Unless they've been misquoted, in the last 24 hours John Prescott, Alan Johnson and David Miliband have all used the phrase 'there is no appetite' to rule out a move to oust Gordon Brown from number 10. The day before that the Guardian used it.
Now THAT is being on-message.
I was just wondering which of the possible replacements could get the electorate to come back to the Labour Party:
David Miliband- Blairite career politician.
Harriet Harman- Brown acolyte who has been on-message as he lurches from disaster to comical tragedy. Her husband is Jack "Cash for Honours" Dromey the Party Treasurer, a gift to opposition MPs.
Alan Johnson- Teddy Boy union man turned New Labour bum-licker.
Alan Milburn- Blairite who has kept a low profile and gone along with everything since Brown took over.
James Purnell- Oily Blairite who is rumoured to fancy being the next but one leader.
Ed Balls- Brown's cabinet best mate and the architect of the abandoned election plan last Autumn.
Jack Straw- Senior cabinet figure for much of the Blair era.
Charles Clarke- Top Blair ally who would suffer the same charisma gap vs. Cameron that Brown does.
Jon Cruddas- Soft-left backbencher who ran Harman and second-placed Johnson close in the Deputy Leadership contest.
Peter Hain- Well-groomed PLP yes man, an ex-CND member he voted strongly for replacing Trident.
John McDonnell- The 'darling of the left' failed to get 45 Labour MPs to back him to even stand against Brown following Blair's departure.
Sadly, I'm still wondering. The better the candidate, the less likely it is that they'd get the job. The parliamentary Labour Party is incestuous and conservative. Anyone who gets the job of leader will almost certainly be seen by the electorate as offering more of the same. And with good reason.
Also in today's Observer, buried toward the end of another Brown post-mortem comes an optimistic suggestion that would- if true- see him begin to do what many have been crying out for:
"Friends are speculating that the spectre of defeat may just convince Brown to throw caution to the winds. There is talk, already, of creating a legacy.
'He might just think, "I'm not going to win, so for the next two years I will do what I really want" - the things he was frightened of last year - and tell people why he's different from Blair,' says one source. 'The most wounding criticism from Crewe was people saying "we thought he was different from Blair, and he's exactly the same".'
The worst response to a political crisis is to pay lip-service to it. Doing nothing is far from ideal, but it at least allows the crisis to be played out to its conclusion- which is invariably coincidental with the punishment of the person/party failing to take action. It provides a deserved resolution at least.
Even ahead of the Crewe and Nantwich disaster, and don't let the Fabians convince you that it was anything but a disaster, lefties like myself were speculating on how the party should respond when the nightmare they awaited came true. I said and still say that taking the summer to install a new leader ahead of the conference would be the second best outcome of all- for Brown to get his act together would obviously be ideal. According to the Observer, however, it would appear that there are plans afoot to groom someone to be the leader at some future point. This is one of those 'lip-service' measures that I opened by talking about. If true, it means that either no-one has the nerve to face down Brown yet and they're hoping to ease him out (ill-health forces resignation?) or that Brown is trying to keep his friends close and his enemies closer. It also means that the public desire for change- if that's what it is- goes unsated and that any successor is tainted by association with a dying Brown regime.
It's unattributed hearsay- as the story indicates- but it would be a timid move and a huge mistake. And, on current form, both counts would make it all the more likely to be true.
The worst response to a political crisis is to pay lip-service to it. Doing nothing is far from ideal, but it at least allows the crisis to be played out to its conclusion- which is invariably coincidental with the punishment of the person/party failing to take action. It provides a deserved resolution at least.
Even ahead of the Crewe and Nantwich disaster, and don't let the Fabians convince you that it was anything but a disaster, lefties like myself were speculating on how the party should respond when the nightmare they awaited came true. I said and still say that taking the summer to install a new leader ahead of the conference would be the second best outcome of all- for Brown to get his act together would obviously be ideal. According to the Observer, however, it would appear that there are plans afoot to groom someone to be the leader at some future point. This is one of those 'lip-service' measures that I opened by talking about. If true, it means that either no-one has the nerve to face down Brown yet and they're hoping to ease him out (ill-health forces resignation?) or that Brown is trying to keep his friends close and his enemies closer. It also means that the public desire for change- if that's what it is- goes unsated and that any successor is tainted by association with a dying Brown regime.
