When putsch comes to shove

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... coup-brown" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Blairite coup against Brown may have misfired, but beyond the plotting the very direction of the Labour party is at stake

The Blairites' takeover of the Labour party in the early 1990s has often been compared to a coup. But it looks as if they are losing their touch. The rolling Blairite coup aimed at forcing Brown out as prime minister already seems to have misfired.

In such a febrile political atmosphere, with today's local election results looking predictably dire for Labour, the balance of power could of course still tip over. But even after this morning's resignation announcement from John Hutton – who insisted he remained loyal to Brown and appears more keen on a lucrative corporate future than Westminster conspiracies – the signs are that reports of Brown's political death have been exaggerated.

The coup's first weakness is its transparently factional character, with almost all the resignations coming from the camp of Blairite irreconcilables: Hutton following James Purnell following Hazel Blears, Jacqui Smith and Patricia Hewitt. In the case of the cabinet ministers, they also have some of the worst expenses records in the government – flipping and tax-avoiding with the best of them – so you might think their departure a welcome public relief.

On the Labour backbenches, the picture is largely the same, with the usual Blairite suspects – such as serial plotter Charles Clarke – so far failing to assemble the 75 promised signatures calling for Brown to go, let alone the 70-plus for a single leadership candidate needed to trigger a contest. Only a handful, such as Barry Sheerman, who now seems to be hand-in-glove with Alan Johnson, don't fall under that heading.

But a second crucial weakness is that the Blairites are divided, with their most prominent cabinet heavyweights, Peter Mandelson and David Miliband, both resisting moves to unseat the wounded prime minister. Miliband has no interest in a leadership election which he would be bound to lose. Mandelson has no interest in ditching the man who threw him a political lifeline in exchange for a likely early election and certain defeat.

In fact, the latter argument – that a new leader would be forced to call a general election in which Labour would be decimated – has created a powerful counterweight among Labour MPs against the pressure to force Brown out. Paradoxically, the worse the local and European election results, the more compelling that case for delay.

Of course, the net result of the half-cocked coup is also to weaken Brown's ability to reshuffle his cabinet and strengthen the hand of Mandelson, now effectively deputy prime minister, with all the dangers that brings, such as a greater likelihood of confrontation over plans for part-privatisation of Royal Mail.

Some will, meanwhile, argue that whole Blairite-Brownite split is meaningless nonsense: that they are two sides of a New Labour coin with barely a cigarette paper of difference between them. That has been largely true in the past. But events, and the crisis of neoliberalism unleashed by economic crisis in particular, have begun to create more significant differences.

As the government has begun to inch crab-like in a more recognisably social-democratic direction, the Blairite rump remains unashamedly wedded to accelerated privatisation of public services, corporate feather-bedding and low taxes on the rich (as Alan Milburn's recent warning against any shift to the left highlighted). The battle for Downing Street is about more than just the fate of Gordon Brown.

[norbert]

quite a good article - there's a similar one in The Mirror about the infighting & a scathing one about Brown's leadership in The Telegraph