Peter Kilfoyle warns that some proposed solutions for Labour’s problems would make its situation even worse
I TRY not to take the members of the London commentariat too seriously, given their persistent habit of projecting their prejudices onto the Labour Party. I also have grave doubts about their “sources”, since most of what they glean about Labour comes along with the truffles at their dinner parties – titbits of gossip of no relevance to the objective reality of Labour’s situation.
Yet, for once, they are repeating what I have consistently heard in Parliament: that there will be a challenge of some sort to Gordon Brown as Labour leader and Prime Minister. Whether this eventuates or not is not just a matter for the handful of very real plotters. It is a matter for every member and supporter of the Labour Party and, crucially, for the trade unions.
There have been previous times of crisis when the unions’ intervention has been vital for the integrity of the Labour Party – for instance, I think of the infiltration of the party by Militant in the 1980s. While many politicians dithered, the trade unions stepped up to the crease. Within their own ranks, at the party conference and, critically, on the Labour’s National Executive Committee, they stood firm.
Of course, the NEC is now a shadow of its former self. Few can say who sits on it; many more would ask: “Does it matter?” This is one example of the crisis which Labour faces. Ours is a hollowed-out party with a rapidly declining, ageing and inactive membership. Party organisation has been sacrificed on the altar of “new” Labour presentation. We saw where that has led with the disastrous result of the Glasgow East by-election.
This, then, is the real crisis facing Labour. It matters little who captains a sinking ship. Keeping the ship afloat is the first objective. Second, assuming we do stay afloat (the party’s huge debts notwithstanding), but are heading for an electoral iceberg, is it sensible to consider changing captain before changing course? Naturally, in those circumstances, if the captain refuses to change course, there must be a speedy change of leadership.
Even in these dire circumstances, there are questions which must be asked. Will such a change make any difference to the Government’s standing? If it did, would it change the Government’s attitude to its own party and the trade unions? Is there anyone better fitted than Brown to lead the country?
Let us suppose that there was a change of leadership. The media and the opposition parties would demand an immediate general election. They know this is a constitutional red herring – in this country, we vote in Members of Parliament, not a president. Nevertheless, there would be a strident insistence that a new leader place him or herself before the electorate without any serious opportunity of first establishing themselves as Prime Minister.
The actual constitutional mechanisms covering prime ministerial resignations are unclear. What if Brown is forced out in favour of candidate A; goes to the Palace, but recommends candidate B as his successor? Worse still, what if the ex-Prime Minister believed the only way to pre-empt a messy succession campaign for the party in government was to recommend a dissolution of Parliament to the Queen?
These are pertinent questions because, unlike the Tories, Labour does not have a clear and efficient way of removing its leader. Our current system was designed precisely to deter a challenge to an incumbent. On the other hand, it had assumed an election when there was a vacancy. The unelected succession of Gordon Brown to replace Tony Blair ran counter to that assumption and weakens Brown’s position.
There is an old saying: “Cometh the hour, cometh the man” (or woman, in these more egalitarian times). Yet it would be very odd if Labour members, supporters and unions did not look at the possible runners and riders in a possible succession stakes – over hurdles, of course.
Traditionally, a Prime Minister will come out of a Cabinet, although not always. Winston Churchill was called in from the political wilderness. In Australia, Bob Hawke was called in from the trade union movement. Yet given that there is no one I can see of such standing outside of Parliament, a first trawl needs to be made of the existing Cabinet. Frankly, it is not promising.
A section of the Cabinet would have difficulty organising a lollipop crossing, much less a political campaign. Others have their record in office against them. Then there are those who are technocratically able and very bright, but they have no politics, no ideology and no experience. In their case, what vision could they offer?
Simply because someone holds a title of office – Secretary of State for this or that – does not qualify them to be the Prime Minister. Indeed, many have argued that was exactly what was wrong with the Brown succession. He was credited with being an outstanding Chancellor, but has not made a similar impact in his premiership.
By and large, the current Cabinet is also Brown’s creation. The idea that merit alone takes an individual into government is naive. People are raised to Cabinet level in factional deals, for example, or for favours rendered. One gets the impression that the most attractive quality for Brown of some current members of his administration is being supine.
Then there are the former ministers – a curious mix. Some are genuinely concerned about the direction of the Government; others have an inflated opinion of their own abilities and standing; still others are happy to do the dirty work for people of great ambition but little backbone. They may well wield the knife, but will surely not wear the crown. There is no love for those whose ambition or bitterness gets the better of them; there is even less for those who cynically build up their bank accounts on the back of ex-ministerial credibility.
Of course, this does not mean that there is not a sure-fire winner out there, whose merits are yet to be displayed and appreciated. But I doubt it, if only because “new” Labour stifled any thinking or policy development not in tune with its very blinkered view of the world. Those who came through the years of “new’ Labour ascendancy appear to be the antithesis of what may be needed now.
Some are already advancing candidates and “dream tickets”. They should be very careful that their hoped-for remedy to our political ills is no more debilitating than our present sickness. My personal incubus wears the face of David Cameron, dragging along his Old Etonian chums and a resurgent Tory Party, to finish off our hopes for a generation. That is the biggest worry of all.
Peter Kilfoyle is Labour MP for Liverpool Walton
About The Author
