Politics

16 May 2009

Martin Bright reviews the week in politics

We’ve seen it all before: a tired, discredited candidate devoid of ideas, a demoralised party in denial over the gravity of the situation it faces, a blinkered, cultish cabal surrounding the man at the top. It’s as if the Labour high command has been using last year’s catastrophic mayoral campaign by Ken Livingstone as a template for Gordon Brown’s leadership. It risks making precisely the same mistakes made in London. Frozen by fear and an inability to ditch a discredited candidate, the party stubbornly sticks with the devil it knows out of a misplaced sense of loyalty.

It is not for me to say whether the Labour party should ditch Gordon Brown, although I understand why columnists who once placed their hopes in the Prime Minister feel the need to disown him now. Brown has called for ‘extreme action’ in response to MPs’ expenses claims, an unfortunate choice of phrase for a man notorious for his indecisiveness. It will be near impossible to draw a line under this. Politicians at Westminster know full well that the expenses scandal will not end here. When the full details of allowance claims are published over the summer the local media will make it their business to hold obscure sitting MPs to account for the most trifling purchase.

I have lost count of the times I have written that Labour party morale is at an all-time low. It is possible that it was worse in 1970, 1979 or 1992, but it must be a close-run thing. Certainly it is difficult to imagine a time when the political class was more despised. There is a significant phenomenon which emerges as parties lose the will to fight: it’s called the ‘spouses syndrome’. This is particularly sapping for Cabinet ministers. But partners of Labour MPs across Britain will be saying over the weekend breakfast in the constituency: ‘You put in all these hours working for your constituents. You’re never at home. And still they think you’re a crook. What’s the point?’

There is something profoundly and specifically damaging to the government about the expenses revelations. Take for example Hazel Blears, a woman who prides herself on her loyalty, integrity and working-class background, who is paying £13,000 to the Inland Revenue to save her reputation. This is considerably more than someone living on the minimum wage in her constituency would earn in a year. It is quadruple what someone who lost their job in the recession could claim in Jobseeker’s Allowance in that time. This is a potentially defining moment in the history of Labour because it hits at the very idea of itself as the party of the underdog.