Well, now that it looks like Blair has gone, it’s a good time to look back on the performance of the model I made back in April to try and understand the dynamics of the resignation process. I chickened out of making any predictions more specific than “there is some basis for the nebulous feeling that the time has come” and “if he hangs on till September 2008 he will most likely stay on until the next election”, so I don’t think I can claim any bragging rights on the date of departure. However on the qualitative aspects, I think I can claim a decent success.
Recall that the model was based on a “marginal value of grovelling” function for backbench MPs. The idea was that grovelling to Tony might get you a ministerial prize from Tony, but might also get you on Gordon’s shit-list. So there was some time T at which it made more sense to grovel to Gordon rather than Tony, and when that time was reached, Tony would more or less immediately lose the support of the party and have to resign.
I think this fits the qualitiative facts quite well. Blair was holed below the waterline by two round-robin letters from backbench MPs and PPSs, who had been passed over for better jobs in the May reshuffle. My model assumed two possible reshuffles during the life of the Parliament and once Tony had carried out one of them, he had fewer prizes to give out, reducing the value of his grovel function. Allow that nothing happens over the holidays and the September coup can be seen as a fairly immediate reaction to the reshuffle.
But more importantly, the underlying representative agent assumption worked a treat. The final knife was placed by Tom Watson MP. He is a blogger, and thus it is possible to learn quite a lot about him by reading his blog. He has written about his reasons for doing what he did, but I am a long term reader of his blog (I used to enjoy asking questions about postal ballots in the Hodge Hill byelection to see how quickly they were deleted) and as such, I think I can say two things about him with confidence. First, he is a ferocious careerist, and second, right up until the moment he dropped “da bomb”, he was one of the most horrifically arse-kissing Blairites you could wish to meet; if he ever saw a horrific piece of New Labour crap he didn’t like, either he didn’t blog about it or I didn’t read it. In other words, precisely the representative agent of my model. Homo economicus is not aperfect assumption but you’d be surprised how many of them there are out there.
PS: Apologies to all the people I promised a copy of the spreadsheet to; the offer is still there.
PPPS[1]: I have posted a few puerile jokes on the subject on the Guardian website.
[1] There was a “PPS”, but he resigned in protest.
{ 24 comments }
shwe 09.09.06 at 9:33 am
The assumption underlying your mode is not at all unreasonable. However I’d cast doubt on the kind of evidence you use.
No MP with aspirations to ministerial positions (particularly those aiming for Cabinet) would do anything but defend government policy, especially on a blog. To do so would pretty much rule them out of contention as potential troublemakers. You need a better blairism detecting method, I think.
P O'Neill 09.09.06 at 10:56 am
The bit I find harder to fit into the model is Charles Clarke. He’s an odd case for the attack on Brown, having most recently been sacked by Blair.
harry b 09.09.06 at 11:25 am
Clarke is one of the architects of New Labour, was a Blair loyalist, and has no future with the Brownites. His only chance is to pin himself to a Blairite alternative to Brown. The idea must be that Brown is the next leader, but right now they need to establish his (Blairite) successor, presuming that he loses the next election and has to resign (or can be forced out) soon thereafter. Milburn is an interesting name to be floating — there was a little talk of Milliband (David) a few weeks ago, but my guess is that he has pretty good prospects under Brown. And I’d like to think he’s too decent a person to be involved in these antics.
nick s 09.09.06 at 11:35 am
But more importantly, the underlying representative agent assumption worked a treat.
Particularly because the pundit class assumed that it would be the cabinet-level-ites who did the knifing rather than the junior ranks, who aren’t simply grovelling to Gordon to ensure some future in government post-Blair, but some future in government post-2009/10.
Which makes me wonder whether it might have been worth including another variable representing the likelihood that the ‘prize beyond 2010’ contract be paid.
nick s 09.09.06 at 11:37 am
As for Clarke, he’s perhaps indicative of the taking-my-ball-home-so-there brigade: Blairites who’ve had their prize, and don’t expect future rewards other than the satisfaction of Gordon not getting his.
etat 09.09.06 at 11:58 am
Agreed, it does look like a neat example of your theory. I also have a question. How much of this is predicated on the existence of a junior partner cum successor? If Brown had not been presented as such, and there was an open question around who might emerge as leader, would time T have come at a point much further along? I suspect it would. the problem of an heir apparent is that it gives opponents someone to rally round. (This notion is perversely instantiated by Prince Charles, as anti-royalists rally on the basis of insisting he never becomes King.)
With regard to the Blair-Brown dynamic, success was built on the notion of a cooperative front. In retrospect, that was sowing the seeds of its own destruction, since Blair cannot simply dump Brown.
