The beginning of the end? (For Tony Blair)

Hamlet meets the Grand Old Duke of York

Saturday September 9, 2006
The Guardian

Hamlet is meant to close with a stage covered in blood, all the main players dead. In the Westminster production staged this week, there was a change. None of the lead characters was killed outright. But they were badly wounded.

Like Hamlet, the week's drama featured intrigue, jealousy, ambition and betrayal in a tale of kings, heirs and a fateful vacillation. Except there was no single account of the story. Instead each of the two lead protagonists, or at least their friends, had radically competing versions of the week's events.

In the Blairite view, Tony Blair's wounds were less significant than his survival. The wobblers who thought this first full week of September 2006 was set to be a rerun of November 1990 were wrong. Margaret Thatcher was driven from office, but Mr Blair clung on.

He did it, say his admirers, through a combination of his own strengths and his enemy's weaknesses. As evidence of the prime minister's strength, note how each blow against him was returned with interest. Junior defence minister Tom Watson resigns; Mr Blair hits back with a scathing statement that the impudent upstart would have been sacked anyway. Gordon Brown demands a timetable; Mr Blair accuses him of blackmail. Paler men would have crumbled under such pressure, but the prime minister stood firm.

Better still, say the Blairites, look at the enemy's weaknesses. Once more, they say, the chancellor proved himself to be part Grand Old Duke of York - marching his men to the top of the hill only to march them down again - and part Prince of Denmark, hesitating at the critical hour. If he wanted to seize the crown, this was the week to do it. He came close, his dagger hovering, but he could not plunge in the blade.

In this version, the Blairites have no doubt that Brown was behind all the week's manoeuvres. Ah yes, Chris Bryant and Sion Simon, authors of the first letter demanding the PM's departure, may look like impeccable loyalists, but don't be taken in, says Downing Street. They were Brownites in Blairite clothing. Thwarted careerists who had crossed over to the other camp in the hope off winning ministerial office under the new boss.

So Mr Brown pulled the strings, say the Blair camp, but he fumbled and tangled them in his hands. He sent scouts into the enemy zone - an unknown minister and a clutch of PPSs - when he should have dispatched the big battalions, with a cabinet minister or two. Gordon just didn't have the bottle, they say.

The Brownite narrative disputes every particular of all that. No, Gordon was not behind every move. The idea that junior MPs such as David Wright and Chris Mole, two of the resigning seven, are Brownite factionalists - who jump when the chancellor clicks his fingers - is laughable. Instead, say his camp, the rebels were reflecting what has become the collective view of every wing and corner of the Labour movement: that the prime minister has to go.

The trigger was Mr Blair's interview in the Times a week ago, in which he said he would give no timetable for his departure. Sure, Mr Brown thought it "unbelievable" that Mr Blair would say such a thing, since the PM had led colleagues to believe he would announce his plans at the party conference. But Brown is the least of it. "There was a reaction across the Labour party of horror," at the PM's Times interview, says one Brownite. Hence the slew of letters and demarches. This, say the Brownites, went way beyond Gordon.

And as for bottle, that misunderstands the chancellor completely. It's not lack of courage that holds Brown back: it's Heseltine's Law, the belief that the assassin never inherits the crown. Even if Brown did manage to seize power in a coup, his allies believe "he couldn't be the unifier afterwards".

Mr Brown doesn't want to inherit a wreck of a party, and yet if Mr Blair was forced out it would leave, as one cabinet minister puts, "a cavernous hole of bitterness" at the centre of Labour.

So the chancellor was left in an impossible situation. If he backed the resigning MPs he would be accused of plotting a coup. But if he pulled them off, as Charles Clarke said he should have yesterday, and had, in effect, endorsed Mr Blair's Times interview, Mr Brown would have been backing a view that neither he nor the bulk of the Labour party believes is sustainable. Hence his silence.

Those then are the two versions of what's happened these last few days. What neither side disputes is that it has been a horror show in which the once brutally disciplined New Labour began to eat itself. After years of painstaking self-control, the party reshaped by the prime minister and chancellor spent a week apparently bent on showing itself to the public as unfit for government.

Both men have been damaged personally of course. Mr Blair's authority is weakened, now that he's been forced to retreat from his no-deadline plan. And Mr Brown is hurt just by the appearance of plotting and scheming for power.

But it is Labour that is wounded most of all. British voters are particularly intolerant of divided parties: they held it against Labour in the 1980s and the Conservatives in the 1990s. Denis Healey said this week that the current civil war was especially unsightly because it centred on no great issue of principle, unlike the Labour struggles of old.

