An Enjoyable Piece of Lunacy
Peter Kenyon, a member of the Labour Party National Executive Committee, has suggested on his blog and Labourhome that any criticism of the economic policies our country is pursuing should be considered treason.
Any politician that continues to whinge about debt levels is debasing the currency. Rather than focussing on Conservative shadow home affairs spokesman Damian Green and the hamfisted way in which the police handled their investigation into a possible serial leaker of government documents, I’m much more concerned to see Conservatives in the dock charged with treason for undermining sterling.
Well first, let’s point out that you can’t talk down something that’s strong. It would be an interesting case, particularly as it would almost certainly result in a Tory counter-claim against the man who was in charge of the Treasury for ten years post-1997.
The case however would have less merit than the one currently being pressed against the editor of Labourhome. In his eminent wisdom, Mr. Kenyon has consulted with advanced sources on the law to reach this conclusion. Perhaps if he’d dug a little deeper, he’d have discovered that:
treason today comprises only:
- Treason Act 1351:
- compassing the death of the Sovereign, or of the Sovereign’s wife or eldest son and heir;
- violating the Sovereign’s wife, or the Sovereign’s eldest unmarried daughter, or the Sovereign’s eldest son’s wife;
- levying war against the Sovereign in the United Kingdom;
- adhering to the Sovereign’s enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere;
- killing the King’s Chancellor, Treasurer (an office long in commission) or Justices;
- Treason Act 1702 and Treason Act (Ireland) 1703:
- attempting to hinder the succession to the throne under the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701;
- Treason Act 1708:
- killing the Lords of Session or Lords of Justiciary in Scotland; and
- (in Scottish law only) counterfeiting the Great Seal of Scotland.
What’s more concerning is that he is seemingly unaware that a politician expressing severe reservations about the government of the day is not treason, but the performance of his constitutional duty. The governing party is not expected to like what the opposition is saying. Calling such criticism treasonable behaviour is beyond contemptuous.
If Labour wish to pursue this line of attack, then let them do so. It will fall flat on its face, and feed in to the “ZaNU-Labour” meme that some are pursuing. It also undermines their claim that the Conservatives have nothing serious to say about the economy. George Osborne is either a market-mover or a lightweight, but he cannot be both.
Sphere: Related ContentOnce Upon a Time
There was a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer committed to sound money, tax cuts and free trade. “He was raised in an atmosphere which regarded borrowing as an evil and free trade as an essential ingredient of prosperity”. He was subsequently expelled from the Labour Party.
A prize to whoever works out who it is.
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 ContentDelusion Central
We Love the Leader
I’m having a spluttering into my cornflakes morning. I’ve just watched James Purnell inisist that:
- There’s no bust;
- Nobody could have foreseen the current recession;
- “Gordon is the right man to lead us through these difficult times”.
1 and 3 really do not need any particular criticism, but were the government truly listening, as they have proclaimed to do so, they would know that the current economic turmoil was indeed warned about six years ago.
If you need further evidence of the increasingly delusional nature of the conference you can read Jon Cruddas’ Pravda-esque commentary over at the Coffee House.
This is getting ridiculous. Ministers and backbenchers are required to publicly express their adoration of the Great Leader, and deny anything that gets in the way of this narrative. It is not the Party which is wrong, it is the people who are wrong for not supporting the country. The present course must be maintained, even if its destination is oblivion.
It is understandable that MPs want to put a positive spin on things, but when what you say is so utterly at odds with what the country is thinking and feeling, it just comes across as a delusional arrogance that betrays a party unfit for power. The Party cannot regain its popularity if it refuses to acknowledge that it may be wrong somwhere along the line. Insisting that you are “getting on with the job”, it not good enough. Even if a leader needs to make unpopular decisions, they have to remind those they lead that they share and understand their concerns.
People will make great sacrifices and support unpopular measures if they believe that they are being done by good men for the right reasons. This conference ought to be establishing that the Cabinet are men of integrity interested in the long-term good of the country, taking actions that, although painful in the short term, will be better overall. Sitting around insisting that the problem is not theirs and blindly supporting the leader is not the way to do this. If Brown wants to remain Prime Minister he must earn the respect of his party and the electorate, not scare the PLP into supporting him.
Sphere: Related ContentThe Inconsistency of JK Rowling’s Donation
I feel that JK Rowling’s donation to the Labour Party may well be slightly inconsistent with present policy. Her present fortune is owed almost entirely to the telling of stories about life in a place that is quite clearly a Public School in terms of institutional ethos, history and the curriculum taught. Why then she has given a massive donation to the party that would most likely destroy it if it actually existed is somewhat baffling.
