Let’s not be under any illusions. Gordon Brown’s tempestuous reign at No 10 is nearly at an end. All that remains to be seen is whether he will fall on his own sword or let his “party comrades” nonchalantly do the job for him. Any resulting leadership election will of course be somewhat an exercise in futility. Quite apart from the fact that there are few “Big Beasts” brave or foolhardy enough to take up the poisoned chalice of leadership, anyone who does decide to step up will merely serve as a meek caretaker to the end of New Labour’s 13-year tenure in political office. Labour will, bar some kind of political miracle, be lambs to the slaughter come next May, and although it’s unlikely they will be superseded by Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats as the official opposition party, the Conservatives will almost certainly form the next government and David Cameron will be our next Prime Minister.
Anyone unfamiliar with my political leanings may be forgiven for assuming I am a triumphant Tory, gleefully penning these assumptions as I eagerly await the downfall of Labour and the return of the “natural party of government” to office. While I am certainly no Conservative, and although I’d be happy to see the back of New Labour for a number of reasons, I certainly don’t relish the inevitability that is a country led by Cameron and George Osborne. In fact I actually pity Gordon Brown and his failure to succeed in office because, in many ways, the strengths he held over his predecessor have ultimately led to his downfall. Where Blair dealt in histrionics and amateur dramatics, Brown represented stolid solidity. Where every syllable uttered by Blair was more spun than the contents of a tumble drier, Brown was refreshingly cumbersome and straightforward in his oration. Where Blair embodied a presidential leadership style of a kind not seen since Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, Brown, on paper at least, appeared to be a consensus leader.
Where did it all go wrong?
Gordon Brown certainly inherited his Prime Ministerial mantle at one of the worst possible moments in recent history. Entering office in 2007, Brown took over at a time when the long dormant seeds of global financial meltdown were beginning to bud in the UK in the form of Northern Rock. By late 2008 flabbergasted governments across the world were reaping the crop of toxic assets and liquidations: the product of two decades worth of financial deregulation and unaccountability. None of this was of course directly the fault of Gordon Brown, but trying telling that to a disgruntled electorate already fed up with foreign wars, rising unemployment and a government which has outstayed its welcome in office. Could it be that the position of Prime Minister was simply a case of the right job at the wrong time for Gordon Brown?
Alas, if only it were that simple.
If truth be told, although Brown has long been under fire for problems beyond his control, he has also incurred too many mistakes of his own making: The failure to call a general election and cement his mandate, dithering over the Lisbon Treaty, the numerous lapses in competence regarding public data protection, the Gurkha debacle and most recently the MPs’ expenses scandal. Labour’s flensing in the recent local elections and the humiliating rash of ministerial resignations may prove to be the final nails in the Labour government’s political coffin.
Sadly and unfairly, Brown will be made to carry the can for all of Labour’s failings. In this respect perhaps Labour have already found their caretaker in Brown: a browbeaten and embattled figure who can do little more now than sweep up the remnants of a collapsed regime and begin despondently pushing them towards the rubbish heap of history.
1 response so far ↓
Phil W // July 2, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
Re ‘the knives are out and soon the party will be over’:
I enjoyed reading this, but would take issue withthe notion that Gordon Brown, as chancellor, was not in large part responsible for the financial melt-down in the UK. It is true that the phenomenon has been global, but Brown made things worse by changing the regulatory regime soon after ‘new’ Labour came to office, and giving alleged independence to the Bank of England, while constraining them to ignore some relevant criteria when arriving at decisions concerning interest rates (e.g. house prices inflation). Also the policy of the government in which he served as chancellor, in common with those of other western nations, permitted large-scale off-shoring of work (in all industries) and mass immigration that led directly to over-investment and under-consumption, and the need to maintain low interest rates in order to prevent deflation. Low interest rates in turn led to an asset price boom, followed by the inevitable bust, which is where we are now.