The following post is almost laughably pretentious. You’d almost think it mattered what I thought about the future of the Labour party. Still, I put it out there, as a bit of a cri de coeur aimed at my betters and those with the megaphones and bully pulpits.
I remember reading a history of Athens and Sparta that stated that Sparta’s strategic approach to Athens was relatively straightforward. When Athens was weak, Sparta attacked. When Athens was strong, Sparta kept quiet. I sometimes wonder if many former front benchers read the same book.
Mind you, my personal preferred metaphor du jour is World War One. The propaganda machine proclaims that the opposition has been weakened by repeated heavy shelling, so someone blows the whistle, hoping for the troops to go over the top with faces contorted, in John Prescott’s famous phrase.
Yet the troops seem to display a strange reluctance to attack. Some heads appear to pop up out of the trenches, then duck back down. Those blowing the whistle try desperately to drag their putative champions onto the field, claiming that any movement from them at all represents a full frontal assault.
In the end, when the charge fails to occur, the strategists lean back into their chairs. “Ahhh. Next time.” they say. “then the breakthrough will happen. Just you wait and see.”
Well, colour me cynical.
I know a fair bit about the rules and regulations of the Labour Party. To launch a challenge to the leadership of the Labour party requires, according to the NEC, 70 Labour MPs to nominate an alternative leader. Should they do so, a vote would be held at Party Conference over whether to have an election. The election itself would take a month or so. So that means the only way, procedurally, a Labour leader can be overthrown is by a period of vicious infighting lasting several months.
Great. Something to look forward to there.
If you’re David Cameron.
Now a couple of my media friends have suggested to me that the rules are a little irrelevant. They suggest that once things get to a certain point the rulebook no longer applies. Well, up to a point, m’Lud.
The impact of the rules is that they constrain action. If someone wishes to replace a leader of the Labour party they have two options – to follow the plan outlined above – find 70 Labour MPs to nominate someone else, win a conference card vote and then win a leadership election, or – and I think this is what is in the mind of various commentators - go so far along such the path of destabilising the leader that he leaves the field voluntarily. Tony Blair did just that.
Now, one of the reasons I am not a senior person in the counsels of the Labour party is that I felt those who pushed Tony Blair from office were wrong and said so. (Or at least I thought this was one of the reasons. It turns out that laziness, incompetence and unwillingness to rise with the lark were more of a factor). Many of those who felt differently are politicians who I count as friends, people I admire, work with and like to this day. I just disagreed with them. It’s allowed.
Yet now the boot is on the other foot. Those who agitate against the Prime Minister echo those who agitated three years or so ago. He is unpopular, they say. Is out of step with the British people, they say. For Lebanon, read Gurkhas, for Foreign Prisoners, read Expenses. In public disgust and distrust McBride replaces Levy, smears replace peerages. (In policy crisis, the Home office replaces, well, the Home office.)
Amidst such turmoil, I remain consistent. Such action is wrong, hurts the Labour party and is damagingly self indulgent unless there is some great political cause that requires a new leader.
There are those in the press who wish to show guts by getting rid of the leader of the Labour party and are prepared (I echo Kinnock) to leave the rest of our guts on the ground on College green to prove it. My question to them is simple.
Why? What for?
Speaking as a confirmed Blairite – Gordon Brown has got things right. What exactly are we complaining about?
On the big issues – on Welfare reform, on the economy, on our response to crisis in banks and in jobs, in public spending, on infrastructure, on nuclear power and on industrial policy. The Government is in the right place in policy terms.
Yes, it’s different to where we were a decade ago, but when Peter Mandelson is the government’s leading apostle of activist industrial policy, things have changed around us. I can’t think of a Labour figure who would have been able to lead the G20 to a better conclusion, would have pushed us as far along the path of Stimulus and been willing to take the risks of bank bailout and reconstruction onto his shoulders.
Where we’ve screwed up (and Lord, have we screwed up!) it has been on tactical issues. Gurkhas. Expenses. Individual idiocy of various types. Could we have been more supple and fluid in the way we handled these? Of course. Are they the reasons to decide the leadership of the country? Not on your nelly.
