Labour scraped little more than a quarter of the votes in Thursday’s
elections, yet emerged with the upper hand. The party took a drubbing in
Wales but remained easily the largest party. In the English councils it did
less badly than expected. Overall, Labour received a slightly higher
proportion of votes than a year ago. In Scotland Labour lost to the Scottish
Nationalists but was not trounced as it had feared.
The Conservatives did better than last time and exceeded their opinion poll
scores. But so oddly does our elec-toral system distribute votes that even
though the Tories gained a colossal number of seats nobody can be sure that
a 40% to 27% lead over Labour would give them an overall majority if
repeated at a general election. Anyway, Labour can hope for better because
governments usually improve on their midterm nadir.
In Scotland the Liberal Democrats have to choose between maintaining their
coalition with Labour, despite the electorate’s vote of little confidence,
or entering a partnership with the Nationalists, with whom they have a
fundamental disagreement over Scottish independence.
Most strikingly, Gordon Brown’s worst fear has not been realised. It is not as
easy as his opponents had hoped to argue that he is despised in his own
land. When he becomes prime minister he will still be plagued by the West
Lothian question because much legislation that he initiates will not affect
his own constituents (whose laws are generated by the Scottish parliament
more than Westminster). But Brown’s predicament would be far worse had the
Nationalists squashed Labour north of the border.
Expectations are an important part of political warfare. Labour won that
battle and the other parties lost. The SNP is left trying to explain why its
narrow win was well short of the large lead it enjoyed in the opinion polls
at the start of the campaign.
The Liberal Democrats must be dismayed that where Labour crumbles the crumbs
are not going their way. The Conservatives point to successes in the north
of England, but know that their support there is still disappointing. Only
Labour comes out slightly better than predicted.
Brown is, in a sense, lucky that expectations of him are so low. As Tony Blair
ends his stint in Downing Street people feel contempt because they initially
hoped for so much and now feel cheated. Last week I wrote a few
complimentary lines about Blair and have received numerous vituperative
e-mails demanding to know how I could write a single positive word about
this dreadful prime minister. Perhaps when people have forgotten how much
they once trusted him they will view his record more dispassionately.
By contrast I recall that when Margaret Thatcher came to office, Chris Patten
said to me that she had reached Downing Street with no goodwill at all.
Allowing for the fact that he was not exactly neutral, there was still truth
in it. She was elected with trepidation at a time of national crisis. As her
premiership progressed she gathered bitter enemies, but also admirers who
had not anticipated how determined and revolutionary she would be. For some
she was more ghastly even than they had feared and for others she was better
than they had hoped, but disappointment did not come into it.
I am amazed by how negative many are about Brown, especially the business
community. It is surprising, because the economy has grown all the time that
he has been at the Treasury. There is much to criticise in his record but
few previous chancellors could claim as much and none was there as long as
Brown.
It would not be difficult for Brown to exceed expectations, both because they
are so low and because people underestimate him. Do not be surprised if by
the end of the summer the buzz is that Gordon is turning out better than
foreseen.
The key for Brown ought to be to establish a style quite different from
Blair’s. To some extent he inevitably will. For example, Brown is unlikely
to idolise money and celebrity and that will be a relief. If Blair does not
quit his parliamentary seat at once he will have to declare publicly the
millions that he will earn between now and the general election and Brown
will look ascetic by comparison.
Can Brown break away in more substantial ways? For instance, people would
welcome it if he put spin to death. But the chancellor’s recent budget
statement absolutely misrepresented his measures. Brown did not forsake
Blairism but rather took the prime minister’s black arts to new heights.
Would Brown be willing to dismantle Blair’s croniocracy? Last week it was
revealed that lucrative quango jobs have been handed out almost exclusively
to Labour peers rather than those of other parties. But all we know about
how Brown divides the world into friend and foe suggests that he will rely
more on placemen not less.
Last week, too, the government asked parliament’s intelligence and security
committee to look again at whether MI5 should be blamed for failing to stop
two of the 7/7 bombers who had been under surveillance. But the committee
has a Labour majority and is headed by Paul Murphy, who was in the cabinet
until recently. It has no powers of investigation and reports not to
parliament but to the prime minister. So it will be hard to put any
confidence in its findings, even if they are revealed.
Is there any chance that Brown would do things differently? He has not been
visibly involved in the politi-cisation of Britain’s security services. His
fingerprints were not on the dodgy dossier of evidence about Saddam
Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. It was Charles Clarke, not
Brown, who claimed that the London bombers were “clean skins” when they had
in fact been photographed and bugged by MI5. It is John Reid’s special
advisers who were suspected of leaking lurid allegations of terror plots to
divert attention from the home secretary’s problems with prisons.
