Dominic Lawson: Stop bleating about the need for change and hold an election
It is not about better governance. It is all about Labour MPs keeping their jobs
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
When a man is suffering from terminal cancer, he is liable to be persuaded that his best chance is to switch to a diet of broccoli juice, as recommended by his wife, who once saw something amazing about it on the internet. Friends shake their heads privately but decide to humour him. Why not, if it raises his hopes, if only for a few months?
The Labour Party is now in a very similar position. It is determinedly unwilling to believe that its electoral sickness is terminal and thinks that if only Alan Johnson – the broccoli of politics, easy to digest and delightfully flavourless – were somehow painlessly to take control, then a return to normal health could be achieved.
Perhaps we should also try to indulge the Labour Party in its delusion – but it is so much less easy to sympathise with its predicament. One of the reasons for that was summed up by the very first line of Graham Allen's article "Brown Must Go" in this newspaper yesterday. The Labour MP for Nottingham North began: "There is only one reason to have an election for Labour Party leader: to increase our chances of winning the next election." You see, it's not about providing better governance for the country as a whole. It's only about Labour MPs attempting to keep their jobs, whether as ministers or even back-benchers.
They have nothing more than this to say, however, because none of them have anything remotely resembling an alternative programme – even as they bleat continually on the airwaves about how they need a "new vision", like peasants praying at some medieval Catholic shrine. None of them have anything critical to say about a single one of Gordon Brown's policies to deal with the economic crisis. There was a time when the left of the party might have coalesced around a platform of increasing taxes on the high-paid, but Brown has already given them that, with the new 50 per cent top rate.
Even the left knows that the money has run out: under the allegedly superb economic leadership of Comrade Brown, the British Government is now borrowing more and more billions solely in order to pay the interest on our existing vast debt. Our Budget deficit is set to reach twice the level, as a proportion of national income, as it did when the Labour government of the late 1970s was forced to seek emergency financing from the International Monetary Fund.
This explains the otherwise mysterious way in which Lord Mandelson draws up economic plans which seem to have no application: his "offer" of investment in troubled Jaguar Landrover was cunningly attached to conditions which the company's owners could never accept. Meanwhile his plan to "kickstart" a British electric car industry was based on giving discounts on vehicles which do not yet exist, and may never exist. The point is that such "plans" are therefore cost-free, the only industrial strategy that the Exchequer can afford.
Gordon Brown calls these the "investments" that Labour offers, in distinction to "Conservative cuts". His strategy – and at least, unlike his internal critics, he has one – is to delay the cuts which any government would need to make, until after the general election, and present himself as the man who saved the economy. The idea that the voting public will not be able to see through this ruse is a level of self-delusion akin to Brown's earlier belief that he had conquered the entire economic cycle.
No wonder Alan Johnson is unwilling to make a grab for the Prime Minister's job, at a time when the tough choices that inevitably confront the holder of that office are now only between different ways of saying "no". This is a man who loathes any form of confrontation, and who seems, indeed, not to have an enemy in the world. That is often the sign of a very attractive personality, but it is absolutely not the hallmark of a leader – and Alan Johnson is clearly a self-aware individual.
John Major had much the same sort of reputation when he arrived in 10 Downing Street, after Margaret Thatcher was despatched by a rebellious Cabinet and Parliamentary Party. Nobody disliked "good old John" – and like Alan Johnson he had what is now called "a very good back story"; that is, he had overcome a childhood of economic hardship and risen to political heights without the benefit of a university degree.
The Tories under Major, it is true, managed to win the 1992 general election, against all the odds; and it is this thought which excites many Labour MPs when they contemplate doing to Brown what the Conservatives did to Thatcher. Unfortunately for them, however, there are some very significant differences.
