Morning:
11°c
There's no doubt about it: the situation is very bad for Gordon Brown. At the risk of forecasting that we're all doomed, Labour's prospects may not exactly be irretrievable but if I were a gambling man I wouldn't be betting a lot of cash on Labour winning the general election.
It is a tough moment. Exactly at the point that "greed-is-good" economics have pushed the global economy into meltdown, Labour should come into its own. Gordon Gekko is out - Gordon Brown should be in.
For Labour to find itself in its current predicament in the polls at this time is not just bad news for Labour but for the whole country.
Some may think that if Gordon Brown were to resign - which is quite a big "if" - it might be possible to pull off a "coronation" to install, they suggest, Alan Johnson or Jack Straw. I doubt it. It would hide the real issue, which is the direction of the Government's policies.
And unlike at the time of Tony Blair's resignation, there is no single unifying figure today. Those Blairites now agitating for such a coronation to replace Brown should be careful what they wish for.
It would spark a full-blown leadership battle. The indications that Harriet Harman might stand in such circumstances - even though she has said she will not do so - are just the tip of the iceberg.
The events of the past week certainly demonstrated the need to get a grip. I could not believe the mishandling of the vote on the Gurkhas. Callers to my radio programme the weekend before the vote were crushingly against the Government's approach. Labour could actually have taken the right line and used it to underline the benefits of immigration.
Gordon Brown's current difficulties have led to a pre-emptive strike by Blairite backbenchers to ensure that Brown gets the blame and that someone who carries the Blairite torch succeeds him.
It involves an attempt to rewrite history so that all of Labour's problems are dated from when Brown took over.
Apparently the dark arts of politics were invented by those in Brown's inner circle such as Damian McBride. This conveniently forgets the days of Blairite control-freakery.
Labour's problems do not only date from Gordon Brown's premiership. One of Brown's critics - Charles Clarke - said last week that he was now "ashamed" to be a Labour MP.
But Clarke loyally supported the Government during all of its worst decisions, including those that outstrip anything in the past couple of weeks, most obviously the war in Iraq.
Whatever criticisms I have of Gordon Brown's economic policies, those leading the present insurgency against him would champion worse ones.
The main aspect of former minister Stephen Byers's criticisms was his opposition to the new 50 per cent top rate of tax for those earning more than £150,000. Yet the idea that the richest should not also contribute a little more in a recession is unfair and wrong.
The truth is that the Gurkha vote or the poisonous row over MPs' expenses are not the real cause of the difficulties facing the Government.
The key issue is the economy. And on this, although the Government has got many things wrong, we should note that the Tories would be much, much worse.
Labour's prospects are poor because collectively the Government underestimated the sheer scale of the global economic tornado and did not take sufficiently decisive measures to combat recession at the beginning.
Look at how long it took before it bowed to the inevitable and nationalised Northern Rock. Instead of nationalising the banks at their real worth - which was zero - they were bailed out at a cost way above it.
Billions has gone to bankers and shareholders that could have been spent on schools, new affordable homes, new transport - the things that would have helped people directly and the economy overall.
The problem is that the bailouts have come home to roost in huge borrowing. The loss to taxpayers of the bank bailout is likely to be at least £60 billion. The public see this and fear they will take the hit.
For all this, the Conservatives would offer no fiscal stimulus at all, instead just leaving people to go to the wall.
Cameron says he would have spent £5 billion less than Labour for this year alone. He says that the cuts would not fall on schools, the NHS, defence and international development. But that leaves everything else - policing, for example.
He has guaranteed an inheritance tax cut worth £200,000 for just 3,000 millionaires and promised that the new top rate of tax is "in the queue of taxes we want to get rid of" - but is less open about his plans for public spending.
He hopes to ride to power proposing austerity but will not say where his axe will fall afterwards. We should not be so daft as to let him.
If they win the election, the Conservatives will impose a scorched-earth economic policy that will make Margaret Thatcher's first couple of years in office look like a stroll in the park, based on their own figures.
Labour should argue relentlessly that things would be much worse with Cameron and hope that the public come round - because it is true. But I do not think this alone is enough.
The time is right to go further and adopt a more radical economic plan that keeps our investment up without cutting into much-needed spending on things that really matter.
We should directly take control of the core of the banking sector at its real worth and, where necessary, other key sectors of the economy - such as in construction - to revive investment and credit.
There is some waste that could be cut. I was never a strong opponent of identity cards but I cannot see the justification for their cost any more. We are going to have to be much more realistic about our military expenditure, for example by withdrawing from Afghanistan and abandoning a new generation of nuclear weapons.
If defence spending were reduced to the German level, it would save about £15 billion a year - protecting social spending threatened because of debt repayment.
It was once said that there may be only an inch of difference between Labour and the Tories but it's in that inch that we live. That was right then and it still is today: public spending and investment would be pared to the bone and our communities hit hard by a Conservative government in a recession.
That is well worth saying. But Gordon Brown has to widen that inch by a long way if he is to turn this situation around.
Reader views (15)
'Red' Ken has a longer lasting teflon coating than TBlair. Like that other TB, the venerable Tony Benn who has very skillfully re-engineered himself as a defender of British democracy, tapping the Eurosceptic vein of England especially, he sounds plausible up close but dangerous to grant actual power to. These men 'walk between the raindrops'. At the moment the bumbling Brown is prey, getting weaker and having his flesh stripped off his carcase in a grisly spectacle that would be expurgated on a wildlife programme.
Essentially the country's recovery is delayed whilst we watch fascinated. We are told by Hattersley etc. that Labour is somehow kinder hearted than the Tories. What tosh! The Tories know how to deliver a merciful coup de Grace, which reduces this pointless interregnum until the country gets back on track again.
