Charles Clarke Being Helpful (Again)

Charles Clarke, in his inimitable manner, has just sent this article to selected friends, one of whom thought I might be interested. I imagine has has also given it to various journalists for tomorrow's papers. Whatever his motives, it's difficult not to agree with much of his analysis of Brown's position. The question is, will others in the senior echelons of the Labour Party act on his advice, or emulate the courage of a pink blancmange. I think I know where my money would go.

Dear friend,

FINDING THE KILLER INSTINCT

The Labour Decade

We are now reaching the end of Labour’s only, ever, full decade in office. As we do, we face an electoral defeat which could well give the Conservatives the next decade and more.

It may seem easier, and possibly less risky, to do nothing to change our position. But unless Labour acts now we are likely to spend the next ten years reflecting on the consequences from the impotence of opposition.

Since 1997 Labour has built a stronger and fairer society and transformed the lives of millions of people for the better. Our record is one to be proud of. But we have also failed to exploit many opportunities to chart a progressive path for the future. And, worst of all, over the last couple of years we have frivolously and foolishly discarded our dominant position in British politics, possibly permanently. During the last year Labour’s poll ratings have hit historic lows, and the dismal European and local elections translated this into actual votes.

Senior Party members know and well understand Labour’s true position but, for a variety of reasons, have so far decided to take no action. A conspiracy of silence has protected the Party leadership.

Just before Christmas this mood seemed to change. Newspaper reports and interviews pointed to serious doubts held by Cabinet members and others. There is the possibility that Labour’s underlying position in the polls and the failures of the Queens Speech and the Pre-Budget Report may now bring matters to a head.

The Polls

Labour’s underlying poll position is disastrous. The UK Polling Report calculates the current average at 40-28-19, which implies a Conservative overall majority of 36 seats. This is significantly worse than a year ago, just before the London G20 summit, when Labour was in the mid-30s and 4/5 point Tory leads were routine. Moreover, many Labour-identifying voters say that they are not prepared to vote Labour at the coming election; a big pool of lost Labour voters now back other parties and Labour supporters are more likely than Tory ones to be considering switching sides or not voting.

All the evidence suggests that Brown’s leadership reduces Labour support, that alternative leaders would improve our ratings, and that an election determined by voters’ answers to the question “Do you want Gordon Brown to be Prime Minister for the next five years?” would further shrink Labour support.

In these circumstances some clutch, bizarrely, at the straw of an occasional poll showing ‘only’ a 9 point lead for the Conservatives (even when intermingled with 17 point leads). Others hope that the Conservatives might not achieve an overall majority but merely be the largest party in a hung parliament.

But in fact such a hung parliament would offer no political respite for Labour. David Cameron has used his New Year message to signal willingness to work with the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg has already made it clear that he would feel bound to permit the Leader of the largest party to form a Government. Though senior Liberal Democrats have privately indicated that this situation might change if Labour’s leadership changed, there’s little joy for Labour here.

Policy and Political Direction

The poor political impact of the pre-election Queens Speech and the Pre-Budget Report, as well as the November European Council and other events, have reinforced awareness that Labour currently has no strategy for escaping the deep political trouble it is in.

These were moments where a clear and articulate approach could have changed the mood. Instead they were used just to recycle old political ‘dividing lines’, which reflect a deep defeatist fear of discussing both our past approach and our future plans. We offered no account and no explanation of the past and, even more seriously, no constructive sense of direction for the future.

This ‘class war’ approach is explicitly designed to rack up ‘core Labour’ votes in core Labour areas and to protect the position of the current leadership.

Labour cannot win on this basis. We have to remain a Party with the widest possible appeal, which does not rely for support simply upon one particular group, faction or social class. Since 1983 Labour’s conventional wisdom has recognized that Labour has to seek to win marginal parliamentary seats, many of them in the South of England. Those most involved in formulating the electorally successful post-1994 ‘New Labour’ strategy recognize that this winning approach is now being deliberately abandoned.

