UK politics: Was an anti-Brown succession ever a realistic prospect

Thande

Donor
This is something I've pondered ever since all the headlines in the mid-2000s. Basically there was a lot of speculation that Tony Blair would try to go back on the Granita Pact (assuming, of course, it was the formalised deal that we all tend to think it was, but which the people involved tend to deny). That, rather than standing aside to let Gordon Brown follow him as Prime Minister, Blair would set up and endorse his own preferred successor. The chief candidate subject to this speculation was Alan Milburn, who was primed for this by becoming Secretary of State for Health in 1999--at a time when Blair was making the NHS one of the government's chief focuses for reform and increasing spending. However, much to everyone's surprise, Milburn resigned in 2003 "to spend more time with his family" and actually meant it. Although he was briefly brought back in 2004-5 as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in order to manage Labour's re-election campaign, he was never again considered a potential successor to Blair.

After Milburn, the speculation seemed to get increasingly desperate and seize on any figure who wasn't Gordon Brown as Blair's potential successor, often over-analysing any reshuffle Blair made as going towards pointing out this successor. I remember even John Reid dropping hints that he might see himself in such a role, which invited ridicule from the media. In any case, As We All Know, nothing ever came of it, and Brown was coronated as Labour leader on Blair's exit in 2007 without any challenger gaining enough MPs' support to force a formal election.

The upshot of this is, do we think that a non-Brown succession was ever a workable option? Say Milburn had managed to balance his family life (and, of course, actually wanted to be PM, which isn't a given). Say Blair planned his resignation in an organised way to prepare the way for him (that is probably more unlikely, as Blair like Thatcher tended to 'go on and on and on' by default). Say that Blair openly endorsed Milburn. What would happen? Presumably an open contest between Brown and Milburn. Who would win?

Assuming that this was ever more than just part of a propaganda war (as with Brown's "friends" dropping "hints" throughout the Iraq war period) and Milburn could have become leader and PM, what would his premiership be like, especially compared to Brown's OTL one? On the one hand, Milburn would certainly be a more capable PM than Brown (there are people in care homes who would be more capable PMs than Brown), but on the other hand, the economic crisis by this point was pretty inevitable and presumably shutting Brown out would create a lot of bad blood and divisions in the Labour Party that didn't exist so much in OTL, and which a competent opposition could potentially exploit.

Thoughts?
 
Alternative what if: What if the leadership election that never was... was.

IE What if people like David Miliband, Jack Straw or Alan Johnson and other suggested candidates had stood?
 

Thande

Donor
ASB I know but how wonderful would it have been if Blair had endorsed John McDonnell? :p

Alternative what if: What if the leadership election that never was... was.

IE What if people like David Miliband, Jack Straw or Alan Johnson and other suggested candidates had stood?

That's a different WI, which had already been discussed before. Let's try to focus on this one because I don't think it ever has.

While this would be a lot easier with no Iraq as Bmk 2 says, I want us to consider it happening in a TL as close to ours as possible...say Milburn just manages to balance his family life better and remains a possibly credible anti-Brown candidate for long enough.
 
I think Brown would beat any 'Blairite successor' in anything resembling OTL. The only man who could beat him is, ironically, a sitting Blair himself.
 
I think Brown could have won anyway due to how much of an influential figure he was. However it could have been different if "the deal" had never taken place and there was no need for a Gordon coronation if he was beaten fair and square in 1994.
 
I think Brown would beat any 'Blairite successor' in anything resembling OTL. The only man who could beat him is, ironically, a sitting Blair himself.

In 2007 I really doubt anyone can beat Brown. Milburn would need a detailed timeline to see what positions he'd take with five more years in the Cabinet.

I remember even John Reid dropping hints that he might see himself in such a role

So do I, ho ho ho.
 

Thande

Donor
I think Brown would beat any 'Blairite successor' in anything resembling OTL. The only man who could beat him is, ironically, a sitting Blair himself.

I agree with you. This isn't a "stop Brown!!!1111" wish fulfilment thing, it's a "what would happen if someone tried to stop Brown, and most probably failed?"
 
I agree with you. This isn't a "stop Brown!!!1111" wish fulfilment thing, it's a "what would happen if someone tried to stop Brown, and most probably failed?"

Party unity would coalesce, if Milburn gets rebel Blairite MPs to get him a nomination, you'll see loads of headlines about a crumbling government but then a landslide for Brown as the unions, members, Brownite MPs and all the Blairites who want a future in cabinet, throw in their support.

It will help create an image of a New Order in the government, he might even use his bounce to call an election to follow up on a strong showing.

Such a defeated challenge might also encourage him to clean house far more extensively. Its often forgotten in the mess of palace intrigue and economic collapse but Brown actually did a lot to reverse the Blairite system of command back to how they found it in 1997. Doesn't stop him being a traditional autocratic PM of course.
 
