Tag Archives: Labour

How Keir Starmer’s woes echo Thatcher’s grim opening years

Posted on by
2
Unhappy new year headlines for Labour

This is a bleak midwinter for Keir Starmer’s Labour government. Elected by a landslide just six months ago, Labour is sinking fast in the polls, and the modest enthusiasm that greeted its election has long since disappeared. Strategic messaging and policy mistakes have led to despair amongst many supporters, and jubilation from the populist insurgent party, Reform UK, now neck and neck with Labour in the polls.

True, at least some of the backlash is the traditional reaction to a Labour government from Britain’s dominant right wing press. All too often the BBC falls for the mistaken view that it has to amplify every right wing criticism of Labour. And people tend to be more fickle these days – a trend that benefitted Labour as it went from its worst election defeat for 84 years in 2019 to a landslide victory last year. But most observers accept that Labour has made an exceptionally poor start, even allowing for its dreadful inheritance.

Lessons from Thatcher’s experience

Labour’s collapse in support and morale so soon after being elected is very unusual, especially for a party winning power from opposition. The only comparable example, ironically, is an encouraging precedent for Labour. Margaret Thatcher has now passed into legend as the iron lady: indomitable, unyielding and triumphant, at least until hubris took over after her third election win in 1987. The reality is more interesting.

In the autumn of 1981, Margaret Thatcher was under siege. Just over two years into her premiership, her monetarist economic policy (trying to reduce inflation by controlling the amount of money in the economy) had proved disastrous. Having condemned Labour for presiding over rising unemployment (‘Labour isn’t working’ in the words of an infamous poster) and inflation, the Thatcher government’s policies contributed to far more job losses. In her first three years, Britain lost a quarter of its manufacturing capacity. The nightly news bulletins were dominated by reports of yet more famous brands laying off staff, or going bankrupt.

The cause in many cases was the soaring value of the pound, caused by high interest rates, which made our exports hugely expensive. (In late 1979, chancellor of the exchequer Geoffrey Howe raised interest rates to a crippling 17 percent largely because investors were not willing to lend money to the government – the so-called gilt strike, which shows that the gilts (government bonds) crisis that did for Liz Truss had an unexpected precedent in her heroine’s traumatic early years.)

Continue reading →

Blame Blair and Brown for Corbynmania

Posted on by
2

Why no-one is listening to Blair: Chris Riddell in The Observer

Why no-one is listening to Blair: Chris Riddell in The Observer

The battle for the Labour Party’s soul is raging. The man who led the party to victory in an unprecedented three general elections has issued apocalyptic warnings of the consequences of electing Jeremy Corbyn as leader. Tony Blair says that under Corbyn Labour would be routed, and possibly annihilated.

I’m no Corbyn supporter or Labour party member, but I find it breathtaking that Tony Blair or Gordon Brown have the cheek to lecture people on whom to vote for. While they created an election winning machine and made voting Labour fashionable – for which they deserve great praise – their deadly feud threw away the huge opportunity that Labour had to transform Britain after May 1997. Brown was the worst culprit, obsessed by a corrosive sense of betrayal at Blair’s election as Labour leader in 1994. He took every opportunity to undermine Blair, while Blair always shrank away from moving Brown from the Treasury, for fear of the consequences. Yet Labour and Britain paid a heavy price for this tragically dysfunctional government.

Continue reading →

Britain on the brink: the SNP and the 2015 general election

Posted on by
2

The unionist Tories big up SNP's Sturgeon. Reality will be different

The unionist Tories boost SNP’s Sturgeon. Reality will be different

You could never accuse the British establishment of being intelligent. Almost a century ago, its brutal response to Ireland’s 1916 Easter Rising ensured the departure of the 26 counties from the United Kingdom. David Cameron is doing his very best to repeat the trick 100 years on with Scotland.

I don’t blame the Tories for having fun at Labour’s expense over the rise of the SNP. But talk of the SNP holding the country to ransom is very foolish. The Scottish nationalists are completely entitled to use its bargaining power in the new parliament. That’s how parliament and the constitution work. More fool the Tories and Labour for allowing the survival of our corrupt and undemocratic voting system. It’s unlikely the SNP would be in the same powerful position had justice prevailed with the introduction of a more proportional voting system.

As Jonathan Freedland says in today’s Guardian, the Conservatives have been totally calculating in talking up the SNP. Chancellor George Osborne praised Nicola Sturgeon’s performance in the leaders’ debates. Why? To embarrass Labour. Yet the ploy was cynical and stupid at the same time. If the Tories were so horrified by the SNP supporting a Labour government, why praise that party’s leader?

