Steve Richards: The myths whirling round this crisis
So here is the reality: cabinet ministers were not cowardly staying in their jobs
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Every epic crisis produces its own myths, or at least commonly held assumptions that turn out to be false. Already there are several myths whirling around Labour's crisis. They are worth closer scrutiny. In a shapeless drama the false assumptions provide some guidance as to what is actually happening and what might happen next.
The first myth to have surfaced in recent days is that senior ministers, in particular David Miliband, were cowardly in not following the supposedly audacious, James Purnell, in resigning from the Cabinet. The opposite is closer to the truth. If Miliband and others had taken the temptingly glamorous alternative course they would have been hailed as heroes by virtually every columnist in the land: "This time Miliband has shown his mettle". But with good cause lots of them agonised about what would follow such a move. As one cabinet minister put it to me: "Gordon hangs on only because we fear an early election and there was no alternative candidate once Alan Johnson had given Gordon his unambiguous backing".
The observation is made by a minister who is normally seen as supportive towards Brown and yet his assessment is brutally pragmatic. According to this view Brown is still standing not because most ministers have faith that he can rise to the daunting challenges, but for entirely negative reasons. They are not sure about Johnson's qualities and how they get to the stage where Johnson becomes leader after a traumatic act of regicide.
For now at least some ministers have opted for the relative clarity of the Brown/Mandelson duopoly than a leap into the unknown. Their move was less self indulgent than the newly deified Purnell who walked out without any strategic thinking. He took the more cowardly option of instant gratification followed by, well, not very much.
Some of those left behind plan to be more assertive on the basis that they and their party have nothing to lose, almost literally true after the party's performance in the European elections, an outcome described by one minister as "surreally bad". The so called cowardly ministers are in a stronger position to influence events than Purnell.
This brings us to myth number two, which is connected to myth number three. I heard several times yesterday that last week's results were so bad that in a bizarre way they actually help to buttress Brown's position: MPs will fear an immediate election even more with their party securing a mere 15 % of the vote in the European elections.
This is too clever by half. There is no upside for a leader in terrible results. The outcome of the European elections is one new ingredient of the story since Purnell's resignation. They are so grim for Labour, they can only make MPs agonise again whether Brown should lead them into a general election. If Blair had still been leader and Labour got 15% of the vote, Brown's entourage would have fumed understandably with conspiratorial despair.
In fairness to Brown the elections took place in the worst possible context, with MPs' expenses and malevolent ministerial resignations capturing the ghastly headlines for Labour on polling day. Even so he is leader at a time when the party's electoral performance makes Michael Foot seem like a vote winner. This is unambiguously, unqualified bad news for Brown.
The need for an immediate election if he were to be replaced is the third myth. I am told if there is a leadership contest this summer Alan Johnson would promise an election in October. That would be the end of the matter. I think it is possible he could get away with announcing a date for the following spring.
Calls for an early election will be a secondary story compared with the media excitement about a new Prime Minister that marked the end of the Blair/Brown era. There will be more focus in the media about the novelty of the postman's rise than the need for an immediate election. Anyway as Frank Field was pointing out mischievously yesterday the key constitutional question is whether a Prime Minister can command a majority in the Commons. A new leader would be able to do so.
Now today's Independent exposes a fourth myth. A crucial missing element to this drama was an opinion poll suggesting any other Labour leader would make a difference to the party's standing. Today's poll suggests this is not the case. Apparently Johnson would take Labour into hung parliament territory whereas Brown or any other candidate would lead their party to defeat.
This is a highly significant development. In the build up to the fall of Margaret Thatcher an array of polls suggested that the Conservatives would get a boost if they replaced her with Michael Heseltine or John Major. Until now there has been no evidence that Labour had an equivalent figure who could command more support.
So here is the reality. Cabinet ministers were not cowardly in staying put, but keep options open under a Prime Minister who is more dependent on their support than they are on his. In contrast the supposedly brave Purnell pulls no levers in the wilderness. The elections are a terrible blow for Brown and not the basis for him to claim that they must stick with him. There is no need for an immediate election if a new leader is in place. The Independent poll suggests Labour does have a more popular alternative.
These four counter myths are not decisive. As I wrote on Saturday, a frenzied focus on leadership is nearly always a symptom of a wider crisis within a party. Contests often solve nothing. Yesterday the rebels had no momentum as Brown completed his ministerial reshuffle. Now the disparate rebels talk about the autumn being the pivotal moment. Always they find reason to delay, not least because they do not have the support to make their move.
