Brown is not the problem

10 May 2008

The Spectator on Labour's faltering fortunes

But the Labour movement’s collective decision to blame the PM and the PM alone for all its afflictions is intellectually lazy as well as morally contemptible. For all his failings, Mr Brown ran rings around all his rivals for 13 long years. He also established a global reputation — deserved or otherwise — as a world-class chancellor. The errors he made in the Treasury are coming back to haunt him now. But as a politician his achievements — stamina, cunning, strategy — have been remarkable. If Mr Brown is so dreadful, why did his party roll over and allow him to succeed Mr Blair as Labour leader and Prime Minister uncontested last June? All those who are now mentioned as alternative leaders had their chance in 2007. None took it.

It is not enough to say that the Brownite machine terrorised MPs, union leaders and activists into submission (although it certainly did its best). In truth, and shamefully, it suited Labour all round for Mr Brown to become the party’s first leader since George Lansbury in 1932 to be crowned rather than elected in a contest. The transition from Tony to Gordon — from one big beast to another — postponed the difficult internal reckoning about trajectory, priority and policy that the party so obviously required after 13 years under Mr Blair’s leadership.

On any number of fronts, Labour needed a debate about its future. Should it pursue the Blairite ‘choice’ agenda in public service reform or settle for Mr Brown’s less radical mix of central control and ‘personalisation’? How far was the post-Blair government willing to go in overhauling the welfare system, and acknowledging that immigration would not be so high if indigenous Britons were willing to take the jobs presently filled by migrant labour? Was Mr Brown right to put such faith in tax credits? Was the party prepared to embrace radical security measures, including extensions of pre-charge detention for terror suspects, or did it wish to put liberty first? On the global stage, should the Labour government persist with Mr Blair’s policy of liberal interventionism?

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 Next page

Ray

May 9th, 2008 9:18am Report this comment

Spot on! McBean is not the real reason why the voters are angry; only the outward symbol. The truth is that the British people have at last seen through the Labour Party's naked socialism, clothed as it once was in nebulous semantics like 'the Third Way' and 'New Labour'.

john

May 12th, 2008 11:36am Report this comment

The spectacle of a lame-duck government, ceremonially reclassifiying skunkweed every few years, is your answer. Blair changed his party, now the rump of a once brave vision. Brown can't. Brown is the problem.

Post comment