Ironically, the SNP is likely to have less influence by ruling out any kind of unholy alliance with the Tories. It’s unlikely to repeat its 1979 folly in bringing down a Labour government. Ed Miliband may have more room for manoeuvre as a result, despite the Tory scaremongering.

Here’s my verdict after last September’s Scottish independence referendum:

“Out of touch London politicians have had the fright of their lives. Cameron, Miliband and Clegg complacently assumed that the result was a foregone conclusion. But when a single poll claimed a yes lead, they panicked. They cobbled together a promise of ‘Devo Max’ – home rule within the UK. Dave, Ed and Nick rushed up to Scotland to declare undying love for the country and plead with Scots not to file for divorce. It was desperate and unconvincing.”

Judging by their actions over the last month, those out of touch London politicians have learned nothing.

Emily Thornberry, Rochester and Labour’s crisis

Posted on by
2

Emily Thornberry white van tweet

This is the tweet that plunged the Labour party into crisis. Emily Thornberry was forced to resign after sending it as the Tories were losing the Rochester by-election to UKIP. The result? Labour, not the Tories, were seen to be the greatest losers from the fact sitting MP Mark Reckless retained the seat for UKIP after defecting from the Tories.

It’s a sorry tale that makes me despair even more about British politics. Here’s why:

Continue reading →

Britain moves left: Labour wins as voters punish coalition

Posted on by
Reply

Labour was the clear winner in yesterday’s local elections in England and Wales – and shared the spoils with the SNP in Scotland. Voters punished the coalition, whose performance this year has been abject. (Economy back in recession; a budget that took money from pensioners and gave it to the rich; three hour queues at Heathrow; the list goes on…)

It’s easy to explain away Labour’s good showing as the classic opposition gain from a government’s mid-term blues. But the Conservatives and Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats would be unwise to assume they’ll bounce back in the polls as the next general election nears. Spending cuts and state job costs have barely started.

The Liberal Democrats are in the bleakest position. As I wrote on the original Ertblog early in 2011, they have played their hand disastrously in government:

Above all, the Lib Dem leaders seem far too comfortable in their ministerial limos and offices, and far too little concerned about the catastrophic rush to slash and burn public services.

The happiest man in British politics tonight must be Ed Milliband (with Alex Salmond a close second). He’s faced constant criticism and sniping since beating his brother David in 2010’s leadership election. Praise for his stand against the Murdoch empire last year faded. But in recent months his fortunes are reviving. David Cameron is looking more like John Major at his most beleaguered than Tony Blair in his pomp. There’s no guarantee chat Milliband will be Britain’s next prime minister. But the idea no longer seems outlandish.

Britain’s new government: let’s praise our politicians and civil servants

Posted on by
Reply

Britain's politicians aren't the most popular people on the planet, especially after the MPs' expenses scandal. But they deserve great praise for the responsible, dignified and mature way they behaved after the May 2010 general election resulted in a hung parliament.  

Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg rose to the occasion, with statesmanlike speeches the day after the election. Negotiations were carried out without the usual leaks and briefings. And the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats made great compromises with good grace to create what I hope will be a stable and enduring government. 

Let's not forget the huge contribution made by Britain's highly professional and non-political civil service. It must have been a great professional challenge to respond to the uncertainties of the last six days and enable the new coalition government to take office just hours after the parties finally reached agreement. 

Changing a government is the greatest glory of a democratic country. In many countries, it would be an impossible dream. Last night's dramatic events reflect well on Britain.  

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.

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. 

The leaders’ debates: a good idea, but get them right in 2015

Posted on by
Reply

Britain finally adopted leaders' debates in the 2010 general election – and life may never be the same again.

The three 90 minute debates transformed the fortunes of Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats. They confirmed Gordon Brown's weakness in an era when easy charm pays dividends. And they posed a serious challenge to David Cameron, who surely assumed he was bound to become Britain's next prime minister.

But the series of debates was far from perfect. The third debate felt like one too many, as the leaders bombarded us with soundbites and questions were repeated from the first two encounters. (All three debates included a question about immigration.) The ban on audience applause or heckling didn't have as much an impact as I suspected it would, though it probably added to the boredom of the final debate. And, above all, the debates had an air of unreality as the leaders pretended there would be no great pain to come whoever wins the election. 

So debates are here to stay. And that must mean that no political party will ever again risk a leader so unsuited to debating and engaging with voters as as Gordon Brown.