Here begins the dance of the seven veils. There are things we know about
Britain’s next prime minister, Gordon Brown. There are things we do not know
and, to quote a certain American defence secretary, there are “unknown
unknowns”, the things we do not know we don’t know. They, as Donald Rumsfeld
found to his cost, are what get you in the end.
Never can there have been a more mysterious change of regime than began last
Thursday. It made fools of those who thought two years ago that they had
voted for Tony Blair for what he had said would be “a full term”.
It made fools of those who thought that in a democracy voters might have some
say in such matters. For 10 years Blair has engineered, in so far as he
could stomach it, Brown’s inevitable succession. British politics always
defaults to the 18th century, not the 21st. The Queen and constitution must
do as the club says. The electorate must wait three years to choose the
leader it has already got.
I have always thought that Brown had few of the qualifications that modern
government requires of a leader, notably an ability to embrace all sorts and
conditions of mankind and to communicate frankly with the public. He has
been a man ill at ease with himself.
Apart from a tiny coterie of loyal aides, even those who know him are
sceptical. They include Blair, whose Friday endorsement was an astonishing
study in bodily agony. They include present and former cabinet ministers,
both on and off the record, civil servants and biographers. All wonder
whether Brown has either the executive or presentational skills to be a well
rounded leader of a diverse nation.
Yet since none of us has a choice, we must at this stage give Brown the
benefit of the doubt. He has declared his style of leadership to be one for
which many of Blair’s critics claim to crave.
After the miserable “sell Brown” operation of February last year, when he was
subjected to much painful smiling, he firmly eschews “the politics of
celebrity”, a clunking dig at his predecessor. With the reputed people
skills of a Thatcher in private and a Heath in public, he will test to
destruction the central tenet of the new politics, that leadership is about
charisma and public rapport. But then if a real Blair could reduce Labour to
the level of support last seen under Michael Foot in the 1980s, a fake Blair
could only be worse.
This we know. Brown is to be not Blair. If you did not like Blair’s relentless
smile and sanctimonious bonhomie, Brown is your man. If you revolted from a
leader susceptible to wealth, glamour, rock stars and bling celebrities with
holiday homes, relax. Brown wants none of these. If you have tired of “gee
whizz you guys, why don’t we just sit down and have a chat about that”, warm
to a machinegun burst of Treasury statistics.
No 10 is to be the office of a prime minister, not Tony’s chocolate factory
with its daily confections of front-page stories.
Brown means to capitalise on the quality ascribed to him last week by Bill
Clinton: authenticity. He is the patron saint of untidiness. He is not
interested in clothes, money, small talk or unnecessary human encounter. He
never knowingly slaps a back. He hates laughing if something is not funny.
The most engaging Brown anecdote is that when his Edinburgh flat was burgled
in his absence and a policeman warned him before entering that “I have never
seen such mindless vandalism in 30 years in the force”, Brown professed to
finding nothing out of place. It is a metaphor for everything from Brown’s
approach to public administration to his leadership launch on Friday.
The virtues in Brown’s background as son of a Celtic manse (I declare a shared
interest) are those of an essentially serious mind. He finds truth in words,
not images, and does not see Britain from its metropolitan epicentre. He is
immune to the trappings of power that so captivated the Blairs, particularly
American presidential power. It was that captivation (encouraged by Margaret
Thatcher) that held the key to Blair’s disastrous adventure in Iraq. Brown,
too, is an Americanophile, but the America of Massachusetts rather than
Texas, of puritan Cape Cod rather than evangelical Crawford.
Brown means to drag British politics up-market from its tabloid decade. This
is refreshing. The gamble is that the sheer shock of the change will lead to
a similar “bounce” to the one that benefited John Major in 1990, presented
as “not Thatcher”. Two years later it won him the largest popular vote in
British history, the only prime minister to have topped 14m. Never underrate
the electorate’s love of a change of face.
Yet these are merely “known knowns” about Britain’s prospective prime
minister. What of the known unknowns? Almost a decade of rumblings from
within the Downing Street volcano have indicated differences over policy
between Brown and Blair. They have embraced Europe, health, university
finance, London transport and, so it is regularly bruited, Iraq. What does a
“change of government” mean?
Brown’s odyssey from socialism to Treasury hyper-Thatcherism has so defied
analysis as to lead many commentators simply to disbelieve it. Where Blair
opportunistically changed his mind on any policy that might impede his path
to No 10, Brown was surely made of tougher fibre. He was famously apoplectic
when in 1988 Nigel Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 60% to 40% and
determined to reverse it. He pledged to undo all Thatcherism’s
privatisations and union reforms. He loathed the means test and was
passionate about redistributing wealth.
