EP - The New Labour Government Part 2 - Gordon Brown's Premiership

This episode discusses Gordon Brown's time in office through two main questions:

Was Gordon Brown's premiership a step change from Tony Blair's, or more of the same? (First 20 minutes)

From the perspective of hindsight, how might we rate Gordon Brown's policies? (second half)

Reading, watching and listening that went into making this podcast (recommended): 

• My Life, Our Times by Gordon Brown
• The End of the Party by Andrew Rawnsley
• Blair and Brown the New Labour Revolution on the BBC
• Was Gordon Brown a good prime minister? New Statesman Podcast
• Gordon Brown The Presidents and the Prime Ministers with Iain Dale

We69sWiAY1ZYnSdWs5jV

nVBRZEiLxRp5z0UOgPNl

Transcript

0:14

Welcome back to the modern, British political history podcast. I'm your host harry whites. So I promised you a two-parter last time. we looked last time at the new labor government, mainly focusing on the earlier years and Tony Blairs premiership. Now I want to bring us a little bit forward and look at, Gordon brown, his period as prime minister, how he took over from Tony Blair thinking particularly about. The question of how much did it really represent a step change that new government Gordon brown pitched himself as something quite different to Blair, but in many ways, there was a lot of similarities in what they thought. And even though they had a great deal of personality difficulties, what Alice Campbell called the TB GBS, where you had often civil servants and special advisors stood outside one of their offices as they thrashed out the latest argument. In fact. In terms of their politics, they were quite similar and shared a lot of ideology, and idea about what new labor should be in terms of its modernizing mission for the labor party. So we'll look at that question of how much did it actually represent a change from the Blair government. And I think we will also focus on the question that I think's always interesting, particularly from a policy maker perspective of which policies actually had traction. And which ones haven't, and have managed to either be undone by future governments or were failed to be implemented in an effective way, and were just announcements, without a proper plan. And which ones actually you could look at today and say, no, that is still a success. Also with that thinking a little bit about how many of the policies. Ahead of their time, which is often a good sign of policy making. If the policy looks from a few years down the line as, wow, that was actually something that, the government managed to look, ahead at where the country was going, guess where the public mood might be, guess where a particular need might be or a growing issue was developing and they managed to act early. There's a few different books and documentaries that I'll be using as inspiration for this one. So last time we thought a lot about servants of the people by Andrew Ronsley this time, it's the end of the party also by Andrew Ronsley, which is a. Follow up to, servants of the people thinking, about the next phase of the new labor government. But I'll particularly look, be thinking about his chapters on Gordon Brown's premiership. He's an excellent reporter really gets into the personal dynamics, going on at the time. So that's an outside view of the government. But I'll also be looking and have. my life are times by Gordon brown, which is his autobiography, and depicts in a lot of detail, what he was trying to achieve, the problems he ran into. It's quite honest. And down to earth as a autobiography, I would argue a lot more so than Tony Blas. one which is, called a journey. And possibly was produced a little bit, sooner after Teddy Blair left government. So that might be part of it. this one had a little bit of time to germinate. So I think Gordon and brown has really thought, in detail about where he actually went wrong whereas, Tony Blas autocracy felt like a real defense of what he'd done. Often asserted, I was right on this thing or I did it because I was right without really, doing that. Self-reflection so it's, it is a good book. Gordon Browns, autobiography. I definitely recommend it. And then the other one is a documentary, which I mentioned last time, which is Blair and brown, the new labor revolution, which is on the B. So let's make a start. The two questions, as I mentioned are how different was Browns government to Blairs and how do the policies of the brown government look actually in hindsight, when we, look back on them. So a good place to start when we're thinking about how different was brown to Blair. With him himself, the man himself. So you had someone who was better prepared than anyone to be prime minister in many ways. I don't think there's been many examples at all, that you can think of where someone has been in government for so long. and been in a very senior role in the government. Gordon brown was one of the longest serving chancellors, and had a huge portfolio bigger. Probably any chancellor, previously and since where he, had not only control of economic policy, but a lot of social policies as well. so in theory, you had someone who was well prepared, but actually that government ran into quite a deal, a lot of problems early on in his premiership and he was often surprised by the challenges he