James Forsyth
Already a subscriber? Log in
The Tories will be sorely tempted to sit back and enjoy the view. But who leads the Labour party matters massively for British politics — and the prospect of a Prime Minister Cameron. First, it determines the boundaries. It was precisely because Labour moved so far to the left under Michael Foot that the Thatcher government was able to be so radical. For this reason, many Tories wish Mr Balls well — thinking his producer socialism will take Labour to new levels of unpopularity. But the situation the next Tory government will inherit is such that it might well fail; meaning the next Labour leader could become Prime Minister almost by default. The thought of Prime Minister Balls is one that makes one almost nostalgic for the Brown years.
David Miliband would be caricatured as the Blairite candidate — but unfairly. Tony Blair moved him on from his role as head of the Downing Street policy unit ten years ago because he thought him insufficiently committed to the Blairite reform agenda for public services. Older Blairites who have returned to the backbenches rather than serve in Gordon Brown’s government grumble that Miliband’s intellectual development has been disappointing (a way of saying that he doesn’t think what they think). Miliband’s allies point to speeches made over the last few years outlining an intellectual agenda of his very own.
The Blairites hate Mr Balls more than anybody else. They know that, if he wins, the Labour party will be run by the Charlie Whelans and Damian McBrides of this world. Fear and intimidation would be the order of the day. Labour MPs need little instruction about what it would be like to live in a party run by such people. When Alistair Darling talked of the ‘forces of hell’ being unleashed on him, he was talking about what happens to those able to fight back. The tactics which are used to silence Brown’s more defenceless critics are enough to chill the blood. (The genius of their method is that no one wants to reveal the full details — as that would put into the public domain what those targeted wanted kept private.)
Should Miliband unfurl his leadership standard, the Blairites will rally to it — and for two reasons. First, he is not Ed Balls and has not sewn enmity around him, though he has sewn disappointment for failing to act during the hat trick of abortive coups. But those schooled a decade or more before Miliband regard the coming leadership contest as the decisive battle of the Blair-Brown wars, since it will determine who controls the future of the party. If Brown loses but is succeeded by Ed Balls then, by the weird logic of internecine warfare, the Brownites will have won. Never mind that Tony Blair won three elections and Brown none. It will be the Brownites who get to walk away with the party.
If the Blairites lose this battle, they fear that New Labour may well be a freakish election-winning blip in the party’s long history. This will encourage them to set aside any reservations they may have about Miliband. One other thing worries some Blairites: just how much the Brownites want it. Almost two years ago, one (now departed) Cabinet minister moaned that ‘Ed Balls will win the leadership because he’s the only one mad enough to want it without reservation’. They worry about what the Brownites might do to win. The Blairite resolve to play nice, not to stoop to the level of the other side, will be tested in the coming months.
If the Blairites view the Brownites as bullies, the Brownites view the Blairites as effete. They sneer at how many Blairites are leaving the Commons to spend more time with their portfolio CVs rather than staying to fight, fight and fight again to save the party they purport to love. They have a point. Alan Milburn, John Hutton, John Reid — all major figures in the Blair years — have opted for an easier life, as of course has Mr Purnell. Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt plotted against Mr Brown earlier this year — and have now self-destructed in the lobbying scandal. The Brownites appear to be the only ones sticking around to do the fighting.
If Labour does lose, the Brownites have a stab-in-the-back narrative ready. As the election results come in, they will start talking about how Labour’s defeat is down to the constant attempted coups against Brown and the disrepute that the Blairites have brought the party into. Expect lots of mentions of Iraq, expenses and this latest scandal. As one Blairite minister puts it with deliberate understatement, ‘Geoff and Patricia really haven’t helped us.’ Had it not been for such attempts to destabilise Mr Brown, it will be argued, Labour might have survived. So the wicked Blairites should face justice.
The Brownites know they have first-mover advantage. Anyone who points out on election night that Brown has acted as a drag on the party’s fortunes can be dismissed as part of the problem, as contributing to the back-biting that has so harmed Labour’s chances.
One other ace the Brownites have is incumbency; they are the men in power. If Brown stays as leader, he’ll be able to shape the race to succeed him in Balls’s favour much as Michael Howard did for Cameron on the Tory side in 2005.
There is, though, one man who might be able to avert a Labour civil war: Lord Mandelson. It might seem bizarre to suggest that this incorrigible intriguer and deeply divisive figure could avert war this time. But ever since his return f rom Brussels, Mandelson’s actions have put him in a position to do just that. It appears that he regards his next duty to the party he loves (one visitor to his old constituency home in Hartlepool describes it as a shrine to the Labour party) is to save it from itself. Not for nothing does he now describe himself as the ‘Prince of Stability’.
It is also worth remembering that Mandelson took no pleasure in abandoning Brown in 1994. It was only Blair marching up to Mandelson in the members’ lobby and telling him that he was going to run regardless that finally pushed him off the fence.
Mandelson’s decision to shore Brown up rather than finish him off in last year’s local elections was, at least in part, a move to prevent factional warfare. If the Blairites were perceived to have brought down Brown — as the Brownites had brought down Blair — the cycle of reprisals would never be broken. By supporting Mr Brown then, Mandelson moved from being a purely factional figure.
So, the theory goes, Mandelson has earned himself the role of kingmaker. And my information is that Mandelson is leaning heavily towards endorsing David Miliband. Recent reports that he is toying with the idea of backing Ed Miliband are wide of the mark, I am told. Of course, Mandelson’s endorsement would not be the final word: the Brown-Balls team is tooled up and ready for a fight. If they have to fight Mandelson as well as Miliband then so be it (some of them would relish the chance to settle some old scores with the former). Each side will have their own style of fighting, their own chosen weapons. And it would be a brave man who puts money on either.
The bitterness of a Miliband-Balls fight will, of course, encourage a third candidate who could be selected because he represents neither faction. Many leaders — including Thatcher and Attlee — are selected for who they are not rather than who they are. The more people think about a Miliband-Balls contest, the more they hope Jon Cruddas will stand for leader. He lacks profile, but also lacks enemies.
Many Labour MPs are resigned to a long and bloody conflict. One Labour frontbencher told me recently that he didn’t think the next Labour prime minister was in parliament yet. His argument was not based on any particular fear about the strength of the Conservatives, but on the grounds that the coming leadership election will destroy the current generation of Labour politicians. He may well be right.
Also in Politics
Also by James Forsyth
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in