In the Brown stuff
There seems to be little doubt, from the practically unanimous opinion of the British media, that Gordon Brown's premiership has entered an endgame of some description. It is said that half of the Brown cabinet do not believe that Labour can win the next general election with Gordon Brown at the helm. Many Labour MPs do not believe that Labour can win the next election in any case. For them the issue is rather different: can Labour lose the next election by a respectable margin which gives them a fighting chance after a single Tory term of office? The stark alternative is a meltdown of 1997 proportions which would see Labour out of office for a political generation.
The one common factor to any scenario is that Brown is finished. Brown is Major-plus: while the prime minister's dwindling band of supporters are wistfully expressing the hope that support will return to Labour when the credit crunch passes, nobody really believes that this is the case. Opinion polls and election results agree on the scale of Labour's plight: no governing party has recovered from such a desperate position to win the next election. Tim Hames recalls the only exception within living memory - the Mid-Staffordshire by-election of 1990, which the Conservatives lost in similar circumstances to Thursday's crewe result:
The then Political Editor of The Times (Robin Oakley) duly reported the next day that if this switch in sentiment “were to be repeated nationally at the next election, every single member of Mrs Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet save John Major, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would lose his seat”.
This did not happen. Far from it. Despite a continuing economic malaise, ministers won a surprise fourth term in office (recapturing Mid-Staffordshire as they did) in part because voters remained to be fully convinced that the Opposition had changed sufficiently. The Tories did, however, have to dump their leader in order to find salvation. No crumb of comfort there for Mr Brown. All logic and sanity therefore seems to point to the necessity for Labour to replace Gordon Brown as a matter of urgency. Iain Dale however puts forward a different view:
If he voluntarily stepped aside in the next few weeks and a new leader had time to establish themselves, you can make a coherent argument for them being able to turn around Labour fortunes, except for one thing. It is inconceivable that the British public, let alone the press, would accept a second unelected Prime Minister within a year.
There is also no clear frontrunner to take over. The only two people I can see actually having a chance of success would either not run or not win - and I'm talking about Alan Johnson and Hilary Benn.
In the second scenario, where Gordon Brown is ditched, the mess which would be created along the way would render the party unelectable afterwards - no matter who emerged. And with the same electoral college system which allowed Harriet Harman to win the Deputy Leadership, you have to wonder just who might emerge from that process.
Labour's best chance is to stick with Brown in the hope that he will be able to pull a rabbit out of the bag. But with his luck, any such rabbit would probably be struck down with myxomatosis. In spite of everything. it would seem that Dale's analysis is much closer to the way the Labour Party is actually leaning at the moment. However awful their predicament now, there is no guarantee that a new leader would be any better than Gordon - or indeed that the voters would take any notice of any improvement anyway. And so this incompetent government will limp on, and the Conservative Party will quite properly continue to draw maximum advantage. But while Gordon Brown's troubles are good news for the Conservative Party, they cannot be good news for the country. We need strong, firm and effective leadership in these difficult economic times. We are not likely to get it.
|