found, whether there'd be challenges of communication style, which is definitely something he admitted. He struggled with particularly modern communication styles of, constant 24 7 news rounds. need the need to be present on broadcast, media channels, often be interviewed under pressure. Definitely something, he found challenging, and more so than Tony Blair. He put himself as the anecdote to Blair spin he talked about how it would be a government that was less based on spin. That would be more authentic down to earth. That seemed to shine well with the perception of his character, that he was steady, wanted to get on with the job perhaps less smooth and Tony Blair in his presentation, but someone who'd effectively run the economy for years. but the irony is he was very similar in terms of how interested he was in the media. And perhaps even more so than Blair really cared what the papers, thought of him. Who's close to REPA Mo close to Paul Deka wanted to maintain those relationships. You would often apparently complain about what was written in the newspapers. there was a cartoonist where he asked him, why do you draw me so fat I thought even his autobiography, tacitly seemed to admit to this as a weakness. So one quote was while my predecessors suffered from this in one way, at least I was in a more, a disadvantageous position. And this is him talking about the media. The papers, the, to supporting papers, the times the male, the son, the Telegraph express represented 70% of newspaper readers adding in the independent, which wanted a liberal labor coalition and the guardian who declared for the lib DS newspapers, which can for 90% of all readers oppose labor, so here Gordon brands mapping out exactly how much support he thinks he has. And it's obviously keen to try and line up as many papers behind him. There was also the idea that Blair ran things in quite an authoritarian way and from the center. There's accusations of. So sofa, government from the cabinet secretary at the time of Blair, essentially meaning that rather than having lots of people around the cabinet table, your cabinet ministers and discussing deliberating, debating on things and coming to a conclusion, people would be pulled into Blair's office and the key individual. Perhaps the minister for the relevant department, perhaps, people who, advise in number 10, in Les more inner circle, and things would be running that way with those kind of conversations. And the wider cabinet were expected to fall in line with that. But although brown suggested it would be different. It would be more. He would allow ministers to speak on their policies more freely and drive them forward in a, more independent way. Actually, brown was an incredible micromanager. And he was described as the micro managers, micromanager, he really struggled to delegate. This may have worked for him in the treasury where it's actually quite a small department. And you've got some very strong civil servants, some of the best, and most talented civil servants who often managed to cover up for Gordon Brown's weaknesses. It's said, but also when you are in the treasury, you have the luxury of being able to plot and plan, what your strategy will be. And take time to deliberate over it, cuz you've only got a few big set piece moments during the political year. So the key one being the budget, usually where you set out your store and you can think about exactly how you want that to land. You can plan the media, you can plan the policy, the strategy, but you can't do that as prime minister. You. Hundreds of things, crossing your desk every day, dozens of decisions to be made every day. And you have to be able to wrap quickly. there were different leadership styles in terms of making decisions, that were talked about where Tony Blair used to apparently ask for a summary of a couple of key options from a paper he would decide on that quite swiftly. John major used to apparently take away the paper and read it overnight, and then come to a decision and Gordon brown apparently used to read the paper and go to bed, wake up the next day and then ask for more papers. Cuz he wanted even more information to make that. Which is incredibly hard to sustain as, someone who is prime minister. he used to apparently get up early in the morning, three, 4:00 AM, and start working, sending emails to colleagues, often delayed emails, so that 6:00 AM in the morning, sways of emails would arrive into people's inboxes. And they'd have to manage that. Tony Blair said that when your chancellor, you make a few big decisions, when your PM, you make lots of decisions every day and suggested that actually Gordon and brown might not be suited to this. Arguably the inability to try and focus and prioritize and delegate, was so bad that. His premiership, was saved in lots of ways by the global financial crisis, which is what Steven would. One of the advisors in the government suggested where finally there was something that was very much within Gordon Brown's expertise, an economic issue that he had to work through, and he could focus on that, put most of his S into that, and drive that agenda forward in terms of governing style on the point about being less like Blair. Brown said that he would allow responsible ministers, to deal with crises. But in theory while Gordon brown wanted to be less front