A bit later than anticipated, but I'm in one of those moods where I'd rather do the washing up than start up another job application so I'll try and go through the points bit by bit (and hope much of the original drift returns to me as I type)
1: One of the quirks of our electoral system (unlike the American model) is that we don't actually elect a leader/ Prime Minister. We elect a person to represent us in parliament who will typically ally themselves to a political party. Once the MP's gather in Westminister and decide with whom they wish to sit with, by way of the common ground they share, it is they who elect a their leader. Nowadays of course this is all known in advance, and few people could be so daft as to suggest they weren't aware that a vote for a certain MP of a certain party is a defacto vote for a certain Prime Minister, but technically speaking, we don't elect them and might therefore have a bit of difficulty in insisting on the automatic triggering of an election for us to select a Prime Minister given that we don't technically do it the event of a normal election.
The other issue that occurs to me is under what circumstances would you replace a leader? and how much, or less likely would you be to do it, if you knew your actions would trigger an election? Well the answer to the first question is largely based around capabilities and would normally be associated with a party in trouble. Based on the observation that turkeys don't vote for Christmas, I tend to think that you'd be removing the incentive to replace a lame leader, if you automatically triggered an election for doing so. If I were a Labour MP calculating that I could be out of work at the next general election, I'd be more inclined to leave a lame duck Prime Minister in office whilst I scampered around trying to organise my own exit strategy in the time I had left. I'm sure I wouldn't be charging off head-long to the guilotine. I seem to think that after 11 years MP's qualify for an MP's pension, which would also make a few who fell into the bracket of 9 years service think twice about forcing a change of leadership and therefore an election by proxy, which they might lose.
If we adopted such a system then I'd suggest it's more likely to keep a poor leader in power than it would be to remove one. Despite a rich history of infighting and squables, in reality I don't think Labour has ever 'got rid of' a sitting Prime Minister, and I can't recall them ever sacking a leader for that matter (this is traditionally Tory territory) so it would be quite a momentous departure from tradition if they did, and would probably be further confirmation of their embracing of conservatism.
The only thing I would say about automatic elections, is that I do think there's both a moral and not that a disruptive case for invoking a by election in the event of a public representative, having been elected on one ticket, changing sides and deciding that they wish to align themselves with another identifiable party. Shaun Woodward and Emma Nicholson come to mind. I think that in the event of the whip being withdrawn from an MP however, that this would constitute a different issue, and would simply be a case of party discipline. In any event such by elections could prove particularly incidendary as its often done in response to a serious incident or speech etc The one that would potentially fall between all stools of course would be the SDP (remember them?). I'm not sure how I'd categorise them as they didn't so much as join another party but founded one instead. I think on balance I'd have been inclined to make them fight a by election, but would have been pretty confident that all of the so called 'gang of four' would have won their seat back, especially under the prevailing mood of the day.
2: Would Brown have received the mandate? I have no doubt he would have done, if only by virtue of the fact that he wasn't Bliar and because Cameron had made little headway by then and was the subject of speculation amongst his own party, as there were no shortage of traditionalists lining up to knock him down.
The Brown tactics kind of fascinates me, as I believe he could have won an election in the first 2 months, and has missed two subsequent opportunities to potentially do so. I use the word potentially, as it's much less clear cut.
The first one concerns last years party conference season, and it's something I've noted previously about how small incidents snowballed into major gaffes. I can't think that we've had such a major turnaround on the back of conference for some time?
Cast your minds back;
Labour's conference was essentially by Labour, about Labour, and for Labour. It was triumphalist, devoid of ideas, and looked to have grown complacent. It reminded me of that dire John Major conference when the country was in the grips of recession and he went warbling on about new age travellers, ladies cycling to communion, cricket and toilets on motorway service stations.
Labour 2007 was lacklustre, and for a party that had traditionally been the party of 'ideas', most disappointing. To some extent it reminded me of Bliar and was confirmation of the administrative approach to politics that he adopted. Compare it with the post-war Attlee government that brought in nationalisation of strategic industries to ensure employment, the NHS, New Town legislation, and the National Parks Act with what's kind of evolved today. The 'big ideas' are pretty well extinct and playing second fiddle to what I'll describe as 'National Management' backed up with some nebulous concept such as 'shared values'. In many respects it's not unlike America where its sometimes said that they choose to elect a CEO to run America corp, rather than a President, and their primary role is to ensure that the machinary just functions. Anyway, Labour looked tired and unimaginative, but in itself, this need not be terminal.