Why the Silence So Far

A small group amongst the Labour leadership, inside and outside the Cabinet, believe, genuinely, that, if the economy improves and the Tories begin to implode, the public will rally to Gordon Brown as the General Election approaches.

Others believe that the election campaign could be fought in a way which diverts attention from our leadership (“It’s policies not personalities”). Unfortunately the recent confirmation of the campaign TV debates makes this just about impossible to imagine.

However most senior Labour leaders have had little faith in Gordon Brown’s leadership for a considerable time but over the last year have remained silent, and even professed support. They have done this for a variety of reasons.

The greatest concern is that, under current constitutional arrangements, there is no clear process through which a Party leader could be forced to stand down. They fear that his stubbornness would see off any challenge and precipitate chaotic internal conflict which in turn would reinforce Labour’s image of ineffectiveness and division, possibly without succeeding in changing the Leader. They feel that success requires ‘overwhelming force’.

Others worry that, without a clear challenger/successor, a change of leader might simply be a step from the frying pan into the fire. They think that the unpredictable uncertainties of a leadership election could be damaging. In fact a 21-day campaign is quite possible and would refocus attention on what Labour has positively to offer.

There is also fear of the perceived personal costs which could arise from antagonizing the leadership. The Damian MacBride style of politics is not dead – shortly before Christmas a senior Cabinet member warned me personally to take care ‘because Gordon’s spies are everywhere’.

A deeper pessimism, fed by the MPs’ expenses catastrophe, has led to fatalism. Too many accept defeat for Labour as inevitable. They do not perceive the personal consequences for themselves as shattering. They expect to hold their seats (almost no Cabinet members now have marginal seats) and then adjust to a life in Opposition in the new Parliament. Furthermore, only a third of the current Cabinet were in Parliament before 1997 and so have any direct Parliamentary experience of the 18 years of Tory Government before then.


There are also more ignoble motives for inaction. Some are actively preparing for post-defeat Labour politics and laying down markers for their own leadership ambitions. Others are looking to their future business careers, which they think will be less possible if they are seen as ‘troublemakers’. Others, probably mistakenly, hope for the Prime Minister’s patronage in securing their membership of the House of Lords after defeat.

What is to be done

The net effect of this conspiracy of silence and inaction has been that Gordon Brown has so far been able to see off all challenges to his leadership.

As we reach 2010, rightly described by Ed Balls as ‘the most important General Election for a generation’, the implications of the status quo are crystal clear – a smashing defeat for Labour and poorer lives for the people we seek to serve.

Yet the General Election is eminently winnable for Labour under a new leader. We still have the overall policies and approach which are best suited to meet the challenges of both the current crises and the future, even though we have not recently been successful in communicating them clearly.

Moreover the Conservatives have failed to establish themselves strongly. Their threat comes only from Labour’s weakness. Their only strength is the petty point-scoring of partisan oppositionist politics, based on vigorous and misleading attacks and clever phrase-making. They are deeply divided on policy issues of the greatest significance; their demeanour is increasingly introverted, provincial and backward-looking, notably so in the international arena; they offer no policy or political vision for themselves and they inspire no confidence in their own team of political leaders.

In Parliament and elsewhere an overwhelming majority of Labour opinion believes that in this position Labour’s chances would be significantly improved if Gordon Brown were to stand down.

Over Christmas there have been signs that this strength of opinion is understood in the Cabinet. The New Year will be the time to ensure that the overwhelming feeling which does exist is turned into the action which brings about the necessary change. The price of failure is just too high.

Doing nothing now may seem the easiest option. But Labour should learn from the Tories, who have had many whole decades in power: political parties need the killer instinct to hold on to office. David Cameron’s Conservatives are relying on Labour failing to learn that lesson.

From the beginning of 2010 we need a renewed Labour Party which can offer the people of Britain a genuine and positive choice at the ballot box.

