By John Dyer, UK correspondent
It is axiomatic that one should never talk religion and politics with friends. So much for axioms. The week of 6 June the archetypical Archbishop of Canterbury altered the rules. The New Statesman published the Archbishop's thoughts on the Coalition’s “Austerity Programme.” Archbishop Rowan Williams wrote one of those “refreshingly frank” sermons for which Methodist ministers are so famous and Methodist congregations so familiar, but for which Archbishops of the Anglican Church are less noted.
During the same week an unidentified source leaked papers written in 2005, papers once in the possession of Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls. These papers, published in The Telegraph, embodied a plan to push former Prime Minister Tony Blair out of office and put Gordon Brown in Blair's place. In case one did not “get” the implications of the documents themselves, scribbled on the documents in Gordon Brown's handwriting were the colourful and memorably worded then-Chancellor's disparaging opinions of his Prime Minister.
Within 48 hours The Guardian had another major exposé. The Guardian released a draft of the speech Labour Leader Ed Miliband's brother, David Miliband, would have made if he, not Ed, had been elected Labour's leader. There are those who would argue that David Miliband planned to out-deficit-reduce the Coalition. Certainly he sounded like that in the draft speech. The Telegraph quickly picked up on the news.
These three events make for one interesting clinical study of political statesmanship.
The Archbishop delivered a castigation of both the austerity programme itself and the method by which it has been communicated to the British electorate. He argued that no one had voted for the agenda and that the whole deal was terrifying the nation.
Not unsurprising, the Coalition and its media supporters responded, beginning with Prime Minister David Cameron. What was surprising is that their arguments did not even seem to have internal traction. They more spluttered than reasoned, reduced in one of the responses to attacking the venerable Archbishop's marvelous eyebrows and in another to suggesting the Archbishop's attack would give the Roman Catholics a fab marketing opportunity. Sexy. Or not.
In the days which have followed the release of the Archbishop's piece, it has been clear that the Coalition has no answer to the Archbishop. The Liberal Democrats have been muted on the subject. The Conservatives have sought to mount the only defense, perhaps reflective of the very different constituencies of the two parties. For the latter, the Archbishop’s cloak of authority is far more significant than for the former. Ten days later the Conservatives still have not mounted an effective counter attack, with editorial comments as recently as 17 June muttering the Archbishop lacked “Christian Charity,” is “misled” and “wooly headed” and did not deserve his place in the House of Lords.
To date there has been only personal insults and repetition of party lines. “Progressive” publications like the Labour-leaning Mirror and The Guardian (which endorsed Liberal Democrats in the 2010 election campaign) gleefully noted that the Archbishop had rattled Prime Minister Cameron and had showed Labour how principled and effective opposition could be done.
A boon for Labour? Or only a shift away from Coalition policies?
In some ways it seemed as of 6 June that Labour indeed had gained the momentum. A recent poll showed Labour edging up to 42-44% of those who intended to vote in the next election, up from 37% 5 May 2011 and 34% in the May 2010 general election. It also showed Conservatives up to 37%, but it was clear in context this had come at the expense of their Coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, who had fallen to a dismal 8-9%. Another poll commissioned at the same time was less dramatic, but similarly showed small advances by Labour. But on 15 June, the poll basically held, with Conservatives at 36%, Labour 42% and Liberal Democrats 9%. In short, the Coalition has fallen from an aggregate majority at the 2010 elections to 45% of those likely to vote (itself approximately half those eligible).
While the Coalition spins this as leading Labour, it cannot be fairly read any other way than as a shift of momentum away from support of Coalition policies. It reflects a momentum away from the Coalition but any toward Labour seems stalled. Neither "side" has the momentum, especially when seen as a percentage of only those intending to vote. In a subsequent article I will explore the origins and long term meaning of this stalemate, but for now the important point is that the events discussed in this article occur(red) as the Coalition mandate peaked and waned.
Labour’s Own Splits Continue
Within five days of the story of the Archbishop breaking, hatchets flashed. It began with the release on the 10th of Ed Balls' files and on the 11th of the David Miliband draft speech. The Daily Telegraph, regarded by Labourites as near to a shill for the Conservatives, published the first and jumped on the second.
