The travelling man

<strong>Gordon Brown</strong> likes to portray himself as a chancellor for the world. But he cannot

During the Labour party conference in September, one big beast was doing the rounds of the parties with a plan for Gordon Brown. First, the Prime Minister should fall on his sword for the greater good of the party. It was then necessary, according to this former cabinet minister, for the party to find a role for Brown travelling the world, talking to international economic experts. "There is no one with the level of expertise and the contacts that Gordon possesses," said this senior anti-Brown figure, grudgingly. "If he goes we would have to persuade him to help us out in that area."

In the event, Brown did not fall on his sword, but it is as if he has taken the other half of the advice to heart and found a role for himself as the supreme economic diplomat, a chancellor for the world.

What's more, he could just have found his party a strategy for winning the next election. For the best part of a year, Labour struggled with the basics: it lacked a clear and consistent message and a leader around whom it could unite. It was a party in continuous crisis, with open dissent from the back benches.

“Gordon has to get the Obama visit out of the way, then call a general election. There is no other option”

Now, it couldn't be simpler: keep Gordon Brown on the road promoting himself as the saviour of the global economy, returning to Britain only to report back about how well he is doing. It has worked so far and there is no reason to believe he is about to put a stop to his travels.

It is difficult to believe that it is just eight weeks since Brown stood up before the Labour faithful at the Manchester conference and delivered his "no time for novices" speech. He was advised at the time to go straight from the conference hall to New York to talk about the duties of the advanced economies towards the developing world, and on to Washington for talks with George W Bush. The joke was that things were so bad for Brown at home that his only hope of survival was to end world poverty and sort out the global banking crisis. It didn't seem like much of a strategy. But thus it was that the Brown bounce had its origins away from these islands.

From Washington, he went to Paris where, at a summit of the European leaders of the so-called big four countries of Britain, France, Germany and Italy, he reinvented himself as a dedicated European by claiming joint credit for unlocking £25bn of EU funds to help small businesses. His message in Paris has been replicated many times since: "Where action has to be taken we will continue to do whatever is necessary to preserve the stability of the financial system. The message to families and businesses is that, as our central banks are already doing, liquidity will be assured in order to preserve confidence and stability."

The Prime Minister's international itinerary since the beginning of October has been breathtaking. Barely a week has gone by without a foreign trip. On 12 October he returned to Paris for more talks with President Sarkozy and four days later he travelled to Brussels for a meeting of the EU Council. Then, at the end of the month, he was back in Paris to touch base with his new best friend, Sarkozy, for a third time. At the beginning of November, he was in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi to persuade Gulf oil state leaders to help finance the bailout of the international banking system. Then, a week later, it was back to Brussels for yet another crisis summit. In total, between the Labour party conference and the G20 summit in Washington, the Prime Minister has spent nearly two weeks out of the country.

At the same time as the globetrotting, Brown has bolstered his reputation as an international statesman through regular meetings at No 10 with world leaders. In the past few days, two presidents have visited: José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, and Shimon Peres, the president of Israel.

The conundrum for Labour is what to do when the recession starts to bite and significant numbers of people start to lose their jobs and their homes. The Prime Minister cannot keep travelling. In the not-too-distant future he will have to fight a general election. But Gordon Brown, for whom fortune has delivered such a dreadful hand in so many ways, has suddenly got lucky. It just so happens that, in April, the UK will be taking its turn at the presidency of the G20 group of world leaders, which means this country will be the venue for the next global economic summit. Brown will therefore be hosting Barack Obama on one of the first foreign trips of his presidency. Fortuitous timing indeed, with a possible snap May election to follow.

As one former cabinet minister who spent a long time at the Treasury told the New Statesman: "Gordon has to get the Obama visit out of the way then call an election. There really is no other option."

Derek Pasquill, a Foreign Office official cleared of breaching the Official Secrets Act, has announced that he will be suing the department for dismissing him from his job. Pasquill's disclosures to the NS about government dialogue with radical Islamist groups helped shift policy in that area. He also exposed details of UK government knowledge about secret CIA "rendition flights" of terror suspects. Like us, the Observer, Channel 4 and the centre-right think tank Policy Exchange ran stories as a result of the leaks and I am sure they will join the NS in offering Pasquill every support in getting his job back.

