If Brown had become leader of the New Labour project instead of Blair, the party might have won a smaller majority in 1997, but it would have been a more sincerely reformist, social democratic government. And if they’d managed that, perhaps the party would not have torn itself apart in ideological warfare afterward, but been more resolved into a new ideological identity.
Gordon Brown was every bit New Labour as Blair was but Blair presented it better which is why they agreed that he should stand as leader in 1994 rather than Brown standing.
Brown was a good man despite his flaws. Check out his Citizens UK 2010 speech, a passionate side he rarely showed but might have helped him to stay in office had he done so.
Reminded of the similarities with Anthony Eden. As Harold MacMillan remarked ‘ trained for the Derby in 1938 but not let out of the stalls until 1955’. Much the same could be said of Brown, trained for 1997 but not let out until 2007. The similarities do not end there. Both staid in one particular specialisation for the duration; in Eden’s case the Foreign Office and Brown the Treasury. Had they both gained a broader range of office then their respective premierships might not have ended so calamitously.
Blair was urged by his advisers to move Brown to the Foreign Office after the 2001 election win, but he knew that Brown loved the financial control he had over the government as Chancellor and he felt that it was wiser to leave him where he was.
I don't think he wanted the early election, really (is what he says anyway). He regrets not quashing the speculation. He was doing very well though. Mrs May called an early election based on being far ahead in polling, but the lead closed up dramatically during the campaign itself, and a similar thing might have happened to Brown.
"...And a few years later, that house would be occupied by Anthony Johnson. When Johnson moved in, he kept the same telephone number, believing at the time that continuity, or at least not having to go through the ordeal of changing the number, would be the best course of action. But he made one fatal mistake: not taking into account that he, as a longtime vegetarian--indeed, almost lifelong, having stopped eating meat when he was nine years old--would then have to spend the next five years getting calls from people still looking for the local butcher, who had occupied the house before. He might well have decided to change his number then rather than moving house, but something inside him--something, perhaps, inside everyone we've talked about so far on this page who had moved--told him that he needed to make a complete break. And so he went."
A man not suited to leadership, is how I think Brown can be summed up. Not that great as a Chancellor, seeing as he just saw the City of London as a cash cow for massive public spending, and allowed those institutions to run riot - he has to take some of the blame for the crash in 2008. I agree that he was more old Labour than new - but thinking that a government can do absolutely everything is seriously flawed and always doomed to failure.
Paul Krugman has lost his economic sense since he got the Nobel so I wouldn’t quote him now. Fiscal stimulus didn’t do it, quantitative easing is what increased liquidity quickly.
I am a Canadian, but have been watching the Blair/Brown Era videos with great interest. There is a parallel story in Canadian politics: Paul Martin was like Brown, a successful Finance Minister during bleak economy, later to be Prime Minister BRIEFLY. There is a ‘royal jelly’ to leadership that PM Chrétien had and Tony Blair had. Their respective finance ministers, Brown in UK and Martin in Canada, who were both described as PM’s in-waiting, ended up having very short tenures as PM. If you watch an earlier video when Mr. Smith was named Labour Party Leader, while Blair and Brown were young and in the shadow cabinet respectively, you will see Blair’s anguished look at the time. He obviously felt anxious to ‘get on’ with new changes in the country, whilst Brown acquiesced to the natural order of things, as he was an acolyte of Mr. Smith, and was soon named as shadow cabinet for Chancellor of the Exchequer. In other words, I think there is a reason that both Blair and Chrétien were leaders ahead of their respective finance ministers. Both leaders were lucky: where luck = preparation and opportunity.
People voted for change and Brown as Chancellor gave us a continuation of PFI and privatization and stealth taxes which he had condemned the Tories for.
The return of Mandelson was not a sign of political acumen but it was desperation. Steve Richards is good, but is of the left, supports more spending and is sympathetic to Labour leaders.
I had high hopes for Gordon Brown when he became PM after Blair stepped down and at first it all went well and then he was a huge disappointment. Then there was the awful Gillian Duffy moment during the 2010 General Election which was the final nail in his coffin.
@inspector morse I disagree as he was a brilliant Chancellor but he did not have the right personality to be a good Prime Minister. His connection to the voters was very poor.
