Gordon Brown's tent
Gordon’s Conference speech and yesterday’s Q&A session revealed next to nothing of his real intentions. As is often the case with him, what he left out is far more significant than what he included. He declared he will “take action” on private equity – but not what that action would be. Let’s hope it won’t be the same kind of action as on affordable housing, where instead of increasing the rental sector, most of the homes will be aimed at first time buyers.
In a wide-ranging but rather disjointed speech without any obvious logical thread, he devoted much of it to a defence of his own economic and social record without indicating any noticeable departures from well-rehearsed New Labour programmes. The specifics which got the most applause – dealing with teenage binge drinking by banning the sale of alcohol in trouble spots, banging up those guilty of gun crimes for at least 5 year sentences, and throwing out immigrants found to be using guns or selling drugs – could all have been taken (and perhaps were taken) from a Michael Howard speech before the 2005 election.
He made clear his commitment to the NHS focused on providing a personalised service to patients and harnessing science and technology to pioneer new cures – but nothing about a slowdown in privatisation or a major switch to healthier life-styles. He reiterated the pledge to cut child poverty, but said nothing about redressing sharply rising inequality or unfairly low taxation on the rich. He banged the drum again about globalisation, but said nothing about protecting employment rights. He referred, rather skimpily, to keeping on good terms with Europe, but ignored the far more important issue of relations with the US and Iran. He touched on democracy and holding Government to account, but seemed not to notice that the results of Government consultations on Trident, nuclear energy, GM foods, and planning law had been studiously ignored, while calls for a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty were being strenuously suppressed.
More intriguingly, he breathed not a word about his long-term intentions in so assiduously courting the Party’s enemies – Tory MPs, LibDem peers, assorted hate figures like Digby Jones, and now Thatcher. Apart from assuring us he is a Thatcherite at heart and that the New Labour neo-liberal agenda is safe with him (indeed he is the main architect of it and, with his move to abandon motions at conference has gone further than Blair ever did), what is his purpose? Is it that, having won the next election (which looks increasingly likely) and the Tories having lost their fourth election in a row, he is driving at a re-alignment of British politics in which the Tory Party, which only ever existed purely for the purposes of keeping the ruling class in power and is increasingly seen as having lost its raison d’etre, disintegrates and a majority of Centre and Left Tory MPs cross the floor to where the real power now is – a big-tent, centre-ground party of national government, low on ideology, but strongly supported by the real power-brokers in industry, finance and the media?
