The Prime Minister is not up to the job

It's taken me some time today to blog my thoughts on today's PMQs. The main exchanges were over the difficult subject of the death of Baby P and the circumstances surrounding it, and I wanted first of all to read up on the facts of the case.


The BBC detail the sad life of the young boy here, if like me, you have not followed the case. The list of injuries is truly sickening. Two men and the boy's mother are due to be sentenced in December.

Baby P was known to social services, having been put on the child protection register following reports from the family GP and a paediatrician. Despite 60 visits to Baby P's home, no one from Haringey Council's social services thought that the injuries were severe enough for the baby to be taken into care.


I think everyone in the country is asking "How could this happen?" and as such - it is perfectly reasonable for David Cameron to ask questions of the prime minister on this subject and urged the PM to consider whether the time has come for Haringey social services to be taken over. In one of his most unbelievable replies ever, Brown accused Dave of 'playing party politics' over the issue.

Brown has totally misjudged the mood of the public on this. The BBC's Nick Robinson described Brown as having reacted with a 'political tone-deafness' to the mood outside Westminster. John Cruddas the left-wing Labour MP said that David Cameron was 'absolutely right' to bring up this, and Charles Kennedy echoed the thought that "Brown was out of touch".

When Brown moves off his comfort zone on the economy he just cannot cut the mustard. Instead of being able to reflect the country's outrage and show he is dealing with this serious issue, he just ducked and resorted to accusations of partisanship. This is clearly not a man who is prime minister material.

Glenrothes - it was NOT close

To say that Labour hung on in Glenrothes would be an understatement. Labour comfortably held the seat, actually increasing their share of votes by 3%. The SNP vote did go up, facilitated by a collapse in the Lib Dems, who were down 10%. The Tories did push the Lib Dems into fourth place, but will have little to celebrate, as they too lost their deposit.

The pundits said it would be close, the punters said it would be close. Labour were writing off their chances - which will now be seen as skillful expectations management. Alex Salmond, hubristically, was declaring a "political earthquake", and even on the day of the poll had been forecasting an SNP win.

If ever there was a reminder to politicians, that it is not over until the votes are counted, this is it. Alex Salmond should have studied more carefully the famous 'Sheffield Rally' where Neil Kinnock threw away his chances of victory in 1992 with a triumphalist, congratulatory display - before the votes had even been cast.

Alex Salmond's honeymoon is over. In this particular by-election, the SNP were in the position of defending their position as the establishment, not only in the Scottish parliament, but also as leaders of the local authority. And although this was a safe Labour seat in 2005, with a majority of over 10,000, the SNP did win a seat with about 80% of the same electors in the Scottish parliament elections in 2007.

So how did Labour win?

A relentless Labour campaign, focussed on a simple message about increased charges for home-help, brought in by the local SNP council, and other general scaremongering and negative campaigning has been cited by Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP deputy leader as a major factor. But this is an over simplification.

Unlike in Glasgow East, Labour selected a credible, local candidate, Lindsay Roy, known throughout the community due to his long career in education, as headmaster of Brown's old school. The SNP candidate, Peter Grant was also a credible local man, and on the whole fought an effective campaign, although there was the occasional gaffe.

And of course, Gordon Brown is a local boy. There was much made of this by-election being in his backyard. And he and his wife, campaigned in the constituency. Was it that his fellow Fifemen weren't prepared to kick one of their own, which the Glaswegians were willing to do?

However, I think that the real factor here is Gordon's performance in dealing with the global economic crisis. Whether he can be blamed for having contributed to the problems is almost irrelevant, to voters, who I believe will make judgements about who is to blame in the future. What Gordon has shown, is that in the short-term, it is he, who is providing leadership in charting a course out of the troubled economic waters.


So where does this leave the parties?

Labour will have been boosted by a strong performance. It is clear evidence that there has been a recovery. More than this, it is a signal that the Labour's core voters are willing to turn out to support the party. We have probably seen the bottom of Labour's recent collapse in popularity.

The SNP threat, for the time being, has receded in Scotland. At the next general election, voters know that they will be voting for the UK government, and I think that Scottish voters will vote tactically to keep Labour in power in Westminster.

The Liberal Democrats came second in Scotland in the 2005 general election by share of the vote. They should be concerned that in two by-elections in Scotland in the last six months, they have been unable to build or even hold their share of the vote. Granted, Glasgow East is not their sort of area, but to have their share of the vote go down by 10% in Glenrothes, is not particularly reassuring.

We all know that the next election battle will be between the Conservatives and Labour, and for the most part, this battle will be decided in the Midlands and North of England. David Cameron cannot now rely on the SNP to chip away at Labour's MPs in Scotland. They may lose a few, but I don't think it will be more than a handful.

Although it is difficult to make predictions and extrapolations from a by-election, it shows that Labour's core support has not abandoned the party. Hence, Cameron needs to redouble his efforts to appeal to voters in middle England, and he needs to fight for every vote at the next general election.

Glenrothes by-election

So the next challenge for Gordon Brown is defending Glenrothes in the by-election on November 6th. Gordon has done enough for now to prevent a leadership contest which might have been precipitated by a failure to win 'in his backyard'.

