Added on 13/05/2008
Zaki Moosa considers what last week's local election results mean for Labour...

If “Things Can Only Get Better” was the theme tune of Labour’s victory in 1997, Alanis Morrisette’s “Ironic” should be the soundtrack of their local election disaster last Thursday. Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think, that the first high-profile victim of the electorate’s impatience with Gordon Brown was Ken Livingstone, who couldn’t be less like Brown? Not-quite-so-red-anymore Ken always split opinions, and the sense of momentum behind David Cameron and the renewed Tories was probably enough to lure the suburbs out to the polling stations. Labour will be hoping BoJo, as the excruciating abbreviation has it, will cock it all up and let them campaign for the next election on the theme of “Don’t let the Tories do to the UK what Boris has done to London”. Don't bet on it. A battalion of advisors will be on hand to prevent exactly this happening.
Even after 6 months in Germany’s richest city, returning to the prosperity and vibrancy of much of London was quite a surprise. Personally I don't believe that Johnson is a suitable candidate to lead a city now regarded as the capital of the world (although Labour can hardly hold up Johnson’s dubious writing when their own man once compared a Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard). He has had to be smothered by PR men to prevent another stupid utterance about black people or Liverpool, and seemed to base his campaign on airy-fairy promises about the reintroduction of Routemaster buses – tradition for tradition’s sake, as constantly emphasised in his columns – and cutting crime and disorder, as if everyone else was for violence. (Prepare for a fight as tube workers refuse to enforce his alcohol ban.) Politics is not a celebrity contest, and the amusement factor is not really a sufficient reason to choose a leader; even Simon Heffer in the Telegraph denounced him recently as an “act”. However the fact is that he won and Livingstone didn’t. And so overall the state of play exactly eleven years after Tony Blair celebrated victory on May 2 1997 is that extrapolated to a general election, last week’s results in council after council give David Cameron a majority of 130 in the Commons. This was not just another midterm council vote giving bored voters a chance to stick two fingers up to Westminster. It was, as Munich’s great liberal paper the Süddeutsche Zeitung put it, a vote on “banal issues – rubbish collections in Nuneaton, cycle paths in Slough, traffic lights in Walsall” that morphed into an opportunity to whack Brown one. This election must surely mean that without drastic change his days as leader are numbered. The reams of Labour MPs in danger of losing their seats will rise up eventually, if bloodshed looks inevitable under his control.
Until the great catastrophe of the Iraq war, it wouldn’t have such been a massive leap to describe Tony Blair as the great European politician of his generation. It's always easy to work backwards from the final days of his premiership, when he was so extraordinarily out of touch with everyone else; the days in which his leadership resembled how he looked in that fascinating portrait of him revealed recently, empty, exhausted, haunted by numerous ghosts. But back on May 2 1997, Our Tone swept into Downing Street on the back of the Tories’ greatest loss since 1906 and the biggest majority for one party under universal suffrage. Just eleven years later it broke another record, by notching up its worst polling since records began; it kicked Blair out as leader and failed to renew itself afterwards. But compared to the Tories’ 18 years of boom and bust and mass unemployment, on the surface Labour hasn’t seemed so disastrous. The unwavering belief in the power of unfettered capitalism only now exists in Downing Street and its chums in the City. Its epitaph will be written by Matt Ridley, science writer and failed chairman of Northern Rock, who called government “a self-seeking flea on the backs of the more productive people of this world ... governments do not run countries, they parasitise them.” He believed this until his incompetence sent him running to the Bank of England for help in propping up his floundering bank. Yet many aspects of the Third Way aren’t particularly dead, just resurrected by the Tories with a fresher face and a real sense of renewal. So what changed to turn the Labour party into such an electoral liability?
Folklore has it that when William the Conqueror came ashore at Hastings in 1066, he jumped out of his boat and promptly fell flat on his face. After a decade or more of lingering in the wings waiting to be Prime Minister, as promised in the infamous Granita deal (which Cherie Blair now claims actually happened a couple of days before the meal, at her sister's house), Gordon Brown surfed into power on a wave of delight as Blair finally went, reached the beach of Number 10 and did exactly the same. A series of disasters destroyed his reputation as a great political strategist: the election that never was, the constant data losses that destroyed people’s trust in grand government IT schemes, the arrogant encroachment on civil liberties (although much of that was Blair’s work, there has been no sign of a withdrawal), the bigging-up and then ignoring of constitutional reform and finally the catastrophic removal of the 10p tax rate. The latter was a masterstroke in political ignorance, meant to keep the middle-classes happy at the expense of the poor with nowhere else to go. All it resulted in was a mass rebellion by those affected – Labour losing councils in the Welsh Valleys and to the Tories across the North is surely the strongest sign of its malaise. Then the legendary middle classes joined in, partly out of disgusted solidarity and partly due to their own financial insecurity as the rich get richer and inflation shoots upwards. Gordon Brown does have some record in trying to alleviate poverty both here and abroad, most notably through tax credits and the Sure Start scheme. But these were implemented quietly whilst billions were given loudly to Northern Rock. They’ve said it’s all over for New Labour before, but if Worcester Woman has now deserted and returned to the Tories, it really is now.
