The Conservative dilemma is that they would like to fight a general election against a surefire loser, hence they have not really carried the fight to Brown. But now that they are ready there isn't a general election to fight. There are barely any by-elections, and the substitute votes at local and European level are not really doing more than demonstrating to all, including Labour supporters, how unpopular Brown's regime is, and enabling Labour supporters to let off steam about expenses and incompetences various. Like many of the rebellious Labour ex-ministers and current backbenchers the Conservatives, too, are assuming that Labour will think it best for the Labour party's longer term survival for Brown to be pushed out now and keep losses trimmed back from near annihilation, not wait any longer.
They have made a fatal error. The holding of Brown in position by Mandelson is not acquiescence in his policies or belief in his abilities. The universal contempt in which Brown is held is just that - universal. But while he is propped up in the office of prime minister the Labour party has time. Time to renew its battered image using the profits of office to fund itself. Time to reorganise itself from a trade union and welfare based essentially minority party that enjoys occasional bouts of office, to a tax-funded, administrative party that moves with the public mood and economic and financial circumstance - from high tax big state to lower tax somewhat - smaller state, to renew its appeal and stay in power answering to the electorate only once every five years.
This, of course, is the ground of the New Labour Project. The airs played above that ground in the last years have been too bitterly fought over by old guards, and left-leaners, by control freaks and delusional past glory as a world power seekers, by unreformed institutional Party structures answering to narrow, paying the piper interests, until the Project has been brought almost to an end.
On the theme 'never waste a good crisis' the Project's chief architect is there using the last months of power to clatter heads together and make the factions understand the urgency of a New party. Better to accept the end of the 20th century Party and its 20th century characteristics of responsiveness to union power and realised socialist redistribution by a benign state, better to abandon the nation state and its past assertiveness in running the world, better to abandon the beards and sandals civil liberties. And essential to do it at once. There is no more time for wallowing in faded ideologies and a collapsed economic and industrial past. It would be surprising if this time the Party name were not abandoned too, interred with honour in the great mausoleum to be constructed to Labour's glorious past (that'll keep the old and silly Party hacks busy).
The added advantage of all this is the reinvigorating of grass roots support, involvement in aspects of the Project that do not impinge directly on power-wielding but produce feelings of inclusiveness and worth - focus and input in countrywide citizen's groupings, variously named. Entire careers to be constructed on tax-supported 'charitable' undertakings to assuage the desires of those who wish to do good in Labour's name.
But time is now so short if the Party is to be reborn that central direction and authority must be accepted. As must Gordon Brown remaining in office until the shining New party is built. If he is pulled down the Party will die. Destroyed by the Conservatives who have delayed for just that goal - of being opposed by a Brown taking Labour to destruction. Delayed too long. Once the New party goal is clear and sought after, rather than grudgingly agreed as worth a try as it was in 1997, Labour will hang on to their one claim to power until they are ready with their New party. None of this done in Opposition either. Done fast, driven by needs must, and paid for by us. And if they aren't quite ready by next May, then there won't be a general election until they are. That's easy to arrange.
Brown won't be leading them then. Not when his usefulness is finished. But for now he will be held together and held in office, no matter how he behaves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
I think you have Mandelson well understood in this post, good work.
Let us hope that the other parties can also see what's going on.
It's still possible, at this time, to destroy Broon and get the whole shooting match put out to grass for quite a long time, but give him six months, an apparent economic lift caused by printed money inflating the bubble a bit more, and anything's possible.
New Labour are playing their cards very cleverly, as you would expect of the great Hartlepool prestidigitor, who - I assume - is now the de-facto boss.
So you now think that there will be a General Election - presumably your previous pronouncements on the subject were just plain garbage?
