Now that the government has been forced to nationalise Northern Rock, after
five months of pursuing every other option, what is the impact on the
fortunes of the political parties?
The Conservatives have gained several advantages. For the first time since
1992, when John Major’s government chaotically exited the exchange-rate
mechanism (ERM), the party is comfortable talking about the economy.
Throughout Gordon Brown’s period as chancellor, his opponents had little to
say. Year upon year of economic growth made Labour invulnerable. Brown’s
initial stringency won him a reputation for competence that was little
challenged, even when prudence gave way to profligacy.
Recently, as an economic downturn has loomed, the Tories have worried that
Brown stood to gain rather than lose from Britain’s reversal of fortune.
When people go through hard times, perhaps they cling to a man of
experience. So, as economic pessimism increased, the Conservatives’
electoral optimism did not.
Northern Rock changes that. Brown has fumbled. For five months he sought at
all costs to avoid nationalisation because it might remind us of old Labour.
Now that the government has been forced to acquire the bank, it is not old
Labour’s ambition to seize the commanding heights of the economy that
springs to mind, but rather old Labour’s lack of economic grip. Brown’s
government has been forced to do what it said it would not, just as Harold
Wilson’s was obliged to devalue the pound in 1967, having initially set its
face against it.
Brown has chosen a style of nationalisation that should keep the problem in
the public eye until the general election. While his objectives are unclear,
he evidently does not envisage selling the bank’s assets soon. So the
government is left to handle the thorny issue of how to run a bank well
enough to improve its value and badly enough to avoid being anticompetitive.
The Conservatives now know what to say about Brown, whereas they never
developed a sustainable line of attack against Tony Blair. It is an
important breakthrough. It is believable to accuse Brown of dithering and
incompetence, whereas the charges were incredible when levelled at his
predecessor. The Tories have moved on from accusing Brown of being left
wing, or the enemy of Blair’s public service reforms, to a clearer narrative.
Another blessing for the Tories is that the government team, the prime
minister apart, is so weak. Normally an opposition looks Lilliputian against
the hulks who occupy the government front bench. But such giants as Labour
has are outside Brown’s administration. Alistair Darling, the chancellor,
cannot shake off the image of being Brown’s bag carrier, even if some of his
judgments on Northern Rock were better than his boss’s.
To compound their Rock misjudgments, Brown and Darling have also botched
changes on capital gains tax; and on both inheritance tax and taxation of
the nondomiciled they have allowed George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, to
make the running.
However, the Conservatives enjoyed less success over Northern Rock. They, too,
were embarrassed to recommend nationalisation. That was a political
crossover too far even for the modernisers who now run the party. The
Northern Rock debacle demonstrates a weakness in our political system.
Unlike many other democracies, our politicians are not technocrats.
Worryingly, nor are our civil servants. With a complex issue such as a run
on a bank, government and opposition lack the expertise to act sure-footedly.
That makes the performance of Vince Cable, the somewhat techno-cratic Liberal
Democrat spokesman, all the more remarkable. His consistent advocacy of
nationalisation since the crisis began enabled him gently to tease the
government last week. But in reality his political courage has high-lighted
deficiencies in the Tory opposition as much as the government. Osborne and
David Cameron have built on Northern Rock a case that Labour is incompetent,
but the saga has not proved that they would be less so.
It is an important failure, because in key areas of policy the Conservatives
rely on convincing the electors that they would run things better. If people
are fed up with Labour, it is largely because in health and education it has
spent huge sums for relatively little improvement. The Conservatives could
argue that the systems do not work and must be changed. But they avoid
saying that because it might scare the public. They fall back on claiming
they would use our money more effectively, but why should voters believe
that?
When Blair was opposition leader he used two methods to convince us that
Labour would cope better. First, he ran Labour tightly and invited us to
infer that a man who could tame that unruly party was qualified to run the
country. Second, he secured adoration in the media, rather as Barack Obama
has today in America. Blair portrayed himself as a different sort of person
from those then in power. Voters believed that a better kind of person would
be more competent at governing, which was at least a nonsequitur.
Cameron has never been far enough ahead in the opinion polls for long enough
to look wholly in control of the Tories. Last summer, when he slipped
behind, his party savaged him. Many in the media respect Cameron but they
are not besotted with him. An Etonian who worked for Norman Lamont at the
time of the ERM shambles is hardly an outsider and so not the sort to whom
voters - in periodic fits of naivety - look for miracles.
