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

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The future of policing is still at risk even after George Osborne's U-Turn

The police have avoided the worst, but crime is changing and they cannot stand still. 

We will have to wait for the unofficial briefings and the ministerial memoirs to understand what role the tragic events in Paris had on the Chancellor’s decision to sustain the police budget in cash terms and increase it overall by the end of the parliament.  Higher projected tax revenues gave the Chancellor a surprising degree of fiscal flexibility, but the atrocities in Paris certainly pushed questions of policing and security to the top of the political agenda. For a police service expecting anything from a 20 to a 30 per cent cut in funding, fears reinforced by the apparent hard line the Chancellor took over the weekend, this reprieve is an almighty relief.  

So, what was announced?  The overall police budget will be protected in real terms (£900 million more in cash terms) up to 2019/20 with the following important caveats.  First, central government grant to forces will be reduced in cash terms by 2019/20, but forces will be able to bid into a new transformation fund designed to finance moves such as greater collaboration between forces.  In other words there is a cash frozen budget (given important assumptions about council tax) eaten away by inflation and therefore requiring further efficiencies and service redesign.

Second, the flat cash budget for forces assumes increases in the police element of the council tax. Here, there is an interesting new flexibility for Police and Crime Commissioners.  One interpretation is that instead of precept increases being capped at 2%, they will be capped at £12 million, although we need further detail to be certain.  This may mean that forces which currently raise relatively small cash amounts from their precept will be able to raise considerably more if Police and Crime Commissioners have the courage to put up taxes.  

With those caveats, however, this is clearly a much better deal for policing than most commentators (myself included) predicted.  There will be less pressure to reduce officer numbers. Neighbourhood policing, previously under real threat, is likely to remain an important component of the policing model in England and Wales.  This is good news.

However, the police service should not use this financial reprieve as an excuse to duck important reforms.  The reforms that the police have already planned should continue, with any savings reinvested in an improved and more effective service.

It would be a retrograde step for candidates in the 2016 PCC elections to start pledging (as I am certain many will) to ‘protect officer numbers’.  We still need to rebalance the police workforce.   We need more staff with the kind of digital skills required to tackle cybercrime.  We need more crime analysts to help deploy police resources more effectively.  Blanket commitments to maintain officer numbers will get in the way of important reforms.

The argument for inter-force collaboration and, indeed, force mergers does not go away. The new top sliced transformation fund is designed in part to facilitate collaboration, but the fact remains that a 43 force structure no longer makes sense in operational or financial terms.

The police still have to adapt to a changing world. Falling levels of traditional crime and the explosion in online crime, particularly fraud and hacking, means we need an entirely different kind of police service.  Many of the pressures the police experience from non-crime demand will not go away. Big cuts to local government funding and the wider criminal justice system mean we need to reorganise the public service frontline to deal with problems such as high reoffending rates, child safeguarding and rising levels of mental illness.

Before yesterday I thought policing faced an existential moment and I stand by that. While the service has now secured significant financial breathing space, it still needs to adapt to an increasingly complex world. 

Rick Muir is director of the Police Foundation