It’s a TARP!

Jump to Comments

According to Gallery news, Andrew Mackinley has called for Harriet Harman to be given authority to fire nuclear weapons if the PM is incapacitated.

Sometimes, amongst all the gloom something sends you over the edge completely. I sat at my computer giggling at this for a full minute, not because it’s inconceivable that Harriet should have such authority, but because it’s the perfect metaphor for the party at the moment – arguing over aspects of leadership while the country looks on in disbelief. 

For the “Blairites”, “right”, or whatever you wish to dub those in the Labour party who call themselves New Labour with something approaching pride, to destabilise Gordon Brown is utter idiocy,  because it would mean walking straight into the biggest TARP since Admiral Ackbar swivelled in his hoverchair and googled his squiddy eyes at the Death Star.

Yes, in case you don’t get it, what I’m saying is that IT’S A TARP!!!!

Admiral Ackbar warns the Labour party about camping and leadership briefing

Why have I reached this conclusion?

Let’s not beat around the bush.  Things are pretty damn dire. We’re twenty points behind in the polls, getting beaten from London to Glasgow and generally not winning the Mr Popular popularity championship of popularity.

(Incidentally, can we now put to bed the idea that Crewe was a bad by-election campaign? The swing in Crewe was less than that in Glasgow east, in a far tougher seat. I hope those who briefed against the Crewe campaign from London remember that)

So it’s not surprising that certain people who have never much liked Gordon Brown are, well, pointing this out, and journalists are noticing them pointing it out.

Yet by doing so, they risk destroying the biggest chance of keeping the Labour party in the centre ground where it has a chance of winning the next election. They forget that the crucial link that has maintained New Labour in power for a decade has been that in the end Gordon Brown and Tony Blair’s shared political analysis over-rode everything all else. Opposing Gordon Brown now risks swapping that crucial policy unity for a mess of pottage.

Ask yourself this. If the right of the Labour party brief, destabilise and undermine Gordon Brown, will that win fresh support for New Labour ideas? Not a bit of it.  rather the reverse.

Will it make New Labour figures more popular inside the Labour party, therefore helping them win suppot for New Labour candidates in any future election? Err, no. it won’t.

Instead it will tear apart the internal New Labour coalition, make those who do the briefing seem petty and underhand and hand power and influence not to the next generation of modernisers, but to the loyalist left of the party, who are already professing themselves disgusted by disloyalty from the right, while all the time standing ready to profit from it by ensuring that for the first time in two decades the Leader of the Labour party holds their office due to their support.

For the effect of briefing, you’d be surprised how many party members who were no great fans of Tony Blair were outraged that MPs should try and depose him in 2006. those same people would be equally outraged by Blairites undermining Gordon Brown. So if an election took place, it would be “moderate” candidate who would bear the brunt of the charge of disloyalty.

IMO, This is why Tony Woodley and Paul Kenny respectively called on the Labour leadership to “bury Blairism” and on MPs to make up their mind to support Gordon or not. Effectively, it’s a dare to the Blairites to try and storm the castle, thus exposing themselves to counter-attack.

Look at this way. Have New Labour types fared particularly well in Labour party elections recently? Ask Hazel Blears about that.  So why would you want to ensure one happened on even less favourable terms?  Are New labour ministers generally popular acrtoss the party at the moment? Not exactly, if labourhome is any guide.

Do people seriously believe that the result of Gordon Brown being removed would be that someone could just slide into the Labour leadership unopposed in order to implement broadly the same policies- and that this would somehow turn things around?

Sure it’s possible to appoint a “caretaker” if they immediately called a snap general election, but well, that doesn’t sound like a fun option. Err, guys, suggesting MPs should vote for calling a election now in order to lose it “less badly” than in a couple of years time is the dumberererererest. idea. ever.

If people are thinking about changing leadership then they need think through what the justifications really are to replace Gordon Brown.

There are three valid reasons to get rid of a Labour leader. The first is that there is an alternative candidate that would be much more popular and might win an election the current leader can’t.  Can anyone point to such a candidate?

The second is because of some fundamental policy split. I’ve not heard that case articulated at all, and all the evidence is that from Schools to Welfare the progressive agenda is strongly represented in the Brown government.

The final reason is that they might believe that something might turn up under a different leader. Well maybe. Leaders get lucky, with the way they’re covered, with the image they get, but my belief is that the process of removing one New Labour Prime Minister with another New Labour Prime Minister on the basis that the new one is shinier would end up being very messy indeed.

Not only that, but they’d be forced to make the ludicrous decsion of calling a snap election while the party was in chaos, or of waiting a few months, bywhich time, they’d be the unpopular incumbent, wrestling with seeming intractable economic policy issues.

So those who seek to undermine Gordon Brown from the right are doing their cause a disservice.

First, doing so makes them look bad. The coup attempt nearly breought down Gordon Brown too, remember. Already Jack Straw is weakened figure – and only because he’s had to deny supporting efforts to undermine Gordon.  What good does that do?

Second, by appearing disloyal and underhand, potential leaders take the focus away from policy and achievement and put it onto their own personal agendas and ambitions, which always casts an unflattering light. remember Micheal Portillo and his phone lines. 

Third, attacking the leader makes the centre ground seem less attractive politically for the party leadership. It forces them to secure their left flank against the assault from the right. That’s bad internal politics, and a long term policy disaster. Thanks to the sterling efforts of Pat McFadden, Tom Watson and many others, we came out of Warwick without any hostages to fortune. A leadership debate offers the left a chance to unstitich all of that work.

So for the right of the party to undermine Gordon Brown is in effect for the right of the party to turn on itself, which would benefit those who would more cleverly profess loyalty while hoping to benefit from suh splits.

So Instead of trying to brief against Gordon Brown, the right of the party should be rallying round him, offering ideas, creating the space for radical new policies, and keeping the focus on how to win back wavering voters.

The challenge for New Labour moderates is to make the political centre ground an appealing place for the party to be. Attackign the party leader sotto voce will just alienate significant parts of party, while the electorate see us as ever more divided.

So sure, we’re unpopular, but attacking the leader won’t turn that around.  What might, is offering a plan of action.

This is where Gordon’s team must deliver.

Again, let’s be honest. Simply saying “the global economic situation is tough, voters should trust us to turn it around” just isn’t good enough. It’s like a taxi driver telling his customer that despite the fact he drove into the serpentine while swerving from a worse crash, his expertise as a driver is the reason she should stay in the cab rather thn swim for shore.

So lets be honest with the electorate. We didn’t anticipate the credit crunch would get so bad. It’s worse for us and for everyone else than we thought. In order to get out of it we’re going to  have to do some pretty radical stuff. It’ll work, but it’ll be tough (and possibly expensive). What we won’t do is increase the burden on families and businesses.

It’s here, in this agenda for delivering on the side of the people of the country, by making their life easier that the focus of the party has to be. Without that, we’re lost, who-ever is leader. Then those on the left who perfer a different strategy would get to have a go.

So now is the time for moderates to show that New Labour was always about more than Tony and Gordon, and for the leadership to show why it was about more than personalities.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Real, amazingly cool and funny stuff.
• Some first thoughts
• Steve on leadership…
• Lost: Labour’s Love for Brown

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized