Mary Ann Sieghart makes a sloppy comparison between Gordon Brown and John Major, comparing Cabinet disloyalty in the Major government with the current bout of disloyalty from the Labour Cabinet:
A better comparison is between the rebels facing the two Prime Ministers. The "licensed super rebels" David claims are unique to the Parliamentary Labour Party mirror the "bastards" of John Major's Cabinet (via Liberal Conspiracy). As the reality of Labour's unpopularity has set into the PLP, the rebels have become hardened guerillas undermining Brown's authority.
Gordon Brown can afford to keep his rebels on the backbenches - Major included them in Cabinet in order to keep them quiet through collective responsibility. Unlike Brown, he did not have the luxury of keeping his rebels at bay and he had to act. Brown has yet to act to quell the scolding revolution brewing under his leadership.
It is impossible to know how Brown would deal with a rebellious party without a working majority to soften their blows. However, one suspects he would not have the same cynical leadership skills of John Major. It is easy to compare the two men, who have both found themselves in a similar situation. However, the two have acted in very different ways. Major took a divided party and kept it together for seven years. Brown has overseen the collapse of unity and discipline in his in just ten months.
During the worst days of the Major Government, I had lunch with a Cabinet minister who was in despair at the lack of direction from the top. “It's like sailing a boat in really choppy waters,” he moaned. “If you've got the wind in your sails, you can make headway through the waves. If you haven't, you just get buffeted all over the place and the water starts coming in.”It is true that both Major and Brown suffered from a disloyal party and both followed strong Prime Ministers who inspired 'isms'. Both had a party in pushing their predecessor from government and both were seen as lacking charisma. Both suffered from poor opinion polls and a more charming leader of the opposition. However, these are circumstantial coincidences. In leadership and performance, the two men differ greatly. Sieghart hints at the difference:
Talking to Labour MPs and ministers this week, I recognised the same sense of drift and desperation. Many are close to panic that they will lose their seats. If the party does badly in today's elections - and particularly if Ken Livingstone loses in London - fury against the Prime Minister will erupt. London is the key, with seats in the assembly as important as mayoralty, since many of Labour's marginals are in the capital. Local elections in the regions will tell us less, as Labour did so poorly there when the seats were last contested in 2004.
A few MPs are suggesting that he should follow Mr Major - who else? - in calling a “put up or shut up” leadership election. This is pretty implausible, not least because he would not take the risk.The difference between the two men is that Major managed to keep his party together with a majority that disappeared into nothing by the end of his reign. He had no room for error, no space to allow a few rebellious MPs loose. Brown cannot keep his party united despite a healthy majority of 66. He has none of the leadership skills Major commanded. To compare the two men is a compliment to Mr Brown. While they may both have been dull and unpopular, Major was far better at controlling his party than Brown.
A better comparison is between the rebels facing the two Prime Ministers. The "licensed super rebels" David claims are unique to the Parliamentary Labour Party mirror the "bastards" of John Major's Cabinet (via Liberal Conspiracy). As the reality of Labour's unpopularity has set into the PLP, the rebels have become hardened guerillas undermining Brown's authority.
Gordon Brown can afford to keep his rebels on the backbenches - Major included them in Cabinet in order to keep them quiet through collective responsibility. Unlike Brown, he did not have the luxury of keeping his rebels at bay and he had to act. Brown has yet to act to quell the scolding revolution brewing under his leadership.
It is impossible to know how Brown would deal with a rebellious party without a working majority to soften their blows. However, one suspects he would not have the same cynical leadership skills of John Major. It is easy to compare the two men, who have both found themselves in a similar situation. However, the two have acted in very different ways. Major took a divided party and kept it together for seven years. Brown has overseen the collapse of unity and discipline in his in just ten months.
0 comments:
Post a Comment