I defy anyone to suggest that Ed Balls would not decry Hogwarts as anything other than elitist in ethos; discriminatory against muggles in its admissions policy and creaming off the most talented in society.
It is nonetheless quite amusing to watch a complete U-turn. Within hours of Harriet Harman decrying wealth, the party she is deputy leader of opens with the feting of one of the richest people in the country.
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 ContentThe SNP Must Not Gain Glasgow East
The Glasgow East by-election on Thursday has been considered by some commentators to be the point of no return for Gordon Brown’s premiership. Depending on which poll you believe, Labour are set to either hold the seat with a vastly reduced majority, or lose it in a dramatic swing towards the Scottish Nationalist Party.
That Labour’s third-safest seat (their equivalent of Kensington & Chelsea) is so threatened speaks volumes about the disillusionment of traditional Labour voters with the government. Far from the promise of being lifted out of deprivation, they have been taken for granted and left to flounder in their own misery.
Notwithstanding some miraculous transformation of fortune the Conservatives are not going to win this seat: the party is polling at 7%. In such a context, one has to look at the outcome of the by-election not in terms of victory, but the least-worst option. Short-term tactical victories have to be balanced against long-term interests. Which is better: a Labour hold, or an SNP gain?
Much though many would enjoy seeing another humiliation visited upon Brown’s government, it is not worth an SNP victory. Labour holding what ought to be a very safe seat is not likely to affect their fortunes: the battering they will receive with their slashed majority will see to that.
Their winning would be portrayed as a vote of confidence in a largely wasted first year in the Scottish Executive that has consisted of stirring up resentment between England and Scotland. Sending the petty, divisive hardliner John Mason to Westminster will be spun as a sign of approval for the exclusive and narrow nationalism that the SNP represents. For short-term advantage it risks the long-term goal of preserving the union.
Moreover, an SNP victory risks solidifying their status as the anti-Labour party north of the border. Efforts being made by the Scottish Conservatives to re-establish themselves as a leading force in the nation are undermined every time a disaffected Labour vote goes to the Scottish Nationalists.
Although a surprise Conservative gain would be the ideal outcome on Thursday, a Labour loss to the SNP could only be considered a pyrrhic victory.
Sphere: Related ContentJack Straw Undermines the Political Process
The latest response by Labour to Lord Ashcroft’s fundraising for target marginals has been a grossly biased fundraising bill proposed by Jack Straw. The most offensive of these proposals has been the banning of any spending by candidates other than during an election.
On the face of it this would not seem too bad. However, when you discover that an MP will be granted ?10,000 in the form of a “communications allowance” it starts to look bad. As Iain Dale highlights, candidates in marginals have to spend a large amount of their own money on campaign expenses and activities, and this measure tips the balance in favour of the incumbent. Sitting MPs have the upper hand in terms of funding, media access and recognition. Cutting off funding until the election period will put challengers at even more of a disadvantage. The incumbent will have just a few weeks to challenge someone with four years’ exposure and the backing of the Westminster machine.
This is damaging to democracy. By banning challengers from promoting themselves or their views, the ability to have proper political debate at the constituency level is crushed. It will further centralise politics, confining debate to Westminster. Candidates will no longer be able to offer constituents alternatives and keep MPs on their toes. Local communities will suffer as a result of this loss of accountability.
Given the importance of marginal constituencies in any election, we can assume that local parties will obey the letter but not the spirit of the law. Funding will be driven underground. Loopholes and workarounds will be exploited. Publicity will be generated by other means. Parties will start financing candidates without announcing their candidacy in public. The resulting disaffection when these practices are discovered will damage the overall political process.
More importantly for Labour, this is also not in their long-term interest. There is a possibility of a Tory landslide at the next general election. With the advantage given to the incumbent, the possibility of Labour regaining power four years later diminishes. What looks good to Labour now may come back to haunt them when they are sitting on the other side of the Commons.
David Cameron’s response leaves something to be desired. His proposal to limit individual funding strikes more of making Labour uncomfortable about its union backing. It is a pointless exercise as they will never accept a measure that makes them bankrupt. Cameron should rise above Straw’s gerrymandering and propose a sensible and measured alternative. That would show up Labour’s unprincipled opportunism far more than any tit-for-tat amendment.
Sent from my BlackBerry? wireless device