It's unattributed hearsay- as the story indicates- but it would be a timid move and a huge mistake. And, on current form, both counts would make it all the more likely to be true.
Clutching at straws I know, but losing tonight's by-election in Crewe and Nantwich may be less devastating in the long-term than some commentators would have you think. Politicalbetting.com have suggested that tonight may do for Brown what an Eastbourne by-election loss did for Maggie Thatcher in 1990 and hasten the end. I subscribe to a different view.
Gordon Brown and his strategy team must paint Cameron as cocky, brief consistently that he is being premature and presumptuous about the outcome in (presumably) 2009. When David Cameron arrives in Crewe and Nantwich to deliver a victory speech, it is the ideal place to start. At the same time, Brown must be presented as the underdog. He must sharpen the contrast with Cameron and appeal to the electorate's inherent sense of fair-play and empathy. Brown has spoken about listening and learning and should now be sure to show contrition. He must demonstrate that he wants to be in tune with the British people. It is cynical political positioning and it is most transparent, but no-one surely expects Labour to rise above this kind of thing because you can be sure that the Conservatives would do precisely the same thing in the circumstances.
Of course, this alone is insufficient to do anything than earn him pity. As I have said, and I'm not alone in this, Brown must be statesmanlike and clear in his vision. Leave the tinkering behind and concentrate on a programme of a few sensible policies.
The response to the 10p tax rate mistakes and being seen to be taking control of his party once again probably stopped the slump. Despite being a free vote, the embryology debates will have given him some traction as his view was in step with the majority of the Commons. His response to tonight's election loss (as it surely will be) can, if it is presented correctly, continue that slow progress. Losing the election will also show how far that process has to go. How much bad faith has still to be overturned. Hopefully, it will also clearly demonstrate the ill-advised nature of the strategy of attacking the Tory 'toff' candidate and inflaming the fears of the settled population over EU immigration- irrespective of how baseless those fears may be.
There are two years left until the election. Should Barack Obama win the Presidency in the meantime, then this will give Brown the opportunity to begin the complete withdrawal from Iraq whilst maintaining the American links that are so important to a more conservative section of the electorate- as well as Whitehall. This will be another opportunity for Brown "to embody change and continuity". This can make the Labour party electable- which they aren't at the moment- and then it is a matter of praying that Cameron snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Labour party must keep their heads whatever happens tonight. If Brown has to go, then this Autumn ahead of the party conference is the time to make the change. The ball is in Brown's court.
The Police Federation, the nearest thing to a Union that rank and file Police Officers are permitted to have, have voted by a majority of almost 90% to lobby Parliament for greater fairness in their pay negotiations. They want the findings of an independent police arbitration tribunal to be binding. And, failing that, the right to protest against any decisions which contravene these findings via a number of channels. Seems fair enough.
The Act of Parliament which prevents officers from going on strike was enacted following a 1918 strike when officers had marched on Downing Street. And at the same point, the union representing the officers was disbanded. That's right, the Government were forced to pay a reasonable wage and so they dismantled the mechanism that compelled them to do so.
The police, along with nurses and the armed forces, are barred from going on strike. They are also paid far below the market rate for jobs of similar complexity and impact upon society as a whole. If you're going to stop a section of society from protesting because they have such high-impact jobs, then you should at least try to ensure that they have nothing to protest about. Particularly if you are a serving the country in the name of the Labour party.
It is a ridiculous state of affairs that the Police Federation has been pushed into this corner. The Government's offer of a wage increase was rejected as it amounted to just 1.9% and the debate was moved to arbitration, where the tribunal set a figure and ordered that it be backdated. The Government refused to follow the recommendation. This begs the question ‘what is the bloody point of going to a tribunal in the first place?'
If the Government are going to treat arbitration the way that Mugabe treats an election, then the Police Federation must find another means to find a fair resolution. Even if this means having the power to threaten a strike. The Government have acted in bad faith and who can blame the Police Federation if they have no trust in them?