What great cause, what huge reforms, what great battle, would we fight under a new leader that we would not under Gordon Brown? What inspiring change means we must shed the political blood of our friends and colleagues, turn our fire upon ourselves and cleave the crucial centre of our party for years, risking handing over the party to the left in the process?
As far as I can tell there are three answers proffered.
The first is to oppose what is felt to be the economic populism of the 50p tax rate. To that I say piffle. This tax rate has been accepted by the conservative party. To unpick it would require a billion or so a year in reduced spending. From where will this come? There is not a figure in the Cabinet who would oppose it, and not a leader of the Labour party who could be elected on such a platform.
The second is to claim that another leader would be more popular, more charming, less prone to political crisis and that this could transform our standings. I simply don’t believe this. Qualification. I don’t believe the difference would be as great as the murmurers think.
Tony Blair was the greatest political communicator I have ever seen, yet he stumbled from disaster to crisis throughout his time in Number Ten. There were so many I can barely list them: Ecclestone, Hinduja, Resignations, Levy, “a good day”, Kelly – the list goes on and on. Resignations of key ministers? I personally stood in bushes out of camera shot during three seperate scandals as cabinet ministers resigned, their careers wilting before a battery of Klieg lights.
That’s just the internal stuff. Remember Foreign prisoners. Lebanon, NHS deficits, Foot and Mouth or the Petrol Crisis? Why did these horrible calamities take so long to stick to Tony? Was it his ready smile? I think not.
I rather credit the fundamental strength of New Labour’s political position and policy agenda, the strength of the economy; and lastly our poliitcal unity over the direction to take the country, supported by media management and presentation. Even with those three pillars still in place and before the economic tsunami hit us all.- by July of 2006, Tony Blair was less popular than Gordon Brown was last month - Today, would anyone else fair better? I think not.
The forward policy offer is the third and final critique offered against Gordon Brown’s premiership. This topic is the one where where I agree with some of the critique of the Government. We haven’t been particularly good at making a case on Crime, on Health, on Education. Where we have been radical- as on climate change, energy and welfare reform – our opponents have simply shfted to acommodate us, demanded we go further and left us looking confused as to how to respond.
Yes, we need to do better, It’s an urgent challenge. Yet the alternatives that are suggested as calls for more domestic reform are oddly hollow. I’ve heard it said we need a different response on primary academies, a greater commitment to localisation of power to councils. Even an end to Trident.
These are worthy suggestions, but they are not a call to arms nor a cause to overthrow our leader. If those are the differnces then we should be made more conscious of the similarities.
I believe the next election is going to be decided by the state of the economy, our ability to produce a convincing political offer for the future and by our unity.
On the economy, we’re doing the right things in the midst of a global crisis. Gordon Brown deserves the credit for that. No change in leadership will change our direction here – the single most important issue facing the country. To ignore that is pure self indulgence.
When there’s a case to be made on domestic issues, there’s every sign Gordon Brown is willing to act on them. With Alan Johnson as Health secretary, Liam Byrne in the Cabinet office, Peter Mandelson at Business, Hazel Blears at communities, Jim Murphy, James Purnell, John Hutton, Andy Burnham, Caroline Flint, David Miliband and Jacqui Smith in the Cabinet. I find it hard to believe that all their policy proposals are being stymied – they represent half the cabinet.
Do we have weaknesses? Absolutely. So in the cause of the unity, lets address them together, not fight amongst ourselves over relatively small policy proposals.To do that would be fatal, not just for the Labour party but for the whole future of the centrists in the Labour party.
We need to help Gordon Brown rebuild the pillars of New Labour support. A strong policy agenda, a focus on the economy, sharp communication and unity.
To do that our policy offer needs to be stronger. Yes, we need to be quicker and sharper on our dividing lines. Yes, we need to put the needs of voters front and centre in our communication and policy making, and make it obvious we’re doing so.
Number Ten knows this and wants the help and advice of all willing to contribute. These are tasks that all of us not stuck in past battles can help with. More than that, it’s a task we must help with.
Blairites spent a long decade asking for political maturity, self sacrifice and discipline from others in the service of the wider cause of centrist social democracy. We criticised freely when we did not feel it was forthcoming because of what looked, to us, like trifles.
It’s time to offer what once was asked for.
29 Comments
May 4, 2009 at 3:57 pm
You’re finished, gawn, departed … gettit?
