Government statistics

More on the current spate of casualties in Afghanistan and their potential political impact in tomorrow's weekly column.

Not-so-new Labour say their goodbyes

This week's Journal column focuses on North-East matters, namely the forthcoming retirement of at least ten of the region's 30 MPs. Most of them are going not because of the expenses row but because they're 60 and facing a spell in Opposition, but some of them will leave a bigger hole than others....

---

All general elections involve goodbyes. Over the last decade and a half, those who have bidden farewell to the Commons’ green benches have included such North-East political luminaries as Don Dixon, Sir Neville Trotter, Dr David Clark and Derek Foster.

In between times, the region also saw two of its most famous ‘imports’ move on to fresh woods and pastures new – Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair.

But even that loss of political talent looks set to be dwarfed by the scale of the exodus when the next election finally takes place.

Ten of the North-East’s 30 MPs have already announced they are standing down – or in the case of Stockton North’s Frank Cook, had it announced for them – and several more may yet follow.

As well as Mr Cook, who has been deselected, those on the way out include former ministers Hilary Armstrong (Durham North West), Alan Milburn (Darlington), Doug Henderson (Newcastle North) and Chris Mullin (Sunderland South).

They are joined in the queue for the exit door by backbenchers Jim Cousins (Newcastle Central), Fraser Kemp (Houghton and Washington), John Cummings (Easington), Bill Etherington (Sunderland North) and Peter Atkinson (Hexham).

Some of these departures can be put down to natural longevity – with the exceptions of Mr Kemp and Mr Milburn, all are either at or approaching the normal retirement age,

But there has inevitably been speculation that the MPs’ expenses scandal, while not directly implicating any of the above-named in wrongdoing, may have persuaded at least some of them that Parliament was no longer worth the candle.

For my part, I’m not sure. While some no doubt view with trepidation the prospect of having the public pore over their expense claims online, it is as nothing compared to the far grimmer prospect of Opposition.

With Labour providing 28 of those 30 MPs, the prospect of a Labour defeat in 2010 will inevitably have a bigger impact in the North-East than elsewhere.

Most of the Labour MPs who are retiring have already experienced a longish spell in Opposition prior to 1997 – but back then, they were in their 40s, and could look forward confidently to ministerial office one day.

For an MP past his or her 60th birthday, five years of Opposition presents a quite different proposition. Even if Labour is only out for one term, there would be little for them to come to back to save for a lap-of-honour on the backbenches.

So Ms Armstrong and Mr Henderson, for instance, are right in their assessments that it is time for a younger person to take over the reins in their respective seats, and although they have not all said so explicitly, the same goes for many of the others.

That is not to say, however, that some of those going will not constitute a grievous loss to the politics of the region, and indeed to the UK as a whole.

The MP who will be most sorely missed in terms of his dogged and occasionally lonely championing of the region’s interests will, without doubt, be Jim Cousins.

Meanwhile the ones who will leave the biggest holes in terms of their wider contribution to Parliament and to centre-left politics more generally will be Chris Mullin and Alan Milburn.

So why single out those three? Well, Mr Cousins first. Back in the days before 1997, the Newcastle Central MP had legitimate ambitions to be a minister, and served at one time as part of Robin Cook’s Shadow Foreign Office team.

But to the region’s very great fortune, he lost that job and ended up in what turned out to be the very much more influential role of backbench member of the Commons’ Treasury Committee.

For the past 12 years, he has used that platform to advance the interests of the North-East at every opportunity, from bemoaning the impact of London-centric interest rate policies in the late 90s to helping facilitate the rescue of Northern Rock last year.

Jim would have been a perfectly competent minister, but the truth is he’d have been wasted. Quite simply, there has been no finer advocate for this region over the past two decades.

But if the North-East owes Mr Cousins a great debt, the country as a whole owes a greater one to Mr Mullin – another who found his talents more suited to being out of government than in it.

His championing of the cause of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four highlighted two of the worst miscarriages of justice of the past half-century, and led to lasting changes in the criminal justice system.

As for Mr Milburn, he will, to my mind, go down as largely unfulfilled political talent. He had a lot more left to contribute to the Labour Party, and had he chosen to do so, could have helped Gordon Brown renew its policies for new political times.

Unfortunately the two men found themselves unable to work together for the good of the party – a sure sign of a party that is about to lose power.

Inevitably, there have been suggestions that the great exodus will fundamentally change the political culture of the North-East, but that remains to be seen.

While the imposition of all-woman shortlists in some seats may very well make the Northern Group of Labour MPs less male, whether it will make the North-East less Labour is much more open to doubt.

The Tories can legitimately entertain hopes of winning perhaps three additional seats in the region next year, and the Liberal Democrats two – but that still leaves Labour as the overwhelmingly dominant force.

The region is seeing not so much a changing of the political guard, as the swapping of an ageing Labour generation for a younger one.

Wishful thinking

A warm welcome back to Slob....

Building, or just blundering?

Gordon Brown's latest relaunch this week met with a preditably underwhelming reception from the public. Here's this week's Journal column.

---

Sometimes in politics, governments and Prime Ministers find themselves in a position where, whatever they do or don’t do, they are effectively in a no-win situation.

If they stick to their guns and attempt to drive through their programme in the teeth of opposition, they are criticised for being inflexible, arrogant and authoritarian.

But if, on the other hand, they try to demonstrate that they are “listening” to their critics by changing their mind on some key issue, they are lambasted for having “lost authority.”

It is a conundrum that goes to the heart of all political debate. Does the public actually want a government that “listens,” or does it merely want one that shows “strong leadership?”

Well, the answer is that it probably wants both, but history shows that while an ability to listen is all very well, the foremost requirement of any government is the ability to lead.

A government which proves, early on its lifetime, that is capable of “strong leadership” is much more able to show flexibility later on without the risk of damaging its authority.

By contrast, governments which fail to establish such a reputation in the first place tend to find that subsequent attempts to “listen” are invariably interpreted as further evidence of weakness.

In such a position does Gordon Brown’s administration find itself at the moment, in a week which saw both an attempt to show leadership in the shape of the draft Queen’s Speech, and a series of U-turns which, so ministers claim, show they are “listening.”

First, then, the attempted show of leadership. For me, the most interesting thing about Mr Brown’s latest “relaunch” on Monday was the slogan – “Building Britain’s Future.”

This is the nearest thing Mr Brown has had to a “Big Idea” in the whole of his two years at No 10 – but the amazing thing is that it has taken him so long to get there.

“Building the future” has been being talked about as a possible leitmotif for the Brown premiership for at least 18 months, – not least in this column where it was first mooted back in December 2007.

Okay, so it’s not the kind of soaring vision his predecessor might have come up with, but it’s as good a slogan as any for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his work ethic and sense of public service.

If “building” was the theme of Monday’s package, housing was the obvious focus, with a £2.1bn pledge to fund 110,000 affordable homes to rent or buy over the next two years.

But Mr Brown soon ran intro trouble with the promise to change council house allocation rules to allow councils to give preference to local residents.

Not only might this be illegal under EU equality laws, it will invariably be seen as a response to the growth of the British National Party in some traditional Labour areas.

As such, it risks having the same negative impact on the Prime Minister’s credibility as his infamous “British jobs for British workers” soundbite at last year’s Labour conference.

The other big problem with Mr Brown’s housing plans, in common with other pledges made in Monday’s Commons statement, was of course the price tag.

In the light of the massive debt burden already facing the British economy, it was hard not to listen to some of the Prime Minister’s announcements without a growing sense of incredulity.

It was a bit like Mr Brown’s Budgets and spending reviews of old, in the days when he was able to chuck a few billion here and a few billion there with seemingly gay abandon.

Part of Mr Brown’s problem is that he is still wedded to his old mantra of “Labour investment versus Tory cuts” – but most people now believe there will be cuts whoever wins the next election.

What of the U-turns? Should they be seen as evidence of a “listening” government, as Justice Secretary Jack Straw claimed on Thursday, or do they in fact show that it is no longer in control of events?

Well, the move to water-down the national ID card scheme has been predicted ever since Alan Johnson went to the Home Office in the recent reshuffle. If he ever does manage to become Prime Minister, it will almost certainly be scrapped altogether.