First of all, David Cameron is not Neil Kinnock – I somehow can't see the Tory leader repeatedly screaming "weeere aaaaaaallllriiiiiight!!!!" at a premature victory rally a few days before the next general election. Secondly, Labour's current level of unpopularity is at a level which goes far beyond "the problem with Gordon". After all, Blair would never have been forced out if the party was not already suffering from dismal levels of public support. Now, however, it has sunk to positively subterranean levels: in the European elections Labour came fifth in the South East of England, and sixth in Cornwall (trailing Mebyon Kernow, the Cornish nationalists). We have heard both loyalists and rebels talk of the recent results as primarily a reflection of the public's fury at the Westminster allowances scandal, but if that were the case, one could have expected the Tories to have suffered equally – especially as their expenses claims were the more vivid – but they haven't.
Yesterday, the former Justice secretary Lord Falconer (Tony Blair's old chum, and therefore no friend of the Prime Minister) declared that his party leader should be ousted, and that "but for our weakness, the Tories would be vulnerable". Yes, and but for the absence of balls, my daughter's spaniel would be able to sire a litter.
Charlie Falconer's main argument is that "in the current situation it is so difficult for Gordon Brown, after 12 years as Prime Minister or Chancellor, to be a convincing agent of change". Here we get to the heart of it. It is true that the great bulk of the British public wants a change at the top – but little suggests that by this they mean a new leader of the Labour Party; only one opinion poll has indicated that with Alan Johnson, or David Miliband, or (fill in gap) as leader of the party, its electoral chances would be improved.
No, what most Britons want is a general election. That, in our democratic system, is how political "change" is achieved, not by one party engineering a series of private putsches against whichever leader of the time is deemed to have outlived his election-winning capability.
If the Labour Party were truly interested in national '"political renewal", it would at least consider taking up the challenge of democracy. Instead the Cabinet appears to believe that the best argument for retaining Gordon Brown is that if Labour switched to yet another prime minister without consulting the public, the calls for a general election would be irresistible. So it will probably stagger on to the bitter end of its thoroughly depleted mandate, dying a little bit more each day.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
But Brown's priority is for himself - what is good for him is good for everyone, apparently.
Totally selfish his entire political career, and probably always before. People never change, only pretend to.
He then demands loyalty to him personally, though he will brief at will against anyone he chooses. He's a perfect example of political dross, bullying and blustering, all the time transparent as clear glass - a "Fred Bear": when you hold him up to the light you can see right through.
He drives his own policies (tax and spend), not what his party or the electorate want, based on a deluded view of his own infallibility. Except, his principles are like pasta, and he'll do whatever is necessary if he is seriously threatened - like a Royal Mail backdown.
Political leaders have few friends, but this guy's bereft of respect as well. The Mandelson-engineered public, party support is as tangible as Brigadoon and is close to disappearing into the mist forever.
He will fall, eventually, but in the manner of dictators, forced or dragged out in disgrace and, it's hoped, shamed. Grace is not something which Brown ever possessed, even to a scintilla.
He'll have books written about him (on the rise and fall scenario), then be consigned to history's dustbin - if we are all lucky.
Gordon Brown threw himself on the mercy of his party last night and promised to change the way that he governed as he tackled the crisis of confidence that has engulfed his leadership.
The Prime Minister WON A REPRIEVE, probably at least until the autumn, as he told a meeting of more than 400 Labour MPs and peers that he was determined ?>>>to play to my strengths and address my weaknesses?.<<<
He was reported to have secured>>>> overwhelming backing to fight on, <<<<<even though about half a dozen MPs, including Charles Clarke, told him to go. The former Home Secretary was joined by Tom Harris, a former Transport Minister, Siobhain McDonagh, Fiona Mactaggart and Meg Munn, all of whom told Mr Brown that the party would fare better with a new leader. Cameron accuses Brown over 'collapsing' Government. Here one day we see Brown thrown. Gordon Brown suffered another crippling blow last night when the Blairite Work and Pensions Secretary, James Purnell, resigned from the Government. Adrian Hamilton: Don't knock Obama before he's tried in the Middle East. Obama get the chance also. I thank you Firozali A. Mulla
Two BNP MEPs are two warningt shots from Real Labour Britain, across the bows of *alll* blatcherist snouts , not only those still being shaken out of government.
http://bnp.org.uk/2009/06/bnptv-intervi
Yet again, and every day I will repeat it. It's easy but needs guts. DC and NC tell ALL your MPs to resign now- today and a GE will follow in a few weeks. Easy peasy but.....I smell....money, but let us call this a sort of day of atonement for all MPs. (Yeah, I know some were innocent-ish) but they were all culpable by default.
