The Second Honeymoon Will End
Pundits are predicting that in the next few weeks Gordon Brown’s government will receive a further bounce in the polls and narrow the Conservative lead to single figures. The emerging theme is that the Prime Minister’s hour has come and he may stand astride the world as the heroic figure who rescued the financial system from complete collapse.
It is true that the First Lord of the Treasury has acted decisively to shore up the British banking system. The result is a natural bounce in the polls. But as Mr. Brown must now be all too painfully aware, what goes up must come down.
The current boost in Gordon Brown’s popularity is the temporary result of a crisis. Politicians whose status relies upon crises are ultimately hostages to fortune. As Churchill discovered in 1945, once the crisis is over, the electoral response tends to be “thanks, but it’s time for a change”. As the immediate crisis gives way to a lingering recession, Mr. Brown’s inability to empathise will once again come to hurt him.
In this particular instance the blow may be doubly hard. Not only will the crisis bounce come down, but people will start looking for who in the government was responsible. The popular ire will likely be directed at the man who presided over the economy for ten years, ignored the warnings and failed to act decisively much earlier.
It is very easy to appear heroic when fighting a fire, but when the former occupants of the burnt out wreck discover that you were the one who drenched it in petrol and smashed the alarms, you cannot count on their gratitude lasting.
Sphere: Related ContentOn Mandelson
An interesting news cycle and certainly an eye-catching initiative, but now that the dust of the reshuffle has settle somewhat, what are the implications of the return of the Prince of Darkness to the Cabinet?
My first impression is that this is an attempt by Brown to build a wider coalition of support within his own party. His traditional tactics of maintaining a small but loyal cadre and intimidating all who go against it has ultimately run its course. The “nomination papers” challenge and increasing openness of dissent within Labour have ultimately undermined his ability to effectively threaten his own party into compliance. Likewise the limitations of his loyalists in terms of ministerial ability has also been problematic (think Ed Balls), forcing him to look elsewhere for talent. Bringing Mandelson in and appointing John Hutton to one of the Great Offices of State demonstrates an apparent willingness to look beyond his own faction for support. Whether or not he is able to move beyond such gestures and actually start delegating responsibility for decisions is as yet unknown.
Not any more
The Tories are immensely pleased at this turn of events. CCHQ very quickly issued a press release gloating over the well-known personal differences between Mandelson and Brown. It certainly helps them press the message of a Labour party running out of ideas with a need to bring back an old and unpopular spin doctor. The message of “No Flash, Just Gordon” is now very firmly dead, and the theme of “Labour Spin” can now be milked for all that it is worth. They predict that this appointment will ultimately backfire on Brown. That his job will involve “holding the hand of business as we enter a nasty downturn” the probability of his becoming a futher focus of disaffection within Labour and having another falling out with Brown remains high.
Among the press something of a Marmite effect has occurred. While all seem to agree that is is a bold move, opinion is divided as to whether it is a prudent one. The two groups either argue that it is a brilliant appointment of an experienced New Labour man, or that it is the desperate appointment of a New Labour spin doctor who became associated with some of the worst excesses of the Blair years. A few have settled in the centre arguing that it is probably a bit of both.
This reshuffle ultimately undermines Brown’s case that in the present economic situation “this is no time for a novice”. By moving the relatively competent Mandelson and Hutton out of the EU Trade Commission and DBERR respectively, he has undermined the argument that experience is required to guide the nation through the present economic period. Although Mandelson gains Hutton’s portfolio, he nonetheless will be put on something of a back foot as he adjusts to his new office.
I cannot help but think however that the moving of Mandelson has weakened the British position in Brussels at a most inappropriate time. Just at the moment when the EU looks to try and act on the economy, we remove a competent and experienced trade commisssioner from the post. It is hard to imagine that Baroness Ashton, his successor, will be able to match his ability in these negotiations for a long time, particularly given her lack of experience in any trade-related portfolio.
One interesting side-effect of re-appointing such a well-known figure to the Cabinet is that it may depersonalise the Brown administration. By bearing the Mandelson Seal of Approval, policies may be perceived to be conceived and implemented in a more collegiate manner, and be less associated with the Prime Minister as a result. Although this could beneficial for Brown, it may also end up damaging Labour as a whole. If this depersonalisation occurs, the ineluctably Brownite policies of the government will become associated with the wider Labour Party. The argument could shift from “Brown isn’t Working” to “Labour isn’t Working” once more. That would be very dangerous indeed.
