Is the new Brown team compatible with the old one?
James Forsyth 6:34pm
Gordon Brown’s new team at Number Ten have received rave reviews. Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer today points out how cabinet ministers who were in despair before Christmas have been given hope by the new Downing Street operation while Fraser has—in these pages—warned the Conservatives not to underestimate the new Brown machine. But this new Brown team can only work if it can come to an accommodation with the old Brown crew; something which Gaby Hinsliff’s masterful piece in today’s Observer suggests is some way off.
If any of Brown’s new hires walk away before the election it will be seen as a sign that Brown is done for. As one senior government source told Hinsliff, 'Gordon can't allow Stephen to walk away, it would reflect on him. People would say he was impossible to work with'. Equally, the old Brownites are unlikely to take kindly to being squeezed out now that they have reached the summit: Douglas Alexander must have been seething to read his political obituary in The Observer this morning while those who have been with Brown for years won’t be thrilled by the new boy Stephen Carter moving into the office of the recently departed Spencer Livermore, the funeral baked meats coldly furnishing the marriage table never goes down well.
So, the nightmare for Brown is that his old guard start briefing against and trying to force out his new recruits. After all, the original Brownites spent a decade honing their skills at fighting their own side and it is hard to believe that the PR execs and ad men who Brown has hired would be any match for them once the back stabbing starts. Labour people are already thinking along these lines, with one former minister telling Hinsliff, 'I am not sure [Carter is] going to last'.
The challenge for Brown is to persuade his old loyalists not to seen the new recruits as a threat and to get the new hires to appreciate that they can’t start things from scratch however much they may want to. If Brown can’t do this, these much heralded changes will accelerate his fall rather than giving him a second chance.
Previous
Comments
J H Holloway
March 23rd, 2008 7:53pmBut what does it all add up to? That Team NuBrown can somehow turn the ship around and convince voters that another 4/5 years of Broon will be just the job on 1 May 2010?
Titanic.
Deckchairs.
salieri
March 23rd, 2008 8:07pmA certain amount of wishful thinking for some of us here, no doubt. But the abiding question is surely how the new boys will find it possible to work not just for but with someone who has never previously been known to collaborate or listen, in any meaningful sense of either word. We've been here before. They will all end up like so many other chewed fingernails before them.
Alan Scott
March 23rd, 2008 8:18pmGreat God! Sounds just like "I, Claudius" all over again. Or is that what you are trying to say?
Chuck Unsworth
March 23rd, 2008 8:29pmYes, I was wondering what the grinding noise was. Still, plenty of time for things to fall apart - again.
Nicholas
March 23rd, 2008 8:45pmI read the article and all the comments which in some ways were more interesting. Although the majority were dismissive of Rawnsley a couple stood out with the claim that if New Labour had acted on their manifesto pledge to reform the electoral system they would almost be guaranteed permanent power.
I don't understand that. Can someone please explain it?
Brown watcher
March 23rd, 2008 8:46pmIn the end staff are staff and those who mistake themselves for politicians will be toast. Anyone who has worked for a politician will know they are essentially in a master and servant relationship. So in that sense I think Stephen Carter hasn't much to worry about so long as he retains Brown's confidence. I also don't think Brown will make Thatcher's mistake (Alan Walters, anyone?) of thinking that staff are more important than real politicians. What happened to Spencer Livermore is not new - Charlie Wheelan got chucked overboard a decade ago.
Mike
March 23rd, 2008 9:28pmThe ins and out of old team brown vs. new team brown are largely irrelevant to the bigger picture. It's been said before but it bears repeating: If you have a large turd on a silver platter and a large tub of polish. No matter how good the polishers are, how highly paid and experienced, and how much better than the last lot of polishers; a turd is still a turd
Alex R
March 24th, 2008 12:20amI think the point is that the old guard "spent a decade honing their skills" for this point exactly. They wanted power as much as Brown did and aren't ready to see that marginalised with the introduction of new recruits.
Oscar Miller
March 24th, 2008 11:38amSounds like they're already out to Get Carter.
TrevorH
March 24th, 2008 4:58pmThe Rawnsley article is typical Observer fawning over Labour. The big laugh is the vitriol poured over it in the commments section. What we see is the labour party busy talking to itself. Carter is no genius - his carreer is clearly a trimph of optimism over ability, ask anyone connected with NTL. If a cabinet miniter is impressed by him then that shows how dumb labour ministers are. Another laugh is that Brown has surrounded himself by PR men and they have the nerve to accuse Cameron of being all 'PR, not PM'.
salieri
March 24th, 2008 9:18pmThe point Mike makes is the bottom line, as it were. The commentators (including several previous posts from James and Fraser) seem awestruck and even trepidatious at the supposed quality of the new messengers, but the fact that they are PR people says all we need to know. This is all about manipulation of public perception and has - can have - nothing whatever to do with the quality of the message. On the contary, its only purpose is to disguise its meaning, or rather its total lack of meaning. After 10 years of synthetic air-fresheners, do let's stop this fawning over the turd-polishers.