Cabinet turns on Brown in hunt for 'alternative PM'
The breakdown of trust between the Blair and Brown camps has never been more evident. At a time when one would hope that the Labour Party would be burying their differences for the sake of party unity, it appears that the Blair camp is unforgiving and still holds Brown responsible for the death of Blair's political ambitions.
The truth, of course, is more subtle. Blair's political strength has been eroded, not by any action of Brown, but rather by his own actions. On the domestic front the two men, barring the odd quibble over detail, have largely been singing from the same script. It is on the international stage that Blair has lost, not the support of Brown (who has stayed quiet when many of us hoped he would speak up), but rather the support of his parliamentary colleagues. Blair's particular brand of international politics has seemed to many in the Labour Party as no more than an apology for US/Israeli unilateralism and it is this that has, finally, eroded what support remained for him within his own party. This support was withered by the Iraq war but vanished completely during the Israeli war with Hizbullah when Blair refused to call for a ceasefire whilst Israeli superior firepower was aimed at a battered Lebanese civilian population.
The Labour Party have always prided themselves on their principle, a concept that - certainly in the eighties - made them unelectable. Blair achieved power by aiming for - in his own words - "what could be done". He substituted practicality for principle. And a Labour Party that had suffered 18 years in the political wilderness was more than willing to embrace this practical stance as long as it delivered political power.
The fatal error Blair made was to presume that the Labour Party's underlying principles had been replaced forever by his brand of pragmatism. It had not. The pragmatic Blair chose to back the US position on Lebanon, a position that the Labour heartland saw as immoral and wrong.
When Israel engaged in what many of us regarded as war crimes such as collective punishment and wanton destruction, and Blair refused to change his script, his fate was sealed. Already weakened by an unpopular war in Iraq, his unwillingness to ever do something simply because it was right - regardless of the consequences - reopened the chasm between Blair and the party that he led and finally convinced many that the Faustian deal Blair represented was no longer tenable and that he had to go.
That is the reality of what has happened here, no matter how the Blairites choose to see it.
The Blairites have instead chosen to see Gordon Brown as the architect of their doom and are rounding on him as a consequence. It is now being revealed that up to 10 Cabinet ministers are discussing an "anyone but Gordon" campaign and that Blair is now refusing to give Brown his personal endorsement. This is an act of political suicide. The simple truth is that the Labour Party - whatever you think of Brown - simply have no other candidate for Prime Minister.
If Labour are serious about retaining power, and if Blair is serious about seeing his New Labour project continue, then the party should be uniting behind the only candidate they have.
Instead we are told that Blair is saying, 'I have never known how mendacious he [Gordon] was, how full of mendacity.'
The baton was picked up by "a Cabinet source":
What's most notable about the Blair camp's attacks on Brown is that they are almost solely focused on "character" and "personal qualities" rather than on any substantive difference the two camps have over policy. Indeed, the "Cabinet source" acknowledges as much by stating, "It's not about policy".'Until the beginning of this week, most of us would have ended up supporting him [Brown] because there wasn't anyone else,' said a source involved in the discussions. 'Now almost for sure, because of his behaviour, there will be a serious challenge from someone within cabinet and he's only got himself to blame.' Asked how many of the cabinet would back such a candidate, the minister said: 'Now, I think half a dozen, but I think it could be more like 10 [when a candidate is picked]. This week has been the cathartic moment. It's not about policy: the question is who has the character, the personal qualities. Gordon is his own worst enemy.'
Brown's behaviour showed he lacked the 'honesty, integrity and trustworthiness' required, the source added. While declining to name those who would be willing to back an anti-Brown candidate, those with most to lose under Brown include John Reid, Hilary Armstrong, John Hutton, Lord Falconer and Hazel Blears.
If the Blair camp is serious about New Labour retaining power - which they claim to be - then their choice of future leader would surely focus on policy and the ability to deliver electoral success rather than simply loyalty to Blair.
I have no idea whether Brown will return the Labour Party to it's more principled roots, and his silence over events as wide ranging as Iraq and Lebanon have lead me to fear the worst, however, his silence has led many in the Labour Party to come to believe that he offers a principled alternative.
If he does not, a similar fate to the one now facing Blair may await him.
The Blair camp should understand that it was a lack of principle that brought their man down; and that the dagger was wielded, not by Brown, but by Blair himself. Likewise, the Brown camp should realise the future pitfalls of pragmatism over principle.
It is obvious that the Blair camp has not learned, and will never learn, this lesson.
For the sake of the Labour Party one has to hope that Brown has. However, we'll never find this out unless the Blairites put their egos to one side and back the only candidate the Labour Party has for Prime Minister.
In principle, this should be a very easy thing for them. After all, it's the practical thing to do.
Click title for full article.
No comments:
Post a Comment