Charles Clarke MP

I shall look forward to what LabourList, LabourHome and Left Foot Forward have to say about this rather interesting intervention.

Why Brown's Troubles Could Spell Bad News for the Tories

This is from my Eastern Daily Press column today...

Gordon Brown’s political obituary has been written many times over the 22 months of his short premiership. This time, though, my political antenna tells me that he is in real trouble. And that spells bad news for the Tories. It has been a humiliating week for the Prime Minister. It started with the ridiculous YouTube video in which he seemed to be obeying orders to randomly smile during his three minute monologue on MPs’ expenses. He then travelled to Pakistan only to be snubbed by the country’s President. Next stop was Poland, where the Polish PM lectured him about his “ridiculous” levels of borrowing. Back home he suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of Nick Clegg and the Gurkhas and a day later had to back down over parliamentary expenses in order to avoid a second Commons defeat in two days.

Political commentators are apt to use the phrase “It was the Prime Minister’s worst week ever” rather too often to be taken seriously. Yet on this occasion it is warranted. Labour MPs are wandering around the Commons in a state of despair. Those with marginal seats are already planning for their post parliamentary careers. Leadership speculation is starting again, with David Blunkett telling Gordon Brown he has lost touch with voters. The LabourHome website is speculating furiously about a stalking horse about to put his head above the parapet and openly challenge the Prime Minister. Most people assume the MP being talked about is none other than Norfolk’s very own Charles Clarke. He would no doubt reject the ‘stalking horse’ epithet and consider himself to be a serious challenger. And in many ways he is, but his trouble would be raising the number of signatures of his colleagues to get on the ballot paper.

No, there are only two ways for Gordon Brown to go. One is voluntarily, and the other is for seven or eight Cabinet Ministers to tell him the game is up and if he doesn’t quit they will resign from the Cabinet. This won’t happen yet. But following the County Council and Euro elections on June 4th, I can envisage a scenario in which it does.

One Labour MP said privately this week that Gordon Brown was hating the job as Prime Minister. That wouldn’t surprise me. Often when you get something you have waited for it doesn’t turn out to be as good as you had expected.

I must admit that if I were Charles Clarke I would be thinking very carefully indeed about how I played this. In a post-Brown scenario Charles Clarke could indeed have a very important role to play. He is a big beast of the political jungle, and if there is a lot of broken crockery to pick up Charles Clarke should be seen as the man to put it back together again, not as the man to have broken it in the first place. If the latter happens, he will not easily be forgiven by some of his parliamentary colleagues.

So why would Brown’s departure be bad for the Tories? Because they see him as their greatest electoral asset and are very keen that he should not be fatally wounded. Their saving grace is that there is no readily available heir apparent who would be more electorally popular. Alan Johnson is the only Labour politician who strikes just a shard of fear into Tory hearts, but it is highly unlikely he could be persuaded to do the job. Most Tories, of course, pray for Harriet Harman to be the Labour Party’s chosen one. Every Tory Christmas would have come at once. But the big beast lurking in the background is Jack Straw, that great survivor of regime change. Having seamlessly transferred his loyalties from Tony Blair to become Gordon Brown’s leadership campaign manager, Straw is being touted by many commentators as the ultimate ‘man in a grey suit’ who would lead the delegation to tell Gordon Brown that the game is up. Straw, however, may care to think about Michael Heseltine’s* dictum that “he who wields the knife never wears the crown”.

And who said politics was boring?

*UPDATE: Of course, that is not strictly true. Margaret Thatcher and Paul Keating tend to lend weight to the opposite viewpoint.

Is Brown Planning a Snap Reshuffle?

I must admit I thought it would take the Labour plotters longer than four days into September to create trouble, but Charles Clarke always was like a bull in a china shop. His rantings have been covered extensively elsewhere so I won't say too much more, but I think it is safe to say that the other Labour rebels will now see this as a green light to restart their machinations.

