"Maybe, just maybe"
A young colleague from Scotland isn't sure what to say next.
He told his audience that Gordon Brown would be out if Labour lost Glasgow East to the SNP. They did of course. John Mason MP was in Aberystwyth last week, offering cups of coffee to those who turned up to campaign for him and sharing with Plaid what they could learn from the SNP's focus and by-election machinery.
But Gordon Brown is still there. "What do I tell them when it comes to Glenrothes? That he's .. um ... absolutely gone this time?"
Then David Cairns struck his blow giving Scottish reporters - and British Prime Ministers -more to worry about. I've no idea what the reporter told his audience then, nor this morning when the news on HBOS hit the headlines. But he'll find nothing but sympathy amongst those Welsh Labour politicians who'll admit to having no idea where this ends either.
"It's as bad as you can imagine", "There's a debilitation that happens and it's hard to see how it'll pan out", "Labour are in it up to their necks", "Don't think I haven't woken up on some mornings and thought, where the hell is this going?" But all of those who picked up the the phone (and some didn't) were clear on one thing: things should not be going in the direction David Cairns and others have been pushing them.
The theory?
That the country won't thank Labour for "faffing" around at a time when the government has got to be seen to be getting on with it, 'it' being saving jobs, keeping the markets as calm as possible, persuading people like my very reasonable friends - who texted first thing this morning to say they were off to the Halifax there and then to withdraw all of their money - that they should not be panicking.
That it'll take six months to have the ideological battles Labour are due and now is not the time to have them. Last Spring? Maybe ... but not now. Re-energise the party? Pull the other one.
That there is no real alternative to Gordon Brown and that if he shows some mettle during the party conference in Manchester next week, if he sets out clearly why he should be allowed to carry on, if he acknowledges all the concerns about his leadership, organisation at Number 10, presentation of policies and proves he's keeping his head, then, goes the theory, "maybe, just maybe", Labour can pull through.
Do they really believe that? I think they do. At the very least they genuinely believe there is no consensus that he should go, in other words that the majority of the PLP hold the same view and the branches they've visited at home agree that despite being up a creek with fewer paddles by the day, now is not the time to get rid of the leader.
Do they really believe Labour can win another General Election? Some do, partly because the worse it gets, the wilder the headlines around the economic downturn, the more the leap into the arms of David Cameron or Nick Clegg becomes a leap of faith.
Then again "Gordon might be out in a few weeks".
And if Labour politicians really did venture to bet on the fortunes of their own party, there may well be a betting shop somewhere in Wales that's just taken money on there being a new leader by Christmas, followed by a short, sharp campaign and a General Election in the Spring.
I'm Betsan Powys, BBC Wales' political editor. I'll be blogging the inside track on 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~40~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Good post Betsan. It's just such a maelstrom (a dripping maelstrom so to speak) that's drowning Brown, joint by joint, limb by limb.
His incredible dithering over calling an early election and alienating most of the Press by announcing his finally decision to one outlet only started it all.
His characterisation as Mr Bean has the essential cruel element of truth. Shame - he was good in Stormont (hardly reported in mainstream London media) yesterday but (with latest polls showing Tories at 52%) the job preservation instincts of Labour MPs must surely out. Nôs Da Mr Brown.
P.S. We desperately need a Wales specific opinion poll. YouGov always bung us in with West Midlands. How much do they cost? I'll contribute a fiver....
Complain about this comment
A new Labour leader by Christmas without a General Election?
Tony followed by Gordon, it's just about OK after all it would have happened if Tony had met his maker, but Gordon followed by Anon, is it constitutional?
If the leader is changed again we should expect an election, fairs fair.
Complain about this comment
Seems we're stuck with Gordon, despite him being partly to blame for the economic mess the UK is in.
His predicament serves him right for being a scheming, conniving, back-stabbing, selfish, indecisive and ineffectual politician.
This country (the UK) needs statesmen/women, not the type of politician which recent decades has produced. They never admit they're wrong, they never resign on an issue of principle, they always have to be forced out of office. The names just reel of the tongue... Blair, Mandelsson, Blunkett, Clarke, Hain ...
Wales deserves better, much better. At the moment its governed by a New Labour Cabinet consisting of a load of gutless, brown-tongued men and women only concerned for their own political careers, salaries, and substantial pensions.
Only one member of that Cabinet represents a Welsh constituency, and he is opposed to a referendum on giving his country a Parliament, so that Welsh people can make decisions for themselves. He wants us to remain reliant on utter failures, both in his own party and the tory party, which have let Wales down so badly for so long.
So, we are stuck with this abject failure of a Prime Minister, simply because the country is in an unbelievable crisis, partly of his own making.
