Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 17th August 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Eddie Barnes: Happy days are not here again for Brown and New Labour



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 06 April 2008
HAS New Labour jumped the shark? The phrase comes from an episode of Happy Days 30 years ago, when the great Fonz bizarrely took it upon himself to water-ski over a huge fish.
HAS New Labour jumped the shark? The phrase comes from an episode of Happy Days 30 years ago, when the great Fonz bizarrely took it upon himself to water-ski over a huge fish.

From that moment on, the show just didn't seem the same; hence the phr
ase. Last week, we had a reminder of New Labour Mark One, with Tony Blair back in town, reminiscing about the old days with Alastair Campbell. It was all dealt with humorously and reflectively – and there was the nub. Increasingly, New Labour feels like something that is already historicised.

The main battle – on Iraq – is over. Films have been made, books written, judgments passed. And while New Labour Mark Two is still there, preaching the same creed, it's like a soap opera where all the original cast members have left, replaced by another lot who talk the same but aren't.

This dying of the light is a factor in the Labour Government's current plight, but it can be fought against. John Major can attest to that, when – despite the odds – he managed to win the 1992 general election. What is worrying Labour MPs and ministers most this weekend is whether or not their current leader is up to it.

Murmurs of discontent were evident at last week's Scottish Labour conference in Aviemore where, despite a strong speech by Brown, there was plenty of head-shaking about the lack of direction from the top. Troublingly for Brown, they come from both wings of the party.

The Blairites' concerns are long aired. They accuse Brown of having no strategy and failing to nurture the historic coalition of voters who handed power to Labour. The so-called 'GMTV voters' – the lower middle class and skilled working class people in the south-east of England – now look like turning in their thousands to the Tories under David Cameron. Alistair Darling's miserly Budget has done little to improve their mood.

Last week showed that those on the left of the party are unhappy too – and don't mind showing it. Today, as the new tax year begins, the 10p tax rate will disappear in a move which, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, will leave many of those earning around £7,000 a year about £200 worse off. At a private meeting of MPs last Monday, Brown was assailed by complaints about the change. One group of backbenchers felt emboldened enough to table a critical Early Day Motion, with claims of around 100 supporters.

Unlike Blair, Brown has always offered hope to the left, but, as a result, they now appear to resent him more than his predecessor when he fails to "deliver". Consequently, Brown – whose political strategy is to try to appeal to as much of the political ground as possible – appears to have achieved the exact reverse of the form of triangulation he sought: instead of being supported, he is being attacked from all sides.

The previous Prime Minister revelled in facing such odds, and could turn it into a strength. It was Blair who struck the idea of a "masochism strategy" when the entire country was demanding his blood in 2003 in the run up to war. Contrariness and obstinacy were made into a virtue. "It's worse than that," he told delegates at one conference when explaining his New Labour politics, "I actually believe it."

Does Brown? It seems astonishing that 11 years into a New Labour government, we can still ask such a question about one of the movement's principal architects. But the suspicion lingers that Brown still can't make up his mind about what exactly is his vision. Consequently, the Third Way now no longer seems like a coherent political plan; rather, it resembles a hazily marked path meandering between the first and second ways, with no clear destination.

Brown's lack of direction is all the odder because, despite current polls, I suspect that many people in Britain are still prepared to be led by him. Those 11 years of plenty have handed the Prime Minister a deep reservoir of public trust. And while Cameron has put the Tories back on track, comparisons between him and mid-90s New Labour are exaggerated.

Only one certainty can be gleaned from the last 12 months of polling – the people are uncertain about Brown. They have not given up on him, but they will not wait forever. The Prime Minister needs to find and set out his vision quickly or he will be trapped by an image not of his making, and with only his own indecision to blame.