Yet nothing makes me think that Brown would initiate a new era of open
government to increase public trust in our institutions. Perhaps more than
any minister he has resisted giving substantive answers to questions lodged
under freedom of information legislation. Evidently even if he can see the
intellectual argument for breaking with the Blairite past, he is, if
anything, more wedded even than Blair to controlling information. It is a
pity because the government will be hampered in the fight against terror by
public mistrust and parliament will be reluctant to grant new powers unless
there is greater transparency.
For David Cameron, Thursday’s results give the lie to the old adage that
oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them. As Neil Kinnock
proved in 1992, it is not enough for the party in power to be unpopular. The
electorate has also to believe that the opposition is ready for office and
Kinnock failed that test. The case for dismissing Labour has been thoroughly
made. The case for electing the Tories has yet to be articulated.
Cameron has with great skill moved the Conservatives to the centre and his
efforts have been noticed and rewarded with votes. But there is no sense of
crisis gripping Britain as there was when the electorate took a chance on
Thatcher. Cameron has no message for aspiring people as she did when she
promised to sell them their council houses. He is clever enough to
understand what the working classes want but he does not intuit it as she
did.
The Tories are relying on his charis-ma and it is indeed a formidable weapon.
But nobody knows whether it can defeat Brown’s experience and weightiness.
Ironically, if the economy gets worse, as it surely will, Brown’s chances
will improve because people would then fear change. If more Britons die in
Iraq, Afghanistan or in terror attacks at home, a worried public may prefer
to trust Brown’s unflashy solidity.
Last Thursday, on a dismal showing by Labour at the polls, the chances
increased that Brown will one day be elected to Downing Street.
I am sorry, but one should never ever go out of ear-shot of 2-year olds and a 3-4 year old. Suppose they were calling for you? Looking after children really does mean putting them first. Perhaps it would help prevent this sort of tragedy re-occuring if these parents could stress this to others.
Dr. J.Poole, Romsey, Hants
as a zimbabwean, i feel that tony blair failed us in his approach towards us. He might have achieved something if he had played his reasoning sense and cards well. However i must commend him for the good job he did with Britain especially economically. On the other hand Iraq was a total disaster and it also went to show how much influence G.W,Bush had over Blair. It seemed as if he was not able to challenge or question the US policies. Most zimbabweans refer to him as the world's vice president with Bush as the president. I do hope he will be able to do something meaningful with his life and try to be more open about his policies unlike what he did with the funding of the opposition MDC and Iraq. I also wonder what the queen has to say about Bush's term in office
tarisai gweneka, harare,
Tony Blair is the reason Labour won three elections. What reason will voters have at the next election to vote labour?
Michael Levy, Fort Lauderdale , Florida/usa
Gordon Brown may fail because he does not listen to anybody. Margaret Thatcher, for all her strong convictions, knew that she sometimes had to take other opinions into account. Mr Brown thinks he is infallible. He is quite error-prone - the sale of gold at the bottom of the market, the tax credits system, various tax measures that have had to be reversed - and he will not get away with such errors when he moves outside the technical areas of finance.
Tony Blair probably listened too much and tended to take his opinions from the last person he had spoken to, I fear that unless Mr Brown learns a little humility, late in life, he will trip himself up.
Frank Upton, Solihull,
Sorry Michael ! Brown was credited with winning the last election for Blair. Yet we see poor results for Labour despite the expectation that Brown will be taking charge soon ! His image has been tarnished to add to his woes.
Maybe you know something we don't ?
David L, Swindon, Wiltshire
Michael Portillo, the new Ted Heath.
Jarod Weaver, Southwell, Nottinghamshire
I too will never forget Mr Brown after this last budget. My Mother (85) has an income of £9.000 a year and he has doubled her taxes. Mr Cameron - just say you will keep all of the Brown lowering of taxes - but restore the 10% range for those grossing less than £20k pa. - that is justice and care for the poorest.
Elizabeth, Nottingham, UK
The next election is a long way off so it's difficult to predict what will happen. I agree that Brown's government will look very different from Blair's - especially in that it will not be in thrall of celebrity. I believe Cameron will find Brown a very different opponent as against Blair. Brown has gravitas, something Cameron appears to lack. One bonus for Brown is that Reid has resigned. I think he'll put a new team in. It would be wrong to underestimate this man as a political opponent. Cameron and his team are going to have to sharpen up in order to nail Brown's government.
Ian Burgess, Bristol,
40 to 27 does not automatically mean a Tory majority as it depends on what happens to the other 33%, but it certainly loses a Labour majority.
However Labour was winning local elections and European elections in 89, 90, 91 and lost in 92. Equally Labour was hammered in 2004 but won in 2005.