Sphere: Related ContentStrategic Considerations
Despite the objections of some of us professing opinions that would make us naturally hostile to the speech of a Labour leader, the mainstream portrayal of Gordon Brown’s conference speech has been one of a further stay of execution. Not the “speech of his life”, although it may well have been, but generally speaking good enough to buy him some more time as the occupant of Number 10.
This, as far as I can observe, is the story of Gordon Brown’s premiership. Harold Macmillan wisely observed that events are indeed the most likely thing to blow a government off course. For Mr. Brown however it appears that the only course he and his government has is lurching from one event to the next with no clear direction or plan of action. At first this was accepted as some form of decisive leadership, as the floods and the abortive attack on a Piccadilly nightclub and Glasgow airport demonstrated. One year on however and it has worn thin.
Gordon Brown’s government has consisted almost entirely of small-scale tactical positioning and responses to events not of their choosing. It is small wonder then that the electorate have been such fair-weather friends in the face of economic crisis. As I observed earlier this week, the public are willing to make great sacrifices if they feel that it is in the service of something they can believe in. Focusing on short-term victories and muddling through crises without any overall strategy or vision will not win the public over to any demand for sacrifice, either from politicians or the economic environment.
This may be inevitable. Mr. Brown’s cautious and calculating personality is at odds with the idea of bold, decisive leadership that the public craves in times of crisis. It is not however in the interest of either the public or the Labour Party in general. Without a coherent vision, set of ideas, or strong leadership, he will not be able to regain the respect of the public and restore their trust in him or his government.
A Prime Minister needs to do more than just assert who he is and what he believes in. He has to explain not only where he is coming from, but where he is going.
When Macmillan referred to “events, dear boy, events”, he was referring to their ability to blow the ship of state off-course. The problem the present government has is that is has no course, but is instead drifting in stormy waters, with a captain dithering at the helm and a wardroom in mutinous mood. Storms can be weathered if the captain can show the crew a course out, no matter how long and painful it may be. Currently however the charts are bare.
A tactical victory, defeat or failure counts for little if it is not incorporated into a wider overall strategy that can command the support of the public. Without that vision, inspiration or course Labour will be condemned to sink for possibly a decade or more.
Sphere: Related ContentBad Bad Bad
He just watched it on playback
Gordon Brown’s speech to the Labour Party conference was so bad I turned the TV off halfway through. Aside from a few jokes and a slightly less wooden manner, it offered nothing interesting, nothing substantial and nothing different to what we have been hearing over the past few weeks.
Attempting to count the number of times he referred to “hardworking families” was unable to sustain me. Even the amusing levels of abuse heaped on him from Guido’s blog was able to sustain my interest. I gave up, and turned off. Apalling speech.
That is really saying something as well: I’ve sat through plenty of boring speeches and been able to listen patiently. I did it for three days at the NUS Annual Conference last year. I try to listen to the speeches on both sides of a political argument, including watching as much of the Democratic and Republican conventions as I possibly could. This speech however, even with the promise that it would not last much longer than an hour, was unbearable. I gave up and put the kettle on instead.
If you didn’t watch it you didn’t miss anything Mix together the soundbites various loyalists have made in the press in the last fortnight, add a bit of the government line, blame the Conservatives for everything bad and throw in a Harry Potter joke for good measure and the result will probably be something similar.
In all probability if you do something like that, you’ll end up with a better speech.
UPDATE: Dizzy and Iain are in agreement. Maybe this is part of a cunning plan to bore his opponents into submission?
Sphere: Related ContentTory Entryism
Luke Akehurst, after his withering attack on LabourHome’s poll declaring that most of the party membership want Gordon Brown to leave office, has set up a group called “We don’t want a Labour leadership election“.
Unfortunately for him it has, like the poll, been hijacked by Tories. Within its ranks are such well known-leftwingers as a former researcher to a Conservative MP, two Conservative Future chairmen, and Tory Bear.
Spot the Tories
Beyond the diehards, it seems the only friends Brown has are Tories.
Sphere: Related ContentA Question of Leadership
One more trick up his sleeve?
If the Prime Minister feels that the pressure exerted from the challenge to his authority will push him from office, will he jump by calling a general election?
Given his personality, this is less of a facetious question than it may first appear to be. Gordon Brown is known to be an immensely vicious political fighter, and when the stakes are that high it may be the last option available to him. Facing a general election with an unsettled question of party leadership would spell complete disaster for Labour; its unpopularity would be married to uncertainty and their share of the vote would diminish further. The threat of this nuclear option may be the strategy Brown adopts to save his career: threatening that if he goes, they all will go too.
