The Labour conference approaches against the inevitable backdrop of yet another bout of leadership speculation.
Once again, Harriet Harman is damaged by claims her staff are asking party members to rate her on a scale of 0-5 and canvassing them on who is the “best person to sell the Labour Party”. Harman’s many critics would be wrong to write her off. To their horror, there are circumstances in which she could yet emerge as leader despite being forced explicitly to rule it out earlier this year. In the event of a post-Brown contest, she could see off Alan Johnson — who, despite reports, does still “want” it — as she did in the deputy leadership contest; David Miliband would be dismissed as too “Blairite”, Jon Cruddas as too “left-wing” and Ed Balls as too ambitious. The unknown candidate remains Ed Miliband, whose actions may depend on whether his elder brother stands.
However, in the end all this is academic — for another six months at least. Why? Because, a) Brown will not be challenged from within the cabinet (though he may face a threat from Charles Clarke, one to watch this autumn) and b), as I have said consistently throughout his troubled premiership, Gordon Brown is sure to remain leader into the general election. There is nothing in his psychology or history that suggests he will stand down voluntarily. Why would he have fought bitterly for the job for the best part of ten years under Tony Blair, and endured the abuse and depressing circumstances of his own time at No 10 over the past two, only for him to give it up before fighting a general election campaign? A campaign, incidentally, which No 10 sources say Brown remains utterly convinced will go through a turnaround.
Brown finally may have been forced by the Tories and the media to utter the “C-word” — cuts — in relation to public spending. But he still sees the fiscal differences between the two parties — with caring Labour cuts and ideological Tory state-slashing — as the area on which Labour can, despite everything, perform a comeback.
However, the economy alone will not be enough. Much more interesting than the predictable pre-conference leadership movements was the under-noticed aside by Peter Mandelson yesterday about electoral reform. He said: “I don’t think we should reject contemplating any sort of change and I think that’s something that we’re going to have to address in the coming months.” I have long argued that a belated and firm commitment to the referendum New Labour first promised in 1997 would be a winning move.
And coincidentally I have just picked up an old copy of Mary Southcott and Martin Linton’s book Making Votes Count, which outlines in detail why the present unfair system allows roughly a million people in marginal seats to determine general election results for the rest, whose votes are “wasted”.
In it, the late, great Robin Cook has a foreward in which he writes, in June 1998: “The Jenkins Commission, and the referendum that will follow [my italics], give us the chance to have a modern electoral system fit for the new century; one that creates a closer relationship between the electorate and their government; and which helps give the British people ownership of their democracy every day and not just on election day.”
In the wake of the crisis of political alienation that emerged with the economic meltdown, what better way for Gordon Brown to secure his leadership and excite Labour and the country than to usher in Cook’s reforming zeal by announcing, in his party conference speech, that there will definitely be a referendum on electoral reform within the first six months of a Labour fourth term?
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to comment