But the four counter-myths of recent days suggest to me that even though Brown has defied his tormentors yet again he is much more vulnerable than he was even a week ago. He will get the space to continue until the autumn. If he makes no headway in the polls between now and then, he will not lead Labour in to the next election and, I suspect, would not try to do so.
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
Yes, they really were cowards and if they had followed Purnell and abandoned Brown he could not have remained as Prime Minister. But the real reason for leaving the Cabinet was not to further their own careers but to bring an end to the most corrupt and incompetent Prime Minister in living memory. By not serving their party and the country at large, those who remained in the Cabinet for their own ends will be held to account.
Myth Two - Bad electoral results
This DID help Brown because those in marginal seats looked not only at the euro elections but also the county council elections and realised that an immediate general election would result in their defeat. Things cannot get any worse for them, so they have nothing to lose by sticking with GB.
Myth Three - Immediate election needed
This is not a myth, as everyone knows that there is no need for an immediate election and they know that because when Brown replaced Blair there was no election! One what basis can Steve Richards claim that anyone thinks an immediate election MUST take place?
Myth Four - What is myth four?
CAn anyone make out what myth four is?
Even when Brown was labelled as a goner and the Tories had terrific electoral results, the papers were still only interested in Brown, BNP, UKIP .... Nobody notice Cameron. Who was he, again?
Brown has been responsible for the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth our country has enjoyed, and the leadership of the fight against the international recession, as recognised by so many at the hugely successful G20 summit.
It is widely accepted that, while a change in PM is at the behest of MPs in the Commons, to make a further change within the term of one Parliament would not be accepted by too many of the electorate. We should try and conserve our representative democracy, rule by the mob is inferior.
What is truly cowardly is to spout in considerable ignorance about a great public servant in such general terms on an online blog. You should be ashamed of your recidivism.
I still contend that it is difficult to understand the definition of Myth Four.
As for your comment here;
"Brown has been responsible for the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth our country has enjoyed, and the leadership of the fight against the international recession, as recognised by so many at the hugely successful G20 summit."
- If Gordon Brown wants to take responsibility for the growth in the period from 1997 then he must equally be held responsible for the subsequent economic crisis.
- What has his leadership of the fight against the international recession amounted to? Fatal dithering over Northern Rock, pumping billions into failed banks led by men like Sir Fred Goodwin and Sir James Crosby who he had previously knighted, personally intervening to persuade solvent Lloyds to take over insolvent HBOS without due diligence and knighting Sir Paul Myners whose incompetence caused the Goodwin Pension fiasco!
- Please provide further details of the many who believed the G-20 meeting was a success.
Manny's comment is typical of the Brown-haters' response, blind to actual political reality, so angry about Brown that they can't see what's going on. If the Tory high command shares the anti-Brown bloggers' wishful thinking, they will have no chance against the new order which is taking shape at this very moment in Labour high command.
Manny is also typical of the double-think which passes for actual thought among the anti-Brown-obsessives. They often call for fixed term parliaments, yet they scream for this one to end early in obedience to their command.
Anyway, back to Steve's analysis. It makes sense, for the simple reason that it reconciles a contradiction, namely between a desire to replace the leader with a fear of the consequences of a violent back-stabbing.
From what Steve has written from his inside knowledge, it would seem that the men in grey suits have indeed talked with Brown and they have agreed that he will step down voluntarily in the autumn if the public still hate him. And that would probably mean the Tories would lose in the spring.
So all you Brown-haters here and elsewhere (Guido, are you listening?), this is the reality: keep up your crazed attacks into the autumn, keep up the insults and the jokes about a one-eyed Scottish autistic, please do, and then Brown will leave amicably in the autumn and the Tories will lose in the spring.
But watch out for a newly-gentle Dave Cameron in PMQs from now on. I wonder why.
I certainly do not consider myself obsessed with Gordon Brown, but I do believe that fixed-term parliaments are a good idea, but am perfectly happy for Gordon Brown to serve out his full term until June 2009 before they are introduced.
As for references to a one-eyed, Scottish autistic, one of them is true and the others do not merit a response.
It is no sense of the word 'early', especially as the Dear Leader has never confirmed the election will be next summer
http://tv.bnp.org.uk/
That's the trouble with racists. They are so obsessed with their psychotic thoughts about race that everything else is crowded out. Hitler might have been able to set up a European empire if he hadn't been sidetrack by his murderous obsession with race.
