The Debatable Land

The Envy of the World

Further proof that the British economy remains better placed than any other to weather this turbulent, tempest-ridden economic sea: the Bank of England cuts interest rates to 1.5%, the lowest rate in more than 300 years. Obviously that's a tribute to the government. Meanwhile, the government prepares to print some more money. This too demonstrates the extent to which the government has everything in hand.

I don't think you need to be an economist to sense that this mob - Brown and Darling, that is - are making it up as they go along.

Is Gordon Up For It?

Iain Martin asked a good question today:

Despite being at or near the top of his profession for two decades, the PM has no track record in fronting election campaigns. There are so few images of his public electioneering because he has done very little of it.

Curiously, amid the speculation about the possibility of the PM going to the country as early as February (the 26th is the date the Tories have circled with blue pencil as a possibility), there has been virtually no consideration of a rather important question: will Prime Minister Brown be any good in a general election campaign?

We can't be certain of the answer to this, largely because since he was elected Rector of Edinburgh University more than 35 years ago, Brown has scarcely ever needed to appear in public to persuade voters to endorse his candidacy. Of course this gives him the benefit of starting off from a position in which expectations are low and it may be that Brown's doggedness on the campaign trail will be rewarded by voters, rather as they looked fondly upon John Major's old-fashioned soap-box stumping in 1992. But that may be the best case scenario for Brown and, unfortunately for him, David Cameron is a more accomplished performer than Neil Kinnock who may well thrive on what will be, as Iain says, a more presidential-style campaign than has been customary in British politics. 

That's to say that Brown may well need to have won the election before the actual, official campaign begins.

Canterbury and Downing Street

Gordon Brown may be a son of the Manse, but it's the Archbishop of Canterbury, of all people, who has picked up a presbyterian cudgel with which to whack the Prime Minister. To wit:

The Archbishop of Canterbury criticised the government's fiscal stimulus package on Thursday, likening it to "an addict returning to a drug."

Then again, it hardly matters. It's not as though many people listen to the Church of England anyway....

Department of "But That Was Then! This Is Different!"

Gordon Brown in 1995: "A weak currency is the sign of a weak economy which is the sign of a weak government."

Today: on the commercial exchange rates, one pound will, at best, purchase you one euro.

The Prime Minister insists Britain is better placed than other countries to weather the financial storms of the coming year. It wouldn't be a bad thing if that were true. But if it is true, why doesn't anyone outside Downing Street seem to believe it to be true? I mean the currency markets aren't like a bunch of churlish, chippy, cynical bloggers are they?

[Hat-tip: Iain Dale]

Economic Policy Trust Test: Labour or the Germans?

A good old-fashoned rumpus is developing. Seems as though the Germans, fed up with being sneered at by Godron Brown and irritated by the Prime Minister's pretensions to have "saved the world" have decided to poke the PM in the eye. As Peer Steinbruck, the SPD Finance Minister told Newsweek:

We have a bidding war where everyone in politics believes they have to top up every spending program that's been put to discussion. I say we should be honest to our citizens. Policies can take some of the sharpness out of it, but no matter how much any government does, the recession we are in now is unavoidable. When I look at the chaotic and volatile debate right now, both in Germany and around the world, my impression and concern is that the daily barrage of proposals and political statements is making markets and consumers even more nervous.

The speed at which proposals are put together under pressure that don't even pass an economic test is breathtaking and depressing. Our British friends are now cutting their value-added tax. We have no idea how much of that stores will pass on to customers. Are you really going to buy a DVD player because it now costs £39.10 instead of £39.90? All this will do is raise Britain's debt to a level that will take a whole generation to work off. The same people who would never touch deficit spending are now tossing around billions. The switch from decades of supply-side politics all the way to a crass Keynesianism is breathtaking. When I ask about the origins of the crisis, economists I respect tell me it is the credit-financed growth of recent years and decades. Isn't this the same mistake everyone is suddenly making again, under all the public pressure?