He's right about that which is why the current crisis so closely resembles the Tory meltdown of November 1990. Then as now the issue was political survival. Members of the governing party feared for their jobs and their seats, and so moved against the leader they felt sure was dragging them down to defeat. Lady Thatcher then, Mr Blair now. (Though polls show Blair is far more unpopular than Thatcher was at the time of her fall.) Labour hopes that a new leader can change the mood, persuading the electorate they've got a new government and therefore don't need to vote for another one at the next election.

John Major pulled off that trick in 1992, but that was against an opposition leader many regarded as unelectable. David Cameron is no Neil Kinnock.

What can Labour do now? Few believe the current pact, giving Blair another loosely defined year, can hold for long. Mr Clarke left it all of a few hours before talking down Mr Brown and talking up Alan Milburn. It looks like an undeclared, 10-month leadership election. As one Brownite sighed yesterday, "If this is the way it's going to be, then it can't be this way."

One senior colleague advises Mr Brown that the judgment on his premiership will effectively start now: that he needs to prove right away that he can be an inclusive leader, not the creature of cabals his enemies allege him to be. His view is that, from now on, Mr Brown and Mr Blair need to be generous and courteous to each other in public - even if it looks as fake as Mr Brown's hymn of praise for the PM in yesterday's Sun - remembering the real fight is against the resurgent Conservatives.

That's how it should be. But on the evidence of the last few days, you wouldn't bet on it. Instead you would conclude that there is something badly rotten in the state of Labour.

Using monthly opinion-poll averages, the Tory share of the vote crashed to a low point of 28% in 1994, since when it had meandered upwards at the funereal rate of about 0.5 percentage points a year. After Cameron's election, however, the Tory share jumped from 33% to 37%, and stayed there for a few months [..] in the last three months there has been a renewed surge towards the magic 40% figure. [..]

Labour's share [..] peaked at 55% shortly after Tony Blair marched into Downing Street in 1997, and it has been falling steadily ever since. The trend rate of decline has actually been quite rapid, at about 2.5 percentage points per year. When we last addressed the subject, it appeared that this downtrend might have been broken, after a nadir was reached in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq war in the autumn of 2004. However, with Labour's share slumping to around 32% following a disastrous summer, it now seems likely that the previous long-term downtrend remains intact. Various statistical tests suggest the conclusion that the party's long-term trend support is still falling at more than two points a year.

The Tories are therefore now leading Labour in most polls by around 6%, with statistical trends suggesting that their lead is much more likely to be trending upwards than downwards. A bandwagon effect - which economists call an informational cascade - may be developing in the Tories' favour. Such a cascade occurs when individuals form their political judgments not only on their own assessments of the facts, but on their observation of the behaviour of others. The rationalisation for this is the belief that others might have superior information. Just as busy restaurants attract large queues outside, while empty restaurants attract no new customers, the same can happen in politics.

Blair's advisers are apparently planning his triumphal exit tour, with their leading man adopting the role of "the star who won't even play that last encore". The problem, though, is that the stalls are emptying awfully fast.

When the prime minister's name was attached to Labour in the Populus poll, support [for the party] fell three points.

There is particular concern from MPs and party members in Scotland and especially Wales, who face elections for their parliament and assembly in May. They fear they are heading for a drubbing from which the party might not recover [..] backbenchers [in Wales] have warned that it would be "disastrous" and "the end" if Mr Blair were still in power next May.

A Populus poll for the Times this week showed that Labour would gain only one point under Gordon Brown's leadership, rising to 33%. The result would be almost the same if the Blairite home secretary, John Reid, took over, remaining at 32%.

Mr Sparrow added: "What's worked for Labour over the last 12 years is that whatever problems they have hit, people have looked at the Conservatives and have thought very quickly 'perhaps not'. The problem for Labour is that there is now a credible opposition."

Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke has accused Gordon Brown of "absolutely stupid" behaviour during the furore over Tony Blair's leadership.

nimh wrote:

Well, that was a short-lived truce...

Cabinet turns on Brown in hunt for 'alternative PM'

Sunday September 10, 2006
The Observer

Gordon Brown's long-held dream of taking over as Prime Minister received a significant blow this weekend after it was revealed that up to 10 cabinet ministers are discussing backing an 'anyone but Gordon' candidate and that Tony Blair will not give the Chancellor a personal endorsement.

Senior government figures are threatening to make the contest a bitter referendum on Brown's personal integrity after last week's vicious bout of infighting. They spent Friday discussing their choice of candidate and the mechanics of a bid after concluding they could no longer support him.

This follows a serious breakdown between the two rival camps, culminating, according to one very close confidant of Tony Blair, in the Prime Minister telling friends: 'I have never known how mendacious he [Gordon] was, how full of mendacity.'

Cabinet ministers spoke to The Observer before Blair's warning yesterday to both sides to suspend their damaging personal attacks [..]. The Prime Minister also condemned the 'irredeemably old-fashioned' politics of MPs plotting against him and called for openness in debating Labour's future. This was seen as a signal that discussion will not be repressed by what Charles Clarke called Brown's 'control freak' instincts. [..]