Likewise, the decision to abandon the proposed part-privatisation of the Royal Mail was forced on the Prime Minister by his backbenchers’ refusal to countenance the plan.

The measure was doomed once it became clear that Mr Brown would have to rely on Tory votes to get it through the Commons, however much Business Secretary Lord Mandelson may have fought to save it.

What this all demonstrates is that the overarching narrative of the Brown government isn’t “building,” it’s something else that begins with b – blundering from one crisis to the next.

And there comes a point where a government has blundered from so many crises to the next that everything it does starts to be seen in this light.

Sadly for Mr Brown, this point in the lifetime of his administration was reached a very long time ago.

Which is why this latest attempt at a relaunch is likely to be about as successful as the last.

Who will clean up Parliament?

Who will be the one to clean-up politics in the wake of the MPs expenses scandal? David Cameron? Gordon Brown? Or perhaps new Speaker John Bercow? Here's today's Journal column.

---

So was it a petty act of revenge by Labour MPs who know they are going to lose their seats and want to leave as poisoned a legacy as they can for David Cameron and the Tories?

Or was it a long-overdue attempt to provide a fresh start for a House of Commons tarnished almost beyond redemption by the MPs’ expenses scandal?

If the truth be told, the election of one-time Thatcherite radical John Bercow as the 157th Commons Speaker this week was probably a bit of both.

While some of the MPs who voted for him on Monday undoubtedly did so to make life uncomfortable for the Tories, who by and large detest their former colleague, others genuinely saw him as the candidate best-placed to provide a “clean break” with recent events.

Okay, so I wanted Sir Alan Beith to win, and I thought Margaret Beckett would win, but it is clear the former Foreign Secretary suffered from a backlash in the final days against what were seen as government attempts to install her.

As one sketch-writer who wrote a delightful account of the election using horseracing metaphors put it: “Mrs Beckett was deemed to have made excessive use of the whips.”

I was right about one thing, and that was that the election would be determined by whether Labour MPs decided to swing en bloc behind a single candidate

In the end they did, but that candidate was not Mrs Beckett, but Mr Bercow, who at 46 becomes the youngest Speaker since the 19th century and the first person of the Jewish faith to hold the post.

Already the new Speaker has made his mark. Indeed, anyone watching his first Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday might have concluded that he, not Gordon Brown or Mr Cameron, was the real star of the show.

Ticking off braying MPs for making too much noise during the weekly half-hour joust, he told them: “The public doesn't like it and neither do I."

On another occasion, he told the Tory backbencher Michael Fabricant to calm down as "it is not good for your health".

And he cut short a rambling question by the Labour backbencher Patrick Hall on housing, telling him he had “got the gist” of what he was saying.

I suspect Mr Bercow is right in thinking that the public will be generally sympathetic to his attempts to bring what he calls “an atmosphere of calm, reasoned debate” to the parliamentary bear-pit.

But he is walking a difficult tightrope. Just as spin doctors are not supposed to become the story, neither are House of Commons Speakers.

Although it is understandable that he wanted to make a splash with his first PMQs, he will need to learn to fade into the background if he is to avoid becoming a political football like Michael Martin.

To paraphrase Dr W.G. Grace, if he starts to believe that the public have come to watch him umpiring rather than the MPs performing, then his days in the Chair will be numbered.

The central conundrum facing Mr Bercow is ultimately the one that did for Mr Martin – is the Speaker merely the servant of the House, or should he or she in some way seek to be its master?

The truth is that Mr Bercow will somehow have to be both – seeking to nudge the House in the direction of reform, while ultimately reflecting its wishes.

Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Brown, at least, do not have that dilemma. Each of them is seeking to persuade the public that he is the man to “clean up politics” in the wake of the expenses scandal.

Sadly for the Prime Minister, it is a contest which currently he is decisively losing.

From the start of the expenses row, Mr Cameron has led the way in taking action against his own recalcitrant MPs, and this week he ordered them to pay back another £125,000 to the taxpayer.

The Tory leader seems to be preparing the ground for a large-scale clearout which could see up to half of the current crop of Conservative MPs stand down at the election.

In a speech this week, he also sought to link the need for reform with the need for people to regain power over their own lives, highlighting the drift towards the “surveillance state” under Labour.

Mr Brown has concentrated more on wider constitutional reforms, but has been predictably outflanked on this score by Mr Clegg, who has the advantage of leading a party that genuinely believes in it.

In a speech this week, the Prime Minister said voters wanted to see his government clean-up politics, help people through the recession, and – wait for it – “put forward our vision.”

But the fact that Mr Brown is still talking about setting out his “vision” two years after coming to power is surely emblematic of the failure of his administration.

Nowhere has this failure been more acute than in the field of restoring trust in politics, which was supposed to be the big theme of his premiership in the wake of the loans for lordships scandal and the general moral decay of the Blair years.

If cleaning-up Parliament had been part of Mr Brown’s confounded “vision” in the first place, Parliament would probably not be in the mess it is in now.

Could it be Prime Minister Bercow one day?

At the risk of giving the Tories another bout of apoplexy, there are some interesting historical precedents surrounding the election of very young House of Commons Speakers in terms of what happened in their subsequent careers.

The year 1789 is chiefly remembered for being the year of the French Revolution. But it was also the year the Commons elected two thirty-something Speakers who both went on to occupy Number 10 Downing Street.

The first of these was William Grenville, who was elected Speaker at the ripe old age of 30 and held the office only very briefly before quitting to become Home Secretary.

In his place was elected the 32-year-old Henry Addington, who remained in the Chair until 1801 when he suddenly found himself elevated to the Premiership in place of his childhood friend Pitt the Younger, who declared that Addington was the only successor he could countenance.

In the meantime, Grenville had gone into opposition, along with his close ally Charles James Fox. But in 1806, he was summoned by King George III to head up what was termed the Ministry of All Talents, though unfortunately for him, it only lasted a year.

Even further back, in 1715, one Spencer Compton was elected to the Commons chair at the age of 42 - four years younger than John Bercow is now. He served as Speaker for 12 years until 1727, when he was elevated to the House of Lords as the 1st Earl of Wilmington. In 1742, he succeeded Sir Robert Walpole as Prime Minister.

Bercow has said he will do nine years in the Chair, effectively two full Parliaments plus the toe-end of this one. That will make him 55 when he stands down - younger than Gordon Brown was when he became Prime Minister in 2007.

The only remaining question is: If Bercow did decide to pursue a post-Speakership career, would it be as a Tory or a Labour MP?

Good luck Speaker Bercow, you will need it

Okay, so I wanted Alan Beith to win, and I thought Margaret Beckett would win, but on reflection I'm glad John Bercow has won, such was the degree of mindless hostility shown to him by the Tory Party and its apologists in the national press over recent days.

Quentin Letts is without doubt one of our most gifted writers and humourists, and some of his criticisms of the man he christened "Gorbals Mick" were justified, but his recent piece on why Bercow shouldn't succeed Michael Martin was the quite the most vicious and unpleasant outpouring of journalistic bile I have read in many a long day.

It makes me wonder what slight, real or imagined, could have led Quentin to pen such a vitriolic piece? The effect of it, on me at any rate, was actually to induce sympathy for poor Bercow - not an emotion I am accustomed to feeling towards Tory politicians.

As to the well-known right-wing blogger who cheered on the Stop Bercow campaign from the sidelines - I won't bother to link to him - his own dislike of the man was clearly down to good old-fashioned religious intolerance. Bercow does support Rangers after all.

I did wonder if there might have been a bit of religious intolerance of another sort going on in what has been a rather unedifying episode for the Tory benches. But we have to take at face value David Cameron's generous tribute to the fact that Bercow is the first Speaker of the Jewish faith.

In terms of the bigger picture, the Commons now has a Speaker with a very clear mandate for reform. It's a good result for the progressive forces in British politics, a bad one for those who somehow wanted to use this election not to advance the reform process, but to stall it.

Who will win the race for the Speakership?

By all rights it should be Sir Alan Beith, but it probably won't be. Here's today's Journal column.