That ridiculous vid on utube, your band of scummies – including Purnell for fuck’s sake – defrauding the taxpayer, the sheer fuckin’ mendacity of that shithead Brown and his scumbag pal MacBride, and most of all that grinning cunt talking about prudence and boom and bust.
When even the old girl Polly drops her knickers and pisses on Brown isn’t it time for your to look for some sort of exit.
The pity I think is that you and many similar souls will never get a chance again to do anything. But then again you have to take responsibility for letting that cunt hang around so long.
May 4, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I am afraid you have had it,its over, finished.
May 4, 2009 at 4:37 pm
The internal clamor to unseat Brown has little to do with his record on policy over the course of this government. Where you detect the hesitation of Tommy on the gun step, I detect those first, shallow, testing wounds of the hesitant first time knife self harmer.
The problem is not with policy, record or history of your party. There are general problems with the whole role of politician being seen as self serving but that can and does cut all parties.
It’s more than the crooked politicians meme. There is a glaring and apparent problem contributing to the Labour Party facing electoral humiliation and that is the presence of Brown as leader and Prime Minister. The problem is simply the man himself. The initial image deployed following the coronation was of the straight talking, sober and un-flashy son of the manse. He was the master economic strategist of our ongoing good times, the man to banish Tory boom and bust. At every city office opening, he was a very public friend to business and bankers but he remained a man of the left. He was, by assertion, an abstemious, hard working man of beliefs who would purge the government of spin. He spoke and wrote of personal heroism and courage. A Blair-a-like facade of a leader archetype that the public could like and follow was carefully and deliberately built around a man with the on camera charisma of a pound of old mince meat. Hopi, those initial images have all flaked away now. What is left is easy hit after damaging easy hit for anybody that wants to take a swing. If he were some minor figure, the Labour Party could shrug him off but he is their leader and their current intellectual font (apparently).
Out in the world, he is seen, and rightly IMO, as having been long term wrong on the economy, unable to do away with (or even much smooth) the economic cycle. He is also seen as unattractive and uncharismatic. His talk of bravery has evaporated with funked elections and McGuilt by association over the smears. He clearly also has a tin ear on spotting opportunities to do good. Even when he did spot the opportunity of going postal on expenses reforms, he contrived to pick a poor solution and to announce it in a way that left him open to ridicule.
The only calculation that I can seen being made as the testing blades go in is weighing how much electoral disaster can be averted by ditching him against how much damage is done to the party. Although history may not really repeat itself, I find myself looking in the Labour for the Michael Howard figure willing to take that long dive into electoral oblivion.
May 4, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Michael.
I see from your insightful response that you think the prime minister is, as you say, ‘a cunt’.
But putting that to one side for a sec, I’d welcome a chance to read your more detailed analysis on the fundamental strength of Labour’s current policy platform versus that presented under Blair.
For my part, I’ve always wanted Brown to make a concerted effort to rally the country around the need for united action on the economy.
As an ordinary consumer of political news I still haven’t heard a robust, coordinated case from the Govt. for their own economic policy prescription.
I know what it is, I just haven’t heard it from the Cabinet or the PM.
I’m convinced the electorate doesn’t appreciate the rationale behind the focus on bolstering public spending now (mainly because I had to have it explained slowly to me, so I may be wrong here).
It is more difficult now that the Tories have successfully framed the debate as a simple one of ‘profligate Labour spending’ vs. ‘living within our means’. It’s a tried and tested meme.
I’ve lost count of the number of media appearances where the Tories get their message over clear as a bell. What do we have in response? Charles Clarke. Magic.
May 4, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Interesting ; I have never come across Tourette’s syndrome, manifested as repeating “I`m a Blairite “ . I wonder what on earth brought that on ?The mysterious thing is that you have been wooping like a demented cheerleader at Brownies like imposing revenue reducing taxes on the rich to ferment class envy . Adjusting your sails a bit Hopi , good for you ,authority forgets a dying king and all that eh ..
