SCOTLAND Office minister David Cairns resigned this week saying it was time to debate the leadership of the Labour party.
One rebel MP, George Howarth described Gordon Brown as the most unpopular prime minister since Neville Chamberlain, and the murmurings of backbench discontent can be heard across the land. But what is the view of Brown’s premiership beyond the Westminster village, among the people on the receiving end of government policy?
Paul Taylor spoke to key representatives of police officers, teachers and the medical profession, and also sought an academic’s analysis of the big question: Should Gordon go?
Dr Jane Green, Hallsworth Research Fellow, Democracy, Citizens and Elections Research Network, Manchester University
THERE are many good reasons for Labour MPs to challenge Gordon Brown's leadership, but all are outweighed by the catastrophic impact a leadership contest could have on Labour's short and long term electoral viability.
In the `yes - do challenge' column would be the hugely important effects of leader evaluations on election outcomes. Labour MPs are right to think that Gordon Brown's unpopularity could be decisive and many of them will lose their seats as a result.
However, in the `no - don't challenge' column are five equally decisive considerations. First, trust in politicians and faith in politics is at an all time low. A nasty leadership campaign will only convince voters further that `all politicians are the same', and voter turnout is crucial for Labour.
Second, when the economy is doing badly, the writing is on the wall for the incumbent party, no matter who its leader is.
Third, if Labour is definitely due to lose in 2010, and the smart money is on them doing so, a leadership campaign now could stop them recovering later. Conservative difficulties in opposition were in no small part due to rifts born in the challenge to Thatcher.
Fourth, Labour's problems are not just about Gordon Brown. Whoever replaced Brown as leader would inherit a government with perceived policy failings and an apparent exhaustion of ideas.
Lastly, Labour's opponents would be given the upper hand. Gordon Brown's advantage over David Cameron and Nick Clegg comes from voters' lack of understanding of both opposition leaders' policies. To fight a 2010 election with three new and relatively untested leaders may make it an interesting election, but not necessarily a more positive one for those Labour MPs currently worried about losing their seats under Gordon Brown.
Dr Kailash Chand, British Medical Association regional representative and a GP in Ashton under Lyne
THIS is a personal view, not necessarily the view of the BMA as a whole, but it seems to me that for the first couple of months after Gordon Brown became prime minister, there was hope that he would sting the rich, help the poor and end Blair's public sector neo-Thatcherism.
But now it appears his leadership has been a continuation of Blair's flawed policies, including the destruction of the NHS. It was Brown as much as Blair who oversaw Labour's conversion to Thatcherism, back in the mid 1990s.
It was he who as chancellor indulged high-earners and drove forward privatisation and private finance initiatives. The more gullible of us thought he was going to end the micromanagement, doctor-bashing and confrontational stance taken by his predecessor in 10 Downing Street, but those of us who saw how Gordon worked while he was chancellor knew that what he says is seldom what he means.
It now seems that the only change is to be an acceleration of the disastrous policies to transform the NHS into a commissioning agency, buying health care from an independent private sector. Most of the increased amounts of public money that the government boasts about putting in has gone straight through the NHS and out the other side to private companies.
The services procured in the private sector cost more than in the NHS. The NHS resources are now lining the pockets of shareholders in multinational health companies controlling independent sector treatment centres and building polyclinics. The coming generation will pay the price of creating 30 years worth of debt.
As a chancellor he was either respected or feared, but as a Prime Minister he strikes a forlorn, lonely figure. Not terribly good, I say, at a time of such insecurity. The country senses an absence of leadership and the party knows this is true.
Insp Chris Burrows, chairman of Greater Manchester Police Federation
NATIONALLY, we called for the resignation of the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, last week. We see Gordon Brown as the hand behind the Home Secretary - she's the puppet and he's controlling the strings, so my personal opinion is that he is in exactly the same position.
Many members of the public and even our local MPs believed we were treated extremely unfairly in relation to the 2007 pay award, which was delayed to December rather than being paid from September, thereby reducing it from 2.5 per cent to 1.9 per cent. As for the 2008 pay award, that should have been decided and paid on September 1, but is still awaiting further arbitration.
All we can see in the future is a pay review body which will do the same as has been done to other public sector bodies - bring pay down in real terms. Yet we don't have the right to strike, and have very stringent controls on our private life.
We have now moved into an era of target-driven policing. It is totally wrong that in terms of detecting crime, someone throwing an egg and damaging a window is treated the same as a murder. It has forced officers into achieving targets instead of looking at the quality of the crime they are tackling, and that has come from central government. And then there are PCSOs (police community support officers). We have no issue with PCSOs if they are additional to police officers. Our issue is when they replace police officers. Greater Manchester Police has seen a fall in police officer numbers of 160 over 12 months. That speaks for itself.
Lesley Auger, secretary of Salford National Union of Teachers branch and member of NUT national executive
VERY recently, I saw Gordon Brown speak at the TUC general council's dinner and I saw quite a different person from the one we see on television. He spoke eloquently and fluently. This is purely my individual opinion, but right now I can't see any alternative to Gordon Brown as leader. People are challenging him, but is there anyone else capable of doing the job and attracting the majority of votes of Labour Party members? I don't think the Labour Party does itself any good with this infighting.