The lasting legacy of Tony Blair and New Labour is the death of ideology. For all that is written to the contrary, he leaves a relatively progressive country to the left of both major political parties; one not given to political extremism on either side, as shown by the continuing failure of the BNP in comparison to similar parties in Austria, France, Switzerland, Italy and elsewhere; one that for all its problems and whinging seems prosperous and comfortable compared to twenty years back. What will worry Labour is that nobody seems to be that bothered about their upcoming defeat anymore. The Guardian, on the Saturday after the results came in, seemed to be heralding Cameron into power, calmly reporting the Tory victories with no sense of disapproval. Rather than issuing meaningless control-freak initiatives by the thousand Labour has two years to learn its lessons, in particular working out why Ken Livingstone and his progressive politics lost to the Tories much less spectacularly than the rest of the party's councillors did. But what will probably happen now is that the opposing factions will start whirling around in opposite directions like dervishes, desperately trying to capture the attention of the party and hopefully then the electorate at large. Compass and the Fabian Society on the left and Progress on the right fill my inbox daily with suggestions and conferences about where to go next. They will eventually collide in a mass of irrelevancy and collapse into the heap of opposition, unable to get up for years. If it goes on trying to find excuse after excuse whilst staying so catastrophically out of touch, Labour is condemning itself to years back in the wilderness. And it will only have itself to blame.
Zaki Moosa
All images © their respective owners
Comments for "Things Can Only Get Worse"
Get Involved!

If you are going to use polls, local election results and media atmosphere as evidence that 'things can only get worse', then you might as well say that whatever most people think is true, which makes argument pointless.
I think Brown's problem is that, as Zaki points out, ideas are dead in politics: he's an intelligent man but there's not much for him to apply his intelligence to. But it is a bit misleading to pick him out as being "catastrophically out of touch" - all this amounts to is pointing out that people don't like him at the moment, which we already knew. We should also note that people don't like politicians in general. In terms of selecting a governemnt, though, I don't see any reasons offered in this article, except the civil liberties issues, to suggest that Brown would be a bad option, let alone a worse option that Cameron.
03/06/2008 12:44
27/05/2008 18:29
By self-centred Londoners who haven't been anywhere else?
It is admittedly, one of the key global cities, but surpassed for almost everything (quality of life, cost of living, population, income/capita, effectiveness of public transport, cuisine, cultcha) by somewhere else.
19/05/2008 13:22
14/05/2008 17:14
As far as the article goes, I think you're probably right about GB. It isn't necessarily that he created all these problems since july, but evidence would suggest (local elections, polls, media atmosphere etc) they haven't been dealt with very well.
14/05/2008 13:58
My main point was that all the events which you (and
much of the press) attribute to Brown didn't actually occur
since the start of his leadership. Barring the election that
never was, the press has been hammering Brown a lot
more than he deserves.
The details of the 10p tax were revealed a year ago but no
one said anything at the time and in fact much of what is
currently said about how badly it treats the poor is
incorrect. I agree 10p is a populist policy (Brown was
probably thinking about Margaret Thatcher at the time),
but hearing peoples' reactions to it on Question time, one
woman said 'why is it taking so long to correct this? By the
time it is sorted the poorest will have starved to death!'
Not exactly a sane view, but then again no one laughed or
pointed out that it wasn't anywhere near that bad. Most
the people who disagree with this policy don't seem to
know the details of who wins and who loses and by how
much.
Agreed, Labour does not help the poor as much the City -
I think rather than all the failings of Brown that have been
suggested, this is his main problem, but not many people
are suggesting a radical overhaul of the tax system that
would target the rich City types who have profited so
much. Not least David Cameron, who's twenty-pounds-
a-week-to-married-couples so clearly targets the people
who need it least; why have the press not attacked this?
