Will Gordon Brown survive the year?

[andyandy]

A question which would have seemed ludicrous only a few months, is now gaining at least some momentum. Following the rout at Crewe, an embarrassing fifth place in Henley, and the Scottish Labour leader resignation, Brown now faces a Glasgow by-election. On the face of it, a13,000 majority should make this a rocksolid Labour hold, but these are troubled times for Labour. The headlines north of the border are pretty stark

"The byelection that could bring down Brown" screamed the headline in the Scotsman. His native newspaper today asserts on its front page that the prime minister would be "unlikely to survive" if Labour loses the Glasgow East byelection so soon after the resignation at the weekend of the Labour leader in Scotland, Wendy Alexander.

The sentiment is echoed on the front page of the Herald: "Brown could be forced out" if Glasgow East is lost.

The Scottish National party believes it could clinch the byelection, triggered by the resignation of Labour MP David Marshall for health reasons.

But it is not just the Scottish press that are sharpening their knives. Writing in today's Sun, Trevor Kavanagh states: "Gordon's time is up ... but who's going to tell him?"

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/06/deborah_summers_politics_edito_1.html

the looming and very real danger is that this becomes recast as a referendum on Brown, with the voters of Glasgow going to the polls under the impression (whether real or not) that a Labour loss would result in the end of Brown. Under such motivation one could imagine a very high turnout, and as always is the case, those with grievances are far more likely to turn out than those with apathetic indifference.

So, imagining the real possibility of a Labour defeat, would Brown have to seriously contemplate resigning? Would the political pressure from within his own party (from politicians nervously calculating their own unemployment prospects) bring about a leadership coup?

Or will Broon lumber on regardless taking his near bankrupt party to annihilation in the general election, losing heavily to the Conservatives in the South and being swept away by the SNP in the North? Under such a circumstance one could imagine the very real prospect of the breakup of the union and with the loss of Scottish Labour MPs a very prolonged period in opposition.....

Or will it turn it all around and proves the naysayers wrong?

 

[Darth Rotor]

If Brown falls, or rather looks to fall, why is it a necessary assumption that Labour will fall? Is there a way for Labour to get their heads together, as a party, and ask Gordo to hit the bricks and present the public and the party with a better brand of leader?

I don't understand the nuances of the Brit parties all that well, so I am appealing for you to put a bit of E into JREF.

(I have learned enough to use the u in Labour when discussing things British. )

DR

 

[Jimbo07]

(I have learned enough to use the u in Labour when discussing things British. )

DR

It's laborious

 

[plumjam]

It's laborious

Let's not labour the point.

Next person!

 

[andyandy]

If Brown falls, or rather looks to fall, why is it a necessary assumption that Labour will fall? Is there a way for Labour to get their heads together, as a party, and ask Gordo to hit the bricks and present the public and the party with a better brand of leader?

I don't understand the nuances of the Brit parties all that well, so I am appealing for you to put a bit of E into JREF.

(I have learned enough to use the u in Labour when discussing things British. )

DR

the way things are looking at the moment it would take a minor miracle for them to win the next election. They are now over 20 points behind the Conservatives in the polls, and have managed to alienate just about every core demographic. Add to that the fact that any time the economy heads south, the government in charge gets it in the neck, and voter fatigue of over a decade of Labour rule, and anything other than a Labour defeat would be pretty surprising. Of course that has to be tempered with the fact that Labour don't actually have to hold an election before spring 2010 (and will probably hold on right to the end), and if a week is a long time in politics, then 18 months is a lifetime. But personally I can't see any way back.

I think their best chance at the moment is to ditch Brown and then appoint a stopgap measure such as Jack Straw to ensure that whilst they lose, they don't lose catastrophically. The problem that the Labour party finds itself in is that it doesn't have many political heavyweights waiting in the wings to take over as PM. Someone like David Milliband could well lead the party one day, but if Labour were to replace Brown after just a year in the job, I think they would have to look at an older politician with good name recognition and who still commands a decent level of public popularity. Jack Straw springs to mind, I'm not sure who else, maybe John Reid?

Anyway, no matter who they choose I won't vote Labour

 

[strimmer]

Gordon waited at the labours number 2 for more than a decade, and I can not see him stepping down as their leader while labour is in the majority. When they lose the next election and Mr. David Cameron becomes PM, is when Brown will step down from his labour leader position.

After Labour losses will the party moderate????