The inflammatory potential of Balls’ files would be to reopen divisions in Labour between Blair supporters and Brown supporters. Those divisions disgusted the nation even when just rumours. As Conservative commentators glowed hopefully, the division between the two long known to be warring camps could be disastrous for Labour - if the conflict reignites.
The inflammatory potential of the second at the beginning of the week was twofold. First, while it is well known that David Miliband remains angry at his brother, Ed, for snatching the leadership that David and his supporters had assumed was his, both have managed to keep the rift in the shadows. Second, David was a Blair man while Ed was a Brown man. So this item too had the potential for reigniting Labour's most divisive feud.
Ed Balls reacted to the first item. At first he denying a “brutal coup,” characterizing the episode in ? (Ed question: year?) as the making of arrangements for the already decided and agreed upon transfer of power from Blair to Brown since Blair had already indicated he wished to step down during that fateful term. When that spin did not work- and Ed Miliband instead characterized it as “ancient history” known throughout the party to be a dead issue- the Shadow Chancellor turned to the more astute question, why now.
Cat flight in the fish bowl
As the buzz began to settle down from what appeared to be a cat fight in the fish bowl, former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair revitalized it. Prior to the Prime Minister's Question Time in Parliamentf on the 15th, former Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, weighed into the debate. He supported Coalition policies in an interview widely reported on BBC and directly attacked the policies of Ed Miliband. The former Prime Minister argued that Labour could not win a future general election unless it returned to the policies of New Labour, which Blair had championed as Prime Minister.
Why Raise “Ancient History” Now?
The story continues to have legs.
Taking up Mr. Balls’ question, why now? Asking the question brings related other questions to mind. Is this a disgruntled Blair supporter who was close enough to Balls to secret Balls’ documents and also to David Miliband to know he rehearsed his never delivered speech with his wife in the car on the way to the Labour convention? Is it Blair himself? Is this a hit job by a Tory activist? Are the two connected? How did The Telegraph of all organizations get a hold of the first of these documents? Did it begin with Ed Miliband seeking to bring his aggressive and difficult to manage Shadow Chancellor into line?
Some have suggested there is a push on to dump Ed Miliband. Certainly some in Labour appear to question the effectiveness of his leadership and have asked privately if Labour could not be better served by. . . . But as uninspiring and “un-Presidential” a figure as Ed Miliband is, the Party seems to be gaining popularity faster than Miliband would have predicted when he ran for Labour Leader. With polls up to 44%, the momentum shift described above, the Archbishop of Canterbury rattling the opponent's cage and the austerity cuts largely not yet implemented, why would a Labour activist whose motivation is positioning the party for success risk a palace coup at this stage? Does not compute.
Some have suggested a Tory plot. This suggestion did not have a lot of legs even when the only issue was how did The Telegraph get Balls' papers. Balls speculated that the last time he had seen them he had left them behind in his office files. The Coalition Cabinet Office launched an investigation. But as seductive as this may sound on the surface, what do the Tories have to gain being caught out in political skulduggery?
Documents Left in the Loo?
Was it someone who stole Balls' papers at a time when the mystery culprit had access to them? The BBC reports Balls was notorious for leaving important documents in the Loo. Could have happened. Could have presented an enemy within with an opportunity. You know, unlocked car doors tempting a good boy to go wrong? Etc. But anyone who had access to Balls' records and might have considered them peachy dandy in an internal struggle would be an unlikely whistleblower.
How about the jilted David Miliband? He would not have been the first to allow personal bitterness blind him as to his loyalties. But why would one of Labour's most promising politicians, with years left ahead of him, implode now? Possibly the very success of Labour could provide an answer. However, on Sunday David Miliband was publicly calling for Labour to unite behind his brother, according to BBC.
The very public Blair endorsement raises Blair himself as a possibility. Certainly he fits the bill as politically finished and smarting. But how would he have access to the contents of David Miliband’s draft speech and the story of his rehearsing it before his wife. Someone else would have had to be involved.
There is always the possibility that Ed Miliband himself was involved, seeking through release of these two stories to bring Mr. Balls back under control. Yet this too does not compute. Why would he risk damaging his Party’s gains reopening old wounds?