The cabinet source said while they had not chosen a rival candidate yet, the last week had tipped the balance to someone of 'credibility and stature' standing against Brown. Alan Johnson, Alan Milburn, John Reid and Charles Clarke are potential names.

'Until the beginning of this week, most of us would have ended up supporting him [Brown] because there wasn't anyone else,' said a source involved in the discussions. 'Now almost for sure, because of his behaviour, there will be a serious challenge from someone within cabinet and he's only got himself to blame.'

Asked how many of the cabinet would back such a candidate, the minister said: 'Now, I think half a dozen, but I think it could be more like 10 [when a candidate is picked]. This week has been the cathartic moment. It's not about policy: the question is who has the character, the personal qualities. Gordon is his own worst enemy.' Brown's behaviour showed he lacked the 'honesty, integrity and trustworthiness' required, the source added. [..]

The Prime Minister is not now expected to publicly bless Brown's candidacy, and a senior minister said even a repeat of previous glowing testimonials were now out: 'He will describe him as having made an immense contribution, because he has, but I'm afraid that events of this week have changed things fundamentally and for ever. [..]

Brown's allies will, however, be reassured by an Ipsos/MORI poll for The Observer which found voters rated him more trustworthy, having better judgment and as more down-to-earth than most politicians, including Blair.

[And] Brown [..] suggested that his critics were motivated by old disputes. He added that any Chancellor 'is in the difficult position of having to tell his colleagues "no" '. [..]

If there are further public attacks on Brown, [moreover,] a delegation of Labour MPs is said to be prepared to go to Downing Street this week to demand that Blair quit. Downing Street sources stressed Blair had phoned ministers and friends yesterday to demand self-restraint.

Blair to Brown: I won't do what you demand

'Tony hasn't got a future: this is not about Tony,' says one cabinet minister now involved in looking for a rival candidate to back. 'What we have got to do is make sure Labour looks for somebody who is trustworthy, honest and straight.' The past week, he suggested, had shown Brown was none of those.

The rebels responded with equal force: MPs are threatening to march on Downing Street demanding Blair quit, if there are further attacks on Brown.

Among those who spent August fretting over the still unresolved issue of the Prime Minister's departure was Chris Bryant, the ex-vicar turned MP [..]. Until recently, he was a ministerial aide to Lord Falconer.

Once an ardent Blairite, his career had already stalled when, disillusioned, he resigned at the end of July. Friends say he had warned Falconer that Labour was just treading water while it waited for Blair to go: frustrated at not being taken seriously, he quit. But it took last Thursday's Times interview - in which Blair briskly opened the post-holiday political season by refusing to say this month's party conference would be his last - to prod Bryant into action.

What irritated him most was the notion that those opposed to Blair must be Old Labourites. He [is the one who] rang Tom Watson [..].

Was the double-whammy [of the leaked memo and the protest letter] orchestrated by the Chancellor? Had he really instigated the letter, it would have had a lot more than 17 names - but his supporters appear to have exploited it once they heard of it. [..]

[E]ven at this stage, Blair was still anxious to avoid a public statement [though]: as a compromise, the Environment Secretary and Blair protege, David Miliband, was sent on to the air waves to say Blair would be gone within the year. It might have worked, had a much bigger plot not been unfolding.

Last July, rumours began circling Westminster of at least one letter being prepared within the Trade Union group of mainstream leftwing MPs demanding a timetable for Blair's departure. Over the summer, at least three other informal groupings of MPs began working on similar ideas. They coalesced fatally, however, only after the Times interview - and Blairite ex-minister Alan Milburn's suggestion that the rebels should 'put up or shut up'. They chose to put up.

[By mid-day on Wednesday,] the threatened delegation was growing bigger: at least 80 names were apparently ready to go public, plus almost another 50 senior figures - including at least three ministers - whose names would be private.

Brown was as alarmed as Blair was at the way things were spiralling out of control. 'It was like that scene from Reservoir Dogs where everybody had a gun trained on everybody else and they all started blasting away at each other blindly,' says one party source. Similarly, the organisers of the parliamentary revolt called a halt, deciding Blair was damaged enough. 'There was no need to tar and feather him,' says one.

Brown's allies will, however, be reassured by an Ipsos/MORI poll for The Observer

Message of the polls: Blair's down, Brown edges up

Gordon Brown and his allies will be much happier reading today's Ipsos MORI opinion poll conducted for The Observer than Tony Blair and those at Number 10.

The results show that while the outgoing Prime Minister's stock with the public has fallen dramatically, his would-be successor is well regarded [..].

