« The Silver Ring's the Thing | Main | Acts of Union »
June 22, 2006
The Man Who Would Be King
Sometimes, although not often, I feel a pang of sympathy for Gordon Brown. After all, the Granita Deal should have delivered more power and authority to John Smith's annointed successor than history shows to have been the case. Certainly Brown gained not only economic autonomy, but also widespread influence over welfare and social reform, but only two people will ever know for sure whether the ultimate prize was promised to Brown or not. And I doubt now whether Brown and Blair could agree on what was said back in June 1994.
In the early days of New Labour, the impression was that Blair would serve two terms and then hand over to Brown, but it has now become obvious that if Brown wants the prize, he is going to have to win it on his own merits. The Blairites will almost certainly do their utmost to prevent a Brown premiership, and the Left may well put their own candidate forward considering Brown too tainted by his years as Blair's chancellor.
But the biggest challenges to Brown's chances of become Prime Minister are of his own doing.
Firstly we have the ongoing pensions crisis during which Gordon and the Treasury have remained steadfast in their conviction that the problem lay with the pensions companies, business and in fact anyone other than themselves. But such denials may ring more hollow once the results of a FoI (Freedom of Information) Enquiry into Treasury Impact documents are known:
BBC - Brown faces pension 'raid' demand
Chancellor Gordon Brown has been ordered to reveal the secret forecasts he was given about the impact of his pensions "grab" in 1997.
Mr Brown was accused of mounting a "raid" on pension funds by removing tax credit on share dividends in 1997.
The Treasury was asked last year under freedom of information laws to publish the estimates given to ministers about the loss of revenue to pension funds to be published.
It was also asked to reveal how ministers had considered the impact of the losses, whether they thought about phasing in the changes and how they examined the possible long-term impact on pension funds.
But the Treasury turned down the request, saying officials' advice to ministers was exempt from freedom of information laws.
It is to be hoped that once the advice is published, we will be able to see whether Gordon was indeed "prudent" or actually playing fast and loose with our lives in retirement.
Then there is Iraq, a matter upon which Gordon has remained strangely silent. One can only assume that either Brown supported the war, he opposed the war but said nothing in an effort to let Blair hang himself, or he lacks any balls to speak out on such a significant matter. The tragedy is that, had he spoken out against invading Iraq, it is highly likely that a significant portion of the Labour Party would have rallied behind him and he might well be PM by now. As it is, he just appears happy to play his Machiavellian games whilst thousands of lives are lost.
There are other matters as well; his duplicitous manipulation of the University Tuition Fees debate and the Eccleston donation to name but two.
But last night was the final straw, the moment when it was confirmed that saving the Labour Party would not be achieved by just the removal of Blair, but would also hinge on stopping Brown from becoming leader.
BBC - Brown criticised over deterrent
In his Mansion House speech in the City of London, Mr Brown said Britain would show a "national purpose" in protecting its security.
"Strong in defence in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent," he said.
The Guardian - Anger as Brown backs Trident move
Mr Brown's speech, in which he also voiced support for civil nuclear power plants, was widely seen as a sign of his determination to ensure that his expected move to 10 Downing Street is not portrayed as a return to Labour's left-leaning, anti-nuclear past.
So much for the promised debate.
BBC - Blair promises deterrent 'debate'
He told a committee of senior MPs there would be the "fullest possible" debate. The decision would be taken in a "more open way" than had happened previously.
It is now apparent that New Labour intends replacing one white elephant with an even paler beast. When Trident was commisioned there was at least some tenuous justification for an independant nuclear deterrent although even then the arguments in favour of deterrence were looking threadbare. But in today's world? Just who the hell does Brown think a Trident replacement will deter? Certainly not any terrorist organisation. And America's massive nuclear arsenal hasn't deterred North Korea or Iran from pushing ahead with weapons programs.
This matter has nothing to do with national security, nothing to do with using state finances wisely, nothing to do with making the world a safer place. This is politics at its most unpalatable. This is Brown standing up and saying "Look at me, I'm hard!". This is Brown pulling Blair's balls out of the fire. Again. Above all, this is a betrayal by New Labour.
This just confirms what I have suspected for some time now; that Gordon Brown must not become Labour Leader or Prime Minister. His time was 1992, when he chose not to stand against John Smith, or 1994 when he deferred to Tony Blair. His time has passed and talk of a Brown premiership should be consigned to future counterfactuals.
Posted by Clive on June 22, 2006 9:18 AM in the category Labour