---

It is often the case with politicians that nothing so becomes them in their conduct of an office as the leaving of it, and this week, House of Commons Speaker Michael Martin proved he was no exception.

For nine years, he has presided uneasily over a Chamber which elected him to the post for quite the wrong reasons in the first place, and has had good cause to regret that choice moreorless ever since.

The errors of judgement have been legion, from his early refusal to call MPs who had failed to vote for him in 2000, to the ill-starred attempt to block freedom of information requests over MPs’ expenses last year.

Yet at the same time, it is impossible not to feel some sympathy for the doughty old Glaswegian, especially over the manner of his dismissal by MPs seeking a convenient scapegoat for their own moral failures.

It was inevitable that the outgoing Speaker would allude to that in his valedictory speech on Thursday, lamenting the lack of leadership shown by the main party leaders in failing to reform the expenses system sooner.

Predictable too were the treacly tributes paid to Mr Martin by the very people who brought him down – not least Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg who praised his “great authority.”

Some will call it hypocrisy, but in reality it’s just the way of the world. Just as we don’t speak ill of the dead, so in politics people tend not to speak ill of the political living dead.

Since his resignation last month, much of the anger and hostility that had built up against Mr Martin has dissipated, as it invariably does in politics. One day soon, no doubt, they will praise Gordon Brown for his “great leadership” too.

So who should replace him in Monday’s election? Well, there are ten candidates – seven Tories, two Labour members, and a lone Liberal Democrat in the shape of our very own Berwick MP, Sir Alan Beith.

The Tories are a fascinatingly varied bunch, ranging from a candidate in John Bercow who is a Labour MP in all but name, to one in Sir Patrick Cormack who is the epitome of the old ‘knights of the shires’ who used to dominate the Tory benches.

In between, they have the “bicycling baronet,” Sir George Young, two serving deputy speakers in Sir Alan Haselhurst and Sir Michael Lord, and the backbench maverick Richard Shepherd – all four of them making their second attempts on the job.

Finally, there is the Tories’ “interim candidate”- former Home Office minister Anne Widdecombe, whose intention to use the ten months between now and the general election to clean up Parliament is surely beyond even her formidable talents.

On the Labour side, there are two wildly contrasting contenders – the 37-year-old former junior minister Parmjit Dhanda, and the vastly experienced former Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett.

Two weeks ago, Mrs Beckett was begging Mr Brown in vain to make her a full member of the Cabinet once again, yet her subsequent emergence as a serious runner for the Speakership shows once more just what a political survivor she is.

Mr Dhanda, bidding to become the first ethnic minority Speaker, has fought an equally remarkable campaign, attracting highly positive reviews for someone so relatively inexperienced.

Finally there is Sir Alan, also running for the second time and the man with surely the hardest task in the race, in that he will need to attract most of his support from MPs of a different party to win.

So who should get the job? Well, a lot depends on whether MPs take a high-minded view of the needs of Parliament, or whether, like the last Speakership election, it becomes dominated by faction-fighting and tactical considerations.

In the wake of the expenses scandal all the contenders, in one way or another, are running as “pro-reform” candidates, but only one of them can point to a consistent record of being pro-reform over the course of four decades.

As he put it in his manifesto: “Public anger has created both a need and an opportunity for wider constitutional change, which is something to which I have been committed throughout my political life.”

There is little doubt in my mind that if MPs want a parliamentary reformer who really means it, they should elect Sir Alan Beith on Monday.

But will he get it? I have to say I think it’s unlikely, based on the fact that for all the talk of putting Parliament first, the two big parties still have a tendency to vote tribally in these sorts of situations.

At one point, Labour MPs looked set to try to impose Mr Bercow, who is disliked on his own benches, in revenge for the Tories’ role in bringing down their shop steward, Mr Martin.

There has been less of such talk in recent days, but the desire to dish the opposition is always a factor in politics and even though it is the Tories’ “turn” to provide the Speaker, both their leading candidates have been tainted by the expenses row.

Sir Alan Haselhurst was found to have charged his £12,000 gardening bill to the taxpayer, while Sir George Young claimed the maximum £127,000 in second home allowances over past two years.

If the next Speaker is to be a Conservative, Sir George still appears to be the one most capable of winning cross-party support, but one factor that cannot be ignored is that Labour still has by far the largest number of MPs.

If those MPs decide to swing behind one candidate en bloc, as they did with Mr Martin in 2000, that candidate is going to be very hard to beat.

My judgement therefore is that the next Speaker will be the candidate who can secure the most support from Labour MPs, while at the same time attracting a significant number of votes from the other parties.

On that basis, I am going to stick my neck out and say that the likeliest winner of the race to be the 157th Speaker of the House of Commons is Mrs Margaret Beckett.

The wit and wisdom of Clive Soley

Clive Soley was one of my least favourite Labour MPs on several counts - his long campaign to curb freedom of the press, his mindless cheerleading for Tony Blair during the Iraq War when as PLP chair he could have exercised a moderating influence, and his general pomposity.

So I was amused to read his speech during yesterday's House of Lords debate on the government's decision to hold an inquiry into the 2003 conflict.

I say to the lawyers that if their argument had prevailed in the past then Pol Pot would still be running Cambodia, because the Vietnamese illegally removed him; Idi Amin would still be running Uganda, because the Tanzanians illegally removed him; and East Pakistan would still be running what is now Bangladesh, because the Indians illegally removed it.

Isn't the noble lord forgetting two crucial facts: that both Pol Pot and Idi Amin are, er, dead?

The new blog

Since I took over the editorship of HoldtheFrontPage just over a year ago, my work has drawn me more and more into media reporting.

We've now launched a news and aggregation blog called The Journalism Hub to highlight some of the wealth of content available on HTFP, as well as on UK journalism blogs and other respected media news sources.

Athough I will be keeping this blog going as an outlet for my political writing and occassional personal rambles, The Journalism Hub is where I'll be doing most of my blogging from now on.

If you're a regular visitor here, and particularly if you're interested in the journalism-politics interface, I hope you'll pay us a visit.

Why Johnson will still take over in the end

Gordon Brown may have survived the Cabinet crisis and the Euro-elections debacle, but Alan Johnson is still in the driving seat to lead Labour into the next election. Here's today's Journal column.

---

Shortly after coming to power in 1997, the newly-elected Prime Minister Tony Blair asked his political mentor, Roy Jenkins, to carry out a wide-ranging inquiry into the voting system.

Lord Jenkins’ report, published the following year, recommended a form of proportional representation for Westminster based on the so-called ‘alternative vote’ in which candidates are ranked in order of preference.

Mr Blair, whose party had committed in its 1997 manifesto to holding a referendum on the voting system, was genuinely torn as to how to proceed, with Robin Cook and Paddy Ashdown among those urging him to cross the Rubicon.

But in the end, he was talked out of it by an alliance of senior figures within his own Cabinet, and Labour’s plans for voting reform were kicked, seemingly permanently, into that bit of St James’s Park where they can’t quite get the mower.

The senior Labour figures in question included the then deputy leader John Prescott, who has always been hostile to PR, and Jack Straw, who put the boot into the Jenkins Report in the Commons almost before the ink on it was dry.

But among them also was Chancellor Gordon Brown, as ever playing to the Old Labour gallery in his efforts to undermine Mr Blair and shore up his own power-base within the party.

More than a decade on, and facing the loss of the power he has dedicated his adult life to acquiring, Mr Brown has decided voting reform might be worth another look as part of a wide-ranging package of constitutional measures to restore trust in politics.

But as the Good Book says, you reap what you sow, and Mr Brown’s apparent deathbed conversion to PR has surely come too late to be taken seriously, still less as a means of relaunching his troubled premiership.

On the one hand, one can admire Mr Brown’s resilience in attempting to bounce back from last week’s Cabinet crisis and Sunday’s Euro-election drubbing by launching a set of proposals which would transform the British system of government.

On the other, you can simply view him as deluded. After all, this is a man who cannot even order his own Cabinet around, let alone carry out what would be the biggest set of constitutional reforms since Magna Carta.

