Why is Darling generally not thought of as leader material?
I have been meaning to blog on this for a while and have been prompted by a post on Political Betting which talks about the odds on Alistair Darling becoming the next Labour leader.
I have not seen much discussion elsewhere of the possibility of the current Chancellor of the Exchequer succeeding Brown. The talk is all of people like the brothers Miliband, Ed Balls, James Purnell (until he decided to leave politics) and in a caretaker role Alan Johnson or Jack Straw. I wonder why Darling is so often overlooked. After all:
- He has political longevity: He is one of only 3 cabinet ministers to have survived all the way through from Blair's first government (the other two are Brown himself and Straw).
- He has lots of experience: He has been variously Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Secretary of State for Transport, Secretary of State for Scotland, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and of course Chancellor of the Exchequer.
- He has piloted the country through the worst economic crisis for decades: OK so you could argue that his government caused the problems but to be fair it was Brown who was at the economic helm as the bubble was pumped up. In some ways Darling has been in the worst position possible for a politician. He has had to clear up the mess left behind by his predecessor whilst being unable to blame him for the problems. A very difficult balancing act to pull off. At the same time...
- He has dealt with intolerable pressure from a control freak Prime Minister: He hasn't won all the battles with the PM but he has won some and it is looking like he has been able to stamp his authority on the incipient budget (if I am reading the runes correctly). He has been able to force Brown to accept that spending needs to be properly controlled and has done this country a service. Brown was trying to position based on politics, Darling has been thinking about the good of the economy.
- He is only 57: A generation or two ago this would have been the perfect age to become leader. Plenty of experience behind him with a track record to point to. Jim Callaghan was 64 when he became leader of the party. Alec Douglas-Home was 60 when he became leader of his. Macmillan 63. Churchill 65. There is no reason why age should be a bar.
So why is he not seriously talked of as a future leader and why is he languishing at 20-1 to succeed?
Posts
3 comments:
It's often superficial reasons that write someone in or out of consideration. May I suggest two incredibly superficial reasons in Darling's case? (1) His name, and (2) his appearance.
The name 'Darling' lends itself to trivial headline puns ('Move over, Darling' etc); and the white hair and black eyebrows (sort of deconstructed badger) give him an odd look; both of which undermine him as a serious contender. Imagine that he was called Smith or Robinson and had white eyebrows; see what I mean?
It's totally superficial and unfair, but such trivia play a much larger part than they should do in the decision-making processes of a rational species.
"He has been variously Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Secretary of State for Transport, Secretary of State for Scotland, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and of course Chancellor of the Exchequer."
You call it 'experience', I call it failing to make a name for himself in various different departments and being seen by Brown as a puppet when he became PM.
What about the comparisons with John Major?
He had also held a number of offices before becoming party leader and PM. Major also came across as a rather boring and unimaginative accountant that noone paid much attention to, but somehow he manoeuvred himself into the top position past all the big Tory names.
Post a Comment