Brownism was a difficult political creed in the best of times to define within “new” Labour, an occasionally wobbly blancmange of moral fervour and opportunism. The economic prosperity and social justice preached by Gordon Brown were deliberately vague, loose aims Tony Blair could also happily endorse – and sometimes did.
That promise of economic prosperity is stale in a recession created by banksters encouraged to gamble the economy for fast profits with a nod and a wink from a premier who was Chancellor of the Exchequer for a decade.
And that pledge of social justice leaves a sour taste in the mouth when 12 years of Labour rule has seen the gap between rich and poor widen into a chasm which would make even a Victorian feel at home.
Always easier to define were the Blairites and the much smaller band of Brownites because they fought with a rare relish, championing their man and running down his rival. When the Tories were still a lost tribe wandering grumpily in the wilderness, Labour MPs and ministers plus the camp followers could enjoy biting lumps out of each other without fearing electoral indigestion.
The personal animosities were genuine, the rows denied by Alastair Campbell while he was gainfully employed in Downing Street subsequently detailed in the diary I remember Comical Ali denying he kept.
Yet Brownism did have a leftish edge absent in Blairism which made the current Prime Minister a more appealing politician than his predecessor.
The collection of speeches published collectively three years ago as Moving Britain Forward present a coherent vision of a better Britain that Blair could never – indeed, never did – deliver. Only Brown, not Blair, could go to south Wales and deliver a masterful address in memory of Nye Bevan which summoned up the ghost of the great prophet to inspire the creation of a fairer society.
Brown never, as Blair did with a sweet smile, declared he didn’t come into politics to raise the tax bill of that millionaire many times over David Beckham or, as Peter Mandelson did, take pride in boasting how he was “intensely relaxed” about the super-rich, Mandy proving his point by relaxing on many a wealthy man’s yacht.
True, that Bevan speech rings hollow when the average salaries of Britain’s top company bosses have been rising at five times the rate of employees and – until the recession – the level of income needed to join the ranks of Britain’s richest 200 residents rose eightfold in under two decades from £50 million to £430 million.
But Beckham’s tax bill will go up under Brown, should he return to Britain with his money instead of sticking it in some offshore haven – which, incidentally, begs the question why any footballer can play for England (or Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland for that matter) without paying tax into the national coffers.
Lower-income families can also thank Brown for £14 billion in tax credits, a stealthy if significant redistribution that’s put an average £60-ish a week into the pockets of 4.5 million homes. I remember the Blairites battling the Brownites over that – Blair’s lot arguing the money should be spent instead on services for Middle England.
Those services also did very well, health and education among them, where the roofs were fixed when the sun was shining to give Labour a better record than is acknowledged by that son of Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron, or his media allies.
The failed coup to oust Brown effectively ended the internal Labour fault-line that existed since 1994 when John Smith died, whatever those divisions were.
First, the revolt was entirely personality-based. Bitter Charles Clarke and his rebels failed to come up with a single policy issue and instead complained that Brown is losing a beauty parade with Cameron.
Second, the embrace of arch foe Peter Mandelson marked the formal end of hostilities between King Brown and the Prince of Darkness. Blairites James Purnell and Hazel Blears stomped off in a huff, but, more significantl , David Miliband, Andy Burnham and Jim Murphy stayed.
Brown has spent the past couple of weeks defining the Tories as the party of cuts. But what does Brown stand for?
The headline in the Daily Mail said it all when John Bercow was elected Speaker of the House of Commons: “Impossible! They voted for someone worse than Gorbals Mick.”
Martin was never as bad a Speaker (I declare an interest – I advocated a vote for him nine years ago in Tribune) as the Mail claimed and nor, I suspect, will Bercow be as poor as that newspaper has deemed in advance he’ll be.
The Mail is feared in Downing Street, the Prime Minister quaking in his boots whenever its mentioned, worried how policies will be received by the Tory organ. Brown should relax, as should Bercow. Brown should remember the supposedly all-conquering Mail was on the losing side in the last thee general elections. Bercow should take heart from Martin lasting nine years, despite the Mail barrage. Nine years is the limit Bercow has placed on his own speakership.
