Posts Tagged ‘Prime Minister’

So, on the day of the second televised leaders debates what are we to make of the new political landscape? Are we heading for a revolution in the way we see and perceive our political leaders or is it all just smoke and mirrors.

Certainly, there is a real danger that voters could be seen to be concentrating more on the televised debates than the policies of the main parties and we are seeing skewed polling figures as a result.

There is a danger that the polls are simply reflecting people’s reaction to the debates rather than their voting intention, a view reinforced by one poll’s immediate reaction from the debate showing the Lib Dems with a 51% share of the vote - more than enough to confirm Nick Clegg as Prime Minister with a healthy working majority.

These views are not necessarily based on the policies of the Lib Dem Party but how Nick Clegg is perceived by television viewers. The debates only provide time for the briefest of glimpses into the party’s policies - there is no time for any discussion on the the detail behind the policy headlines.

The subsequent reduction in the Lib Dem share of the vote in polls demonstrates that the televised debate certainly had a short term but significant effect in voters’ minds. The impact of the debate and the poll rise for the Lib Dems, even if short lived, has given a boost in momentum for the Lib Dems which may be hard for the other parties to counter.

So, has the televised debate reduced the election campaign to little more than a non-political beauty contest?

Not necessarily.

It will be up to David Cameron and Gordon Brown to react to the Clegg factor and I am sure that they will be working harder than ever to try to alter the perceptions and work on the lessons learned from the first debate to regain some lost ground.

This may give rise to personalised politics and possibly more negative campaigning, we shall see.

Either way, it is unlikely that the public will be taken in by magic tricks or sleight of hand.

Hung Parliament

We have also heard from the party leaders that “the people” will decide if there will be a hung Parliament or not.

I’m quite sure that if there was a candidate in every constituency under the name of “hung” or “hung Parliament” then they would have a better than even chance of being elected but let’s be clear, you cannot gerrymander or tactically vote for a hung parliament - it requires an unusual set of circumstances.

The people will certainly decide but they will not go into the polling booths thinking they can vote for a hung Parliament. If we end up with a hung Parliament it would be an associative outcome rather than causality.

So Gordon Brown survives to fight on and by all accounts his performance at the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meeting has strengthened the support of the Party’s MPs for their leader.

This doesn’t mean though that Brown is safe, it doesn’t mean that the threats of a leadership challenge have ended, rather that he has bought time - perhaps until the autumn to demonstrate that he can make the most of his Premiership and attempt to take the fight back to the Conservatives.

Gordon Brown was by all accounts very candid at the meeting and admitted to weaknesses which he said he would work at improving as well as concentrating on his strengths. This seems to have gone down well with the PLP.

Some members of the PLP have made the point following the meeting that Brown is as good a leader as they can hope for in the short term and although they accept that under Brown Labour is unlikely to win the next General Election, changing the leader now would make little, if any, difference.

This does beg the question, has Labour essentially given up hope of winning the next Election? With the results from the local elections and especially from the Euro elections in which Labour were pushed into third place and the latest polling figures, it certainly seems so.

What has Gordon Brown left to pull out of the bag to turn the tide back in Labour’s favour? He has effectively promoted Peter Mandelson to the position of Deputy Prime Minister, he has shuffled his pack for probably the last time before the Election and he has established a number of new Cabinet Committees, designed to input into policy direction.

Is this enough? Time will tell.

In the meantime, against a background of some of the poorest economic indicators for some time against the Government and what appeared to be an increasing opposition to Gordon Brown continuing as PM, this demonstrates that it is not particularly easy, nor straightforward to remove a sitting Prime Minister.

Poor old Jacqui Smith, her husband’s adult films; her sister’s accommodation; Bob Quick’s security leak - there seems to be an endless cast involved in her long drawn-out decline. With the latest wave of media attention over hiring an accountant to fill in her tax returns, it became obvious that the game was up; Jacqui Smith was so exposed and vulnerable that she was ineffective as Home Secretary, attracting copious media attention and derision.

But more so than Jacqui Smith herself, Gordon Brown has been seriously damaged by this latest headline. Like the election he never called in 2007; his indecision over expenses and Hazel Blears’ resignation (after he criticised but did not sack her), Gordon Brown’s thoughtfulness and desire to weigh up decisions have cost him dearly. Clearly he is a highly intelligent man and as Chancellor of the Exchequer this assured, thoughtful approach brought him plaudits. It was always rumoured he ran domestic policy and was instrumental in election strategy, as the consummate policy setter. At the time that same character trait was reassuring, contrasting very well with Tony Blair: Brown the man of substance, Blair the charismatic media man.

