Can Gordon Brown survive ....

[Saracen]

No doubt everyone has seen the current 'scandal' over Labour Part donations, with large (nearly £2/3 million) from one donor being diverted through third parties to hide the identity of the donor, and at least one senior (General Secretary) Labour party official being fully aware of it.

There are several things that concern me. Firstly, I find it hard to believe he was the only one that knew. Some of the payments go back over the terms of office of previous general secretaries - did they know? What about the current (and maybe previous) Treasurer? And if not, why not?

Are there no checks in place to vet the provenance of donations of any substantial size?

That last point is an interesting one. A previous Labour Party Treasurer (Baroness Prosser) was on the Daily Politics today and, if I can paraphrase without misrepresenting what she said, she would certainly have expected to be aware of this in her day. In fact, they did come across a few donations where they weren't happy that the funds were "clean" and rejected the donations. And shortly after her term finished 2001) a committee was established precisely for this purpose - the objective was to try to intercept "political hot potatoes" in the donations field and reject them so that they couldn't become a political problem. That committee apparently didn't meet for two years and was today described as being "no longer extant". It is, it would seem an ex-committee, it has shuffled off this mortal coil, is pushing up the daisies. Why, for pities sake?

Yesterday, comments were being made that this is a Labour Party problem not a governmental problem, and I both agree and disagree with that. Gordon Brown has stated, quite categorically, that he knew nothing of this (either the donations from Abrahams or the practice of anonymising them) until Saturday, and that when he found out, he took firm steps. I see no reason (at least yet) to disbelieve that. In that sense, it's a problem with the party machine, not government. But it's politically naive to think it won't (not least because it already has) spill over onto government figures, including Brown. He's already having to make Press Conference statements about it, it's featuring extensively in TV and newspaper political coverage, Cameron is making hay with it and it's a pretty strong bet it's feature prominently in PMQs.

But I feel for Brown over this. As long as it doesn't come out that he did know about it and lied, and there's nothing to suggest that so far, then it's just a particularly smelly issue that's come at a time that arguably couldn't be worse for him. And THAT is why it's a political issue.

Even some Labour backbench MPs (Bob Marshall-Andrews, for a start, though he's known for 'independent thought', not as a party lackey) are speculating over what this may mean for Brown. And it's not this issue that is the problem - it's this coming now, and the cumulative effect of a number of issues (the non-Election, Northern Rock, illegal immigrants and security jobs, those HMRC data discs, and so on).

Then you see polls indicating the sort of Tory lead that was last seen when Maggie was in power, it's a sign of serious concern. Sure, one poll means little and even a series of them don't actually necessarily mean election results would follow, but it's a fairly clear sign that Brown is building a serious credibility problem when not only the "usual suspect" malcontents are admitting it's a problem, but a number of Labour MPs are expressing concern.



To answer my own question, I think Brown can survive this. It's certainly not, in my view, terminal .... unless something serious and as yet unknown were to emerge. But whether Harriet Harmon can survive it is another matter. One of the "proxy" donators offered donations (£5000 I think) to Gordon Brown, and to at least both Hillary Benn and Harriet Harmon's deputy-leadership campaign.

Brown's team turned it down because they don't accept donations from people not known to them. No problem there.

According to the Daily Politics, Hillary Benn's team turned it down because they knew it was from David Abrahams not the "proxy". Harmon's team accepted it. Well, if Brown doesn't accept donations from "unknowns", why does Harmon? Worse, perhaps, if Benn's team knew this was actually from Abrahams, how did they know that, and is it credible that other MPs, like Harmon, didn't?

And then, apparently, as Deputy Leader, Harriet Harmon was centrally involved in starting off the "review" (yawn) into the matter that Brown has announced.

So we have a political scandal over donations that took place right through the period when Yates of the Yard was running an utterly unprecedented investigation into a donations for peerages scandal that involved interviewing a sitting Prime Minister, yet the Labour Party leadership still seemed to think that this 'proxy' form of donation was okay, when it's their OWN legislation, apparently, that makes it apparently illegal. We have the Northern Rock incident casting doubt on the Chancellor, we have the Labour Deputy Leader (and a qualified solicitor, previous Solicitor General and previous Minister for Justice) accepting apparently illegal donations (Gordon Brown has said that they were illegal, since they were not properly reported, and hence will be returned).