The full article contains 810 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Jimmy the Pie,

05/04/2008 23:02:14
Eddie, you said "I suspect that many people in Britain are still prepared to be led by Broon."
Shows just how much you're out of touch!!!!!!!!!!
2

Brian Hill,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 23:06:25
Prime Minister Brown needs to take a leaf out of Prime Minister Salmond's book. We can say what we like about Salmond but one thing we all have to admit is, 1. he knows where he is going, 2. he believes in what he is doing and 3. he demonstrates to more and more people on a daily basis that he knows how to get there.

In short, he inspires confidence and that is evident from his standing in the polls and his incredible year long honeymoon.
3

donald,

glasgow 06/04/2008 03:53:20
Old Labour. Nu Labour. What's the difference? Numpties all.
4

Me, myself and I,

Livingston 06/04/2008 08:48:07
No policy and no personality. Brown is on a loser twice over.

His boom was built on tripling personal debt and over inflated property prices. Economic shifting sands which are now sucking him under.
5

David MacVicar,

web 06/04/2008 09:13:59
Labour North and South are still busy trying to push policies that most Scots do not want:
Trident
War in Iraq,
Nuclear power,
Energy policy,
limited powers for Scottish parliament.
etc, etc.

How long can they reasonably expect continued support, SNP or No SNP?
6

David MacVicar,

web 06/04/2008 09:27:21
The Trump saga has had much print in the Scottish press.

Meanwhile EDF have been directly involed in a 'public consultation' for Nuclear power. This was such a fraud initially that Green Peace took the Government to court and won.

So they was second fake public consultation.

Then we discover that for the latest stages prior to the Governments announcement we see that EDF have had closed door meetings directly with UK government ministers.

Then EDF comes out as the key player to construct at least 4 of the New plants in the SE, and Nuclear is God.

Where Mr barnes is the Scandal?
Where Mr Barnes is the Outrage?
Where Mr Barnes is the inquiry into what went on?

I put it to you Mr Barnes:
The position of your paper is to highlight or insinuate ministerial corruption or anything negative in Scotland even where there is none or little. While in parallel you completely ignore or at best gloss over breathtaking Labour ministerial corruption at a UK level.

Still as long as know where you are coming from...



7

McX,

06/04/2008 10:58:03
Eddie, why bother?
8

pehman,

sussex 06/04/2008 11:13:27
Eddie you clearly have a problem,

On the one hand you have NO respect for maggie broon or his lack of direction, and yet on the other hand The SNP who are prooving they have vision and a clearly marked "road map" (if I can use that phrase) that is realy changing the lives of the people in Scotland for the better, you try to brush off as not the real deal ?

To support the union is fine if thats what you want.

But by constantly nay saying the SNP while never arguing that slab are lying through their teeth in some of their pronouncements just makes what you have to say of very little real value.

For example ;- are lab correct to with hold £500+ millions that should be comming to Scotland ?

9

The Strategist,

06/04/2008 11:19:45
Brown's problem now is not just mistrust of Labour policies but full blown contempt and a complete loss of respect.
10

eddie barnes,

06/04/2008 11:54:01
Hi, am online. Will start replying to some of the points already made.
11

eddie barnes,

06/04/2008 11:59:18
'Jimmy the pie'
Brown is clearly down in the polls but you have to remember that it's only nine short months ago since his summer of love when lots of so-called experts thought Cameron would have to quit by Christmas. My point is that the abiding mood out there at the moment is one of volatility. Furthermore, recent polls suggest that Brown is still more trusted with the economy than Cameron. It's still in the balance, I think.
12

eddie barnes,

06/04/2008 12:11:52
Pehman,
I think there's a difference between nay-saying the SNP government and holding them to account - which is what we try to do - but I suspect we're never going to agree on that.

