses Johnson, say in mid-July, he should
announce that an election will follow within 100 days.
Parties always get a short-term boost from having a new leader (even Brown got
one) and the public will be delighted that the new man is seeking a mandate
from voters. At a time when the public feels there is a privileged “them”
(bankers and MPs) and a powerless “us”, Johnson is the man to suit its mood:
a postman who, without even a university education and without scowling on
the world, makes it to Downing Street.
If, on the other hand, Labour dithering leaves Brown in post, then the party
cannot be surprised if victory goes to Cameron. He shows a steely will to
win.
Martin Ivens is away
