The fight back - Is this how Gordon Brown can get back on top?

This is my editorial in the new year issue of the Fabian Review, which The Observer reports this morning, on how Gordon Brown should fight back in 2008. Fabian Review is published 3rd January 2008 and is a 'World After Bush' special issue. Join the Fabians to get a copy.

THE FIGHT BACK

The government's Autumn horribilis has made Gordon Brown the underdog. The country must now hear his public argument for a Labour government.
---
The Conservatives are now favourites to win the next general election.

A mixture of bad luck (the lost child benefit discs), poor judgment (the election that never was) and inexplicable stupidity (party staff failing to properly declare donations) has seen Labour buffeted by events ever since a hubristic Autumn conference. Still, the opposition's lead in the polls is much closer to those achieved by Neil Kinnock in 1986 and 1991 than those of Tony Blair before 1997.

This is the first time since 1992 that who will govern is again an open question. That is not just a threat to Gordon Brown - it could be his opportunity too.
Britain's political cycle has been in a state of suspended animation for fifteen years, ever since the ERM crisis destroyed the Tory reputation for competence. Blair and Brown took full advantage, combining a strong economy with record investment in public services, while the Conservatives showed no interest in learning the lessons of defeat.

By 2005, Labour had lost popularity but were saved because Michael Howard proved the Conservatives had not changed. We had the strange spectacle of the governing party spending millions in the campaign trying to persuade sceptical voters that their opponents could win.

This time, the possibility of a Conservative government is very real. David Cameron will face, as he has not to date, the scrutiny a would-be Prime Minister should expect. His fragile truce with party traditionalists will come under pressure, especially over Europe and Cameron's tactical decision to sign up to Labour's spending plans.

Gordon Brown's task is to show that he can regain the initiative and make the political weather. Rather than seeking to rise, as Prime Minister, above party politics, he needs to lead a government and party which thinks politically, making a public case as to what a Labour government would do which a Conservative government would not.

So what should a Brown fightback involve?

Firstly, a period of calm to restore stability is needed. A twelve year old government can not win on competence alone. But it is an essential foundation.

Secondly, party funding reform and an elected second chamber are now essential for a clean break. That nobody was charged in cash for honours should not have been taken as a signal to carry on as before. Labour introduced laws to make funding transparent. But transparency has exposed the lack of public legitimacy of how we fund British politics. Breaking the rules that Labour introduced, by accepting proxy donations, was unforgiveable.

Union funding did not get Labour into this mess. But Labour has now lost the public legitimacy to oppose an overall cap applying to union funding as part of a reform deal. Instead, we now should take this opportunity to strengthen union engagement and Labour membership - mobilising individual union levy payers as full participants in party democracy.

While state funding is necessary, it will be more difficult to win public support. It should be up to individual voters to direct public funds to any party, or none. Public funds should support for political education and engagement, not election posters. Overall limits in expenditure will be essential, to contain the influence of money in politics.

But Brown's main challenge is to set out the positive argument for 'change' which can rebuild his electoral coalition. Over the next two years, broad progressive opinion in Britain will be deciding whether it has a significant stake in re-electing a Labour government or not.

It is a question which can be answered by a powerful progressive manifesto. At the heart of this should be concrete action on ending child poverty and narrowing the gap in education alongside a new democracy settlement, including a written constitution and Lords reform.

If opposition politicians and commentators want to make Gordon Brown the underdog in this election, they could be making a dangerous mistake. But perhaps, like Harry Truman before the 1948 US election, Brown should relish the mantle. That could be precisely the way to make the political fightback that Labour needs.
SK

Fabian Review http://fabians.org.uk/publications/review/winter-07-foreign-policy/

Display: Sort:

Re: good article (#1)

The Observer published a summary of this article with what I thought was an anti-Labour spin.


I think you are spot on. Being the underdog may do us no harm at all.


The Tories haven't really changed; they are on their best behaviour but despite all the tree-hugging and the photo opportunities, at heart they are still an unreconstructed party of the right.


Being ahead in the polls will embolden the Tories and many of their MPs will be less inclined to hide their true colours and will start overplaying their hand, reminding people why they didn't vote Tory in the last three elections.


Also, if they are seen as a 'government in waiting' they may well find that the media and the public subject them to much more probing scrutiny, making the shallowness and superficiality of the Cameron 'project' ever more apparent.


