open Democracy News Analysis - Gordon Brown: Churchill or Chamberlain?, Anthony Barnett - Comments

Harry Stryker on "Gordon Brown: Churchill or Chamberlain?"

Harry Stryker — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:24:27 +0000

Brown vs Chamberlain-no contest.One arrived back with an agreement practically no one wanted whilst the other got back with an agreement 80% of the people desired. One former Chancellor of the Exchequer with his spend,spend like there's no tomorrow put his country the foremost least likely to weather the storm. The other former Chancellor with his policy, a mixture of thrift, social welfare and protectionism was primarily responsible for making his country one of the foremost out of the years of depression/recession and was able to lay down a programme best able to meet the forthcoming storm.

Same as I said - no contest

Anthony Barnett on "Gordon Brown: Churchill or Chamberlain?"

Anthony Barnett — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:44:49 +0100

Sunder Katwala points out that their differences over Europe make it impossible for the Tories and the Lib Dems to form any kind of coalition. All the more reason perhaps...

Toque on "Gordon Brown: Churchill or Chamberlain?"

Toque — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:15:00 +0100

In his appearances on The Politics Show Cable always comes across as an affable bloke. What's refreshing about him is that he doesn't appear so desperate to impress, much more relaxed in his own skin than most politicians.

However I still haven't forgiven him for bracketing me with white supremicists and Muslim extremists,

The threat to harmonious social relations in Britain comes from those who insist that multiple identity is not possible: white supremacists, English nationalists, Islamic fundamentalists".

JKB Sutherland on "Gordon Brown: Churchill or Chamberlain?"

JKB Sutherland — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:16:33 +0100

Interestingly Vince Cable is also one of the top runners for the Spectator parliamentarian of the year (readers' poll). So why did the Lib Dems choose for leader a priapic ski-instructor rather than the vastly better- qualified Cable? Answer: because the latter is short and bald, whereas Clegg (like Cameron) has a nice head of hair and appeals to the ladies (the biggest group of marginal swingers).

On a similar note, I imagine the US presidential debates would have an identical outcome if everyone turned the sound off. Obama is tall, good-looking and "presidential" whereas McCain is old and his neck is too short. The policy differences are unimportant.

What any of this nonsense to do with democracy, as classically conceived, is another matter.

Gordon Brown: Churchill or Chamberlain?, Anthony Barnett

Anthony Barnett — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:30:30 +0100

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Now that I have attracted your attention, I'll lead with an answer. If there is a Churchill in our moment of financial need, to withstand the advancing hordes of neo-liberal meltdown is is Vince Cable. He has just emerged as far away the most admired politician in the recent Politics Home survey.

Andrew Rawnsley reports that:

His predictions of the financial crisis, and performance during the mayhem in the markets, have clearly impressed the political experts and insiders.

He gets a predictably high score from Lib Dem panellists who rate him 8.5. He also impresses non-aligned panellists who give him an even better 8.6.

He has plenty of admirers among left-leaning panellists who score him at 8.0, a higher rating than they give to any member of the Cabinet.

Least generous are right-leaning panellists who award him 7.3. Even then, that is equal to the highest rating that right-leaning panellists give to Tory politicians.

New Labour, reinforced by the Gulf Warrior and WMD specialist Alastair Campbell, is putting it about that Brown has become the Churchill of our time, saving the world by his outstanding leadership. This is odd because of all the current political leaders, perhaps because he goes back longest, Brown has been the top appeaser of neo-liberalism. It was Grumpy Old Sod who put his last Mansion House speech into circulation in response to a question from Dizzy (and influenced the MSM commentariat in the process). But it goes back much further to the embrace of globalisation as the replacement of internationalism, see for example Brown's sycophantic message to Alan Greenspan when he ran the Fed (reproduced by Greenspan in his book, I don't have a copy to hand, does anyone have it?).

The problem for the Conservatives is that their leadership aspired to be more Blairite even than Brown and so they didn't warn against the bubble economy either. They too were appeasers of neo-liberalism as much as Brown. This kind of cross-party consensus to embrace the wrong course is not uncommon. Fortunately by the end of the Thirties there was a leading figure who could take the helm who was against appeasement.

Today, that man is Vince. He is the man who saw it coming and warned against it.

So what should the opposition parties do? My advice to the Lib Dems is that Clegg should stand down for three years and let Cable lead. It is what the country wants. My advice to the Tories is even less likely to be taken notice of, but in these volatile times would work like a dream. Cameron should offer the Lib Dems an electoral pact, where neither would stand against the other, in return for PR and Vince as the leader again for the next three years with Cameron and Clegg as his joint deputies, whereupon Cable would stand down and give Cameron three years as Prime Minister under the existing system.

After that there would be an election based on PR. This would have the added benefit of forcing Labour to adopt a pluralist approach as it would never rule alone again.

If I thought it could happen I'd not say so publicly. But this is the kind of move Cameron needs to make: he needs a game changer in the face of a changing game.