On the counil tax benefit cash - personally, I think that the UK government has a perfectly good reason for not handing this over to the Scottish Government; if you're replacing what you describe as an unfair tax (Council tax) with what you describe as a fair tax (LIT) then there's no logic in saying you still need the rebate money.
13

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 06/04/2008 12:12:12
Eddie: out of 10, what score would you give Wendy Alexander's leadership of Labour so far?
14

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 06/04/2008 12:14:04
Also, what degree of the Scotsman's plunging sales do you attribute to what is widely seen as the paper's bias against a popular government? (That's a serious question, by the way, not just a jibe. You can't imagine that the paper's nakedly partial stance is escaping people's attention.)
15

eddie barnes,

06/04/2008 12:18:59
2. Brian Hill,

I agree that the contrast between Brown and Salmond is huge. I recall Salmond saying in a speech last year that government is all about communication - and that's what he does so well. By contrast, Brown's communications outfit at Number 10 is pretty universally acknowledged to be woeful.
But suggesting to a Labour politician that they take a leaf out of Alex Salmond's book is just about the best way of ensuring they will never do it!
16

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 06/04/2008 12:22:59
So what is your own opinion on the latest fiasco in the House of Lords. Spending Five Hours making statements of fact rather than questioning the rights and wrongs of whether the People of the UK should have the right to decide. We have been taken into a political system we fundamentally disagree with, or never had the opportunity to vote on. Personally I am all for Scotland becoming a member of the EU in its own right. We would then have a seat at the table rather than just another English Region.

Now tell us all about your Newspapers attitude to a Vote on Independance, without reading the opinion of the Unionista Contingent.
17

David MacVicar,

web 06/04/2008 12:24:35
12 Eddie barnes

Regardles of how it is used the 400M is Scotlands Revenue, taken from Scotland through tax, then returned back. Or at least it used to be.

The LIT is fairer, however councils still need funding. You therefore seem to therefore advocate large scale theft AND underfunding councils.

The choice before the electorate is SNP LIT (with all its issues) OR Labour council TAX, inflated council tax and rebanding. These are the only 2 options on the table, which one do you prefer?
18

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 06/04/2008 12:26:21
Even Labour are no loger misled by Gordon Brown, that's why so many of them want to get rid of him, but it's to late for them and him.

Nemisis is at hand!
19

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 06/04/2008 12:27:48
It's a simple black-and-white matter of written-down UK Government fact that CTB forms a part of the Scottish block grant, and is therefore Scotland's money to dispose of how Scotland wishes. If Scotland wishes to handle revenue generation in what is considered by the majority a fairer way, requiring less benefit payment, that money should be free to spend elsewhere.

The way the Scotsman disingenuously presents this as an issue of opinion and interpretation is symptomatic of the paper's ingrained bias.
20

eddie barnes,

06/04/2008 12:32:06
Rev Campbell
13. Wendy Alexander....3!

14. I genuinely don't know, and I have to take issue with the proposition of your question. I know it irritates some of you when we point this out, but it is worth repeating that the Scotsman (and SoS) did back the SNP government prior to the last election.

I think the issue of bias is down to a wider point about newspapers which is that they are, by their very nature, oppositional. We feel a particular duty to scrutinise the government of the day, of whatever colour. You can describe that as bias, I suppose - but it's a bias against power.

21

David MacVicar,

Web 06/04/2008 12:34:12
What specific, additional Powers do you think Labour and the 'Commision to Review'w will propose?

What specific, additional powers do you think Should be passed to the Sottish parliament as its best interes?

Here are a few to ponder:
Firearms legislation,
Electoral Law and boundaries.
Crown estate tax revenues raised in Scotland
Full fiscal control.
Energy policy.
Planning to remain.


22

eddie barnes,

06/04/2008 12:36:37
16. A better way.
Re House of Lords, I'd like to see a mix of elected and appointed peers. There definitely has to be a second chamber and while I think there's a need for a more democraticly accountable chamber, I also think it would be shame to lose the House of Lords' sense of independence which comes from having retired generals, bishops etc having their say.

On an independence vote, you should have read our leader last week. It called for one immediately.
23

Peeablo,

Edinburgh 06/04/2008 12:42:20
20 eddie barnes

There is also a difference between being a pro Labour red top rag and holding a govt. to account.

The Scotsman now reads like the Daily Record, poorly written and 100% pro Labour.

Do you (and Hamish) not read your own articles???
24

eddie barnes,

06/04/2008 12:43:10
17. David MacVicar.