and center, actually he did a huge amount himself again. So he'd often chair Cobra meetings, which is, cabinet briefing room. A, I think Cobra stands for which is essentially just a room that you get people together, the cabinet key, key advisors, people related to whatever the crisis is. So he used to chair so frequently that, it almost became a gut reaction to any issue. And he did run into a. Crises early on in his premiership, there was terrorist incidents. There was, foot in mouth. and then of course the financial crisis as, as well was a huge one. so use using that kind of mechanism of Cobra. one commentator said actually it's essentially just a room Cobra and it shouldn't be too much relied upon. What was effective. And again, this list links to Gordon Brown's interest in the media is when you do share a Cobra meeting, it very quickly gets into the newspapers. It's very exciting for journalists and it looks like you are gripping, the issue, whatever it is. And that was. I think important to Gordon brown to give off that sense. as someone who was a real micromanager to give off the sense that he had control over, a particular crisis of the day and then on the economy, although there was a slight suggestion that there was a change of emphasis from Tony Blair. There was still that idea of new labor, a third way, combining both markets and government, Perhaps a bit more of an emphasis though, with brand on the actual regulation of the markets, a slightly more social democratic view, you might say rather than what some criticized Tony Blair for, which is that neoliberal approach, that markets are usually the best mechanism and the go-to mechanism for, improving society Brown in his autobiography talks about, hence our support for new businesses joining the marketplace. But competition also required there to be laws that were challenged, the power of monopolies and cartels as well. and the excesses of private utilities, for example. So they announced a winful tax on the privatized utilities, in the new labor government. and that was something Gordon brown had a big role in, which is quite, pressing now, as we've now got, energy companies where there's been a winful tax on their excess profits due to the fact that, that. Bills have gone up so much, and to help consumers. So there was that idea that you sometimes need to step in as a government. and brand described this as liberalization had a purpose, but in areas like health and safety environment protection and conditions in the workplace, it was often regulation, not deregulation that would best serve the public interest. New labor did not mean ditching our principles, but as John Prescott, his right to keep remind. Implementing our enduring values in a modern setting. So a little bit more emphasis on the social democratic element, than Tony Blair might have done. There's a real question, I think, on the legacy of, this government and how much were they responsible or not responsible for? the financial crisis what's really clear is. This government lost the air war on the financial crisis. Very quickly, the narrative was put out there by the conservative government, that new labor had spent too much like other labor governments of the past, like the, Atley government in the forties, like the governments in the seventies and had left, a country in a difficult economic situation. There's some arguments that, the spending situation by that government, particularly in the last few years, in the first few years, it was quite a prudent government and didn't spend too much and kept to budget restraints. but by the last few years there was more spending. Did that leave things a little bit more open to. Damage if there was a financial crisis, did it leave things in a less stable position? but on the other hand, there's the argument of this was a global financial crisis that started in America. That was to do with, a housing crisis, mortgage rates, et cetera, and one that simply spreads the UK and there wasn't, a great deal that a government, any government could have done to prevent it or foresee it. One thing I think on the spending too much point you could say is that whether or not too much was spent, what was often seen to be the solution was spending by Gordon brown, at least. And you gave the perception that his solutions were to do with spending, which I think did open up space for that kind of criticism. So for example, his book's full of really big funding numbers for things, frequently there's long paragraphs where he reels off how much more funding he's gone to into X, into Y into Z, as proof that something must have improved. and it did leave labor open to that accusation of overspending. brown did have a role in deregulation of finance as well. There was the matched house speech that he did, which was about light regulation. And then there was also the point on labor, Having too much deference for financial markets, and those who run them. so bankers, people who work in high finance, there was a, perhaps a reluctance to really challenge, what they were doing. the other thing that was interesting is that brown himself admits that he lost, the narrative on overspending. He. I could and should have engaged in a national conversation with the British people. I should have been out in the country every second day, explaining how the