It's the yearning for the Great Rescue Plan. It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist! Dealing with an unprecedented crisis is a puzzle, a trial-and-error. Honestly, I don't know. I tend to be skeptical because it is human nature to see the crisis as even worse than it is. I don't want to downplay anything; 2009 looks like it will be a very difficult year. But we are not about to collapse.

This is very troubling stuff since it's more or less where my own  - blind - hunch lies. Of course I know very little about economics and have to hope that the German finance minister has a better grip on these matters.

Noteworthy too that Herr Steinbruck is a man of the left. As the BBC's Nick Robinson points out, despite Labour's attempts to spin this as a matter of German domestic politics, it's more probable that the Germans are saying this because they think Britain is trying to lead everyone off a cliff. Let's have a look at today's news: not only has the government run up more debt than was needed to fight and win the First World War, we don't have any money to go abroad either. With the pound approaching parity with the euro, all holidays are now to be taken in Britain.

The next step? Something called "Quantative Easing" which, as best I can tell, is just a fancy term for printing more money. That sounds encouraging, doesn't it?

No! Not the Bore Worms...

You remember the line don't you? "Flash, Flash, I love you, but we only have 14 hours to save the earth." And you'll remember the Labour posters promising "Not Flash, Just Gordon"? Well, they ditched that idea today. Or at least the Prime Minister did as this unfortunate slip at Prime Ministers' Questions demonstrates:

Now Labour's approach to the financial maelstrom is pretty simple: find something to do, do it and then accuse anyone who asks any questions of adopting a "do-nothing" approach. Never mind that do-nothing might be preferable to punting everything on black or, rather, red. Still, the Tories are in a minor pickle: Jeremy Paxman gave wee Georgie Osbourne a tough time on Newsnight yesterday, demanding that the Shadow Chancellor offer something rather better than his current, "Yes, we have a plan but no, I'm not going to talk about numbers" routine. More on this later.

Meanwhile, Gordon Brown knows a priority when he sees one...

Seriously. There are times when I think Americans were lucky to get George W Bush. Well, almost. Apart from the torture thing (though of course our government acquiesced with this too).

[Hat-tip: 10 Downing St, via Dale]

Should Gordon Go Now?

By which I mean, natch, should El Gordo toddle off to Buckingham Palace and call for a general election next spring rather than hanging on until 2010. Danny Finkelstein says yes he should. I rather agree. Admittedly this agreement is to some extent predicated upon my dislike of Brown and the rest of his miserable, chiselling crew. (Smith, J being but the most alarming example of the breed). Consequently, the sooner the country has a chance to be rid of them, the better.

Nonetheless, putting personal prejudices aside (and the downside of a Tory victory in the spring, of course, is that disappointment will arrive that muh sooner), there's a Labour-centred case for going early too. As Danny says, the prospect of an alarming recession may make voters rather more risk averse and disinclined to change the government than they would be in happier times or, crucially, at the tail-end of a recession. If the Pime Minister hopes to steer the country through troubled economic waters and then be thanked by a grateful nation, he's set to be disappointed. Voters are an ungrateful bunch at the best of times and these, my friends, are not the best of times.

Additionally: what do the Tories want? They seem quite happy to wait until 2010, trusting that the public's reserves of patience - never deep - will have been exhausted by Brown and more than 13 years of Labour government. A snap election in the spring, however, that focused on the economy and nothing else might be Labour's best shot. Of course, it would be a gamble and Labour might well still lose, but it might also, paradoxically, be Brown's best shot at winning a mandate.

There is, mind you, one other consideration and we have, after all, been here before. The more speculation there is about an early election, the more difficult it will be for Brown to walk away from it. Last summer he had filled in his betting slip and was all set to hand it to the attendant only to blink, think again and scurry out the turf accountant's shop, all sweaty-palmed and heaving-breathed thinking that he'd come oh-so-close to losing his shirt. Bottling one election might be unfortunate, bottling two might be seen as carelessness.