The election rules in this country state that the elected govt may serve up to 5 years, unless they cannot command a majority in the House of Commons.
Neither the statute of limitations nor the lack of a majority appear there currently.
What all these ranting Tories fail to accept currently is that the ballot papers did NOT say: 'Tony Blair' on them. Outside the Sedgefield constitutency, anyway.
The voters voted for the Labour Party and its manifesto. NOT the Prime Minister.
And unless Mr Brown's policies are so radically different to what Tony Blair would have done under such circumstances, then the voters may DEMAND an election, but they do not have a RIGHT to one.
This RUBBISH about needing an election if there is a new leader is precisely that. RUBBISH.
Now if you wish to change the democratic system to elect a President and have HOC like the US Congress, well say so.
But until that happens, stop bleating for an election that you may want, the Tories may want and the media certainly want.
And when it comes, print in full ALL the Tory party expense outrages.............
Sir.
True unlikely because even if that did happen, a Dissolution would be likely better.
As to "all these Tories demanding an election..." I must admit that I am torn on this one.
On the one hand an immediate election means that the Conservatives can get on with sorting the economy out but on the other, Labour going full term is a guaranteed electoral wipe out - must be how else could the Conservative beat Labour into second place in Wales !!!
But even in this latter case, do we want a Labour wipe out ? It wouldn't be a problem if the Libdems were making progress but they are not and we do need a strong Opposition or we will suffer the same electoral dictatorship we have seen under 12 years of Labour - bit of a problem really.
To me this is a real issue which we need to avoid quick fixes on and oddly I touch on it in the Steve Richards article, quote below - cheers:
"It has broader relevance. The rise of the professional politician has placed our Parliament in a very difficult position which means that there will have to be serious work and thought put in from all sides into establishing a clear Separation of Powers between the Executive - PM and Cabinet and the Legislature - All sitting MPs. As to why I mention this in particular, is as follows:
Yes I want to see a Conservative Government but, the biggest problem is that until a solution to the above is worked out, I don't want to see a repeat with a Tory Government what we have had to put up with these past 12 years with an elected Labour Dictatorship, we need a strong Opposition. The Libdems by now should have been really breaking through this past 12 months but they haven't why ?
Go back to my key question about Labour - define it. The reason the Libdems have not recovered their "radical crown" that Labour took from them 100 years ago is simply because they cannot define "Who and What they Stand For".
After the stage managed meeting last night Brown and Labour have lost all credibility, though they had precious little anyway. And this after the utterly disgraceful appointment of Alan Sugar and Mrs Kinnock. Sugar has no political credibility and is nothing but a loud mouthed bully and Kinnock has been too long on the EU gravy train like her windbag of a husband.
Of course the public want an general election now and know that Brown is paralysed when it comes to any new original policies. We are saddled with too much debt and whatever the liar of a Prime Minister says now, whoever gets in power next year will have to drastically cut public expenditure. Some economists say that there must be at the very least an absolute freeze for five years. Frankly I cannot see any Labour government having the guts to do this. There will also need to be vast reforms in all government departments and again Labour will never face this fact.
Our only chance of getting the right thing done is an election and a Tory government asap. If only the Queen could step in. I cannot believe she does not hate this misfit when she sees what he and his rotten government has done to our nation.
Or maybe Lawson does take the poll seriously. That would explain why he managed to slip in a premature bit of character-assassination against Johnson, doing the Tory spin-merchants' job for them. It's time to stop the Brown-baiting and move on to Johnson-slapping, is it, Dominic?
http://www.geocities.com/cronyblatc
We won't get an election, Labour doesn't want one and legally doesn't have to have one. Anyway the middle of a media scandal-fest is no time to have an election, except that it's always like this. Remember Thatcher, Major, Blair? the last days were all the same, witch hunts as panicking MP's jumped ship and the media cruised the waters looking for fresh meat.