Abandoning all these positions in favour of conventional Tory economic policy
in the mid1990s must surely have involved a long dark night of the soul.
Brown suddenly found bankers adorable and high incomes an incentive to
enterprise. He supported Norman Lamont’s abortive attempt to stay in the
European exchange-rate mechanism. Privatisation was not so bad after all.
After 1997 Brown refused to budge from Kenneth Clarke’s Tory spending totals.
A man who once believed that “the free market does not work in healthcare”
went on to introduce internal pricing and privatised operations. He lavished
fees on the extravagant private finance of public investment. Brown fell in
love with the City, which he naively confused with “prudence” (as opposed to
profit). His only, much-cited, delegation of control was to its lead
institution, the Bank of England.
This is a clear known unknown. If a man of proclaimed principle and integrity
could change his spots so radically, might he do so again? Brown has always
contrived to maintain his image as a man of the left. He never uses the
phrase new Labour. His spin doctors have hinted that he may be a socialist
“sleeper”, lurking in the anteroom of the Blair court, awaiting his moment
to strike. Perhaps Brown’s 15-year flirtation with Thatcherism was no more
than a cunning front.
I think not. All politicians are pragmatists. If Brown’s moody demeanour was
the price Britain paid for his selling his soul to the Thatcherite devil, it
was a price worth paying. Ten years of policy supremacy at the Treasury have
shown no glimmer of old Labour. Such redistributive advances as tax credits,
Sure Start and higher spending on health and education are in line with what
any liberal regime would have done in 10 years of government and most of
Brown’s welfare indicators lag behind the rest of Europe.
Brown’s known unknowns are those of ideological evolution rather than
revolution. As the public sector turns its back on extreme privatisation, so
will Brown. As Britain shrugs off Blair’s bizarre neo-conservative foreign
policy episode, so will Brown. Besides, he has an election to win.
So much for the known unknowns. What of the Brown we don’t know we don’t
know, the enigma behind the mystery behind the conundrum? What really will
happen when this cantankerous, essentially private soul steps from the
Treasury ivory tower and is blasted in the furnace of national leadership?
It is pressure beyond all imagining. When Prince Hal succeeded to the crown,
he told Falstaff: “Presume not that I am the thing I was.” But it was the
office speaking, not the man, and the office was as yet untried. Of Brown’s
unknown unknowns there is no telling. We do not know them. He does not know
them. That is why politics always beats tiddlywinks.
simon.jenkins@sunday-times.co.uk
give the guy a chance what the hell did he do to you war mongers yet but be voted in by the same system you guys use oh ya i forgot florida lol
jeff walker, kitchener, canada
Dear SImon:
A bloody fine article.
I was extremely happy when Mr. Brown was elected.
He seems to have the disposition of one of my favorite WWII heroes.
In fact you will enjoy knowing that everytime I dawn my black leather beret I think of Monte.
The question is will the people follow someone like Monte?
Winston Churchill was another of my WWII heroes.
He and I would probably have had a good drinking contest.
I think of Winston's parrot quite often as I too have a parrot.
I am teaching him to cuss like a trooper, especially when he is drinking.
Speaking of drinking, many times I have wished we had a fine English pub here.
Does Mr. Brown ever frequent the English pubs?
One can learn much from the man or woman on the street there.
I am still remembering Princess Diana.
I wonder to this day if Prince Charles would have been a little more aggressive and just had the chauffer pull over to the side of the road if she would still be alive.
William Schroeder, Rogersville, MO
Tony who?
Gordon Brown has come to town
fixed his teeth for half a crown.
Wonder who will live next door,
a tame booby that’s for sure.
Booby prize or booby trap,
“Och” said Gordon “enough of that”.
Tony’s taken his last bow
to him it doesn’t matter now.
Leaving with him, Dr Scott
and Jolly John who larked a lot.
Will history love him, time will tell
I’m a Tory so what the hell.
Gordon’s task is mighty tough
will Tony’s teaching be enough?
United they changed Labour’s feel
much more trendy with sex appeal.
Gone forever chatty Neil and lefty Foot
Can’t wait for the new brand’s look.
Mike Freeman, Gatwick, UK
Spend now, suffer later is presumably the legacy we shall rememeber Gordon Brown by. He has pilfered our pensions to support his current spending. What will his next move be?
The bubble has to burst some time, I am surprised it hasn't done so already. And when it does we shall all have "to get real" - buy what we can afford. Then we will see what happens to Economic Growth, down a very slippery slope I fear.
