Monthly Archives: May 2010

Britain’s progressive coalition was a non-starter – but Labour could still win

Posted on by
Reply

Britain has its first Conservative prime minister for 13 years – and its first coalition since the dying days of the second world war.

The Guardian's Polly Toynbee was urging a Labour-LibDem progressive alliance again in today's paper. But it was always an impossible dream. The time had long passed for Labour to lead a centre-left alliance. Tony Blair had the chance in 1997; he wanted to seize it, as Paddy Ashdown revealed in his diaries. But Gordon Brown and John Prescott torpedoed any possibility of a deal. Brown must regret his foolishness. Prescott, the old warhorse, won't care – he is a Berlin Bunker man.

Many thought Brown's first resignation (as Labour leader) was a masterstroke. It appeared to open the way to a Lab-Lib pact. But this always seemed unlikely. How could the Lib Dems deal with a party with no leader? And Labour has shown great judgement and dignity in deciding not to pursue a coalition to stay in power. John Reid had mixed motives, but he was absolutely right to warn of the dangers in creating a partnership of losers and nationalists. In the long term, Labour may well prove to be the big winner. Despite a disastrous election, Labour is still in sight of the Tories, as the coalition contest showed. Labour will be the only true opposition party, and will surely reap the rewards in tough times to come.

As a natural supporter of Labour and the Liberal Democrats, I find a Conservative-LibDem alliance hard to swallow. But Nick Clegg was right and honourable to say the Tories had the first right to try to form a government (even though constitutionally a rainbow coalition would have been just as legitimate had it garnered a Commons majority). I hope that the Lib Dems will housetrain the Tories, making this government far more palatable (even allowing for our perilous financial position) than the dark day when the deeply divisive Margaret Thatcher entered Downing Street in 1979. And some kind of electoral reform is essential.

The tragedy for all of us who believe in progressive politics is that it could have been so different. Had Labour really believed in fair votes and a progressive alliance, it would have sealed the deal back in 1998. It would have adopted Roy Jenkins' fair voting proposals and completed Tony Blair's 'project' to include the Lib Dems in government. But Labour's tribalists said no. And the party kept faith with Gordon Brown long after it was clear that Labour would do badly with him as leader in the 2010 election. Had Gordon gone, it's likely that Labour would have been far closer to the Tory result, making a Lab-LibDem deal far more realistic.  

So much for might have beens. We have a new government. Our first coalition for 65 years. And a true breakthrough for the Liberal Democrats, with Nick Clegg as deputy prime minister. I hope the party won't suffer. I hope Labour will regenerate quickly. Most people in Britain voted again for progressive parties. Shame on Labour for failing to allow a progressive alliance before it was too late.

Needless to say, many have expressed their utter disgust with a new Tory government. They may be proved right. But I believe in democracy. The Conservatives did better than any other party in the general election across Britain as a whole. They got more votes and more seats. The Lib Dems should temper their excesses. Let's not assume failure on the new government's very first day.

PS: nothing became Gordon Brown and his family as the way they left Downing Street. I'm proud of the way Gordon and Sarah protected their young sons during their time at No 10.

Saving Britain: Churchill became prime minister 70 years ago today

Posted on by
Reply

Photo: Karsh of Ottawa

As Britain waits to discover who will be its next prime minister, few have noticed that today is the 70th anniversary of our greatest premier taking office. 10 May 1940 was an extraordinary day. At dawn, Nazi Germany invaded Holland and Belgium. By nightfall, Winston Churchill had replaced Neville Chamberlain as prime minister.

Churchill’s appointment followed days of intense political drama, beating by far the events of May 2010. Chamberlain had been weakened by the failure of his appeasement policy, but it was the disastrous attempt to thwart Germany’s invasion of Norway that sealed his fate. The Labour opposition refused to serve in a coalition government headed by Chamberlain. Lord Halifax, the foreign secretary, recognised he wasn’t a war leader. So Winston took his place in history, as Britain’s very survival was at stake.

The night before, Churchill told his son Randolph, “I think I shall be prime minister tomorrow”. In the morning, with Nazi stormtroopers racing through the low countries, he cast the thought aside. But destiny was on his, and our, side. As he returned from Buckingham Palace as prime minister, Churchill had tears in his eyes as he told his detective that he was very much afraid it was too late. “We can only do our best.” But as we went to bed at 3am the following day, he reflected a profound sense of relief. “I felt as if I were walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and this trial.”

Contrary to legend, it took time for Churchill to win over the Conservative party – Rab Butler, for example, said the clean tradition of British politics had been sold to the greatest adventurer in modern political history. He though Winston’s accession was a disaster. Andrew Roberts and John Lukacs both show how hard Churchill had to resist pressure from the Tory grandees such as Lord Halifax to open talks with Mussolini and Hitler that fateful May.

Anyone keen to know what it was like working with Churchill during those extraordinary days must turn to John Colville. Colville was one of Winston’s private secretaries for most of the war years, and paints a vivid picture of Britain’s greatest prime minister in The Fringes of Power, his Downing Street diaries. He describes the formation of “one of the greatest administrations which has ever governed the United Kingdom”. Colville says Churchill was entirely unpredictable. He could be utterly inconsiderate, but won unswerving loyalty. Yet his humanity and humour shine through: when Colville took a telegram to the prime minister in June 1940, as France was on the brink of surrender, Churchill declared, “Another bloody country gone west, I’ll bet,”

Churchill himself wrote of those desperate days in his history of the second world war. He describes his last visit to France before nemesis struck. Arriving in Tours, he found the airport had been heavily bombed the night before, but his aircraft and escorts landed safely despite the craters. No one from the French government was there to meet him, and he borrowed a service car and drove into the city. He found a cafe, which was closed, but was given a meal after explanations. Eventually, French premier Reynaud arrived for anguished discussions about whether Britain would support France if she were to seek peace terms with Germany – an idea Churchill rejected.

That perilous flight set the pattern for the rest of the war. Churchill pioneered face to face ‘summit’ meetings with other leaders. Brian Lavery’s wonderful book Churchill goes to war recounts the amazing journeys the prime minister undertook between 1940 and 1945, crossing the Atlantic repeatedly and flying across enemy-held North Africa to visit Stalin in Moscow. In the words of the chief of the imperial general staff, Alan Brooke, “We had travelled all night in poor comfort, covering some 2,300 miles an a flight of over 11 hours … and there he was, as fresh as paint, drinking white wine on top of two previous whiskies and two cigars!”

Whoever becomes prime minister in May 2010 will have an easy ride by comparison.

The problem with The Observer’s urge for Lib Dems to embrace Labour

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s Observer urges the Liberal Democrats to partner Labour rather than the Conservatives, after Thursday’s general election led to a hung parliament.

As I blogged earlier, Nick Clegg’s Lib Dems face a cruel conundrum. Embracing the Tories may reflect the fact that David Cameron’s party won more seats and votes than anyone else. But the Conservatives oppose all the Lib Dems’ most cherished policies.

Yet the Labour alternative is equally appalling. It may offer a greater chance of electoral reform but the fatal block is Brown. Many voters will be appalled if the Lib Dems sustain the deeply unpopular Labour leader in power. Yet constitutionally, I’m uncertain how the Lib Dems can demand Brown goes but at the same time create a Lib-Lab pact. The Observer editorial suggests Brown should signal he will go within two years, but most people want him to go within two weeks. My father says Labour could elect a new leader in just one day, but even if that were true we’d face a huge issue about Britain getting a new prime minister who hadn’t been a party leader in the election.

The next week will be fascinating!

Clegg’s conundrum: Cameron or Brown?

Posted on by
Reply

Be careful what you wish for. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg faces an appalling dilemma this weekend. Should his party help David Cameron form a Tory government? Or partner the election’s biggest loser, Gordon Brown, to create a Lib-Lab pact?

Clegg made it clear on Friday that the Conservatives had won the right to try, as they won the greatest number of seats and votes in Thursday’s general election. Cameron quickly offered the Lib Debs a partnership, but one that would have required Clegg’s party to give up most of its cherished policies, especially on fair votes. The parties have been in talks ever since. 

Gordon Brown is desperate for the third party to choose Labour. His death bed conversion to electoral reform means that Labour offers the Lib Dems a far greater prospect of changing Britain’s corrupt voting system. But propping up such a deeply disliked – and defeated – prime minister would be very unpopular. 

Pundits are drawing parallels with the last time a British general election resulted in a hung parliament, in February 1974. (As a precocious 10 year old, I was fascinated by that election, supporting all the three main parties over the campaign.) The defeated Tory prime minister Ted Heath had to resign after the Liberals refused a coalition. But the circumstances are very diferent. Heath’s party was just four seats behind Labour, and actually won more votes. So either main party would have had a good claim to legitimacy had it formed a government. As it was, Harold Wilson became prime minister after winning three elections out of four as Labour leader. 

Owen takes the 1962 train to Harrow

Posted on by
Reply

“Why don’t you take Owen for a train ride?” suggested Karen. Owen loves trains, so it was a great idea for a Sunday morning outing.

We set off from Amersham, the country end of London Underground’s Metropolitan line. The train was older than me: it dated from 1962, the year of the Cuban missile crisis, when Harold Macmillan was Britain’s prime minister and JFK America’s president. It’s some consolation to know I’m still younger than some London tube trains, even if I’m older than David Cameron, the man who’s most likely be Britain’s next prime minister in the coming days!

Britain votes: reflections on general elections

Posted on by
Reply


A general election is a very special event. We might complaint about politicians and Britain’s unfair voting system, but I’m still humbled to have the chance to help decide who governs our country. Too many people in too many countries have no such right, or are intimidated if they dare vote for the ‘wrong’ candidate or party.

We voted in Chalfont St Giles’ village hall, which was built as a memorial to those who lost their lives during the Great War. What a striking reminder that we should never take freedom, and the right to vote, for granted.

What will be the iconic images of election night 2010? Will there be a ‘Portillo moment’?

