Fat Cats, Private Equity and the Morality of the Super Rich

Those who read my blog will know I have a special beef about the super-rich. This doesn’t make me unusual though it does lay me, and fellow objectors open to the (frequently leveled) charge of the ‘politics of envy’. Given human nature, some of this charge is justified but the purpose of this-I admit very personal- note is to show that, even allowing for such factors, the infamous quotation by Peter Mandelson in 1997 that ‘New Labour is intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich’ has unleashed a situation which has become harming to society- not just to the poor. I also discuss the views of a number of authors on the subject of modern materialism.

Are Critics Missing the Point?
This question was posed by one Peter Newhouse, a self styled ‘independent consultant on pay and management’ in The Guardian, 31st August, 2007. He is all in favour of publishing the extent of the fat cats’ fatness:

The disclosure of executive directors' pay is good for society. Rather than being a cause for hand-wringing and envy, the Guardian pay survey's revelations of what our best managers can earn from running the UK's biggest listed companies should encourage others to follow in their footsteps. The survey found that directors' pay at the 100 largest such firms has risen by 37%, with the average chief executive receiving £2.9m, including salary, benefits, bonuses and gains from share incentive schemes. These figures send an important message to able and aspirational young people.

Fair enough, you might think (and more from him later), but does this short paragraph tell us anything like the whole story? I think the existence of a new class of super-rich in the USA which has been exported to the UK, Europe and many other areas of the globalised world, represents a worrying problem, both morally, economically and politically.

The Extent of the problem

1. Share of world’s income: the richest 20% of the world earns 83% of its income. In descending order the other quintiles earn, 11.7%, 2.3%, 1.9% and a shaming 1.4%
2. Earnings of Top Directors: Simon Jenkins has written about this and those familiar with this classy columnist, will know he is no lefty bleeding heart, but he is astonished at the brass neck of company bosses:

The heads of Britain’s 100 biggest companies have had 37%, won 28% more last year, 16% the year before and 13% and 23% in the two preceding years, yielding an average pay of £2.8m a head or 20 times the rise in price inflation. Under Labour, these company directors have stretched their remuneration to almost 100 times average earnings, a gap unprecedented since the rise of modern taxation.'

3. Comparison with Average Workers’ Earnings: In the UK bosses earn on average 100 times the pay of the average worker in the companies they run. In the case of mining company Xstrata, the multiple is 544. In the USA there examples of the ratio being 1000:1.

4. Greeediness of Super-rich: some mega rich people can be amazingly generous but in the UK they donate only 1% of their incomes to charity; far less than in the USA. Lord Black and his wife Barbara Amiel, have been exposed as exploiters of their company where they fraudulently denied shareholders some £40m. Their purpose? To live a super extravagant lifestyle with private jets and birthday parties costing £100,000.


5. The Wealth Gap: Economic journalist Frank Rich, has written a book entitled ‘Richistan’ in which he argues that the super-rich have now reached a level whereby they virtually live in their own country, with low taxes, armies of servants, private planes and more money than they can possibly spend in a lifetime. Whilst median incomes have fallen in the USA for four years before 2005, the rich got richer by double digits. The richest 1% now own 33% of all the wealth and this is greater than that owned by the poorest 90%. The rich now sometimes pay a top specialist to give up normal practice and serve merely a group of mega rich families.

6. Millions of US Squillionaires: in 1995 there were 3.77m people classed a ‘millionaires’; in 1998 there were 5.43; and in 2004 9.05. The figures for those worth $5m were, respectively .55, .86 and 1.44; $10m- .23, .30, .53 and $25m- .05, .06 and .11. By 2004 the richest 1% of Americans were earning $1.3 trillion a year, greater than the total national incomes of France, Italy or Canada. In 1985 there were only 13 billionaires- by 2006 there were 400. The expansion in the States is being mirrored in Europe. The number of millionaires in the UK is expected to quadruple by 2020 from 376,000 to 1.7 million. London home prices frequently top £20m. :
‘British concierge services are thriving, as they arrange for rich clients to rent their own tropical islands, charter 250 foot yachts and host birthday parties in Cyprus.’(p.12)

7. Setting salaries: So how come they receive such amazing salaries?
After noting and dismissing various specious defences of such stupendous payments, Simon Jenkins quotes JK Galbraith who said such salaries:

'[were] nothing to do with the marketplace but were a heart-warming gift from executives and their friends to each other, a gift that had grown so large as to 'verge on larceny'.

8. High Gini Coefficents: this index charts the degree of inequality in society. Countries with high ratios tend to have low economic growth when they are poor overall and high social costs too. Ratios of about 25, typical of Western Europe are held to be about right for social harmony and reasonable growth but if as high as 40 as in China and the USA, severe problems of social cohesion and crime can result.

9. Private equity companies
These swashbuckling new players buy out public companies, which are subject to some common regulation and then use their new private status to inflict fairly blatant forms of exploitation. The device is to take the company into liquidation, maybe for only 24 hours, to shed liabilities; pensioners thus robbed become a call on tax funded government compensation schemes. On average 20% of jobs are cut after such a takeover; Toynbee observes:
Mega money is made by the dealmakers but it is a weakened company which limps back to the market.' and concludes
'Never mind the hard-won laws devoted to making public companies responsible: private equity is a return to primitive, unregulated capitalism'

But it is the tax breaks such companies exploit which cause the most anger:

Current tax breaks let private investors charge the interest from huge borrowings against profits. On capital gains they are not charged the usual 40% that applies to everyone else, but after owning the company for just two years their rate is cut to 10%. The two-year rule introduced in 2004, designed to help new ventures, puts ordinary public companies at a disadvantage , having to wait 10 years to pay so little.

It is this anomaly which led Nicholas Ferguson, chairman of SVG Capital private equity to remark recently that executives in his line of work 'pay less tax than a cleaning lady', a remark which won a headline for its author in The Financial Times. One has to applaud his honesty but when one of the robbers themselves complains his gang are receiving too much loot, there must be something seriously wrong.

10. Ghettos for Rich and Poor
Joseph Rowntree Foundation on Economic Segregation
records that the gap between richest and poorest is wider than at any time for 40 years and that: "Poor, rich and average households became less and less likely to live next door to one another between 1970 and 2000," It seems the greatest polarity is occurring in the South-east where the richest and poorest are increasingly living in separate parts of the capital with the former on the outskirts ; 'average' families on middle incomes are being priced out of the region by spiralling house prices and are either moving elsewhere or becoming poor


Professor Danny Dorling, from Sheffield University, leader of the study which analysed census data since the 1970s, commented that increased wealth had not really made the newly rich any happier:

"Rich people in London don't think that they are rich because they don't mix with poor people. That is one of the main differences with the 1970s. In the 1970s and the 1980s there were a few wealthy people almost everywhere. Now, apart from a small number in Cheshire and North Yorkshire, almost all the very rich are in the South East.

