John Rentoul: It's all over for our Prime Minister
We are back to the Seventies in the sense of alternating parties in government
You know it is over when they laugh like that. Most of the noise in the Chamber of the House of Commons is uncouth and childish; it is also often manufactured, designed to harass and demoralise the other side. But when Gordon Brown headed for the exit after Prime Minister's Questions, and had to turn round, realising that he was supposed to making a statement about Afghanistan and Pakistan, the laughter from the opposition benches – and from some on the Government side – was genuine. It was because it was genuine that it was so cruel.
The Prime Minister has lost his way. He has lost his place in the script. You know it is over when Nick Clegg cuts it as a figure of moral authority, and Brown is reduced to making up numbers such as £1.4bn as the cost of allowing all 36,000 Gurkhas the right to live here. Even if it did come to £1.4bn, which is doubtful, why should we draw the line there, after £175bn of fiscal stimulus, on the one immigration issue on which even Empire loyalists are on the liberal side of the argument?
Brown has lost the argument about the Gurkhas so comprehensively that David Cameron did not even need to rehearse his Mr Angry act. He did Mr Bipartisan instead, congratulating Clegg for setting the pace on the issue. It was a smart bit of tactical cross-party generosity that diminished Brown further.
No, you know it is over when BBC journalists start interviewing each other about how much the Prime Minister's "authority" has been reduced. They were at it this week over the withdrawal of Brown's plan to reform MPs' expenses. They used to do it to Tony Blair when he was at bay over the cash for honours investigation, but they didn't laugh at him. Blair was spared the added humiliation of YouTube ridicule.
You know it is over when black is reported as white. When everything is fitted to the template of retreat, disarray and incompetence. Just a small example from this week: David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, repeated his ingenious plan to make identity cards more palatable by making it compulsory for everyone to have a passport. This was reported as Blunkett, "the father of identity cards", calling for the scheme to be scrapped.
We have been here before. In fact, we have been here twice in living memory. James Callaghan and John Major seemed similarly doomed, especially in retrospect, as they limped towards their conclusions – in Callaghan's case 30 years ago this Sunday. But Callaghan retained his dignity and not even Major cut so miserable a figure as Brown does now.
Those were "sea change" moments. Although we should be wary of granting sly Sunny Jim the excuse that he was up against the inevitable: his observation that there are times when it "does not matter what you say or what you do" concealed his regret that he had not gone to the country the previous autumn when he could conceivably have held on against Margaret Thatcher.
There is always something you can do. Major probably should have stood down, as he briefly consulted close colleagues about doing, immediately after the collapse of his ERM policy. Michael Heseltine might have swashed some buckle and gone to the country. Brown could stand down now, as even Paul Routledge, his formerly sympathetic biographer, suggested last week, and let someone else try to limit the Conservative gains at the election. Routledge and I, who have not agreed on much for a decade and a half, agree that Alan Johnson is Labour's best hope.
I think it is worth a try, from a Labour point of view, even if it succeeds only in cutting the Conservative majority – and the current state of the betting markets points to a majority for David Cameron of 62. Some Labour people don't see the point. Their unspoken belief is that the next election is a write-off, so the party might as well get used to a long period in the wilderness.
This is sea-change thinking, otherwise known as giving up. My view is that it is worse than unwise; it is a mistake. It is based on a fallacy, namely that Labour will have been in office for 13 years and before that the Tories were in for 18, so whoever wins the election will occupy Downing Street for a long stretch.
On the contrary, it seems more likely that we really are back to the Seventies, in the sense of alternating parties in government and inconclusive elections. To be brutal, the next election is a good one to lose. The state of the public finances is such that, if the Conservatives win, as Cameron told his party's spring forum in Cheltenham on Sunday, they will be "in an age when we're asking people to put up with tax rises and spending cuts to pay for Labour's debt crisis". Note that he said tax rises and spending cuts, because I'm not sure that his audience in the hall heard him.
When the Tory members find out – after, say, George Osborne's third tax-raising Budget – they are not going to be pleased. Nor will the British voters be. Cameron can talk the New Labour talk of difficult choices but when it falls to him actually to make some we are not going to like it. So it is quite possible that, if the Conservatives win next year's election, they will be unpopular quite quickly. It is not as if the electorate are even under any illusion, as they were when Blair came in with a 93 per cent approval rating, that Cameron represents a "new politics".