Eventually Griffin and his Hitler-loving compadre will be laughed out of the Euro parliament.
Think of what he has to lose. He wants the Lisbon Treaty ratified and for that, he'll have to last until August/September. He'll lose his perks and pay-offs. Crucially, though, the PLP is seriously in debt with precious few donors in sight. Who will donate to a party which is sure to lose an election? If Labour does lose and should it then implode, it will have a massive debt with no obvious way of paying it back - particularly if it loses willing activists!
For more info, see: http://faustiesblog.blogspot.com/2009/0
Brown and Mandelson are Labour Party creatures. The last thing they want is to sink like a stone. They will hang on with everything they've got, to the last possible minute - unless someone wields the dagger. These two never give up.
Think of what he has to lose. He wants the Lisbon Treaty ratified and for that, he'll have to last until August/September. He'll lose his perks and pay-offs. Crucially, though, the PLP is seriously in debt with precious few donors in sight. Who will donate to a party which is sure to lose an election? If Labour does lose and should it then implode, it will have a massive debt with no obvious way of paying it back - particularly if it loses willing activists!
For more info, see: http://faustiesblog.blogspot.com/2009/0
Brown and Mandelson are Labour Party creatures. The last thing they want is to sink like a stone. They will hang on with everything they've got, to the last possible minute - unless someone wields the dagger. These two never give up!
But be real. Anyone with an analytical mind would have come to this conclusion if they hadn't consciously ruled it out as being a thought that they were prohibited from having. What's needed now is an acceptance, as far as Gordon Brown is concerned, that the mainstream menu of acceptable beliefs does not currently include what is actually the truth - that an intransigent hate-filled bully, full of cleverness but without an ounce of wisdom, stands as much chance of being an acceptable Prime Minister as he does of flying to Mars unaided.
Those withdrawing their support need to be honest, and admit that the reason they are changing sides is not because Brown has changed, but because they made a mistake in deciding to support him in the first place. Then we may be able to start getting somewhere.
I still suspect there will be a leadership election next winter so Brown will not lead the Party into a May 2010 election. We will then see Miliband challenge Johnson.
I am afraid that our wounded and mentally damaged PM will last for a few months yet but there will be precious few policies of note. There will probably be massive in-fighting and briefing against Brown and Brown still briefing against his enemies. No change really.
But what wider crisis? Is there are great policy issue at stake - like the Poll tax which did for Thatcher or Europe which did for Major? There isn't. Post office decisions and a few other second level issues aside, the general direction of the Labour party under any leader and with any Cabinet seems fairly clear, so why these ructions. Surely it has to do with the lack of confidence in Brown to do the job, which doesn't make it the symptm of a wider crisis; it is the cause of the crisis.
Surely?
In simple terms, some 14 or so years back, the Labour Party reinvented itself as New Labour, dumped all that old stuff that held them back and got elected at a time of rising prosperity and therefore Government Revenues which allowed them to spend on pet projects. However that just disguised that behind all that, there were no overarching ideas or themes that really united them to the Labour Party of the past and as the Welsh EU result showed, the Labour soul of today.
Today they have run out of both money and ideas. If you sat down with a blank sheet of paper, just what key ideas could you write down to define this current Labour Party that is the Government ?
Normally a party has a range of ideas and therefore pick a Leader that embodies those ideas and that is still true to this day, Labour has the right Leader in place, his focus is to cling to power at any price, the PLP to cling on to their jobs for as long as possible, power for powers sake is the motto, there are no other concepts or ideas in their locker.
The Labour Party has the leader it deserves, the question is, do we the Country have the Parliament we deserve or having learned our lesson and indicated that through the ballot box, do we noe deserve a General Election ? If Labour wants a fresh start and to find their new Moses, that's fine but on their own time surely ? Why should they 'bed block' our Parliament ?
You knew all that, you are just trying to roll your propaganda bandwagon in the hope you will pay less tax IF Cameron gets in.
Shame.
Even you know that is all mainly crap, look be a convinced Labour supporter by all means but rather than roll out the usual old stuff, all the tractor production statistics etc. please do accept that the Country as a whole wants change, Labour has had its turn of the wheel, time to go.
As to tax cuts under Cameron, I hardly think so, the economy is in such an awful mess due to Gordon's mismanagement that if the Tories get a second term, they just MIGHT be able to think of some modest ones but hardly in the next 5 years.