With control of the government machine Brown will try to improve the position by 2009, so British troops home from Iraq during 2008, there will be budget bribes in 2009.
The Tory revival in the North is still patchy, in 1992 Scotland had 10 Tory MP's, in 1997 it became a Tory free zone well on Thursday they got back to 4 constituency MP's, those "missing" 6 seats will have to be found somewhere in England to get back to a bare majority.
Bottom line Cameron could get into Number 10 in 2009 but Brown has a good chance of hanging on till 2014.
Dan Smith, Oxford, UK
You are following the current commentating trend of looking at these events in terms of various personalities. This enables you to mix them with other variables to produce the conclusion of your preference, which is thus most likely to be wrong. You speak of David Cameron’s charisma but it is David Cameron’s ability to elucidate and put across Tory policies that is his strong point, and the requisite point for a political leader. It is the Tory or Labour policies that people will have in mind when they vote, if anything, not the party leader. Gordon Brown may be able to change his manner and produce a more effective level of communication, but he will probably need something more than that to offset the change factor.
Henry Percy, London, UK
Interesting call Michael, especially for a Conservative. I agree the feel is the culture of government will change and a more favourable wind rise than presently. However there's another unkown: lets say Cameron is not in fact policy light, lets say he's had to hold his powder dry for fear of Blair's standard theft technique. he might just be hoping Brown will not follow this undignified, and squalid opportunism to such transparently unprincipled degrees, and allow Cameron his policies as distinct. we shall see.
But lets face t, what would you do? Give them all away so early on? Focus group tested, and stolen?
Interesting summer ahead!
Steve Crawford, Lincoln, UK
I personally will never forget Mr Brown after this last budget.I only earn 9.000 a year and he has doubled my taxes.Blair was a wolf in sheeps clothing but Brown,he just a wolf....and not bothering to hide it!
nikki , portland, dorset
Michael Portillo is oddly complacent about the economy under Brown's stewardship. Personal and national debt are now at historic levels such that even a small increase in interest rates will produce a crisis in the housing market and a big increase in unemployment. Brown has enlarged the non-productive state sector by over a million and raised corporation tax to the point where overseas investors are no longer looking to Britain as a good place to do business. The high tax, high spend economy is becoming more sclerotic as each budget arrives. Brown's personal responsibility for demolishing a once secure pension system and replacing it with means-tested benefits and tax credits has increased the dependency culture of the whole nation. Selling off our gold reserves at the bottom of the market was a true indication of Brown's economic judgment.
Mr Portillo will I believe soon receive a nasty reality check.
Anthony Back, Wellington, Telford, England
A young working class couple can no longer afford to buy a house in England. To afford a miserable let, both partners must work and children consequently suffer. Manufacturing of globally competitive products is no longer possible in the UK due to inflated costs. Services in the UK are so expensive that Global businesses are re-locating. North Sea Oil & gas is declining and we have no emerging exports to fund increasing enrgy imports. The official inflation figures are regarded by the population as a joke. The Blair /Brown axis spins & rationalises & provides no strategy or Leadership. The constitution is under threat from devolution.
How can Portillo write such arrant nonsense.
John Barkham, Burton-on-Trent,
I don't remember the English being too worried when they didn't have a single tory MP in Scotland yet ruled over us without compassion or concern. Why do you now think the SNP are surging ahead in Scotland? We are a compassionate socialist country - values which Cameron will never convince us he aspires to.
Robert Dey, Limekilns, Fife
Good article Mr Portillo. I must declare that I am a Labour voter and an admirer of Grodon Brown, so not exactly unbiased, but putting that aside, even in an ecomic disaster I would still vote for Mr Brown to be PM - because Mr Cameron is even more spin than Mr Blair and he scares me to the point that I feel he is just a trojan horse for old Tory values. They would compound problems and they do not have the equivalent midas touch of Ken Clarke in their midst to cure potential economic woes during their regime.
Max, Manchester,
At least commentator mentions Brown's unique position as a PM, with a deficit in democratic validity from his Westlothian disqualification.
This a very deep constitutional inequity; he is lucky indeed that the BBC ignore it. Cameron is ignoring it too at present, but the grass roots English are now onto it, however little the commentariat recoil from even discussing it.
So well done Portillo for a little realism
Blackstone, Oxford, UK
Michael, you weren't watching the BBC's 'balanced' election night coverage were you !?
Mark, London,
The last sentence says it all. If we losing a hundred men a day in Iraq, and having to rehouse workers in city centre emergency flats because of lack of petrol, Blair would be the new Churchill.
Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK
There are many things to take issue with in Michael Portillo's complascent article, but let's take the following comment: "there is no sense of crisis gripping Britain as there was when the electorate took a chance on Thatcher". We are in a crisis over immigration. We are in a crisis over integration and assimilation. Where did the 7/7 bombers come from? Why should young British muslims feel so alienated from the country of their birth that they should wish to inflict murder and mayhem on their fellow citizens. This is a very real crisis which needs to be addressesd and which cannot and will not be addressed by Nu Labourites, whether under Blair or Brown.
Richard, Kidderminster, England
Brown is tarred with the same brush as Bliar. He cannot escape the fact that throughout the Bliar administration he was a senior member of that government and therefore collectively a part of its decisions. Whatever Brown thinks privately he starts his premiership with no authority or mandate to do anything except maybe to try and answer the "West Lothian Question"
Dave Rushworth, Lancaster, England
Please don't patronise us by accusing us of having trusted Blair in the past. I think I first realised he was a phoney in about 1994, well before he became PM. Well over 50% of us voted against him in 1997.
I don't see a problem with a 40% vote failing to guarantee an overall majority of seats. It's not an overall majority of the votes.
Clothilde SImon, Leeds,
A surprisingly balanced piece, Michael. You must be very disappointed with the results. And you are almost nice to Brown. Are you feeling unwell?
If I was Cameron I would be worried with only 40% of the vote. There was a big protest vote, and more than just mid term blues. A large number of people wanted to punish Blair over Iraq for a last time. Not only will Blair be gone by the next election, but so will Brirain,s involvement. Brown will get Britain out of Iraq, possibly by the end of this year. He has little to lose with Bush now a lame duck.
Brown will probably surprise us. Never once in print ,as far as I know, has he come back on all those people who have maligned him so viciously. Just by being solid, sensible and correct, people will take to him. And his prize will be that if he does well, then history may say that the the eary 21st century in Britain were really the Brown years, with Blair the minor partner.
JAMES GALLAGHER, LONDON, UK
Did you not used to be a Tory? Brown has got no chance.
James Sykes , Bracknell, England
Surely the key issue which has occupied the mind of the British public over the past four years has been the Iraq conflict.
Gordon Brown's best hope of leading NL to victory in the next election would seem to rest on the speedy withdrawal of British forces.
That action alone would give him the voter credibility that he appears to lack at the moment.
Tony, Bridgend,
Michael if Thursday was such a good day for Labour then perhaps you might like to share with your readers the reason Gordon Brown has not been seen in public since then.
I think it's time we were all told.
Tom Maxwell, Redhill,
Totally unconvincing. Country rally to Brown when the economy turns sour and debts have to be met. Must be joking. David Cameron has yet to convince...Hmm...bit of political sibling rivalry here. A failed old Conservative is not terribly anxious to see a new, young leader succeed.
Donald Last, Worthing, UK
CDM asks: "And how exactly could a 40-27 Tory-Labour split not produce a majority?"
This is Nu Labour Britain. This is Blair in Wunderland. TB's party got re-elected by 22% of the electorate in 2005, and just over a third of the votes cast. 64% voted against Labour, but they are in power. I blame the4 voters of Sedgefield fior this; how they must rue the votes they cast for Blair in 2005
George Edwards, harrogate, UK
The article still talks as if there are only two parties in British politics - and this is the fault of the Lib Dems. This is a party with over 60 MPs and thousands of councillors, still holding on to 26% of the vote and winning councils like Hull on what Blair plays up as a 'dreadful' night for them, and yet it remains invisible.
In 2005 the Lib Dems stumbled on something they'd not had before - policies. Like or loathe their position on Iraq or 50% tax rates, you had to admit they had a clear domestic and foreign position. If anything, it was the other two who were 'soggy'. A barnstorming campaign on these issues might have.... But for reasons we all know, Kennedy, having positioned them well, wasn't up to it.
Now the Lib Dems are back in their soggy comfort zone. A 'campaign against crime' at home and a meaningless foreign policy take on Trident (decide later). They could have really threatened Labour. Now that chance has gone. Another reason why this wasn't so bad for Brown.
Dr. Mark Corner, Brussels, Belgium
Sorry Michael, but this isn't up to standard. Actual results are far more important than expectations; the fact the Conservatives now have an absolute majority of both councils and seats cannot be ignored.
And how exactly could a 40-27 Tory-Labour split not produce a majority?
CDM, London, UK
I don't remember there being a big crisis when Labour came to power (discounting sleaze which Labour seem up to the eyes in now anyway)and where was the fear of change then, the economy was in a far better state than it was when Thatcher was made Prime Minister and yet the electorate elected a party that hadnt tasted power in 18 years! If they can do that they can surely vote back in a party that dragged Britain out of the gutter of the Seventies and handed over a very much cured man of Europe on a platter, to a party who up until that point, were a bunch of General Election losers.
Jason, Birmingham,