Let's hope that the electors in Glenrothes give him the message again, although we may have quite a wait before Brown has the guts to move the writ for the election.
It seems to be the current political malaise that politicians from all the unionist parties will say anything, and everything, to get elected. They pay market researchers to find out what people want, and then make it their policy. It makes no difference, New Labour, Tories, LibDems, they're all the same. People can't trust a word they say. The entire system is rotten to the core.
Thorough reform is needed.
Wales needs to look after itself, to get away from such a corrupt, self-seeking system, as Scotland is very likely to do in the coming years.
Complain about this comment
I hope labour can hold out till July so that I can vote (still 17 at the moment). Also feel quite sorry for Gordon. However, nearly laughed out loud when i heard Clegg say they were heading for government. While I think that the Lib Dems are a good choice they just never seem to get the votes.
Complain about this comment
I can understand your frustration here Stonemason, however we elect MPs and not a Prime Minister - or this is the constitutional idea. When you have a change of party leader and hence change of PM you don't get a general election. We didn't get one when Margaret went, or Harold before her. So the loss of Gordon wouldn't force one either. Likewise when Rhodri goes next year there will not be an election for the National Assembly.
Complain about this comment
Nick "BBC Bilko" Robinson is praying hard for Gordon ..and his own rep., so NO worries. Nick knows (Chair of the Young Cons at Oxford chez Thatcher, worra CV.)
But if ALL fails..Why not a certain HIGHLY RESPECTED Lord Kinnock as Leader ? Neil and Glenda as co/leaders...? Welsh royalty? Welsh Iconic? Plaid would back this...
Two moneyed hearts beat as one in No.10? At last?
C'MON Mandleson...FIX IT!
Complain about this comment
In politics you cannot set such a target date. This obsession amongst many observers to state boldly that if Gordon doesn’t do this by this event then he is finished is frankly ludicrous. Political events can change quickly either way.
The situation with the Labour Party at the moment is all about fear. MPs are in fear of a complete wipeout at the next election and therefore many finding themselves out of a job. They have simply giving up on any belief that their Party can win the next election and are therefore working on the policy of damage limitation. Changing the leader they hope will result in a pre-election bounce reducing the predicted Conservative majority and therefore saving a significant number of seats.
This policy does have some merit. The current predictions of a massive Tory majority would result in the very real possibility of Labour being out of power for at least two terms. For some of the young ambitious MPs this would be far too long.
I for one do not agree with this thinking. This is a time for real nerve and a united front. I want to see a Government strong and focused on delivering creative and successful policies to tackle the real issues that the country faces. Not one constantly fighting an internal power struggle.
So get a grip lads and lasses – your country needs you.
Complain about this comment
DewiH
I'm with you all the way re Wales-only polls. In fact I'll up the ante - £10 from me.
Complain about this comment
Right - that's fifteen quid - I'll give YouGov a ring.......
Complain about this comment
brynt41, whilst I have no love for the labour party your .....
"..... So, we are stuck with this abject failure of a Prime Minister, simply because the country is in an unbelievable crisis, partly of his own making ....."
Whilst we can all sympathise with the first part of your comment, assigning the crisis to Brown does the debate a disservice. The worldwide economic crisis has been caused by a relatively small section of commerce, banking, selling dreams. It was starting 20 years ago, at that time a building society did their best to sell me debt (mortgage) over and above my cultural 2.5 times salary, I didn't budge, to old fashioned they said. Those that borrowed excessively were caught eventually in the negative equity trap of the 1980's. Leaping forward into the 1990's had the borrowers learned a lesson from history, of course not they were blinded by a new illusion of never ending wealth production through their houses (home had become a tad old fashioned), the borrowing public were the blinkered cash cows for bankers, and they were milked and milked.
Brown did not do this, we, the collective we, did it to ourselves by believing the lies of the debt salesperson, the very same people which were at one time called Bankers. We believed our debt was an investment, such naivety, such an opportunity for the unscrupulous.
Brown, or his predecessors, could no more have halted this latest get rich quick bubble than he/they could walk on water.
Complain about this comment
First of all I have to say there is definitely something wrong with Gordon Brown.
In spite of Labour claims of his efficiency as chancellor, without doubt he was the worst holder of that office there has ever been.
He did NOTHING right. His first major error was the manner/timing of his sale of over half our gold reserves. For an excellent acount of this disaster may I suggest you read Robert Peston's Picks Blog (BBC 4th. March 2008)
Suffice to say Brown the wonder chancellor, announced in advance, (never a smart move) the sale of 395 tonnes of gold . Gold prices naturally plummeted, and we received just $275 an ounce for it giving a total of some $3billion. The same gold today would fetch well over $12.5 billion. In comparison, the Tories "Black Wednesday" cost us peanuts.
