“So what do you think about Gordon Brown?” is a question that I have been asked by literally… one person. As it happens I don’t hold very strong views on whether he should stay or go, and that is probably not a good thing from his point of view: if he can’t enthuse party members of some years how can he expect to inspire the general public?
Mind you, I think this whole cult of personality thing is terribly over-rated anyway. I would be quite happy to have a PM with all the charm, charisma and presence of John Major if they were visibly pushing through policies that contributed to the making the country, or even the world, a better place. That is why I don’t see Brown’s perceived aloofness as a problem, although no doubt it contributes greatly to his current situation.
When it comes to the whole leadership debate I have several views that pull in different directions. One thing I believe is that the Labour party should be sticking by it’s leaders and supporting them. I believe it is not in our tradition to topple leaders. On the other hand, Gordon Brown set a precedent when he spent years undermining Blair so there is a certain sense of feeling that is an element of just desserts involved here now.
Another thing I believe is that the Labour party should be a bastion of democracy and equality, with everybody having a chance to participate in choosing the direction of the party and it’s leaders, and to put themselves forward for any positions. It certainly happens at branch and constituency level, sometimes to excess when the most trivial matter has to go through all the formalities. For that reason, I was unhappy last year when Gordon appeared to be doing everything he could to avoid having any sort of contest.
He may have thought that a contest would be damaging. It would be a fair point: the Democratic selection contest was hard-fought and possibly damaging, as the two candidates supplied an endless amount of ammunition for the Republicans to eventually use against the whoever the winner would be, but I still disagree with that viewpoint.
If the outcome of Blair and Brown’s infamous meeting at Granita had been different and Gordon Brown had led the party into the 1997 election I think he would have done a good job. I like to think he would have been more progressive than Blair and used his huge majority to force through legislation that made even more of a difference. But he didn’t get that chance. When he got his chance the world economy was falling to pieces and there was not a lot he could do about it. He is not a bad man, but he is unlucky. As soon as he took over he had to cope with floods, foot and mouth and all sorts of things. Not his fault. Just bad luck.
Maybe we could do with somebody lucky in charge? Mind you, look around at the state of the whole global economy now and realise that whoever is in the hot seat will be attracting the blame for any knock-on effects and, by definition, anybody who stepped into Brown’s shoes could hardly be called lucky!
On reflection, he could do worse than do what John Major did in 1995 and initiate a leadership contest himself: about the only good thing he ever did and the only interesting thing he did. ((at the time we didn’t know he was shagging Edwina, remember)) OK, so it didn’t work out too well for him in the end but it stopped the frenzy. Who knows, winning a contest for the leadership might even give Gordon a new sense of legitimacy, purpose and empowerment and the confidence to make those hard decisions about shifting the tax burden away from the lower paid and up to the high-earners while there are still some left.
I just wish they would let him get on with the job.
I see that he is reported to have brokered the Halifax HBOS deal…Good man leadership in difficult times.
That should have been LTSB/HBOS deal.
Interested in your view that the Labour party is a bastion of democracy and equality. How does that work then when many members get more than one vote for the leader ie. Union Vote, as an “ordinary” member, member of the Fabian Society etc. etc.?
Going from memory (so I may be wrong) didn’t one of your former colleagues on Crawley Borough Council get 5 votes? And what about people like me (a Lib Dem Councillor) getting a vote for the Labour deputy leadership as I happen to be a member of a Trade Union? (And before you ask I did not use the vote as I thought I could not inflict more problems on the Labour Party than they have already…….).
See how open we are? We even let you vote, Gordon!
The weight of a union member’s vote is a lot less than that of a full party member’s, however.
If you are into party political sniping though, did you have anything to do with Cleggy’s phone spamming last night?
Cleggy who thought the Basic pension was £30 a week!!! He is like a Cameron mini-me.
You will notice, Gordon, that I think the Labour party “should be” a bastion of democracy and equality. Like unions should be. I do recognise that it could be better but don’t see why that should stop me being idealistic.
I don’t think anyone actually got 5 votes, although I might be wrong. Laura would have had three votes – as a constituency member, as an MP and as a union member though one of those votes was worth a lot more than the other two put together.
I’m also torn between a view that GB should follow John Major’s “put up or shut up, back me or sack me” approach and voluntarily call a new party election for leader (not for PM, note). However, from what I remember of the Major episode, it might have temporarily lanced the boil, and drew out Mr Spock as a challenger, who was quickly dispensed with, but the underlying dissent just festered ever stronger once Major won and reasserted his place. All that happened is the arguments between the eurosceptic wing and the europhile wing became more insular, and positioning of individuals instead began to happen in the anticipation that the next election would be lost, which, surprise, it was.
Of course the Labour government does not split on the same lines, but it does split between the modernisers and the old-style statists, and after the financial panics this week I’ll predict that the old, distracting capitalism / socialism argument will surface within the rank and file. The risk is then like the Tories in 1995-6-7, you have a party too busy arguing against itself to look at what the people’s concerns are any more.
Point taken Skuds re-“should be” – and I know you are (unlike another blogger of our acquaintance) prepared to criticise your party in public when it’s needed.
So if I’ve understood Danivon’s posting correctly not only is it possible to vote more than once some votes count for more that others? Or am I missing something in the phrase “democracy” here.
[Or maybe not as the original democrats – the Greeks – had a property qualification that prevented slaves from voting, so it’s never been the safest system; and the denizens of the USofA seem to think you have to be wealthy to be elected to anything more than town dog-catcher and they say they are the most advanced democracy in the world.]
Danivon’s remarks reminds me of the old Alas Smith & Jones sketch when the four (five?) union leaders were deciding on whether to have tea or coffee during a negotiations break. All bar one hand went up for coffee but they got tea ‘cos the one hand was from the union leader who had mote votes under his control than the others put together…….
PS. The anti-spam word for this posting is “doom”. Is this a reflection of the present Labour Conference!?!?!? :-))
Democracy only means rule of the people. It doesn’t have to mean one-person-one-vote, or even that each vote has equal weight, although that is the theoretical ideal.
Constructive criticism has to be better than blindly re-cycling party press releases. Every improvement has to start with some form of criticism doesn’t it?
As a keen political observer, Gordon, I’m sure you are more familiar with the way our electoral college is made up than I am, and why it is much fairer than the old block voting which was just an internal version of first past the post, so I won’t rise to your bait.
Of course even democracy can have it’s drawbacks. Your reference to that sketch reminds me of what Larry Flynt said: “The majority rule only works if you’re also considering individual rights. Because you can’t have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.”