Prime Minister Gordon Brown
What began only a few days ago as a contest to replace Tony Blair as leader of the British Labour Party and, thereby Prime Minister when Blair stands down on 27 June, has become a coronation. Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister) Gordon Brown has succeeded in garnering nominations from 313 of the 354 Labour Members of Parliament (including that of Blair), leaving his last-remaining opponent, left-winger John McDonnell, to admit defeat. Yesterday, Brown accepted the party’s nomination as leader.
But will the lack of contest ultimately prove harmful for Brown and his party? It has often been said that Brown wanted a contest; though it is probably also fair to say that the ideal contest would have been one with a left-winger like McDonnell that allowed Brown to present himself to the wider electorate as the centrist candidate building on the last 10 years of Blair’s government – of which he has been an integral figure. Being challenged from the (Blair-ite) right of the party would have made for a very different contest.
Indeed, some say an election would have benefited Labour, allowing it to reinvigorate itself with an open policy debate, and giving the winner a stronger position with respect to the party. The opposition Conservative Party certainly emerged from their last leadership election campaign both with renewed purpose and a telegenic new leader, David Cameron.
But it’s not clear that the absence of a similar contest will harm Brown. For a start, being able to openly discuss a wholesale change in approach and emphasis is easier done in opposition than in government. Cameron and the Conservatives at least knew they were likely to have several years in which to resolve an open debate well before any realistic prospect of having to govern – a luxury that Brown and Labour simply don’t have while in power.
In any event, Brown’s challenge is a different one. Only two years ago, his party won the right to govern until (potentially) May 2010. And his position in the party is already strong, evidenced by the fact that his succession to Blair has been seen as inevitable for most of the last 10 years in office, while the left wing of the party have, by failing to successfully nominate a candidate, demonstrated their own relative weakness.
Instead, he faces a tricky balancing act: how to reinvigorate the government and set a distinct and personal agenda, without entirely turning his back on the “New Labour” government, led by Blair, of which he was a co-architect and has been a high-profile member. The more that the next six weeks can be a positive and forward-looking statement of who Brown is, rather than becoming an assessment of his predecessor’s strengths and weaknesses, the better for Brown. And that may be where his unopposed election turns out to be an advantage; the risk of his party indulging in a public and politically damaging battle, fought over the legacy of the Blair era, now seems slight.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Do the Tories and Cameron have a real shot at unseating Labour? (How it pains me to put that extra “u” in there!)
May 18th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Do they have a chance? Well, in a way, your question says something about how one-sided political fortunes have been in the UK in recent years! All the same, the Conservatives’ chances do look better than at probably any time since Labour came to power in 1997. The latest ‘yougov.com’ opinion polls give the Conservatives between a 5 and 8-point advantage…BUT:
Finally, don’t ignore the potential impact of the change of Prime Minister on Labour’s fortunes over the next few months. But to understand that, we’ll have to continue blogging…!
* The short story is that it takes fewer votes to win the urban constituencies where Labour is traditionally strong than in rural and suburban constituencies where Conservative support is stronger – but if you want to read a more thorough explanation, you can find it at:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/electoral-bias/