The Last Ditch by Tom Paine

In the Blair/Brown double act Gordon Brown was the straight man. Tony was the chirpy, charming chappie constantly taking Gordon for a mug. Gordon was the dour intellectual. Tony was the loveable rogue. I have never believed this line.

If a politician is to succeed, he must have followers. To have followers he must be (even if a woman) something of an Alpha Male. Alpha Males are, by definition, not victims. They are predators, not prey. Yet in briefing after briefing, Brown’s advisers and spokesmen portrayed him as a victim of Tony Blair’s wiles. It did not ring true.

Brown was clearly the senior partner, in both age and ability. It does not take much to be Tony Blair’s intellectual superior, but for what it’s worth Brown is. It does not take much to be Blair’s ethical superior either, but on that the jury is still out.

I have suspected for much of the last ten years that this has all been play-acting. After all, New Labour has been masterful in "news management." Is it really likely that during a period when they had the press at heel, they could not control their two key figures well enough to keep such a "damaging" story out of the papers?

Ask yourself the question that usually leads to the truth; cui bono? By leading press and public to focus so much on supposed tensions within the ruling Party, Labour’s spin-doctors managed to sideline the Opposition entirely. The Conservatives and LibDems have been out of the story for so long that many voters simply don’t remember a functioning Opposition, or even understand its importance in a democracy.

As long as the public perceived the key political conflict to be Blair vs Brown, all else was irrelevance.

Why would they do this? A Prime Minister starts to sustain political damage the moment he enters Number 10. Such is the patronage he wields that he can enforce his will. Those he can’t cow into submission, he can buy. Those he can’t buy, he can discredit. But the exercise of such power makes enemies. Their existence is not immediately apparent, because open opposition is unwise, but eventually – in a closed system, where most high offices are limited to the 300+ members of the ruling Party in Parliament – the cowed, the bought, the discredited (and the disgruntled incompetents not worth buying, cowing or discrediting) become a majority. Blair and Brown were students of the Thatcher era. They both knew, and Brown was clever enough to analyse, how a political giant was finally felled by disgruntled Pygmies.

Any student of politics could have predicted that – however great a communicator he might be; however powerful his "common touch" – Tony Blair’s shelf-life would expire around now. It is commonly regarded as a mistake on his part to indicate his intention to retire, but actually it was brilliant. It allowed Labour to use him in his final years as a scapegoat, soaking up the guilt for the Party’s sins before being ritually cast out. During all this time Gordon Brown – supposedly anxious for the fray – kept aloof from all difficult or unpopular decisions.

Thus we have the present ludicrous situation that a Cabinet led by the true architect of New Labour; by the man who has – in all likelihood- had his hand in the Blair sock-puppet throughout, is perceived as a new beginning. "Now let the work of change begin", he said on taking office. Change from what? From the policies he has supported (and largely designed) for the last decade? Never in British history has the Treasury exerted such influence as under Brown. Number 11 has systematically interfered in the minutiae of every Minister’s brief. More than anyone, including the lightweight Blair, he is responsible for whatever problems he now promises to solve. Yet, the public says "give him a chance." Politically it has been a master-stroke. Was it the chef d’oeuvre of a political obsessive who has plotted and schemed since late childhood? It may seem far-fetched, but it seems to me more credible than the official story.

Therefore, my question today is the easiest of all to answer about Brown. If the official version of events is true, he has been a treacherous colleague, systematically briefing against and otherwise undermining Tony Blair. If (and this is a huge if) Alistair Campbell can ever sensibly be believed, Brown was restrained from a coup d’etat only by Blair threatening to withdraw support for him as his successor if he moved against him.

If my theory is correct, Brown has been party to (and may even have devised) a political con-trick so monumental as to bring a blush to Machiavelli’s cheek.

Either way, the answer is clear. He can’t be trusted.

Image credit: Englandism.com