This is no way to run a democracy, what about the issues? I understand the Lib Dems position and the BNP but both Labour and Conservative seem to do nothing but pick gimmicks out of a bag to appease the editors of their favourite rag.
I look forward 5 years hence to the sight of David Cameron in the same position as Gordon Brown, puffing about red faced as his cabinet disintegrates beneath him. In the immortal words of David Byrne "Same as it ever was".
The ultra right wing Telegraph has pointed the finger, mainly at Labour politicians.
Let's wait and see until the whole picture is out.
Historically the Tory party is the party of sleaze.
A probable result of an election right now would be a Conservative victory.
We may well be electing 90% of Tory MP's who have had their snouts in the trough.
Let's wait and see.
Gordon Brown truly lied and betrayed the people of this country by not offering a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty AS HE PROMISED. THis is why even Labour voters have turned against him in this last election, not only because of the expenses scandal. Any honest, democratic person realizes that people should be able to vote on something so important to our country as the Lisbon Treaty. To hear the lies that it is merely a mechanism to streamline and make the EU more efficient is an outright lie--and is muttered by every dishonest MP that faces questioning.
Already the BBC is going soft on the Labour Party because they hate the Conservatives. The BBC is incapable of functioning without its left-wing, pro-EU views. They have not done their job for years now and this is why the BNP has flourished. The Labour Party has refused to acknowledge the concerns of its own people and so has the BBC, so they have turned for help to the BNP. Now the BBC and Labour us the BNP to deflect our attention from their own mendacity and selfishness.
Since all parties are guilty of expenses' crimes and misdemeanors, they should skip their summer recess and prepare for an election in September. This will give them time to perfect their 'vision'. The next government will handle the 'new politics' and cleaning up the expenses system--they will be pressured to do so and will.
Anybody who is desperate for New Labour to win the next election should consider this: If Gordon Brown apologizes to the people of Great Britain for ignoring their will, he will prove immediately that he has changed by offering us all a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty the moment he is elected. The Conservatives will be shocked and look bad for their weakness and Gordon Brown will look like an reformed and redeemed leader.
But, as we all know, Peter Mandelson is in place for the sole reason of making sure that the Lisbon Treaty goes through. The EU elites have sent him on this mission and he knows he must make sure Gordon Brown stays in line, doesn't break down, that the party is thoroughly threatened and afraid. This is the method of the EU--it is too important and they will not allow us an election. They will make sure it doesn't happen until the Lisbon Treaty is voted in by the Irish. Then it doesn't matter what we do anymore--we will merely be a Member State of no consequence and Peter Mandelson will go back to central control in Brussels, mission accomplished.
GENERAL ELECTION NOW!
GENERAL ELECTION NOW so we can have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty which the liar Gordon Brown promised us. I didn't vote labour because of this and I will never vote Labour again unless he keeps his promise.
I don't want to hear Milliband and Harman say once more: 'What people want is for us to make sure...' 'It is the right thing to do.....' 'THe people want Labour to clean up the expenses and to investigate the Iraq War. It is the right thing to do....' How utterly sickening that they think we can be bought so cheaply and that we don't see right through their lies on the radio and television. The BBC should be ashamed for helping them out all these many years. No wonder the BNP exists.
Mr. Lawson's original article (that appears in my print copy of the newspaper) says that there have been NO opinion polls suggesting that a new leader would electorally perform better than Mr. Brown. The online version has been changed to state that only one opinion poll has suggested this.
First, this demonstrates very sloppy editing of your 9 June newspaper as the front page story was the exclusive poll evidence showing that Mr. Johnson would outpoll Mr. Brown. Do you no longer employ sub editors?
Second, it is underhand of a newspaper to amend an article retrospectively without highlighting the change. While in this instance the amendment was relatively insignificant, you should not re-write history. If you are prepared to do it in relatively insignificant cases, what is stop you doing it all time? Do you no longer care whether your readers consider your journalism to have integrity?