So what do we know about Glenrothes? It's a new seat created in 2005 when the number of Scottish constituencies was reduced. It is mostly made up of the former Fife Central constituency. In 2005, Labour polled 19,395 votes on a turnout of 56.1% with a majority of 10,664 over the SNP - who were in second place. In otherwords - it is a solid Labour area focussed on the New Town of Glenrothes.

The constituency borders Gordon Brown's own fiefdom in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.

In any normal times, anything other than a clear victory for Labour here would be inconceivable. However that has all changed following the SNP's recent success in the Glasgow East by-election, building on their success in the Scottish Parliament elections in 2007. Paddy Power currently has the SNP odds-on favourites to win at 2:5.

The question is - have Labour's fortunes changed following the Glasgow East disaster?

I think that they may have. The Glasgow East by-election campaign by Labour was a shambles. First there was the problems over finding a candidate (amazing given the seat was a rock-solid prospect). Second there was the refusal of Gordon to campaign in the constituency. Third - and most significantly - economic gloom was high. Petrol and food prices had risen astronomically. There had been the fiasco over the 10p tax rate which would have affected many in this constituency (even though it was resolved prior to this by-election).

There was a general view that Labour was not listening. Gordon was busily 'getting on with the job' which to most of the public appeared to be producing very little output. They felt as though their personal financial situation was declining, the Government was doing little to help and they wanted to 'send a message'.

So what has changed since?

The economic gloom has increased: Two of Scotland's leading companies, HBOS and RBS have required a bail-out from UK plc. Predictions of recession are widespread. House prices are falling.

On the surface, this doesn't look as though Labour's chances of holding on have improved.

However, I think that the key change is that Gordon Brown has been attracting far more positive media coverage. Rescuing the banks, striding the world stage - he now looks more as though he has a grip on events, rather than being buffeted by them.

I also think that Alex Salmond - while a very canny and shrewd operator who shouldn't be written off - has had part of his sheen removed by the fact that two Scottish banks were effectively rescued by the UK taxpayer. Would his cherished Independent Scotland have been able to perform such a rescue? Previous suggestions that Scotland could join an arc of prosperity including Ireland (in recession already), Iceland (bankrupt) and Norway (in economic difficulties) now sound less reassuring to voters.

But voters are not voting for a General Election or indeed for the Scottish Parliament. This is a by-election - and traditionally voters take the opportunity to 'kick' the ruling party. The SNP are the ruling party in Scotland, but have been enjoying the longest political honeymoon in history, and it is the Westminster party that will receive the 'kicking'.

I think that will be a lot closer than the bookies suggest.

Brown's Stock

So how does the collapsing markets impact on the stock of Gordon Brown? Watching him recently, joking about collapsed banks, he seems to have almost a spring in his step. It is as though he's found his purpose as prime minister.



I think his mood has improved for a number of key reasons. First, he's seen off the Blairite challenge, and I believe that he's now safe until the General Election, whenever that is. His conference speech, in which he declared that "It's no time for a novice", was relatively successful. While it did little to outline his vision for the future, it did effectively slap-down both Miliband and Cameron simultaneously.

But this was only the first element of his strategy to see off the Blairites. The third-coming of ultra Blairite, Peter Mandelson - back in the cabinet for a third time - effectively neutralised the possibility of a Blairite plot. Brown clearly believes in keeping your friends close and your enemies even closer.

Second, the media control the agenda far more than politicians like to think. With the growing crisis in the financial sector, the media have a new story to focus on. August is well-known as the 'Silly Season' for the media, and with a lack of other stories to focus upon, "Brown bashing" became the daily sport.

Third - and probably the most important of all - Brown actually is now doing something. The 24 hour news channels are full to bursting of Brown dealing with the banking crisis. He's making regular press conferences where he actually appears to be dealing with the crisis.

It is a marked contrast from the previous six months as the Credit Crunch gloom descended over the country. All of those repeated chants we heard about him "getting on with the job" and "focussing on taking the right decisions for the long term", which seemed to infuriate voters who were struggling with high fuel prices and soaring inflation in everyday essentials - like food, have been replaced by him actually having something new to say.

And with something new to say, people are once more prepared to listen.


So does this leave us in a Bear market or Bull market for Brown plc?


Some commentators will have us believe that this is Brown's "Falkland's Factor" and others believe it is his ERM moment. I don't believe that either of these are applicable. Assuming his bail-out plan for the banks restores some stability and the UK avoids a deep recession, he can in General Election 2010 present himself as the man who got us through the bad times. In this case, I still think that David Cameron will win, as the "Time for a Change" argument can be very overwhelming and difficult to counter. By 2010 - the Labour party - and Brown himself - will have been in power for 13 years. Labour will lose - but it won't be a landslide loss.

It the bail-out doesn't work, and if the public conclude after a long period of recession, that it is all Brown's fault, as Chancellor / PM for the last 13 years, then I think we could be looking at a Conservative victory on the scale of Labour's in 1997.

The next upcoming hurdle for Brown - other than the markets opening tomorrow morning - will be the Glenrothes by-election in Scotland. Convention has it that the PM does not campaign in by-elections (although this convention was broken by TB), but as the MP in the neighbouring constituency (Kirkcaldy), I forecast that Brown will campaign. The bookies are still pointing to an SNP gain in Glenrothers, but I think that Brown may surprise us all. With effective campaigning, including Brown engaging in a copy of Blair's masochism strategy, I think Labour may just hang on.

At that point, I think Labour will be able to say that they have turned the corner.