John Rentoul: A leadership election would do Labour a lot of good
The candidates to succeed Gordon Brown would need to pledge to go to the
country
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
One Scottish machine politician down; one more to go. Although to
describe Michael Martin as a machine politician may be to flatter him.
He was really the beneficiary of machine politics, put into the job of
Speaker nine years ago by Labour operators calculating factional
advantage.
The parallels between the fates of Michael Martin and Gordon Brown are
screamingly obvious, but there is no necessary connection. The boxing
analogy applies to both: the Prime Minister increasingly looks, as the
Speaker did on Monday, as if he has taken too many punches and is not
quite sure where he is. And they are both damaged by the popular rage
against MPs' expenses, because they both tried to prevent the
disinfectant of sunlight – another of David Cameron's effective phrases
borrowed from America – from reaching the dark corners; they both acted
too late to try to reform the system.
This week we saw the Prime Minister on television saying that "what we
have seen" of MPs' expenses "has angered and appalled me". Which was a
bit rich, because it was with his knowledge and tacit approval that the
House of Commons Commission spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers'
money fighting a court case to prevent their publication.
In the campaign of obstruction, the Prime Minister and the Speaker were
like Sinn Fein and the IRA, pretending to be separate organisations but
tied by deniable understandings. Harriet Harman, Brown's deputy, and the
Speaker himself are the two most important members of the House of
Commons Commission. In that sense, Martin is not so much a scapegoat as
a sacrifice, left out on the hillside for the ravening furies of the
gods of democracy. Although it would be too much of a conspiracy to
suggest that Brown left him there deliberately in the hope that his
metaphorical blood would appease the public's anger.
It is not an edifying sight. Much of the anger at expenses is
unreasonable and unreasoning, making no distinction between the fair
costs of maintaining a second home and claims that were not even "within
the rules", such as for mortgages that had been paid off. But politics
is not about what's fair. It is, often, about leadership. Nick Clegg and
David Cameron have shown it; Michael Martin and Gordon Brown haven't.
It doesn't matter that Clegg paid back £80 for telephone calls to
abroad, or that Cameron now thinks he shouldn't have claimed for
removing his wisteria. Or that they have sprung into action guiltily
after being caught out. Martin and Brown's first response to being found
was to pretend that nothing had happened. Although it should be pointed
out that, in Brown's abortive, tardy and much mocked YouTube proposals,
he nearly got the reforms right: a flat-rate allowance for MPs
representing out-of-London seats. His mistake was to tie it to
attendance at the House, so that it looked like paying MPs to turn up to
work.
So, yes, the Speaker's departure removes one of the moats around Castle
Brown that could have soaked up the flood of public invective. Martin's
going does not, however, resolve any of the tricky questions of
mechanism or timing in getting rid of a prime minister.
It ought to follow from Brown's failure of leadership on the expenses
issue that the case for his departure is strengthened. And so it is. It
ought to follow from Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, emerging from
the abattoir of expenses with clean hands that the case for his taking
over is strengthened. And so it is. But neither of those arguments is
the same as strengthening the forces likely to make it happen.
The key to a coup is political will, and one of the big effects of the
expenses furore has been to demoralise Labour MPs, from the furthest-
flung of back benches to the front seats in the Cabinet. The other thing
is that the gale force of voter fury makes it seem pointless for Labour
to change leader. The idea that the Government could rescue itself
simply by rearranging personnel looks beside the point. A ComRes poll
for The Independent on Sunday at the weekend found few takers for the
proposition that Johnson would make a better prime minister than Brown.
Johnson has been dragged back by the "they're all as bad as each other"
factor, hitting the governing party hardest.
So I am uncertain about the likelihood of a move against Brown straight
after the European election results being announced on 7 June, even if
Labour does come fourth behind the Liberal Democrats and the UK
Independence Party. And the timing is not yet right.
The coup would have to be delivered by several members of the Cabinet,
acting together and knowing that they have the support of a majority of
Labour MPs. If Brown is prevailed upon to stand down, the party's rules
provide for the Cabinet to choose one of its number as prime minister
and acting leader of the party until a leadership election is held.
It may be fashionable among some of my fellow Alan Johnson supporters to
advocate another handover without a Labour Party vote. That does not
seem like a good idea. I agree with one Labour MP who wants a change who
told me that such a switch would be "cynical and horrible".
A leadership election – a comradely affair between Johnson (as prime
minister), Jon Cruddas and Hazel Blears, possibly – could help refresh
the party. It would, after all, cheer everyone up and give the media
something to talk about other than how venal MPs are. What was
fascinating about Johnson's answers when readers of this newspaper asked
him questions on Monday was that he advocated proportional
representation: it made him look pluralist, humble and reformist. I
don't agree with strict proportionality, but I think it right to honour
Labour's 1997 pledge to let the people decide.
But if Labour changed its leader again it would be neither wise nor
right to resist the clamour for a general election soon afterwards. The
candidates in a leadership election would have to pledge to go to the
polls soon. If there is a coup this summer, then, the new prime minister
would have to go to the country in the autumn. But I sense no appetite
on Labour's part for bringing forward their next appointment with their
constituents.
So it may be that Gordon Brown has to limp on, wounded, until the
autumn. Labour's annual conference hardly bears thinking about. But that
might be the time for change. Then, Alan Johnson could promise a general
election in the spring, close enough to the expected date of May 2010
for it not to matter.
Is it worth it? Of course it is. Johnson as leader could make the
difference between a wipe-out and holding the Conservatives to a small
majority. The one lesson that Labour MPs ought to take from the expenses
story is that, if you can see disaster coming right at you, take evasive
action before it is too late.
John Rentoul is chief political commentator for The Independent on
Sunday. His blog is at www.independent.
http://www.independ
rentoul-a-leadershi
Posts
