Quality | 2009.08.26
Brownian motivation | Tom Clark
The Labour leader has a consistent philosophy, if not vision. But failing to spell it out will cost him
Before Gordon Brown disappeared on his community service staycation , he left a note attempting to sum up what he is all about. It meandered from swine flu to Afghanistan, but promised a signature response in the face of all events – namely, "fighting hard" in "an ordered and organised way". This particularly limp stab at a personal mission statement is only the latest in a long line of abandoned drafts.
In the bright dawn of summer 2007, his big idea was drawing a line under the ethical relativism of the Blair years. The super-casino was axed, late-night drinking questioned and cannabis reclassified. The moralising soon proved less than it seemed – late licences, cautions for cannabis and a host of new casinos all persist; and as Tristram Hunt has argued , gambling dens and lap-dancing clubs will be New Labour\'s legacy on the high street.
Soon after, there was a grand speech on liberty , which invoked Milton and Mill, although the absence of any conclusion was perhaps a warning of what would happen, or rather not happen, next. A "debate" about a non-enforceable statement of rights and responsibilities – whatever that might be – was followed by the failed attempt to imprison suspects for 42 days without charge.
Ditching wasteful NHS private treatment centres in late 2007 briefly seemed to confirm the promise of another grand speech , made while chancellor, which had hinted that Brown\'s hallmark would be rescuing the public services from commercialisation. But every retreat from the wilder shores of Blair\'s market mania was followed by triangulation – pledges for more independent academies and more private treatment , or the now abandoned Royal Mail sell-off.
Brown\'s deft, hard-headed approach to the financiers last autumn stirred hopes that the real Gordon had arrived. By this summer, though, far from leading a Rooseveltian charge to drive the money lenders from the temple, he pledged he would never blame the bankers.
If all these false starts have taught us one thing about Brownism, it is that it will never be intelligibly defined by the man himself. During 13 years as Labour\'s heir presumptive it was useful to be all things to all men, and habits learnt then are entrenched. Nearly two years after cancelling an election in order to "set out his vision", he will return from holiday with most concluding that the vaunted vision never existed. I maintain, however, that an essence of Brownite thought can be distilled from his policies, if not his words.
He is now first lord of the Treasury rather than chancellor, but the Budget red book is still the best place to hunt. Brownism lurks there, in and among the mortgage support schemes, research tax credits and training subsidies for unemployed youths. It all sounds very bitty, and it is. Binding it together, though, is a simple enough two-part programme – attempt to run a market economy with ruthless efficiency; then funnel as much of the proceeds as feasible to the very poor. Together with the strategic conviction that the state is vital in both parts, that is Brownism in a nutshell.
All the prime minister\'s true interests come back to efficiency, poverty or both. His consistent promotion of science is about boosting productivity, as is his unfashionable passion for world trade (which is also about opportunities for deprived countries); his preoccupation with subsidised job schemes reflects the fear that enforced idleness will make the poor poorer. His supposed wider interests – like Britishness, or constitutional reform – have come to nothing, and so been revealed as dispensable trimming.
He has had success in some detailed areas of his core programme – science, for instance – and floundered in others, such as upskilling the low-paid. But he continues to experiment energetically. Amid the recession, it invites titters to claim he has a laser-like focus on prosperity. Yet pursuit of this consistent goal through changing times explains both the decade of indulging the City and last year\'s embrace of bold Keynesian expansionism. The design of the stimulus package embodied the same narrow obsession. The 2.5% VAT cut was an efficient way to pump-prime the economy, but a shopping subsidy failed to capture the mood and will leave no legacy of New Deal-style public works.
Redistribution has been pursued with the same ruthless pragmatism. Institute of Fiscal Studies analysis shows every one of Brown\'s budgets boosted the poorest – yes, even the one abolishing 10p tax. New tax credits have targeted cash with ever more precision, ultimately in ways that were too clever by half. Low-paid workers on 10p tax may not have been as poor as single parents or pensioners, but they felt disgusted at a Labour government asking them to cough up more.
Brownism might be described as the social democracy of the "desiccated calculating machine", the term Nye Bevan used to have a dig at Hugh Gaitskell. The communities secretary, John Denham, recently argued forcefully that the public cannot be relied on to support redistributing to poor people simply because they are poor. If he is right, Brownism has run out of road, and progressives must now concentrate on addressing the risks that blight the middle station in life, perhaps by squeezing the rich. The dispossessed might still gain overall, but only in a scattergun manner.
After all, with unemployment and inequality high, Brownism has transparently failed to secure either efficiency or fairness yet. But the prime minister could argue his doctrine is essential in grim times. Joblessness makes the link between the health of society and prosperity increasingly stark. Tight public expenditure makes targeting help where it is most needed even more of an imperative. Heaven knows, we could soon see what happens to poverty rates when an administration arrives that adopts a stance of malign neglect.
Brown stands no chance of prevailing in the half-spoken debate with Denham until he finds the strength to spell out his side of the argument. As Clementine Churchill wrote to her husband about public life: "To be great one\'s actions must be able to be understood by simple people." Two years on, us simple folk still find ourselves waiting for Gordo.
For more information, please visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/[...]gordon-brown-philosophy-vision
Instagram is adding automatic in-app text translation - The Verge views: 1520
Here’s a ‘Brand-New’ Massive Multilingual Dataset for Machine Translation views: 1504