15 June 2009
CHARLES CLARKE ON LABOUR'S PREDICAMENT
The former home secretary's interview with Andrew Neil on the BBC News Channel on Saturday night was widely trailed but only selectively quoted in the papers – and watched by almost no one. But it's worth watching in full here: Clarke says plenty of very sensible things about where Labour should go politically (greenery, constitutional reform, rationalising taxation) and also makes it clear, rightly I think, that Gordon Brown is very much on probation right now. He says that Labour could suffer meltdown at the next general election unless it gets its act together ... and at the moment I'm inclined to agree.
11 June 2009
BROWN MUST STAY TO GET RID OF EXPENSES FIDDLERS
Paul Anderson, Tribune column, 12 June 2009
Where do you start? It’s difficult to think of a more depressing time for Labour supporters since – well, I was going to say the weeks after Labour lost the 1992 general election, but this is much worse. Labour’s failure in 1992 was like your team losing in the cup final. This is like watching the penultimate game of the league season when you’re three points adrift in the relegation zone and three-nil down and your players start brawling with one another on the pitch …
OK, that’s enough blokish football metaphors. But you get the point. In 1992 we were disappointed to lose when we hoped to win. This time, we are simply staring disaster in the face.
No matter how you look at it, the council and European election results are dire for Labour. In the English counties, the party lost nearly two-thirds of the seats it held and all four of the councils it controlled. Its projected share of the national vote was just 23 per cent, 15 points behind the Tories.
The Euro-elections were even worse. Labour’s overall share of the vote was 15 per cent, eight points down on its dismal performance in 2004. Labour was beaten in Wales by the Tories and in Scotland by the SNP. In the North West and Yorkshire regions, it lost sitting MEPs to the far-right British National Party, and in the South West and South East it trailed in fifth behind the Tories, UKIP, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Labour was fourth in the East and third in the West Midlands, with UKIP second in both. It came first only in the North East.
European and local elections are not reliable guides to the level of support for parties at the next general election. In general elections, turnout is usually much higher, and parties not already represented at Westminster hardly ever win substantial shares of the vote, let alone seats. In the past, governing parties have been battered in European and local elections and won large Commons majorities a year or two later, as Labour did in 2001 and 2005. But it would be unprecedented for a governing party to win after a performance as poor as Labour’s on 4 June.
Of course, Labour’s drubbing took place in exceptional circumstances. The resignations from the government of two cabinet members and two other ministers before polling day did it serious harm – Hazel Blears’s departure was particularly damaging, not least because it was so obviously intended to be.
What really made the difference, however, was the MPs’ expenses scandal. The message on the doorstep was the same everywhere: I normally vote Labour but I’m so disgusted with what those MPs have done that I’m not this time. The scandal undoubtedly hit Labour much harder than the other major parties. Labour is in government and has more MPs than the rest combined – and, more importantly, many hitherto solid Labour voters are furious at its MPs spending from the public purse the equivalent of a year’s skilled manual worker’s wages on property speculation and lavish lifestyles, all the while claiming to stand for fairness and the interests of “hard-working families”.
But the expenses scandal won’t just fade in voters’ memory as time goes by. The only possible way back for Labour is to get to grips with it this summer by chucking out every MP who has abused the system.
For now, everything else except economic management is a luxury – even coming up with brilliant new policy ideas. And this means that getting rid of Gordon Brown immediately (as advocated by several departing ministers, “rebel” backbench Labour MPs and the Guardian) would be the height of folly.
A leadership election over the summer would not just divert attention from cleaning up the Parliamentary Labour Party: it would make it nigh-on impossible. MPs called to account over expenses would protest vehemently that they were being victimised for supporting one or other leadership contender. The necessary purge would grind to a halt. Whoever won the leadership election, Labour would go into the general election, whether in autumn or next spring, with the expenses scandal still festering – and the result would be a wipeout.
In this light, it’s just as well that Brown was forced by the resignations of Blears and James Purnell to reshuffle the cabinet earlier than planned, so that all the credible would-be replacements for him had sworn undying loyalty in public before the European votes were counted. By the time the sheer scale of Labour’s European defeat had sunk in, pressure for the PM’s resignation had already dissipated .
Which isn’t to say that Gordon shouldn’t go – just that it shouldn’t be yet. There’s a good three months’ work still to be done. And after that? Let’s see ...
Where do you start? It’s difficult to think of a more depressing time for Labour supporters since – well, I was going to say the weeks after Labour lost the 1992 general election, but this is much worse. Labour’s failure in 1992 was like your team losing in the cup final. This is like watching the penultimate game of the league season when you’re three points adrift in the relegation zone and three-nil down and your players start brawling with one another on the pitch …
OK, that’s enough blokish football metaphors. But you get the point. In 1992 we were disappointed to lose when we hoped to win. This time, we are simply staring disaster in the face.
