The Prime Minister is in legacy mode: he is destroying 100 years of history for his own ego
Health Secretary Andy Burnham wore a black tie to the funeral of several careers last night, calling the election of two BNP MEPs “a sad day for British politics”.
The Twitterati and Facebookers were the first to console themselves with the notion that the BNP actually had fewer votes than in 2004, and that the result was mainly due to Labour’s collapse. Personally, my response:
“I hereby take responsibility for the election of 2 BNP MEPs and apologise without reserve on behalf of the Labour Party.”
Don’t blame the electoral system, don’t blame the recession, don’t blame it on being in power for so long, don’t blame the turnout and definitely don’t blame “local reasons”. The responsibility for the result rests squarely with us.
By ‘us’ though, I really mean ‘the Labour leadership’. I know that there are so many Labour activists, myself included, who have been swimming against the current as everything we say falls on deaf ears. Conversations on the doorstep were inevitably about expenses and leadership, never about Europe.

Therein lays the problem. The negative attention directed at Labour and specifically Brown will not go away until he does. If he does not go now, another bad event will spark up more calls for him to go. Every issue and event will be seen through the prism of Brown’s weak position, opening up barely sealed wounds. The only way to stop the debate about the leadership is to push the red button.
If he does not do “the honourable thing” then he will have to be kicked out violently, lest the public do the same to the entire party. A war on all fronts, from the backbenchers to the Blairites to the Cabinet is the only way forward. The arguments against removing Brown no longer have weight; the equation has changed and unless we show the public a serious and powerful gesture, Labour will go down with him. As Frank Field rightly points out:
“Labour supporters claiming that the European results were not a catastrophe for the party can only do so by inventing a new meaning for the word catastrophe.”
There are some who say than in every crisis there is an opportunity. With Brown, in every crisis there is an even bigger crisis, and in every opportunity there is a crisis with the opportunity for another crisis.
When it comes to problems for Labour, obviously Gordon Brown is only the tip of the iceberg. However, by getting rid of the tip, the public will no longer see the rest of the iceberg, and at least the net quantity of iceberg will have gone down a little bit.
Short of stepping down, it seems to be that the Prime Minister knows that the game is up, and has shifted into “Legacy Mode”. By painting himself as “the best man for the job” to deal with the economy, he has also remembered how he wanted to tinker with the Constitution. I had heard that he had also hoped to push through the Lisbon Treaty as well. It looked for a while that he was trying to gives his old friends that last leg-up to give his heirs more credibility. Trying to put Balls as Chancellor was a clear example.
Tragically, his legacy will be little more than the man who did worse than Michael Foot. Of course he has made an enormous contribution to the Labour Party, but he is also the man who has done an equal amount of damage to it. If he really is “the best we have”, the Cabinet Ministers should hang their heads in shame. It is hard to imagine anyone being worse than him without deliberately trying to sabotage the party. To allow Brown to stay now is to destroy 100 years of political history for the sake of one man’s ego.
The other favourite argument of the “loyalists” (to Brown, not the Party) is that there is no consensus behind who should replace him. I think we will have cross that bridge when we come to it, unless Brown has already burned it down. We are in an untenable position now and the only way to improve our fortunes, not just in the next General Election but in the future of British politics, is to change this position. A big leap into popularity may be impossible from where we currently stand, but changing something, anything, will be a step in the right direction.
This is not the end of our trouble, but if we want to live to fight another day this is the only way.



June 8th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Could part of Brown's "weak position" be to do with people (such as yourself) who seem to do vehemently little to defend him? Of course, I'm not trying to defend Brown, my view is that the country would be in better shape if he'd stayed as Chancellor. But calls from his own MP's to make him step down give the moderately educated (such as myself) the impression that Labour are a bunch of backstabbers who can't seem to unite. Ultimately, I believe no single person can be to blame for the BNP gaining more seats. It's a combination of the lethargy and idiocy of the electorate, Brown's poor ability to lead, and Labour's own internal disputes.
[Reply]
June 8th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I'm in agreement with James, perhaps Labour would fare better if the Party united and got behind Brown. He might not be the most popular person right now but further fragmentation would only serve to further heighten the electorate's disillusionment with the current government. Your point about 'legacy mode' is rather apt and applies to the cowards (Blears and co.) who stepped down to merely protect their own interest and 'legacies' thus dumping Brown in further trouble.
With regards to the BNP, clearly the poor, though, in all honesty, expected, turnout didn't help matters. Such extremists will always have their core voters turn out and those to lose votes will be the larger parties who attract a lot of the electorate in general and local elections due to the greater chance of them gaining power. Nevertheless, ignorance amongst various Brits and a deteriorating society can only exacerbate matters.
[Reply]
June 9th, 2009 at 12:30 am
I think Brown put himself in the weak position he is in because of the way he "leads" the party. It's similar to a company where the boss (Brown) is making all the wrong decisions and in the end everyone (the MPs) is going to end up redundant (voted out) because of poor decisions and lack of direction, at some point the employees would need to stand up and say that the company is being run badly, if that is backstabbing then I say backstab away.
I abandoned the party when it came to voting because, even though I think, ideologically I believe in the same things as the party, I can't vote for them when there is a policy vacuum (or they are not putting forward a convincing argument to vote for them) and there is another party who has policies that I agree with. All in all this policy vacuum is the responsibility of the Cabinet and Brown and therefore I think the MPs are justified in trying to oust them.
[Reply]
August 24th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Of Course Gordon Brown is doing such a great job ruining our relations with the United States by freeing a convicted mass murderer (and don't say it wasn't his decision because he would have stopped it if he wanted)! There are no depths our government won't sink to. If Hitler was in the same position as Al-Megrahi we would probably release him too. You once said you were ashamed to be British, well now we can all be ashamed. Also, the Americans are now being discouraged from doing business in the UK, all this in the middle of an economic crisis! You couldn't make it up…
[Reply]