 

[richardm]

the looming and very real danger is that this becomes recast as a referendum on Brown, with the voters of Glasgow going to the polls under the impression (whether real or not) that a Labour loss would result in the end of Brown.

Elsewhere on these forums, Jaggy Bunnet has suggested that Labour would like to cast this in such a manner, since the chances of them actually losing that particular seat are practically nil. They can then present their victory as a sign of happy resurgence. And he may well be right.

So suppose that Labour did manage to lose: given that it would be such an enormous failure I think Brown would be out in no time.

I can't see Labour winning the next General Election with Brown at the helm; I have a nasty feeling that it is already too late for them to win with anyone at the helm, since the ship appears to be aground and waiting for the waves to pound it to death.

Gordon waited at the labours number 2 for more than a decade, and I can not see him stepping down as their leader while labour is in the majority.

He doesn't need to step down, there will be plenty of people ready and willing to give him a leg-and-a-wing.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If Brown falls, or rather looks to fall, why is it a necessary assumption that Labour will fall? Is there a way for Labour to get their heads together, as a party, and ask Gordo to hit the bricks and present the public and the party with a better brand of leader?

Short answer, yes. There is no obligation on Labour to hold a general election because they change party leader. They did not do so when Brown took over from Blair, nor did the Tories when Major replaced Thatcher.

However one reason given for Brown's low popularity is that he has no mandate as he was not elected as leader. This would be an even stronger charge against a replacement leader as Blair had announced he was stepping down at some point before the election and it was an extremely strong probability that Brown would be PM and people knew this at the last election. If someone replaced Brown they could not argue that the voters were expecting them to be PM when they were last asked to vote.

 

[Darat]

I'm going to say no, I think he will be like his protege ("10 out of 10" Wendy) sponsored by super-glue.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Elsewhere on these forums, Jaggy Bunnet has suggested that Labour would like to cast this in such a manner, since the chances of them actually losing that particular seat are practically nil. They can then present their victory as a sign of happy resurgence. And he may well be right.

So suppose that Labour did manage to lose: given that it would be such an enormous failure I think Brown would be out in no time.

Labour has a bigger %age majority in Glasgow East than the Tories have in any constituency in the UK. It is their third safest seat in Scotland.

That there is even discussion about them losing it is evidence of the terrible state they are in, but I still believe they are managing expectations downwards so they can present a fall in their margin from over 40% to around 10%-15% as being a "victory".

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm one of the very few who believe the falling economy could work out quite well for Brown. If he manages to lift it up by 2010 with a few thousand affordable homes to boot, there will be a few newspaper editorials about how Brown has shown his strength, managing to lift the country out of a depression. Brown isn't all that disliked in the left-wing press, as hard as that is to believe.

Regardless, if Labour cannot bring down the price of Bacon (£2:65!) and some of that other stuff, sure as hell the Conservatives cannot.

Miliband needs to be elected to be a good leader. He cannot take over from a unhealthy Brown and expect to take Labour to victory.

 

[Primus]

I read somewhere that there were rumors of David Cameron telling the rest of the Tories cut Brown some slack temporarily.

Basically to make sure he is still the PM come the next general election as they would much rather campaign against him, given he's such a dead cert to lose the election catastrophically.

May not actually be true but the sentiment made me chuckle.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I'm one of the very few who believe the falling economy could work out quite well for Brown. If he manages to lift it up by 2010 with a few thousand affordable homes to boot, there will be a few newspaper editorials about how Brown has shown his strength, managing to lift the country out of a depression. Brown isn't all that disliked in the left-wing press, as hard as that is to believe.

Don't think the timescales work. To benefit at an election in early May 2010 he is going to need a clear record that the economy has turned round. Say a minimum of 6 months of economic good news. Latest figures by that time are likely to be for March 2010 so working back he needs the good news to start in October 2009. Seems optimistic.

And for every one of those affordable homes (assuming they can find a bank willing and able to lend), there are tens of homeowners who are in negative equity / whose homes have lost value.

Regardless, if Labour cannot bring down the price of Bacon (£2:65!) and some of that other stuff, sure as hell the Conservatives cannot.

Maybe / maybe not. It is still the government that gets punished for a bad economic situation.

Miliband needs to be elected to be a good leader. He cannot take over from a unhealthy Brown and expect to take Labour to victory.

Agreed.

 

[Uzzy]

I do hope he survives till next election. That way David Cameron can have a 150 seat majority in parliament.