And a final point on the Tories, watching the slimy George
Osbourne talk about how awful the 10p tax is to poor
people is quite extraordinary; here is a man whose tax
break policies for the middle classes upwards have been
his prime concern up to now (along with the mantra of
stability before tax cuts). Slashing inheritance tax and
stamp duty are not poor-friendly policies, neither is his
'lower, simpler taxes are vital for Britain to compete'
mission. I'd rather have Labour and Brown than the Tories
any day.
14/05/2008 13:33
You noted that "Politics is not a celebrity contest". I have to disagree. It shouldn't be, but short of disconnecting every television and internet connection, it will continue to remain so.
The public have become used to watching their politicians instead of listening to them. Tony Blair was great because he was a bright guy with a pretty face. My concern is that DC seems much the same.
Labour's best chance lies with David Millband. Very similar to Blair and Cameron but on the right side of the aisle. He can credibly fight liberally, which seems to be what the UK wants.
As far as I see it, the only alternative to a good looking party leader is a brave party leader. Someone who is not willing to fold when under pressure from the media. Someone who will ignore the short term populist policies and do what they believe to be good for the country.
The unfortunate thing is they also need to be bright, confident and articluate. Finding such a leader is a real challenge. Most of these people are too busy making fortunes in business.
I'm way off topic now.
Excellent writing!
14/05/2008 13:28
I should be revising so I'll try to keep this short. Perhaps it was a bit sneaky to suggest he immediately fell on his face but in the great scheme of things and in the long run, he just about did. The amount of things that have gone wrong since wipe out any popularity he may have had for a couple of months - which I still think was probably more relief that Blair had gone than delight that Brown had arrived. I can't remember the opinion polls at that time but I don't remember them being as good then as they are bad now.
Otherwise you need to read the article a bit more carefully. I didn't blame Brown or even the government as a whole for the data losses - of course things will go wrong in the massive great machinery of government/ the Civil Service. What I said was that it ruined any trust people have in the great IT projects the government is so keen on. GB has shown no sign of backing down on ID cards/42 days etc, so in the absence of being a mind-reader I presume he intends to implement them. 10p was entirely his fault, he was still Gordon Brown when he was chancellor. When it was decided was slightly irrelevent - when it blew up in his face is more important. Its solution yesterday was hardly any better. Alistair Darling on the Today programme this morning got ripped apart by Sarah Montague - not something that often happens - and deserved it. I don't think I've ever heard such a slippery and feeble argument.
I know Labour always do better in general elections but I said specifically that this seems to be more than the usual midterm boredom. Did we really know what TB's concrete policies were before 1997? - arguably he didn't either, given that many people seem to think the first term of government was effectively wasted. It didn't stop his landslide.
Finally I know perfectly well why the government gave money to NR - as it happens I spent hours recently talking to someone involved very closely with that saga about why it happened. I criticised its inept leadership and, on the government's side, I didn't criticise the giving of money but the noise that was made on that issue whilst remaining silent on their poverty reduction - contributing to the belief that Labour exists for the benefit of the City and not for the poor.
14/05/2008 12:14
face as soon as he came into office: The analogy between
Brown and William the Conquerer folklore clearly falls
down when you consider Brown came into office in July,
yet the first failure you list of him occurred shortly before
November 1st (the election that never was). Have you
forgotten his handling of foot and mouth, terrorist attacks
etc. etc.? Everyone loved him when he first came into
office...
Moving on to the 'disasters', you can't hold Brown
accountable for the loss of data by junior ministers who
didn't follow procedure (would you do this for any
institution other than an unpopular government); the last
grand government IT scheme was under Blair (ID cards
and the associated database are on the shelf until after
the next general election); encroachment of civil liberties
was under Blair (and voted for by the Tories), and
remember that the bill for extending the limit of detention
without charge has not yet been put to parliament under
Brown as PM. Also, I'm guessing you already know the
10p cut was decided more than a year ago, even if it was
Brown's oversight. So, regardless of whether you think
these are failings, they aren't acts of Brown since he took
over in July - claiming they show him fall on his face just
isn't accurate.
Regarding David Cameron's landslide, if you were
properly extrapolating the local election results to
projected general election results you would factor in that
Labour always do a lot better in general elections than in
local ones. Isn't it also the case that no one knows Tory
policy other than a few pathetic gestures like the twenty-
pounds-a-week-to-married-couples; who's to say what
the mood will be like a few years down the line, Brown
was mega-popular only last summer.
The all too commonplace sweeping (and in this case, one
sentence) argument that lending money to Northern Rock
was a bad thing shows a lack of economic understanding.
May I suggest an alternative title: when the Labour party
has seemingly hit the bottom of opinion polls, surely
things can only get better...
14/05/2008 02:31