Strategic 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 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 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 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