@inspector morse I think Keir Starmer will stand a very good chance of winning the next election. Boris Johnson's leadership has been an unmitigated disaster since the coronavirus pandemic began and Brexit looks like it will be another disaster.
@inspector morse Actually welfare spending was less under Blair as there was less unemployment. The money was spent on the NHS and Schools which were in dire need of money in 1997. The Tories gamble on the ERM fucked the economy and the NHS and education bore the brunt of it. Yes Blair got it wrong in Iraq but domestically he was a very good PM. Had he been Labour Leader in 2010 the result would not have been so bad for Labour.
@inspector morse I understand this perspective to a degree, but feel it ignores the economic political consensus of the time. PFI was a cross party consensus policy from the time the Conservatives invented it in the mid 90s. They didn't spend 1997-2007 (roughly the time it became clear it was a mistake) opposing it, they spent that time trying to take credit for it. And you have to consider the economic stagnation of the early 90s that led up to the instigation of PFI as a Keynesianism-on-cheat-mode equivalent. The neoliberal/deregulation consensus had been accepted, but in the early 90s we found out that without a boatload of North Sea Oil money bolstering the whole project, it wasn't as robust as the fast growth in the early to mid 80s had indicated. There needs to be *a* solution and change even if it wasn't that one. I don't like or support PFI, because I'm a Neo-Keynesian who believes largely in direct funding and a discourse-driven blended economy, but Labour from 97-10 managed what was the economic consensus better than the Tories would have done and provided more opportunity to more people. The quick recovery in Browns last few quarters indicates it (the growth in his last quarter as PM would only be matched once between the Tories taking over in 2010 to today) compared to the stagnation of growth and productivity under the failed austerity project that would follow. And as for the Iraq war. A disaster but, again, nothing the Tories wouldn't have done. Only difference is they wouldn't have even asked for a weapons dossier at all. They voted for the war in greater proportions than Labour did and their voters supported it in greater numbers too. Any other perspective here is simple revisionism. AFAIC, the biggest genuine mistakes that were specific to them were devolution and the pensions management. The former exacerbated the very threats the union that it sought to appease and the latter was just poor policy judgement akin to the poll tax or Gove's silly education policies.
inspector morse probably the most successful ever chancellor and definitely saved the country from meltdown during the financial crash. On top of this, his leadership at the 2009 London summit might be the single greatest act of world leadership by a British pm since WW2
inspector morse half a million children out of poverty, maternity pay, paternity leave, 400000 off nhs waiting leaves, record results in schools, record investment in nhs, first ever climate change act, disability discrimination act, 30% reduction in crime across Britain, standard of living for pensioners raised significantly, the creation of sure start, repealing of section 28 of the 1988 education act, saved our country during the biggest economic crisis since the depression, removed troops from Iraq, started the removal of troops from Afghanistan, shortest nhs waiting times in history, presided over the best economy Britain has ever seen in 1997-2008. Pulled Europe from the brink of financial collapse at the G20 London Summit 2009, is recognised as the single biggest and most influential figure to deal with the financial crash which stopped a recession Turing into a depresssion. Put a ban on cluster bombs, introduced the winter fuel allowance, signed the Lisbon Treaty. What else is there to be said? The most successful ever chancellor who presided over one of Britain’s brightest ever times, a true colossus!
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DIR7_X-ahy4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
I hope Steve returns and does one of these for Liz Truss. His speech will last longer than her premiership
I agree completely! I'd love to hear Steve's reflections on the chaotic Boris--Truss--Sunak years.
The nicer person doesn't make the more memorable Prime Minister.
Excellent set of videos, very interesting to listen to.
If Brown had become leader of the New Labour project instead of Blair, the party might have won a smaller majority in 1997, but it would have been a more sincerely reformist, social democratic government. And if they’d managed that, perhaps the party would not have torn itself apart in ideological warfare afterward, but been more resolved into a new ideological identity.
Gordon Brown was every bit New Labour as Blair was but Blair presented it better which is why they agreed that he should stand as leader in 1994 rather than Brown standing.
No, when he became PM, he didnt change anything or become the radical he claimed to be. He was chancellor for 11 years, and did what he need to do.