crisis had happened, why we urgently needed the extraordinary expansionary measures we were enacting essentially why we needed a lot more. Money being put into propping up the banks, taxpayers money, wine, the shorts, and the deficit would rise. The revenues from taxation fell. And we used the spending path, the treasury to rescue the economy. I should have explained more clearly to the public there were in confronting a national peacetime emergency, the required and unprecedented interventions, but how, and again, his personality and his communication style was a barrier to, Policy Steven Wood. His advisor says one thing he didn't do as well as not winning that narrative on why the spending was needed. And the fact that the issue itself of the financial crisis was not necessarily. Caused by labor or at least not fully caused by labor. They also didn't use the financial crisis as an opportunity to fundamentally change the economy by that I mean that there was a relationship that new labor had with financial markets and those who ran them, which was essentially. You can create a great deal of profit. we won't regulate you hugely. We won't interfere, hugely, but we will want to redistribute some of those profits made. and after financial crisis, there could have been a real considera consideration of is this is high finance working. is it right that these, individuals are receiving huge bonuses for doing work that doesn't seem to. Great, social utility and involves a huge amount of risk, and can go wrong very easily. and there was also an idea that the financial crisis helped to derail some of the progressive agenda. That Gordon brown wanted to put forward. So he talks about later on the financial crisis frustrated the more progressive agenda that ministers had started to advance on affordable housing access to education, the integration of social care with D NHS and the eradication of entrenched inequalities. So in short, new labor's policies relied on growth and the idea. There would be continual growth, no more. Boom bust was what Gordon brown frequently said. rather than what some in labor were looking for, which was less of a need for growth, but more of a need for huge, redistribution, and, taxing, the more well off in a much more, direct and stronger way than, new labor usually, were willing to do. On health. There's a similar point around, brown being more similar to Blair than he might have thought of. They had a huge amount of argument over, and there's a lot of this in Blair's autobiography about the public sector and what needed to change and essentially to paraphrase Blair's idea. Was that the public sector needed. Was more choice, more personalization, more liberalization, more autonomy, allowing people to make decisions over what doctor they had over what school they sent their children to. and also allowing a variety of providers. So including allowing private sector providers to step in as well as public sector ones. And usually brown had been quite conflicted over this and felt that well, It doesn't matter how many choices of doctor you have. The key thing is you have a good one and there needs to be funding, into the NHS. And you have a good host that is properly funded, but once he became prime minister, there was a bit of UN uncertainty about what is our position on reforming the public sector, and actually reached a quite similar solutions. his book talks about a more personalized health service and that personalization in every service became his mantra. Similarly on education. There was the opening of academies, which are schools that are funded directly by national government, but are not in local government control, but have more autonomy on how they pay their staff, how they operate. And they often work together in multi academy trust, which essentially means a few different schools collaborating. Sharing best practice on how to run a school, often staff moving between those schools, for example, and that fit into a similar mode on this idea of opening up more choice, in the public sector, and a less sort of government centric approach. and not only similar to Blair's work, but also you could say there was a lot of, similarities to what went on in the coalition government, under David Cameron, which was very much about academies, how did the policies of Gordon Brown's government look in hindsight is the second question I want to ask. So for continuing on education, you can look at something. Raising the minimum education leaving age to 18, which was done under the brown government and the continuing debates around that as to whether that's the right thing or the wrong thing. There's a perception amongst some that actually is it enough just to let people carry on education up to 18, but maybe that's not the right route for them. Maybe they need to be going straight into an apprenticeship earlier on or getting into work earlier. Or is it actually the opposite? Is it really opening up access to education for everyone? And is it better in a modern economy, which was certainly called a Brown's argument that you need to make sure everyone's, educated to a higher level, than previously would be necessary, on the issue of university education? I think there's a strong argument that brown. Approach to a graduate tax over having tuition fees, had some merits to it, essentially. That's