Sadly neither Blair nor Brown can claim the last decade, apart from the alleviating the incomes of the very poor has produced much progress towards equality. In February this year a Sunday Telegraph, poll revealed 73 per cent of voters thought City bonuses had become "excessive and something should be done about them"; meanwhile 69 per cent believed the gap between the highest earners and average earners is now excessive.

Analysing the Problem (or trying to)

Happiness and Money: Oliver James a journalist and psychologist has written Affluenza, a study of our relationship with money. He argues that:

‘People who favour certain key values- money, possessions, physical and social appearances, and fame- are at greater risk of emotional distress…. The reasons these values are so bad for our well-being were best summed up by an American psychologist writing in the 1950s and 60s. He presented a stark choice that the American variety of capitalism offered as ‘To Have or To Be’.

He feels that such obsessions amount to a condition which to which he ascribes a medical name: the virus of ‘Affluenza’:

‘In Having mode, people are as much in the grip of external forces as the hypnotized or the compulsively obsessed.’ Fromm saw them as people ‘dependent on success, sale-ability, the approval of others.’ James believes this condition is the result of decades of false needs inculcated by the economic system. As William Leith writes of the book in his review:

‘Affluenza, as defined by James, is clearly recognisable as our way of life. It spreads because it feeds on itself; when you try to make yourself feel better by buying a car, or bulking up in the gym, or spraying on a fake tan, or having a facelift, you actually make yourself feel worse, which makes you want to buy more things. As James points out, the virus has spread to television - "most programmes," he says, "are now barely concealed advertisements for classes of product" - and education. James sees modern education as "little better than a systematic method for spreading the virus"’.

Richard Layard’s Thesis on Happiness: Economist Layard, has written a book on happiness. This he describes as ‘new science’ with techniques now available to measure happiness quantitatively: the book contains a number of fascinating diagrams and graphs. In it he points out that huge improvements in material well being have not resulted in anything like commensurate improvements in happiness. We have become richer and richer yet also more and more unhappy.
Economies grow, GDP swells, but once above abject poverty, it makes no difference to citizens' well-being. What is all this extra money for if it is now proved beyond doubt not to deliver greater happiness, nationally or individually? Happiness has not risen in western nations in the last 50 years, despite massive increases in wealth.
Layard’s study concludes that, as long as one has the basic requirements of living- food, shelter and the like- the chances of a fortune making us any happier are by no means automatic. £25K a year is the basic requirement suggests Layard; after that, it’s up to you to achieve happiness. Layard points out that richer people get angry at their salaries mostly because they are less than others they know. Polly Toynbee, in The Guardian summarizes some key points thus:
In pursuit of money, working ever harder, we are, says Layard, on a "hedonic treadmill" - a phrase that resonates with most of us. Right across Europe people report more stress, harder work, greater fear of insecurity, chasing elusive gains. The seven key factors now scientifically established to affect happiness most are: mental health, satisfying and secure work, a secure and loving private life, a safe community, freedom and moral values.
Oliver James, in his book, cites a billionaire banker, Sam, with a private plane and houses all over the world but who is seriously neurotic with severe addictions, especially to youngish sexual partners. The taxi driving immigrant, Chet, James also cites has a fraction of this wealth yet works regularly and hard, is faithful to his wife and full of pleasure with the world. At least Bill Gates and Warren Buffet – the two richest men in the world- have solved the problem of what to do with their money by giving it away to charity. Few follow their example.
Will They all Move Overseas ?
Now to return to Mr Newhouse who warns us that these talented people earning obscene sums fail to continue to get them ‘they will leave listed UK plc bereft of talent’. I just wonder if that’s true. Not according to at least one economic expert cited by Larry Elliot in The Guardian:

Professor John Van Reenen, director of the Centre for Economic Performance, and the co-author of a recent study into management practices at 4,000 companies, was critical of UK management and questioned whether British executives could cut it overseas if they became disenchanted with pay levels in Britain.

"UK management is not in the premier league. Management aspires to pay as well as the US, but our study finds that average management quality in the US far outstrips that in the UK. Only one in every 50 American firms in our sample can be described as 'very badly managed', compared with roughly 1 in 12 in the UK.”
The suggestion of Simon Jenkins in his article quoted above is that we call the fat cats’ bluff. Dare them to move overseas and see how many takers there are: I suspect not many.

Morality and Mega-riches
This question has been left until the final paragraph, though it has run through my note from the beginning. In some ways it the most important theme of them all. When some people have piles of cash which could reach the moon or even Mars, can it be right that they exist alongside people who try to survive on 50pence or a dollar a day? Christian morality tells us this is a moral obscenity and virtually all other moralities urge fairness and something approaching social justice. The Hollywood film Wall St’s Gordon Gekko urged that ‘greed is good’, that it provides the motor which drives an economic system which delivers many more ‘goods’ than ‘bads’. Maybe this is true but one has to wish for the kind of thinking which led Gates-Buffet to realize their fortunes were worthless as guarantors of happiness and conclude that using their fortunes to help others ultimately, might be.

Government Action
Governments could do a number of things to attack the problem: raise taxes for the mega rich; end loop-holes which make London a virtual; tax haven; strengthen the rights of shareholders to question salaries of directors and chief executives. Evidence suggests indignation on this issue is cross party: Cameron has promised action on ‘non domiciled’ fat cats who avoid paying tax on their fortunes while they live in UK because technically they live overseas.

Reading
Several articles are quoted in this piece from The Guardian, The Observer and elsewhere. The n
books are:

Robert Frank, Richistan (2007): A Journey through the 21st century wealth boom and the lives of the new Rich. Plaktus
Oliver James(2006) Affluenza: How to be Successful and Stay Sane. Vermillion.
Richard Layard (2006) Happiness: Lessons from a new Science.
Bill Jones October 2007
http://skipper59.blogspot.com/

Burma; The Monks' Revolution

[Just to say that these three postings today are in fact weekly briefings for my current affairs class going back to October 3rd, 2007

Burma is two thirds of a million square miles (India 3.3 million-USA is 9.4 million) and has over 51 million inhabitants, its most populous area being the valley of the river Irrawaddy. It is familiar to us in the UK as a former part of the British Empire, given its independence in 1948. It has been in the news over the past month for the spirited attempt by a Buddhist monk led movement to remove the rule of the military junta, (in power since 1991-and before that the military since 1962). This briefing provides background and analysis of these events.