The following week something amazing happened and even more so given that on the Sunday night Cameron was having to parry questions about moves within the party to oust him. He gave a defiant and combative interview in his own defence, but he sounded like a punch drunk boxer trying to convince himself that he both wanted, and could win a fight that deep down he knew couldn't. The star turn, turned out to be George Osborne!!! Again to use the boxing analogy it was as if his trainer had said "you're ten rounds behind the only way you can win this is to knock him out". With one desperate last throw of the dice Osborne came out throwing punches all over the place (in the shape of new ideas) and a lot of them started to resonate and look upbeat, contrasting so starkly with Labours moribund offering. Suddenly the Tories looked innovative and energised which was something they hadn't done for years. The next day Brown committed an error that mushroomed out of all proportion to what he'd actually done, and turned up in Basra. This played into Cameron's hands who was able to denounce it as a cynical PR stunt designed to take the spotlight away from the Tory conference and ensure that Brown headlined the evening news. It was of course against protocol to do this, and since he'd delivered some speach earlier promising to get on with the job and not do the 'spin thing' it looked decidely hypocritical. On a 'no news' day the denunciation of Brown's cycnical stunt was unanimous and played out really badly with policians, media and public alike
By the end of the week the Labour poll lead had been reversed, and Cameron's far from convincing call for an election the Sunday previous suddenly took on the appearence of a government in waiting, rather than the desperate opposition that he had looked like then. There had of course been mounting media speculation throughout the month that Brown would call an election, and the conservatives pleas for him to do so (I doubt few believed a word of it) just looked like suicide, even though they had little option other than to issue the challenge. Brown for his part had done nothing to dampen the speculation down and seemed quite happen to allow a 'slow burn' momentum to build that would inevitably end in his coronation. He vacillated for another week at the way the fickle polls had turned against him, before being the first to blink and call off the fight.
This was clearly a turning point in his premiership and as I understand it, it was a combination of private polling and his (economist advisors - more of them later) that convinced him the numbers didn't stack. His own conference had contrasted badly with the Tories, and he'd committed an own goal with his Iraq visit. In itself that shouldn't really be capable of turning around and sustaining something like a 12pt swing. I wonder if a more intuitive political animal rather than an accountant might have seen this swing as a protest blip that would likely be wiped out in the serioius event of a general election? The decision to 'chicken out' though suddenly allowed the Tories to paint Brown as a 'ditherer'. Now that particular word resonates strongly in conservative ranks as it proved intractable when it was made to stick against one of their own, whom it was most commonly hitherto associated with. Many things Brown might be, but I doubt if you'd given them a list of nouns to choose from to describe him, few conservatives would have elected ditherer prior to this. Conventional military strategy suggests that you attack and exploit areas of weakness. There are sometimes cases however, where a calculated assault on a perceived point of strength can be made to work, particularly as it can often prove decisive. The self-styled 'iron Chancellor' was a ditherer now, or Stalin had (memorably) turned into Mr Bean. All of a sudden the veneer was starting to slip and areas which they can't reasonably have anticipated they could attack on, were presenting themselves.
The second point where I think he might have won an election, or emerged as the single biggest party was about February this year. I think he had a small window in which he could have 'cut and run'.
Although the economic forecast looked gloomy, the impact hadn't really began to be felt yet. A carefully orchestrated campaign based around frightening the voters with dire predictions, educating them in terms of what the cause was, and then asking them to choose between a team of experienced politicans headed by a former Chancellor who'd delivered record levels of sustained growth and prosperity, and an untried rookie with no ministerial experience might have worked? At this stage I think people were more prepared to accept that it was the global economic cycle, irresponsible banks, and the Americans rather than necessarily blaming Brown. It was inevitable however, that this assignation of responsibility would only be short-term and that as things started to bite deeper, it would only be a matter of time before the voters started to blame the government. It would have meant fighting a short campaign of 3 weeks, in the knowledge that a few poor indicators and potential banana skins would appear during it. If he were really adept at campaigning he might even had been able to turn these around as evidence of the choppy waters we were sailing into though, and then posed the question again...... who do you trust to steady the ship?. I think he might have been able to win something like a 10-20 seat majority come polling day or at least avoid meltdown and form a minority administration. I wonder if he were offered either scenario today if he'd take it?
3: Tend to agree again Clive. The ideas thing I've covered already and one example that screams out to me concerns these so called "eco" towns (surely the correct prefix should be "enviro"?) 'eco' routes off ecology, and last time I knew, ecology is something very, very different, (unless he's planning to builds houses for newts, toads and butterflies). Those of us who are broadly employed in this field (well for the short term at least) have been advocating the creation of a new wave of new towns for decades (well expanded towns in truth like Peterborough, rather than the classic new build like Cumbernauld). It should have been a priority of their first term. Ten years later it's finally made it onto the agenda and is going to get bogged down in judicial reviews, planning appeals and a property led recession, before being scrapped as pay back to NIMBY supporting Tories. Instead Labour has squandered thousands of parliamentary hours on 'non-issues' such as fox-hunting. If Labour had moved more decisively to try and ensure that supply met demand earlier, then we wouldn't necessarily have the emergence of this devisive phenomenon of a 'property rich' and 'property poor' class.