No matter how you look at it, the council and European election results are dire for Labour. In the English counties, the party lost nearly two-thirds of the seats it held and all four of the councils it controlled. Its projected share of the national vote was just 23 per cent, 15 points behind the Tories.
The Euro-elections were even worse. Labour’s overall share of the vote was 15 per cent, eight points down on its dismal performance in 2004. Labour was beaten in Wales by the Tories and in Scotland by the SNP. In the North West and Yorkshire regions, it lost sitting MEPs to the far-right British National Party, and in the South West and South East it trailed in fifth behind the Tories, UKIP, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Labour was fourth in the East and third in the West Midlands, with UKIP second in both. It came first only in the North East.
European and local elections are not reliable guides to the level of support for parties at the next general election. In general elections, turnout is usually much higher, and parties not already represented at Westminster hardly ever win substantial shares of the vote, let alone seats. In the past, governing parties have been battered in European and local elections and won large Commons majorities a year or two later, as Labour did in 2001 and 2005. But it would be unprecedented for a governing party to win after a performance as poor as Labour’s on 4 June.
Of course, Labour’s drubbing took place in exceptional circumstances. The resignations from the government of two cabinet members and two other ministers before polling day did it serious harm – Hazel Blears’s departure was particularly damaging, not least because it was so obviously intended to be.
What really made the difference, however, was the MPs’ expenses scandal. The message on the doorstep was the same everywhere: I normally vote Labour but I’m so disgusted with what those MPs have done that I’m not this time. The scandal undoubtedly hit Labour much harder than the other major parties. Labour is in government and has more MPs than the rest combined – and, more importantly, many hitherto solid Labour voters are furious at its MPs spending from the public purse the equivalent of a year’s skilled manual worker’s wages on property speculation and lavish lifestyles, all the while claiming to stand for fairness and the interests of “hard-working families”.
But the expenses scandal won’t just fade in voters’ memory as time goes by. The only possible way back for Labour is to get to grips with it this summer by chucking out every MP who has abused the system.
For now, everything else except economic management is a luxury – even coming up with brilliant new policy ideas. And this means that getting rid of Gordon Brown immediately (as advocated by several departing ministers, “rebel” backbench Labour MPs and the Guardian) would be the height of folly.
A leadership election over the summer would not just divert attention from cleaning up the Parliamentary Labour Party: it would make it nigh-on impossible. MPs called to account over expenses would protest vehemently that they were being victimised for supporting one or other leadership contender. The necessary purge would grind to a halt. Whoever won the leadership election, Labour would go into the general election, whether in autumn or next spring, with the expenses scandal still festering – and the result would be a wipeout.
In this light, it’s just as well that Brown was forced by the resignations of Blears and James Purnell to reshuffle the cabinet earlier than planned, so that all the credible would-be replacements for him had sworn undying loyalty in public before the European votes were counted. By the time the sheer scale of Labour’s European defeat had sunk in, pressure for the PM’s resignation had already dissipated .
Which isn’t to say that Gordon shouldn’t go – just that it shouldn’t be yet. There’s a good three months’ work still to be done. And after that? Let’s see ...
5 June 2009
THEY'LL NONE OF THEM BE MISSED
A small point, but an important one, about the government resignations that have rocked Gordon Brown into meltdown.
So far (as of 11.30am Friday 5 June), apart from Patricia Hewitt and John Hutton, all of them appear to have been severely compromised by the Daily Telegraph's expenses revelations.
And now they have resigned, with most of them making it known that they left because Gordon had been horrid/hates women/is useless, it becomes much more difficult for Labour's NEC panel to haul them in for questioning. "It's not fair!" they will declare. "He's just trying to take revenge!"
Convenient, huh?
So far (as of 11.30am Friday 5 June), apart from Patricia Hewitt and John Hutton, all of them appear to have been severely compromised by the Daily Telegraph's expenses revelations.
And now they have resigned, with most of them making it known that they left because Gordon had been horrid/hates women/is useless, it becomes much more difficult for Labour's NEC panel to haul them in for questioning. "It's not fair!" they will declare. "He's just trying to take revenge!"
Convenient, huh?
4 June 2009
HEADLESS CHICKENS SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT - 456
The current “febrile atmosphere in Westminster”, as everyone is calling it, is not something I have had the pleasure to witness directly: I’ve been nowhere near parliament for months. But anyone who reads the papers and watches the television news can tell that the Parliamentary Labour Party is in the grip of the most serious of its periodic fits of hysteria for more than 25 years.