His next wizard prang was to 'relieve' the pension funds of around £6 billion pounds a year. This more than any ailing FTSE levels caused the pension hardships felt by millions today.
Now, right up to date, our Gordon's latest faux pas.....the dropping of the 10pence tax band.
I, and millions of others heard Brown announce this in the budget of 2007 when he was still chancellor.
I, like millions of others realized immediately that counter measures were needed to avoid the very poorest taxpayers from paying substantially (to them) higher amounts of tax.
One year later, Our Gordon (amazingly) was prime minister. Alistair Darling as chancellor was obliged to read out Brown's cock-eyed tax plans. We were genuinely amazed when still no relief for the lowest paid was announced.
The rest is history, Brown even badly messed up his absurd stab at recompensing the 10p. victims.
The really frightening thing is, there are just two explanations for this almighty cock-up.
The first is that even after ten years as chancellor of the exchequer he did not have a damn clue about income tax thresholds!
The second is that he DID know what he was doing but thought "sod it" nobody would notice, after all only the lowest paid in the country would be affected!
I repeat my first sentence of this post....
"There is definitely something wrong with Gordon Brown"
Complain about this comment
Noah, nice to agree with you on something, the 10p tax fiasco was amazingly stupid.
Complain about this comment
I would certainly agree that there is a dearth of opinion polls in Wales. If we are lucky we get three in an election year and maybe one a year otherwise. I can remember this coming up before and Vaughan Roderick suggesting we needed them at least quarterly to establish a methodology that accurately reports voting intentions (among other things). BBC Wales, HTV/ITV and Trinity Mirror should each poll on a staggered basis three monthly so that we get a monthly poll.
At present the projections claiming huge gains at the next election in Wales are based on erroneous polling data and can't be relied on. Sure I expect them to gain seats but not all 4 in Cardiff, both in Newport in addition to almost all in North Wales.
Complain about this comment
10 Stonemason
I disagree. Imo Brown is partly responsible for making a pig's ear of financial regulation in the UK.
That's why we have government, to regulate what happens in society. To stop people doing bad things to others, and to stop people making bad decisions for themselves. We've had regulation in health, employment, transport, the unions, etc, for a very long time.
Blair and Brown's period of prosperity was built on a property (speculation) bubble. It couldn't go on. It had to burst sooner or later. Its happened before, several times. A notable historical example is that of the South Sea Bubble, in the early 18thC.
Mortgage lenders who lent 125% of a property's value, or 7-8 times the applicant's income, were just crazy. Likewise the mortgage cashback schemes, and buy to let schemes. This type of lending, far from being regulated, was encouraged by this government (and by earlier ones). Brown failed to foresee the obvious, and didn't want to, as it would have slowed down the boom which made him and New Labour look good.
That the same thing happened in the US, does not exonerate Blair and Brown. Already two major mortgage banks have come within a knife's edge of collapse in the UK. We are ranking with the US. We also don't know what's going to happen tomorrow or next week.
To say we should stick with a man who failed to steer the country's economy more 'prudently' is sheer stupidity, especially when it comes to sorting out the very problems which he helped to create. How can we have confidence in him. The FSA set up to regulate the banks, failed to monitor Northern Rock. That was Brown's failure, to ensure that regulation was effective.
Unfortunately we are stuck with him.
Complain about this comment
brynt41, I understand where you are coming from, Brown is for Brown, but the same can be said for all politicians.
There's a "But", a government, no matter what flavour, cannot be held responsible for an "economic bubble". There was not a cat in hell's chance that people would refrain from jumping on the "property bubble" because of the way it was marketed, "something for nothing", the only reason I didn't jump on is I have an inherent distrust of bankers, if it had been a "flowerpot bubble" I probably would have joined in.
Something for nothing is a difficult concept to counter.
Rather than winging and whining about it, we should be insisting that regulation of the financial markets should be implemented to prevent a recurrence of a "financial bubble".
In fact, there could be a "bubble committee", dedicated to the detection of future bubbles, and they will come along in the future. Do you think I am being stupid, well a bubble can be detected, the definition is "trade in high volumes at prices that are considerably at variance from intrinsic values". Very detectable.
We are all to blame, if for no other reason, for failing to speak out.
Complain about this comment
Stonemason I agree, the bubble would have burst eventually and it doesn't take a genius to work out that spiraling house prices were unsustainable. Unfortunately much of the system of the markets is based on gambling. Less than 4% of currency transactions, for example, are about actually buying and selling goods, the rest is about playing the market. The futures market is all about betting on something that doesn't yet exist. You couldn't construct something less based on reality if you tried. Yet the fluctuations in these phony markets have a real impact on our lives.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS