By Benjamin Wegg-Prosser
This weekend's polls show that politics is now returning to normal. Despite defying political gravity throughout the Autumn Gordon Brown has now been brought back to earth with a widening poll gap and a sense that his new year campaigning has not quite delivered. While the second wave of British bail-outs shows that there is no quick fix to the systemic crisis in the global financial system.
With the return of Ken Clarke to front-line politics and the elevation of William Hague we seem to have turned back the clock by more than a decade. The idea that there might be an election in less than six months seems crazy to me, but then I thought that Hilary was a sure fire bet to beat Obama, so what do I know.
The elevation of Eric Pickles to Tory Party Chair is further evidence that both parties intend to indulge in some fairly tough political combat. Having Chris Grayling as Shadow Home Secretary will certainly add some grit to Conservative policy campaigning.
Since the new year Gordon Brown had tried to get with the programme with some bolder moves. I for one missed much of the coverage of the train journey which he took after Christmas (I was lucky enough to be at the CES conference in Las Vegas) but from the look of things it did not quite shoot the lights out. It's no surprise that Obama's railway experience over the past few days has garnered more column inches than Brown's ever was going to.
But the Downing Street team should not let its modest impact put them off their track. For them to get some momentum going I would consider for some of the following:
1) Use the prestige of office as much as possible - I understand that when Gordon Brown came into Downing Street he was reluctant to be interviewed in rooms which his team associated with "Blair". I am glad these days are over. If the public are going to give him the benefit of the doubt come polling day then it'll be on the basis that he is the most serious and experienced leader on offer, rather than the most likeable and charismatic. The Marr interview a fortnight ago was a decent pitch to the public, in sharp contrast to David Cameron's offering the following week. God knows why the Conservative leader invited the cameras into his house when a) he only lives five minutes from BBC TV Centre and b) having successfully cultivated an image which is many rungs below his actual social status why show off the home furnishings which tell the public so much more about his background than anything else that he has done since taking over from Michael Howard?
2) Stop repeating tired lines about the Conservative party being a "do nothing" party, clearly they have ideas they're just not the right ones. The Cameron / Osborne team is so inexperienced that it is not worth taking a risk on - that has to be the message. The public will listen to a criticism of the Tory party so let them hear some rather than simply dismissing them out of hand. I'd focus on the glee with which George Osborne welcomes financial bad news, it reminds me of the way in which Labour employment spokespeople in the 1980s used to appear to relish news of the growing dole queues. Talking down the economy is very unattractive, Labour ministers should hammer the Tories whenever they do this.
3) Focus relentlessly on the experience and seriousness of the current ministerial team (and maybe find a few more who fit that description). The appointment of Mervyn Davies as Trade Minister is a good move, he should be on our screens on a regular basis in a double act with fellow minister and former businessman Paul Myners. While the invitation to Brown to attend the Gaza peace summit is a welcome reminder that an "open" rather than "closed" foreign policy (viz. our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan) can pay off in terms of giving Britain the opportunity to craft a positive outcome to recent troubles whilst also boosting the Prime Minister's reputation at home and abroad. The return of Clarke will make these arguments harder to make but that should not stop them making them.
4) Don't forget there is something other than the economy. Clearly the crisis has to be a priority but the government's relentless focus on this is in danger of drowning everything out. We are told that the Prime Minister performs best when he only has do deal with one thing at a time. His team are going to have to use their new war room to improve their multi-tasking capacity. Recent announcements on Heathrow, digital Britain and "green" job have shown how the crisis can be used as a backdrop rather than the focal point of government activity.
5) Keep on tickling the Tories' tummies. The "second job" campaign is a smart move. I'd take things on a little, for example, asking whether Tory shadow cabinet ministers should be receiving confidential briefings from Whitehall officials (as they are thought to be doing from the beginning of this month) when they are being touted around by speaker agencies as having an inside track on Tory policy, as the Shadow Secretary for Children, Schools and Families is here.
And while I'm here, some of the criticisms of this site are well made (by people whom I admire) while other comments are just simply facile. This site is not yet perfect, but let's give it some time, let them get the design right, help them make it a valuable resource and stop flapping about its "independence", only a fool would think that a site like this can succeed by kissing arses in Downing Street. It's time people started to post interesting stuff (not just pointless mudslinging at the Tories) and showing that it can reach an audience beyond the bars of Westminster (and airline departure lounges in my case)...
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Labour are not going to spin themselves out of this crisis as the article above suggests.
The pound is in freefall. People are very concerned. Complacency; "Crisis, What Crisis?" will bring the Labour Party into opposition for a decade at least, perhaps for ever.
What we need, yesterday or sooner, are some attempts at:
Cutting public expenditure fast and urgently.
Reducing taxes fast and urgently to restore some public confidence.
Unloading all the unnecessary bits of the banks very quickly: they deal in trillions of pounds: we deal in mere millions and billions. They really will drive the pound South very fast indeed; they are not assets; that is why they have to be rescued.
MPs could set a really good example here by admitting that the position is dire and sacrificing a large chunk of their salaries, expenses and pensions.
I think these actions would scare the pants off the Tories. Don't you?
Finding a 'decent' job after university was difficult. I was lucky, I got into a blue chip company on a graduate training scheme.