If NuLabour survives as NuNuLabour or whatever, you will need to evolve a similar off-stage hook to arrest and remove useless and ill-appointed baggage like sadly currently occupies No.10.
To that ancient 'warhorse' Hattersley trooped out by Newsnight when no government minister will show their heads : kindly compost your pointless self serving conscience, as it ultimately costs the people you claim to serve.
- Harold Godwinson, Preston England
I was going to write an extensive broadside against that old leftwing socialist ex GLC (where innordinate amounts of money was wasted on loony left wing wooly liberal policies. The same can also be said for Livingstone's time as London Mayor, where expenditure was also wasted. then I read Dave from London's short, sweeet and apt comment, Well done,Dave.
- Dominique, London
Blairites cannot dump Brown? Why not. Whats so 'Special' about Brown. He's an even worse PM than Teflon B'Liar was. At least with B'Liar when he moved his lips, you knew right away he was telling 'tall tales'.
With Gordon Brown, he is an honorable man, so people say, but he's so stubborn its unbelievable. Stubborness that verges on stupidity at times. So why not dump Brown.
- B Clarke, East Anglia Area UK
You're right Ken about living in that inch, and it does make all the difference. To meet their mindless mantra of lower taxes for the wealthy. the Tories are going to have to impose public spending cuts of an unprecedented brutality. Leaving aside the moral implications of hanging the poor and the lower middle classes out to dry, it simply doesn't make economic sense. Equitable wealth distribution is good for GDP.
Alex from London, speaking as a teacher, I am pretty certain you are talking nonsense. House prices have plummeted, in case you haven't noticed, and most people are mortgaged to the hilt.
Mark Burton from St Ives, you are breathtakingly mistaken. In a General Election in Britain, you do not vote for the PM or the Cabinet. You vote for your constituency MP to represent you in the legislature. The party with the majority in the house is mandated by the monarch to form a Government. The Government is always unelected in the UK. It is a stupid system and needs reform, but the PM can change every day of a Government's term without any resort to the electorate.
- Michael J Flexer, London, UK
I didn't read the article, Ken, do you not realise your opinion is irrelevant, we voted you out, why are you still piping up? No one wants to know mate.
- Dave, London
Ken
Interesting view, although I guess an attempt to come across as a "modern thinker". We in the UK have forgotten what real leadership is about, the greatest of all traits being that leaders understand people from all sections of society and shape policies based on this understanding. In the last 5 years or so everyone that I have met claims to be a leader. If thats the case anyone will do to replace Gordon Brown. Clearly this is wrong but it is the Labour party who have given our nation the false belief that we are all capable of all things. Sadly I also can't pinpoint any other candidates for leadership amongst our self congratulating hoard of politicians. In the meantime we will reflect on your own persuit of glory and greed through the mechanism of the congestion charge.
- Jon, Wimbledon, London
Ken,
You are as much fun as always. I happen to agree that Gordon is as good as anyone to lead us through these choppy waters, but your words about Dave, "He has guaranteed an inheritance tax cut worth £200,000 for just 3,000 millionaires" show how little you really understand about living in London, even after all your years as mayor, and how much you despise the middle class.
The proposed higher inheritance tax threshold will not just help 3,000 millionaires and you know it. The reality is that most home owners in London currently get hit by this tax as the average home price is over the current threshold.
Having a million pound house is not necessarily a sign of wealth in London. It's as likely to be a teacher who has lived in the same house for 25 years as it is someone earning £150k a year. Huge numbers of such people will benefit from the new threshold.
- Alex, London
Ken would be a better PM than Gordon! That's saying how bad Gordon Brown really is.
- Neil, London
The Tories ALWAYS have to clear up a Labour mess, it's a matter of record - don't take my word for it. Massive cuts are needed to balance the books, you can't live beyond your means for years and then borrow your way out of trouble - it just stores up even bigger problems for the future. A recession is what it is, it's part of our economic cycle - you can't fudge it, and i believe that in such times we need to tighten our belts - it's a reality check!.
Also if i am not mistaken, if GB is ousted then surely that means an automatic general election, we can't have another unelected PM can we?.
- Mark Burton, St Ives. Cambs
What this country needs is a new Maggie, but in the absence of one, an immediate general election is the bare minimum the electorate deserve. Then we can say goodbye to the likes of Brown just as we said goodbye to Livingstone and his City Hall cronies.
- St, London
So a cameron government's scorched earth poilcy would make Thatchesr one look like "A walk in the Park".
Problem is getting Gordon Brown re-elected is turning into Mission Impossible!
Ken for Prime Minister I am sure someone will resign to get him back into parliament. How about Charles Clarke?
Wonder if Boris will agree to stopping Crossrail or whether the fact he may only serve 1 term is linked to the mess he knows a Tory Government would make of Londons future.
- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex
If the PM has to resort to taking advice from London's failed ex-Mayor, heaven help him.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland
Nonsense. All Labour administrations have ended in bankruptcy and bail out. The only reason that it took 12 years for the present mob to acheive it was the economic legacy they inherited from - who? If the incoming Tory administration is compelled to make deep cuts to balance the books, which is likely, the electorate will not be fooled by the rhetoric of has-beens like Ken Livingstone but will know that this is the true legacy of New Labour.
- John Cruddas, London
Well said Ken!
- Peter Guinness, London
Whilst I agree with much that Ken Livingtone says,I feel that the appalling lack of judgement on the part of Gordon Brown is enough in itself to justify his removal. Unfortunately for the country there is no obvious successor as all are colourless lightweights with the exception of Harriet Harmon, who is clearly mentally sick with views that border on evil. A government of national unity would be the best solution with able members of all parties enlisted to help, people like Vince Cable who stands head and shoulders above all the rest.
- Don Bennett, Glasgow