Our situation is certainly not terminal. There was a poll out on Friday which had a 5% Tory lead (ICM in the Guardian), and it would appear that the inflated Tory leads of recent weeks were a simple reaction to the media feeding frenzy over the missing discs. If we really want to win (unfortunately, after reading the posts of some people on LabourHome I would emphasise the word 'if') and we're prepared to fight for it, there is no reason why we should not be able to get that fourth term.


Re: The fight back (#2)

"At the heart of this should be concrete action on ending child poverty and narrowing the gap in education alongside a new democracy settlement, including a written constitution and Lords reform."

Climate Change wasn't mentioned once in this piece.  Does this mean it isn't taken seriously by Labour?  Not as seriously as Lord Reform, for example - perhaps we should give them snorkels for when the chamber is flooded?

Re: The fight back (#3)

The loss of a disk which should never have been posted is incompetence, not bad luck. The Home Office constantly revising its figures is also incompetence. The Defra payments, the flood help... there is departmental incompetence and not enough is being done to get to grips with it by ministers. Have a look at job descriptions in the civil service and tell me the Home Office, for one, knows what its doing.

Secondly, it is not enough to be competent, one must also be seen to be competent and that never makes good copy. Exactly who can we rely on to tell the voters that we're, er, not messing up as much as before?

Lastly, I wonder what grounds we have to think that the emphasis on progressing existing policies on constitution and child poverty will counter Cameron's free-market, green-tinged, choice-driven, family-centred direction.  Aren't we already in a battle to compete on choice in public services and measures to combat climate change? Do we withdraw from the field to spend more time on technical constitutional changes which have so far sucessfully highlighted differences within the Labour Party at at time when we are behind in the polls? How does one tackle child poverty without increasing taxation - on top of green taxes and growing debt servicing?

The policies espoused are good in themselves but not so relevant, I submit, to getting Brown back on top. 

Re: The fight back (#4)

The fight back starts ...after the holidays; from January 1st. Compliments of the Season to All!

Re: The fight back (#7)

What better start to a New Year than a Cabinet change, By now Gordon should have worked out which ministers are worth keeping on and which he should now get rid of and which are a liability to the Govt. He's paid his debts to colleagues to get himself sworn in as PM. hate to say this but Darling is so much seen as a tool of Brown no one has any confidence in him; We need a strong personality as Chancellor, someone who can stand upto the PM. I know it creates friction, but its always been that way. We need a strong personality at Defence to get us speedily out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop the madness of Trident. We need a strong personality at Energy to make the case for Nuclear Power. We need someone like Frank Field but stronger at Works and Pensions to really sort out Welfare Reform, now. And a strong person at Education to stop this nonsense of Faith Schools, although Ed Balls is doing ok and so is Hazel Blears at Communities. And we need a strong person at the Home Office to admit to 28 days but push through the ID card. And a strong person at the FO to distance ourselves from America and bring us more in line with Europe. The fightback begin with a cull. I wonder if Brown is the man to do it.

Fight back with what? (#5)

Given that  GB was effectively running domestic affairs during the Blair premiership, which led to a more unequal society through mind boggling policies, such as working and child tax credits (how somebody on a sink estate in Coventry was supposed to understand them and then later make a claim without getting themselves into a situation where they then owe the state money beats me). What are you going to fight back on?"New Labour more war and more inequality"?

 

Re: Fight back with what? (#6)

Just because you're to stupid to understand tax credits doesn't mean people on a "sink estate" can't.

Firstly, they aren't complicated, but they are time consuming to work out.

Secondly, you can get help from the CAB and numerous other organisations in order to fill in the forms.

It's typical of the stupidity of the right to condemn a benefit that's needed.

Re: Fight back with what? (#8)

Well they confuse me, and like a lot of other people I really haven't the time to work them out. And why should we rely on the CAB and Advice Agencies to help us out; they're busy as it is dealing with bad debts and overpayments and letters threatening to take people to court if they don't return the overpayment which was probably been spent months ago. What people want is a simpler, clearer way of taxing people and a more transparent benefits system.

Re: Fight back with what? (#9)

Well, to be fair, you advocate the invasion of a state with a proven nuclear weapon capacity, so I don't really think it's a surprise that they confuse you. You aren't blessed with the gift of understanding.

Re: Fight back with what? (#10)

Thank goodness Academics only advise and Politicians do, otherwise we'ed be in an even sorrier state.