"As Theresa May did..." About that...
Brown was a good man despite his flaws. Check out his Citizens UK 2010 speech, a passionate side he rarely showed but might have helped him to stay in office had he done so.
Reminded of the similarities with Anthony Eden. As Harold MacMillan remarked ‘ trained for the Derby in 1938 but not let out of the stalls until 1955’. Much the same could be said of Brown, trained for 1997 but not let out until 2007. The similarities do not end there. Both staid in one particular specialisation for the duration; in Eden’s case the Foreign Office and Brown the Treasury.
Had they both gained a broader range of office then their respective premierships might not have ended so calamitously.
Blair was urged by his advisers to move Brown to the Foreign Office after the 2001 election win, but he knew that Brown loved the financial control he had over the government as Chancellor and he felt that it was wiser to leave him where he was.
Terrific post
He’ll regret not calling an early election for the rest of his life.
I don't think he wanted the early election, really (is what he says anyway).
He regrets not quashing the speculation.
He was doing very well though.
Mrs May called an early election based on being far ahead in polling, but the lead closed up dramatically during the campaign itself, and a similar thing might have happened to Brown.
The country will, dooming us to over a decade of Tory sleeze and austerity.
I'd listen to Steve Richards read the yellow pages
"...And a few years later, that house would be occupied by Anthony Johnson. When Johnson moved in, he kept the same telephone number, believing at the time that continuity, or at least not having to go through the ordeal of changing the number, would be the best course of action. But he made one fatal mistake: not taking into account that he, as a longtime vegetarian--indeed, almost lifelong, having stopped eating meat when he was nine years old--would then have to spend the next five years getting calls from people still looking for the local butcher, who had occupied the house before. He might well have decided to change his number then rather than moving house, but something inside him--something, perhaps, inside everyone we've talked about so far on this page who had moved--told him that he needed to make a complete break. And so he went."
Boris Johnson now joins Brown as a 'prime minister in waiting' and becoming one.
Eloquently delivered Steve.
Excellent videos. Well done Steve.
1999 300 GBD billion debt to today 2,720 billion 🇺🇸 35trillion
A man not suited to leadership, is how I think Brown can be summed up. Not that great as a Chancellor, seeing as he just saw the City of London as a cash cow for massive public spending, and allowed those institutions to run riot - he has to take some of the blame for the crash in 2008. I agree that he was more old Labour than new - but thinking that a government can do absolutely everything is seriously flawed and always doomed to failure.
I forgot to add: Steve Richards video was interesting, but it could have been written by Gordon Brown himself.
Paul Krugman has lost his economic sense since he got the Nobel so I wouldn’t quote him now. Fiscal stimulus didn’t do it, quantitative easing is what increased liquidity quickly.
The best of your reflections..biting analysis and original perspectives.
Impartial and balanced.
Very good videos. Nicely done Steve
I am a Canadian, but have been watching the Blair/Brown Era videos with great interest. There is a parallel story in Canadian politics: Paul Martin was like Brown, a successful Finance Minister during bleak economy, later to be Prime Minister BRIEFLY. There is a ‘royal jelly’ to leadership that PM Chrétien had and Tony Blair had. Their respective finance ministers, Brown in UK and Martin in Canada, who were both described as PM’s in-waiting, ended up having very short tenures as PM. If you watch an earlier video when Mr. Smith was named Labour Party Leader, while Blair and Brown were young and in the shadow cabinet respectively, you will see Blair’s anguished look at the time. He obviously felt anxious to ‘get on’ with new changes in the country, whilst Brown acquiesced to the natural order of things, as he was an acolyte of Mr. Smith, and was soon named as shadow cabinet for Chancellor of the Exchequer. In other words, I think there is a reason that both Blair and Chrétien were leaders ahead of their respective finance ministers. Both leaders were lucky: where luck = preparation and opportunity.
People voted for change and Brown as Chancellor gave us a continuation of PFI and privatization and stealth taxes which he had condemned the Tories for.
How did. Down almost stay on - Labour had less than 30% of the vote. A terrible result for Labour.
'If We are talking about it we have noticed"
Dear Steve Richards.... Supermac... Please..
