Leading article: This is not a plot. It is a groundswell of discontent
The PM's allies cannot easily dismiss Mr Clarke's intervention
Friday, 5 September 2008
The first big beast in the Labour jungle has roared for the Prime Minister's head. Charles Clarke, the former Home Secretary, yesterday called on Gordon Brown to "stand down with honour", unless he is able to resurrect the Government's popularity over the coming few months.
Mr Clarke claims to believe that a turnaround is "entirely possible" but the fact that he has delivered his ultimatum in the middle of Mr Brown's economic "re-launch" suggests that, in truth, he thinks the game is up for the Prime Minister. Otherwise, Mr Clarke would surely have waited to see if Mr Brown's new mortgage support package and next week's promise of help for those in fuel poverty would ease the pressure. In Glasgow last night, the Prime Minister's speech on the economy was entirely overshadowed.
It gets worse for Mr Brown. Mr Clarke's intervention is not just a plea but also a threat. In Mr Clarke's view, Labour is "destined to disaster if we go on as we are" and warns the Prime Minister that "we will not permit that to happen". In other words, unless Mr Brown goes of his own accord, he faces the prospect of being forced from Downing Street. It makes for a pretty brutal intervention, even by Mr Clarke's usual robust standards.
If there is a crumb of comfort for Downing Street, it is the fact that Mr Clarke's broadside does not seem to be part of an organised plot to unseat Mr Brown. Mr Clarke's intention in breaking cover seems to be to encourage members of the Cabinet to follow his lead. The Prime Minister, therefore, has a chance to counter the attack by presenting Mr Clarke as a disloyal maverick, something that the Children's Secretary, Ed Balls, set about doing with some energy yesterday. And everyone knows there is no love lost between Mr Clarke and Mr Brown. Mr Clarke was one of the few Labour MPs who resisted the former Chancellor's elevation to party leader last year.
But portraying Mr Clarke as a bitter voice in the wilderness will not be easy. The former Home Secretary does not speak for Labour, but he is articulating a widespread concern within the party about the quality of its leadership. And this concern will grow as the next election draws nearer and Labour MPs become increasingly concerned about their seats.
Yet there is an omission in Mr Clarke's analysis of the plight of the Government this week: any proposal of alternative policies. The Government's problem is not merely the personality of its leader. Certainly, Mr Brown's inability to articulate Labour's policy goals and generate popular enthusiasm for them is a terrible liability. But the reality is that the Government's problems are much more than issues of presentation.
They are intimately connected with the squeeze on the cost of living resulting from rising inflation; the popular feeling that public services are still not delivering value for money despite record investment; the growing anxiety about the state of the economy. They lie, too, in the general air of tiredness that hangs over this administration after more than a decade in office.
Mr Clarke might be right to infer that a new leader would boost the Government's popularity. But whoever took over from Mr Brown would still be faced with precisely the same dire economic conditions. It is all very well for the likes of Mr Clarke to urge the removal of Mr Brown, but the party's MPs and members should also give serious thought to what policies might prevent them being dashed to pieces on the rocks of the next election. Dropping the captain is unlikely to be enough.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
12 Comments
Nobody has mentioned foreign policy - Iraq - Afghanistan - Palestine
All sanctioned by New Labour MPs (and, of course the Tories )
Al good reasons to sack them all.
Posted by Jim Dye | 06.09.08, 09:43 GMT
Dear Graham
I understand what you are saying but the fact is that Gordon Brown was never elected by the people of this country to be prime minister and therefore dose not have a clear mandate to govern though he may say that his party dose, and this is the anomaly the people of this country now face he obtain power by default and the truth to how this came about is unknown and we can only hazard an educated guess based on what we no with regard to blair leaving office so quickly raising the question did blair fall or was he pushed baring in mind that brown was so quick to step into his shoes and also that he made sure that there where no other contender's for the job I believe it is what is none as a fate comply a cue within the government which may or may not be true but dose have all the hallmarks of one, but has I have said I am restricted in what I can say about my reading of Gorden Brown.