An early election, mind you, would require bravery and boldness: two qualities Brown has rarely demonstrated. So the odds must be that he will hang on to 2010 in the hope that something, any-bloody-thing, will turn up. The trouble is, it probably won't. There's a risk that asking voters "Who do you want to navigate our way through this financial storm?" will produce the answer "Anyone but you, mate" but that's the gamble. Elections tend to be won by th ebolder party, the one that seems up for the fight. That's to say, incumbents who are in a defensive crouch, holding on and hoping for the bell to ring soon, rarely do well. Better to choose your own time, make a stand and see what happens.

The Wisdom of Crowds

The extent to which one considers the general public an uncannily perceptive bunch or a gathering of witless, no-good know-nothings naturally correlates with the degree to which the public endorses any given opinion one holds oneself.

That being so, it's obvious that British voters are smarter than many of the pundits paid to interpret and analyse the latest froth and nonsense emanating from the Westminster village. That is to say, the public seems to agree with me: Gordon Brown's is not a magician, far less a miracle worker.

Today's Guardian/ICM poll reports that the government's response to the international financial crisis has not impressed the public. Or rather, the public is so sour on Labour that it's not prepared to grant Brown a reprieve even if he's perceived to be upping his game. Six in ten voters say the government has responded quite well, but only 13% of punters are more likely to vote Labour as a result. 27% say they are less likely to vote Labour and 60% say it makes no difference at all.

No wonder, then, that the Tories are unchanged on 42% with Labour also unchanged on 30% and the Tories still hold a slight lead when asked which party is better-equipped to handle economic matters.

Yes, of course it's only one poll. But still, El Gordo has bestrode the headlines for the best part of a month and done all he can to present himself as an economic superhero saving not just Britain but the world itself. In this he has been helped by friendly - even, at times, sycophantic - media coverage and what does it all amount to? A shrug of the shoulders and a bitter, begrudging public asking Is that all you've got?

By "bitter" and "begrudging" of course, I mean "unusually perspicacious".

Hats off to Gordon Brown?

Commenting on this post, a reader asks:

What does this do to Gordon Brown's political future?  He sure looks like a world leader as the rest of the world falls in behind his bailout plan. Neither McCain nor Obama seem to have a clue what to do for the financial crisis, so I'm wondering if I should write in Brown's name for President in here in the U.S.  Your opinion?

This is a good question, not least because it permits one to escape from economics. My answer hunch, I guess, is that this will improve Gordon's position in the short-term but that he is still extremely vulnerable in the long-term. Yes, he's showing action right now. Yes, there are plenty of people who will like this renewed stamp of leadership. And yes, some voters will believe - or believe right now - that this is a "global problem" sent our way by the Americans and that, consequently, none of it is Brown's fault or responsibility. Certainly, Gordon is enjoying himself (a natural reaction to crisis, but one some voters may find somewhat unseemly).

So, it's not absurd to think that, unlikely as it seemed just a couple of weeks ago, Labour could win the Glenrothes by-election next month. The financial crisis has, for the moment at least, put Alex Salmond in the shade. Brown is the Man with the Action Plan. If the polls show the public responding favourably to these latest developments then I suspect Brown may decide it is worth his while to campaign in Glenrothes personally.

Glenrothes - the neighbouring constituency to Brown's own seat remember and which has been Labour for more than 50 years - has become more, not less important. Or rather, its importance has shifted. A month ago, a crushing defeat for Labour would have reopened questions about the leadership. The parliamentary party would have been in an especially febrile mood. Those waters are calm now. Instead, Glenrothes is going to be a mini-referendum on Brown's recovery. If Labour win - as, again, they are better placed to do so now - then Brown can claim to have turned the corner. He will use the by-election as proof that he was right and, you know, this is no time for a novice and all the rest of it. He will win that crucial commodity: time.

But if Labour lose then Labour will be worse off than ever. There won't be much talk of dropping the pilot, if only because no-one else is going to want to be commanding the ship when it goes down. Labour are stuck with Brown. And if the SNP take Glenrothes then the "Brown Bounce" we see this week will seem more like a "dead cat" bounce than anything else. In other words, it will be just a temporary reprieve.

