Commentators

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 13° London Hi 16°C / Lo 8°C

John Rentoul: Promises of more of the same won't do

Labour is avoiding the one thing that would give it a chance – changing its leader

It is a good thing that party conferences don't actually matter. Because if they did, it really would be all over. You would say that Labour in Brighton was just going though the motions if they hadn't abolished that form of internal party democracy in favour of "policy workshops".

Gordon Brown's speech was more of the same. He gave an unexpectedly good speech last year, so this year he tried to do it again, but the effort was too great. It was as if some American political consultant had rewritten the start of the speech, including the cringe-making introduction by Sarah Brown, but gave up after the first page of Gordon's words.

Sarah Brown was, of course, the secret weapon. I think it is known as the General Melchett tactic, after the Stephen Fry character in Blackadder who explains why going over the top and getting killed is what the Hun won't be expecting the Tommie to repeat and is therefore "exactly what we will do". Sarah Brown was a surprise and a triumph last year, so they'll be expecting something different. "I know what", said a tactical genius in No 10. "Let's have Sarah introduce her husband: it's the last thing they'll expect".

And Gordon started with a bit of pace and – now this really was a surprise – an argument. His list of Labour's achievements, although it started bizarrely with the winter fuel allowance, which is a way of not paying a decent state pension, got them to their feet for the first of a few standing ovations. Uh-oh, I thought, shades of Iain Duncan Smith, with his 17 standers in 2003, a few weeks before his MPs ditched him.

But the Labour Party is so moribund that it couldn't choreograph anything quite as complicated. Brown virtually had to tell them to stand up for our armed forces, and there were long expanses of the later reaches of the speech where even this politically-obsessed audience had to be brought out of daydreams about other things.

Brown's argument was a familiar one – Labour ministers have at least the faintest imprint of a folk memory of message discipline – and he put it well. The Conservatives got the judgement about the response to the economic crisis wrong; he made the right call. Yes, it is another Americanism, and it irritates me as much as the candidate's wife telling us that she loves her man, but perhaps that is just progress, and we are all progressives now.

Anyway, the point is that it is an argument. It is an argument that persuades the depleted remnants of a once inspiring political coalition known as New Labour, but actually it is no use at all. It may even be that Brown is right, that it was worth pumping £12bn into the economy this year by cutting VAT just in case the recession turned really bad.

Very clever economists, such as Joseph Stiglitz, whose video testimonial was put up before Brown's speech so that the broadcasters could talk over it, say so. But it is a bit rich to extrapolate from the fact that David Cameron and "Boy George", as Peter Mandelson insultingly called George Osborne, opposed the VAT cut that they made the "wrong call" on "the call of the century". They did not oppose recapitalising the banks or printing money, which were more important than the VAT cut. Had they been in government, they would have done pretty much the same as Brown and Alistair Darling did, with the only difference that the state of the public finances would not be quite as terrible as it now is.

But that is an argument for historians and professional economists, not voters. The voters know only that the recession happened on Labour's watch, under a Prime Minister who promised no more boom and bust. They knew it was nonsense, but that doesn't stop them hating themselves – and him – for having gone along with it. And now they want to know about the future, and that was the point at which Brown's speech disintegrated into a kind of Lego assembly of parts.

He promised more of the same. More childcare, incomprehensible fiddling about with constitutional reform, slogans about asbos and post offices. A sudden concern about police response times. A lot of things that sounded expensive with no idea of how to pay for them, from a Government that has spent a lot of money already.

It has been a bad conference for the Labour Party. Not because it knows it is going to lose, but because it is not prepared to do the one obvious thing that would give it a fighting chance of avoiding the worst. It knows that, as the opinion polls confirm, the voters think that "anyone could do a better job" than Gordon Brown as prime minister. It knows that a different leader would not get Labour out of the deep hole it is in after 12 years of being in power and forgetting why, but someone else – almost anyone else – would be able to tell a different story just by virtue of not being Brown.

Someone else would not have been responsible for economic policy for the past 12 years; someone else would speak in a different idiom, would emphasise different priorities, would represent the only chance of inviting voters to take a second look.

It has been a bad conference, above all, for the Alan Johnson campaign. He said, in a pre-conference interview on Saturday: "I haven't got the ambition, and I haven't got the self-confidence, and I haven't got that real aching desire to lead, which really is an essential quality in a leader". Yes, he tacked on at the end a half-hearted form of words to keep his options open – "I'm not willing to rule myself out for all eventualities" – but he has to want it a bit more than that, because this is an emergency, and because Brown will almost certainly have to have it prised out of his iron grip. Perhaps it would have to be David Miliband after all.

But it will take a big external shock to wake up this depleted tribe of sleepwalkers. The "mainstream minority", as Brown mis-spoke in his speech yesterday, that want to do whatever it takes to maximise the Labour vote at the election are reduced to waiting on events, dear boy, events.

John Rentoul is Chief Political Commentator for the Independent on Sunday.

j.rentoul@independent.co.uk

More from John Rentoul

Post a Comment

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.