So Brown is not the driving force behind the project - perhaps you could explain who is - the International Jewish Conspiracy, the International Marxist Consipracy etc.etc. - or don't you really want to reveal your roots?
this is fine analysis, HG, or rather, rich strategic advice for Mandelson. The El Cid gambit: keep the corpse out front on his horse long enough to dull the enemy's advance and provide cover for a new strategic line of attack (which, incidentally, I call the Argos strategy**)
and, you would think, easy to sell to the troops: the best possible chance for them to save their seats, or at least maximise their earnings and pensions
In principle, Mandelson has the time, the entire armoury of government at his disposal, and creative malice aplenty. Here's what's militating against the project's^^ success
- while Mandelson is indeed hungry for staying in power, many in Labour are hungry for being in opposition, it's that time of the decade, it's what they know and enjoy
- accordingly, many of its members don't intuitively agree with "essential to do it at once. There is no more time etc etc". That's Mandelson's cry - but he is motivated by the need to retain power. The oppositionist mindset is merely wistful: it is currently envisaging a relapse into one of those comfortable periods of yah-boo opposition which, they recall, won't be so bad after all
- amazingly, after 25 years of post-Foot pragamtism at the top, Labour is au fond a doctrinaire party, or rather, a warring set of doctrinaire factions (meaning: factions of people who are congenitally fond of doctrines), the most active members of which would slit each other's throats rather than fall in behind the barked unilateral command
- amazingly, it's still a party of Process. True, the NuLab players found ways to short-circuit Process many a time and oft, but it's a task of a thousand minor skirmishes. Napoleon Mandelson might just be up to the task of leading this show, but he'd need a large retinue of talented, committed (and lucky !) generals. Name me one. (Balls ? Livingstone ? Whelan ? each has his own agenda for the next several months.)
- On the same point: Darling remains at Treasury. My understanding is, he's more-or-less an honest man. Without Balls as Chancellor, many of the vital levers are not in Mandelson's hands
- the Harmans, assorted Milibands, Clarkes etc etc can't be whipped-in. One of them can be offered the crown. The rest will obstruct.
I put to you a couple of other factors which might play either way: (a) Emperor-over-the-water Blair wants only to become Euro-Pres; (b) Brussels wants only that there should be no election before Lisbon is ratified. Mandy will of course have views on how to play tunes on both instruments. But lots of clever people want their hands on those instruments, too.
Mandelson demonstrated on Sunday's Marr show that he is a rock-solid personal operator. But the lines of logistics for mustering a fabulous TV performance are trivial - a good night's sleep and a cup of coffee. Those needed for marshalling an entire army are vast. He's done it before: but he needed a Blair to front the operation, legions of Campbells and well-disposed journalists, the discipline of hunger-for-power over the PLP; and it took five years. He can't do it alone, and he can't do it now.
Your prescription is characteristically deep and perceptive, but it's all too late. I'm pleased to say.
= = =
** in the early 1970's the Green Shield Stamp empire of Richard Tompkins was foundering. In a stroke of genius, he flipped one aspect of the business model overnight: from shifting goods by the redemption of trading-stamps to the tendering of cash. The infrastructure of depots, stores, staff and catalogues remained identical, re-branded as Argos. Note: the lines of logistics needed for that switch were minimal; and he was fully the master of his company. These are pre-conditions.
= = =
^^ there are of course other possible strategies open to him, but they are mostly destructive and/or negative. You have characteristically fashioned a positive one HG - of course!
"Napoleon Mandelson": are you referring to the Emperor or the pig?
ND. A series of telling points. Do you think Brown is actually dead? He looks like El Cid but that's his unfortunate manner. Mandelson may think he can just send him out but when he's recovered a bit from being smacked down by Merkel and ignored by Obama, and having to steal the Queen's invitation to D Day ceremonies, he'll be up and aggressively saving the world again. I fear a riding the tiger problem.
Is Mandelson alone? Certainly in the Party analysis of 'we'd better minimise the damage and have some quiet time in comfy opposition', yes. But your point that Blair is to be settled into the Europresidency and no-one but no-one must risk further disturbance to Lisbon breasting the tape would suggest that outside the narrow understandings of the Party there is lots of support. The Labour regime isn't getting any of the flack it should be getting over competition rules and public debt levels and inflation levels is it? The EU is looking away. It could cause real trouble if it felt unsupportive of the regime in the UK.
Doctrinaire factions belong to the 20th century Labour, as I think. Furthermore they no longer provide the funding, not when the Party is in power - we provide the funding - and no longer can reach the Executive after all those internal Party rule changes. For instance, the Conference is just a rally now, heading fast in the same direction as the Durham Miners Gala.