Burma: History

The Mon people were the first to settle in the valley-about 900BC- and to adopt Buddhism; the Pyu speaking Tibeto-Burmans arrived about 100BC. The Mon and Pyu kingdoms competed for control of the area but the Nanzhao from neighbouring Yunnan invaded regularly around this time and eventually destroyed the Pyu kingdom. This group of incomers formed the Bagar Kingdom but in overcoming the Mon people they were attracted by their Buddhism which they went on to adopt. Magnificent temples were built around this time. In 1287 however, Kublai Khan’s Mongols invaded. It was too hot for the Mongols but the Tai Shan people who came down with them settled widely as the Bagan empire divided into small kingdoms. Eventually the minor kingdom of Taungoo achieved supremacy over both lower and upper Burma.

Europeans Arrive

By now the Portugese had made their entry, not to mention the British who shouldered aside the Portugese and defeated the Burmese in 1825 when the latter’s conquests brought them into contiguity with the British in India. In 1852 there was another Anglo-Burmese War Britain won several states from Burma as a result of these wars. After the Third Burmese War in 1885, the British united, in victory, both Lower and Upper Burma, the royal family was exiled to India and after four years the country was pacified. Burma was now administered as a single province with British India.

Colonial Rule

The British brought in Indians and Chinese who quickly displaced the indigenous ruling elite. Insurrections were frequent against British rule; especially arising from the disrespect shown to Burmese customs like removing shoes upon entering temples. In 1919 a disturbance was caused when a group of monks in Mandalay tried to eject a group of tourists from Britain who refused to remove their shoes. The leader of the monks was sentenced to life imprisonment for attempted murder.

‘Such incidents inspired the Burmese resistance to use Buddhism as a rallying point for their cause. Buddhist monks became the vanguards of the independence movement, and many died while protesting. One monk-turned-martyr was U Wisara, who died in prison after a 166-day hunger strike to protest a rule that forbade him from wearing his Buddhist robes while imprisoned. Kipling’s poem 'Mandalay’ is now all that most people in Britain remember of Burma’s difficult and often brutal colonisation.’ (Wikipedia)

In 1937 Burma became independent of India and insurgencies began the most important of which was the Burmese Independence Army(BIA) led by Aung San. He founded the Thirty Comrades who were trained in Japan. In 1941 in a house in Bangkok:

‘25 of the Thirty Comrades had their blood drawn from their arms in syringes, then poured into a silver bowl from which each of them drank - thway thauk in time-honoured Burmese military tradition - pledging "eternal loyalty" among themselves and to the cause of Burmese independence. Their average age was just 24 years.^’

^{The invading Japanese were initially successful but the British counter-attacked and retook the country assisted by the SOE and elements of the Burmese themselves. The BIA fought with the Japanese 1942-44 but switched to the Allied side in 1945.}

^{Independence, 1948}

^{Aung San became Chairman of the Executive Council of Burma, a kind of transitional government, but he was assassinated in July 1947 along with several of his comrades.}

^{Modern Burma: In January 1948 Burma became independent with U Nu as its first prime minister. it did not become a member of the Commonwealth. In 1961 U Thant became Secretary General of the UN, assisted by a young Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of the founding nationalist leader.}

^{Military Rule}

^{In 1962 General Nin We led a coup d’etat and went on to rule his military junta for the next 25 years. In 1974, during the funeral of U Thant, disturbances were suppressed without mercy. In 1988, the so-called 8888 uprising, economic in origin, saw 3000 people killed. General Saw Maung then staged a coup within the context of military rule , forming the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). Martial law was declared in 1989 after widespread protests. The ‘Union of Myanmar’ replaced Burma as the official name of the country, though UK and USA refuse to recognize the name.}

^{In 1990 the first elections in 30 years were held. The League for Democracy (NLD) won 392 out of 489 seats but its leader Aung San Suu Kyi was not allowed to come to power as the generals declared the elections void. General Than Shwe took over and has been in power since then. In 1997 the SLORC was renamed as the (Orwellian sounding) State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). In March 2006 the generals moved their capital from Yangon (Rangoon) to Naypyidaw (‘city of kings’) deep in the countryside.}

^{Economy: During the latter stages of British rule Burma was seen as a wealthy country likely to become more so. It had plentiful supplies of oil, natural gas and teak as well as rubies, sapphires and other precious stones. However, the economic management of the nation by the generals has been a disaster with inflation running at astronomic rates of 60%. It also provides a large slice of the world’s illegal drugs including 8% of its opium. Transparency International, a corruption watchdog places Burma above only Somalia as the most corrupt country in the world. Infrastructure is appalling in the country and tourism a fraction of what it could be given the natural beauty of the place. Because of the very bad human rights record Burma is denied aid that flows to other poor countries. Burma has a GDP per person of only $1500, way down the international league.}

^{Economic Protests: The huge hike in fuel prices in September 2007 provoked outrage among Burma’s starving population. The initial ‘Burmese way to Socialism’ policy pursued by the military after 1962 –essentially a military takeover of business- led to a drastic fall in production. The ‘rice bowl’ of the region was soon reduced to pauper status. Soldiers regularly stop farmers on their way to market to extract bribes and steal food. Starvation is greatest on the borders where the ethnic minorities live- about a third of Burma’s under - fives are ‘chronically malnourished’. On top of that the regime spends only 2% on health care and 40% on armed forces. Infectious diseases are as rife as in Africa and there is an HIV epidemic. Much labour is forced, virtually slave labour, forced by the military to supply its needs.}

^{Small groups in early 2007 plucked up the courage to demonstrate against the bad economic management of their government but were soon picked of by government spies and secret police. Amnesty International turned a witheringly critical eye on the regime- criticism seems to have little effect on the generals who are determined to exploit their position in terms of power and material advantage.}

^{In April and May, 2007 a number of human rights activists were arrested and others beaten by police. But this was only the prelude to what was destined to come later.}

^{Monks’ Revolt: Anti government protests, focusing on economic conditions, began in August and soon it became clear that the monks were placing themselves at the forefront. There are 400,000 monks in Burma, all of whom command huge respect. Giving them alms is believed to be the means whereby one’s future life is guaranteed to be a happy one. Most monks serve only for a few years so many of them later become integrated into national life. Soldiers fired over the heads of demonstrating monks in early September in Pakkoku and the military then refused the clergy’s request that they apologize. This is what fired the monks’ revolt.}

Thousands of monks led protests on September 18, and were joined by Buddhist nuns a few days later. On September 24, 20,000 monks and nuns led 30,000 people in a protest march from the famous golden Shwedagon Pagoda in Rangoon, filing past the offices of the National League for Democracy. Well known comedian Zaganar and star Kyaw Thu brought food and water to the monks. On September 22, a large group of monks marched to greet and discuss with Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been under house arrest since 1990.

^{In September also, the Buddhist monks withdrew their spiritual services from military personnel- a major statement in such a highly religious country.}

^{These marches-much bigger than those in 1988- greatly alarmed the military who immediately accused ‘foreign meddling’ as the cause. In Rangoon, they hesitated significantly before finally using tear gas and then live ammunition. An Saung Suu Kyi was moved to the notorious Insein prison, used by the British when they were in control. Curfews were announced and monasteries surrounded. When the monks refused to stop demonstrating, monasteries were entered, monks arrested and many tortured, imprisoned or in some cases killed. The ‘tatmadaw’ (armed forces) seemed to wobble for a while but their harsh responses seemed to crush the immediate resistance out of the opposition forces. Officially only 8 people have been killed but estimates put the real figure in the hundreds or even more.}

^{Hundreds of monks are either still in detention or have been ‘disappeared’.}

^{Response of World Community: Most western countries reacted with horror to the actions of Than Shwe’s government but Ban Ki Moon’s visit on behalf of the UN, proved useless. The UN sought to condemn the regime but action by Russia and China prevented this. Japan made vague threats about cutting aid after the shooting of a Japanese photographer but like most ASEAN neighbours (Burma was admitted to this regional grouping in 1997), reactions were mild. The Economist notes (6/10/07) that the east has managed to fill the gap caused by the sanctions applied by western countries. China sees Burma as a vital source of natural resources, especially oil and gas, so has been careful in what it has said. It has to be said also, that neither Russia or China have particular objections to brutal repressions of internal opposition.}

^{Having said this a more hopeful development occurred on 11th October when China made a U-turn,deciding to support the UN resolution rebuking the regime for suppressing peaceful protests and demanding the release of political prisoners. David Miliband noted the isolation this statement imposed on the generals. The US ambassador to the UN said the issue would be taken up within two weeks and further measures would ensue if the regime did not respond. Time will tell if the generals are listing but The Economist’s view(29/9/07) of the revolt is hardly sanguine:}

Back in 1988, at the peak of the protests, even as soldiers were mowing down the crowds, many Burmese felt sure the rotten regime was ready to collapse under the unstoppable force of “people power”, as the Marcos regime in the Philippines had two years earlier .Even if the regime does crumble and the junta stuffs its bags with gemstones and heads for exile, Myanmar's troubles would still be daunting. Many of the ethnic minorities continue to distrust the majority “Burmans”, even including the democrats. And the NLD has been gutted by years of oppression. Miss Suu Kyi, inspiring figure though she is, is an untested leader who has perforce been woefully out of touch with events. As in 1988 and 1990 the Burmese people have shown they want to choose their own leaders. In the past they did not fully reckon on the ruthlessness of the people they were up against. One day, as with all tyrannies, Myanmar's will fall. But much blood may flow before that day dawns.

15th October, 2007

The Election that never Was: Brown's Black Saturday

“You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em

Know when to fold ‘em

Know when to walk away

Know when to run.”

Kenny Rogers, ‘The Gambler’

So it was all called off just when most people-including me- thought it would happen. This briefing note aims to identify: the arguments adduced for and against the election that never was; explain why it failed to materialize; and assess the fallout for Gordon Brown.

1. The Case for an Autumn Election:
Polls: During the spring and early summer the Conservatives established a convincing lead as the Blair era came to an end and the new one began. Many expected Gordon’s brooding personality to help extend this lead and the Conservatives had rather reckoned on voters being turned off by the grumpy, glowering Scot. However, this was not to be. Brown immediately benefited from a considerable ‘bounce’ and Labour began to extend a lead. Brown’s early actions like forming a well balanced Cabinet and seeking to include outsiders as ministers or advisers, went down well as did his proposals for reform of government. He also enjoyed a makeover to his appearance and smiled more often.

He also managed to cope more than adequately with floods, a terrorist incident, foot and mouth and a financial crisis. Cameron fought hard during the summer to recoup the shortfall and by September he worked hard on issues like crime and ‘the broken society’ to pull his party up to equal standing. However, signs of disunity in the form of attacks from the right- Tebbitt in particular- led to a further dip. By the middle of the month Labour was recording leads of over 11% in more than one poll. John Curtice in the Independent, saw the average lead as 8% on 4/10/07.

Mandate: It would give Gordon the chance to obtain his own "mandate". Naturally, he did not need one as Labour has one from the 2005 election, but this was one associated with Blair and Brown has never been endorsed as PM by the public-and has been criticized as such- so he is still, in a sense, in Blair’s political shadow,something he is bound to resent.

Conservatives: The Tories were in disarray in mid September. Cameron had lost much credibility with his U turn over grammar schools and seemed unable to decide whether to do an ‘Andy Coulson-right-turn’ or a ‘Steve Hilton-left-turn’. Meanwhile the Tebbit-Thacherite faction was in open revolt and Gordon was ‘triangulating’ disingenuously by claiming Tory ground on crime and immigration. His slogan "British jobs for British workers" seemed to tack so far to the right it lurched into BNP territory.

The Economy: International market turbulence might cause house prices to fall and for consumer spending to ease back; the credit boom looks like coming to an end, for similar reasons and interest rates will probably climb as 2008 approaches. More than one economic commentator argued that Brown should make the electoral dash as things can only not get better.

Political Courage: Brown had a chance of standing against George Robertson in 1978 but pulled back; he could have stood for the leadership in 1992 as Blair urged at the time, but pulled back; and could have stood against Blair in 1994 but famously stood aside yet again. So Brown has a reputation for ‘choking’ it when the chips are down. He would hate such a label to adhere more permanently, especially as his recent book was called Courage: a series of eight profiles of people who have shown immense courage.

Marginals: all students of British politics know that as some two thirds of seats are ‘safe’ and unlikely to change hands, it is those with thin majorities- the marginals- which decide who wins. The Conservatives have been astute in identifying them and Lord Ashcroft, the Tories’ biggest donor has been pouring in money for months to edge them towards his side of the fence- it worked well in 2005. Some urged a snap election to bring such spending under the strict controls of an election campaign period.

Voters say they want election: the poll in The Guardian, 6^th October showed 48% favour an autumn election.

Penalties of Backing down: having allowed speculation to run riot, Brown made an election seem almost inevitable: he also took on election staff and brought forward announcements on the NHS and the economy which suggested the decision had already been taken. Backing down would make him appear a coward(see above).

Penalties of no election would be short-lived: the Opposition would taunt Brown for a while about backing off an election test, but this would not last more than a month or so.