On the two most important attributes which interviewees were asked about, the score between Blair and Brown is one-all. While 25 per cent of the sample felt the Prime Minister was 'a capable leader', just 17 per cent said the same about Brown. However, on the issue of who 'understands the problems facing Britain', 22 per cent felt the Chancellor did, 2 per cent more than for Blair.

'Being seen to understand the country's problems is potentially a big plus point for the Chancellor, as is "understands world problems" - especially as he's never been Foreign Secretary,' said Sir Robert Worcester, the life president of Ipsos MORI.

In addition, 23 per cent believe Brown has 'sound judgment', 15 per cent think he is 'down to earth' and 13 per cent see him as being 'more honest than most politicians' - all higher rankings than those for Blair.

The bad news for the Prime Minister from the poll, added Worcester, is that all the negative attributes it reveals are concerned with him. Fifty-one per cent think he is 'out of touch with ordinary people', 29 per cent believe he 'tends to talk down to people' and 28 per cent see him as 'too inflexible', while only about half those numbers think the same things about Brown. Blair's ratings have plummeted since April 2005, just before the last general election [..].

Several findings, however, may give Brown cause for concern. A mere 8 per cent of people think he 'has got a lot of personality'. By contrast, Blair still scores 22 per cent in this regard, despite the growing disenchantment with him.

Worcester cautions: 'The "personality" characteristic is one of the least salient image attributes we asked people about, which is good news for the Chancellor.

[But] 'Look at David Davis, though. In the Tory leadership last year, Davis was seen as a shoo-in to beat David Cameron, but lost. What was the difference between them? Image, personality - not substance.'

In addition, a significant minority of voters - 24 per cent - see Brown as 'out of touch' and just 12 per cent rate him as 'patriotic'. The latter result may come as a disappointment to him, as he has invested time and effort to identify himself with 'Britishness', most recently in a speech in Edinburgh last Friday.

Well its the Labour Party summer garden party today. Should I go? What advice can I pass onto my very dear friend Mr Government Minister from all the concerned posters on A2K?

Unlike American presidents, a British prime minister does not serve for a fixed term, nor is he directly beholden to the electorate. Blair is prime minister because he is leader of the Labor Party and the Labor Party has the most seats in Parliament--thanks in no small part to Blair.

There are no term limits in Britain, and prime ministers can, as Thatcher famously put it, go "on and on."

But under this open-ended system, it is difficult for a prime minister to end his tenure on a triumphant note. He is either dumped by his party or dumped by voters who have wearied of him, his party or both.

The endgame is much easier for U.S. presidents. Winning a second term generally guarantees elder-statesman status, a respectful adieu from the media and a pleasant ride off into the sunset. Richard Nixon was an exception. Bill Clinton proved it could be done even after he was impeached by the House during his second term.



Long tenure makes it harder

For British politicians, the problem of making a graceful exit seems to grow more acute the longer they stick around. Thatcher, who served 11 years, the longest tenure in modern times, was rudely deposed in a revolt of her senior ministers.

"Because you are not directly elected, you depend on this other set of people. And if you don't keep them happy, you are in trouble," said Simon Henig, an analyst and author of a comprehensive guide to British politics.

Thatcher treated some of her senior ministers with cruel disdain, and paid the price. It was an abrupt and tearful exit for the "Iron Lady" who felt she had been stabbed in the back.

Major, her handpicked successor, served seven years, but the Conservative Party never fully recovered from the debacle of Thatcher's departure. Major lost in a landslide to Blair in 1997.

Even Churchill, the most celebrated of 20th Century prime ministers, was not spared the indignity of being dumped by the voters. Months after Britain celebrated V-E Day, he was soundly beaten by Clement Attlee in the 1945 elections.

He returned to power in 1951, but his diminished physical and mental capacities after a series of stokes forced his reluctant resignation in 1955.

Churchill's successor Anthony Eden suffered health problems and resigned a few months after the 1956 Suez Crisis undermined his authority. Harold Macmillan also stepped aside for health reasons after his government was rocked by revelations that his war secretary, John Profumo, and the Soviet naval attache in London had been sharing a bed with a showgirl named Christine Keeler.



Don't want messy ending

Blair, who has served nine years and four months, was hoping to avoid the messy ending.

This was apparent from a memo leaked to the media last week outlining an exit strategy designed to burnish Blair's political legacy and position him as the party's elder statesman.

The strategy, mapped out by Blair's pollster and his communications chief, called for a series of scripted media appearances that would allow Blair to be seen in "iconic locations."

The next general election is expected in 2009. Blair has said that he wanted an orderly transition and that he planned to step aside early enough so that Brown would have "ample time" to settle in before facing the voters.

Brown could still face a challenge for the party leadership from a serious contender, but few in Britain would wager that anyone other than the chancellor will be the next occupant of No. 10 Downing St.

Just warn him not to bring Craig Murray's memoirs

Here's looking like you, Charles