A good week for Gordon Brown

Three pieces of good news for Brown

So, despite the vehement campaign against him by Britain's biggest-selling daily paper, this has turned into a good week for Gordon Brown. It may have been unthinkable for Labour not to win last night's by-election in Glasgow North-East, a seat it has held for 74 years, but few expected the party to triumph by the margin it did.

The by-election victory was the third piece of good news Brown has had this week. First, a Times/Populus poll on Tuesday demonstrated that a hung parliament remains a distinct possibility at the next election. The Conservatives' lead of 10 points would translate into a Commons majority of only two.

Second, a PoliticsHome poll revealed that 65 per cent of voters believe the Sun's reporting of Brown's letter to Jacqui Janes became an "inappropriate attack", and that almost half of the electorate is now more inclined to defend the Prime Minister.

Perhaps buoyed by these figures and the by-election success, Brown gave the most articulate and fluid performance I've heard from him for weeks on the Today programme this morning.

Professor John Curtice noted the key to Labour's success last night when he observed: "They fought as the opposition to the SNP." But he provided a sober dose of reality when he pointed out: "The recipe for success in Glasgow is not one that can be repeated in England and Wales."

Lord Mandelson and Harriet Harman have attempted to mount an insurgent campaign by consistently referring to Labour as the "underdog". But in England at least, the party continues to be seen as the establishment.

In order to change this, Labour must gamble on a referendum on electoral reform before the next election. The Conservatives remain wedded to the unjust first-past-the-post system. Perhaps on this issue alone, David Cameron would be left defending the status quo.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.