Sure, the opinion polls gave Labour a small boost at the weekend. Sure, too, Brown has a small edge - right now - on economic matters. Some voters respond well to action, almost irregardless of the particulars of the actions themselves. (For what it's worth, I think Brown and Darling have probably, as best I can tell, done OK this weekend). But, look, the Tories retain a ten point lead. Who would you really rather be? It's like the old Irish saw about asking for directions: "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here." For directions, read elections. 

The next election will be fought in 2010. There's every chance that Britain will still be stuck in a rather nasty recession by that time. Hardly propitious circumstances for a party seeking a fourth term. As I say, it's possible that Brown will be fine in the short-term, but I rather agree with Iain Dale and think that in the longer-term voters will blame the party on duty, not think that the other mob would have performed even worse. Do the Conservatives terrify the public? Not anymore. Time for a change is a strong argument in itself; it will be even stronger, I hazard, in an election held during an economic downturn. 

Labour may end up doing better than the polls would currently predict, but that's not quite the same as winning the next election. The longer-term fundamentals remain firmly in the Tories favour. At least, that's my guess right now.

The one thing that might make a difference would be if the public rejects economic liberalism in its entireity. Even then, however, Brown would have to explain away his admiration for Alan Greenspan. And the argument "I believed in the same things the opposition did, just later and not quite as completely" doesn't quite seem a game-changer to me.

UPDATE: Doctorvee was writing about Glenrothes a couple of days ago. And, in answer to commenter NDM, if voters do think Brown "saved the global economy" then matters may change. But right now I think most punters would struggle to take that notion seriously. That too may change of course.

Gordon Brown is Jimmy Carter

Sure, his conference speech tried to meld elements from both the McCain and Obama campaigns, but the Prime Minister's micro-management and control-freakery is more reminiscent of the poor old Georgian peanut farmer. Consider this telling anecdote from Martin Kettle's column in the Guardian today:

And then there's the dysfunctionality in Downing Street itself. The briefing and counter-briefing these days make journalism easy. A few weeks ago, one official confided an extraordinary story to me. Four years ago, ministers decided that Britain's South Atlantic island possession of St Helena needed to have an airport. If planes could land on the tiny island, more than 1,200 miles from the nearest continent, its economic and demographic decline could perhaps be turned around. Plans began to be made. The airport was scheduled to open in 2010.

Earlier this year, the Foreign Office finally asked the Department for International Development to sign off on the airport. The file went up to the secretary of state, Douglas Alexander. But instead of giving the go-ahead himself, Alexander was required to pass the decision up to Downing Street. Brown insisted on reading all the papers in the St Helena file and afterwards asked personally to see all the tender documents, in case they did not give value for money. I am told the papers remain in Downing Street and that no final decision has yet been taken.

It would be hard to find a better example of a decision that a prime minister in times of trouble should not waste his time on and one that should be delegated to ministers. What would Napoleon have said? But the St Helena episode has become a Whitehall byword for a lethal combination of micromanagement and indecision.

Now, sure, you could argue this shows a commendable attention to detail and desire to ensure value-for-money and so on. You could argue that, but, really, you'd be hard-pressed to make the case without giggling. It's not just the credit markets that have seized up...

[Hat-tip: James Forsyth]

Gordon's Asset Management

Jackie Ashley argues that Gordon Brown deserves the extra time she thinks he bought with his speech yesterday, even though she concedes it won't be nearly enough to save him in the long run. But I was also struck by this:

His wife Sarah's appearance was touching and starry: she is truly his greatest asset.

Iron rule of politics: anytime hacks start referring to the leader's spouse as his/her "greatest asset" it's time for sentient folk to head for the lifeboats. cf,  Laura Bush. A good wife (or husband) is not enough. Sarah Brown's appearance introducing the Prime Minister was a) obviously borrowed from American politica and, more importantly, b) a sign of weakness not strength. She was there as a sort of human shield to protect Gordon from the nasties who want to do him in.

Theoretically Brown could recover from all this. But it still seems exceedingly unlikely. The public may not be entirely sold on Cameron's Tories but they know they don't want a fourth Labour term. His line about how "we did fix the roof while the sun was shining" is going to leave a lot of people asking: well, why are we wet then? Equally, I'm unpersuaded that the electorate will buy a Labour campaign based upon the promise: Fret not, my bairns, I know I got you into this mess but I'm the only person who knows how to lead you out. Stay with Nurse, for fear of worse!

