 | 'With their leader deposed because of his drink problem, one candidate eliminated because he had cavorted with male prostitutes and another hobbled in the race because he had lied about his homosexuality, who would have predicted that the Lib Dems would be celebrating a by-election sensation this weekend?' Michael Portillo in the Sunday Times, 12 th February 2006. |  |
Seven days ago I would not have foreseen writing that only the Liberal Democrats have had a good week. With their leader deposed because of his drink problem, one candidate eliminated because he had cavorted with male prostitutes and another hobbled in the race because he had lied about his homosexuality, who would have predicted that the Lib Dems would be celebrating a by-election sensation this weekend?
It is such an extraordinary result that in 40 years' time political anoraks will still recall Dunfermline and West Fife, just as some (like me) still hark back to the Liberals' victory at Orpington in 1962. Gordon Brown is not going to forget Thursday night in a hurry.
Such catastrophes usually harm prime ministers. When last week I travelled to Warwick to see Thatcher the Musical (I kid you not), I was reminded that two ingredients were needed to bring her down. Of course one was that people were fed up with her. But she had been derided on the doorsteps as Òthat bloody womanÓ for years before she was deposed. The second necessary condition was fear among Tory MPs that she would lose them their seats. Labour MPs are now thinking: if we can lose Dunfermline, which of us is safe?
So Tony Blair must be chortling that the defeat has Brown's name written all over it. The chancellor underlined that his home is in that seat when he handed the prime minister a Tory by-election leaflet that had popped through his door. It gave Blair ammunition against David Cameron in the Commons on Wednesday. Brown regards Scotland as his fiefdom and his vanity got the better of his customary caution. He was a highly visible participant in the by-election campaign. He announced that the controversial plan to raise the toll on the Forth Road Bridge had been abandoned, only to be contradicted by Jack McConnell, Scotland's first minister, who reminded him that it was a matter for the Scottish executive.
In the Tory leaflet Cameron had described himself as a liberal Conservative and Blair ridiculed him for flip-flopping. Labour claims to have found the way to deal with Cameron. Describing him as inconsistent should damage his credibility and make people think that perhaps the Tories haven't really changed. Labour is bucked up by opinion poll findings. While Cameron's election as leader has boosted his party's ratings, it has not yet given it a commanding lead. Brown' s ratings as a potential prime minister are well ahead of Cameron's.
Those findings do not surprise me. The Conservatives were never going to recover overnight. Brown's experience is still a great general electoral asset, even if he cannot match Cameron in charisma. So it would be extraordinary if the Tories could move far ahead, and even if they did, it would not be enough to win outright. A massive swing against Labour of 5% would lose it only 42 seats. The Tories need to gain 120 seats for an overall majority. That Labour will form (or at least lead) the next government is by far the most likely outcome.
Flip-flopping, in the sense of disowning his and his party's past, is precisely what Cameron must continue to do. Labour does not really think that it will win by showing that Cameron has changed his mind. It knows that Blair became prime minister precisely by demonstrating that he had abandoned all the nonsense which he had felt obliged to spout back in the 1980s. What Labour is really trying to do is to scare Cameron off flip-flopping, knowing that it is the key to his success.
Blair's attack is certainly spooking the Conservative right. That is lucky for Cameron, because he badly needs sustained opposition from the Tory neanderthals to prove that he has made changes that hurt. Apparently we can soon expect a pamphlet from one of the party's right-wing groups setting out its alternative path. Cameron's view will be: bring it on!
However, the most significant event in domestic politics last week was Blair's decision to make big concessions on his education reforms. He faced the prospect either of losing votes in the Commons or carrying his bill only with Tory support. He has decided that he cannot risk either.
Some Labour rebels who were licking their lips at the prospect of being rid of Blair in the next few weeks seem reluctant to accept his surrender. They claim that he may yet have tricks up his sleeve. They say that while he may have agreed to leave local education authorities with the power to build new schools (a huge U-turn), he might yet use central government powers to thwart them. They still suspect that he will smuggle in some sort of pupil selection by the back door. They may well be right. But Blair will keep retreating if needed. He is not going to give the left the satisfaction of driving him out of politics.
This is a sad moment. Blair has given up on further reform of public services. His complete legacy is now in place and it is meagre. In a pamphlet to be published tomorrow, the former Tory minister Peter Lilley will argue that in nine years Blair has done little more than abolish and then reinvent Conservative reforms.
Last week brought reminders of the government's failures. It will conduct yet another review of the Child Support Agency, which now spends more than it collects from absent fathers. Frank Field, who was Blair's first and only minister for welfare reform, laments that on the big issues - reforming pensions, incapacity benefit and child support - the government has not looked serious. A new report reveals that students leaving school cannot think for themselves. The government's school league tables have led to spoon-feeding and the youngsters arrive at university still expecting to be told the ÒrightÓ answers.
Even though he intends to do nothing with the time, Blair will presumably stay until his 10th anniversary in May 2007. Brown seems content. In midweek he offered an interview on Abu Hamza as a way to look prime ministerial and to appear supportive of Blair, who faces votes next week on Lords' amendments to his bills on identity cards and terrorism.
In the first weeks of this year we have learnt to calm down. It is true that Blair looked hell-bent on self-destruction over education, but did we really believe that he would allow his foes to choose his date of departure? Perhaps some expected the feud with Brown to lead to a political assassination. That was unrealistic since Brown has consistently refused to wield the dagger. Cameron's rise appeared unstoppable. But he is bound by the rules of gravity and electoral arithmetic.
So now we have a likely prognosis for the coming 15 months. Blair will take no risks in the Commons. Brown will support him and speak more often on subjects far from his ministerial brief. Cameron will continue to change the Tories and will be rewarded by good progress in the polls, but will have little prospect of winning.
The one piece that is not yet in place is a new leader for the Lib Dems. It looks as though Chris Huhne is pulling ahead. If so, the party is responding logically to the Tories' choice of a younger leader, which sadly disadvantages Sir Menzies Campbell.
The Scottish by-election brought no direct joy for the Tories, whose vote went down. But perhaps the plight of Scotland offers Cameron another way to attack Brown. That country offers the clearest example of Labour's failures. In the Calton district of Glasgow, which is plagued by unemployment, drugs and street violence, male life expectancy is 53.9 years. In the city as a whole it is 69 years, which is worse than Gaza.
In Scotland, Labour is the dominant political force. Brown is the chancellor who believes that social problems can be abolished by public spending, and he has clearly failed. Is it not possible that the voters of Dunfermline were protesting about matters still more weighty than bridge tolls? In any case, conditions in Brown's fiefdom offer little encouragement that he would make a good leader of the United Kingdom.
Huhne's unlikely emergence confirms the rule that the favourite rarely wins a party leadership race. Even Brown must be disconcerted by how clearly the odds are stacked against the candidate who starts odds-on. Maybe Tories and Blairites who would love to stop him can make Dunfermline a turning point.
Return to home page