A skunk in Labour's Woodpile - or something else?
Whomever or whatever, it would appear that Labour has a skunk in the woodpile. Although revelations on BBC indicate that yet another of Balls' internal records has been published thus suggesting yet another possibility. The newly leaked memo shows that civil servants urged the Labour Administration to stop spending so much money. That suggests the possibility of at least two separate culprits, one of which might be from within the civil service. A civil service source, nevertheless, would not likely explain the speech leaked to The Guardian.
The Archbishop Stands on a Rock of a Tradition
While the leak and perhaps counter leak of damaging documents displays some of the least savory traits of political intrigue, the Archbishop, by contrast, stands on the rock of a tradition at least 2,600 years old. His views were, I suspect, misunderstood by both the media and the politicians. The media and politicians seem more interested in the game of winning and losing of power. The politicians in particular seem to read all comment as about themselves and their jobs. But the Archbishop's foray, while it may threaten political necks (or help the opposition) would not have been motivated by political gain. It would have been informed by theology.
The position articulated in the Archbishop's New Statesman blog is 100% consistent with the tradition he serves. In fact, take him out of his robes and you could drop him in unnoticed into the annual conference of the Northern California/Nevada Conference of the Methodist church. In short summary, his is a theology of social contract between the person, the divine, and the divinely ordered society, centering on the care of the most vulnerable.
The broad base of those who rallied to his support reflects in part regular people's almost instinctive understanding of the selflessness of his motivations. Their insight is not clouded by a desire to hold on to power or a job. It also reflects the basic decency of the British electorate, who want to do what is fair and right even though they often struggle to see what the fair and right may be in a given situation.
Here may be the touch point of the Prime Minister's anxiety and inability to find an answer to the Archbishop.
The Archbishop neatly ripped out the underbelly of “the bag” of focus group identified slogans and appealed to morality by which the Coalition has justified its welfare reforms. There is a point to the argument that work must always pay better than dole. There was something out of kilter about a secretary earning £12,000 a year paying taxes that supported benefits packages which in places like London could give a non worker benefits greater than the Secretary earned. On the other hand, I have also long wondered how this decent UK electorate would stomach news reports of poor people starving and homeless on the streets of London due to government cut backs.
How would this happen? Under the reforms, a reviewer who is paid ONLY if he places and keeps the person receiving benefits in employment for a period of time. If the unemployed person refuses one too many jobs he has been offered, the government may penalize that unemployed person a full year's benefits.
In an era when over two and a half million workers are unemployed, the government nevertheless argues it can find employment for the more than one million unemployed who receive “job seeker’s allowance” via this putative mechanism.
Moreover, the government argues it can find work for those who previously received disability benefits, but under new measures will be moved on to job seeker’s allowance. They too will be forced to find gainful employment. The government argues it can also find jobs for students newly coming out of University or even the equivalent of US high school onto the job market through this same mechanism. All, the government argues, will magically be found jobs in the private sector due to the government’s programme to “rebalance” the economy toward manufacturing. Concerning the disabled, the government argues that a substantial portion of those receiving benefits could work but choose not to do so. Maybe, but how can the government argue with a straight face that more than two and a half million new jobs can be created by a private sector that created less than 100,000 net jobs in the past 6 months?
The Archbishop versus Golem in the Lord of the Rings
Whatever the practicality of the reform, I have wondered for some time whether this was a dog that would hunt in a society as steeped in social decency and fairness as is the UK. The Archbishop gave authoritative voice to that reservation.
Contrast the Archbishop's authoritative appeal to solidly grounded, traditional principles with the cat fighting between professional politicians demonstrated by the leaked documents, with the apparent vindictiveness of whoever may be the skunk in the woodpile, and with the Prime Minister's determination to force through his agenda regardless of the reservations of the public expressed by the Archbishop. The political figures are looking, well, like Golem from Lord of the Rings.
Sadly the Prime Minister continues to play Rugby to win, characterizing word order changes as "significant alterations" while keeping the key features of his so-called NHS reform. It is the Archbishop who emerges the mature and principled statesman interested in the good of the people, not the political leadership or any of the political parties - all scrambling to win whatever the cost.