But I'll share with you the one thing that will give me and I suspect many others a feeling of great joy, CHANGE, the joy and hope that you can only ever have at the start of a new journey and adventure. To sweep Labour from power with all its baggage of justifying past policies and their past mistakes will be like lifting a heavy burden from our collective shoulders and getting rid of an oppressive cloud bearing down on us.
A new Cameron Government will have to explain exactly where we are, what they intend to do and why. No more the dour look and the idiotic " I am getting on with the job" and no explanations or "Gordon is the best man for the job..." by some brainless Minister.
Even a new Government having no money to spend is not all bad because Parliament can spend its time on useful no cost things such as debating what amendments are needed to our Constitution and Governance. I am sure that in the end, the Tories too will make cock ups but for now, let's have a Fresh Start !
Try arguing the case for a change. And just to call anyone who disagrees with you a "troll" is also mindless. There are people who are aching for Labour to get a grip and desperately fearful of what a Tory victory would mean for our public services. They're not all trolls spouting tractor statistics. You can do better than that.
To dismiss Keynesian economics as a "mess" is also a bit brainless. You may not agree with one of the great economic theories of the age, but it has to be taken seriously. It has saved the world economy before.
But you clearly have difficulty reading so, try again. The "Dully Tele..." thing is as you will see, a subject line created by quietzapple, not me. I am familiar with him from the various DT Blogs which used to be fun but no longer are. His standard technique is to spew out "factoids" often disconnected from the current subject but he can be quite funny especially as the day wears on.
I did not ask him for "facts", I asked what Labour stood for and by that I meant exactly how would someone accurately encapsulate the core concepts set against the events of these past 12 years. If you are honest, this is a difficult "Ask".
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".
As to dismissing Keynesian economics, I'm not sure that I am but I am dismissing a man who as Chancellor, clearly didn't understand the first thing about it. Allow me to illustrate: The principle of using Public Spending as a counter cyclical tool obviously makes sense. To gear up Public Borrowing to spend and long term sleight of hand things such as PFI during a period of buoyant economic activity in the private sector is the act of a lunatic.
It seems you could do better too.
But quietz did give a useful summary of some of the main achievements of Labour, which you asked for, so it was still unfair to call them "tractor production stats."
I'm not so sure about your total separation of the exec from the legislature. Sure, it happens in the US, but was it healthy to have, eg Rumsfeld and Cheney as unaccountable appointees? Look at the damage they did, with no punishment at the polls (for them personally).
Those calling for such a separation get all upset when, eg Mandelson or Sugar or Darzi or West or Malloch Brown are appointed as non-MP ministers. (Admittedly, they're in the Lords,). Other co-options of people from business or the unions in past governments have not been over successful either.
But although the recent expenses scandal has taken the shine off the Commons for the moment, that can be cleaned up with appropriate action. I would still prefer the executive to be accountable to their constituents, rather than to their overlord, the PM. Your suggestion could lead to an even more powerful executive, with no obligation to offer thmselves up for questioning in the Commons.
It has an impact because unless you are Frank Field or Kate Hoey, your career progression lies in the hands of the Party Whips who incidentally, I would outlaw. One could argue and I certainly would, that better pay associated with serving the House on Committees should be a career path in itself rather than the only one being aspiring to a red despatch box.
No we cannot copy the American system for a whole variety of reasons but neither can we continue as we are because next year, if this Parliament lasts that long, we will have a repetition in the turnover of sitting members as great as May 1997 except that they will be entering a House which has had its reputation considerably diminished.
Regardless of political affiliations these people will be out to prove something, show that they can make a difference and be Constitutionally, as pig ignorant as the 1997 batch. Imagine 1001 Dalmations...
All Constitutional changes should be undertaken with great care and over years, there are never quick fixes especially in terms of our arrangements. Personally and given my project management background, I am more interested in collecting together the 'problems' for now because when you have those identified accurately, the solution volunteers itself.
Also the Tories did very poorly. In 2004 they got their lowest national poll since 1832! 1832!!!!! They went down to defeat to labour the following year when Labour gota 65 seat majority.
This time they put of 0.8% on their share of the vote . . .
Oh . . and . . there's more . .
The Tories do not have ALL the councillors, they have less than 50% while Labour has 21%, just more than the Lib-Dems.
Anyone wonder why so many lies are becoming common currency . . ? And in whose interests the lies are . . ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bPQAWZF
Were they saving their shoe leather . . ?
Have you heard of the saying, stop digging when you are in a hole?