Though British ruling Labour Party leaders rallied to support their leader and prime minister, Gordon Brown, simmering tensions within the party are evident. Some Labour MPs are calling on Brown to step down and save the party a crushing defeat in the upcoming general elections, probably in 2010.
The latest spat of Labour infighting erupted after the party's candidate lost the by-election for the Glasgow East seat to the Scottish National Party (SNP) by a huge margin. That came as a culmination of a series of defeats in by-elections and continuously deteriorating ratings in opinion polls. Labour MPs are right to worry about losing their seats en mass to opposition Conservative (Tory) party candidates and consequently losing privilege of being in power.
This week, the British media carried reports about behind-the-scenes plotting to oust Brown from party leadership and premiership. It was said that some MPs were preparing a letter to the Cabinet calling for a change of leader, if none of them forced the issue over the summer. Among those, supposedly, are allies of Justice Secretary Jack Straw, who is one of the main figures of traditional New Labour front benches.
Straw was among other Labour senior figures who rallied behind Brown and stalled any attempt to sack him. He was precise in asserting that challenging Brown now is "a big mistake". This sums up the plight of Labour after 11 years in power: losing touch with the people, unpopular leader, and the fear of change.
However, it might not be all Brown's fault. Yet, he bears a great share of responsibility for the situation his party and government are in now. He was one of the main driving figures to "change" the party in the 90s. During his predecessor Tony Blair's ten years in power, he was the Chancellor of Exchequer. No Labour government policy since 1997 was passed without Brown's consent. So, even if Blair is to be blamed for Labour's declining poll ratings by the end of his term, Brown cannot distance himself from any of the major policies; from the war in Iraq to partial privatisation of public services.
Though Brown built a good reputation as the steward of sound British economy for a decade, once he replaced Blair as prime minister in June last year, he started to lose this advantage.
Global economic ills might have contributed to UK economic problems, but the general public looks for its leaders to alleviate the impact of external influences on them. Unfortunately as prime minister, Brown did little to the economy than when he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Might be true
Some in the Labour Party argue that one of the problems of Brown's premiership is that he managed to suppress leadership contest in the party after Blair. That might be true, but at the time it saved the party bitter divisions. Unfortunately, it still could be the same now. Sacking Brown would hasten Labour's fall and might even give the Tories an early election triumph. No doubt the prime minister is aware of this and betting on it to cling to his position.
The media is already preparing for the fall of Brown with some drawing an analogy with John Major who replaced Margaret Thatcher. The Iron Lady was ousted in a Tory in-fighting. The Conservatives under the leadership of Major later lost the elections to the Labour.
The analogy could be right in the growing probability of Labour, after a change in leadership, losing to the Tories in the next election. But Brown is not like Major, as Blair was not like Thatcher. The only similarity is the Conservatives' leader David Cameroon is more like Blair of 1997.
Actually, people are favouring the Tories because they want change. New Labour is no longer new and Tories have had a major facelift. Whether Cameroon has got the right policies to meet the expectations or not of the British people is not a major issue. People are certain the Tories's policies will be different from Labour's, and that is enough to vote the opposition to power. But until the general election, Labour might be wise enough not to self-destruct by a change in leadership.
Regardless of the media reports about plots to sack the prime minister or attempts to thwart them, it is difficult to imagine any Labour leader taking the responsibility for bringing the Tories to power.
There is no doubt that Brown's days are getting darker. In the meantime, he looks like the problem and the solution. Labour might see him as an electoral liability, yet it cannot replace him as a leadership change at this time because that would further weaken the party. Brown is really a syndrome; neither to back nor to sack.
Dr Ahmad Mustafa is a London-based Arab writer.
Send us your comments
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Gulf News may edit comments for length and clarity but will not change the tone of the message. Comments will only be accepted if all fields (including name) are filled correctly and the message isn't abusive, defamatory or offensive. The Gulf News website will only print your first name along with your comment. Please state in the message if you wish to remain anonymous. All comments sent may be forwarded for use in the Gulf News newspaper.
