The real champion of new Labour

The conference speeches of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair give the lie to the idea that Brown is old Labour and Blair, new Labour. In fact, Brown is classic new Labour while Blair has long since abandoned this position.

Consider two facts.

First, the most effective section of Tony Blair's speech was an argument that leaders have to make choices. Voters, he said, would forgive wrong choices but not the failure to make them. Later, he attacked Cameron for failing to choose between positions that the Prime Minister suggested were incompatible.

This argument is a direct rejection of new Labour's central idea. In the mid 1990s Mr Blair argued that politicians were always making choices when they did not need to. He said that policy options that looked incompatible were not. He promised to eradicate such false choices. This very idea, the one new Labour first brought into the debate, is the one he now treats with most scorn.

Now, take Brown. The characterisation of Brown as old Labour is absurd. What he is, is classic new Labour. He hasn't moved an inch since he trawled around the Clinton think-tanks in the mid 90s.

Now, as then, he is looking for policy schemes that avoid choosing. It is he, not Blair, who still holds the candle for the third way, he who is looking for idea that doesn't involve hard choices.

The windfall tax (tax more without being a high taxer) was a classic Brown idea. And so, more than a decade later, is his NHS plan - a third way between market reform and no reform.

It is Brown, not Blair, who is new Labour’s constant champion.

Comments

[Guido Fawkes]

Only makes sense if you view the "New Labour" package as a static set of policies.

The policy agenda moved on as they realised that they had to move further into Thatcherite territory if they really wanted to succeed in reforming the welfare state.

Brown dragged his feet and the Treasury did his bidding. A champion would lead, not resist, the Blairite charge.

[David Moss]

If the world insists on someone standing against Brown, how about Blair? Objecting that this suggestion is mad will get you nowhere. Blair and Brown are mad. And anyone caught admiring them is mad.

[Chris Carr]

These are the same, albeit more fleshed out, promises that were made back 1997. Improve the NHS, improve the Criminal Justice System. They have been repeated every year since, and everytime NOTHING has changed. The system gets worse, not better. Now some of the most draconian powers are being considered in order to try and control the situation. I mean Police Officers handing out ASBOs, Summary Justice for more crimes, this is the stuff of fantsy novels, not of a genuine government. It is clear that Blair lost the plot a long time ago, why is he still running this country into the ground? Why are we still putting up with him. The only things he is going to be remembered for is starting the Iraq War (something I actually support), being Bush's lapdog, and achieving absolutely none of the aims that he set out to achieve. All I can say is that I wish I could go back in time to vote Conservative in 2001, whether they won or not at least my conscience would be clear. It's time to leave Mr Blair, here are the men in white coats to take you to a nice small padded cell.

[H L Rodkoff]

It has been painfully obvious for some considerable time that Bliar, the ideas man,has been prevented from going completely "Gung Ho" by the man who collects money as a hobby G Brown. This man begrudges spending a penny on the people who put im in power in case they eventually decide that enough is enough and force him out. He distributes this cash to Africa and everyone is supposed to feel overwhelmed with munificence and when he runs short will come back and tax the unsuspecting population with further subliminal taxes. Neither Blair or Brown are any good for this country ever again, they are both mad, in their own particular ways.

[Klora]

I want

[Klara]

Have you ever

[Gabor Kovacs]

Are Klora and Klara related? I think we should be told. And how did their comments ever survive the process of being "moderated" - not that I regard the views expressed here as always being moderate.