Brown’s Road To Triumph - Having Paved Failure, Change Paths
At this stage Brown could recover his standing by confessing to an error that nobody is blaming for, apologising for his foolishness and responding by implementing policies that contradict much of his previous record in government, as chancellor.
As counter-intuitive as this seems brief consideration reveals it to be the only way to stage the sort of recovery that made his predecessor such an amazing political operator. Brown has made a pair of major mistakes, the first being the one which he should now own up to and the second being his total refusal to do so thus far.
At present Brown’s line on the collapsing economy is simple: the matter is one he bears no culpability for, it is the World which is to blame. Britain is but a passive mess of lifeless timber abreast upon the tumultuous tides of global finance rather than a vessel with any form of steering that could have averted the current crisis.
This convenient analysis is far from devoid of merit: in the thoroughly yet increasingly globalised world market the rest of the planet {for which read America} has an immense impact upon Britain’s economy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can bear little more blame for than the contemporary tendency of Mafia-backed Italians to assail traveler dwellings with fire bombs. To an extent the ill-advised policy of the world’s single remaining superpower, to which Britain is partially consensually and utterly inextricably bound, can influence us in a fashion that would be unjust to blame upon a domestic politician.
This rather clashes, though, with Brown’s constant bragging of the power and impact of the British economy in the world. If our overtaking of formerly overwhelming European countries and ascent along the global league of financial centres was so pronounced then how could we have been so impotent and innocent in terms of bringing the current crisis into being?
Beyond this fudging of rhetoric there lies the rather more obvious point: British banks often engaged in Sub Prime trickery as readily as did American ones. At present my own family has been affected by the consequences of this scruple-devoid practice and we are far from alone. Making pretense that this practice did not take place between our shores is a nonsense and a ruse, which attempts to cloak an entirely evadable outcome in order to conceal the negligence of our legislators in allowing this deception to take place.
Because the solution is simple: regulation.
This is by no means radical; given that the infamous crash of the 1930s {which even the most pessimistic of predictors do not claim we will exceed} occurred under conditions of corporate anarchy it stands to reason that the government should be pressing home a detailed and ruthless set of laws that would prevent repetition of the madness that allows banks to shuffle loans amongst themselves that has proven so calamitous.
But to do so would admit that Brown has made a major blunder. This can not be denied or mitigated: he is renowned as a strong chancellor, indeed is widely considered the most powerful who ever held the office. He was in the role for nearly a decade and the suggestion that someone in such a fine position for such a great length of time can abdicate any degree of responsibility is a simply absurdity.
Which is where the apology comes in.
Brown should state that he was entirely incorrect in taking the permissive line upon this matter, admit that he was totally aware of the situation {or else that he was intriguingly ill-informed} and simply misjudged the state of Britain’s economy and the response it would issue to such treatment. But how, you could well ask, would this possibly stand to benefit Brown? Surely his reputation as a strong chancellor was his greatest of assets? Well at present this advantage is blunted beyond all utility anyway owing to the shoddy state of British finances. In freely confessing to his part in the present conditions Brown would be able to make a full-on attack upon the problem and Labour would be able, for the first time in a long while, to effectively out-flank the Tories along the right.
For the notion that somehow the right are rendered vindicated by the present conditions is preposterous: if they were ever to consider themselves for so much as a moment they would realise that this is the stuff of crisis for the right, or at least all those espousing or willing to tolerate the demands of the dogmatic free marketeers. Their policies allowed wide-spread exploitation, followed by economic ruin. For the second time in history, at very least, an absence of adequate legislation demanding regulation resulted in a catastrophe of epic proportions which has reached across the globe.
The muddled response of the Conservatives to the treatment of Northern Rock gave an early inkling of this: formerly run by the epitome of a neo-liberal who frequently railed against state oppression over matters economic this young bank showed their approach to be more of folly than rebellion. The Tories crowed about “Indecision” from the Chancellor which existed primarily due to their fierce opposition to the only sensible policy available, that of nationalisation. The Conservative Party seemed to be unaware of the consequences of their own actions, a strange irony given their prison-loving emphasis on personal guilt in other spheres.
But were Brown to attack himself before launching a series of statist policies the opposition would be left entirely wrong-footed. To attack Brown would be underwhelming all claim to pragmatism they might have hoped to hold and given that his policies on regulation previously were effectively the Tories own they would certainly struggle to capitalise on savaging his shift. In this way although the source of the problem the origins of Brown’s economic ideology could offer a solution to him politically. Cameron would be offered a stark choice between the free market ideologues of his party and the realists, with either option and faction causing him problems with the other.
This combined with a firm shove of the environmental agenda {which Cameron’s senior circle seem to be partially hoping will be abandoned} would leave the Conservative Party on the back-foot once again, forced either to concede to the rational response to serious problems or alienate severely the neo-liberal faction that remains strong within the party. This would strengthen Brown’s position far more than admitting his failure would harm him, so it remains to be seen whether he will manage to swallow his pride along with humble pie.
It must be hoped that he does not perceive this as a measure which would damage his legacy, for his legacy is all around us and unless this is the impression which he wishes to leave us with then he shall have to act, and act differently to how he ever has done before.