Tonight:
5°c
The PM arrives in America today with omens of doom flapping around him. Wall Street and the City are quaking about the credit crunch and senior bankers were hauled into No 10 on the eve of his trip to batter out some form of reassurance for panicking borrowers.
A political crunch now threatens the Labour leader. He leaves behind a party seething with anxiety over the state of his leadership. Only a few months ago, David Cameron told me that he was very happy with all of his ratings, except the ones on economic competence where Gordon Brown had a firm lead, whatever else went wrong.
Now, Mr Brown's best asset has suddenly dwindled and with it, his main claim to be a winner for Labour.
A senior Labour peer and one of the most eminent Labour parliamentarians recently discussed the state of the Brown leadership and concluded that were it not for the complexity of the process, both would support a leadership contest. Neither is the sort of character who sits around fantasising about regicide lightly.
It is reminiscent of the Tory doldrums of the early Nineties in that much of the conversation about the premiership now turns on the risks or otherwise of getting rid of the leader - rather than the merits of the man himself.
The abrupt change to a mood of edgy uncertainty reminds me of the Brecht poem Changing the Wheel, which goes: "I am not content where I am/I am not content where I am going/Why then, do I watch the change of the wheel with impatience?"
Brownites would counter: "Why change the wheel at all?" The devil you know has advantages in erratic times. It is not impossible for governments to weather economically adverse conditions or even turn them to advantage. Indeed, the PM's personal strategy has rested for some time on the claim that he is a more reliable leader to lean on in times of trouble than any other . As he said in a Channel 4 news interview last night , the point of a Government when things get tough is to offer as much relief as possible to what people are going through.
His problem, crudely put, is that too few people believe in him. Those in power must inspire belief, even among those who do not like them or are inclined to vote for someone else. Watching a succession of Mr Brown's interviews yesterday (I lead a life of riotous pleasure), it struck me that he was many things - considered, consistent, and making a superhuman effort not to be irritated by the noises off around his leadership.
What he was not, was persuasive. " Gordon has got a huge political problem, not just an image one," confides one longstanding senior party official. "He can't do empathy and people now doubt his efficacy. It doesn't leave much."
So far, the argument has turned on what Mr Brown must change in order to improve his standing. That consideration is now under threat of eclipse from what one former Cabinet member calls the "Mission Impossible" argument - that it might all be in vain and that Mr Brown is not the right man for the job, however many private-sector PRs are hauled into No 10.
Labour is turning its thoughts to the prospect of a new leader. But it cannot work out how to get from where it is now to having one without an election defeat. Neither can it decide who it would really want to replace Mr Brown, without a huge internal battle.
The most plausible alternative, David Miliband, is trapped by his own caution in failing to set down a marker by running last year, and now by his role as Foreign Secretary, a job given to him to ensure that he would be kept out of harm's way most of the time.
Mr Miliband has always been in danger of being a broadly attractive but undefined politician. He recently wrote an article for the Times which was in that infuriating category of nearly being quite good. What he was saying - beyond a general mush of platitudes about progressive governance - was that New Labour needed a new sense of what it was really about after three terms in power.
Telling us what Labour needs comes easily to Mr Miliband (it was "bold Labour or bust" last year and what happened to that, David?) At some point he will have to decide what to do about it.
Still, the direction of his thinking was perfectly clear and it was cunningly projected as an alternative to the tendency of the Schools Secretary Ed Balls to frame a fierce clampdown on schools admissions in terms which were crowdpleasers for the nostalgic wing of the Labour Party.
I would not overlook the role of Jack Straw in these manoeuvrings either. Mr Straw has allied himself with Mr Brown but he is part cheerleader, part undertaker. The alleged row with Mr Balls makes the point. The Hercule Poirot question is not "Did he threaten to thump Ed?" (no). But why, if Mr Balls and Mr Straw crossed swords about their respective responsibilities, were we allowed to know about it at all - let alone in the kind of detail that turns into an rumour of brewing fisticuffs?
Mr Straw is positioning himself as an elder statesman who is not to be messed with - and whose own doubts on the looming disaster of the 42 days anti-terror vote (which could cost the Home Secretary her job) are widely known to his colleagues. "Jack would love to be the transitional leader," says one senior minister who worked under him.
That still leaves the wilder Apaches in the hills like the irrepressible Charles Clarke, who was furious to be described as a potential "stalking horse" because he is intent on running only if he can do so as a serious candidate for the leadership. The silence from yet another unavenged ex-Home Secretary, John Reid, is nothing short of eerie. To say nothing of the ur-Blairite redoubt of Alan Milburn, who is unlikely to be a candidate himself but would relish a return to Cabinet and has done more serious thinking about the future of public services since leaving government than anyone else.
The scale of damage in the local elections in a fortnight will be decisive in determining whether this discontent flares up or simmers down. Mr Brown badly needs to portray bad results, let alone a possible defeat in London, as just another mid-term protest by which voters tell governments how fed up they are. That only washes so far.
A very serious rout in the marginal seats will bring one question into focus: is Gordon the man to win back the parts of Britain Labour is losing fast? If he has a convincing answer to that, we haven't heard it yet.
Reader views (2)
We were told that the massive "investment" in public services would be well worth the extra cost and the higher taxes and borrowings. Many of us know that "investment" was really current expenditure but now we find that it has been a huge waste of money. We are no better off and Nu Labour has not got a clue what to do about it.
The good economic times were all due to Brown's stewardship but now the bad times are the fault of the American bankers. There is little that Brown can now do because the Government coffers are empty.
His best idea yet is to ask the banks to lower their interest rates and what happens? The nationalised Northern Rock increases its rates!
It is time to say goodbye to Brown and co.
- Bill, London, 17/04/2008 11:19
Report abuse
New Labour is all about promises and spin, while their true agendas remain hidden, particularly towards immigration and Europe. Their chosen way out of their present predicament is more promises, but by now the common perception is 'Why should we trust New lies for Old'
- Jerry, London, 16/04/2008 12:24
Report abuse
