Across the pond

p>By co-incidence the electorate in the US and Britain is sending an increasing number of clear messages that they want change. According to an opinion poll in this morning’s London Times 55 per cent of Labour Party supporters want Gordon Brown to resign. This comes on top of the May Day Massacre when Labour did worse in the local elections than forty years and when it lost the high profile job of Mayor of London to a new Conservative many people had written off as a buffoon. In the US Hillary Clinton failed to gain her expected convincing win in the Indiana primary. She won, but by the wafer thin majority of 50.9 per cent against 49.1 per cent. She was expected to lose in North Carolina, which also declares yesterday, but not by as wide a margin as 56.2 per cent to 41.5 per cent. This result was better than Obama supporters were hoping for, because their candidate has had his back against the ropes for the last two weeks. Pastor Wright, who has been his long-standing friend as well as his priest, has made a series of inflamatory speeches, which has heightened racial tension and caused the commentators to wonder whether the US is ready to elect a black President.

Yesterday’s results in the US mean that Obama will end up with a convincing majority of the voters in the primary elections, whatever happens in the last few small primaries still to come. That means that Hillary Clinton can only win in the senior Democratic delegates cast their votes against the popular will.

In Britain, Gordon Brown is constitutionally entitled to contine to govern for another two years, although it is very risky for any prime minister to hang on to the last minute. And a lot can happen in two years. Nevertheless the chances of the electorate changing its mind before the next election is remote. And Gordon Brown’s authority over his party is seriously damaged, as evidenced yesterday when Labour’s leading Scot, Wendy Alexander, called for a referendum on Scottish independence, the day after Brown had said it was totally un-necessary.

Two leaders who have scored many successes and now find their lives unfolding like a Greek tragedy.

Two years ago Hillary Clinton was the unchallenged front runner for the Democratic nomination and in a year the Democrats looked set to end eight years of Republican rule. The prize has been snatched from her by a relatively inexperienced Senator, whom people had heard of in America, let alone the world at large. But she does have the power to rewrite her biography, so that it does not end in tragedy. If she goes on she runs the risk of seeing her party lose next November. John McCain is a formidable opponent, who appeals to many independents, and, who in clear fight against Obama, may well win the votes of those many worried Americans, who think that national security and the wilting economy, is best entrusted to the older man. To win Obama needs the campaigning expertise of the Clinton supporters and the votes of the white working class, many of whom are devoted to the Clintons.

But if Hillary acknowledges defeat now there is still time for her to claim an important ministerial post in an Obama government and end her political career with some substantial achievments. This is a realistic possibility because there are few important policy differences between Clinton and Obama. They are natural allies, split apart because they both want the top job at the same time.

Gordon Brown is not so lucky. The electorate has signalled that it wants a change from New Labour who has ruled since 1997, and Gordon Brown was one of its principal architects. If he soldiers on til 2010 and, even worse, leads Labour into the next election, he is likely to end his career as the man who led Labour to a landslide defeat.

Despite the May Day massacre there is no queue of candidates jostling to take over from Brown. There is no evidence of any moves to stab him in the back, or even put up a stalking horse candidate at the next Labour Party conference. Worried though they are as they see their majorities waste away, Labour MPs know that a bitter fight for the leadership could make the situation even worse.

In order for Labour to have even a chance of winning the next election, it needs to go into that election under a new leader, with a new set of policies. In this age of the mass media the new leader will have to establish himself or herself with a face as recognisable to the voters as that of David Cameron, the Conservative leader.

Nevertheless, Brown does have some chance of taking over the authorship of his own personal biography. All he has to do is to put the interests of the party first.

He did it once before at the famous Granta dinner he had with Tony Blaiir, shortly after the hopes of Labour revival had been dealt a savage blow by the early death of John Smith, who was proving to be an outstanding leader. Brown agreed to throw his support behind a Blair leadership bid, although at the time, Brown was the more experienced and higher profile figure. Blaiir, for his part, promised that he would hand over the reins of power to Brown at some un-specified time in the future.

New Labour succeeded beyond its wildest dreams And it could not have succeeded without Brown’s skilful handling of the economy. But Blair, like many before him, got to fond of power. He did not fulfil his promise until 2007. Had he stood down at the election of 2005, Brown would have come to power with his leadership endorsed by the vote of the electorate.

He has a right to feel disgruntled. And those many commenators who have written that he is a psychologically flawed personality and are writing now that Brown has no leadership qualities, are not paying sufficient attention to the force of events in the destinies of us all.

Much has been written in the last few months about Brown’s clumsiness and his clunking fist. That side of his personality does exist and it has got him into trouble. But there is another side, which is visible on those rare occasions when he smiles.

It is perfectly possible for Labour to have an election for a new leader that will not split the party if Brown decides to resign. Labour has several cabinet ministers with the experience and personality to take over the leadership, and not a few of them are women.

But time is running out. Brown needs to make his decision now. So that the rivals for the leadership can begin to emerge into public view now. The timing of the leadership battle needs to be either just before or just after the autumn Labour Party conference if Labour is going to have a chance of winning the next election.

If Brown does that he will have the gratitude of all Labour Party voters. And he willl have a choice of several elder statesman jobs. He is still only 57, though in recent months he has began to look older.
/p>

Hilliary is smiling……..

………but she probably feels as disgruntled as Gordon.

Photos from Reuters and The Times