Sky Sports' rolling news service has been running live coverage of Chelsea's training session ahead of tomorrow night's- ahem- "Champions" League Final in Moscow. Left-back Ashley Cole ("£55k a week please, any less is such an insult!") has taken a knock on the ankle. From the tone of the news reports you would think that George W. Bush had been assassinated. THIS IS HUGE NEWS.
I don't know why I'm surprised really. Tomorrow night's game will be, after all, the biggest, most important, most prestigious and (I think I can safely predict this) the most exciting game since Sky invented football in the early nineties.
In all seriousness, the neutral (some would suggest I'm talking about anyone outside of London and the Far East) will be hopeful that we don't get more of the same plodding, negative and unremittingly cagey football that these two teams invariably serve up when they face up to one another. For me, my only concern is that Paul Scholes- the most talented English footballer I have seen play- receives a winner's medal. What a contrast this man is with the chap whose ankle-knack dominates this evening's news.
Scholes is a wonderfully balanced and intelligent footballer, he has the ability to dictate the pace and direction of a game in a way that very few players have ever shown, he is a wonderful striker of the ball both in the crisp accuracy of his passing and in his potent shooting from all angles and ranges. And, what is more, he is also a very human footballer. He isn't a freak. He is short for a modern player and invariably finds himself up against taller, faster, stronger athletes where his ingenuity and intelligence enables him to overcome the initial disadvantage. And he is quite simply the worst tackler I have ever seen at the top level. It's so important that the people that you idolise have real human qualities, isn't it?
But the very greatest thing about Paul Scholes is his truly unaffected personality. In an age of celebrity obsession where bin-picking outside the home of any Premiership footballer can provide a living wage, Scholes remains himself. He plays for the most publicity-driven team in the most hyped league in the world and has done for the better part of fifteen years. He has been club-mates with some of the most well-known players anywhere in the world- Beckham, Cantona, Giggs, Ronaldo and Keane- and yet serious football scholars rate him as better than all of them. Not least his manager Sir Alex Ferguson. Scholes trains studiously, and then goes home to be with his family. He doesn't involve himself in personal product endorsements and, when his club requires him to do so his discomfort shines through every photograph. When his club aren't playing he watches his boyhood team Oldham Athletic with his son. He is probably more grounded, normal and humble than the most of the men on the terraces watching.
I often find myself sympathising with young footballers who find themselves millionaires in their teens and stalked obsessively by the media- not because of the intrusion necessarily, but because I know that I would have ended up in rehab, in prison or in a coffin. Scholes has had more than most, had it younger than most, has had it longer than most and copes with it better than them all. He is an absolutely wonderful man and I hope against hope that he gets the medal he cruelly missed out on eight years ago. I'll leave the last word to his former captain Roy Keane: "No self-promotion - an amazingly gifted player who remained an unaffected human being."
Has this been a good week for Gordon Brown? Everything is relative, I suppose and he's had worse ones recently. As with the French Revolution it is probably too early to tell if it has been a good week, but it has certainly been a significant one.
It certainly hasn't been plain sailing this week:
After a week like that, it could be argued that mere survival could be described as a success!
The Prime Minister's week has, of course, hinged on the 10p Tax Rate compensation package and I believe that this might well have bought him some time with the electorate. It was probably as well received by the right-wing press as Gordon Brown could have hoped for. For the first time in some time Brown managed to avoid giving his detractors a stick to beat him with. The Financial Times said "The retreat might turn out to be the moment when the government fightback began" and the Daily Mail concurred "it is nonsense to argue...that the 10p debacle is a fatal wound... the Prime Minister has listened to the public and acted to rectify his error". The Tory party criticised him for incompetence in withdrawing the 10p Tax Rate- which they originally endorsed- and criticised him for introducing a compensation package - which they had been calling for- and offered no alternative despite repeated questioning on the point.
The compensation package isn't perfect but it is a very good response, that much was clear from George Osborne's flabbergasted response to the announcement and offers the Labour party a new line of attack against the Tories: "they want to cut taxes for the rich with reduced inheritance tax and stamp duty on shares and we have made 22 million lower-paid workers better off". Hopefully, we can now be spared the ludicrous spectre of the Tories pretending that they are even slightly concerned about the plight of the poor. That will save me from the discomfort of my stomach being turned by Cameron's crocodile tears, at least.
