How reform-minded Labour MPs should convince the party to topple Brown
James Forsyth 6:49pmIf I was a reform-minded Labour MP trying to persuade my like-minded colleagues to move against Gordon Brown, these are the arguments that I would deploy:
Things are as bad as the polls suggest: The latest ICM poll (which Pete blogged earlier) has the Tories on 47, twenty points ahead of Labour. Electoral Calculus predicts that on a crude swing this would lead to a Tory majority of more than 200. People tend to discount these numbers as traditionally the incumbent party recovers as the campaign goes on, as the election moves from being a referendum on the government to a choice between the parties. But given, as Mike Smithson has noted, that the Tory poll rating goes up every time Cameron is in the news, and Brown has the opposite effect on Labour’s numbers, there is no guarantee that Labour will close the gap enough during the campaign to prevent an epic defeat.
The size of the Tory majority will determine how Labour behaves in opposition: If the Tory majority is forty or below, the Labour party will not turn in on itself completely: the prospect of power will keep it sane. However, if the Tories win a two-term majority, then the temptation for Labour to indulge itself with a left-wing leader who appeals to the party but not the country will be immense.
Shadow cabinet elections: Everyone has rather forgotten this, but in opposition Labour MPs elect the shadow cabinet. A rump PLP could put some very odd folk in the shadow cabinet.
So, while Alan Johnson might not be any more ‘Blairite’ in actual policy terms than Brown, he might—by limiting the size of Labour’s defeat—prevent the party from lurching too far to the left in opposition. If Labour continue on with Brown, they could find themselves going down to the kind of defeat that condemns them to several terms in opposition.
Previous
Comments
Oscar
July 23rd, 2008 7:23pmJames - its a Mori poll that has the Conservatives 20 points ahead. The latest ICM poll had them a mere 15 points ahead.
J H Holloway
July 23rd, 2008 8:10pm'mere'
Is that irony?
Remember in the 2005 General Election, the Tories were only 3 points behind.
PJ
July 23rd, 2008 8:46pmThere's no such thing as a "two-term majority". Five years on from the previous election, people can change their minds, drop out of the electorate or enter it for the first time. Labour in 1945 won a huge majority but were out of power six years later. In 1966, the Socialists won another large majority, but were out of power four years later.
In America there are advantages to incumbency, particularly in terms of money raising (in House votes, incumbents outspend challengers by up to 10 to 1, and so House incumbents get reelected 90+% of the time). These advantages exist to smoe extent in Britain, but much more limited.
What is the point of saying that Labour "could" be in Opposition for several terms? They "could" be. Or they "could" bounce back. Or they could disappear entirely. Speculating about this is a waste of time, like speculating on the weather ten days, three months and two days from now.
John
July 23rd, 2008 9:33pmDon't worry, JHH - Oscar is a ZanuLab functionary, he can't be expected to get it.
labourite
July 23rd, 2008 9:50pmYes, and the Tories need an 11 point lead to get a majority of 1, and probably won't be the largest party unless they are 6 points ahead.
Cogito Ergosum
July 23rd, 2008 9:59pm"The size of the Tory majority will determine how Labour behaves in opposition"
Yes, indeed. Look at the opposite situation: after the massive Tory defeat in 1997 they spurned Ken Clarke as Leader and chose Party favourites.
Stewart
July 23rd, 2008 10:20pmThe Conservatives may have only been 3 points behind then but the electoral system was so weighted against them that it still resulted in a relatively heavy defeat. Not heavy compared to 97 and 01 but heavy none the less. Brown must stay and I think he will even if Labour's majority is cut in half or worse. I can't see them losing though. As funny as Labour losing would be, the SNP are just as bad and would be just as incompetent.
DM
July 23rd, 2008 10:27pmWho are the reform minded Labour MPs?? As far as I can see, not one of them has the moral courage to go public, argue them out (ie the reforms) and chuck Brown.
Kevyn Bodman
July 24th, 2008 4:48amWhy would you care whether or not the Labour Party elects a left-wing leader after its coming General Election defeat?
I think left-wing ideology has been thoroughly defeated.
Do you?
Or do you still have a fear that a big bad bogey man leftie might one day win a General Election in the UK?
And does that motivate your wish that the Labour Party doesn't go left?
If it's not that I don't know why you are concerned about the post-defeat direction of the Labour Party.
Marcus Cotswell
July 24th, 2008 9:15am@ Kevyn B:
It would have been better had he used the subjunctive in his opening sentence ("If I *were* ...") but the article is premised on James putting himself in the position of a reform-minded Labour MP.
I took "reform-minded" to mean roughly Blairite - but it's worth noting, perhaps, that the left would say Blairism is the status quo and it is they who are pro-reform.
JONNY
July 24th, 2008 10:34amI wouldn't be too hopeful LABOURITE Labour's built-in so-called '11 point' advantage will perform this time as expected. If their support across the board collapses as massively as it seems to be doing, maybe we should be a bit wary of relying on that particular optimistic comfort zone.
Ann
July 24th, 2008 1:18pm"A rump PLP could put some very odd folk in the shadow cabinet"
And this would be different from the utter lunatics and illiterates we've had in government since 1997 - how exactly?
Kenneth Clarke? The mouth-frothing Euro-lunatic? LOL.