Brown has for weeks been warning that any leadership challenger would have to face a snap election to establish any kind of popular mandate. It is entirely possible that he may now escalate this into a more direct threat of calling that election himself.
Like any nuclear option the possibility of bluffing and miscalculation remains high. Many Labour MPs may consider it an empty threat: they would look to the Prime Minister’s less than courageous record in other fields, and his failure to put David Miliband in his place. Wiser ones should look to his darker side: his ruthless, calculating and spiteful streaks. These may well lead him to commit one last act to spite those who would wield the dagger, and make sure that they never wear the crown they so desire.
Sphere: Related ContentFortune Favours the Bold
By this point we are beginning to wonder if anything is capably of saving Gordon Brown’s premiership from electoral disaster. The man has had countless stays of execution and relaunches, yet has failed to make any kind of dent in a formidable Conservative lead in the opinion polls.
The British public has a great disdain for the current Prime Minister’s reputation for indecidiveness and timidity. His standing has not recovered since his decision to abandon a snap election last year. Accusations of dithering, cowardice and a bunker mentality emerge with regularity from his critics. Parliamentary debates are replete with mocking references to his book on courage and “dithering heights”. Any recovery therefore requires the banishment of this stereotype lest it damage all subsequent policy.
Being persistently behind in the polls grants a freedom that popularity does not. The certainty of loss on one’s present course acts to reduce the risk inherent in courageous decisions: a loss-making decision when disaster is inevitable is at least remembered as an attempt to reverse one’s fortunes. Nowhere is this more apparent than on the other side of the Atlantic, where a flagging Republican campaign has managed to steal a lead over its rivals with the nomination of Governor Palin for Vice-President.
By contrast the attempt by Downing Street to recover its popularity is notable only for its timidity. Piecemeal and lacklustre, it fails to address the wider issues and sentiments hampering the Prime Minister’s fortunes. It has the feeling of obsessively plugging a single hole in a thoroughly perforated ship of state that is rapidly taking water. That it has taken so long to do so little leaves people feeling unable to trust the government to adequately address their anxieties.
This is not to suggest that the key to success at the ballot box lies in either radicalism or statism. One can be both bold and conservative. Instead what is needed is a willingness to confront the problems faced rather than avoiding them or merely fiddling with its fringes. Instead of running away from problems and engaging in the Westminster and Party games of positioning, triangulation and tactics, he should take some risks and articulate a coherent and inspiring vision for his government. It may not win him any votes now, but with the polls in their present dire state, there is no harm in trying.
The Prime Minister is keen to portray himself as a conviction politician. Conviction politicians are defined by their willingness to risk popularity for the sake of their beliefs. Brown now has the luxury of unpopularity being no risk. If he wishes to recover his fortunes he must assert those convictions.
Sphere: Related ContentCareer Advice
This may explain Alex Salmond's success
Hat-tip: Letters from a Tory.
Sphere: Related ContentMiliband Won’t Save Labour
Leaks, denial, coded threats and challenges abound this week. The knives are out. Whether or not Gordon Brown actually goes is, of course, a different matter. His own stubbornness, combined with the immense difficulty of deposing a Labour leader, mean that it will not be an easy feat. The timidity the contenders are displaying in not wanting to wield the knife for fear of losing the crown may likewise save Brown’s skin. The risk of an all-out civil war within the Labour ranks may also stay the hand of the would-be regicides.
Nonetheless this is the silly season, so any story that can be milked will be. As a result David Miliband is receiving plaudits from the left-wing of the media that herald him as the man who could give Labour a fourth term in government. Polly Toynbee, high priestess of this corner, has come out in support of him. In no small measure, this smacks of wishful thinking.
Setting aside that the latest YouGov poll suggests that having Miliband as leader would increase the Conservative lead, there is much to suggest that he would not be the saviour that disillusioned Labour supporters are now pinning their hopes on.
First, he shares the same dismissive view of the public that Gordon Brown has. One need look no further than the last edition of Question Time for evidence. When faced with two difficult questions over Mugabe’s knighthood and his prediction that we’d all hate Brown, he opted for a strategy tantamount to bare-faced lying. He pretended that he had no recollection of the comment about the Prime Minister, and that he was unaware of the issue surrounding Mugabe’s knighthood. Admittedly he was in a difficult position, but his feigning of ignorance suggested that he felt he could take the public for fools, a strategy similar to Brown’s inadequate answers over calling off the snap election last autumn. While he may be more telegenic than the incumbent, this suggests he would have the same problems as Brown in terms of failing to understand public concerns.