Case Against
Polls: i)Ever since voting behaviour exhibiting the strong class allegiance of the 50s and 60s- the so-called ‘partisan de-alignment’-political commentators have discerned a much greater ‘volatility’ in voting patterns. A trend can no longer be extrapolated very far into the future and even a day or two is a long time in politics

ii)While the polls showed a healthy lead it could not be ruled out that Cameron’s conference could be a wild success and alter the political weather.

iii) In the last few elections the polls have consistently shown Labour exceeding their actual lead over the Tories by 2-3%.

Boundary Commission changes: these will take 15-20 seats off Labour and give them to Conservatives.

2005 marginals now harder to win: new MPs have bedded down in those marginals lost by Labour, making it hard for them to win them back and increase their majority of 66.

Campaign Uncertainties: it can never be certain that a party will not lose a few percentage points during campaigns when gaffes and unscheduled events can happen.

Danger of Underperforming: to justify an election politically Brown needed to come out with an increased majority. If he only equaled Blair’s 66 the election would seem unnecessary; if he managed less than 66 it would have seemed a failure, despite the winning of an extra 2-3 years in power. If his majority was a mere 20 or so, as for Major in 1992, he would have been at the mercy of rebels for the rest of his term.

Danger of Losing: if Brown lost the election, he would be the shortest serving PM since Bonar Law’s six months 1923-4 or even George Canning’s 119 days in 1827. This would very definitely not be something which the fiercely ambitious Gordon Brown would like to have appended to his name in history books.

No Need for an Election: voters vote for parties to govern through parliament, not individuals. Labour has until May 2010 before an election is due so there is no need for one now. Furthermore, voters, despite saying they would like elections to pollsters, tend to think otherwise in reality. There was a risk voters would punish Brown if he called an election.

Appearance of Opportunism: dashing for the polls might appear to be exploiting a situation for personal benefit and produce a backlash from an occasionally perverse electorate.

Dark Nights deters voters: a November election would be in the dark and that might deter older voters from turning out.

Electoral Register not ready: it was calculated a million new members would not be included on the register- though some say they would be young urban dwellers and not so likely to vote anyway.

Visit to Iraq: this was a major mistake. Never mind that Thatcher did the same in 1983 to bolster her warrior status before the election in that year, Brown’s visit seemed too obvious and seemed to exploit serving soldiers for political purposes. Furthermore, he had promised to announce his plans for troop reductions to the Commons and in the event

announced, in Iraq some 500 reductions which he had announced earlier; a return to his ‘double counting’ tendencies said critics.

Marginals: Benedict Brogan, a Daily Mail journalist and blogger with close links to the brown camp, reported the evidence from polling the marginals to be ‘bad’ on 7^th October. If true this should have given Brown pause re the decision to go to the country. Maybe Ashcroft’s money had already done its work.

Tax proposals: Labour are confident Osborne’s tax proposals do not add up and have not been costed properly. However, there was doubt such proof could be adequately established during a short campaign.

Voters Unreliable on Wanting Elections: whilst voters might say they want an election, there is evidence to suggest they can change their minds during the campaign. Right up to early October polls had shown opposition to an election.

Tories now united: Brown hoped talk of an election would destabilize Conservatives, riven as they were by differences over policy, but the conference succeeded in delivering a greater degree of unity than they have had for maybe two decades.

Why Gordon backed Down

Brown allowed the election speculation to begin as soon as he acceded to power; he thereupon stoked it up and let it reach fever pitch for several weeks. Everyone knows of Brown’s famous caution and meticulous planning of political strategies. But it seems he was always sceptical of the snap election idea and remained to be convinced. His close associates the Eds Balls and Miliband plus Douglas Alexander, were apparently gung ho for the election and wanted to deliver that killer blow to the enemy as son as possible. To this extent it was a purely opportunistic strategy- common-place in politics but not one it is wise to confess or be found out pursuing. However, these tyro political assassins had ignored two crucial factors:

a) Osborne’s inheritance proposals: he suggested the tax could be abolished and paid for by taxing non domiciled people who live in the UK but do not pay its taxes because they technically are domiciled abroad. Maybe this suggestion was poorly costed and speculative but as an idea it proved to have mesmeric power. Many people complain that the limit beyond which estates have to pay inheritance tax if they are worth above £300,000. Given that even modest semi-detached houses are no worth that mount, the tax has caused great anguish to people wishing to pass on their assets to children and relations. Politically, this has a crucial feature in that many of Labour’s most marginal seats are in the south-east where property prices have rocketed over the past decades.

b) The Conservative Conference was a substantial success, with a unity inspired by the election fears, a series of well received speeches by David Davis, Osborne and, even Iain Duncan Smith. In addition Cameron’s own(‘Look Mum, no notes’) speech received rave reviews for its fluency and ability to sketch in a coherent vision of the future, albeit of a more rightwards leaning one than the more liberal version Cameron has offered since being elected in December 2005.

The impact of the tax proposals was near instant and Labour’s private polls in the marginal seats began to return grave news. Polls in the wake of the conference also revealed Labour’s lead slashed to only a few points and October 5^th Friday’s Guardian poll reported level pegging at 38% each. The leaked ICM poll in the News of the World on Saturday 6^th October revealed a Conservative lead of 44-38%, a six point lead in the marginal seats which would have ruined Labour’s chances of even holding on to its majority let alone increase it. Brown then bowed to the inevitable and told interviewer Andrew Marr that the election would not take place.

The Fallout of the Failed Gamble
In June this year David Cameron expected Gordon Brown to be a lumbering, grey, extinct volcano of a politician whilst he proved remarkably nimble, steady of nerve and fecund of ideas. So confident did Gordon become, boosted by poll leads of up to 11% that he fancied taking on the still untested David Cameron. Labour ministers allowed themselves to dream it would end the career of the former Etonian. Oh dear! It didn't quite work out that way. As for Cameron, Brown's over-confidence led to a similar, but more grievous mis-judgement. Ming Campbell has called it 'a humiliating climbdown'; the Observer spoke for most of Fleet St in declaring:

He[Brown] was seduced by the short-term goal of annihilating the Tories. He so craved a mandate from the ballot box that he squandered much of the implicit moral mandate he had from soaring poll ratings. The public had invested in him that crucial and most ephemeral of political commodities - the benefit of the doubt. He has gambled it unwisely on political games.