The tragedy for the Prime Minister is that constitutional reform – or cleaning up politics in tabloid-speak - really could have been his “Big Idea,” had he been bolder about it at the start of his premiership.

Now, nearly two years on, it simply looks like a belated reaction to the continuing tide of parliamentary sleaze on the one hand, and on the other, Mr Brown’s desperate need to find some sort of purpose to his remaining in power.

There are essentially two reasons why the Prime Minister survived the coup attempt led by former Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell when he stormed out of the Cabinet a week ago last Thursday.

The first and most obvious is the that Labour MPs do not want to be pitchforked into fighting a general election which they know they would lose.

Rightly or wrongly, the idea that a new leader would be obliged to hold an immediate general election has taken hold at Westminster, and the line was being heavily spun by Mr Brown’s supporters last weekend.

Looked at from this perspective, the point at issue for Labour MPs at their crunch meeting on Monday evening was not so much whether the Prime Minister should stand down before the election, as when.

My own view, for what it’s worth, is that there is no way the Labour Party is going to allow Mr Brown to lead it into the next election, for the simple reason that it knows there is no way the public is going to vote for another five years of him.

But given that the election has to be held next Spring anyway, there is an inescapable logic to delaying any change in the leadership for now.

If, say, the change were to be delayed until the New Year, it would enable a new leader to take over close enough to the election not to have to bring it any further forward.

What Mr Brown has done over the past week is not so much “seen off” the threat to his leadership, as earned the right a dignified resignation at some point between the party conferences and Christmas.

But the second reason why the Prime Minister survived was quite simply the identity of those trying to unseat him - “wrong plot, wrong plotters” as one MP put it.

Whatever Mr Brown’s shortcomings, the great majority of Labour MPs do not want a Blairite restoration in any shape or form, and as soon as it became clear that the coup was essentially a Blairite enterprise, the whole thing was doomed to failure.

Mr Purnell is undoubtedly a bright lad, but he suffers from the considerable drawback of looking like Tony Blair’s junior research assistant, which indeed he was until he became an MP.

Likewise Ms Blears is a doughty campaigner and a highly effective communicator, but her nickname in the PLP, Mrs Pepperpot, gives some idea of the level of esteem in which she is held by her colleagues.

In a revealing BBC radio interview on Tuesday, Foreign Secretary and South Shields MP David Miliband said Mr Brown would remain in power because “the main contender Alan Johnson” was supporting the Prime Minister.

This tell us three things. First, that Mr Brown is now dependent on Mr Johnson’s support. Second, that Mr Johnson can take over any time he wants. Third, that when that time comes, Mr Miliband will support him.

The Labour Party has finally reached a settled will on the future of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, but it is not that he will lead them into the next general election for good or ill.

It is that he will be replaced, at a decent interval and in a suitably dignified way, by the man he has just appointed Home Secretary.

Brown should go down fighting

Rather than suffer political death by a thousand cuts - or resignations - has the time come for Gordon Brown to employ the ultimate sanction against the Blairite rebels? Here's today's column.

---

A few weeks ago, in the wake of the 'smeargate' scandal, I predicted that a bad result for Labour in the European and local elections on 4 June would cause all hell to break loose in the party over the ensuing 48 hours.

Well, it seems I was wrong on the last point. In the end, the party didn't even wait until the elections were over before plunging Gordon Brown's premiership into its worst crisis yet.

Labour was already facing a hiding on Thursday before the twin resignations of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and Communities Secretary Hazel Blears sent the government into near-meltdown.

And since one of the unalterable maxims of politics is that divided parties invariably get a hammering in elections, it is no great surprise that the results already look like being the party's worst ever.

The full picture won't be known until the Euro-election results are published tomorrow, with the very real possibility that UKIP and the Lib Dems may have pushed Labour into fourth place.

But with the Tories taking control of once-safe Labour councils such as Lancashhire, Derbyshire and Staffordshire, the scale of the carnage is already becoming pretty clear.

Once again, the old campaigner is refusing to give in without a fight, reshuffling his Cabinet yesterday with just about enough ‘big beasts’ still onside to fill the vacant jobs.

But with Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell joining those who are no longer prepared to work for the Prime Minister, the odds on him surviving even the next week have lengthened considerably.

It is a mark of Mr Brown's extreme weakness that the resignation of a political pygmy like Ms Blears should have provoked the near-collapse of his administration on Wednesday.

Let's not forget that this is a woman who in recent weeks has been forced to pay £13,000 of previously unpaid capital gains tax on the sale of a second home refurbished at taxpayers' expense.

If she didn’t deserve to be sacked on the spot for that, she certainly should have been for the blatant disloyalty and opportunism of her “You Tube if you want to” attack on Mr Brown last month.

Perhaps foolishly, the Prime Minister decided to leave her in place until the reshuffle, giving her the opportunity to further display her lack of loyalty by stabbing him in the front 24 hours before a vital election.

Ms Blears' dramatic exit, though, pales into insignificance besides that of arch-Blairite Mr Purnell. Not only was he not going to be sacked, he was actually going to be promoted.

So far, the rest of the Cabinet has refused to follow his lead, with Defence Secretary and Barrow MP John Hutton making clear that his own decision to stand down yesterday was for family reasons rather than as part of a Blairite revolt.

Mr Brown’s survival now depends on how many backbenchers rally behind the standard of rebellion that Mr Purnell has raised, with an email demanding that Mr Brown step down circulating among MPs

Since Mr Purnell does not himself intend to stand for the leadership, the rebels are still in search of a candidate capable of gaining the 70 MPs’ signatures necessary to provoke a challenge.

The initial impact of the resignations has been to dramatically limit the scope of what Mr Brown was able to achieve with yesterday's chances.

It is pretty clear he wanted to replace Alistair Darling with Ed Balls as Chancellor, but such is Mr Balls' unpopularity among Labour MPs that in the end, Mr Brown had no option but to abandon the idea.

Also staying put is South Shields MP and Foreign Secretary David Miliband, despite reports that Mr Brown wanted to give his job for former Hartlepool MP Lord Mandelson.

Besides Messrs Darling and Miliband, the big winner is leadership heir-apparent Alan Johnson, promoted to Ms Smith’s old job at the Home Office, after her predecessor John Reid apparently ruled out a return to the role.

In some respects, it is possible to argue that the government has been strengthened as a result of this week’s events, with highly capable ministers such as John Denham, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper all earning promotions.

And both Messrs Balls and Mandelson get beefed-up departments, sharing between them the spoils of the short-lived and now-defunct Department for Universities, Innovation and Skills.

But while the reshuffle may have taken some of the sting out of the rebellion, it is unlikely to be the end of the story - especially if tomorrow's results turn out as badly as expected.

The rebel email is still doing the rounds. Labour's supporters in the national press are deserting the Prime Minister. And Ms Smith, Ms Blears and Mr Purnell still have the chance to make Geoffrey Howe-style personal statements to the House.

But the Prime Minister does have one weapon left in his armoury to use against the rebels - ironically the very course of action Tory leader David Cameron has been urging on him for months.

It is quite simply to call a general election. The party would then have no option but to call off all the plotting and rally round its leader.

Of course, Mr Brown would lose, but he would at least go down fighting at the hands of the electorate rather than at the hands of the Blairites, and he would at least earn the public's gratitude for the manner of his departure.

The logic is clear. If Mr Brown wants to be sure of leading the Labour Party into the next election, he should call it now.

Reshuffle baloney

A collective madness appears to be descending on the Labour Party as it faces the prospect of humiliation in Thursday's local and European elections. Up here in Derbyshire, the talk is that Labour will lose control of the county council for the first time in the 27 years since David Bookbinder stormed into power at Matlock at the expense of a bunch of corrupt old Tory freemasons in 1981, but of course this is just one small aspect of what is expected to be a much wider deluge.

Against that backdrop, the idea that Gordon Brown can somehow try to turn round this situation by carrying out a reshuffle seems preposterous enough. The idea that he can turn it around by dint of replacing Alistair Darling as Chancellor with, of all people, Ed Balls, seems to me to be taking fantasy politics to fresh heights of absurdity.