 

[Darat]

Please no - I'd like a period with governments with very slim majorities. We need time for all the recent changes to bed down, not more unilateral new policies and legislation. I sometimes daydream that for 5 years out of every 10 no new legislation could be passed.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I've always like Brown aside from that idiotic mention of the Bible in his 2007 conference speech to 'get one up' over Cameron and the family tax-cut proposal.

That and the Thatcher photo-op.
That and Iraq.
That and the moronic 'Britishness' idea he had going.
That and filling the hole Blair left behind in Bush's arse.

Yeah.. maybe he isn't all that great after all.

Miliband needs to grow some and criticise Israel like he (allegedly) does in private, then he'd be a great Prime Minister. Cameron is no Blair, and Cameron is no Miliband. I just hope people do not forget the advances Labour have made since 2000.

British people want people who stand up for them, not some idiotic US President. They thought they would get that with Brown, they were wrong.

 

[Rolfe]

Elsewhere on these forums, Jaggy Bunnet has suggested that Labour would like to cast this in such a manner, since the chances of them actually losing that particular seat are practically nil. They can then present their victory as a sign of happy resurgence. And he may well be right.

Well, let's take this a step at a time. First, what the hell is going on, with this snap by-election for no good reason anyone can see? The SNP have been on tenterhooks for months over the looming Motherwell and Wishaw by-election, coming because of Jack McConnell's departure for Malawi.

(Quick digression - Jack was First Minister in the previous Labour administration in Scotland, but resigned after they lost the election last year. He's smarting at not being offered a peerage, and instead this ex-maths-teacher has been given the plum job of British High Commissioner to Malawi, thus putting some highly experienced career diplomat out of a job. He knows nothing of diplomacy, and should have set off months ago in order to have some chance of learning the ropes before the retiring Commissioner leaves, but of course that would mean a by-election. The strong suspicion has been that Labour are bottling the by-election, although on the face of it the seat should be safe. Nevertheless, as a matter of historical interest, it is the first ever Westminster seat won by the SNP, at a by-election in 1945.)

There is another looming by-election, in Glenrothes, where the sitting Labour MP is genuinely ill (I'm not sure if it is mesothelioma, in which case he has only months to live, or a milder form of asbestosis, but he has recently had a lung removed). However, he is gamely hanging on, again apparently in order to avoid a by-election which might damage Labour.

Dying MPs have, in the past, been trundled to Westminster in ambulances for crucial votes, when the electoral arithmetic was tight!

And suddenly, out of left field, David Marshall resigns "due to ill health". However, Labour don't really seem to be denying the press reports that he is under investigation for paying (I think) £220,000 in expenses to his wife and/or daughter, whom he seems to have omitted to declare as employees in the latest round of openness. Oh yes, and that he's in the pockets of the local drug barons. So it is being reported in certain papers anyway. The best retort I heard a Labour spokesman make was on TV - "well, the health issues are real enough".

So there is at least a smidgin of a suspicion that this by-election is not exactly sought by Labour, but it is seen as a lesser evil than a full expose of the latest snout-in-trough sleaze. And the fact that this is such a safe seat possibly gives (or at least gave) them some comfort.

And don't underestimate the "safety" of this seat. This is "vote for a red balloon on a stick" territory. It is deprived, and poverty-stricken, and run-down, and plagued with drug-dealing (q.v. above) and gang warfare. And the latest gem from Des Browne (Secretary of State for Scotland) is that these people have been represented by the Labour party for many decades and they know which side their bread is buttered on!

In fact the constituency is a disgrace, and any party which was complicit in getting and leaving it in that state should hang its head in shame. However, the reality seems to be that people in such poor circumstances have been told for so long that Labour is the party for them and any other party would withdraw whatever small benefits they receive, that they go on voting for them regardless. Whether there is anything deliberate in the idea of keeping people in poverty to protect your vote (when presented as the party of the poor) I really don't know - I suspect not, I think it's pure nepotism, stupidity and corruption, but there are those who think so.

Anyway, the SNP require a 22% swing to take the seat. This is significantly more than the actual swing at Crewe and Nantwich. It's a huge task, and Jaggy Bunnet may very well be right that the Labour game plan is to talk their chances down and then present even a massively reduced majority as a Great Victory.

However.

Labour will lose Glasgow East to SNP

Labour will lose the Glasgow East by-election to the SNP. That's the powerful forecast of the PHI100, Britain's most authoritative survey of expert and inside political opinion.