Brown's Salvage Operation

So, Gordon Brown's speech to the Labour party conferene wasn't terrible. By which I mean that it clearly pleased his audience. And his "This is no time for a novice" line was an entertaining slap aimed at both David Cameron and David Miliband. But that carries danger too: Brown is trying to make the case that only he can be trusted to implement necessary reforms. He is betting that, come the election, voters will choose "experience" over "change". Does that sound familiar? Well, it didn't work for Hillary Clinton did it? And I'm not sure it's going to work for John McCain either. Nor does Brown have the luxury of running against an ncumbent the way McCain can try to leverage his differences with George W Bush or Nicolas Sarkozy was able to run against Jacques Chirac.

That wasn't the only echo of the current American presidential campaign, however. Consider this:

But let me start with something I hope you know already.
I didn't come into politics to be a celebrity or thinking I'd always be popular.
Perhaps, that's just as well.
No, 25 years ago I asked the people of Fife to send me to parliament to serve the country I love.
And I didn't come to London because I wanted to join the establishment, but because I wanted and want to change it.
So I'm not going to try to be something I'm not.
And if people say I'm too serious, quite honestly there's a lot to be serious about - I'm serious about doing a serious job for all the people of this country.

So there you have it: David Cameron is the flippant, unserious, celebrity candidate and Gordon Brown, Member of Parliament for a quarter of a century, Chancellor of the Exchequer for a decade and current Prime Minister, is the outsider, running against entrenched - special! - interests at Westminster. David Cameron represents the establishment, whereas Brown, in power for nearly a dozen years, is the heroic crusader pledging to clean up Westminster and deliver a fresh golden age of fairness and opportunity for all.

That's some audacity there. Gordon Brown is John McCain and Barack Obama. Who knew?

Caption Contest!

I remain perplexed. People are still talking about David Milliband as Gordon Brown's successor. I just don't see it. Miliband's the sort of kid who was always picked last in a game of playground football. Even if he's better than some of the other kids, you still wouldn't want him on your side. He's that irritating.

Anyway, what's Gordon saying to him here?

[Via Danny Finkelstein]

Waiting for Glenrothes

So, the conventional wisdom is that Gordon Brown has survived and will not, in fact, face a leadership challenge anytime soon. Why? Because it's too difficult to get rid of him and, in any case, there's no obviously more palatable successor. As the BBC's Nick Robinson put it this morning:

Friends of the Prime Minister put it more positively. MPs have come to realise, they say, that it's not Gordon Brown that's the problem but "the economy stupid" and he's the best man to sort it. In this respect, and this one only, the polls are helpful for Mr Brown. The public does not say it wants a change of Labour leader nor that the party's position would be improved if there was one.

So it is that Gordon Brown has neither been backed or sacked. So it is that he has not re-launched his leadership but does not face a challenge to it.

These"friends" are deluded if they think it's the economy, not Gordon. It's both. True, the public doesn't demand a change in leadership but that's because the public doesn't like any Labour politician. Any new leader is also likely to suffer a catastrophic defeat. That being so, only an unusually confident politician would want to lead the Labour charge into the valley of death. Consider this poll: just 31% of voters agree with this, admittedly hypothetical, proposition, “if the economic situation improves dramatically over the next year or two, Labour will have a good chance of winning the next election.”

Also, why push when Gordon might - just might - jump himself? Obviously that remains unlikely, but if the SNP were - as most folk expect them to - win the Glenrothes by-election, then one can imagine a situation in which Brown might conclude that the game was no longer worth the candle. After all, if he cannot win a by-election in the town in which he grew up and the constituency that borders his own, then where can he win? And, since he will be directing Labour operations himself, it's hard to see how he can avoid responsibility for the result. Defeat for Labour in Fife - the only part of Britian that ever elected a communist MP - may embolden the rest of the cabinet. But if they're wise they'd appreciate that since the ship is going down anyway, there's no need for a mutiny to replace one doomed skipper with another.