His performance on Question TIme also betrayed another weakness. Miliband may be good at giving a speech or writing an article, but he flounders when taking questions from the floor. He is unable to think particularly well on his feet. For a job that requires a weekly grilling by a competent opposition, this is a potentially fatal flaw for a Prime Minister.
What was noticeable in Miliband’s article in the Guardian this week was its total absence of concrete ideas. He may have got the zeitgeist of Labour’s need for a change in image and practice, but he offers nothing in terms of how he intends to achieve this. In this sense he has been aided by the impact of his article: the media opted to look at what the article itself implied, rather than what it actually said. Beyond the usual platitudes about Labour’s achievements Miliband actually offered very little. This, compared to the article Frank Field penned for Standpoint, or James Purnell’s partially-appropriated welfare reforms, is very disappointing. The sense is that Miliband’s idea would be a change in presentation, not policy; something unlikely to improve Labour’s standing.
Finally, and most importantly, there is little that Miliband could change in terms of policy anyway. In the aftermath of Warwick II and the present state of Labour’s finances, the Trade Unions have an iron grip on the policy-making organs of the party. Notwithstanding some sort of miracle, this is likely to strengthen after the Party Conference. After a bloody leadership contest Miliband would lack the strength or the stature to effectively confront their demands.
Whether he likes it or not, Miliband would preside over a government along the lines of 1983 with a Blairite facade.
Sphere: Related ContentWhy Labour Won’t Ditch Gordon
The least worst leader Labour has.
Another by-election defeat, another round of leadership intrigue. If that doesn’t explain part of my cynicism about the leadership plotting, then I’m not sure what will. This is, after all, the silly season, so we can expect that any story that could fit the narrative of Labour heavyweights plotting against Gordon Brown will be given a greater significance than it maybe deserves.
This is not to suggest that there is no leadership plotting against Brown. To think that would be utterly naive. There is however a significant reason why the chances of Gordon Brown being replaced as leader of the Labour Party are lower than people are being led to believe.
As the Spectator pointed out months ago, the problem Labour faces is one not of leadership, but policy. Labour’s failing after the replacement of Tony Blair was not the appointment of an individual with little empathy to the top job, but the total failure to address the direction in which the Party, and therefore the Government, was heading. The hopes pinned on Brown offering a credible alternative to Blairism, or at least a change in style of government, were dashed. Instead of a welcome change in the political climate, the British public were instead faced with a man attempting to perform the conjuring tricks that Tony Blair was so good at, but without the same level of ability.
By the time Brown took over, the Labour Party had become significantly divided. Tensions between Old and New Labour that had been suppressed for the sake of electoral success had begun to surface again, particularly as the party faced a drop in public opinion in the aftermath of the Iraq war. Under Gordon Brown’s premiership these tensions were further suppressed in the hope by both factions that he would embody their vision: to Blairites Brown would be the continuation of the policies of the government he had served in for so long, while to Old Labour Brown was the rival and counterweight to Blair who would now curb his worst excesses. Brown imagined that he could capitalise on these tensions and be all things to all people. As a result he has presided over a government that has done little but spun much to try and please everyone. The dithering tendency arises because he feels insufficiently secure to be able to throw his lot in with either tendency, or to forge a base of support independent of faction. He is both New Labour and Old, and feels he cannot risk ditching one without terminally weakening himself.
Brown however has some strengths that his rivals do not: Longevity, the top job, and a loyal cadre. His long-term position in the top ranks of the Labour Party outrank any of those who wish to challenge him for the leadership. As a result he still commands a significant amount of respect that allows him to squash the internal debates, albeit not to the extent that Blair was able to.
In the event of a leadership contest however these debates would be unavoidable. No candidate would have the mandate, the ability or the experience to do so. They could be as divisive as the dispute over Europe was for the Conservatives. With only two years left until a General Election, the chances of it being resolved in time for a winning strategy to be adopted are slim, while the risk of a Labour implosion provoking further ire from the electorate is high. In the face of further Labour paralysis the Conservatives would surge ahead in the battle of ideas and command of the popular imagination.
If Labour believe they can win the next election, then they will probably hold on to Brown until they do so. Afterwards however they will ditch him and hold these debates vital to their future. If they decide however that they are not going to win, then the money is on Jack Straw taking the mantle as a caretaker to minimise the defeat.
Sphere: Related Content
