Mr Useless, meet Mr Unelectable

We all make mistakes. I have long felt, and written, that Gordon Brown was a blemish on public life owing to his disloyal and destructive conduct in office. I considered him to be inexpert and uninterested outside a narrow brief. I expected him to be an inconsequential and ephemeral prime minister, comparable to the underachieving Canadian premier Paul Martin. Reader, how little I grasped the extent of it. Gordon Brown is a useless prime minister and an unelectable Labour leader. Matthew Parris in The Times today gives exactly the advice I would offer Labour MPs: "Give up. With the leader you've got and led as you are, all is lost."

Like John Rentoul, I accept that Labour would have suffered crushing defeat under Tony Blair too - but because Blair was unable to count on the support of the party or of his heir ostentatiously apparent. Labour's revival as a party of government and its dominance of British politics for more than a decade were Blair's handiwork. The pit in which Labour now resides is of Brown's excavation. It is an untenable position for Charles Clarke to be critical of the leadership yet rule out a challenge to it. Brown isn't, and never was, prime ministerial material, and if - per impossible - I were a Labour MP I should be calling for his resignation.

Of the other principal casualty of the municipal elections, Ken Livingstone, I would say this. It was politically astute of Boris Johnson to pay tribute in his victory speech to Livingstone's record of public service. But it was unjustified. Livingstone ran his administration as a personal fiefdom supported by public largesse. Livingstone was not a reasonable choice for voters of progressive views, and I pay tribute to Martin Bright of The New Statesman and Andrew Gilligan of The Standard for exposing the reasons. These are left-wing journalists who observed Livingstone's unfitness for office and took professional risks in stating their conclusion publicly. Indeed, one example of Livingstone's incomprehension of the nature of public service was when he used his position as Mayor to call for Gilligan's dismissal. I am not sorry that it is instead Livingstone who has lost his job.

Comments

[John Gibson]

Mr. Kamm,

I'm an American, and therefore both my competence and standing to hold an opinion on this matter are limited. But, being a string Blair supporter, and even envying you, the British, for having a progressive politician of that caliber which we do not here in the States, I have to say that perhaps the Blair Leadership was a failure after all, if Mr Blair has not transformed the party itself as he seems to have made a positive difference in government.

I read your blog, and Harry's Place, because there is no such forum of left-wing opinion here in America. Thanks for being what seems to me to be the only voice of sane progressive politics for the whole Anglophone world.

[John Gibson]

My apologies, I am a strong, and not a "sting" supporter of Mr Blair. I also have very poor eyesight, as attested to by having to enter the confirmation code 3 times, as well as not catching that typo.

[Mark]

'Daily Kos' and Joshua Marshall's 'Talking Points Memo' are both pretty good forums for left wing opinion in the US.

[SteveF]

Yes, the Daily Kos does contain some gems of political insight. For example (assuming it isn't satire):

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/26/83118/7371/654/503796

[Curly]

Look like the Brown Matrix is heading down the pan then!

[Joe]

Oliver, saying that Brown is pretty useless doesn't really get us anywhere. You might enjoy saying "I told you so", but I don't particularly enjoy hearing it.

Aside from a palace coup, which is a gamble at best, can you suggest anything that might help those of us who remember how despicable the Tories were and wish to avoid another hideous administration?

Rather like Chelsea fans hankering after the special one, we have to accept that the other fella isn't coming back. Avaram Grant seems to have turned things round. How can Brown create his own 'Avaram Effect'?

[David Duff]

"I have to say that perhaps the Blair Leadership was a failure after all"

You can say that again, Mr. Gibson! It was a dismal failure in almost every regard. There has been no perceptible improvement in our 'Edukashun Servis' or our Nationalised Health Service ("The envy of the world", except that nobody copies it). The state now takes more money from us than ever before and spends it with the enthusiasm, but alas, also the acumen, of a drunken sailor. We are now even more inextricably enmeshed in a European racket which costs us a fortune *now* but which will look like loose change when the whole rotten enterprise crashes, as it is bound to do eventually. There is not a town or large village in England in which you can walk with confidence of your safety from 10.00 pm onwards - I make no mention of city centres which have been no-go areas for years. Our armed forces have been run down and palmed off with dud, useless kit. Our civil and intelligence services have been corrupted by a drive to politicise them so that no independent voice can be heard *in* government, or out of it.