Provided the Labour Party does not fall apart – and it is not divided by anything like the quasi-Marxism that afflicted it in 1981 or the issue of Europe that split the Tories after 1992 – general elections promise to be competitive again. So things are bad for Brown, but this is not a sea change. There is certainly nothing inevitable about a long period of Conservative government. Indeed, we could be heading for a long period of hung parliaments. Yesterday was the right day for Nick Clegg to shine.
John Rentoul is chief political commentator for The Independent on Sunday. You can read his blog at http://johnrentoul.independentminds.livejournal.com/
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
No matter how much he is ridiculed (his youtube expenses thing is thoroughly disconcerting - what idiot allowed that to appear on the web?) and despised.
He'll never do the honourable thing and if I were a betting man I'd have the Tories to emerge from the election with a majority well into three figures, with the Lib Dems challenging Labour for second place. Labour are going to be squeezed left, right and centre.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/pl
The Labour administration under the 'leadership' of Mr. Speaker dictates Parliament will only be sitting for 126 days this year. Those MPs (living over 50 miles away) needing accommodation should be given a night stop allowance based on a long contract rate for a B & B or local 2 star hotel and meal allowance. All expenses to be receipted. This would stop the abuse of tax payers money.
As a 'son of the manse' an undergraduate student and then a Ph.D, a brief career in the media before becoming a full-time politician, he is the very epitome of 'the political class'. Just look at the divide between his career and that of Keir Hardie!
Gordon Brown is not working class, has never lived or experienced a working class lifestyle, has never had a 'real' job and yet leads the Labour Party. As has no been made clear, he got there not by hard work alone, but also by using the likes of Damian MacBride, Derek Draper, Ed Balls, Tom Watson and Liam Brown to deal with potential opponents who may have stood in his way.
After a decade as Chancellor,and several years as Prime Minister, can anyone state his contribution to improving the lot of the working class, the traditional supporters of the Labour Party? He has betrayed their heritage and left the party bankrupt, both emotionally and financially.
His pernicious influence will linger long after his ignominious departure. Having inherited a substantial parliamentary majority, he has spent his time in petty, tactical, partisan politics and will surely go down as the worst Leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister in modern times. Laughter and scorn are a most fitting legacy for his performance.
This country has been dumbed down to a level far worse than silence - at least one can reflect in that.....
The only response I can give to your contibution is to say next time please write in paragraghs. Its much more reader-friendly I find.
Alan Johnson is Labour's best hope. ALAN JOHNSON! Go and find the tape measure Samantha, you'll be buying new curtains very soon.
What a way to treat a great country - he should be tried for his arrogance and stupidity - and his sentence should be to be declared bankrupt - that would be some salve on a few wounds at least.
As for the next Tory government - I would raise income taxes immediately and high enough to require a once only rise so that the tax rise is associated with the Labour party's incompetence and unwillingness to do what needed to be done and what is right for the country now. Raising taxes gradually would suit Brown's plan to smear the Torys under his scorched earth plan.
I think we should only elect politicians and certainly the PM if they pass a common-sense and competency test - like most businesses do when recruiting. And we should hold an annual assessment and sack the buggers if they fail. It is after all a paid job for them.
I don't know that the author is correct on on 1970's style rapid changes in Government, the key psychological circumstances are very different between then and now. I would equally agree that perhaps 2 consecutive terms or Parliaments may become more normal than 3 or 4.
However, I do believe that an incoming Cameron Government will share something with Thatcher 30 years ago which is the tacit support of the majority of voters even if they voted for Labour, the Libdems or a Nationalist Party, for them to get on with the job and "get it all sorted".
Gordon Brown is a very poor politician, being a political street fighter doesn't help because he has totally missed the point. He is still thinking "Labour Investment" vs "Tory Cuts" but after the Budget when the Kings Magic Suit of Clothes was revealed for what it really was, even ardent Labour supporters know that it is "Tories Bailing Out a sinking ship" and cutting away some rigging will be part of that.
As for changing Leader, will it really make a difference and anyway two unelected Prime Ministers is at least one too many and a General Election must follow immediately. Also John Rentoul is fooling himself if he thinks anyone on the Front Bench is a credible candidate, these were the same bunch of Pansy Potters that ran away from challenging Brown in 2007 and all wanted to be "Deputy Dawg" well Hattie got that one right, fetch Hattie, fetch !
Above all, so lacking in common humanity does he seem to be that I can rais no sympathy for him. I want to see him publicly humiliated. If ever a man deserved it, Brown does.
"Blair was spared the added humiliation of YouTube ridicule."
