Blair and Brown

Professor Rodney Barker
The replacement of Tony Blair by Gordon Brown on 27 June brings to an end one of the longest farewells in parliamentary history. It calls to mind the policemen in Gilbert and Sullivan’s Pirates of Penzance who sing endlessly that they are going to fight the foe to be countered by the despairing chorus who complain, ‘but you don’t go’. Tony Blair’s world tour, like the last final benefit tour of an ageing pop star, will, at last, pass into memory, and there will be a new leader of the Labour Party (the prefix ‘new’ is not so prominent these days) and a new prime minister.

What difference will it make? There is disagreement over whether Brown’s dour, unflashy image will be an advantage or a disadvantage to the party and its chances of winning a fourth general election. On the one hand is the argument that, compared to Blair or the Conservative leader David Cameron, Brown lacks sparkle or charisma. On the other is the view that, after the dazzle and bounce of Blair’s early image had turned into tat and tawdry after the invasion of Iraq and the politics of dossiers, Brown’s image of solid respectability will mark off Labour to its great advantage from both its previous leader and its current opponent. Added to this, the very concentration of previous Labour image-making on Blair, and the increasing justification of policy, particularly foreign policy, in terms of the personal conviction of the prime minister, could mean that when Blair goes he takes much of popular disillusion and discontent with him, leaving a clear pitch for Gordon Brown. 

What will Brown do with the opportunity? On previous form, the most evident difference between Brown and Blair has been that whilst Blair increasingly launched policy initiatives at a far greater rate than they could be carried through or even started, Brown has tended to walk far more softly and quietly, but when he uses his big stick, strike hard and effectively. The independence given to the Bank of England at the start of his chancellorship in 1997 was not expected, and was preceded by no hints or trailers. If that is to be the Brown style as prime minister, then there will be some surprises very shortly after he takes office. And the more effective they are as surprises, the more difficult it is to predict what they will be.

On the principal issue of involvement with the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, Brown’s possibilities are limited, though one way forward which wouldn’t look too much like a snub to the Republican administration in the USA would be to take up the military complaint that British forces are overstretched and that their presence in Iraq is not only making things worse there, but preventing them from doing a proper job in Afghanistan. Redeployment is not quite the same as withdrawal.

Domestically, despite his reputation as a control freak, Brown’s possible surprises could include the giving up of important aspects of central government control across a swathe of institutions from the NHS to the Church of England. The one sure prediction is probably that there will be at least one initiative which no one has predicted, and we may be about to live in interesting times.