I can't say I'm hugely surprised that Jacqui Smith has decided to disrupt all Gordon's careful plotting by staging a pre-emptive resignation. I predicted a couple of months back that she would fall on her sword and so she has, perhaps mindful of the much bigger battle she has on her hands in Redditch.

What I find more interesting is that as eminent an observer as Michael White does not believe there is an obvious successor to Ms Smith in sight. What, I ask you, about John Denham and Hilary Benn, both of whom have served as ministers of state at the Home Office as well as in other Cabinet roles?

Well, having posed the question, I'll do my best to answer it. Neither Denham nor Benn has much of a power base in the party. Neither are identified as "Brownites" or "Blairites." Neither has a clutch of influential lobby correspondents continuously writing up their chances of preferment as, for instance, Alan Milburn still has, four years after he last quit the Cabinet.

There is, therefore, neither tactical advantage nor short-term headlines to be gained in promoting either of them to the Home Office, as there would be for instance if he brought back Milburn, or David Blunkett, or still worse, used the department as a dumping ground for another senior minister (Darling, D Miliband) displaced from elsewhere. And of course, tactical advantage and short-term headlines are what the Brown government is now all about.

Jacqui Smith's original (over)promotion to the Home Office in 2007, ahead of a number of more experienced and able ministers, is itself a case in point. It was not done on merit, but as part of carefully-worked "deal" between Gordon Brown and Tony Blair to give Brown a clear run at the leadership in return for big promotions for Blair's favourites, David Miliband being another beneficiary.

The Guardian surerly had it right in its editorial yesterday. "Whatever Cabinet reshuffles are for, good governance has little to do with it."

The big, unanswered questions

Who will be the next Speaker? Will there be an October election? And will we get proportional representation? Just some of the many unanswered questions that have arisen from the MPs expenses scandal. Here's today's Journal column.

---

For most of the past two years, the biggest unanswered question in politics has been whether Gordon Brown will survive to lead Labour into the next election, and it is a question that is still awaiting an answer.

But seldom can any week in politics have thrown up as many unanswered questions as the last one, a week which has seen the first defenestration of a House of Commons Speaker for 300 years and talk of a “quiet revolution” in our political system.

Several careers besides those of Michael Martin have already ended. Several more are hanging by a thread. And the pressure for a wholesale electoral clear-out of the "Duck Island Parliament" is growing.

We now know the true, appalling extent of the scandal over MPs' expenses. What we can still only guess at at this stage is its longer-term impact.

First, there are the small-to-middling questions, mainly concerning individuals. How many more MPs will be forced to stand down at the next election? Who will lose their jobs in the next reshuffle? Who will be the next Speaker?

Then there are the slightly broader questions. How will the public’s anger at the behaviour of the political classes feed through into voting habits? Will the “incumbency factor” that has always favoured sitting MP go into reverse? And will the next election herald a new wave of independents?

Then of course there is the question of when that election will finally be held, and whether Mr Brown will pay the political price for failing to reform the system until it was too late.

Finally, perhaps the most far-reaching question of all. Will the expenses scandal ultimately result in an historic reshaping of our parliamentary democracy, or alternatively bring about its final demise?

In terms of the questions around the futures of individual MPs, the North-East is as good a place as any to start.

Will Tyne Bridge MP David Clelland, controversially reselected in preference to neighbouring MP Sharon Hodgson, now fund himself deselected after claiming for the cost of buying out his partner’s £45,000 stake in his London flat, despite his very full and frank explanations of the reasons behind the move?

Will Durham North’s Kevan Jones and other “squeaky clean” MPs who voluntarily laid bare their expense claims be rewarded for their candour, or will they find themselves tar-brushed along with their sleazier counterparts?

And will Sir Alan Beith crown a notable career of public service by achieving his ambition of the Speakership - or will the fact that both he and his wife, Baroness Maddock, claimed second home allowances on the same property ultimately count against him?

On that last point, I have to say it would give me great pleasure to see the long-serving Berwick MP in the Speaker’s chair, although if he were not standing down from Parliament, Sunderland South’s Chris Mullin would be an equally admirable choice.

If the truth be told, the North-East should have had the Speakership last time round. The region had three candidates in Mr Beith, David Clark, and John McWilliam, all of whom would have done a better job than Michael Martin – though some would argue that is not saying much.

Ultimately Mr Martin fell not because of shaky grasp of Commons procedure or even last week's ill-judged attacks on backbench MPs, but because his continual attempts to block the freedom of information request over MPs expenses caused this whole debacle.

Just imagine for a moment that Dr Clark had got the job. Would he have fought the provisions of the freedom of information legislation that he himself pioneered? Of course not, and our Parliament would now be much the better for it.

But enough of the ancient history. What on earth will happen to the House of Commons now?

One oft-heard prediction this week is that we will end up with a chamber full of Esther Rantzens, Martin Bells and toast of the Gurkhas Joanna Lumley, and it's certainly one possibility.

We are living through such an extraordinary period of “anti-politics” that there could even be a return to the situation that existed before the rise of the party system in the 19th century – the “golden age of the independent House of Commons man” as one historian called it.

But while celebrity politicians may well play a part, I think the next election is just as likely to throw up more “local heroes” like Dr Richard Taylor, who defeated an unpopular Labour MP over hospital closures and is now himself even being mentioned as a possible Speaker.

Should that election now take place sooner than spring 2010? Well, there has to be a very strong argument for saying that, just as the Speaker who resisted reform for so long has had to go, so too should the Prime Minister who failed to grasp the nettle.

When a Parliament has lost moral authority to the extent that this one has, a clear-out becomes almost a democratic necessity, and Cromwell’s words to the Rump Parliament – “In the name of God, go!” - once more have a certain resonance.

Against that, there is a case for allowing passions to cool. In the words of one commentator: "If an election were called next week, Britain might well end up with a Parliament for the next five years that is defined entirely by its views on claiming for bath plugs, rather than on how to get the country out of the worst recession in 70 years."

Mr Brown will no doubt still try to hang on until next May, but in my view an autumn 2009 election has become significantly more likely in recent days.

As far as the longer-term implications of the scandal are concerned, there is already talk of radical constitutional reforms including an elected second chamber, fixed-term Parliaments, more powerful select committees, and even proportional representation.

I'll believe it when I see it....but if a consensus does emerge that radical parliamentary reform is the way out of this mess, it stands to reason that the party that will most benefit will be the one that has consistently advocated such reform for the past 40 years.

The Liberal Democrats have long been the recipients of the "anti-politics" vote, and on this issue as well as that of the Gurkhas, their leader Nick Clegg has looked over the past fortnight like a man whose time has come.

Sir Alan Beith is not the only Lib Dem for whom this crisis may prove an historic opportunity.

In the midst of life....

Shortly after 9.30am on 3 August 2007, I held my new-born baby girl Clara Eloise in my arms for the first time.

It was one of the most joyous moments of my life, and ever since then my beautiful daughter has continued to delight all around her with her sunny personality and winning smile.

But we now know that on that very day, 130-odd miles away in North London, another father was having to cope with very different emotions.

On the day the evil killers of Baby Peter were finally jailed, the victim impact statement by the child's father makes somewhat harrowing reading.

Describing his arrival at the hospital he says: "I saw his little, limp body just laying there, naked except for a nappy. I could not believe what was happening, I could not believe that was my son.

"He appeared to be asleep and I just wanted to pick him up and take him home. There was nothing I could do for him … all I could do was kiss his forehead and say 'goodbye'. My son was gone forever."

"Having a boy meant the world to me, the thought of having a son to continue the family name was a source of great pleasure …He was such an adorable, lovely little boy, he loved to be cuddled and tickled, his laughter and smile could not help but make anyone in his presence feel happy."

"Like all fathers I had imagined watching my son grow up, playing football with him, taking him to see Arsenal play, watching him open his Christmas and birthday presents and just develop as a person. All that has been taken from me."

I would like to think that in the years to come, as I watch my own beloved child open her birthday presents every 3 August, I will spare a thought for that poor bereaved father.

This appalling case has stirred deep emotions in the hearts of millions, but for me, it has been a humbling reminder not just of the fragility and preciousness of human life, but of just how much I still have to be thankful for....