All that explains why Cameron’s opinion poll lead is unimpressive. He has
stayed ahead because the government has been damaged by successive scandals
and accidents, from Labour party funding to the loss of sensitive data.
Given those disasters, the Conservatives could hope for a double-digit
advantage by now. To their disappointment the harm that Northern Rock has
done to Labour does not match the fatal blow that the ERM dealt Major’s
government.
Restless voices will call for a more radical Tory policy agenda. In the 1980s
I was a member of the No Turning Back group, young turks in the junior ranks
of government. We suggested to Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister, that
she adopt a more radical schools policy. She told us to grow up. Cameron
must be tempted to make the same retort to his critics today. The electorate
displays no appetite for new economic experiments and the party has
insufficient time to prepare the ground. In any case it is the flip-flop
that Brown longs for Cameron to make.
That is not to argue that Britain does not need a radical overhaul. A
consultant from Mars looking at how we run our National Health Service, our
schools and our welfare system would advise us to stop hitting our head
against the wall and recognise that those services cannot function as
organised.
Cameron will be acutely aware of that. He probably dreams of being elected as
a consolidator in order to govern as a reformer. His problem is that while a
radical manifesto would guarantee defeat, consolidation is too dull a
platform for victory.
So despite Northern Rock, Brown looks likely to be prime minister after the
next election. That might be no bad thing for the Tories, if they can only
have patience. If Cameron served two terms as leader of the opposition he
would have time to think not just about how to win an election, but also
about how to be prime minister, something which in the past few have managed.
As public weariness with Brown continued to mount during that second term,
Cameron could look with assurance to winning the following election. He
could then devise, maybe even articulate, a radical agenda.
Those who believe that Britain needs a shake-up of Thatcherite proportions
should not be bullying Cameron to abandon his careful strategy today.
Instead they should guarantee him enough time as leader to complete the Tory
revival and to achieve personal political maturity. They might then live to
see a government of which they could thoroughly approve.
Martin Ivens is away
My whole family, my friends and neighbours all intend voting Conservative at the next general election. We are just ordinary folks but concerned over the way this great country of ours is being ruined by this Government. Mr. Portillo, I suggest you talk to more people like my friends and I then you will be in no doubt about a massive Conservative Victory at the next election. I believe that election will be sooner than later as I believe the situation is going from bad to worse, GB looks haggard and lost, and the in fighting will soon begin amid the NuLabour ranks. May 1st will prove to be a total disaster for both Labour and Liberal with both Parties being virtually wiped out in the Local elections by the Tories and smaller Parties such as UKIP and the BNP. We have not forgotten how NuLab and the Liberals connived with each other to deny us our vote on the EU, its pay back time, and boy it will be sweet.
Charles Bailey, London, UK
Humbug!
New Labour prevailed because the Conservative's lost: "Parties don't win elections, Governments loose them." Communism's fall brought prolonged world growth. "When the tide comes in, all the ships rise." Winning three elections had little to do with Blair.
Conservatives forgot how to think and allowed a Blair-clone to become leader when the public had realised that Blair's approach was bankrupt. Cameron is ahead but who cares?
The public wants a structured approach as does the media and business. A long time since these constituent groups' positions were congruent with Margaret Thatcher's distinct political philosophy, fashioned by Keith Joseph, influenced by Hayek.
Such influence concentrated minds, the fall of communism became a natural result, if unforeseen. Fortune favoured the brave but where are they now? Predictability, valued by all, does not allow for runs on banks.
Millions will grow old or die whilst Portillo twiddles his thumbs, waiting for "the right moment"
Steve Buckel, Braunau-am-Inn, Austria
I can see exactly where Mr Portillo is coming from. He is a smart minded chap; fit to run the country as one of Cameron's mentors, I would say. This is what I hope will happen - Cameron gets in and is guided by people with political maturity. Labour's ideas signal impending constitutional disaster, and we unfortunately do not have time for Cameron to grow and mature.
Paul Clothier, Cannock, England
Mr. Portillo,
What a sad future for this country if even you believe Labour and Mr. Brown will win the next election. Is it really too late? You should be suggesting ways for the Conservatives to win or at least achieve a 'hung' Parliament. Another Labour Government will be a disaster for this country. G.B.really will become a hopeless, decaying little country.
P. Brown, Kingston., Surrey
I have one advice for Mr Portillo. Stop criticising your party and better stop dabbling in politics and find a real job elsewhere. It is people like you who have kept New Labour in power for so long. Your machinations in Major government is one of the reasons for the Tories losing the 1997 election
Ken Gow, Southampton,
Not so good, Michael - this country is rapidly becoming unrecognisable, and will be for ever if ZaNu Labour PF win the next election. It will be bad enough if they manage to stay in power that long, but another 4 or 5 years will be an utter disaster.
BTW, I voted Labour from my first vote in 1970 until Iraq, but now see them as the greatest threat to the UK since Hitler.
Jeremy Poynton, Frome, England
If Cameron loses the next election, history shows that it is highly unlikely that he would be in charge of the Tory party for another election. If the British public vote Gordon Brown back in, I shall be doubly glad that I have already left the country.
Sarah, Bad Liebenstein, Germany
With quarter of a million potential Tory voters leaving the country every year and a larger number of potential labour voters coming in how can the Tories ever get into power again.
Its the demographics stupid!
ben , harrow,
A very "blinkered" view, I often wonder how many journalists and politicians live in the Real World!
John B Sheffield, Newton, Lancs
The next election will not be fought over Northern Rock.
There will be plenty of economic trouble in the meantime that the population WILL be blaming Brown for.
You ought to go on to the Guardian CiF site now and again. The number of natural Labour voters who won't be voting Labour next time round is quite illuminating.
Mikee, Weston,
Difficult to see how Mr. Portillo reaches his conclusions.
Brown having coveted Blair's job for a decade, taken every chance to surreptitiously undermine him, and finally shoehorned him OUT of No.10, it took him only a matter of weeks to demonstrate unequivocally that he is a ditherer who is simply not up to doing the job.
He made himself a hostage to fortune by declaring that he had ended boom and bust ... and what is happening right now ? His luck - and the 10-year benefit of a booming world economy - has run out and, far from being the financial genius he presented himself as being, he is now seen to be the emperor with no clothes.
To cap it all, he seeks to blame the world ecomony when the credit for the good times produced by the world economy was claimed for himself.
In every field of government influence, Labour has got the country into a right mess - as usual. And Mr Portillo thinks we will vote for more? Hah !
Cameron can at least claim that he has not let us down yet
Trevor, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
The Conservatives have a big psephological mountain to climb. This may be less exciting and interesting than policies and personalities, but the way the constituencies are arranged is a huge barrier.
Paul Danon, London, England
Perhaps Cameron is in the wrong party. Or perhaps he is a Labour Party mole who doesn't want the Tory party to win. His leadership of the Tory Party certainly is consistent with that conclusion.
What are Cameron/Osborne's positions on taxation? Who invented the non-dom tax reform which will result in a mass exodus of wealthy immigrants from the UK? Are those Tory, or Labour, policies?
I'm sorry, but neither Cameron nor Brown appeals to me; they both give me the creeps. On the other hand, I have carefully read the UKIP manifesto, spoken to many of their members and to their leadership. I believe they are an honest bunch, and have common sense policies.
It is a shame that as a minor party they have little chance of getting elected. But Britain under Labour will go down the tubes. And so it will under Cameron. I hope the voters organize themselves, and vote for the honest party with common-sense, real conservative policies - UKIP.
Tom, Cambridge, UK
You could be right but I think more probably you are wrong. You have overlooked a principal factor; there will be a new face in the White House before the next election. This may well produce a less paranoid approach to world affairs and that would be bound to reinforce the change factor at the next election in favour of David Cameron. Cameron is thus quite likely to get elected, and he has the appropriate background, coupled with a progressive attitude and first class intellect, to appeal to most people in his party and to many in other parties. I think he will prove a successful Prime Minister and, though unlikely therefore to be popular with the Press, bring a revival of Tory fortunes.
Henry Percy, London, UK
I'm pretty sure Brown now knows he is useless as a PM and will leave " on health grownds" before to long. The thing is, there is nobody competent in labour now to be PM.
John, Essex, UK
Come on Michael, do we really need to feel any more depressed? Pleasssssssssse give us some hope!!!!!
judy, Liverpool, England
It should be reasonably simple for any opposition party who wants to gain power: offer the electorate what they want and they will vote for you. Mr Cameron seems to think about what people should want rather than offer them what they want. This is what Mr Brown is doing, according to his socialist ideals. Listening to Mr Cameron on the subject of society I believe he is spot on, but there are many things he has said in the recent past that are quite scary and make him appear to radically green and lefty for my vote, even though I am fairly worried about where Mr Brown is taking our country.