Penny Sutton, Ammanford, South Wales
When Blair and Brown first met, Brown was an established respected figure in the Labour Party with a reputation as being something of an intellectual with some published books to his credit. Blair was recently arrived, had nothing other than being thought of as extremely personable, clever and ambitious. It was not a friendship of equals. Brown was entitled to consider himself in matters of policy, Blair;s mentor. But when it came to the crunch Blair's qualities made him the more likely election-winner than Brown the dour man of substance. These complementary talents would have made a self-evident partnership. Blair, having sampled the limelight thought otherwise and hogged the ball for ten years until booed off the field. Brown doesnt know what Brown thinks? How do you know?
Bob T,, London, UK
"Blair clearly loved being PM, is apparently healthy and full of public stamina, etc etc. The man simply did not want to go, but felt compelled to surrender power."
Why did he feel compelled to surrender power? If memory serves rightly Blair, during a "royal progress", was carried aloft on a hubristic vapour and was stupid enough to answer a question from a journalist "when will you step down?" The media have fastened onto that reply ever since and have never let him forget it. I don't think Blair has ever wanted to hand over the reins but ever since that moment he has been captured by his own crassness.
Steve, Birmingham,
has Mr brown pulled anything out of the bag in the last ten
years except more taxes what makes you think he will
pull anything out in the next ten except more taxes.
george william taylor, hull, uk
It is enough that Brown will not charm and smarm in his governance of this country. It is also most hopeful that he will not succumb to the whims and fancies of the top issue of the day, as dictated by the polls or the tabloids. Blair's power lay in his 'winsomeness' (not that many of us were taken in by it) whilst Brown's apparent strength appears to be his principles. I agree that the mere change in the visual style will engineer a higher approval rating and support than expected! The transition of Mr Brown from Chancellor to PM should not play to the media's expectations by making Brown 'smile'. It does not convince and actually scares those of us who bother to look (if only Mr Poynton and myself). And Mr Jenkins, for all the openess of Mr Blair, how has his tenure turn out? I never trusted him and whilst I can say I don't much like Mr Brown (for his known policies and philosophies) I think I will trust him first and wait to see.
Mong Lim, London,
"What you know you know. From this time forth, I never shall speak word." Brown's bitterness and jealousy has always made him regard Blair as a "black ram tupping a white ewe." Don't be deceived by the spin, Simon. We're not dealing with Prince Hal: we've got honest Iago.
Philippa Pirie, London, England
As a reluctant yank that lived in the UK for 6 years, I'm surprised Mr Barnes does seem to appreciate the brilliant subtleties of parliamentary democracy (as compared with US presidential power); you Brits do not elect a Prime Minister, you elect a party which chooses its leader. Mr Blair clearly loves his current job, and would not be giving it up were it not for the political pressure from within his own party to do so. And that pressure comes from grass roots dissatisfaction. Mr Brown deserves his chance if only because the electorate exerted this pressure knowing full well that by pushing out Blair they will get Brown. So be it.
I would consider carefully before condemning this system. We Americans give our president at least 4 years (and often 8) regardless of performance; only being convicted of a criminal offense justifies ousting a president, and even that only if the opposition party controls the legislature. Mere incompetence is not enough.
Byron, Santa Cruz, CA
Two years ago it was vote Blair and now we get Brown.
The man worries me, I do not trust him, he is trying hard to be liked. Something tells me that should be earned not expected.
He has been the architect behind many of Blairs schemes, at least he has bankrolled them, many of those did not work.
One final point, Brown was elected as an MP on the Labour party manifesto, how come he can change it mid term without an election?
Bee. Miller, Saltburn, Yorkshire
to P Stewart, Kent, UK.
I am an American, for my sins, and ...
YES they would as that is the hallmark of having a Vice President, (in case for what ever reason there is as seamless a power transfer as possible) or an ability to vote in a new party leader in the UK even while in power. The Conservatives did it and John Major went on to lead for years. Don't let the spin get to you as most Americans do. My guess is you won't vote Labour anyway of which I don't blame you. Just remeber what goes around comes around.
Rob, The Hague, The Netherlands
Simon, I see you've bought into this notion of Blair's reluctant endorsement of Brown. Maybe so. But could there be a less invidious reason? Blair clearly loved being PM, is apparently healthy and full of public stamina, etc etc. The man simply did not want to go, but felt compelled to surrender power.
I was suspicious of Blair from the start, and frankly grew to dislike him. But it must have been tough for him to give up power in the circumstance he did.
Chudi Okoye, San Diego, USA
This is an engaging analysis which highlights an interesting paradox of modern politics.
Whilst most people admire those who act in accordance with a firm belief system and are, ‘above all, true to themselves,’ many do not want to be involved with rigidity of views where stubbornness overrides common sense in complex matters – there’s no knowing where that will end.