Trouble down at the farm

Animal Farm is one of my all-time favourite books, so I was delighted to see this week's offering from Slob.

Will Labour MPs back Bercow?

Now that Michael Martin has finally gone, after what were surely two of the most ill-judged Commons performances of modern times last Monday and again yesterday, the question turns inevitably to the identity of his successor.

The key strategic questions for MPs will be what kind of Speaker they want to follow Gorbals Mick, and whether anyone currently tainted by the expenses scandal should be ruled out. To my mind, there are three options:

1. A "reforming Speaker" who will help draw a line under the expenses scandal and present a new, modern face to the electorate. In this event, the standout candidates from each of the main parties would be Tony Wright, John Bercow and Vince Cable. Cable, who still sees himself as David Cameron's first Chancellor, has already ruled himself out, which could allow fellow Lib Dem Sir Alan Beith to come into his own.

2. A "safe pair of hands" who can unite the House and pour balm on the current turmoil. In this event the overwhelmingly most likely choices are either Sir Alan Haselhurst or Sir Menzies Campbell, but both are vulnerable to criticism over their own expense claims.

3. An "interim Speaker" who will mind the shop until the next election, after which more far-reaching choice can be made. This would have to be someone who has already announced they are standing down, so Ann Widdecombe or Chris Mullin are the likeliest options if this route is followed.

One rumour currently sweeping Westminster is that Labour MPs are getting behind John Bercow, which could constitute sweet revenge as Bercow is not wildly popular in the Tory Party. By contrast, a lot of Tory MPs - and bloggers - are keen on Frank Field, who has about as many fans in the PLP as Joey Barton has in the Newcastle dressing room.

At this rate, the Speakership election on 22 June could bring (another) whole new meaning to the term "flipping."

The week that changed Westminster

The expenses scandal is an indictment on the whole political class rather than one individual or party - but ultimately it will be Gordon Brown who pays the price. Here's today's Journal column.

---

If there has been a single, over-riding theme that has characterised British politics over the past decade and a half, it has been the long, slow collapse of public trust in those who govern in our name.

It started with cash for questions under John Major, continued with legislative favours to Labour donors under Tony Blair, and reached a new depth with the dodgy dossiers which sent British troops to war in Iraq on a false prospectus.

After that shameful episode, we probably thought we had seen it all – but the cascade of revelations about MPs expenses over the past eight days has taken public contempt for politicians to a new and potentially dangerous level.

It has truly been a game-changing week in British politics, and for the House of Commons, it is already clear that nothing will ever be the same again.

It began with the publication of the Cabinet’s expense claims last weekend, with Communities Secretary Hazel Blears bearing the brunt of the criticism both inside and outside the Labour Party.

Faced with some stinging rebukes from some of her own colleagues, she later agreed to repay £13,332 in Capital Gains Tax on the sale of her second home, but any slim chance she may have had of becoming Britain’s second woman Prime Minister has probably gone.

This, though, was just the hors d’oeuvres. By the end of the week, MPs were not just paying for their sins by writing cheques, some of them were paying with their jobs.

And it’s not over yet. Andrew Mackay may have been forced to quit as an aide to Tory leader David Cameron, Elliott Morley has been suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party, and Shahid Malik has temporarily stepped down as a justice minister – but no-one seriously believes they will be the only casualties.

So where does it all leave us? Well, amidst the mayhem, four specific conclusions can so far be drawn.

First, the Tories have been shown by and large to be more greedy than their Labour counterparts, as indeed I suggested might very well be the case on these pages a week ago.

Okay, so Labour has its fair share of Maliks, Morleys and Phil Hopes, all of whom claimed large amounts to cover the costs of their second homes.

But so far as I am aware, neither they nor any other Labour MPs have so far claimed for cleaning moats, repairing swimming pools, mowing paddocks, manuring their vegetable patches, or adding porticos to the front of their houses.

Secondly, though, the past week has also revealed Mr Cameron to be a more instinctive and decisive leader than Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

When confronted with the scale of the problem in his own party, it would have been very easy for the Tory leader to go into defensive mode – but instead, he seized the moment by telling his MPs it was payback time.

His own Shadow Cabinet led the way by repaying more than £17,000 worth of claims on items ranging from chauffeurs to repairing a broken pipe underneath a tennis court.

Mr Brown has defended his more softly-softly approach on the grounds that he is trying to “build consensus” on a way forward - but there is no doubt which of the two leaders has looked more in tune with the public mood.

Thirdly, the affair has demonstrated beyond any remaining doubt that Michael Martin’s nine-year tenure in the House of Commons Speaker’s Chair should now be brought to a close as expeditiously as possible.

I have written previously of his tendency to see himself more as the shop steward for MPs than the guardian of the dignity of Parliament, and events this week proved the point.

Anyone who has followed Mr Martin’s career will know that he has always adhered to a fairly simple philosophy – that whenever anything goes wrong, it is invariably the press that is to blame.

His attacks on backbench MPs who dared to question his decision to mount a leak inquiry over the expenses revelations showed a man out of time, out of touch, and totally out of his depth.

Fourthly and potentially most damaging of all, it is already clear that this episode will have a baleful impact on the public’s attitude to the mainstream parties in the run-up to next month’s European elections.

As senior a figure as Norman Tebbit has already openly called for a “plague on all their houses” vote on 4 June, suggesting only the fringe parties are worthy of support.

Lord Tebbit probably came within a whisker of being thrown out of the Tory Party over his remarks, but I suspect they will nevertheless resonate with large numbers of people.

The UK Independence Party is confident it can beat Labour into fourth place, while more worryingly, the current febrile atmosphere might very well see the election of Britain’s first British National Party MEPs.

I wrote that week the expenses issue was an indictment of the political class as a whole rather than any one individual or party, but nevertheless, it is Mr Brown who stands to be the biggest loser.

It is not as if he couldn’t have seen all this coming. Before it all blew up, the Commons authorities under Mr Martin spent months trying to block a freedom of information request to make MPs expense claims public.

Had Mr Brown been true to his instincts, true to his stated intention to restore public trust in politics on entering No 10, he could have taken the bull by the horns, gone to the papers himself with the information and sacked all the transgressors within his party.

But of course that would have required real leadership. And we now know that this is the kind of leadership which is beyond him.

Riding the gravy train

Actually, I think Nigel Farage and UKIP will be the main beneficiaries...but here's Slob's take on it anyway.

Preserved for posterity

I don't get as much time as I would like to update this blog these days, but by and large I'm pretty happy with what I've produced here over the past three years or so.

So when I was approached by the British Library to be part of its national web archiving project last year, I admit to having felt a great sense of satisfaction.

Snapshots of the blog have now been permanently archived at this page, while the blog is also listed in the Library's politics and blogs collections.

In theory this means my grandchildren in 50 years' time will be able to read the blog to find out what grandad was up to back in the Noughties. Assuming I am lucky enough to have any, of course, and provided the world doesn't end before then.

When I heard that the blog had been archived, I did give some fairly serious thought to knocking it on the head, and treating what has now been preserved for posterity as a completed body of work.

But quite apart from the fact that this would have amounted to a rather arbitrary cut-off point, I found myself thinking that if the blog ceased to exist, I would probably have to reinvent it.

As Iris Murdoch wrote in The Sea, The Sea: "Life, unlike art, has an irritating way of bumping and limping on, undoing conversions, casting doubts on solutions, and generally illustrating the impossibility of living happily or virtuously ever after."

And since this blog was never meant to be art, merely a reflection of what has been happening in British politics and in my own life since 2005, I figure it had better "bump on" for a while longer yet....

The John Smith Meme

Turns out I wasn't the only blogger who remembered that today was the 15th aniversary of the death of John Smith. Paul Burgin remembered too, and tagged me in a meme about Labour's lost leader. Happy to oblige, Paul.

Where were you when you heard John Smith had died?