Blair's uselessness is summarised in his decision to keep two men in the highest posts in the land long after their malignant influence was clear to all. Brown, as chancellor who began his regime by selling our gold reserves at the bottom of the market, and Alistair Campbell, as his personal, lying rottweiller-in-chief.

Despite the eloquent efforts of our host, Blair will go down in history as the equal of his predecessor, Harold Wilson, than which one can sink no lower!

[arnoldo]

Why is that Tory supporters like David Duff cannot give even a smidgeon of credit to Blair's premiership? Claiming that there has been "no perceptible improvement" in education and health is ridiculous.
Think back to the waiting lists for operations and patients on trolleys in hospital corridors. Remember the rotting infrastructure of our schools in the pre-Blair era.
Standards of Health, Education, and Crime have all improved along with the average standard of living. Most people would have settled for this after 10 years.
Labour's record has been far from perfect, but it has not warranted the amount of whingeing that has been heard over the last few months.

[David Duff]

Alas, Arnaldo, I am anything but a Tory supporter. Whilst it is true that I am anti-socialist, Blair's version of its creed was so milk-and-watery as to barely qualify. It was Brown who put part of the missing ingredient (state interference) back into Blair's pudding of a polity. In as much as I am anything, I am a Thatcherite, that is, the modern equivalent of a 19th c. Liberal who believes that governments should be as small as possible given their history of incompetence. Thus, you will understand that 'Dim Dave's' proud boast that he is another Blair fills me with gloom.

I am unconvinced by your vision of our NHS with its shortened waiting lists and the alleged absence of patients on trolleys. However, if it *is* true, perhaps it has more to do with the rate at which our hospitals are bumping off their patients rather than any sudden Stakhovian efforts on the part of the lazy, rude, uncaring, state-employed drones who idle away part of their days there.

Finally, Arnaldo, I do not judge our 'edukashun servis' by its "infrastructure" (whatever that may mean). I rely rather more on the product which I see about me. Frankly, I try not to look too hard these days, it's simply too, too, dispiriting!

[Ross]

"Claiming that there has been "no perceptible improvement" in education and health is ridiculous. "

How so? Take education, correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Britain fallen dramatically in international rankings over the Blair ere. Sure children are being taught in newer and shinier buildings and teachers have had big pay rises but that isn't how success is measured. See here for example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7121718.stm

It's noticeable that one of the last education reforms of the Blair government was establishing Foundation schools, which essentially reversed one of the earliest Blair reforms abolishing Grant Maintained schools.

[arnoldo]

Apologies to Mr. Duff and other Thatcherites for using the word "infrastructure". It is clearly a word similar to "society" and "compassion" in that it has absolutely no meaning for them.

Ross - In 2007 the OECD had this to say about the UK educational performance:-
"The indicators show that, overall, educational performance in the United Kingdom remains strong, with significant progress in early childhood participation as well as an above-average graduate output in higher education, particularly in science, that accrues high labour-market returns. The UK has also increased its investment in education consistently and strategically, with more money directed to attracting better qualified teachers rather than solely into lowering class sizes. However, the data also show that progress has levelled off in recent years such that other countries now outperform the UK on a number of indicators."
This is a measured summary which shows that there is cause for concern on our relative performance of late. It does not in any way, however, support the claim of "no perceptible improvement"

[David Duff]

On the contrary, I understand the word "infrastructure" completely but, like Ross, above, I fail to see how "newer and shinier buildings" actually leads to more children being better taught.

[Jon Dennis]

Ken Livingstone can point to numerous substantial achievements, including winning the 2012 Olympics, the Congestion Charge, and Crossrail. He did not run London as a personal fiefdom - the position of mayor demands strong leadership. People voted for Ken and knew he'd deliver that.

It's a ludicrous to suggest that supporting Gilligan and Bright - keep throwing mud at Ken and see what sticks - is an ethical position to take. London is now run by Conservative Central Office - allowing neocons to feel smug, but depressing for progressives.

The UN's chief climate change scientist, Rajendra Pachauri, is sorry Ken lost - and so should you be. Shame on you.