Intellectually brilliant but emotional inept
The return of Mandelson was not a sign of political acumen but it was desperation. Steve Richards is good, but is of the left, supports more spending and is sympathetic to Labour leaders.
I had high hopes for Gordon Brown when he became PM after Blair stepped down and at first it all went well and then he was a huge disappointment. Then there was the awful Gillian Duffy moment during the 2010 General Election which was the final nail in his coffin.
@inspector morse I disagree as he was a brilliant Chancellor but he did not have the right personality to be a good Prime Minister. His connection to the voters was very poor.
@inspector morse I think Keir Starmer will stand a very good chance of winning the next election. Boris Johnson's leadership has been an unmitigated disaster since the coronavirus pandemic began and Brexit looks like it will be another disaster.
@inspector morse I'd rather a government like Blair's than one like Johnson's run by the odious Dominic Cummings.
@inspector morse Actually welfare spending was less under Blair as there was less unemployment. The money was spent on the NHS and Schools which were in dire need of money in 1997. The Tories gamble on the ERM fucked the economy and the NHS and education bore the brunt of it. Yes Blair got it wrong in Iraq but domestically he was a very good PM. Had he been Labour Leader in 2010 the result would not have been so bad for Labour.
@inspector morse I understand this perspective to a degree, but feel it ignores the economic political consensus of the time.
PFI was a cross party consensus policy from the time the Conservatives invented it in the mid 90s. They didn't spend 1997-2007 (roughly the time it became clear it was a mistake) opposing it, they spent that time trying to take credit for it.
And you have to consider the economic stagnation of the early 90s that led up to the instigation of PFI as a Keynesianism-on-cheat-mode equivalent. The neoliberal/deregulation consensus had been accepted, but in the early 90s we found out that without a boatload of North Sea Oil money bolstering the whole project, it wasn't as robust as the fast growth in the early to mid 80s had indicated. There needs to be *a* solution and change even if it wasn't that one.
I don't like or support PFI, because I'm a Neo-Keynesian who believes largely in direct funding and a discourse-driven blended economy, but Labour from 97-10 managed what was the economic consensus better than the Tories would have done and provided more opportunity to more people. The quick recovery in Browns last few quarters indicates it (the growth in his last quarter as PM would only be matched once between the Tories taking over in 2010 to today) compared to the stagnation of growth and productivity under the failed austerity project that would follow.
And as for the Iraq war. A disaster but, again, nothing the Tories wouldn't have done. Only difference is they wouldn't have even asked for a weapons dossier at all. They voted for the war in greater proportions than Labour did and their voters supported it in greater numbers too. Any other perspective here is simple revisionism.
AFAIC, the biggest genuine mistakes that were specific to them were devolution and the pensions management. The former exacerbated the very threats the union that it sought to appease and the latter was just poor policy judgement akin to the poll tax or Gove's silly education policies.
interesting but clear left wing bias...
Richards is a big Blairite.
He was dreadful!
+Colette Post Yes completely agree.
@Robert Seivad He was completely unsuited to the role of PM and helped create those awful conditions as the Chancellor.
We haven't been blessed with brilliant prime ministers this past decade
inspector morse probably the most successful ever chancellor and definitely saved the country from meltdown during the financial crash. On top of this, his leadership at the 2009 London summit might be the single greatest act of world leadership by a British pm since WW2
inspector morse half a million children out of poverty, maternity pay, paternity leave, 400000 off nhs waiting leaves, record results in schools, record investment in nhs, first ever climate change act, disability discrimination act, 30% reduction in crime across Britain, standard of living for pensioners raised significantly, the creation of sure start, repealing of section 28 of the 1988 education act, saved our country during the biggest economic crisis since the depression, removed troops from Iraq, started the removal of troops from Afghanistan, shortest nhs waiting times in history, presided over the best economy Britain has ever seen in 1997-2008. Pulled Europe from the brink of financial collapse at the G20 London Summit 2009, is recognised as the single biggest and most influential figure to deal with the financial crash which stopped a recession Turing into a depresssion. Put a ban on cluster bombs, introduced the winter fuel allowance, signed the Lisbon Treaty. What else is there to be said? The most successful ever chancellor who presided over one of Britain’s brightest ever times, a true colossus!