Oh I don't know about that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nupdcGwI
http://www.vimeo.com/4162821
It should make us all stop and wonder, though, why ANYONE should want to be a politician. The ridicule is never-ending and disproportionate, imho. I don't actually believe they are in it for themselves any more than we are all into some way of earning a living for ourselves. And before we throw them all out with the bathwater we should consider the alternative - a dictatorship or unelected monarchy, as in many countries in the world.
Gordon Brown, like most politicians I know - and I've known a few - is NOT a bad man with evil intent. But fate has not been kind to him since he took over the helm of one of the handful of MOST important jobs in the world. Even when he scores - it only seems to last five minutes. His judgement is questioned - so nothing new there, then. His sanity is put under the microsope - so - nothing new. HE IS a politician after all. We Brits have a tendency to think they're all insane.
For the record I was involved in a political party once - not Brown's - but I got out when I became disillusioned with the voters.
Sadly Gordon just does not have the articulacy or communication skills required in politics today. And that's just one thing he doesn't have.
I put this video together almost a year ago - 'HELP Gordon Brown'. Nothing much has changed, for the better anyway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyd4gDU0
And this one might remind you of what we had and lost not that long ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbwVsgAS
Harman? While Gordon merely irkes, Harperson really frightens me.
he's got the Blair gift of performing well in debate and is a seasoned campaigner.
Brown should quit though, he has a young family that he must hardly see, he'd pick up a big cheque for his biography and could take it easy. He looks knackered compared to when he became PM.
The Lib-Dems, being deluded: 'Pollyanna-esque' dreamers plus pro-fascist Europhiles, have been double-crossed by NuLab more times than John Rentoul has had hot dinners.
Their ability and failure to defeat NuLab over over 40-odd days 'detention' - WITHOUT CHARGES - FORCED THROUGH BY NICK CLEGG and company proves without doubt that the LibDems have no loyalty to the people (and their rights) whatsoever.
As our troops prepare to leave Basra ask THEM and the locals what they think.
You won't find the same story as you do in the British feral press.
The Lib-Dems? Wrong about Iraq. And that, to me, counts them out of ANY decision of any importance.
The next election campaign is not going to be pretty. And the next goverenment will have to have a leader of stature. I see no-one in parliament today who fits that decription. No vision, no real answers, no communication skills.
I'm probably voting Apathy Party next time, unless -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ymczrv
Basra by numbers
£744m UK spend on reconstruction in Iraq
11 Murders in Basra in January this year. In all of 2007 there were 848
17% Unemployment rate in the city
I had the opportunity to listen Mr. Bow in Iraq talking of the British soldiers coming back to UK and that there is a great opportunity in Iraq for the British firms as one has already received a contract worth million pounds. This is what I love. On one hand we want to praise the dead soldiers, Iraq, then we immediately tell others, ?Come, promptly, there is a job here?.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Erm ... you meant - "the way the country should be 'RUN'"?
Sorry to be pedantic - but it does help if we can use English properly, toff or not.
1. He would be replaced by whom? I'm afraid there is no suitable candidates from the declared pretenders to the throne (I shudder at the thought).
2. Brown and indeed many of our so called politicians need to be thrown out of Westminster in such a way as they are left in no doubt that the electorate will no longer tolerate their behaviour.
3. We need reforms to our Democracy not twiddling with the status quo.
4. Such a move may undermine investment confidence.
In my opinion we have a 2CV engine in a Ferrari body with tractor wheels and changing the steering wheel will make bugger all difference.
Starting now we push for a No Confidence Vote. The constitutional mechanisms exist to make this a reality and sufficient pressure from the electorate would make it difficult to ignore.
We install an interim Emergency National Government with a Recovery Cabinet, those with the necessary skill, experience and integrity to get us on the right track.
One remit of this Cabinet would be to bring about Electoral Reform (The only thing we should be voting on, not wasting time with another pointless Election) so that when recovery is established we can go to the polls and bring back a real Government.
We empower this Cabinet to instigate a peoples elected commission to investigate the causes and irregularities of this crisis. This could flush out the bad elements in the system and more importantly, give us the necessary information to regulate against it happening again.
Please start now with http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/2564
Long before he inherited the title, various sources described him as;
"Psychologically flawed"
"Politician with the charisma of a slug"
"A dour Scot"
"An uncanny housekeeper"
Not exactly the kind of labels one attaches too potentially successful political leaders.
He has tried to compensate during the global economic downturn, by acting in the manner of a savior which has not worked to his advantage.
So it would seem you've got it in one John.
It's all for him. but the shouting will go on for some time yet!