The fair thing to do, in my opinion, would be to have immediate revaluation of property, add a band at the bottom and the top, and introduce some rebates so that, in the classic case of a pensioner who is living along in a massive house, it don't hit such people hard. I think not to have a tax on property would be bizarre, when it now accounts for so much of our personal wealth (even taking into account the current falls).
25

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 06/04/2008 12:44:03
#20. "We feel a particular duty to scrutinise the government of the day, of whatever colour. You can describe that as bias, I suppose - but it's a bias against power."

How does that square, though, with a situation where you have a minority government, and the "opposition" are actually in the majority?

Also, do you deny that the Scotsman and SoS have a tendency to frame stories in an anti-SNP and pro-Labour way? eg if Alex Salmond is found to have done nothing wrong the headline will be along the lines of "Salmond accused of sleaze", while if Wendy Alexander is found to have broken the law but is not prosecuted it's "Alexander cleared"? The copy of the article itself will usually be more (if not *entirely*) balanced and truthful, but the headline is nearly always presented to the detriment of the government.
26

Peeablo,

Edinburgh 06/04/2008 12:44:35
PS

SOS/Scotsman support for the SNP in the last election.

YOU'RE 'AVIN' A LAUGH !!!!
27

Peeablo,

Edinburgh 06/04/2008 12:46:23
24 eddie barnes

WRONG !!!!

There is no wealth in property unless you SELL !!!!!

So tax the profit made on the sale.
28

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 06/04/2008 12:47:37
(Incidentally, I'm not complaining as such about bias. Journalists - I'm one myself - are humans, and as such will tend to fall on one side or the other of any position. There's nothing wrong with you or any of your colleagues being Labour supporters, or Unionists. What I'm asking is, do you honestly think anyone is fooled that you're otherwise, and are therefore knowingly presenting a biased slant? Perhaps writers' bylines should be printed in a colour indicating their affiliations...)
29

eddie barnes,

06/04/2008 12:53:38
21. It would be bizarre if, after all this fuss, the Commission doesn't propose more revenue raising powers for Holyrood.

I do think that it would be good for the parliament to have more say over the money it spends, for the standard reason that it will improve decision-making. As to other powers, I have an open mind. Like Alex Salmond I'm not clear at all what is meant by 'more powers', do it's going to be up the Commission to make the case.
30

eddie barnes,

06/04/2008 12:56:08
25.

"Do you deny that the Scotsman and SoS have a tendency to frame stories in an anti-SNP and pro-Labour way"

Yes.
31

Brian S,

London 06/04/2008 12:56:11
Eddie,

It's a real shame witnessing a Scottish broadsheet trying to justify what the Labour Party are doing in Scotland.

Imagine if it were a Labour administration in Scotland and a Conservative one in London. Do you really think you would be supporting these policies?

I, like so many others, now prefer to read online. This way I avoid giving my money to the Scotsman.
32

David MacVicar,

Web 06/04/2008 13:01:27
24 eddie barnes, Thanks, so you essentially support Labours council tax and rebanding.

You stated a bias against the 'government' of the day.

Some governments seem to get more bias and scrutiny in your articles than others. As I said earlier. Where is the scrutiny of UK Labour and EDF that makes the whole Trump debate look like childsplay? Where is the balance?
33

eddie barnes,

06/04/2008 13:01:29
28.

Last point on this Rev. I'm afraid you misunderstand what motivates journalists like me. We are interested solely in getting stories. That is what I am paid to do. I was cock-a-hoop last week after getting the story on Tom Hunter backing an independence referendum (was that evidence of pro-nationalist bias, by the way?)for the same reason that I was delighted that I got an exclusive interview with James Purnell a few weeks earlier....they led the news agenda and kept me in my job for a few more weeks. I love politics and I adore the cut and thrust, but basically I'm in this game to get stories. That's it.
34

eddie barnes,

06/04/2008 13:05:07
32. David.