I was at work in the South Wales Echo newsroom in Cardiff. It was the year before I went into the Lobby, so I ended up playing a supporting role in our coverage while our then Lobby men, Bill Doult and Bill Jacobs, did the business. I remember a conversation with a newsroom colleague, now a reporter on The Times, about who the likely successor would be: she said she thought it ought to be Blair, but we would probably end up with Brown. Ho hum.

How did you view John Smith when he was leader and how do you view him now?

Like Margaret Thatcher, I think John Smith would have turned out to be a better Prime Minister than he was a Leader of the Opposition. Doubtless the pace of reform in the party at the time could have been faster, but I have never bought into idea that this would have cost Labour the election, and Smith's essential decency coupled with the Tory disarray after Black Wednesday would have got him very comfortably into No 10.

Do you think he would have made a good Prime Minister?

I think he would have been a great Prime Minister. He would not have electrified the country in the way Blair did, but that would ultimately have been no bad thing - we would have had good, solid, responsible Labour government but without all the meretricious Cool Brittania nonsense that surrounded it, or the corrosive spin that ultimately destroyed the New Labour brand. He would also not have made the mistake of staying on too long, and would probably have handed over to Blair (or Brown) at a time when the political wind was still behind Labour. And of course, he would not have invaded Iraq, or built the Dome, or employed Alastair Campbell.

What do you think is his lasting legacy?

Devolution would clearly have been one of them - he would have embraced this enthusiastically rather than grudgingly as Blair did, and might well have extended it to some of the English regions as well as Scotland and Wales. He would certainly have pursued a more aggressive regional policy, rather than allowing inequalities between parts of the UK to widen as Blair did. More broadly, I think he would have restored trust in politics after the Major years, instead of which it has been steadily dragged down to new depths.

What would he have made of it?

I've not got time to wade into the MPs expenses row in detail as yet, although I have made my views on Mr Speaker Martin clear on Iain Dale's blog.

But meanwhile, on the day that, 15 years ago, Britain lost a great Prime Minister in waiting, a thought occurs: what would he have made of it all?

The changing face of politics

Did Margaret Thatcher save Britain? Can Hazel Blears really become Britain's second woman PM? And could the MPs' expenses revelations ultimtately rebound to Gordon Brown's advantage? Just some of the questions addressed in today's Journal column.

---

All general elections bring change, but some general elections bring more change than others, and there is a pretty universal consensus that the one that brought the most change in recent times was the one that took place 30 years ago this week.

For better or worse, Margaret Thatcher's victory over Jim Callaghan in that 1979 contest has cast its shadow over moreorless everything that has happened in British politics in the ensuing decades.

There is still, to my mind at least, a debate to be had about the Thatcher legacy. The widely-held view is that she “saved” Britain, which is the fundamental reason why the Labour Party subsequently found it necessary to take on most of her ideas.

But in many ways we were a more contented society back then, and while the “opportunity economy” which she ushered in may have made some people considerably better-off, it has not necessarily made people happier or more secure.

Anyway, for those lucky enough - or should that be sad enough? - to have access to the Parliamentary Channel via Freeview, there was the chance to relive it all again last Monday, as the channel replayed all 17 hours of the BBC's election coverage.

I flitted in and out of it between DIY jobs and the snooker, the main points of fascination for me being the impossible youth of David Dimbleby and other BBC presenters, and hearing Labour politicians speaking with genuine working-class accents.

Superficially, there would seem to be obvious parallels between that time and this - a failing Labour government, a faltering economy, an experienced but somewhat shop-soiled Prime Minister, an untried Tory leader whose time nevertheless looked like it had come.

But that's way too easy. In truth, Mr Brown would probably kill for the kind of personal ratings enjoyed by Big Jim, and Labour's predicament then - popular leader but unpopular policies - is moreorless the reverse of the position the party finds itself in now.

Either way, one politician who clearly had Margaret Thatcher very much in mind this week was the Communities Secretary, Hazel Blears, who enlivened the Bank Holiday weekend by launching an astonishing attack on Mr Brown.

She told the Observer that the government had shown a "lamentable" failure to get its message across, and that the public no longer believed any government policy announcements.

Ms Blears has since denied her comment should be seen in any way as a criticism of Mr Brown's leadership, but this is hogwash.

The giveaway was her use of the words "You Tube if you want to," a phrase which anyone over 40 will immediately recognise as an echo of the Iron Lady's famous soundbite: "You turn if you want to, the Lady’s not for turning."

Ostensibly, Ms Blears was of course referring to Mr Brown’s laughable performance on YouTube when he grinned his way through an announcement of a clampdown on MPs expenses.

But the subtext was clear: Ms Blears was suggesting that she is the new Margaret Thatcher, a plain-speaking, down-to-earth woman impatient with silly fads such as using internet video channels to make policy statements.

So can Hazel Blears really become Britain’s second woman Prime Minister? Well, I thinks she thinks so, although her last place in the 2007 deputy leadership election is hardly an ideal base from which to launch a successful leadership bid two years on.

That said, Mrs Thatcher herself is the supreme example of a rank outsider who propelled herself into the leadership ahead of more experienced and more highly-thought-of rivals.

In any case, to give Mr Brown his due, he promptly ignored Ms Blears’ protestations by going straight back onto YouTube to do a campaign broadcast for the European elections on 4 June.

But any hopes the Prime Minister may have had of regaining the political initiative in the run-up to those elections were hit by yesterday’s revelations about the Cabinet’s expense claims.

Although no rules appear to have been broken, stories about Mr Brown paying his brother £6,577 to cover the cost of cleaning services, Jack Straw overclaiming for his council tax, and Ms Blears juggling claims between three homes are hardly helpful at this juncture.

Whatever explanations ministers may offer, many voters are now conditioned to believe all politicians are guilty until proven innocent. – a sad state of affairs no doubt, but one which the political elite has largely brought on itself.

The wider political impact of these revelations may well depend on what is uncovered when the Daily Telegraph gets round to publishing the expense claims of the Tory frontbench, as no doubt it will do in the next few days.

Who knows, if it turns out that some of them have broken the rules while Mr Brown’s team stayed largely within them, it may even rebound to the Prime Minister’s advantage.

Indeed, at least one conspiracy theorist has already suggested that Brown Central could have orchestrated the whole thing as a way of staving off the anticipated Labour meltdown on 4 June.

If a real spin genius like Alastair Campbell was still at No 10, I’d be tempted to believe that, but it’s way too clever for the blundering bunch of incompetents that currently surround the Prime Minister.

The expenses issue is, at bottom, more an illustration of the changing relationship between politicians and the public than an indictment of any particular individual or party.

Old parliamentary stagers like Middlesbrough MP Sir Stuart Bell may look back fondly to the “age of deference” when MPs were implicitly trusted and the public left them alone to do their work.

But thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, and more generally the public’s desire for greater transparency in our political system, those days are gone for good.

It’s just another of the many ways in which politics has been transformed since the day Margaret Thatcher walked into 10 Downing Street all those years ago.

Not cricket

I don't want to take away from England's now near-certain victory in the First Test against West Indies - "West Indies get first taste of Onions" was my favourite headline on the match - but I can't get excited about it, for two reasons.

Firstly, it's on Sky, and therefore watching it would entail giving money to the man who has done more to debase British journalism and politics over the past 30 years than any other single individual, but I've been here before.

The second reason it all leaves me rather cold, however, is that Test cricket really shouldn't be played at this time of the year at all in my view - at least, not in England.

Early May is surely a time for tying up the loose ends of the football season before the summer sports take over, and for cricketers to try to score 1,000 runs for their county in a bid to force their way into the Test team. Or am I beginning to sound like my dad?

Can Gordon save Labour? Paul and Skipper exchange views

The future of Gordon Brown is dominating political discussion at the moment both at Westminster and across the blogosphere. Fellow left-of-centre blogger Skipper and myself decided to hold an exchange of views which we hereby publish for your entertainment and, possibly, enlightenment.

If there are any other bloggers who would like to take part in a similar exchange on a politically-related subject - or even one about sport or music, for that matter - feel free to email me.