The other thing which I really think has damaged Brown's ability to act politically is his inner circle, which was fine for such time as they were confined to the Treasury where their expertise and insight could flourish, but they look hopelessly marooned in this altogether deeper water. He has a reputation for being fiercely loyal to those whom he trusts, and has essentially decamped and promoted a group of essentially economists. Government however covers many more facets, and there are some areas where there isn't an economic answer to every question. Also the cold and dispassionate edge of the 'accountants calculator' mind set, is going to mean that he is particularly exposed to advice that might add up mathematically, but which won't necessarily carry a political risk assessment. He's going to be vulnerable therefore to making uncaring decisions in areas such as social policy if surrounded by career economists who are too far divorced from the 'real world' to recognise the implications of their advice. Far from being 'Flash Gordon' he's got the capacity to take on the appearence of 'Ming the Merciless' if he continues to prosecute policies that will hit the most vulnerable the hardest. The 10p tax fiasco, the fuel price increases (only suspended, not abolished - and then after much urging and against his wishes) and this emerging business about increasing tax on older cars. I believe is all evidence of the fact that he's got a very poor team around him who might be adept at doing their sums, but don't have the political savvy to realise that soemtimes 2 + 2 has to equal 5.
No appraisal of his political skills can be left without some reference to his attempts to do the 'common touch thing', which has been nothing short of hysterical at times. His greatest sporting moment was Paul Gascoine scoring for England against Scotland. For Gods sake. Who the hell's advising him? That's never going to wash. And what does he listen to on his ipod? "The Artic Monkeys". Yeah right. Sure you do Gordon. Unfortunately his new favourite band didn't appear on his Desert Island discs selections which were dominated by typical 'classical music'. I can almost imagine the briefing.
"I believe there to be a band from Sheffield called the Artic Monkeys Prime Minister. I understand they to be well regarded, and successful in the field of popular music at present. They would be instantly recognisable and acceptable to young voters, whilst not necessarily alienating older voters. May I respectfully counsel that you give consideration to nominating them as your favourite band"
4: As for Miliband, he may be an intellectual of undoubted standing, but I can't help thinking he's a less electable version of Cameron. He's got some serious calculating to do. Does he want to go down as the first person in Labour party history to unseat a sitting Prime Minister/ leader (provided he could). If he fails, then what? He might very well be complete history. In politics they talk about a 'good election lose'. 2010 might very well be such an example, as indeed 1992 was. The post of Foreign Secretary might very well be a major office of state, but it is also something of an invisible job. I think he'd be tempted to continue to gain experience and hence gravitas, in the knowledge that should he emerge post 2010, then any allegation of lack of experience couldn't levelled against him in 2014. To a large extent his current post provides that layer of insulation given the nature of the job and he's unlikely to be damaged by labour's trevails to the extent that other contenders nearer home will be. By staying loyal and bidding his time he'll be able to call on the support of Brownites later on. Brown will have to resign in 2010, and will have to endorse Milliband provided he's stayed loyal. An embittered wing in the party should he over-throw Brown would make managing the period of opposition horrible for him, and wouldn't be too far removed from the late 70's early 80's again.
My best guess is that he's pushed things about as far as he dare at this stage. He's looking at trying to get a stalking horse to test the water for him now, and I suspect that there's a few who might. The similarities between this scenario and the dying days of the Tories would be all to evident, although it could be worth reflecting that Major went onto win the election after a combination of Anthony Meyer, and a year later, Michael Heseltine, managed to depose the mad mongoose. Having made the observation, any such stalking horse has to be able to achieve a debilitating number of votes, and Milliband is going to be repeatedly quizzed to declare his intentions in the process. Whatever he declares publicly he's likely to appear hypocritical as it's really a question which there is no good answer to. I think Milliband's stirring things at best, and preparing the ground at worst, but that he wouldn't be foolish enough to initiate anything himself with which he could be so easily associated.
5: Hillary Harmen? Oh God streuth. Well I suppose she might abolish speed cameras anyway, given that they routinely seem to catch her continued personal assault on the land speed record!!! She actually harbours ambition I believe and actually has quite a high opinion of herself. The level of her delusion isn't really known though. Fantasists don't always like to expose themselves to the potential of a rude reality check, but if she believes her own publicity, then who knows. She must know that she's unelectable though.
