Comment: Labour – A tale of two tribes?
Miliband’s recent assault on Gordon Brown’s leadership must have stung.
Not only did Miliband’s subversive Guardian article catch Brown off-guard while he was on holiday, but the foreign secretary is unmistakably reminiscent of the prime minister the Labour Party leader fought so tirelessly to oust.
Like Blair, Miliband is Oxford-educated, born with silver service firmly thrust down his throat and owns the same boyish charm the former prime minister did when he came to office (a note to Miliband – such youthful shine will dull within a year at No 10). It seems that while Blairism and Brownism had previously been interpreted as a division of personalities, with Miliband’s seeming accession to Blair’s throne the terms have evolved; the continuation of Blairism without Blair suggests these concepts have transcended the politicians they are named after.
If this is the case then understanding what Blairism and Brownism stand for and how they differ is more important now than ever. Rarely is an article is written about the Labour Party without the two terms being bandied around, and yet a true explanation of what they have come to mean in modern politics is hard to find.
Allegiance is surely a key component. The Brownites are thought to be Ed Balls, his wife Yvette Cooper, Sue Nye, Damian McBride, Ian Austin, Colin Currie, his brothers Andrew and John Brown and Sri Lankan investment banker Shriti Vadera.
While Balls and Cooper are senior cabinet figures (the secretary for children, schools and families and minister for housing and planning, respectively) the other Brownites are hardly household names. Nye is the director of government relations, McBride a one-time head of communications at the Treasury, while Currie is a doctor and Austin the MP for Dudley. The prime minister who spoke of assembling a government of all the talents has not done so in his own circle. Last year, Sir John Major commented that he did not really know Brown, adding: “I’m not one of the six people who does.”
Typically, Blairites form a longer and considerably more high-profile catalog. David Blunkett, Maraget Beckett (though she once ran against Blair for Labour Party leadership), Alan Johnson, Alan Milburn, Tessa Jowell and Patricia Hewitt all consider themselves Blairites, to name a few.
However, with Blair out of the political picture – in terms of Westminster at least – what continues to bind these figures together is not a belief in the former prime minister, but surely the political values he instilled. Brownites then are defined by their opposition of many of these beliefs, despite the fact it was the current prime minister who was the co-architect of Blair’s government.
While Blair and Brown may both be centrist politicians the latter is more at home with the trade unions, and has a general contempt for the spin doctors that shaped the former prime minister’s career. Blarites’ decision to distance themselves from the unions is one reason some analysts cite for the ex-leader’s entanglement in the cash-for-honours scandal, as he sought to find party investment elsewhere.
However, what is clear is that as a new round of politicians congregate to take these two tribes within the Labour Party forward they must also bring with them a new set of ideas, on matters such as the single European currency. Mr Blair is said to have accused Brown in a leaked memo of having “junked the [Blair] policy agenda” but having “nothing to put in its place”. Blairite or not, Miliband too must ensure he is not change for change’s sake.
Jenni Marsh
