John Kampfner :: author, broadcaster & commentator

A marriage held together by political convenience ... Just
The Herald, 9th April 2005

It is more than a truce but less than a peace deal. The never-ending power struggle between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown has over the past few days taken a new turn. With the Labour campaign stumbling and with party officials concerned at the narrowing of the opinion polls, the Prime Minister has been forced to abandon plans to keep his Chancellor on the sidelines. Now Brown and his people are back centre stage. The strategy between now and polling day will be of his making. The emphasis on the economy is very much his. The details of the manifesto, to be unveiled next week, are much more to his liking.

At their press conference last Wednesday, their first high-profile joint outing for some time, the body language between the protagonists displayed all the tensions and conflicting emotions of a long marriage. At the start when bombarded with questions about the state of their relationship, the two men visibly flinched. Only when they managed, after much pleading, to shift the subject onto their common enemy, the Conservatives, did they begin to relax. Blair went further than he has done before to say that he had no plans to offer Brown a job he could not possibly accept, notably Foreign Secretary. This is not to say that the position, one of the great three offices of state and to some people the most glamorous, is not in objective terms an enticing proposition for someone who has run the economy for the best part of a decade.

But as soon as they idea was first mooted - as ever through the newspapers rather than directly - Brown feared it would be spun as a rebuff or as the boss finally asserting his authority after a decade of deference. It would also have deprived him of the big policy lever he controls, the decision on joining the Euro, that he has used with such artfulness to thwart Blair. Furthermore, Brown has not in the past particularly enjoyed foreign trips, although in recent months visits to Africa and China may have kindled a new enthusiasm.

In any case, this talk is now academic. As reward and recognition for helping to salvage the campaign, Brown has been told he can stay at the Treasury for as long as he likes. That deals with one problem, but more generally, beyond May 5, the picture remains murky. Nothing, I am told, has been resolved. Having broken with precedent six months ago and announced that this would be his last election Blair has refused to say privately to Brown exactly when he will stand down. The odds are that he might use the referendum on the European constitution, due by next summer, as a cut-off point, win or lose. But if the French vote 'no' at the end of May, then that plebiscite might not take place, and Blair would be let off the hook. Then he could prolong his stay pretty much for the duration of the parliament. Whenever the leadership contest takes place, Brown continues to be the odds-on favourite. His erstwhile rivals, the likes of David Blunkett, Alan Milburn and Charles Clarke, have all in their different ways seen their prospects falter. Blair has refused to state that he would back his rival as his successor.

The end game of the Blair-Brown saga that, with all its fights and reconciliations, betrayals and kinship, has so enthralled the Westminster village, and many people beyond, may well be determined by election night. Blair's strength and longevity as leader will depend on the size of the majority and the assessment of who was responsibility for the victory. That assumes there will be a victory, a very probable but in this most unpredictable of campaigns by no means certain bet. If it is deemed, and spun, that Labour won in spite of rather than because of Blair then Brown's hand will be hugely strengthened. Already that is the perception, with the disclosure that the PM's face does not appear on the election material of most candidates or on the cover of the manifesto itself.

The size of the win is a more complicated calculation. On the one hand, a low majority, between say 40 and 80, would further reinforce the view of Blair as lame duck and possibly liability - although it must be said a third successive victory, no matter what the size, would still be a historic achievement. Whatever the short term calculations, a low majority would not in the long run work in Brown's favour. Having waited so long for the prize, he would not want to be seen as a transition figure, house sitting at the end of a political cycle that would lead to a Conservative resurgence. He would not want to join the late Lord Callaghan as a Prime Minister ousted at the first electoral opportunity. He is fully aware of how parts of the Tory-supporting media are praising him now while sharpening their knives once he has entered the doors of 10 Downing Street. Brown wants at least one full term to leave his mark. The best insurance for long term survival is a large majority.

The mutual distrust, however, remains strong. Brown is adamant that Blair reneged on a pledge, made in front of John Prescott in November 2003 to step down last summer. Blair compounded that snub with his appointment of Alan Milburn, Brown's eminence grise, as election chief. Some around Brown conclude that Blair can be at his most belligerent when at his weakest. They will inevitably be cautious about any future verbal promise. Allies of Blair harbour different, but equally strong-held, suspicions of plotting by the Brownites and of airing secrets in public. They say any secret agreement now would not stay secret for very long.

The two men are talking, but their conversations are said to be matter of fact. They will make a number of carefully choreographed public appearances, seeking to counter the Tories' concentration on the grievance of asylum and crime with a more upbeat message on the economy. But this message is on Brown's terms. The emphasis now will be less on the reform of public services, more on investment in them. The strategy is sensible. The debate on tax and spend - and the many contradictions in the Conservatives' pledge to maintain spending on schools and hospitals while cutting taxes - will concentrate the minds of voters, either those on the liberal left who might think of registering a protest vote over Iraq, or less politicised voters who might have forgotten the recessions of the Thatcher-Major years. And yet the "economy, economy, economy" argument it is not infallible. The crisis at Rover casts further doubt on the long-term durability of UK industry while questions are growing about whether Brown will be able to continue his economic Houdini act into a third term.

Still, Blair and Brown are not where they were just a few weeks ago. They might no longer like each. They almost certainly do not trust each other. But they are showing that faced for the first time by a meaningful Conservative threat, they can put aside their differences. All signs are that this will be the closest contest since 1992. That was the last election before Brown's fateful decision to stand aside for his friend that marked the beginning of the end of their political marriage. It has long since broken down, but they are being urged to keep it going for just a few more weeks ... for the sake of the party.

This article first appeared in the The Herald and may not be reproduced without permission.