This move was followed-up with the strong response to Wendy Alexander by her Scottish parliamentary party which reinforced Brown's grip on his party and removed that line of attack against him.
And this was followed in turn by the Prime Minister's draft legislative programme; the second he has announced less than twelve months into the job with the first still only partly implemented. The four themes that make up his 'vision', are either quintessentially Brown projects (developing individual potential and economic stability) or typically New Labour (devolution of power and personalised public services). The strategy of presenting Brown as the embodiment of continuity and change simultaneously appears to be back on the agenda, which is a smart move. Again, this programme is not beyond criticism- the NHS constitution isn't a policy after all, it's merely corporate rebranding- but it did have a clear structure and it could not realistically be accused of being gimmicky. Brown has left himself open to that charge too often recently and again this shows that he has learned, as well as hinting at the substance which was his major selling point during his honeymoon, the so-called 'Brown bounce'.
Again, the Tories were left with little room for dispute by the substance of the announcement and their main line of attack was that many of the policies were stolen from them. I think everyone realises that both parties are guilty of poaching centrally-located ideas from one another and has almost come to accept it. But isn't it equally true to say that the little patch of centre-ground that both parties are trying to plant their flag in is so small that overlap and repetition is simply inevitable?
This week has seen Brown take another personal mauling from Cameron and his cronies, but he has become visibly more confident as the week has gone on- he has demonstrated a greater control over his party rebels and moved the public debate back towards policy and away from personality. If he can continue to progress in this manner, then this has been a good week as it will have been the week that the tide turned. Next week's by-election may just come too soon for him, but it is not inconceivable that the vote could become the next step in his rehabilitation. If only someone can get through to him on the matter of 42-day detention, the Labour party could actually be back in business as a party who are serious about staying in office.
This piece has just hit the wires and is, in its current form, pretty thin on detail but it appears that Brown is prepared to compromise over the unnecessary and ill-thought out 42-day detention without charge proposal. If true, it is good news that Brown is again listening to the concerns of his parliamentary colleagues. But a compromise is not enough.
Gordon Brown could show himself as a man of greater integrity by accepting the evidence than he would by sticking dogmatically to a bad policy. It is an opportunity to set the political agenda. He would be foolish to pass this opportunity up.
I have posted the following in response to a thoughtful post by "Dave, the Void on Fire" on Complex System of Pipes and would encourage you to read the original post.
The rise of fascist-sympathising political parties to power in Italy is astonishing and saddening in equal measure. In pockets across Europe, there are worrying signs that fascism is considered as almost an acceptable part of the political landscape. Across Europe we have seen the scapegoating of immigrants by mainstream politicians playing to the right-wing gallery and now, all of a sudden, the creeping Islamophobia that has become more or less acceptable doesn’t seem so trivial. The original post gave a great example by quoting the anti-Islamic rant made by Martin Amis. Who but Terry Eagleton really challenged Amis in the press? Why was the matter downplayed as an ‘Academic spat’? Even when Amis continued in another interview that he feels racist impulses and urges, the response was muted and conciliatory.
Derogatory terms such as “PC do-gooders” (like the epithet "looney left" twenty years ago) have been used to undermine those who stand up to casual discrimination with the result that it is less socially acceptable to pull someone up over an Islamophobic slur than to make one.
In Italy, the successful campaign by the new Roman Mayor made use of posters showing a glum-looking Native American and worded (I’m paraphrasing from memory) “This was his country, now he lives on a reservation”. Is that so far removed from the current “British Jobs for British Workers”/”Must speak English and assimilate our culture” rhetoric that the main players in UK politics are happy to engage in?
I posted earlier this week that senior Guardian political journalists Andrew Rawnsley and Polly Toynbee appeared to have given up on the Prime Minister as a man who can lead Labour to victory in the next General Election. I said at the time that only Jackie Ashley of the paper's prominent writers was still on his side. Well, having had a good few days, I can confirm that today's article confirms that she still is. There are early indications that he may be finding his way again after six months of more-or-less unremitting tribulation and- premature though she may be- Jackie is only to be happy to have her pom-poms out again!