The worst ramifications of this defeat may not survive the new year but Gordon may have sustained a crippling hit:

i) he has lost, temporarily at least his reputation for strength which so boosted his ratings compared with Cameron.

ii) Cameron has leapt in with confident sounding certainties. They are based mostly on supposition of course but every opposition has to have ready and waiting to unroll and he has done so adroitly.

iii) Brown has lost his reputation for being decisive and for getting things right.

iv) He tried to blame his advisers- Balls, Alexander and Miliband were the most enthusiastic for the plan- but everyone knows he deliberately let talk of an election continue until it seemed imminent. It was his call and he must take the blame he could not bring himself to admit to Andrew Marr on Sunday morning.

v) Having declined to fight George Robertson in 1978, to stand for the party leadership in 1992 and take on Blair in 1994, Brown's reputation for 'bottling it' has been possibly sealed for ever.

v) The next election is now definitely off for spring 2008 and we must wait for the long haul in 2009, or even later if, as we are told is likely to happen, things go pear-shaped with the economy.
vi)The Tories already have posted leads in a number of newspapers, much to the glee of the right-wing press. It'll be while before they change and will help Cameron immensely as he ploughs his 'liberal Tory' furrow. As long as he has a poll lead the ‘Tebbitt’ faction tolerates him, but once he loses it or slips behind, they start to sharpen their knives.

vii) Instead of 'finishing off' Cameron's project, he has reinvigorated it mightily and handed the political initiative to the Opposition until such uncertain time it can be wrested back.

viii) By listening to a small group of young advisers, Brown has appeared to follow the ‘sofa government’ practices of Blair. It is well known that the ‘grey beards’ of Straw and Hoon were opposed to the idea.

ix) Some defenders of the election speculation claim Tory promises for the next election campaign have been ‘smoked out’ so that they can be attacked in good time. This seems a thin defence however; the party surely has more things up its sleeve than inheritance tax changes.

On Monday 8^th October, Brown addressed a press conference and admitted his mistakes, up to a point. He insisted he had not gone for the election as he wished to demonstrate his vision for the UK in the years remaining before an election was due. Whilst not convincing anyone-let alone this grouping of cynical world weary hacks- he had drawn back because of the polls, he at least managed a degree of damage limitation. He can comfort himself with the thought that he has over two years in which to repair his reputation for strength and solidity. But his sleep might just be disturbed by the thought that it didn’t work for the Tories after Black Wednesday, back in 1992; that disaster dogged them and kept their ratings bumping along the bottom for over a decade.

Bill Jones, October 2007

Gordon Brown: Brilliant Obsessive

Gordon Brown: Portrait of a Brilliant Obsessive

Early Days

Gordon Brown is famously a ‘son of the Manse’ in that his father was a minister in The Church of Scotland; accordingly, he grew up within an atmosphere of social responsibility and philanthropy. He and his brothers regularly helped their father, John Brown with work in the Kirkaldy, Fife parish and at the events he organized in connection with St Brycedale Presbyterian church: ‘Father was a generous person and made us aware of poverty and illness…he taught me to treat everyone equally and that is something I have not forgotten’ (many would now bitterly dispute such an assertion however). Personal ambitions were unworthy and therefore to be to be concealed, according to Brown’s father, though few would deny that in Brown’s case, that ambition has been a driving force in the young Brown’s career trajectory. However his parents did expect precocious young Gordon to study hard and succeed.

University, eye problems and relationship with girls.

Brown was gregarious and popular and at first was determined to become a professional footballer but he developed a love of history and politics from an early age. The young Brown however, was not obsessive about girls in his teens , despite his good looks, fit body and witty, charismatic social image amongst his peers. He took his Highers aged 15 and was already qualified for university; he registered at Edinburgh in 1967. His elder brother John, introduced him to friends as ‘boring but very clever’. However, a major problem arose after a rugby match in which he detached both retinas; delaying treatment and heading a football made matters worse. He had four operations and was forced to be immobile for six months in the dark. From now on contact sports were forbidden. Such a trauma undermined his confidence but made him even more determined to succeed in the shortest possible time. Fortunately his right eye was saved but his face acquired a dour, stiff expression. Now he was, perforce, dedicated to his own advancement and exhibited a tendency to seek control over others.

Eventually, demonstrating a rather non socialist interest in property, Brown bought his rooms in Marchmont Rd over whose inner chaos he presided. He joined the Labour Party in 1969-long haired and scruffy but not especially of the left eg CND or Scottish independence. Nor did he indulge in the usual dissipations of booze, pot and so forth. However, he did form a close relationship with Princess Margarita of Romania, the affair lasting for several years- he liked her enveloping maternal care. This relationship came to an end but both were reluctant to finish it completely so strong was it-in later years he regretted never having married her. The consensus seemed to be that he took her for granted, expecting her to wait for hours while he drank and chatted with friends about politics; he also, it was said, tended to conceal his true feelings; a pattern to be repeated with other women in his life. That there were rumours that he was gay, now seem ridiculous. In 1972 he was awarded a brilliant first- some say the best ever awarded at Edinburgh- and began a doctorate on Labour in Scotland.

The Politics Bug Bites

Later in 1972 he was elected Rector of his university and this opened his eyes to politics (in the ‘lower case’): ‘It was quite a revelation to me that politics was less about ideals and more about manoeuvres’. He soon excelled in the sword-fighting of politics. His assiduous cultivation of such skills led to his accumulation of a goodly host of enemies in the university which maybe stymied his later ambition to move from his temporary lectureship to a full one. He consoled himself by becoming increasingly active in the Labour Party, though his shambolic habits (plastic bags full of bits of paper, notes, scruffiness and invariable lateness) and appearance(badly bitten finger nails, shabby clothes) did not assist efforts to win over sceptical working class voters. In 1978 there was a chance of fighting a by-election against George Robertson but he backed off, some said lacking the courage for the fight. In 1979 he fought Michael Ancram but, to his own devastation, narrowly lost. He took jobs teaching for the WEA and BBC TV for a while to support himself while waiting to get into parliament; at the BBC he met the feisty Sheena McDonald, with whom he had a long relationship. In 1983 he was adopted for Dunfermline East, a safe seat which he duly won at the 1983 election. He was now an MP.

Westminster

Politically Brown was never wild and woolly left, CND and so forth but tended to see Attlee’s achievements-nationalisation, welfare state- as the bedrock of Labour’s philosophy. He was very much Old Labour in the eighties until the early nineties in fact. He wrote a book on Scottish Labour with Robin Cook but was furious when latter upstaged him at the launch by appearing to claim all the credit for it. He had already concluded Cook was an unhelpful rival in the unforgiving world of Scottish politics. However, he struck up an unlikely friendship with Tony Blair, a young Labour MP from a Conservative background and they shared a room. Blair was an eager friendly person who was prepared to defer to Brown’s greater knowledge and skills at this time. His dealings with Cook remained toxic; Brown was convinced Cook was trying to destroy him. However, he struck up a good friendship with Labour’s new Communications Director, Peter Mandelson, who was adept at infighting and destabilizing briefings.