Posted by john | 05.09.08, 23:16 GMT
I don't like Brown and I don't like New labour, but to have another Prime Minister would make the UK a laughing stock. How could we possibly preach about democracy to China, Russia and the Middle East when we would have two unelected Prime Ministers and one who got only 37% of the vote? New labour should accept the way things are. Gordon Browns policies are no different than that of Blair and any successor to Brown would be no different again.
Posted by graham | 05.09.08, 21:21 GMT
In another article the headline "Brown vows to free us from the dictatorship of oil" caught my eye. Unfortunately my momentary assumption of his imminent departure from public life was cruelly dashed.
Why is it that Dictators never know when to quit? If there are any psychiatrists out there I'd love to know the answer.
Posted by Rob | 05.09.08, 20:39 GMT
The problem is that the Party does not have socialist principles. That is why Old Labour - like me, have deserted them in droves.If it could be shown New labour were prepared to return to their roots then several million voters especially the elderly would return. Alas,they have swallowed globalisation whole and they will perish with it . Poored people can now expect nothing except to be blamed for their own misfortunes.
Posted by stevem | 05.09.08, 18:03 GMT
When Gorden brown first took office has prime minister I knew instinctively that he was the nemesis that this country could have done with out and has I am some one that as the gift and ability to be able to read people in away that is out of the ordinary and have been able to this from a very young age I have thus far! been proved right But because of the restriction on this site I am not able to say what I read in this mans appearance but what I will say is don't be surprised when we start to see more damaged done by this man in his unwillingness to effectively govern for the benefit of this country and its people
Posted by john | 05.09.08, 15:43 GMT
The fundamental issue is "what is labour'? As a party with socialist principles, it is now unelectable in England. The whole Blair & New Labour episode proves it. Being '3rd way' was the only way they could win. The libdems are Labour Light and they aren't setting the world alight either. The world has changed, and Labour hasn't. But if Labour isn't a left of centre party then what is the point of it? Are Labour in the position of the Liberals in 1910?
Labour will have plenty of time to ponder, after their defeat next time, what their future philosophy and direction will be. It is bleak for them.
Until then they have a 'deer in the headlights' look, as they have lost their way as a government and as a party, and are undergoing an identity crisis too.
Changing leaders, giving phoney handouts, re-launches - just obscures the fact that they are lost without any underlying philosophy because theirs has been discredited.
Posted by Tim (ex-pat) | 05.09.08, 15:21 GMT
Only the pea brained want a new PM. This country must keep a sturdy course not to mutiny during a storm.
Posted by Bob | 05.09.08, 13:46 GMT
The problem is not Brown per se.It is the whole Labour Party and its endless backstabbing and inefficiency. They should all be quiet stop the blame game and try to run the country, otherwise call an election. They carry on in the hallways like schoolyard brats rather than Ministers of Government.
Running a country well is not a popularity contest.Or ought not to be.It is about the delivery , and quality of good governance.All the rest is window dressing .
Posted by Duncan MacGregor | 05.09.08, 11:57 GMT
The future of Gordon Brown is not just a matter for those who dwell in the 'Westminster village' or Labour Party members. He is also the leader of the UK and has another role on the international stage.
All the navel-gazing and inward focus in this article obscures the fact that he is supposed to act in the best interests of the British people in the domestic sphere and act effectively on their behalf overseas. He has utterly failed in both domains.
The Labour Party and their view of him are totally irrelevant as far as the rest of the country are concerned because they elected him unopposed and so cannot now avoid the simple fact that they put him where he is.
He has no vision, no principles and no courage so what is he offering the British people? His record as Chancellor has been rubbished by his hand-picked successor and he cannot escape his contribution to the current economic malaise.
As Oliver Cromwell said so eloquently, "In the name of God, go!'
Posted by Manny Goldstein | 05.09.08, 11:29 GMT
12 Comments