British political history is crowded with the names of prime ministers who stayed in office for too long. Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher are the two obvious examples from the last century. Most foolishly Tony Blair is making the same mistake. He will be staying in No. 10 until the summer; he wants to represent the United Kingdom at two major conferences in June. Meanwhile Westminster and Whitehall are marking time until his successor is in place.
Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer, will almost certainly replace him as no serious challenger is expected from the Labour parliamentary party. On the down side he did not become leader of the Labour Party when John Smith died. It was perceived that Blair was a better communicator and more likely to win the next general election. Brown’s opponents today claim that after ten years as a successful chancellor he is burned out, too Scottish at a time of resentment over the favorable financial status of Scotland, and too much of a plotter who likes working with a small and secretive group of advisers.
Political history also makes it clear that some highly qualified politicians are failures in No. 10. Anthony Eden, the golden boy of the Conservative Party, is the classic example. He totally misjudged the Suez crisis. Clement Attlee was greatly underrated when he took over from Winston Churchill, the great wartime leader, but he effectively implemented the Labour Party’s postwar socialist program.
It is certainly possible that the dour Brown, who is far more intellectual than Blair and far more interested in the details of political policies, could be a fine leader of the Labour Party and a respected prime minister — although he will need to make some changes in the manner in which he likes to operate. A family man, he has largely supervised the government’s domestic agenda since 1997. Most people in Britain were delighted when he declared that unlike Blair he would have nothing to do with the “celebrity culture” which has taken a strong hold of the media. His determination and strength of purpose are much to his credit.
Gordon Brown has just paid his first visit to India. It went well. Dropping any pretence that he was only there in his capacity as chancellor, and being received by his hosts as the United Kingdom’s next political leader, he made a thoughtful speech in Bangalore on Jan. 17 explaining his ideas on foreign policy.
While he pledged continuity he also called for a “new world order” and he outlined his plans, certainly ambitious ones, to reorganize international institutions:
“The post-1945 system of international institutions — built for a world of sheltered economies and just 50 states — is not yet broken, but for a world of 200 states and an open globalization, urgently in need of modernization and reform. We can help to build things and shape this new world order and shape it in a way that is good for Britain and British values.”
He pleased his hosts by saying he wanted the reform of the United Nations to reflect the growing power of Asia. He backed strongly India’s bid to become a permanent member of the Security Council alongside the United Kingdom. He said the 27-strong European Union — about which he is notably less enthusiastic than Blair — will have to move “from an inward-looking union — the union of a trade-bloc Europe — to outward-looking internationalists, the union of a global Europe.”
The chancellor is an Atlanticist to his core. He is a close student of American history and American politics and he has his holidays there. Since being in government he has visited America 43 times! That said, I think it is inevitable that he will try to distance himself a little from President Bush and the neoconservatives this side of the general election. This would have great appeal to the Labour Party and, indeed, to the electorate as a whole.
Labour MPs have told me Brown is a very strong supporter of the State of Israel. This flows from his father, a Scottish cleric, who was much involved with Israel in its early stages. However, incoming prime ministers tend to become influenced by Foreign Office thinking on Arab/Israel and that of their international colleagues in the European Union and the Commonwealth.
I doubt if he will be responsible for any major changes over Iraq. The government will be looking to President Bush’s successor to fully withdraw American troops from that damaged Arab state, and the United Kingdom will fit in with an American led-program. Gordon Brown will be more interested in the next president, rather than the present and failed one, with whom he has very little in common.