He also got on well with John Smith, the Shadow Chancellor and went ‘Munro Bagging ‘ with him. Following robust performances in debate, he was soon seen as a potential future leader and did well in the party elections for the shadow cabinet; when Smith had a heart attack, he stood in a Shadow Chancellor for him. However, after the 1992 debacle, he shrank from challenging his friend for the leadership when Kinnock stood down as Tony Blair had urged- another failure of courage? After shadowing employment and social security, trade and industry etc in the 80s, he was made Shadow Chancellor by Smith in 1993, even though he had not been uncritical of his leader. Before Black Wednesday he had supported the ERM but in its wake he said the opposite and blamed the government for ‘devaluing’. Brown determined to provide Labour with a new intellectual credo to replace the one which had lost the 1992 election. ´

He resolved from the outset that Labour would never again pledge to raise taxes in an election campaign; nor could failing firms be saved or powers be restored to the unions. He began to build a new approach of ‘radical populism’: to address globalisation, the ‘knowledge economy’ and the markets. He slowly came to accept the market provided opportunities for the poor as long as they were prepared to train. He was ready to accept that ‘much of Thatcherism was irreversible’ (Bower, p101). Those more traditional (Straw, Blunkett, Cook, Meacher, Prescott) than he opposed this ‘modernization’. Interestingly there is no mention of Blair as a fellow forger of the New Labour ethos in the Bower biography.

Brown Builds his Modernizing Team

Brown began to present himself as a leftie to left audiences and to the right if his audience was. Smith favoured the ‘one more heave’ approach but Brown was all for a clean break and a new strategy. Clinton’s scorn for the ‘idle poor’ influenced him at this time: a ‘hand up not a hand out’. He not so much changed Labour’s ideology as changed the vocabulary of political discourse. Sue Nye became his gatekeeper and office manager to bring much needed order. Ed Balls, Oxbridge graduate and FT leader writer also recruited. Meanwhile Smith was hostile to the modernizers, asserting Labour would ‘sleepwalk to victory’. Brown believed the Treasury would be the powerhouse of government change: economics would drive change needed. Mandelson was also a confrere but who, according to Naughtie was ‘scared’ of Gordon, was destined to shift allegiance to the sunnier temperament of the former lead singer of the Ugly Rumours.

The Granita Meeting

In 1994 Smith tragically died and the succession was at stake. Brown and Blair were both ‘in the frame’ as Young Turks of great ability but Brown felt himself to be the senior and the more able of the two. However, Blair had more popularity as a good communicator and as a new force. They met to discuss their positions at this much disputed occasion: the Granita restaurant in Blair’s home territory of Islington. No notes were kept but Brownites claim their man was promised a period as PM after Blair had served a reasonable term. During Tony’s time as PM it was agreed Brown would have virtual control over domestic policy. Precisely what happened is still unclear; Brown’s supporters claim a ‘deal’ was done but Blairites deny this. Naughtie reckons Blair’s temperamental desire to leave meetings with everyone feeling happy, led him to give the impression that Gordon had received some kind of a confirmation that he would be allowed accession in the fullness of time. Brown thought he had a

‘near promise of succession; Blair insists that nothing so clear could have been offered.’(Naughtie, p73).

According to Anthony Seldon’s biography of Blair a close insider to the action judged: ‘Tony had to battle Gordon into submission. It was incredibly tense. Incredibly emotional. There were moments when Gordon got the upper hand. He made Tony feel like a younger brother’(p193)

It has to be said that:

a) Blair might have made some kind of general statement of intent but Brown must have known that once Blair was PM , giving the job up might not appeal so much.

b) Would Brown have been so generous as to do the same? It seems unlikely, given his ‘thundering ambition and determination’ (ibid, p79).

c) Brown had, in any case won more control over the domestic agenda than any previous Chancellor. Chancellor was therefore more than most politicians cold have hoped for and he had virtually been offered an unprecedented ‘dual premiership’

d) There was no constitutional basis for the ‘deal’; standing down is something wholly in the hands of the PM, as is supporting any successor.

e) If it had come to a contest, despite Brown’s assertion to the contrary, along with his claque, most commentators think Blair would have won easily. Brown’s star was waning a little at that time and Blair’s star was rising through his communication skills and ability to charm fellow MPs.

f) Whatever to politicians might decide in opposition, it is difficult to prescribe what will happen in government.

Whatever the reality, this meeting, producing vastly differing beliefs as to what had been agreed in the minds of the two protagonists, was destined to sour the next decade and, at times, threaten the stability and future of the government itself. We are informed by many insiders that Brown constantly reminded Blair that he ‘owed’ him a share of the top job.

Brown as Chancellor

Few dispute that Brown’s record as Chancellor is impressive. Following his granting independence to the Bank of England in 1997, his stewardship of the economy has seen: constant economic growth; low inflation(2% in October 2007); low unemployment; and the praise of the IMF and Central European Bank. However, critics point out that: UK prosperity has been based on a mountain of consumer debt of 1.4 trillion pounds as well as substantial government debt caused by excessive spending. Much of the consumer debt has been fuelled by increasing house prices against which people have borrowed and a hugely inflated public sector. This means that increases in interest rates might cause repossessions, bankruptcies and banking failures. So far this has not happened but the recent Northern Rock crisis showed how easily this might still happen if things go wrong. Moreover, this has been a City led prosperity with manufacturing languishing, balance of payments enlarging, and competitiveness diminishing. In other words, the economy has not been based on strong foundations like, say, Germany or Scandinavia.

Brown as a Politician; especially in relation to his ‘rival’ Tony Blair

When Blair refused to give way, Brown resorted to a number of strategies:

a) He refused to allow information out of the Treasury: former Cabinet minister David Clark has testified that: ‘They(the Treasury) were telling things to journalists they were not prepared to tell Number 10… it was hard for the PM’s team ‘to contain their frustration’. This was just part of Brown’s way of showing Blair that he could make his life miserable if he did not agree to move aside.(Larry Elliott et. al, Guardian, 16\4\02)

b) Destabilized Cabinet meetings: at one cabinet committee meeting on welfare, early on after 1997, Brown was told by Blair that ministers present did not like the way his advisers, Balls and Ed Miliband, spoke too much; Brown ‘compromised’ by promising they would not speak but bringing them along and asking their advice in loud whispers. In addition Brown showed his contempt for Blair by ignoring cabinet business and reading his own papers and scribbling on them throughout the meeting.

c) Hostile briefings by spokespeople: the most notorious of these briefers was Charlie Whelan, his press secretary, who was wildly indiscreet and given to briefing by mobile phone from the bar of a pub in Whitehall. Whelan was sacked in the end for exceeding his remit, much to the relief of those he had targeted, presumably on Brown’s tacit say-so.