arguably what we do have, in that the loans are not demanded back, in a short time space, instead, and they are required to be paid once you're earning a certain amount and they're slowly incrementally paid but the even terminology of calling them. Has I think been quite damaging for lots of students who see themselves saddled with a huge amount of debt, and also possibly putting off some students which Gordon brown talked about and was worried about that students from less well off backgrounds would be very reluctant to take on board that much debt. So arguably, that's something that in hindsight, you could see Gordon and brown being right on. also the Euro is one, I think it's a pretty unanimous consensus that actually we are be better off not going into the Euro, because of, the need to, for us to be able to be flexible in how we change our currency and, fluctuated it to meet different economic circumstances. We could see this as one where Gordon brown really was in a different place to tiny Blair. and the same on tuition fees, where Blair definitely supported tuition fees and where Blair definitely supported the Euro. there was also a question on, was the change in Brown's government, was it systematic enough? or was it pushing money into something? but then having the ability for that money to be taken out by future government, very easily. So for example, there was a lot of money points, the NHS and into education. some more money into lo local government, but. That was easily, taken out if a future government wanted to, and similarly with initiatives. So there was a lot of new labor initiatives. For example, the aim hire program was, scrapped by the, next government, which supported university outreach through mentoring schemes, master classes, some schools. And you also had sure start, which was a program for, helping parents, with access to, early education, we can see a flavor of some of the next government in his policies though. So as well as having some policies that, the next government would decide not to continue with. there's some, that actually proceed the next government. So for example, I saw one example in his book where talks about, with the help of Britain's leading social entrepreneur. So Ronald Cohen, we agreed to pilot what were called social impact bonds that paid charities by results in this case, a highly impressive success rate in rehabilitating young offenders in Peterborough. and you could imagine, that being a David Cameron, big society idea, potentially, Trying to get charities and the voluntary sector to be delivering more, of what we think government should be doing. I think it's a conservative idea of little platoons where you get, different voluntary organizations to work together and that's what makes society, rather than something more top down. I think it's always interesting. We always think of when a new government comes in. It's a totally different approach, but often there's more similarity than you think. For example, John major's government to Tony Blair's government, there was already a lot about maybe more needs to be put into the public sector in terms of finance, but also. a change to the public sector where it became more about choice and serving the customer. the citizens charter was something that John major put in, which was all about the public sector, better, responding to customer needs. that was then a lot of that was carried on in, in the Tony Blair new labor government. So we like to see things. Total changes from one government to another, but there can be more continuity. we should also think about climate, change. So on this, you can look at, the first ever climate change bill, which was brought in under brown government, which put Britain, had a, every other country, essentially in the world in enforcing tough anti pollution standards. With that one. I think you can definitely say that government was a little bit ahead on public opinion. certainly a lot of people knew about the, climate change issues, but it hadn't, become as pressing as it, it has now, particularly now, with more heat waves and the, protest in, 2019 by extinction rebellion. but I always think a good test of a policy is. If your policy has mixed views from the public. What will they think about it in 10 years time? if, and if the answer is I can only see the direction of people becoming more in favor of this policy. Then it's probably a good thing for government to get ahead of that. so another one might be gay marriage, which, definitely had some opponents at the time, but I think the more time passes, the more people go, yes, that feels like it's surely the right thing for our country, to. Empower everyone to be able to, be married to who they want to be married to. on the climate change though, we might look at the heat through airport expansion as something where that is less successful on the test of well, what would people think about it in future? on the one hand, there was a huge amount of need for that expansion on the other. airports and airplanes are huge. polluter. and was that the right direction of travel or not for, climate change policy? The last policy area before summing up is transport. So on this one, two things I'd point out. One is the cross rail project, which is now called the Elizabeth line, which is a huge, New tube