FOR 'JOHN BROWN' READ GORDON BROWN
Sion Simon reveals the extent of the Chancellor's co-operation with a biography of himself which is hostile to Mr Blair `HOW refreshing that it should be Gordon, not Charlie, who's gone completely off the f—ing rails,' one very senior New Labour apparatchik commented privately last weekend. Whenever the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at the centre of controversy the first question asked by seasoned observers of such things is, 'How much of this is Gordon, how much is Charlie?' The truth is that Charlie Whelan, the Chancel- lor's special adviser with particular respon- sibility for relations with the media, often serves as an unofficial vanguardist or a lightning conductor, but very _ rarely exceeds his remit from his master. He would never have lasted so long, under so much pressure, if he did.
In this case it is quite obvi- ous that the mischief has been originated by the Chan- cellor himself. The matter at issue is Mr Brown's co-opera- tion with a new biography by the political journalist Paul Routledge, in which he accuses Tony Blair of betray- ing him and claims that he would have won the Labour leadership in 1994 had he contested it.
The book was leaked before either its publication or, more importantly for an author with a lot of money riding on such things, its serialisation in the Times. Its principal contents were sum- marised by Seamus Milne on the front page of the Guardian last week. It is claimed that he obtained the book before anyone else had seen it because the pub- lishers, Simon & Schuster, had foolishly allowed a few early copies to be sent to a bookshop in Glasgow, where some of them had been spotted on the shelves by George Galloway MP and quickly despatched to Mr Milne. Of course, this may be true; but it seems equally likely that the proofs were stolen from a safe in the publisher's office by the 97-year-old Bob Boothby, who did not, after all, die in 1986, but is alive and well and living happily in Aberdeenshire under an assumed name. It would be inter- esting to see a television interview with the hapless manager of the book emporium who unwittingly sparked off this furore. There has been a strange lack of such appearances to date.
Seamus Milne also happens to be a bitter personal enemy of Mr Routledge. Mr Milne, in spite of his pleasantly sybaritic manner, is an entirely unreconstructed socialist of the very, very old school, to the extent, indeed, that he makes Mr Rout- ledge — whose stock-in-trade, conversely, is the concealment of his metropolitan sophistication behind a speak-as-you-find gruff Yorkshireman facade — seem posi- tively New Labour. For many years they were both industrial correspondents, that is, they reported on the unions. When Mr Routledge began his parallel career as a biographer with a critical life of Arthur Scargill, the two developed differences which can hardly be apprehended from the word irreconcilable. One can certainly be confident that, if it should transpire that Mr Routledge's pre-publication serialisa- tion deal with the Times — reported in some quarters to have been £100,000 has been adversely affected by the prema- ture revelation of the book's key contents, Mr Milne will consider himself to have done a good day's work.
But what does the book say? Why was it written? What does it tell us about the Chancellor of the Exchequer? There has been some equivocation over the past week about the extent to which the book was authorised, what was the level of Mr Brown's involvement, and so on. The truth is that the biography was effectively com- missioned from Mr Routledge — who is a friend and supporter of the Chancellor by Mr Brown. Neither is there any doubt that this biography is as authorised as it could be without carrying the official Brown family crest.
As to the extent of Mr Brown's involvement, very well-placed informants are adamant that 'Mr Brown's elder brother John', who apparently spoke at length for the book, is nothing less than a code-name for Gor- don, Mr Routledge's real source. Ordinarily one would doubt such a claim because it would seem to be at odds with the old-school journalis- tic rigour which characterises Mr Routledge. In this case, though, it would be a neces- sary, and thus pardonable, conceit enabling Mr Brown's story to be told. At the very least, one can be quite certain that John Brown speaks for and on behalf of his brother. Mr Rout- ledge is Andrew Morton to the Chancel- lor's Diana.
Which raises the 300 billion dollar ques- tion of why the Chancellor of the Exche- quer should choose publicly to attack the Prime Minister in this way. The first point to note is that the Chancellor's action is not part of some clever grand strategy which only he and Charlie Whelan under- stand; it is the politics of petulance. It is what one increasingly lukewarm Brown supporter described to me as 'part of the long, slow, slumbering sulk which had to find its way out eventually'. Brown simply cannot bear the fact that Tony Blair is the Prime Minister while he is only Chancellor of the Exchequer. This may seem L.bsurd to outsiders to whom the two jobs seem almost equally interesting and one ought to be jolly grateful to get a crack at either.
Therein lies the difference between nor- mal people and very ambitious politicians. Gordon Brown had as lief empty the bins as be Chancellor of the Exchequer. When he wakes up in the morning he is literally sickened by the fact he is only the Chancel- lor: primus inter alteros pares. It may seem inconceivably childish, but Gordon Brown wants to be the leader, the absolute centre of everybody's attention, the undisputed winner; and he will refuse to play the game under any other terms.
The expressions Mr Brown gives to his outpouring of hurt and resentment are sim- ilarly borrowed from the schoolyard. He has apparently convinced himself that he would have beaten Mr Blair had he con- tested the leadership election; a view which perfectly encapsulates the exquisite cock- tail of self-justification and self-laceration that characterises adolescence. Everybody else who knows anything about it is as cer- tain as it is possible to be that Mr Blair was always absolutely unbeatable in the party leadership contest. So much was obvious within a few hours of John Smith's death. Mr Brown clearly feels that it was terribly unfair; he had always been senior partner of the duo, and the prize should have fallen to him.
But as Kenneth Clarke used to say, and Robin Cook is rapidly finding out, 'Success in politics is not about what you have been doing for the past 20 years. It is about what you did in the last two weeks.' The years immediately before John Smith's death, when Mr Brown was shadow chancellor but Labour had no economic policy, were the least successful of Mr Brown's career. Tony Blair, on the other hand, was busy revolu- tionising Labour's law and order profile as he had previously done their employment policy. He overtook Brown at the crucial moment, for which he will never be forgiv- en by his former friend.
Even more ridiculous is the notion that Blair reneged on a secret deal that Brown would be leader if it ever came to a choice between the two. Obviously, high politics is not like that. It is about seizing the main chance when it presents itself. If it did not smack so frighteningly of derangement it would be hilarious that Mr Brown, who stinks as richly of blood as the next man in his position, should suddenly imagine him- self living in a Chalet School novel where nothing is more important than the pre- fects' code of honour.
The current imbroglio only adds to Brown's increasing alienation from the New Labour project. It has always irritated the Blairites that 'every time Gordon takes one step forward [i.e. which moves Labour towards the centre] in reality, he takes two steps back rhetorically'. For real mod- ernisers, changing the language is part of the project. But Brown has always been so focused on the party leadership `selee- torate' of the unions, the lay membership and the PLP that he has never embraced this. So, just as it bolsters his credentials with the Labour Left, Brown's turning on Blair within a year of taking office only confirms the worst suspicions of New Labour.
But it is also symptomatic of a serious problem at the heart of government. Chan- cellors of the exchequer who are other than loyal lieutenants are a liability. If Tony Blair is really committed to thinking the unthinkable he should sack Brown now before he gets out of hand. The PM will not do so at this juncture because he is a very cautious man who hopes that 'Gordon will get it out of his system', or some such, and settle down to play a constructive role in the government. But he will end up sack- ing Brown in the end. It is bound to hap- pen; it always does in such cases. Mark my words.
Previous page