I've seen nothing to suggest that Harriet Harmon knew they were illegal or for proxies, but if Benn's team knew that and rejected them on that basis, I wonder why Harmon's team didn't know, if indeed they didn't know.


All told, we seem to be building an on-going saga of political disaster after political disaster, and that will, in my view, be building a perception in the public's eye that cannot possibly not damage Brown's leadership. Whether it's terminal or not is too soon to say, and he may still be able to turn it around. It's also hard to see (unless there are fresh developments) how Brown personally could be blamed for this, or seen it coming. Yet on top of everything else, it all adds to the perception of the public, which is what is leading to those dire pole results. It might well not be terminal, and it might not even all be "fair", but Brown is in a degree of serious political trouble when the rumbling is coming from his own backbenchers, some of them publicly, and when the honeymoon period with the public is so pointedly over.

After his popularity a few short months ago, who would have believed it could go this badly wrong this fast? Gordon, you should have held that election straight away, instead of dithering then wimping out, don't you think?

[TheAnimus]

I think its quite a shocker that he wimped out, to me the ecconomy is going to be squeezed over the next year, people who are buying iPods and all the other capitalist happyness all to often do so on credit cards. These will dry up a bit, rates will go up due to the credit crunch.

If he thought that people in 18months would be as happy as they where last summer with the economy, I am genuinly worried about his accumen.

[UltraMagnus]

he is an idiot.

anyone that goes along with labours draconian ID card scheme is

[Saracen]

And the story gets weirder. Another "proxy" has come to light, though on a much smaller scale. But this one claims to have known nothing about the "donation" made in her name, and moreover, is a lifelong Conservative.

[G4Z]

Well I think he will survive, the only way he will go is if he step's down. I am not sure what it would take for his party to kick him out, a vote of no confidence maybe? anyway I can't imagine that would happen and there is no way he will step down so I think he will push through it. Much as I would like to see him go just for the simple satisfaction of seeing the Labour party in chaos I don't see a viable alternative in the Labour party, unless they can find somebody that would turn it all around, sack the ID cards off and kill some of the 'anti-terror' legislation, amongst other things.

[kasavien]

I'm not a fan of Brown or Labour for that matter but i feel sorry for them, as they seem to be mainly a victim of circumstance, i doubt that they could have predicted that these things would have happened. It seems quite good for Blair though that he got out when he did, maybe he knew that the Labour party's time was nearly up? If things like this lead to a change in government in the not too distant future i think it will be a good thing, but i can't see the next government having a much better time of it. These scandals often pop up and the other parties use them as an opportunity to make the governing party look bad because they can make judgment in hindsight making themselves look better. It just seems to me that that is the way politics work in this country - make the other party look bad so your party stands out, as opposed to making your party stand out on its own merits!

[pp05]

What a jam packed 6 months his had.

[Saracen]

Well I think he will survive, the only way he will go is if he step's down. I am not sure what it would take for his party to kick him out, a vote of no confidence maybe? anyway I can't imagine that would happen and there is no way he will step down so I think he will push through it. Much as I would like to see him go just for the simple satisfaction of seeing the Labour party in chaos I don't see a viable alternative in the Labour party, unless they can find somebody that would turn it all around, sack the ID cards off and kill some of the 'anti-terror' legislation, amongst other things.

A vote of no confidence would do it, but it's a matter of constitutional convention rather than law.

But I'm not so sure that that is the only way. There is, as you say, the option of him stepping down. The question is whether he steps of his own volition, or gets .... pushed. I'm of the opinion that any of the main parties can find ways to indicate to a leader that he needs to go without actually having to quite come out and say it publicly. Ask Menzies Campbell.

If the disasters continue, and especially as the next time limit for an election starts to draw near, if the Labour party felt that the only way they would win the next election would be to jettison Brown, I'm sure they'd find a way, even if you won't find it in their rulebook anywhere. What PM would want to preside over going into an election under those conditions, knowing that if the party lost as a result, he'd get the blame and probably go into the history books as having personally been the cause of the loss?

And, of course, no party wants to change it's leader too close to an election, because the new bloke has to have a chance to get himself accepted. And ditching him via 'no confidence' votes would almost certainly trigger an election.