Many of my compatriots could only get two-bit jobs with fairly ropey companies. This impacted their long term earnings and subsequent employability compared to me for quite a number of years afterwards.
The university system chucks out 1'000s more graduates each year these days and I suspect we are going to see a fairly large pool of unemployed or under utilised people piling up - even when the economy starts to recover.
It is a good time for people of that age to go off travelling - find a job in another country or only come back to the UK when things start to improve.
It doesn't fit their colour.
The UK lost a lot of money trying to prop up the pound. The difference between then and now, is that I always felt like the government in 1992 were in some semblance of control.
The current government seems to have lost billions and billions more trying to rescue the economy than the Tories did back in 1992.
My problem with Brown is that I feel he sets 'economic policy' in order to protect his political position, rather than to follow a cogent economic strategy. I mean - £12Bn VAT as a fiscal stimulus?! Or billions given to the banks without any assurances regarding their onward lending, or short term flexibility in their capital adequacy?!
I think we are nearing the stage, where some senior people in Labour have to tell Brown that enough is enough and that they will force something similar to a war time cabinet - devoid of party politics - with one focus - to repair our economy and our financial system.
My main comment about this thoughtful piece is point 4) Brown is in real danger of looking like a one-trick pony. Yes the economy is clearly the most important factor in politics right now, but remember the cliche about a week and politics.
Frankly I think these points are true but the game is up for Labour. The rules of political gravity aligned with a deep and very nasty recession will be enough to knock you out of office for 2-3 parliaments whatever political strategy you adopt. You have tied yourselves to Brown after you had a very brief window to replace him, he is simply not going to win votes where you need them - in the South and Midlands.
Today is January 1996 and you know the rest about what happened to the incumbent in May 1997.
Tell me what experience apart from a brief spell at STV Gordon Brown has had outside politics, and the same for the rest of the cabinet? Tell me what experience Tony Blair had before becoming PM other than a brief stint as a pupil barrister?
Kind Regards,
The Plain English Society
I also suspect that it could be a simple argument to defeat. For instance, if the Tories were to construct some sort of 'balance sheet of blame', i.e. Gold sell off £7Bn, VAT £12Bn, this weekends RBS share conversion £6Bn etc..
On the plus side for Gordon - the public are somewhat immune to the word 'billion' these days. So with a bit of spin and a nice story, Brown could maybe convince the public that he is a safe pair of hands.
So the Tories would have to find a relative measure that resonates with the public, an equivalent of X many double decker buses / Nelson's columns / Football pitches. i.e. Brown's mistakes have cost the country '8 Defence Budgets' or '2,000 Hospitals'
That's not to say the core vote should be neglected, but it is frankly embarrassing to watch the P.M. trot out the same stuff every week at PMQs. It simply makes him look evasive and petulant.
I don't particularly care about the MPs expenses issue but it is an important issue considering the public perception of parliament. It isn't becoming when those who are speaking on behalf of those politicians respond giving such short shrift.
Even if the original comment is meant to be hostile, as someone who is hosting the website, I would expect better manners from you.
Paul is half Indian mate
The second point is that they're not a do nothing party. Their policies for a loan guarantee scheme and the latest employment policy have been implimented by the Government!! You can't say someone is doing nothing and then take their ideas! The public aren't stupid, its lucky the Tories do have some policies or GB and co wouldn't know what to do!
The "do nothing line" isn't the only phrase that has gone past it's sell by date. There is also "this is a GLOBAL financial problem that started in AMERICA".
Brown has unbelievably seemingly managed to convince a large proportion of the population that his actions as Chancellor have had no impact on the likely depth and length of the recession. If Brown keeps banging away at the global / America blame angle, then surely even some of the thickest voters are going to twig Brown is trying to hide something.
Brown would do better to move on and instead try and set some sort of vision for the country (we are still awaiting this promised vision). Mind you - maybe Brown really is a one trick pony and can only talk 'finances'. His handling of the Baby P issue, for instance, at PMQ's was highly questionable to say the least.
Now for a piece on MPs hiding their expenses.
The other, oft-cited, problem with the 'do nothing' attack is that when the Government is hugely unpopular, the public would actually prefer us to be "doing nothing" - even if they don't quite understand the policy implications of this. But as a platitude, it sounds relatively attractive.
I would, however, disagree with you that the line needs to be dropped altogether. I believe it needs to be modified, in preparation for the election.
It needs to be: "At the moment of crisis, the Conservatives were SILENT. - Sure, give them several months and eventually they scrambled together some policies - but at the time of need (ie Autumn '08), they were literally AWOL. They were briefing The Times, they were worrying about their own reputations, they were going back and forth on policies - but they weren't prepared to ACT (or in the case of the Opposition - they weren't prepared to Comitt to anything.)"
Having pushed the "Do Nothing" line for long enough, people will know what we're talking about when we now modify the message to argue that "At the MOMENT of crisis, the Conservatives were empty-handed". (And this, of course, goes on to play into your "Not Worth The Risk" line, as 'Absent in a crisis' = 'risky')
That the line isn't working should be clear to anyone who can read poll results.
Incidentally, this is the first article I have read on here (not admittedly my normal reading) that presented anywhere near honest strategic analysis rather than wishful thinking.