« Rattled? | Main | Look it up in a dictionary »
February 23, 2007
Michael Who?
Okay, I know it is a pretty cheap shot, but does Michael Meacher really think he is going to achieve anything constructive by standing for leader of the Labour Party. He started his ministerial career serving under Harold Wilson nearly 40 years ago, although in his favour he once failed to recognise the pipe smoker as being his leader.
In all those years, in spite of displaying competance in his role as Minister of State for the Environment, he has failed to make any significant impact with the electorate, many of whom weren't even born when he first entered Parliament.
Now I've been saying for years that Labour needs leadership change, and also expressing my belief that Gordon Brown is yesterday's man (his time was 1992, but he chose to defer to John Smith) and a most unsuitable leader of the party. Yet all Meacher can hope to achieve is to divide the Left, in all likelihood guaranteeing a victory for Brown.
The fundamental problem comes from the hold that Blair and Brown have exercised over the Labour Party for the last 10 years. Gordon has been the defacto successor to Blair for so long that there is now a paucity of choice. Milliband keeps ruling himself out, which is a relief as the last thing Labour needs right now is a new Blair; Meacher is a nowhere man and John McDonnell is still short of the backing of 44 MPs required to force a contest.
What a mess!
And it is all the fault of the Labour Party, from top to bottom. Collectively we let Blair hang on when we should have forced him out. We were happy to see Gordon Brown as Blair's successor. And now the chickens have come home to roost.
Let's take a look at the options, assuming Blair quits in June this year. The likely outcome is that Brown will become Prime Minister and will be faced with a decision. Does he rely on Blair's mandate from 2005 or does he go to the country immediately?
If he hangs on until 2010 then he'd better hope that he can avoid economic issues and other problems, because in 3 years time he'll have to face an electorate that has seen 13 years of Blair/Brown government, and an opposition that can brand him a coward who refused to fight on his own merits. All indications are that the best result he could hope for would be a hung parliament.
Yet the polls indicate that going to the country as soon as he takes over would be political suicide.
What is really needed is a centre-left challenger who could reinvigorate the Labour Party, and at the same time remind both the membership and the public that there is a credible alternative to centre-right policies. So where is this challenger then?
History will, I suspect, look back on this period of Labour government as being a time of squandered opportunities, of further disengagement between government and the electorate and, above all, of the corrupting and dibilitating influence of the Blair-Brown relationship. Maybe it would be better to be out of power sooner and for a shorter period of time, than to struggle on and face a repeat of the wilderness years of 1979 - 1997.
But one thing is for certain, Michael Meacher standing for leader will not improve matters one iota.
Update - 14:15 - Paul Linford reckons John Denham might be a viable alternative.
Posted by Clive on February 23, 2007 11:09 AM in the category Labour