Brown is a high tax collectivist like you and way to the left of the country. That why we wanted him and his claim to have been brilliant in throwing our money at the recession is pretty much a lie .At this stage I think you could afford to tone down the Polly Anna shtick a bit and if you were really a Blairite you would be doing so
You are a high taxy spendy lefty. Its precisely the ingenuity and guile with which you coat the turd with a dusting of chocolate that’s such marvellous entertainment so I hope you don’t go changin’
May 4, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Enoch said
“All political lives,” he wrote, “unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure”
Dave! Hoi ! Dave looks like its your turn..best of and all that………..whispering Behind his back like a good right wing tory ….’Wanker ‘
May 4, 2009 at 7:12 pm
If the Blairites do pull a collective Charles Clarke and we go on to a big electoral defeat in the midst of infighting, the rest of the party will never forgive them, that’s for sure.
May 4, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Writing as a layman, I wonder whether the polls reflect media hype, rather than electorate opinion. Blair took the country into an unpopular war, yet survived; while Brown seems to have received nothing but criticism for doing a reasonable job. The Government have had to contend with an economic crisis caused by Thatcherism and Tory-voting bankers & City whizz-kids, as well as incompetence & dishonesty from the Tory-voting civil service and police.
The Tory opposition have refused to engage in constructive discussion, preferring to throw mud, at their own policies if necessary. In contrast, the Government communicates with reason and objectivity. (Too much so, probably. I’d like the Tories to apologise for the economic crisis.)
May 4, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Excellent blog. I disagree with many points raised. I think the Party is unelectable come 2010, without a change in leadership and at Cabinet level. But, I liked this blog. Will keep coming back!
May 4, 2009 at 9:02 pm
OK, a few things. First, I’m beginning to get sick of abusive language. Fair warning. Any posts with the tone/language of Michael, Islington’s, may find the more offensive portions edited to their personal disadvantage.
Onto the more interesting stuff – Nightjack – I think your fourth para is the most interesting. You write, repeatedly “is seen as being” or similar. Distancing language, which from you is unusual! Let’s say I agree with you on the “is seen”. That doesn’t make it true, and doesn’t make it something Labour types should accept. Again, I come back to the point that a couple of years ago the equivalent abuse was Tony Bliar, etc etc etc.
Back then, TB had a 26% satisfaction rating and the ikes of Michael, Islington had different obsessions (Cherie Blair usually bore the brunt of them). I don’t think any other leader would fare differently. The attacks resonate more now, but that’s because the political ground beneath us has shifted.
I think the self harm metaphor is rather elegant though. Political parties are often rather like teenagers, what with their poor self image, constantly worries about what others people think of them, being subject to huge amounts of peer pressure, and always in danger of going off the rails over drink, money, sex and drugs!
Tony, Tim F, I think I agree with you.
Newmania, you’ve been reading how long and you’re surprised I’m on the right hand sde of the massing forces of Socialism?
Different Mike, I wish I could agree, but I think a lot of it is our fault. Media hype matters, but if the economy were tootling along I doubt we’d be in this precise hole (perhaps a different hole…) I think when we’ve been able to get the debate onto policy grounds and the choices we need to make on the economy, we’ve done OK recently. Trouble is, the political narrative has focussed on a) Just bad news, rather than choices for the future and b) political scandals and crisis. Some of the latter is inevitable, but we’ve shot ourselves in the foot a few times too.
May 4, 2009 at 9:47 pm
In order for Brown to become leader, an image was created to position him as the brains behind the good bits of Blair and the un-spinning face of Labour. Polly Toynbee’s now notorious Gordon The Viking piece was just one of many sympathetic, optimistic even, pieces of public puffery.
IMO the reality of the man is so far from that image that the risk of a massive public disconnect down the line was always huge. This has now happened and it is just not recoverable. For me, the clincher was his expected Macavity act when it became clear that the closest figures in his coterie were a bunch of red clawed political thugs. Add to that the “I take full responsibility (but no personal consequences) speech and I am pretty happy in my own mind that he’s just another political bully with a gang.
I use “seems” and “appears” because there is so much smoke and so many mirrors around Brown that all I can do is infer. I *might* be wrong about him but I wouldn’t bet my next coffee on it.