As a union, we do have arguments with this government's attitude to education, though I must stress that the Labour party's education policy is still far better than that of the Conservatives. Pay is still a big issue for teachers, and we are going to be balloting our members again in October for strike action. The SATs fiasco brought it home that we should be trusting teachers to get on with the job of teaching and assessing children.
We are also against the academy programme because the academies take away local representation, which is what public education is all about. The NUT opposes the idea of having more faith schools for a start, particularly when it means hiving them off to the private sector for these academies to teach whatever they want, and put across evangelical views.
Click here to read David Ottewell's politics blog.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Guten Tag (18/09/2008 at 10:56)
The Seeker, Eccles (18/09/2008 at 11:00)
Bean B4, manchester (18/09/2008 at 11:01)
Frostee, Oldham (18/09/2008 at 11:06)
The sooner this shower are out of office - the better.
The Seeker, Eccles (18/09/2008 at 11:09)
PW, Manchester (18/09/2008 at 11:30)
Jomov (18/09/2008 at 11:44)
Mr Angry, Bury (18/09/2008 at 11:47)
Marc (18/09/2008 at 11:51)
Ace Shakepseare, manchester (18/09/2008 at 11:53)
Jay B, oldham (18/09/2008 at 11:54)
he's not leadership materials. he wasn't even a good chancellor, just a lucky one!
yes he should go and so should new labour!
Ace Shakepseare, manchester (18/09/2008 at 11:57)
Bean B4, manchester (18/09/2008 at 12:14)
We want rid, followed by a period of Thatcherite politics, a clamping down on civil liberties, human rights immigration etc etc.
Mr Manchester (18/09/2008 at 12:23)
Guten Tag (18/09/2008 at 12:30)
Chris Green, Chorlton-cum-Hardy (18/09/2008 at 12:34)
At least when the Thatcher/Major era came to an end the economy was on a sound footing and there had been growth for five years. Brown had the easiest job in the world to maintain growth when the fundamentals were right and the global economy was on the up. Pity the next government won’t have the same advantage.
The Labour party has bought the internal conflict on its self. As Brown was handed the premiership the PLP did not have an opportunity to thrash out what it stood for in an open contest. Everyone expected an election to be announced at last year’s conference but Brown bottled it and so another opportunity was lost. No one knows where the “moral compass” is taking them so there can be no unity of purpose.
After Blair, there was no one of sufficient stature to challenge Brown and, since his coronation, the entire cabinet looks weaker than before so there is still no one in Labour’s leadership to challenge Brown.
The cabinet have had long enough to sharpen their knives and it’s about time one of them risked what little they have left of their career and gave Labour a choice and then give the country a choice.
Trudy, Bolton (18/09/2008 at 12:36)
Marc (18/09/2008 at 12:37)
Pentest 2, Hyde (18/09/2008 at 12:38)
And the same goes for the rest of his NuLabour followers and party.
Princess_Pam, Crumpsall (18/09/2008 at 12:42)
We also need electoral reform so that politicians don't have to sell out because just a few thousand people in "middle England" hold the balance of power. We need a fair system where that doesn't happen. And we need a fixed term electoral system but with money being spent on electioneering capped.
And if we are going to vote for a Prime Minister, we should go all the way and hold the prime minister vote separately.
This country preaches to the world about democracy, but we are far from being that, but you tell me the last time any political party had more than 50% of the votes? It's easy to see when they had 50% plus of the seats with only 35% of the vote.
Mr Angry, Bury (18/09/2008 at 12:43)
You name it, even the fact that England are rubbish at football is her fault. She sold off school playing fields and allowed Murdoch to override competition legislation to pour millions into the Premier League, starving the rst of the clubs of investment, leading to a lack of new young players and the top clubs signing foreigners for a quick fix
Name anythinh else and the cause can be traced back to the Finchley Fascist....
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (18/09/2008 at 12:57)
Bean B4, manchester (18/09/2008 at 13:05)
Sparky was the best ever (18/09/2008 at 13:18)
This one thing made a big difference in the economy because at times where Europe as a whole was suffering due to an economic downturn and being index linked due to a shared currency (Euro). Britain remained pretty stable and showed continued growth. Even now, the slowdown isn't as big or as fast as it could be, thanks to Brown's past economic decisions.
As for his role as PM, he came in to a poor situation of inheriting an unpopular government and economic slow down, but shoe horned himself into that position by forcing Blair to leave, through his back bench influences. He was not democratically elected to PM (no one really is as you vote for a party, not an individual), people voted on Blair's campaign, not Brown's. What should have happened, is Blair should have called a general election, instead of resigning and left Brown to contend for the job on his own merits.
From his track record, he should have remained as Chancellor and Blair as PM, but he wanted the power of the position. I guess some people don't know when they're well off.
If Labour want any chance of re-election, they would need to replace the leadership. That in itself is unlikely, as they are the incumbent party. Even that, probably, wouldn't get them re-elected, so it would be futile to replace the Leadership now, as the process for a vote of no confidence, then a leadership campaign, would be divisive to the Labour party and would also be bad P.R. as the public would be given the impression that Labour was in turmoil.
No; he'll stay as leader and the Conservatives will be elected. He will then resign as leader and the cycle of new government honeymoon period, discontent and change of government will continue et al.
Growler (18/09/2008 at 13:28)