Likewise, pragmatism and ongoing adapting of views to changed circumstances can seem to be vacillation, a weak will and being a victim of events, with unpredictability a great concern for others.
John Maynard Keynes’ riposte as to why his opinion had changed: “When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?” springs to mind in conditional acceptance of the validity of the latter strategy.
Perhaps in a changing and fast evolving world we need the comfort and security of consistency along with appropriate adaptability. A glass half full or half empty?
Time will tell.
dr venables preller, Warminster, UK
You can argue, with some small justification that we should have an immediate election, but I would have two comments.
1/ John Major did not go to the country to seek a mandate when Maggie was pushed from office, because he knew at that point he would loose!
2/ In Britain, we do not vote for a President/Prime Minister, we vote for a party of government.
If truth be told, it could well be in Gordon's interests to go to the country for the mandate in the next few months. The Tories, have lots of policy forums, but no policies at present..its easy to win a vote of protest (the council elections!), something very different when we vote for government!
Nick Stroud, London,
At least he may be in a position to influence the disastrous politics playing out in the Iraq debacle, as seen from the USA..
Ken Booker, rochester, NY USA
Brown is the new grey!
Not the new green....
Nick Wilcock, Witney, Oxfordshire, UK
Will the Americans put up with Bush handing over power to Cheney with 2 years of his office to run?
We do it in the UK.
P Stewart, Kent, UK
Malfleur, Shanghai -
But can you recall China ever declaring herself 'Democratic'?!
Difference is, we pride ourselves so much on our 'Democracy', that we feel the need to stuff it down the throats of others, at the expense of loss of innumerable lives. So, where does that leave Democracy and us?
P Stewart, Kent, UK
How can anyone imagine he will be "better" than Blair, in that he held the purse strings for Bliar anyway. The main thing is, please will his spinners tell him to STOP SMILING - it's terrifying.
Jeremy Poynton, Fromeville, 51st State
Can a leopard change its spots or can it, like a snake, shed its skin and present a sleek, new image and colour? If, as Simon Jenkins suggests, Gordon Brown, “loathed the means test”, then why has he, more than any other, introduced more ‘means-tested’ systems? This nation, and our society, is founded on the concept of ‘fairness’ and the British people are, by and large, in the centre ground of politics and many abhor extreme left or right political ideas, notions and policies. That is why each of the main political parties has done their utmost to place themselves in the centre ground by attempting to appeal to the majority. However, until politicians in this country begin to understand and accept that they are elected to serve the nation in a system that is government of the people, by the people and for the people then we are likely to continue along the same route of spin, gimmicks and rhetoric to appeal to the masses but once in power they will follow their own party’s agenda.
Kenneth Armitage, Suffolk, England
And China is working fine! But wait till the bubble bursts. It will still probably work better than Britain under Brown.
oldasiahand, Guildford, UK
Brown, like most of this government, is an unreformed student activist who has had the stamina to gain power. His roots are in The Red Book, and his beliefs haven't changed. Like the rest of modern Labour, he knows that if he says what he believes he won't be elected, hence his secretism. Antonio Gramsci would be proud of him.
John Bald, Linton, Cambs
Hi,
Your columnist could be right regarding Mr. Brown. By all means he must be classed as intricate which has some thing to do with character. For Mr. Brown to automatically assume the job of Priminister of Britain without being democratically elected is circumstantial and a danger to his party and may be the country. In the course of events it will be unavoidable for Mr. Brown to escape democracy which may be his downfall. That the economy has been performing well is more to do with economics than Mr. Brown. Historically a second in command critic has proved to be a dangerous thing.
Dr. Terence Hale
Terence Hale, Zandvoort , Holland
Dour, cunning, obsessively ambitious Brown is the archetype of the man who, in wanting to be Prime Minister, automatically disqualifies himself. The comfort is that he won't last long.
Anthony Worner, Somerset,
If Brown becomes Prime Minister, ther will be a coup within a year. Read the letters in this paper. He is about as popular as a what ever one wants to say.
Desond Taylor, Houston, USA Texas
Brown as the article clearly infers is the great unknown. Blair was not keen on Brown taking over as PM which speaks volumes. Brown's Scottish roots may overpower him and drag him back to the left. He may appear to have matured in office but we don't know what pressure was applied to him to have him relax on some of his leftish dogmas. Those who applied the pressure are probably leaving office as well as Blair. Should Brown show any signs of turning left then his premiership will be deservidly short lived. A word on Blair. He does not deserve the vilification being heaped on him by the British and world press. People have short memories and Blair cannot be blamed for the ineptitude of the American post invasion admininstration of Iraq.
Joe Forshaw, Perth, Western Australia
Don't worry - we don't get to choose the leader here in China either -
Malfleur, Shanghai,