But sadly when he took the country’s top job in summer 2007 no-one mentioned that whilst a formidable presence and thinker in politics he was sorely untested at leading decisively. After his initial success in the first few months the pressure was focused on him in the autumn and he was so aware of acting in a measured and substantial way, he appeared to delay in whether or not to call a snap election. His delay and radio silence seemed like plodding.

From then on the problem has grown. He has become accustomed to allowing David Cameron to produce sound bites, steal the headlines and dictate debates, while he sulks in the background and declares he is “getting on with the job”. In the financial crisis, his area of expertise, his desire to think technically about the problems and weigh up options made him look slow to react over Northern Rock. He and Alistair Darling were criticised for not seeing the signs and acting earlier. It emerged that they had an idea of the scale of the crisis, but seemed to wait to see how it turned out.

Even now the reason this premiership seems so doomed is because there is no-one willing to say it is not. The media jumps on every error and despite a terrible spring there has been no reshuffle, no decisive measures, nothing that stands out - the nothing Budget showed this. It seems apparent that although intellectually astute and good on policy, when backed into a corner Gordon brown would rather talk over the problems than strike back. It is this deliberate, thoughtful approach that in 2007 was so craved, which has now made his premiership seem like it is comatose. Sadly as a man of substance it is unlikely he will change his ways and it seems now his peak was already behind him when he became Prime Minster in 2007. He is just not suited to the time-sensitivities and decisiveness that being Prime Minister requires.

David Cameron has announced a mid-term reshuffle that seems likely to take the Conservative Party into the next General Election.

How important will the reshuffle be to the fortunes of the Conservative Party and what is the point of them?

Reshuffles are seen by many Prime Ministers as a necessary evil and by the public as a total irrelevance.

Although this is a big issue for Westminster and the party involved, it will have little impact on a public whose knowledge of the members of the Shadow Cabinet and their positions is next to nothing and whose interest is even less.

If pressed, most people will be able to name two maybe three members of the Shadow Cabinet but beyond that they would struggle. The enlightened age, the age of online Parliament, of 24 hour news channels, of immediate news and information gathering appears to do little to improve political recognition.

Polls have shown (and let’s be kind and listen to them this one time) that reshuffles are unlikely to change the public’s views of a political party whether they are in power or not. Not really surprising when the public have little or no interest in the changes.

If the public have problems, reshuffles can cause untold damage to the parties themselves.

History is rife with resentment from those who have been dropped or those who have been overlooked and the media is always quick to rub the Prime Ministerial nose in it when yet another disaffected ex-Minister votes against the Government on a key issue.

In 1962, towards the end of his ministry Harold MacMillan felt challenged enough by the Porfumo affair to cull seven Cabinet Ministers in an attempt to freshen up his Government, in what was dubbed the night of the long knives.

Whether this would have made any difference to the result of the general election if MacMillan had stayed in charge it’s impossible to say but Prime Ministers in this situation run the risk of being accused of making the mistake of appointing the wrong people to the Cabinet in the first place.

Jeremy Thorpe, the Liberal leader said of MacMillan:

“Greater love hath no man than this, that he should lay down his friends for his life”

So, Cameron brings Ken Clarke back into front line politics.

At least the public will remember him but what effect will he have on Tory fortunes?

Clarke is 68 years old and in his own words, is “still ambitious” and that is the real test for the Conservatives - where does Clarke’s ambition place him and the party?

Clarke is certainly a heavyweight politician and a very effective performer but how much is this simply a response to the return of another political heavyweight in Peter Mandelson?

Some may see this as a panic measure - even the present economy is not bringing Gordon Brown down and how will his appointment affect Cameron’s position on Europe?

We know that Clarke will not budge on a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and that he remains implacably opposed to it but with no position needed to be taken on this by any party until after the next general election, Cameron can afford to take that chance in the short term.

He states that there are no issues likely to arise between him and Cameron this side of the election.

Well, that’s all right then.

Or is it?

The thing is, many other issues on Europe are now likely to arise, not because the Government has any desire to debate them before the election but because they wish to drive division within the Tory ranks ahead of the election to reopen old wounds and demonstrate that a divided Tory party is unfit to govern.

Will the reshuffle work? Who knows, only time will tell if it is a masterstroke or doomed by its own ambition.