The expenses scandal has hit Labour harder than the other parties – partly because it is in government, partly because there is a feeling among traditional Labour supporters that what many MPs have done in claiming expenses to fund property speculation and lavish lifestyles is radically at odds with what Labour should stand for. Gordon Brown has not covered himself in glory in dealing with the problem – though it’s difficult to see what exactly he could have done much better in the circumstances – and as the party faces what looks set to be a drubbing in today’s European and county council elections, two cabinet ministers and two other ministers have resigned from the government in advance of a widely flagged reshuffle. Meanwhile, backbench Labour MPs are trying to put together a petition demanding that Brown stands down now.
I have no more idea than anyone else how this will pan out over the next few days. My hunch is that Brown will neither resign over Labour’s disastrous election performance nor provoke a revolt that forces him out with his reshuffle. He doesn’t want to go, he doesn’t have to go, and there is no alternative Labour leader that opinion polls suggest would rescue Labour from ignominious defeat at a general election.
I hope my hunch is right – not because I think Brown is the right person to lead Labour into the next general election but because it would be utterly stupid for him to stand down now. Labour’s priority for this summer must be to weed out all the MPs who have abused the expenses system and replace them as parliamentary candidates, and a leadership election would prevent that from happening. Can you imagine Labour’s NEC sub-committee calling in alleged expenses fiddlers who are on the campaign teams of would-be leaders? It doesn’t bear thinking about.
What’s more, a new Labour leader elected this summer would be under massive pressure as prime minister from the media and the public to call a general election in autumn – which would be entirely against Labour’s electoral interests. On one hand, the brand would still be toxic because the leadership change had prevented the necessary cleansing of Labour’s parliamentary ranks. On the other, the chances of the economy having picked up sufficiently to provide voters with a reason to return to Labour would be extremely slim.
Gordon should go, but now is not the time. He should oversee a purge this summer, starting with a really brutal cabinet reshuffle to ensure that no one at the top table has dirty hands. Then he should announce his retirement gracefully in his party conference speech in the autumn, offering to stay on as PM until the Labour leadership election is complete to ensure a smooth handover to his successor by Xmas. Whoever took over could then announce a spring general election – and who knows, Labour might not even lose that badly …
Will it happen? I doubt it. But I live in hope.
Right, now off to vote (Labour of course).
The expenses scandal has hit Labour harder than the other parties – partly because it is in government, partly because there is a feeling among traditional Labour supporters that what many MPs have done in claiming expenses to fund property speculation and lavish lifestyles is radically at odds with what Labour should stand for. Gordon Brown has not covered himself in glory in dealing with the problem – though it’s difficult to see what exactly he could have done much better in the circumstances – and as the party faces what looks set to be a drubbing in today’s European and county council elections, two cabinet ministers and two other ministers have resigned from the government in advance of a widely flagged reshuffle. Meanwhile, backbench Labour MPs are trying to put together a petition demanding that Brown stands down now.
I have no more idea than anyone else how this will pan out over the next few days. My hunch is that Brown will neither resign over Labour’s disastrous election performance nor provoke a revolt that forces him out with his reshuffle. He doesn’t want to go, he doesn’t have to go, and there is no alternative Labour leader that opinion polls suggest would rescue Labour from ignominious defeat at a general election.
I hope my hunch is right – not because I think Brown is the right person to lead Labour into the next general election but because it would be utterly stupid for him to stand down now. Labour’s priority for this summer must be to weed out all the MPs who have abused the expenses system and replace them as parliamentary candidates, and a leadership election would prevent that from happening. Can you imagine Labour’s NEC sub-committee calling in alleged expenses fiddlers who are on the campaign teams of would-be leaders? It doesn’t bear thinking about.
What’s more, a new Labour leader elected this summer would be under massive pressure as prime minister from the media and the public to call a general election in autumn – which would be entirely against Labour’s electoral interests. On one hand, the brand would still be toxic because the leadership change had prevented the necessary cleansing of Labour’s parliamentary ranks. On the other, the chances of the economy having picked up sufficiently to provide voters with a reason to return to Labour would be extremely slim.
Gordon should go, but now is not the time. He should oversee a purge this summer, starting with a really brutal cabinet reshuffle to ensure that no one at the top table has dirty hands. Then he should announce his retirement gracefully in his party conference speech in the autumn, offering to stay on as PM until the Labour leadership election is complete to ensure a smooth handover to his successor by Xmas. Whoever took over could then announce a spring general election – and who knows, Labour might not even lose that badly …
Will it happen? I doubt it. But I live in hope.
Right, now off to vote (Labour of course).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)