This article first appeared in the 24 November 2008 issue of the New Statesman, How to get us out of this mess

Getty
Show Hide image

John Prescott on Labour: “This must be the worst operation I’ve ever seen”

The Labour peer and former deputy prime minister laments his party’s “civil war status”, saying “I wish Momentum would go away”.

I’ve attended a thousand PLP meetings. This must be the worst operation I’ve ever seen. It is more about personality politics than in the past.

The [last] Labour government was successful in most of the issues that we always thought was important to Labour: in the growth of the hospitals, the education system, the economy, people at work. All that was a successful record.

Not that it’s ever mentioned now. It was soured largely by Iraq. That period is almost obliterated by that. So you find present government, or even present leadership, in no way refers to that period of the Labour government. So the real problem is, if you’re disowning the most successful three periods of a Labour government, then you’re in some difficulty as to what you’re replacing it with.

It’s never happened before – it’s open war, civil war, inside the PLP. Some members in the PLP sit there with their social media, already typing out the fight going on to the mass of reporters who are amassed outside and told to come along and report because there’s going to be a big row. All that means we can’t really have unity. The division now is the attack on the leadership. A core who sit in the same places, make the same accusations against the leadership, right or wrong, every bloody week. They do it by a death of a thousand cuts – keep on making the same complaints.

I just think that the PLP is in civil war status. It’s not carrying out what it should do – that is, project Labour’s policies and be supportive of our people in the field.

All this criticism is about removing him. And then what adds to that is when Tom Watson comes along and joins in with this criticism. He’s entitled to do so, but he is the Deputy Leader, for God’s sake – quite different from the way I saw the role as defined; to support the party in a positive way, right. Get out and increase his membership, etc.

And the Leader, he's faced with a really difficult position, because he was elected and had never been a minister before. My heart went out to him when he had to deal with PMQs. Even with my 50 years, I found it impossible and fell on my face a few times.

We have a shadow cabinet now – cor blimey, you can be in the shadow cabinet in 12 months! You do need to have a bit of experience. So that does affect it, without a doubt. Then you get people on one side who refuse to serve in the shadow cabinet criticising the shadow cabinet. If you join the shadow cabinet, you’re a traitor to one cause or the other.

It's how you manage that division. The leadership is critical – for Jeremy to go out and do all of these things when he’s not been a minister is difficult. I think he’s been improving in doing the job. But frankly, it gets into people’s minds in a very short period of time, whether they think you’re the leader or not. And we do have a dilemma. It’s difficult for him – he’s reaching out a bit now, but almost the list has been drawn. I can’t see these people coming across now and uniting in the name of the party, supporting our people out in the elections. If you can’t unite the party, how the hell can you carry the country?

There are problems on the left and problems on the right, but we’ve always managed them – especially in the PLP. Robust arguments. But now it’s the battlefield, and all that comes out is a divided party.

I’m an old Labour man, right, I’m Labour to the core. To sit and watch it waste away its great reputation, what it’s done for our people in the country, and then when our people start stopping to vote for us, you’ve got to ask what’s bloody going wrong.

What Jeremy does is his decision. But he’s made clear he wants to stay. Now, if that stays the same, and the others stay the same, we’re going to have a stalemate divided Labour party – it’s disastrous.

So on the one hand, the PLP could try to be a little bit more supportive, and to recognise the party’s elected a leader, or they can go through the same process come June and call for another election, put it to the vote. They’re the options given to us by our party.

Our bloody country is decimated and we’re talking about the fucking sponsorship rules for the election of leader! I wish Momentum would go away, they’ve given us the same problems we had with Militant. I don’t think they’re as powerful as Militant, but they’re dedicated to the same cause. Their debate is how you change the Labour party.

By Christ, we can't win like this! I’m an old-fashioned type, and I’m proud to have belonged to a team that did win three elections. There was no other leader who did that before. But I don’t put it down to leaders, I put it down to the nature of the party. We’re responsible, not the leaders.

John Prescott is a Labour peer and former deputy leader of the Labour Party.

As told to Anoosh Chakelian.

This article first appeared in the 30 March 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Wanted: an opposition