Darling is being left to his own devices for a bit until the worst of this upheaval has been calmed and contained. Darling will be dealt with later - they don't need to press fiscal policy yet. And anyway the Bank seems to be doing what it's told and lending directly - awfully odd for a central bank. Useful for a Business Secretary though.
I accept it's an awful lot of detailed marshalling and organising of tactically innocent and ideologically obdurate troops for Mandelson, but at least he's got the outside factors and threats under control. And disciplining is Labour's middle name. Mandelson has control of just what they are to be disciplined in, so to speak, and the rest is up to the bully boys.
The real danger is an undead El Cid with his own agenda - there are deepest divisions and troubled relationships between those two.
Regardless of whether all this is a reasonable take on things, the Party must come into the 21st post socialist century or die, just like all the other similar parties across Europe are dying. And the only other alternatives are kamikaziness or, as you say, cosy comfort zone opposition while the Conservatives get on with settling European relations, and our political complexion. Not to mention orientation as Europeanist (including western Russia) or Atlanticist (essentially guided by US policies). I don't think Brown and Mandelson see eye to eye on all that at all.
Jesus Christ, HG - don't put ideas in their heads, please! What you write is so horribly feasible that I have a case of the heebie-jeebies.
Not good. Mind you, it does posit a little more deftness in their politicking than we have become used to witnessing. Competence is not their strong hand at the moment, is it?
I'm getting election cold turkey.
excellent stuff
(despite the obvious attractions I clearly shouldn't have used El Cid who, as belatedly I recall, was feared by the enemy !)
Elby 21.52 - that was also going to be my comment yesterday when I read this posting, but I have given up now.
Nomad! Are you giving up on Angels? We do not swear, or blaspheme, or tell lies, or misrepresent things. If some things must not be said then what is the point? Anyway, nothing written here reaches eligible ears. (as you occasionally point out yourself).
This sort of thinking is so obvious it must be part of the thinking behind keeping Brown in place. We, the voters, are a real thorn in the flesh of the post democratic administrators. The technicians - there were lots of governi technici during Italy's desperate days in the post Moro over-shadowing of democracy - compromise and settle and direct for their own agendas, if they could only divert us all into selected focus groups and good works on a smallish scale they could get on.
We must be aware how powerful the vote is in bringing them to a screeching halt. They mean to abolish us if they can. Is it not better to talk about this?
"We must be aware how powerful the vote is in bringing them to a screeching halt."
Indeed, and this is where I think your analysis goes wrong, expert though it is.
The electorate as a whole has no interest in Mandelson's manoeverings, and just wants to punish all pols - but especially Labour ones - for the economic disaster and the troughing. Once the electoral chance comes, assuming Broon is still in charge, Labour will be routed on a grand scale. If Broon is not in charge, all bets are off.
Unlike our hostess here, I do believe that - barring major civil disturbance - the election will come when it is due. Even the Hartlepool prestidigitator (a word I mis-spelled yesterday, I bow in shame) could not get away with delaying beyond the five years; even he would be swept aside by the row that would erupt. And for this time, at least, there is still the backstop of the monarch. Would England back her, or Mandelson? To ask the question is to answer it.
So unless the Dark Lord can get his new party organisation off the ground in one year, he's toast - a consummation devoutly to be wished.
You're with ND then 14.09. Too few assistants and not enough time.
And I am shamed with you in misspellings. No aitch in tecnici. How could there be considering its purpose?
HG: No, you misunderstand. I am most certainly not giving up on Angels as I enjoy reading daily what is written here even though I do not always have anything to contribute.
What I should have perhaps made clearer was that I agreed with Elby's first sentence, and I have now given up trying to persuade you not to give them any more ideas (as expressed by Mr E).
They create quite enough trouble for us on their own without us making suggestions for them. Hope that clarifies sufficiently!
That said, I concur that nothing is out of bounds for discussion.
Anon @ 14:09 - there is a bit of chess-by-post going on here between HG & meself: have a look at the comments on this post from 18 months ago!
Looking back, there are a couple of interesting surmises: I was predicting a point in time when the Civil Service will start to disobey scorched-earth orders
don't think that time has arrived yet ... indeed the BoE seems to be preparing to make direct loans to companies of "its" (presumably Mandelson's) choosing
Post a Comment