Hall, Sheffield, uk
Cameron lacks clarity on important issues like his future policy on Europe.He is scared stiff to make it his "clause four moment". So he continues to rely on gimmicks and on his speech writers to come up with the "attack dog" speeches at Prime Ministers Question Time.The public have grown tired of the gags.Unless Cameron stops flip flopping everytime he sees the political wind changing he is finished and wont be the leader of the Tories after the next election.Its time he improved his performance which has been poor in 2008.
Bill Rees, Truro, Cornwall
It's not Labour or Tory, people just don't trust politicians as a class and don;t think they can help us, and they are probably right. We need - to coin a phrase - change you can believe in..
julia, london,
Lin's comment is spot on. Cameron just needs the courage to make some clear policy proposals on the issues that frustrate the 'coping classes', i.e. mass, uncontrolled immigration; high and wasted taxes; serious violent crime and civic disorder; the lack of trust and support for professionals in health and education; the unfairness of the constitution (the Lothian question); the abandonment of local democracy for quangocracy; and the disgrace of fighting foreign wars with an overstretched military that is handicapped by poor equipment and spending cuts. That should do.
Michael, Aston Clinton, U.K.
david vinter talks sense and like ordinary folk want rid of brown+and his toads, we want lower taxes, train fares we can afford,houses we can afford away with tax restraints like stamp duty most folk cant afford much because labour keep taking our money. portillo talks sense and having met him he is an ok guy. but he is out of touch. i travel the uk and speakr to a variety of people and they will vote cameron to kick brown +labour out
paul, potters bar,
Didn't you used to be a CONSERVATIVE politician?
James Sykes , Bracknell, England
Another tem of Labour?
Are you mad, Portillo?
Joe, Sheffield, UK
Michael,
I admire your pragmatic approach to politics; when you were defeated in 1997, instead of repeating the same mistakes, you chose to question where things went wrong.
I also acknowledge one of your maxims "Principle without power is futile".
But we've had 10 years of "Power without principle" and if anything, the country has deteriorated further since 1997.
Sometimes, you need to get stuck into the other side and we now need a little bit of that "who dares wins" speech - a real guilty pleasure!
It was bellicose and inappropriate - but you sussed Labour well - withdrawal, retreat, surrender because that is all Labour does.
But what are you doing saying Brown will win? You're acting as a Labour cheerleader. The more people come up with lamentable excuses and justifications for Labour, the greater chance they have of staying in power. They get a fourth term, Britain will never recover.
They need to go, so stop helping them! Start hitting them!
Julian, Shrewsbury,
What are the odds on Gordon Brown not even leading Labour into the next election? I would say that was more likely than Cameron serving two terms as leader of the Opposition, because I perceive that Northern Rock is just the tip of not one but many icebergs ahead of this particular Governent.
Edward, Sidmouth,
Unfortunately there might not be much of a country left for Cameron to be a 'great Prime Minister 'of if Labour win another General Election.
John, Manchester, UK
I want Cameron to lose the next election so that we can have a true Tory leader (David Davis / William Hague), and the fact he is not further ahead in the polls reflects my opinion of him. If he wins despite not having my vote, we might stand a chance of halting our decline, but if he looses, I want him out so that I can vote Conservative again to reverse our decline.
For those who believe Labour will lose the next election, you don't realise the extent Gordon Brown has bought the electorate to vote Labour with public sector (trade union) jobs and state benefit dependancy funded with a growing £40 billion per year government (tax payer) debt. Only someone persuasive enough to tell the truth that some cut backs in non-jobs are needed can make people realise that they will all be worse off once the country becomes bankrupt unable to continue paying anyone.
George, London,
Portillo might well be right; however, with Tory 'friends' like this David Cameron doesn't need enemies. Is Portillo embarking on the same kind of campaign he did that undermined William Hague as Tory Leader? For those wanting a Tory Government, this is stuff for behind closed doors.
DF, Newcastle, UK
Whether or not Brown wins the next election or not will depend on simpler things. Inlation of food and fuel, always hits the poor the most, at present the world is getting very short of food, overpopulation is a very important factor, and is getting worse not better. Portillo knows nothing about it, neither does Brown
[who by the way looks more and more fed up with his lot, he now has a tiger by the tail].
The average guy, going to work has his pips squeeked either by ever higher petrol prices or rail fares, plus an ever rising council tax!
Another very important factor will depend on how well the Scots voters think that the Scottish Nats are viewed in the eyes of Labour voters in Scotland. A loss of labour seats in Scotland, will mean a Conservative majority in Westminster.
David Vinter, Louth, Lincs., UK.
Beware the power of wishful thinking.
Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.