line, linking up, east to west London. and the funding went ahead under the Gordon brown government. And now very recently that line has finally been, finished, with quite a bit of delay but we might look back on that and go, yes, there was a great deal of delay. Yes. it cost more than some people thought it would. My personal view is that I can only see people starting to use that line and feeling it's a good thing that it's here. London really is in need of, a relief valve on its, tube network, particularly the central line, for example, which is. Very overcrowded. and there's a huge amount of economic gain to be made from improving transport links. so I think that's an interesting one where you might see as well. That's clearly a success. Now you could look at it on the flip side and you could say There's a lot, of policy talk about making the UK a lot less London centric. and was that huge infrastructure project in London has that inevitably be led to, even more people, wanted to go to London or, permitting more people to work in London. Another one. I think that I thought was a very interesting policy idea which is where they paid people to scrap their old car and buy a new one, is, a car scrappage scheme, which partly I think was to. push the economy to boost it, by getting people to spend. But the car, this car scrap scheme offered car earnings a 2000 pound incentive, half bit paid for, by the government to give up their car and buy a new one. And this, was a cost of 400 million, but it generated nearly, I think around 400,000 or so, new car purchases at a time when the market. Really needed that boost. And on the climate change point, I thought this was interesting. Gordon brown said one in five of all new cars in reg, registered in the UK. lots of them were smaller cars and they were the most environmentally efficient ones, that were very popular for this scheme. So one report suggests that on average emissions of new cars was 25% lower than those of the. Cars and the scrap screen had done a lot more, to help the environment than, many previous measures. quite a clever, little initiative. Again, to play devil's advocate, I suppose we could say, was it, did we want anyone driving more? Did we, do we want more people using public transport, versus cars, particularly looking at it now when, climate change is even more pressing issue, To sum up the overall record. So I think there are two things, different narratives that you could see with Gordon brown. You could see him as a bit of a disappointment as prime minister, someone who had those big, what were called psychological flaws, by someone in the new labor government, often asked to Campbell is, said to have said that, so things like his micromanagement, his, Temper, which was, notorious, his fragility in lots of ways. his, ego was often easily damaged. He often worried about his own authority, or, we could talk about the fact that he was disappointment in that although he pushed himself as someone who's quite different to Tony Blair, in fact, there was less difference than we might have thought. And you could also talk about him seeming as someone who was derailed from really delivering on lots of things, partly because of the financial crisis, but partly because of, his own leadership style and personality. On the flip side, we might wanna see him as a short lived, but underrated prime minister, someone who. Grit the financial crisis very effectively who showed global leadership uniting lots of other countries and coming up with a unified economic plan for, the global economy. You could think of him as someone who continued to cement and build upon new labor's achievements as well. In his book, he talks about, if anyone. To fight. Doesn't get you anywhere that politics can't make a difference. That all parties are the same. Then look what we've achieved together. Since 1997, the winter fuel allowance, the shortest waiting times in history, crime down by a third, the creation of shore star, the cancer guarantee. Record results in schools, more students, never the disability discrimination act, devolution, civil partnerships, peace and north line, the social chapter, half a million children outta poverty, maternity pay paternity leave. Child benefit, record levels, the minimum wage, the counseling of debt, the trembling of aid, the first ever climate change act. That's the Britain we've been building together. That's the change we choose. I think I'll leave it there. be very interested to hear anyone's view is listening to this, on that government. Do you see it as one of those two? Polar opposites. Do you see it as something totally different, something in the middle? that's all for this episode, I've been thinking about a few different ideas for the next one. I thought about whether to do John major's government, and look at that, which might be quite a nice sort of precal episode to, to the new labor government podcasts, or to go further back and do something on the 1970s, which is. Prescient now because a lot of comparisons are being made to the 1970s. the fact that we have high inflation, the fact that, there's energy issues, and the fact that, there's a real worry about, strikes as well, being another issue. So I'll have a think about, what's gonna be next. but for now, thanks so much for listening and I will speak to you next.