Looking back over elections past, I remember talking to Conservative health minister Gerry Malone at a party during the 1997 campaign. He described the pleasure of campaigning in and around Winchester. “I drive from one end of my beautiful constituency to the other, passing through lovely villages.” I thought at the time it was a tad complacent, and so it proved. Malone lost by two votes to the Liberal Democrats’ Mark Oaten. (And was defeated by a far heavier margin when the Winchester election had to be re-run a few months later.)

It’s a century since the two general elections of 1910 paved the way to a modern democracy. Within 18 years women finally secured equal voting rights. Let’s hope tonight’s results help secure the final step: a fair voting system. In the meantime, let’s celebrate the greatest of civic rights: the right to vote. 

In praise of tactical voting

Posted on by
4

Tactical voting is the love that dare not speak its name. If you're a life-long and passionate party supporter, the idea of voting for another party is like a Tottenham fan cheering for Arsenal.

But many of us don't identify so firmly with a party. We have beliefs and values, not a party card. And Britain's deeply undemocratic voting system disenfranchises millions of people who live in constituencies in which their votes will always be 'wasted' as their chosen parties will never win.

So I have very little sympathy with the idea that tactical voting is somehow dishonourable. Spare your moral anger for the scandal of the first past the post voting system. And if you're on the left, ponder the long years in which Britain's progressive parties – Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the nationalists – enjoyed a majority of the popular vote but endured Tory governments with big majorities. The days when the two big UK parties grabbed almost all the votes have long gone. 

The other reason to commend tactical voting is that it's the only way under our corrupt voting system for voters to be sure of getting what they want. Keen to avoid a majority Conservative government? Well, don't vote Labour in a seat where the Lib Dems are the only possible challengers. (The same applies, of course, in reverse in a Tory seat where Labour is a close second.) 

Some say: vote with your heart, not your head. And I totally understand that party workers would be disgusted to see their hard work rewarded with party supporters voting for the other side. But Britain's future is more important than any parties' interest. First past the post is inherently immoral. If you want change, you need to use your vote wisely. And that may mean voting for your second choice. 

The tragedy of the New Labour years

Posted on by
2

Thirteen years ago today, Britons went to the polls on a glorious spring day and gave Tony Blair's Labour Party a stunning, landslide victory. The result was a triumph for Blair, who promised a new, cleaner politics after years of 'Tory sleeze'. The country seemed thrilled at what it had done. 

Labour's huge majority was unprecedented in the modern era. Only one other post-war government had come to office with a landslide – the 1945 Attlee administration. It gave Blair huge moral authority to change Britain and create a new politics. 

At first, the Blair era lived up to those sky-high hopes. Gordon Brown passed interest rate decisions to the Bank of England. Wales and Scotland enjoyed varying degrees of home rule. Blair played a pivotal role in securing the historic Good Friday agreement, paving the way to lasting peace in Northern Ireland. And the national minimum wage was a boost for the lowest paid. In time, the party reversed years of under-investment in the NHS and schools (although many doubted how wisely that money had been spent).

But Labour soon dashed hopes that it would be whiter than white in power. It took a huge donation from the Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone just before scrapping plans to ban tobacco sponsorship of the sport. It abolished hereditary membership of the House of Lords but replaced one form or patronage with another – Tony's cronies, or appointed peers. It turned the government communications service into a spin cycle, with a deeply partisan head of communications (Alastair Campbell) instructing civil servants. That led to the disgraceful hounding of an honourable man, the government scientist Dr David Kelly, who killed himself under the pressure. Trust in Labour never quite recovered after the Kelly affair, even though the party won a further general election in 2005. 

The decision to support American president George W Bush's invasion of Iraq – and to make the case for intervention with a deeply dodgy dossier of claims – was surely the defining moment of the post 1997 Labour era. A million people marched to protest against the war, but to no avail. Blair was determined to support his unlikely friend, regardless of the white lies it took to get parliament to vote for war. 

Labour's years in power were also derailed by the poisonous dispute between its two greatest powers: Blair and Brown. The feud reflects very badly on both men, but Brown has been revealed as the most flawed and destructive influence. He believed he had a god-given right to become prime minister. Eventually, Blair gave in and left Downing Street. Labour made a terrible mistake in anointing Brown as leader, and prime minister, without an election. Enough people inside and outside the party warned that Brown would be a disastrous prime minister. But Labour was too cowed by Brown's bullying tactics to hold a contest. And the credit crunch and recession destroyed Brown's greatest claim to the top job: his management of the economy for 10 years. He deserves some credit for steering Britain towards economic recovery, but as the Tories found in 1997, voters don't show gratitude to governments that clear up their own car crash. 

Brown's death bed conversion to electoral reform reveals his true colours. Labour had a golden opportunity to introduce a fairer voting system. Its 1997 landslide made reform possible but unlikely – the party should have known that the electoral cycle would run its course. Labour and the Liberal Democrats are natural allies, whatever the tribalists in both parties might think. Yet the first past the post system gave the Tories decades of power from a minority of votes. Labour's failure to act until its dying days in power may have given David Cameron the same advantage. 

All governments and political careers end in failure. But it's a tragedy that the high hopes of 1 May 1997 have been dashed in such spectacular fashion that Labour could end up in third place in the polls. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown should be ashamed.