d) Playing up to the left to discredit ‘New Labour’: in 2003 he ended his speech with ‘best when real Labour’. The next day Blair’s brilliant oration squashed him and he ostentatiously refused to applaud.

e) Using support to threaten Tony’s legislative plans: a perfect example was over top-up fees in January 2004, when opposition mounted and it seemed defeat was nigh; at the last minute Brown ordered Nick Brown to call off the dogs and the bill passed by 5 votes. Blair must have realised that he was in government by the graced of his Chancellor after that demonstration of naked power.

f) Expanding power of Treasury: Brown embarked on an ambitious programme of extending the writ of his department deep into the heart of government. His Public Service Agreements with departments bound them to achieve specific targets in exchange for funding; this was a potent means of binding departments to Treasury control.

g) Pursuing feuds with his enemies: at different times these included Cook, Hain, Clark and Reid. The connecting link could well be the threat they posed for the leadership. It was well known that Blair, as the years passed, was so frustrated by Gordon’s behaviour, that he was looking for someone to replace Brown as heir apparent.

h) Exploding at anyone who ‘flouted his authority’ over finance or the area he regarded as ‘his’ areas. These included Milburn and Byers who regularly floated ideas on policy- Bower suggests often at the behest of Blair himself.

i) Avoiding blame for disasters: when things went pear-shaped, like over the Millennium Dome, Brown was delighted at the discomfiture caused to Blair and Blairites but was careful to avoid any association or blame; some used the term ‘McCavity the Cat’ (after TS Elliot’s poem) to describe this tendency. Bower-p367- recounts how Brown ‘hid behind other ministers to avoid public responsibility’ over rail, ILAs , CMI and later NATS when it needed huge amounts of extra cash.

j) Acting only when voters seemed to be turning against him: this he did over pensions when his 75 pence increase was greeted with outrage and his ratings fell from 22% to 6%.

k) A tendency to lose his temper: Many ministers had to put up with a screaming rage or two from Gordon, none less than Blair himself who experienced extended bouts of this over the years, especially during the ‘coup’ period when meetings were long and difficult.

Brown’s Character

As can be seen from the above, Brown is not an easy person to work with. His behaviour has been characterised by obsessive secrecy about his own work and his private life. He does not embrace foes and placate people he has offended, as Blair tended to do. Andrew Turnbull, former Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, astonished the political class when he issued his analysis of Gordon’s character(21\3\03) as comprising: ‘Stalinist ruthlessness,’; and a ‘complete contempt for other ministers’. The next day Jonathan Powell told a bicycling Boris Johnson that Brown would never be PM as he was a Scot. This, maybe, caused Brown to emphasise the virtues of the ‘Union’ and ‘Britishness’, even toning down his Scots burr according to some. In 2006, after the attempted ‘coup’ against Blair, Charles Clarke let loose a similar blast against Brown’s inability to work with colleagues and his tendency to lose his temper. However, people like Geoffrey Robinson, an old friend and financial supporter of Brown speak of his witty, relaxed company and his warm loyal friendship. Brown seems to be a ‘clan leader’ sort of Scot, determined to be in control and hostile to the rest of the world. He exhibits a split personality: warm, witty and engaging or dour, suspicious and determined to exploit whatever power he has. The Stalin metaphor is close: relentless, calculating ambition; plus a vindictive pursuit of vengeance Maybe it all depends on whether someone is perceived as ‘one of us’ or a potential enemy.

The ‘Coup’ Attempt, Autumn 2006.

In 2004, to assuage Brown’s constant importunate demands that he move aside, Blair promised not to stand after the next election but one. This was a big move forward for Gordon but was not enough: Blair could be still be PM by 2010 according to this approach. Having waited and complained of being betrayed for so long, Brown’s supporters felt the combination of Iraq, Cash for Peerages, loss of trust in the PM and the Lebanon War where he sided too closely with Bush, made him vulnerable. In September the move was made by former loyalist Chris Bryant and Tom Watson via, respectively, a letter asking Blair to resign and a public resignation by the junior minister. Soon a number of other junior ministers were resigning and it appeared a full blown coup attempt was in progress. The aim of it was to get rid of Blair at once rather than some years hence. Anguished and angry meetings occurred involving both protagonists and after the crucial one in Whitehall, Brown was seen grinning ear to ear in delight, presumably, in getting what he wanted: an earlier exit and a promise of support. But Brown had appeared to browbeat and threaten and it was not clear whether he had damaged himself in his desperation to oust Blair.

Blair proceeded to burnish his legacy during late 06 into 07 while the world of UK politics waited to be told the departure date. In the end it came: 27^th June when Brown could stand for leader in any contest that might emerge. In the event no-one stepped forward and when David Miliband declined to risk his luck, Brown was elected unopposed at Manchester in 24th June. In interviews he denied he had been ambitious for the job as he was happy just being an MP. Few believed that this one track minded obsessive was telling the truth.

Gordon Brown as Prime Minister(so far)

Brown had a remarkably successful start as PM:

i) his initial statements on constitutional reform-strengthen parliament, revive cabinet government- went down very well with Lib Dems and Guardian readers and most other groups as well.

ii) His Cabinet of ‘all talents’ was well received.

iii) He instantly set a new tone to differentiate from his predecessor: sober, serious, ‘non celebrity’: a ‘serious man for serious times’. After a decade of Blair’s more histrionic style this seemed to go down well with Labour supporters as well as most everyone else.

iv) He appeared to deal competently with a series of crises: terrorism at Glasgow airport, foot and mouth outbreak in Surrey and turbulence on the international exchanges.

v) Cameron, who had been shading Brown in the polls, up to when he acceded to power, had a bad summer and made a number of tactical errors which made it seem he was less in control of his party.

vi) Polls in early September showed him, after the Tories had clawed back his initial ‘bounce’ lead, leading the Tories by 8 points and regaining leads on all the important issues like law and order, social policy and so forth.

vii) Why no complaints re his difficult nature? Maybe he’s fulfilled now he’s won his ultimate prize; maybe married life has mellowed him. Who knows? Perhaps he’s still being a bastard behind the scenes and we’ll not find out for a while.

Snap Election? It’s still impossible to say whether Brown will risk such a gamble; my sense is he won’t put himself on the line when opinion is so volatile.

Reading:

The best guide to Brown I have found to be Tom Bower’s Gordon Brown: Prime Minister, Harper 2007. Also very useful are:

James Naughtie,(2001) The Rivals, Fourth Estate.

Paul Routledge, (1998) Gordon Brown, Pocket Books.

Robert Peston, Brown’s Britain.

Anthony Seldon (2004), Blair, Simon Schuster.