Not enough fire in the belly

Labour's younger ministers are competent and assiduous, but none has yet emerged as inspirational. W

So why has no one moved against Gordon Brown? Where are the bold spirits in the cabinet prepared to resign over 42 days detention without charge, as Robin Cook did over the decision to go to war in Iraq? Why has no single figure emerged as a potential rival to the Prime Minister?

These are not mere rhetorical flourishes, but questions now being expressed on a daily basis by Labour backbenchers and even some ministers. The obvious response is that any challenge to Brown would be a suicidal act of disloyalty. It would rip a still remarkably unified party asunder and trumpet the fact that Labour no longer believes it can win the next election. But that is not the whole story.

Imagine if, for instance, James Purnell or David Miliband resigned from the cabinet and returned to the back benches saying that the drift had gone far enough. They could announce that the position of the government was no longer sustainable and a new approach was needed. This individual could even have the luxury of resigning on a matter of principle: over the government's increasingly authoritarian anti-terror legislation, or the failure to stay on track with poverty targets. In all likelihood, the earth would swallow them up and they would be consigned to a life of obscurity for such an act of treachery.

But what a prize if they pulled it off. Even if the next election is already lost, the man or woman who was able to prevent a Conservative landslide would be well placed to lead the party through a short period of opposition before returning in triumph to Downing Street. In such extraordinary times, with public opinion so volatile, isn't it surprising that no one is prepared to take the risk?

The answer lies with the character of the younger generation of cabinet ministers, who came to political maturity under new Labour. With each potential candidate, it is possible to explain away their reticence. Ed Balls, Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander are loyal servants of the Prime Minister, who owe their political careers to his patronage. They will never turn against him. Andy Burnham is too new to the cabinet and not an obvious coup leader. James Purnell lacks the necessary depth of support within the Parliamentary Labour Party. David Miliband had his chance last year and blew it. The only women senior enough, Ruth Kelly and Jacqui Smith, are not thought worthy of consideration.

It would have been a tragedy if this talented group of younger Labour politicians had never been given the chance to run a large government department. They have been, for the most part, competent and assiduous in their jobs. But none has yet shown him- or herself to be the kind of bold or inspirational figure that makes for leadership material.

In 2006, I dubbed this group of fortysomething politicians the "Adrian Mole generation", as they are the same age as Sue Townsend's eponymous hero and shared some of his capacity for tortured self-reflection. Along with their Conservative and Liberal Democrat counterparts, I suggested that they were likely to dominate the British political scene for the next decade. With David Cameron as Tory leader and Nick Clegg at the helm of the Lib Dems, that is now beyond doubt.

This group grew to adulthood between the miners' strike of 1984 and the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, so their ideology is not defined by the traditional left-right divisions. But the other defining event of their lives was the global economic recession of the late 1980s, which struck just as they were leaving university into an uncertain world. No surprise, perhaps, that many of them found refuge in the cosy, secure world of party politics. What this means, however, is that they are collectively defined by their instinct for caution. These are people psychologically programmed against taking risks.

One young minister told me recently that there is a great deal of frustration at the inability of new Labour's second generation to produce a politician with fire in the belly. "Where is the figure who will change the way we do politics? Where is our Barack Obama?" These are good questions. When David Cameron starts to offer himself up as the nearest thing Britain has to a candidate who represents "change we can believe in", then you know we are in trouble.

In its official guise, new Labour is more than ten years old. It is two decades old if you count the Kinnock years. Everybody knows it needs recasting. But it looks as if we will need to skip a generation before someone arrives with the guts to carry out the necessary revolution. We may not yet have even heard the name of the next great leader of the Labour Party.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.