One spanner in the works is that I have picked up that Gordon Brown is considering surprising everyone by holding a snap reshuffle on Monday. If he does so, it is a very high risk strategy indeed, seeing as his Chancellor ruled one out last week, and all the signals from Downing Street lately have been that any reshuffle would not take place until after the conferences. A reshuffle next week would give Cabinet Ministers very little time to read into their new subjects before the start of the Labour conference a fortnight later.

The big question, of course, is what he intends doing with the Chancellor and Foreign Secretary. I don't think he is strong enough to move Miliband against his will. And if he moves Darling, or sacks him, I think Darling is unlikely to go quietly.

My opinion is that a reshuffle now would smack of panic and would change very little. I can't really believe that it is being seriously considered by Brown, but seeing as I have been tipped the wink by a good source, it would be remiss of me not to pass it on. Albeit with the risk of huge egg on face come Tuesday morning.

Charles Clarke's Astonishing 'U' Turn

Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary who argued tooth and nail for extending the period of detention without charge to 90 days for terror suspects seems to have a dramatic change of heart. He has today asked the Prime Minister to drop the current 42 days proposal and bow to the will of the House of Commons. It really makes you wonder how he could argue for 90 days in the first place. Some might say that David Davis has been altogether too polite in his response.

Mr Clarke was the Home Secretary who brought proposals for 90-days detention without charge to Parliament. He will know every argument put by the security services and the police and, perhaps more importantly, know the weaknesses in those arguments. If he is willing to accept the judgement of the House of Commons, so should the current Home Secretary and Prime Minister.

The Labour Party appears to be falling apart at the seams.

Charles Clarke Launches Grenade at Balls (Not His Own)

Charles Clarke has an extraordinary letter in today's Times, launching an all out attack on his former buddy Ed Balls. It's worth quoting in full.

Sir, Ed Balls’s extraordinary interview with you (April 18) is most revealing and provokes a response.

His injunctions about the “indulgent nonsense” of “private briefings against the Labour leader” certainly come from one who is well acquainted with this kind of activity. Such things do discredit politics and take us back to the days of faction and party-within-a-party that were so damaging in the 1980s. As he says, we’ve seen it over this parliamentary recess, as I know to my cost from the totally false briefing (to which he refers) that I am considering running as a “stalking horse” against Gordon Brown. I hope that he’ll do what he can to stamp it out.

His references to “disappointment” resonate. It’s certainly true that many Labour MPs, including myself, are disappointed by policy decisions such as the abolition of the 10p tax rate, the over-bureaucratic and insensitive nature of the post office closure programme, and the problems arising from lack of preparation for a Northern Rock-style economic challenge. These all stem from Treasury positions with which he is very familiar. It’s also true that many, including myself, are disappointed with many aspects of his education policies, of which the most serious is the absence of a coherent and focused reform strategy for the 14-19 curriculum, along the lines of Mike Tomlinson’s proposals.

As far as his remarks about “falling for false prophets” are concerned, I would advise him to examine himself and his own role. He should stop attacking others anonymously or in code and look to his own performance and record.

Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP

This kind of attack is interesting for various reasons

• It is further evidence of the disintegration of the New Labour project

• Charles Clarke isn't beyond doing some very effective off the record briefings himself

• It adds further fuel to the debate about what Clarke's 'endgame' is.

Sometimes in politics, you throw a pack of cards up in the air and see how many of them land face up. I suspect this is what Charles Clarke is up to at the moment. He sniffs that Brown is now in deep trouble (cf Jackie Ashley in today's Guardian) and is only too willing to stick the knife in. The question now is: how will Ed Balls react?

I'd love to be sitting between them at Norwich City FC's final home match against QPR... I suspect it wouldn't be the players they'd be hurling abuse at. It would be each other.

Clarke: You're not singing anymore, you're not singing any-more.

Balls: Who ate all the pies?