What might have worked as a cooperative partnership for some time has clearly become imbalanced, and your model seems to present an alternative means of resolution. In short, if formerly cooperative partners are at odds, and one has the upper hand, but is stymied by circumstances, what events will precipitate a re-balancning and/or change of power?
Daniel 09.09.06 at 1:18 pm
3: the general consensus among people I’ve been talking to is that Milburn is such a twat that Clarke couldn’t possibly have meant it seriously. The idea is that by pointing out to the Blairite faction that their other options are Milburn or Byers, he helps them reconcile themselves to the idea of Clarke.
mijnheer 09.09.06 at 1:21 pm
Nice model. I don’t suppose you’ve had a look at the Chrétien/Martin leadership struggle in the Liberal Party of Canada, which has many parallels with the Blair/Brown struggle. This link is worth checking:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/backgrounder/liberals/stories/20020822_winsor.html
One difference (to this point): Chrétien decided to fire Martin, his successful finance minister and heir apparent, in an attempt to stop the growing campaign to force the PM out.
Chris Bertram 09.09.06 at 1:28 pm
If Betfair is to believed, the main alternative to Brown is Alan (NotNotTheMinister*) Johnson at 7. Then comes Reid at 15, followed by Miliband at 17.5. Milburn is out at 75 and Byers doesn’t even get a listing.
*If you don’t get this bad inside joke, don’t worry about it.
harry b 09.09.06 at 1:40 pm
7: That makes sense.
I don’t see how anyone else but Brown can win the leadership, unless I misunderstand the voting system. The fight must all be about succession to Brown post-defeat, no?
Ray 09.09.06 at 1:45 pm
Chris, you’ve prevented me from airing my joke about Downing Street and the Euston Manifesto. This is probably a good thing all round.
nick s 09.09.06 at 2:38 pm
Those betting numbers are actually a testament to Blair’s biggest problem: by promoting and then firing/losing Blairites, he’s essentially turned most of his core upper-level supporters into grumpy ex-ministers.
dearieme 09.09.06 at 3:09 pm
“Homo economicus”: and them Socialists too.
Charlie Whitaker 09.09.06 at 4:05 pm
I’m not sure you’re right about Tom Watson. As far as I can tell, he was the only Labour MP who made an honest attempt to find out – via his blog, during the 2005 election campaign – why people disliked Tony Blair. The comments section of his blog, unsurprisingly, thus filled with anti-Tony commentary. (Newspapers are far more picky about the letters they choose to print.) To me, this suggests more of an open mind than a careerist mind.
Charlie Whitaker 09.09.06 at 4:24 pm
Here are a couple of posts on Tom Watson’s blog to show what I mean.
john c. halasz 09.09.06 at 11:26 pm
Off topic, but I had no idea that Toney Blare was such a Dido fan.
Chris Bertram 09.10.06 at 4:39 am
Today’s Observer on the erstwhile “horrifically arse-kissing Blairite”:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1869062,00.html
bq. However, it emerged last night that Tom Watson, the minister who signed a letter demanding Blair clarify his departure date, visited Browns’ Scottish home last Monday. Watson said he was visiting their new baby, but further evidence of what was already known to be a close relationship will fuel suspicions.
My guess is that Watson’s willingness to switch sides for personal advancement is just about the only respect in which he resembles Talleyrand.
kb 09.10.06 at 4:43 am
“this suggests more of an open mind than a careerist mind”
Though the news today that mr watson scampered round to gordon browns house for a meeting the day before he resigned would suggest that the word ‘careerist’ does indeed fit watson’s persona.
dearieme 09.10.06 at 5:45 am
Aw, come on. All Watson did was bounce the bairn on his knee and observe that a new babe is a wonderful metaphor for “renewal”.
Backword Dave 09.10.06 at 7:32 am
I thought Gordon Brown was known for not having “close relationships”. – I think Charles Clarke is bitter, but his description of Brown fits a pattern.
dave heasman 09.10.06 at 1:39 pm
Daniel, your recent Graun piece, though accessible from the link in this post, doesn’t show on the Graun top page, or under your name. I guess that’s why the comments have dried up
anonymous 09.10.06 at 8:28 pm
Is there any truth value to the rumor that if Blair resigns, he may take a high-paying professorship or think tank fellowship in the U.S.?
We Americans already have Neil Ferguson over here. We don’t want Blair.
chris y 09.11.06 at 4:51 am
Daniel, your recent Graun piece, though accessible from the link in this post, doesn’t show on the Graun top page, or under your name.
Apparently been taken down altogether now – gone anyway. I should get the peasants round there with scythes and pitchforks, if I were you.
Ray 09.11.06 at 8:01 am
It opened okay for me a minute ago (but it still isn’t listed with the other articles)
Comments on this entry are closed.