The panel's prediction will cause great apprehension within Labour's already frightened ranks because the PHI100 has established a reputation as the most accurate predictor of election outcomes. The politically balanced panel was the first to correctly forecast that Boris Johnson would be elected Mayor of London. The panel, which includes senior politicians and strategists from all the main parties, also accurately predicted the outcomes of the by-elections in Crewe & Nantwich and Henley, forecasting a substantial Tory win in the former and an increased Conservative majority in the latter.

A substantial majority of the panel is forecasting a victory for the Nationalists over the Government in the Glasgow seat which Labour would normally regard as very safe. Most (fifty five per cent) think it will be a SNP win with a narrow majority. A further ten per cent of the panel believe that the SNP will win comfortably.

[....]

One left-leaning strategist says: 'If Labour loses, it's curtains for Brown.'

I'm mildly startled by this, and of course it's possible the 24% "minority report" are right, but it does show just how dire Labour's position really is. Certainly, when one looks at the voting in the constituency in the Holyrood election last year the swing suddenly becomes a lot less than 22%, and all opinion polls have suggested that the SNP have made considerable advances since then.

It will be informative to see who the candidates will be. Rumours the the SNP might field Elaine C. Smith ("Mary Doll") appear to be groundless, as she has other work committments. Other rumours say that Tommy Sheridan will stand for the SSP/Solidarity (whichever, I can't keep it straight) (which virtually means for himself), which could shove a spanner in the works. I fear a very nasty campaign - the Labour party backed into a corner in west central Scotland is not a pretty sight. However, I've already found out who to contact re. volunteer work in the constituency, and fortuitously I have a week off just before the by-election, and I'm already figuring out what sort of car mileage is involved to get over there. So I'll let you know how it's shaping up.

Rolfe.

 

[andyandy]

Very interesting post rolfe....

Some more bad news the Labour:

Ladbrokes have released their odds for the Glasgow East by-election. They've chalked the SNP up as favourites to win:

SNP --- 8/13
Labour --- 6/5
Conservatives --- 100/1
Liberal Democrats --- 100/1

Remember, Labour currently hold the seat with a 13,500 majority - that's almost double the majority they enjoyed in Crewe and Nantwich before the Tories won there recently. Yet still the bookies - as well as Politics Home's panel of Westminster insiders - are predicting victory for Alex Salmond's nationalists. It's almost getting to the point at which no seat can be considered safe for Labour.

I was thinking of putting a bet on Labour losing, but those odds on a SNP victory are pretty prohibitive. It will be interesting to see how those odd shift as the election campaign gets underway.

 

[Rolfe]

So, after all that, I still haven't answered the question or voted on the poll. Since I know who Gordon Brown is, and rate the chances of him doing any "honourable thing" close to those of the proverbial snowball in hell, it's between 1 and 3.

My experience detailed in the "Will Wendy ever resign" thread rather inclines me to Darat's point of view. Tories seem to know when to go - and then they go about three to six months later. Labour seem to hang on to their place at the trough until the "cold dead hands" moment comes.

On the other hand, the Wendy thread has ended. She resigned last Friday. So it does happen eventually.

I have read and heard many commentators declare that Labour simply cannot appoint another leader without a general election, even if there is a contested party leadership election. The view seems to be that you can get away with installing a new PM without going to the country once, but twice is a political impossibility. (Though having said that, what exactly is going to stop them - is the Queen going to send for the new Labour leader and tell him to call an election?)

I honestly don't know. I tend to see the prospect of an early general election more in terms of its implications for Scottish politics than in a UK wide perspective. The phrase "bring it on" might be appropriate if it hadn't been patented!

They say this will be a "body heat" campaign. I think I might be wearing a bit of a groove in the M8 over the next three weeks.

Rolfe.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Other rumours say that Tommy Sheridan will stand for the SSP/Solidarity (whichever, I can't keep it straight) (which virtually means for himself), which could shove a spanner in the works.

Very good point. If the TanMan stands it becomes a lot harder to predict - he has the name recognition and reputation to appeal to the "traditional" Labour voter. How that plays out is difficult to predict - if he doesn't stand then the anti-Labour vote is smaller but probably goes almost entirely to the SNP, if Tommy stands then more are likely to defect from Labour but the question is whether those who would have voted SNP if he didn't stand will vote TanMan if he does.

I assume his perjury trial won't take place before the by-election?