We'll look into the EDF story next week and see what we can do.
35

eddie barnes,

06/04/2008 13:06:02
Right, I'm off. All the best.
36

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 06/04/2008 13:09:22
#33 Fair enough - that's a perfectly valid point, and one that I understand having been a journalist for 20 years. (Not mostly in a news-chasing sense, sadly.) However, it still leads us back to my original question, which you didn't answer: do you think the Scotsman's - let's call it "perceived" bias - is a factor in its declining sales? After all, if people stop buying the paper because they no longer trust in its journalistic integrity, nobody will be paying you to get these great stories any more. Or do you think it's entirely a matter of generally-falling newspaper circulations?
37

David MacVicar,

Web 06/04/2008 13:12:34
It seems that there is a North / South split over the kinds of policies that people on a macro level find important. Some of these differences are being used to create tension between Scotland and the Southern countries.

However if you agree that there indeed large differences and that people largely get the policies they vote for along party lines...

Is this going to lead to an ever widening society gap between these populations?

Has Browns drive to be British not failed before it even began? Especially in a time where all UK countries are rediscovering their national identities and direction?
38

David MacVicar,

06/04/2008 13:33:29
34 eddie barnes, Please do.

here are some juicy facts that nobody in the Scottish press seem bothered about:

Gordon Brown brother - Andrew Brown works for EDF Energy, the UK subsidiary of EDF. Andrew Brown was appointed as EDF Energy's Head of Press on 13 September 2004. Previously, he worked for the lobbying company Weber Shandwick.

Secret Nuclear talks: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-nuclear-talks-held-at-no-10-769989.html

Note also that Ed Balls father in Law is a Nuclear lobbyist.

Etc etc.

I find it amazing that Trump gets headline news for months while this 20bn pound exercise in how to circumvent a public consultation, vested interests and corruption gets hardly a look in!
39

Richardinho,

06/04/2008 13:41:22
People can smell insincerity. there is a total miasma of it coming off of Brown and his cohorts.
I don't like the way that Brown doesn't care about the consequences on Scotland as a whole when he attacks the SNP.
Take the council tax rebate as an example. Witholding this is clearly designed to damage the SNP. And it may. But only by damaging the people of Scotland first.

This is an abuse of power by Labour, and it stinks.
40

Hamish Scott,

06/04/2008 13:43:45
"But the suspicion lingers that Brown still can't make up his mind about what exactly is his vision."

Brown's vision is homself in 10 Downing Street -mission accomplished - all else is detail, which is why he has no other vision.
41

ptdoug,

06/04/2008 17:32:34
BREAKING>>>>>

Welsh and N.I. devolved administrations indicate support for John Swinneys call for adjudication of the current funding dispute by the Joint Ministerial Committee set up to deal with disputes between the devolved Governments and Westminster.

A Northern Irish government spokesman said, "Where Scotland is today, with this serious funding dispute, we in Northern Ireland may find ourselves tomorrow".

A Welsh Assembly source said they were watching events with concern and called for a united stance by the three devolved administrations to defend funding levels and to prevent partisan manipulation of U.K. treasury resources for party political gain by whichever party finds itself in control at Westminster.
42

Calummac,

Edinburgh 06/04/2008 21:18:13
What tripe this article is!

Barnes starts off by stating that those associated with the Iraq war are gone and forgotten - aprt from the chap who signed the cheques, Eddie.

What about 11 years of plenty, Eddie? Are you one of those people still believing the Brown economic growth mirage? Do you not realise that Brown built his reputation on a mountain of credit and spin?

This kind of garbage only highlights the superior journalistic talents and powers of analysis that make the Sunday Herald's Macwhirter and Bell shine amongst mediocrity.

Dont worry, Eddie - Wendy will need a new spin doctor soon.
43

Calummac,

Edinburgh 06/04/2008 21:23:17
# 20 - Eddie Barnes

That is class - so the Evening News completely broke ranks when it told the voters of Edinburgh to "Hold your nose" and vote Labour?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.