May 4, 2009 at 9:49 pm
I look forward to your robust defence of his foreign policy then
May 4, 2009 at 10:05 pm
You make a many good points. However, you fail to address the central issue. Brown has lost his authority and is now treated with ridicule. Moreover, Blair was allowed to get away with his mistakes because he was a natural leader. Brown is not. This is Labour’s fundamental problem. The party needs to replace Brown with someone who can lead, not bully colleagues into submission, and moreover, do the empathy bit. Until you and others admit that Brown has no credibility left and then take action to replace him, the party is sunk.
May 4, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Newmania, actually Tony Blair’s foriegn policy is one of the things i like best about him. I always wondered what was so left wing about tolerating totalitarian, genocida dictatorships and women hating theocrats.
Something to ask George Galloway next time i see him.
Events- so you say, but even if I were to grant your argument (which I don’t btw, it’s a caricature, not an accurate description) do you really think that replacing Gordon Brown with someone else in the cabinet would be transformative?
Who do you wish to elevate, and and on what basis do you believe they will do better, and do so without division and turmoil?
May 4, 2009 at 11:40 pm
I have been arguing for months on my blog that Brown is a hopeless leader, etc etc. I have also put forward that Alan Johnson would be the best bet, many because he would unify and not create turmoil. Also the unions would fall in behind him. More importantly he would be the best that Labour can offer to attack Cameron, as he showed on Marr last Sunday. Rentoul has come to a similar conclusion and I debated the methodology of replacing Brown with him some weeks ago. Read up if you wish.
I have also put forward a further suggestion over the weekend. Brown could close down all speculation by calling for a leadership election if no one stood against him. This would close the matter off, as in these circumstances he would not be challenged. The weakness of this is that would not solve Labour’s principle problem, in that Brown would still be leader.
What I think should happen is for there to be an orderly transition in June, with an election in October (not even Brown, in an ideal world, would want to leave the election until 2010). I am not saying that Johnson would lead Labour to victory, but he would certainly do better than Brown.
May 5, 2009 at 10:06 am
Howard,
Believe me, I’ve followed your discussions with John – with mounting horror!- over the last few weeks. Watching people with whom you totally agree attempt to commit hari-kiri is at the very least, a compelling sight, i assure you!
All your critique amounts to is
a) the assertion that Brown is unpopular (True, but so are we all)
b) the belief that someone else would be marginally less unpopular (debateable at best)
and the hope that some method can be found to insert that someone else into the leadership without dissent.
while ignoring (or hoping will not happen)
a) the damage sustained to the party during a period of intense infighting
b) the fact that there is no great policy divide in government (ironically, almost exactly what TB said to Tom Watson)
c) that there would very definitely be dissent to such a move
d) the risk that the winners out of all this will be those who do not share our policy analysis – to our right and to our left.
e) the possibility that to destabilise a sitting leader while serving him will do irreperable harm to the reputations of those who will be wital to labour’s future success.
PS. Can you be reached on the email you supply on this blog?
May 5, 2009 at 5:27 am
[...] Hopi Sen has a Blairite defence of Gordon Brown; [...]
May 5, 2009 at 9:44 am
Blimey we agree about something!! The more important divergence was between the high tax and spend Brown and the first three years of fiscal conservatism when Blair was really in charge .Had we stuck to that course I might have been voting New Labour , I voted for Blair and continued to be tolerably happy until Brown and Old Labour took over .
My over view is that in order to win Labour have to return to that alliance which I would call Blairite., I would not be oart of it but many more might be . You have applauded the Brownite squander and been thrilled at the tax explosion to come so I cannot see you have any Blairite clothes that matter .
May 5, 2009 at 10:46 am
Hopi,
Do not get be wrong. I see your point of view. My overriding point is that Brown is not capable of passing the supreme political test, that of winning an election. What you say above can easily be overcome so long as it is managed.
One way or another, the speculation has to be bought to an end and I have suggested a way of doing this.
Yes, I can be reached by the e-mail supplied, although I would rather continue the debate on our blogs.
May 5, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Howard, oh happy to do that – just wanted to raise something else entirely with you…
May 5, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Hopi, Fine. Happy to receive an e-mail from you.
May 5, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Great post, thank you for it.
I agree that Gordon Brown has some successes, and I emphatically agree that he has to stay in post because getting rid of him would be much worse for the party, both before, during and after an election defeat (which we all expect) than soldiering on.
