POLITICS
Why surly Gordon Brown behaved better about a referendum than affable Kenneth Clarke
PETER OBORNE
Knneth Clarke and his Labour shad- ow Gordon Brown have much in common. They are hard, unyielding men who do not simply relish unpopularity. They court it. They both feel that something is seriously amiss if they are not at war with their clos- est colleagues.
But there is one critical difference. Brown eats his humble pie like a man. Clarke does not. Last Sunday, after fighting a long and lonely battle against any Labour commit- ment to a referendum on the single curren- cy, the shadow Chancellor hauled up the white flag. In the normal course of events this would have been hailed as a humiliating political defeat at the hands of bitter shad- ow Cabinet enemies. And that is indeed a plausible summary of what really occurred. But Brown, who is not normally a model of political decorum, affected not to notice and carried off the retreat in splendid style.
Crucially, he announced the U-turn him- self, and in his owri way. Furthermore, he gave out that it had been his own decision. The Brown mind, it was intimated, had not altered one whit. Circumstances alone had changed. Mr Brown claimed that after a series of grand visits to the Chancelleries of Europe, it had become dangerously behind schedule. It was, therefore, appropriate to put the single currency to the British peo- ple in a referendum rather than include it in Labour's election manifesto.
Mr Brown's version of events is, at the very least, a partial account of the truth. Labour sources tell a resoundingly different story. Until two weeks ago he was adamant- ly opposed to a referendum. Indeed he sig- nalled as much, in the strongest terms, in a Today programme interview. But this inter- view immediately alarmed shadow Cabinet colleagues and Tony Blair's private office. Mr Blair, unlike Mr Brown, has been con- vinced for months that Labour had no choice but to exercise the referendum option. To hear the shadow Chancellor expressing such heartfelt opposition to the move was unwelcome and dangerous. It was the signal for a long series of tense negotiations in which Mr Blair gradually prevailed on Mr Brown to change his mind.
And in its way, persuading his proud shadow Chancellor to come round to a ref- erendum was one of the most skilful things that Mr Blair has ever done. The full shad- ow Cabinet was never consulted, though John Prescott and Robin Cook were brought in at a later stage. The final deci- sion was made well before Mr Blair trav- elled to Paris to meet President Jacques Chirac last week. That would have been a natural moment to unveil the change. But questioned about Labour's position on a single currency, Mr Blair did nothing to indicate that a change was afoot. He was determined that the announcement should not come from his mouth, but the mouth of his shadow Chancellor. It duly did. And when it came, Mr Brown's account of events was expressed with such false clarity, conviction and style that nobody has sought to question it.
It is instructive to compare Mr Brown's exemplary performance with Chancellor Kenneth Clarke's graceless road to defeat at the hands of John Major on the identical issue of the referendum six months ago. Like Mr Brown, the Chancellor is a proud man. Like Mr Brown, he is very fond of getting his own way. Like Mr Brown, he had the strongest private views on the sub- ject. But unlike Mr Brown he fought like a ferret in a sack against his closest col- leagues to delay the inevitable. It is not going too far to say that everything that Mr Brown got right, Mr Clarke got wrong.
One of the beauties of the Labour U- turn on the referendum was that it was so completely unexpected. The sheer shock of the announcement meant that Labour was able to create the impression that it was taking a decisive and daring initiative. In reality, of course, something quite different was going on — Labour was merely follow- ing along in rather timely fashion in the wake of an earlier Tory decision. But that was not how it was reported.
Mr Brown deserves the credit for this. While his position was being stealthily undermined by senior colleagues he kept his mouth shut. Compare and contrast with Kenneth Clarke. Daily accounts of the Chancellor's battle with John Major over the referendum were broadcast, by means of copious and readily available private briefing, throughout Westminster. First of all it became known that Clarke was unhap- py, then that he was ready to resign, and in due course full details of the demanding terms and conditions of his ultimate surren- Classifieds — pages 76-78 Peter Oborne is assistant editor (politics) of the Express on Sunday.
Bruce Anderson will be back next week der were made public knowledge. The result was that the Tories gained no credit at all for their boldness in doing something new with a referendum on the single cur- rency. By the time the announcement final- ly came (made, it should be noted, by the Prime Minister with the Chancellor looking miserably on) it was all a messy anti-climax which left everybody unhappy.
What, then, is going on? What made Gordon Brown, so surly and menacing in demeanour, behave like a gentleman? And what makes Kenneth Clarke, normally an affable and easy-going chap, such a con- founded nuisance?
Brown is desperate for Labour to win the election at all costs. As far as he is con- ' cerned, it is far more important than a little matter like a referendum, and even his per- sonal pride. He wears two hats for Labour. One half of him is shadow Chancellor. Doubtless that half of Gordon Brown felt very strongly about the single currency. But the other half chairs Labour's election strategy committee. That half understands all too clearly the need to subordinate long- term principle to short-term advantage from time to time.
By contrast, both halves of Kenneth Clarke are firmly located at the Treasury. To put it mildly, the Tory campaigning machine and Mr Clarke do not see eye to eye. There are a large number of Conser- vative MPs, and a smaller number of high- ranking officials at Tory Central Office, who believe that Kenneth Clarke, whose Budget this week will have such a bearing on the outcome, does not care much either way who wins the next election. Mr Clarke himself would indignantly refute that charge. He would claim that there could be no more certain way of throwing away whatever chances of winning the Tories still possess than surrendering to the Eurosceptics. It is a serious defence.
But when one compares saintly Gordon Brown to curmudgeonly Kenneth Clarke it is hard not to agree that the Chancellor's critics have a point. For Kenneth Clarke Europe matters as much as the general election. For Gordon Brown and New Labour the election matters more than any- thing.
Previous page
