In politics, there’s a kind of weathervane vote. Mussolini, it was said, used to run to the side of the winner. That now applies particularly to British Labour politicians, fearful of a mass cull at the next election, who are now frantically calling for action with a big A against their embattled leader. Meanwhile, those journalists who supported Gordon Brown are trying to explain their poor judgement as a blip. Now that the good ship Labour has hit the iceberg, everybody wants to ditch the captain. But will the vessel sink anyway?
Politicians who hailed Brown as their saviour just a year ago now think that the cherubic foreign secretary, David Miliband, may be the counter to the equally youthful Conservative leader David Cameron. Not only has Brown screwed up the economy, they say, he’s also deeply flawed: grumpy, depressive, lugubrious and uncharismatic…a serial mobile phone thrower …basically a loser, and the next election – yikes! – is no more than 20 months or so away.
Last November, of course, everything was different. Then Brown was all set to call an election and the same people, now his most venomous critics, were praising his integrity, experience and sound stewardship of the economy. And you can be sure of one thing, were Brown’s fortunes to be restored (unlikely since his fate is tied up with the global downturn) the same people would – naturally – revert back to their original stance that Brown is a good, decent man with subtle qualities, just the safe pair of hands needed during tempestuous times.
The government’s accomplishments – peace in Ireland, the minimum wage, more money for the health service – are not enough to assuage this voter. The stench of social decay is too putrid, economic inequalities too gaping, the law and order policy too lax. But getting rid of Brown and replacing him with Miliband (this, by the way, would be the third prime minister in 13 months) by an internal coup would smack of desperation. Paraphrasing Lady Bracknell, losing one prime minister mid-term looks unfortunate, losing two looks like carelessness.
When will British journalists realise that outside the Westminster village, Hampstead dinner parties and Canary Wharf – where personality politics is increasingly replacing discussion of ideas – this kind of speculation is meaningless? People are worried about the credit squeeze, negative equity, losing their job, rising crime and uncontrolled immigration. These are the bread and butter issues for most people, not whether Miliband has a nice smile or can present his image in a more glitzy package.
I never thought that Brown would make a good prime minister, neither did I think that his uncontested coronation was good news for the Labour Party or the democratic process. But Labour MPs needed to raise their cudgels when Tony Blair resigned last year, in the interest of choice and fairness, not decide to jettison the leader right now just because of the party’s free fall in the polls.
It always amazes me that media pundits believe (or perhaps pretend to in order to keep themselves busy) that a replacement at the top cures all ills. Yet perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising in view of the worship of vacuous celebrity in today’s Britain. The notion that somehow a charismatic new leader (Is Miliband really the right man even on that score?) can turn the tide is fundamentally undemocratic and carries with it a faint whiff of “Fuhrerprincip”. The prospect of changing the Labour leader may keep the hacks busy. It will also keep phone lines buzzing between London and European resorts throughout August. But it won’t address the yob culture or arrest social decay. That will take something much more radical than a decapitation at the top.