Maybe if we had more "amateur" politicians (ie they achieve something outside of politics first) instead of the "professional" (my goal from the age of eighteen is to be PM) ones that we currently have the country would be better and more sensibly run-I wonder how many of the current MPs of any colour have had a career outside of politics? Not that many I would bet
David, Exeter, Devon
"If people are fed up with Labour, it is largely because in health and education it has spent huge sums for relatively little improvement."
They are almost certainly even more fed up with this government's mass immigration and multicultural policies causing the fracturing of our society and strains on our public services, infrastructure and environment. Not to mentioned burgeoning crime rates. None of our main political parties has the courage to meaningfully address immigration and so the indigenous peoples of Britain will eventually become a minority. Most voters have no longer any idea who to vote for because all parties appear to be collaborating in the demise of the UK.
Lin, London, UK
"If Cameron served two terms as leader of the opposition he would have time to think" Spot on, he would be out on his ear and looking for work.
mike, alford, uk
No Michael - out here in the real world time is finished for Brown and he has lost the next election already !!!
Take my word for it !!!
Ian Payne, WALSALL,
Cameron may have 10 years of being opposition leader ahead of him. It is unheard of to be leader of the opposition for that length of time and then be PM. The problem for Cameron could then be that Brown hands over to someone else in the Labour Party and people want to give that person a chance. It's good that Mr. Portillo has more common sense than most and recognises how difficult it will be for the Tories to win at the next election.
David Mitchell, Cambridge,
The election was called off because we as a coalition were not able at the time to resort to a unilateral posture against Iran and fight a war on a third front.
It was the belief that the IAEA would be able to carry out inspections and that multilateralism would work.
If the Conservatives would have won we would have been stuck in a quagmire. It was a measured decision in the national interest and I believe a very good one.
To that effect I do not believe that the Conservatives would have shown the depth of understanding on a Geo regional perspective and consequently the Prime Minister of the day made a correct decision.
To have even contemplated regime change in Iran we would have needed a coalition of at least 500000 , that would include occupation and nation building. We did not have such resources so to call off the election was a balanced and wise considered thing to do.
Leadership is about making such decisions and on Iran, I think that it was correct.
The Director, LONDON, England
If Brown remains PM and Labour is not dislodged in 2010, then I'm afraid too many millions of Tory voters will have left the country to ever elect Cameron. Where will the country go? From being flushed half-way down the pan, to right past the U-bend.
John G., Birmingham,
Although Michael Portillo thinks Cameron's poll lead is unimpressive , one only has to remember back to the party conference season when Brown had an 11% lead to realise how much things have improved for Cameron , with leads of between 3 and 9%. I think Cameron will be quite happy with the current position, particularly with Brown's reputation for financial competency falling apart daily.
Brown has shown that he had no clear vision other than to get into No 10. His policy decisions since then seem to have been either reversing Blair's decisions or stealing opposition ideas. He has shown himself to be indecisive whether its over the non-election or Northern Rock, dishonest as demonstrated by his decision not to hold a referendum on the EU treaty and pretending that the polls had nothing to do with his election decision.
In addition he appears to be running the most incompetent government ever as shown with the continual loss of data or foreign criminal information.
Time for change
john, cardiff, uk
You may be happy with five more years of Labour Michael: I am getting on in years.
If the tories DON'T win next time, they are finished; and so is the country. If the public are not weary of Labour by now, there is no hope anyway.
I will emigrate.
Michael Rigby, Blackburn,
Labour has no chance of being returned to power at the next election. The SNP will damage them in their heartland of Scotland - a set of circumstances completely ignored by Michael Portillo - and the middle class and elderly (i.e. those who actually vote) - will see them off in southern England.
Tom Moncrieff, London , England
I cannot agree that Cameron is the man to lead the Tories back to power. Why hasn't he and his Party put up a better fight against teh European Treaty, for example? Why doesn't he put up a fight aginst teh growing authoritarianism in our society? I have a sneaking feeling that he rather likes all the PC control which Labour has introduced. Why do we not hear about getting rid of QUANGOs (heavens knows what they cost the tax payer - and what are the outcomes?)? There's lots ot oppose about Nu Labour - but we don't hear much of it from either Cameron or Osborne (or always strikes me as a man who presents his arguments in a Oxbridge undergraduate style). Osborne could learn a thing from Vince Cable. Finally, why not attack the Lib Dems for not voting a for a referendum on the European Treaty? No, Cameron lacks spontaneity and always looks/sounds like he's speaking from a prepared speech. Now (or "listen" as politicians love to say) how is that different from Nu Labour?
Ian Burgess, Bristol,