But I think you underestimate the importance of character issues. The problem with Gordon Brown is that he is not a democrat. He does not believe that anyone has the answers but himself. He does not know how to win support which does not exist already. And he thinks it doesn’t matter because he has the power to do what he wants with or without support. Not only is this politically inept, it is completely wrong in principle. It is politically inept because no-one, inside or outside the party, wants to submit to dictation. It is wrong in principle because there is no leader who cannot benefit from having to win the argument – whether because it wins support, or because the process of argument informs the leader himself.
May 5, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I’m just pleased to see that there are Blairites still willing to stick their heads above the parapet. Tony Blair was a political genius and the answer, not the problem, even up to the day he left.
Now that Labour has blown it, by blowing him away, what do they expect? A thank you letter from Tony?
I’m afraid I think there is nothing you can do about Gordon that will make any difference to your election prospects.
Boot him out and what do you get? No-one of any poitical vision, charisma or articulacy. There never WAS anyone but Blair in New Labour with ALL the leadership credentials. Though there’s always a chance that NO VISION is what’s needed right now. A steady hand (on second thoughts, isn’t that what we thought Brown was?)
But if that’s the case, Johnson is acceptable and would worry the Tories. He seems to have a calm temperament, which is ESSENTIAL.
If you keep the volatile Brown, there are at least two chances he can turn things around. You’d need both of these, imho:
1. The economy DOES come out of its dive sooner than expected.
2. Cameron will mess things up.
Apart from that I really can’t suggest anything. At my Keep Tony Blair for PM blog I urged Labour people to Keep Brown when they first started getting cold feet. They’d decided to ditch the WINNER so they had no alternative. Now I have actually signed the Number 10 petition. Well, why not!? No-one will pay any attention unless it gets to a million!
As to the polling evidence. Brown got as low as 21% support only in July 2008, after ONE year as PM. Blair NEVER got that low through 10 years. His lowest point in July 2006 @ 23% may well have co-incided with Lebanon (which was a nonsensical press-inspired debate – since HE could have done nothing to stop Israel anyway!) But the plotters struck and the rest is history.
Now it looks to me as though New Labour too is history.
Serves ‘em right.
May 5, 2009 at 10:38 pm
The scary prospect of a vacuum being elected as Prime Minister draws closer and closer. Has there been any Opposition leader who has had so little scrutiny by the media. Cameron is an empty vessel in search of any passing Bandwagon to court popularity, while the sycophantic press and media buy into his shiny ‘policy free’ brand.
There is an upside though, the election of a Tory Government will remind people that Labour in office is actually pretty good and why the Conservatives were hated so much when last in power. The popularity will last as long as Camerons election promises. Not very long.
May 6, 2009 at 5:54 am
Having had further thoughts, I more convinced that the question for Labour is one of Brown’s leadership. I have posted on my blog and linked to yours. I trust the debate will continue.
May 14, 2009 at 1:05 pm
[...] Steve on leadership… Jump to Comments Is it wholly ignoble of me to wonder if Steve Richards has read this blog? Some of what he’s written in his (excellent) article in the New Statesman goes over much of the same ground that I, Howard Denton and John Rentoul have covered in talking about the same issue. [...]
June 3, 2009 at 10:16 am
[...] I refer honourable members Jump to Comments to the answer I gave some moments ago. [...]
June 3, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Hopi – I am still a big Tony Blair fan. I believe a bad Labour government is always better than a Tory government.
But Gordon Brown is no good in the top job. His great tragedy has been not to understand that he worked best with TB at the helm. He could have been remembered as one of the great Chancellors. Now all he will be remembered for is being a useless Prime Minister.
I really do want to agree with you BUT one of the reasons for the current lack of policy substance is that the two Labour landmark ministries – health and education are being led by completely useless Secretaries of State. At health Alan Johnson has failed to impose any political direction at all and he simply drifts about being nice to people. Why anyone regards him as a credible leader beats me! At education Ed Balls’ disinterest in his brief and desire to further his own ambitions have been all too evident since his appointment.
June 6, 2009 at 9:30 am
[...] is largely the point that Hopi Sen made when defending Gordon Brown last month. The Labour rebels are utterly without a cause. This isn’t the Rebel Alliance, it’s the [...]