Paul: I said in my column at the weekend that in order to stand any chance of victory at the next election, there needs to be a fundamental change in the character, culture and direction of the government, and that this will probably entail a change of leadership. And yet, as a long-standing admirer of Gordon Brown, part of me still clings to the hope that he can somehow turn it round. I suppose his only real hope is an early end to the recession and some sort of vindication of his economic rescue package, but even then there is the danger that the voters will blame him for having created the mess in the first place. Do you think the party can still win under Gordon, or is it time for Labour to move on from the Blair-Brown years?

Skipper: As a lifetime Labour supporter it grieves me to say that I cannot conceive of any circumstance in which Brown can win next year. He has been a huge disappointment. I thought this precocious political talent (oh yes, he has lots of it) would reveal his distinctive contribution to government once Blair had departed- God knows he conspired and plotted enough to get it- but he has contributed virtually nothing since June 2007. Most depressing is his lack of judgement: pulling back from the expected ‘snap election’ started the rot in 2007 and, adding to others we have seen most recently, his total misjudgement of popular sentiment on both the Gurkha issue and MP’s expenses.

Whatever his faults- and they were many- Blair would never have allowed both items in a single week to avoid his antennae. Gordon might climb partially out of the hole he’s in but I don’t think there’s time to complete the job. Even if he did I think he’s had his run in the first 11 but has come up only with low scores and ducks. I just hope he’ll recognise his own failure and go voluntarily but an obsessive introverted high achiever like Gordon will probably lack any true self awareness.

Paul: I actually think there’s a chance he will go voluntarily, Bill – he’s a loyal party man if nothing else. But for the time being, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that he won’t. What, if anything, should the Cabinet do to bring the issue to a head? And do they even have the bottle? Last year, Labour found itself in a not dissimilar position, there was a lot of talk about plots, about Jack Straw handing him the pearl-handed revolver, about people refusing to be moved in a reshuffle or refusing to serve altogether, about David Miliband taking over – and none of it came to anything. Will this year be any different?

Skipper: Well, that's what we are all so fascinated about is it not? Will they have the bottle or will they fall away? I suspect the latter. There is no real alternative candidate available. Straw, Johnson and Harman could all make a fist of at least an interim leadership tenure: vital if Labour are to minimize the almost inevitable landslide in 2010. The smaller the loss the quicker it will be to recover. Johnson looks like the best bet to me; Straw would command respect; and Harman might think, as Thatcher did back in 1975, that 'This is my moment' and seek to advance the ambitions which I feel sure she is disguising.

But they have all three cried off over the past few days. Does this mean they won't stand in any circumstances? No. But those circumstances- a formal contest- are unlikely to occur. So the most likely outcome, I fear, is more of the same limping, faltering Brown until the meltdown happens. Depressing. A voluntary exit would be a hugely beneficial and unselfish act.

Paul: As I said before, I think there’s a chance he might do that. For starters, he is a loyal party man at heart, and I don’t think he would want the party destroyed in an election if there was a chance that someone else could achieve a better outcome. There is also Gordon’s risk-averse history to consider – his failure to contest the Labour nomination for the Hamilton by-election against George Robertson in 1978, his failure to contest the Labour leadership against Tony Blair in 1994, and as you have mentioned, his failure to hold a general election in 2007 (which I thought was the right decision at the time but events have probably proved me wrong.)

The unmistakable conclusion we should draw from this is that Gordon doesn’t fight elections when there is a chance he will lose. I think he would be especially unlikely to contest such an election against David Cameron, who is someone he genuinely despises. Against that, there’s the Micawberist argument – that something might turn up – and that Place in History argument – that three years in No 10 looks better than two. Although those can be persuasive factors, on balance my feeling is that he will go.

Skipper: This, along with whether the Cabinet are spineless or not, is the really intriguing question. In favour of a voluntary exit is your case- shies away from contests he can't win, 'solid party man' provides an excuse for bowing out. And, who knows? the 'men in flat caps' (I'm looking for the Labour equivalent of 'men in suits') might be down to pay a visit after the June elections.

Against that we have: your 'Micawber possibility', his stubborn grasp of the power he sought all his political life; and the desire to outstay the short term premiers like Canning (5 months), Bonar Law (6 months), Douglas Home (12 months) and Eden (21 months). So far he's running ahead of that lot but I suspect the one with whom he will compare himself is Jim Callaghan, who served virtually 36 months. Surely he wouldn't be so petty as to worry about such a thing? Oh yes, he would; remember how Blair hung on to make it into double figures?

So far Brown has managed nearly 24 months: he could equal Jim's stint if he hangs on. Which case will prove correct? Well, I can quite see Paul's persuasive argument and it wouldn't surprise me too much if Gordon fell on his sword, but I'd put a tenner on him not doing so.

Paul: I said at the outset that I’ve always been an admirer of Brown’s, and genuinely thought he would make a successful Prime Minister. Why do you think he has been such a spectacularly unsuccessful one? A lot of people have pointed to the so-called “psychological flaws” in Gordon, but to my mind you have to be pretty psychologically flawed to want to be a politician in the first place, so it’s not an argument I have ever had a lot of truck with. Was it simply that he had the bad luck to inherit the leadership just at the time the political tide was going out on New Labour and the roof was about to fall in economically, or has he been more the author of his own misfortunes? And will history look on him more kindly than his contemporaries, particularly if the economy does recover and his rescue package comes to be seen as having played a key part in that?

Skipper: Well, there is not so much to chalk up in the 'achievements' column is there? And we've already discussed his poor judgement. It could be his economic remedies will come to be seen as well crafted, well timed and ultimately effective. I really do hope so for us all and for Gordon's reputation as there isn't much else in the locker is there? And as for his decade at the Treasury's helm, our present predicament has thrown into less flattering relief his championship of the ultra deregulated Anglo-American Model of capitalism.

But I do so agree he was unfortunate acceding to power after 10 years of his predecessor's squandering of Labour's political capital. However, I subscribe to the 'pathological flaws' view of Brown: a driven, manipulative, quite ruthless politician some degrees worse than the usual run of them, which usually includes, in my view some very decent and public spirited people.

Sweet memories of '79

I bet you didn't think you'd see a headline like that today from a left-of-centre blogger. But just as 1979 turned out to be a seminal year in British politics, so was it a seminal year for yours truly, though for different reasons I hasten I add!

I was 16 at the time Margaret Thatcher came to power, and irrespective of what was going on in the world of politics, it was a great time to be alive.

I didn't of course vote in the general election, and neither did my parents, or at least not in persons. In fact they sent in postal votes as they were on holiday in California, having left me in charge of the house for three weeks.

I spent most of those three weeks revising for my O-levels, but I also found time to learn how to cook my own meals - the first flickerings of a love affair that has lasted ever since - and to watch a lot of snooker, the World Championships in Sheffield being then, as now, the main sporting interest on telly at that time of year.

It was the year of one of the sport's great fairytales - Terry Griffiths' amazing run from the qualifiers to the championship trophy, the first time this feat had been achieved. With no mum and dad around to send me off to bed, and with dad's bottle of Scotch providing liquid sustenance, I stayed up till 2.40am to watch the conclusion of Griffiths' epic semi-final encounter with Eddie Charlton, and hear him tell David Vine afterwards: "I'm in the final now, you know" in that lilting Welsh accent.

Later that year, I fell in love for the first time, something about which I'd love to write more, but I'm not Nick Hornby, and three decades on, it would be unfair to the lady in question.

And Thatcher? Well, I guess her coming to power did play a part in my political education. Up until then, I would probably have classed myself as an apathetic Tory, but it was only after seeing the impact of her policies on the country and the divisive nature of her rule that I realised where I really stood on the political spectrum.

There will doubtless be a great deal of bollocks talked over the next 48 hours about how Thatcher "saved Britain." To my mind, there is just as convincing a case to be made that in fact she ruined it, and since we may now be reaching the end of the neo-liberal consensus which she ushered in, I think it's important that this counter-argument is heard.

Neil Clark makes the case well in an article in The First Post, arguing that Britain had created a contented society that had managed to get the balance right between work, leisure and remuneration, contrasting it positively with the anxiety-ridden, job-insecure society of today.

He's right. Britain in the 70s wasn't all that bad a place to be really. And having grown up there, I think I'm in as good a position to know as anyone.