I sent out an extract from Parris’s article earlier. I have now read
it in full and think it well worth the reading.
I disagree [qv] with his proposed solution but his analysis of the
political implications is ‘spot on’
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx cs
===================
THE TIMES 11.10.08
Gordon Brown's big tent would hide a narrow interest
If the Prime Minister makes a siren call in the name of national
unity, the Opposition should block its ears
Matthew Parris
Columnists are nervous of looking silly. It was with hesitation that
in August 2004, writing on this page after a Times poll had reported
vast economic confidence among the public, I suggested that “a darker
melody in a minor key is faintly audible beneath the oom-pah-pah of
economic optimism: a persistent, puzzled, inquisitive counterpoint.
“Why? Why does there seem to be all this money sloshing around?..”
“...Maybe the growing wealth so many of us feel... simply because
each of us is prepared every year to set a higher valuation on our
fellow citizens' houses, is not a chimera. But I cannot but share...
this nagging feeling that a nation of homeowners energetically
bidding up the value of each other's property, borrowing on the basis
of the inflating figures, then spending the money in hypermarkets
every weekend... is somehow riding for a fall.”
I wondered if I was missing something, but wrote it anyway; was
comprehensively demolished by fellow columnists; and, with a shrug of
the shoulders, let the subject drop.
Well, here goes again. You'll laugh at what follows. It may sound
absurd. But if ever we had reason to reflect that today's realities
are yesterday's unlikelihoods, we have it this autumn. So consider
this: I think there's a fair chance that, before the next general
election, Gordon Brown will try to bounce the opposition parties into
some form of national government.
He may not call it that, it may fall short of a fully fledged
“Government of National Unity” and, in a series of incremental steps,
he may edge rather than spring the change upon us. But the stated aim
will be no different from what lay behind the creation of an all-
party War Cabinet under Winston Churchill's chairmanship in 1940: to
end the distraction of political knockabout during a crisis, and to
unite senior people from all parties behind a national effort.
Mr Brown's real intention will be less worthy: to silence critics and
bind political rivals into policies that they will not subsequently
be able to criticise; to pre-empt their blaming him if things go
wrong; to allow himself to slur those who voice disagreement in
Parliament and the media as “unpatriotic”; to imply that any
challenge to his own leadership is irresponsible; to stifle
discussion of his own past role in the “Age of Irresponsibility”; and
to go into the next election having effectively nobbled the
opposition parties.
Imaginable? You might at least agree that, whether good or bad for
the nation as a whole, from the point of view of a Labour Prime
Minister whose party faces the possibility of landslide electoral
defeat, such a climate of consensus - if it could be achieved - would
offer shorter-term benefits of a self-interested sort.
You might remember, too, that the image (if not the reality) of “big
tent” politics has long attracted Mr Brown. Call this strategy or
call it tactics, but such moves were among the earliest surprises he
pulled from the hat on becoming Prime Minister. He lured Tories over
to assist - in one case even join - his administration; he tried it
on with Shirley Williams, Paddy Ashdown and Sir Menzies Campell. He
brought in outsiders from industry and the military. Mr Brown's
instinct to neutralise opposition by creating an impression of
consensus around himself is well established.
And for him the downside is surely low. The risk that invitations
might be spurned is beautifully manageable. The very act of offering
a ceasefire would impress large parts of the British population,
which has never cared much for party politics. Rebuffed, Labour could
make a virtue of it. An air of injured goodwill - their olive branch
rejected - might be spun to electoral advantage.
So, if you are with me on the potential attractions for Mr Brown of
at least offering a party-political ceasefire, let's proceed to what
is probably the best argument for doubt: his own pride.
He dislikes David Cameron, detests George Osborne, hates and
distrusts all Tories on principle, finds Liberal Democrats idiotic
and irritating, and will not have forgotten being called “Mr Bean”
and a “twitching corpse” by the Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesman,
Vince Cable. Wouldn't it then be personally humiliating to ask for
their help? It would. It would stick in his throat. Mr Brown is not a
man to forget an injury, as many colleagues will testify. And his
suspicion of Tories runs deep and will never change. But do not
overlook another truth about this man: Mr Brown is a bully who knows
how to back down. The pride of bullies is a malleable thing.
We've just seen a spectacular example of this. Labour voices wiffling
about the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson “going back a long way”,
being former friends, enjoying a “complicated” relationship, and
being ready now to bury the hatchet to save their grand old party”
miss the point. Mr Mandelson wanted a job. Mr Brown was desperate to
save the job he had. Needs must. I do not believe Mr Brown now trusts
or likes his former betrayer, or ever could.
But in one bound this alliance has nobbled the Blairites. I've heard
the objection that Tony Blair himself sanctioned the move. But what
else could he have done? Tried to block it? Unless (or until) Mr
Mandelson betrays Mr Brown a second time, most Blairites are now gagged.
So Mr Brown's first big move to consolidate a precarious position has
succeeded. He has dragged key Labour enemies into his tent. The party
cannot easily now turn against him.
But the electorate can. So now for the next move: to nobble the
Opposition. If Mr Brown can confect a grin and a handshake with Mr
Mandelson, he can do it with anyone - and certainly with Mr Cameron
or Nick Clegg.
How? The options are various. Invite Mr Cable and/or Mr Osborne to
attend Cabinet discussion on the economy? Set up, outside Cabinet, a
council to include them? Invite them into Mr Brown's new National
Economic Council? Institutionalise regular meetings with Mr Clegg and/
or Mr Cameron?
Any or all of these ruses may be considered; and don't entirely rule
out proposals for a proper war-type national government. A
Parliamentary Labour Party that will swallow Mr Mandelson must be
persuadable.
Messrs Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and Dr Cable should view this with
extreme wariness. The danger is huge. Say “yes” and they may be
sucked in to complicity in failure to rescue economic growth. Say
“no” and they may be blamed for aggravating the failure.
I think they would have to say “yes”, but attach a condition that Mr
Brown could never accept but which voters might not think
unreasonable. The formation of a national government in 1940 was made
possible only by the resignation of Neville Chamberlain. Opposition
co-operation in any national administration to handle this economic
emergency should depend upon the replacement of Mr Brown by a senior
Labour colleague. There might be merit in making that clear before he
even tries his tricks.
[This is where I part company with Mr Parris. Cameron must make it
perfectly clear that he cannot be party to the framing of any
policies conceived by the man who has wrecked our country. Therefore
he must say that he will support what he agrees with but, with an
election on the horizon in a maximum of 19 months, he will wait till
after that before considering any government of national unity for
such a government must have the explicit backing of the people.
In any case if Brown were to go who would lead the Labour party?
With the political clock ticking this is clearly a non-starter -cs]
Posts