But I said before that, at least unless significant new revelations directly implication Brown were to emerge (and personally, I'm not expecting that, though I don't think this story has yet run out of surprises, because too many people are giving 'guarded' answers to direct questions) I expect Brown to survive. So far, any damage to him appears to be limited to indirect damage inflicted by virtue of having been the top man when it blew up. But it all adds to the sequence of events that seem to be leaving him lurching from one PR disaster to another, whether they're of his making of under his control or not, and it's the cumulative effect of all that that, eventually, leads to a perceptive in the electorate's mind becoming indelible.

The accumulation of events had, in my view, damaged him and has now done so permanently, but that's not to say the damage is politically terminal. But it's sure getting closer.

[Saracen]

What a jam packed 6 months his had.

Even if the jam has been rancid recently.

[iranu]

Gordon Brown will survive to fight the next election. He's a political animal, a bully and a coward. He has waited so long to get his grubby scotch mitts on the prize he won't back down. He knows he's on borrowed time and certainly knew he had a very good chance of losing the November election that wasn't. He bottled it because he hasn't got the courage of his own convictions to hold an election and possibly go down in history as the shortest reigning PM.

Because the Labour leadership election was uncontested it shows that there was no-one willing or capable of challenging the great clunking fist and I doubt there is anyone now because all opponents have been neutralised. The Labour party is severely lacking in talent and most of the current ministers have been hanging on to daddy Browns coat-tails, praising him on their own way up.

A vote of no confidence and a Labour leadership contest would lead to an election. It's political suicide. The government/Labour would have lost all credibility and certainly would have no mandate to govern. It would be like handing the keys of No 10 over to Cameron personally.

The blinded porridge gobbler will soldier on and choose the latest date possible for an election hoping that Britain will not be in such a financial mess, that he incidentally has created, but it won't make much difference. The electorate have had 10 years plus of New Labour and they now realise that they have been conned. Parties don't win elections, governments lose them and I think a heavy defeat ala Thatcher proportions is around the corner if Camerloon stays the course and keeps the ship steady.

Broon will be the fall guy and forever go down in history. Whilst I despise His Tonyness just as much, you gotta hand it to the man, he knew when to jump ship and move on with his image and legacy secure. I'd love to see them meet for a nice meal at Granita 4th June 2010. Best to keep the steak knifes in the draw that day.

P.S. What is it with GB and the way he has to stick his tongue in his cheek and open his mouth every time he ends a sentence. Makes him look like he's practising to fellate.

[Rave]

Even some Labour backbench MPs (Bob Marshall-Andrews, for a start, though he's known for 'independent thought', not as a party lackey)

ROFL....you may know him 'for independent thought', I know him as a bloody-minded troublemaker. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's hardly news for him to be criticising the Labour leadership, in fact it'd be more surprising if he wasn't.

I really do hope GB survives, because I really want him to be in power when the recession starts and his 'miracle economy' is exposed as a debt-driven sham. Schadenfreude Baby!

[KBeee]

The scary thing is.....
Gordon Broon looks less capable than Tony (God talks to me, and I'm really a Catholic) Bliar!!!!!
But when you consider what John Mortimer (Barrister and writer of Rumpole of the Bailey, and defense lawyer in the Lady Chatterley case) said about Lawyers - that it's the only profession where the stupid can make good money - and politicians are lawyers that weren't good enough to practice Law successfully...

[Stewart]

Bob Marshall-Andrews doesn't need a bank run-bottled election-data losing-funding scandal to have a go at Brown, everytime he's on Have I Got News For You he has a dig every other question.

He's not really someone you can drag out as proof Labour are going to go to war with themselves over this. As uncle Joe said, it would be more of a suprise if he wasn't having a go.

[Lanky123]

I really do hope GB survives, because I really want him to be in power when the recession starts and his 'miracle economy' is exposed as a debt-driven sham. Schadenfreude Baby!

It would be satisfying to see that, the comparison the John Major's black wednesday would be startling.

As for hoping if he survives or not, what other options are there? Does anybody think Cameron would be any better?

[Saracen]

ROFL....you may know him 'for independent thought', I know him as a bloody-minded troublemaker. ....

I was trying to put it politely, but .... erm ... yeah, quite.

Nonetheless, his comments on that specific occasion were remarkably restrained. He wasn't taking the chance for a cheap dig, but reflecting exactly the same concern that I've heard from a number of Labour MPs.