Comments

[info]watzat wrote:
Wednesday, 30 September 2009 at 03:17 am (UTC)
An especially inglorious bit of journalism lacking detachment, judgement or for that matter wit in all its senses. Rentoul remains unforgiving of the person he blames for toppling the gilded one. Supporters of Mrs T just like those of Mr B suffer similar amnesia - in both cases both public and Cabinet had had enough of the one they had once lionised. Missing in the article is any mention of the man who wrote the words for Blair: Peter Mandelson. Not just wrote the words but created the ideas. Mandelson was the Tigg Montague of politics, the master of the "ornamental and poetical department" in Dickens' Martin Chuzzlewit. It had been Tigg Montague who had conjured the "Anglo-Bengalee Disinterested Loan and Life Assurance company" out of thin air as did Mandelson with New Labour. Mandelson was Svengali to Blair's Trilby. Without Mandelson Blair speeches continued all the familiar "y'know"s and the other bits of business but all creative purposive content disappeared. Mandelson, not Brown nor even less his heirs unapparent, is the critical and central figure. If he - Mandelson not Blair - came back, so could New Labour - probably.
The Real Problems
[info]over325one wrote:
Wednesday, 30 September 2009 at 06:15 am (UTC)
Speech, wife nice dress - who cares! The real problems facing the World over-population and destruction of the environment like the rain forests are not being addressed at all. So, two year olds will receive free child care when they should be at home with their mothers. Another lost generation coming up folks! "Sorry did I say free?" There is no such thing as a free lunch. Under Brown just more tax and debt you useless ex-chancellor. Have less babies and plant more trees.
They are corrupt
[info]rhinocircus wrote:
Wednesday, 30 September 2009 at 07:25 am (UTC)
and putrifying--so let the whole Frankenstein's monster body politic of Westminster be buried. Avoid FPTP elections like a plague--until a totally enfranchising democratic system is born in Britain.

No more 23% elections to vote in another lying and fiddling Nero.
Re: They are corrupt
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Wednesday, 30 September 2009 at 03:21 pm (UTC)
Rhino, that'll be never unless enough people use FPTP to vote in a party that backs real electoral reform. Like Blair's lip-service back a while, neither of the two major parties are going to offer that - even if, as is by no means improbable given the current disillusion with politics and politicians, participation in the general election poll drops to a record low next spring.

If either wins, the consequence on that front will be identical. Even if the turn-out were to fall to near 50%, you can bet they'll be airbrushing out that inconvenient truth, and blathering on, as per usual and based purely on the number of seats, about a "ringing endorsement" and a "convincing mandate" ...
It's over.
[info]marchmont wrote:
Wednesday, 30 September 2009 at 09:02 am (UTC)
Gordon Brown is dead on his feet and ZANU Labour is on the verge of being buried. I suspect Labour will be out of power for a generation. In the German election the centre-left SPD won only 23% of the vote and the Labour Party is in about the same position. It is clear that the recession has not produced a shift to the Left in Europe. After more than 12 years in power, the coalition of working and middle-class voters that swept ZANU to victory in 1997 is completely destroyed. Brown made his pitch to the electorate with a promise to tackle antisocial behaviour however he failed to mention this was part of the Blair agenda that he deliberately sidelined when he first moved into No 10. Most people have watched their taxes soar, the NHS become an expensive mess, and their children’s education become a nightmare. Almost every move made by Brown has alienated the hard-working families he claimed to represent. Labour tolerated Phony Tony because of his election-winning ideas — but never really liked him. Brown has not a hope of winning this election - and no-one could possibly LIKE him.
Contrary
[info]quietzapple wrote:
Wednesday, 30 September 2009 at 08:24 pm (UTC)
to you uber Blairites, John, it is not all about THE LEADER.

We now have a Leader who is more true to the Labour Party, and you may not recall the ResCom poll in The Times in June:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2009/06/44-of-voters-want-cameron-to-lead-the-country-and-just-22-want-brown.html

When offered the Real choice of a Labour Government or a Conservative one more preferred Labour.

Soonish it will not be "Do you want top give HMG's Government a Kicking."

It will be: "Do you seriously want the PR mad, billionaire funded multi millionaire Bullingdons to run your country?"

Re: Contrary
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Wednesday, 30 September 2009 at 10:04 pm (UTC)
... thereby finishing the job begun by their predecessors ... !

In the absence of radical change, emigration starts to have an appeal beyond the better weather ...

Columnist Comments

brian_viner

Brian Viner: Sorry, Roy, but Ireland played like superstars

It would be nice if Roy Keane could show some generosity of spirit.

christina_patterson

Christina Patterson: What we learn from the Sikh in the BNP

For ethnic harmony, you can go the route of a Tito or a Saddam Hussein.

andrew_grice

Andrew Grice: Blair beaten, but a coup for PM nonetheless

Mr Blair would have loved to become a powerful figurehead for Europe.


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion