Gerri Peev: A war is looming, and yet again the winners are likely to be losers

Published on Tuesday 29 July 2008 22:58

Political parties are far from strangers to internal strife, but would a change of leader help Labour?

WHEN all your missiles are trained on one target, it is relatively easy to win a war and topple the leader. Restoring law and order to pave the way for peace and reconstruction is a different story.

Labour is now on the verge of mimicking the US-UK allies in Iraq, creating its own violent battleground without a post-war plan. It is somewhat ironic that a party that has spent so long wringing its hands with collective guilt over voting for the disastrous intervention is now on the verge of initiating a fresh round of tribal bloodletting.

It remains to be seen whether the Glasgow East by-election becomes the pretext for the symbolic equivalent of the statue of Saddam Hussein being torn down. But notice has been served on the beleaguered Prime Minister that his one-time allies are ready to stage a coup.

In the initial phase, it has been mooted that a Provisional Coalition Authority with reluctant Jack Straw at the helm could be parachuted in to rescue the party. But waiting in the wings is a sturdier alliance, of brains and experience: David Miliband, with Alan Johnson as his deputy.

The pair would be supported by two other yoofs, James Purnell and Andy Burnham, who both indicate they are not ready for the job (ie, they recognise that inheriting the Labour Party is like inheriting a crumbling estate; it drains your resources and energy in exchange for endless leaks and low return on investment).

Whatever happens, it has to be questioned whether change at the top is enough to stop the rot below.

The aftermath of the Iraq war was catastrophic for two reasons: poor planning and unclear motives. Labour MPs want to depose the tyrant, but the plan for what to do once he is gone remains vague, not least because the party remains unclear about what it stands for.

But the more dangerous fallout could be from having ill-defined motives for a leadership change.

The shifting justification for the Iraq war bred mistrust in the general public: the weapons of mass destruction that never were; Iraq's supposed link to 9/11; the need to get rid of Saddam. This fuelled conspiracy theories that the West was simply after the oil-rich sands of Arabia. Moving in for the kill now could provoke the same accusations of self-interest.

As one outspoken but not destructive MP put it to me recently: "Parties are rarely rewarded for starting civil wars."

Make no mistake about it: self-preservation is what is triggering the current drama.

Labour MPs fear joining increasing numbers of their constituents in swelling the ranks of the jobless in the next couple of years. They are interested not so much in staying in power, but in retaining their seats.

According to a Populus poll for the Times, Labour is doomed, regardless of who is leader. Just half of the population believes a new leader would improve the party's ratings, while there has been a three-point rise to 44 per cent in those who believe that replacing him with a younger face will make Labour less likely to win.

At this stage, even if Gordon Brown were to be replaced by Barack Obama, Labour would still lose.

It is true that there should be no room for complacency: Labour is faring worse than the Tories ahead of the 1997 landslide. The Conservatives only dropped below 30 per cent twice in the monthly polls between July 1995 and May 1997. Of course, optimists will say that two years is a long way away. Anything can happen.

Yes, the government could become even more unpopular. Or a story could break exposing some past indiscretions of David Cameron – as if those floral shorts on holiday are not enough of a scandal.

Meanwhile, Gordon Brown hopes to relaunch himself with an economic recovery plan at Labour's autumn conference, which promises to be a political mine-strewn event.

And it is the economy that is leading to angst about the Labour government, not the fact that Gordon Brown's idea of dressing down on holiday is wearing a pale suit.

A year ago, more than 50 per cent of the public thought that Britain's economy would continue to do well. Today that has slumped to 27 per cent. And swing voters are the most pessimistic; the very ones who all parties endeavour to woo.

But the danger for the Prime Minister is that he has pinned his hopes for political recovery on an economic one.

The current fallout is not of Brown's making, but the slow reaction and failure to save for a rainy day is his fault. His naivety in trying to tinker with a market that needs to go through a cycle – the housing market – thus exacerbating the looming crash – is palpable.

Who wants to be the political equivalent of Ibrahim Jaffari, the first post-Saddam Iraqi leader who was ousted because of the continued misery and for failing to rein in sectarian killings?

It seems there is always a taker for the job, and even more volunteers to usher them into the role, while not having the bottle to go for it themselves.

So the battle cry from the back-benches, where MPs are realising there is no such thing as a safe seat, is to install a new leader and call a quick election.

But if there was one lesson that could be drawn from the Iraq war, it is that shock and awe does not equate to winning hearts and minds.