In answer to the title I would say 'no'. Usual disclaimers about nill impossiblo, but 'realistic', no. There was too much expectation that Brown would take over, too much faith in him electorally and economically in the party for a Blairite challenge to work. Despite their prominence the Blairites had a shallow support base in the party and were a court faction rather than an independent power bloc, and the potential non-Blairite challengers who could have had cross-party potency were quickly swamped by events in the first term.

There's a temptation to go with the 'have Blair hang on longer, into the financial crisis, and Brown's stock would then collapse' idea but I think this is totally wrong. On the contrary, I think Brown's stock would grow during such a period, and the temptations of the more flexibly ambitious to mount a leadership bid to control such a fag-end government would seriously lessen.

I'm not even sure lateral thinking works here. Even if, somehow, Blair had managed to stay in post and then lead the government down to defeat in 2010 or thereabouts, I still don't think I can confidently say Brown wouldn't have taken over the mantle in opposition. I think that sort of route is probably the best road to go from Blair to a non-Brown candidate, but I don't think the odds favour that above Brown taking over.
 
Last edited:
One possibility requires Blair to grow and pair and force Brown out of the Treasury thereby cutting him out of his powerbase. Probably after the 2001 election would be the best time to do it and I suggest the best way to do it would be by moving Brown to the Foreign Office - it's probably the only job (other than PM of course) that could be credibly portrayed as something other than a demotion, and Blair could even spin it as Gordon being given the opportunity to acquire the foreign policy expertise he'd need to be PM. Of course this also means that with a bit of judicious scheduling Brown can be kept almost permanently on an aircraft flying from one pointless international bunfest - sorry, vital intergovernmental conference - to another, leaving him with the minimum of time and opportunity to plot. At the same time Blair demotes or exiles Brown's creatures (the thought of Ed Balls as Northern Ireland secretary seems especially satisfying, somehow...) so they can't plot on his behalf and puts a credible Brown rival in the Treasury to build up his own powerbase.

It also helps this scenario that I strongly suspect Brown would detest the Foreign Office and would be disastrous at it, which would discredit him and give Blair the opportunity to properly demote him a couple of years down the line.
 

Thande

Donor
One possibility requires Blair to grow and pair and force Brown out of the Treasury thereby cutting him out of his powerbase. Probably after the 2001 election would be the best time to do it and I suggest the best way to do it would be by moving Brown to the Foreign Office - it's probably the only job (other than PM of course) that could be credibly portrayed as something other than a demotion, and Blair could even spin it as Gordon being given the opportunity to acquire the foreign policy expertise he'd need to be PM. Of course this also means that with a bit of judicious scheduling Brown can be kept almost permanently on an aircraft flying from one pointless international bunfest - sorry, vital intergovernmental conference - to another, leaving him with the minimum of time and opportunity to plot. At the same time Blair demotes or exiles Brown's creatures (the thought of Ed Balls as Northern Ireland secretary seems especially satisfying, somehow...) so they can't plot on his behalf and puts a credible Brown rival in the Treasury to build up his own powerbase.

It also helps this scenario that I strongly suspect Brown would detest the Foreign Office and would be disastrous at it, which would discredit him and give Blair the opportunity to properly demote him a couple of years down the line.
An interesting idea, but I just don't think it's in Blair's character. He tended to avoid controversy and division wherever possible; one reason why Iraq was so defining of his premiership was precisely because it was the one exception.

You need something that would convince Blair that it was more dangerous to allow Brown and his supporters to be in a position of power than risking the downsides of attempting such a radical strategy to try and neutralise them.
 
An interesting idea, but I just don't think it's in Blair's character. He tended to avoid controversy and division wherever possible; one reason why Iraq was so defining of his premiership was precisely because it was the one exception.

I rather agree, which is why my POD is really Blair growing a pair rather than Brown moving to the FO;) Still, as you noted with Iraq, Blair was occasionally capable of acting out of character.

You need something that would convince Blair that it was more dangerous to allow Brown and his supporters to be in a position of power than risking the downsides of attempting such a radical strategy to try and neutralise them.

How about this? After the 1997 general election, Blair appointed Frank Field as minister for welfare reform with a brief to "think the unthinkable". OTL Brown was opposed to what Field was coming and effectively forced him out of office the following year when Blair declined to throw his weight behind what Field was doing. Suppose Blair backs Field instead? I can't see Brown backing down and he was sufficiently obsessive that he'd probably force Field's resignation in another year or so anyway, but the fight would be much more poisonous and more out in the open and after Field is forced out Blair may this time decide that he can't be a proper prime minister until Brown is out of the treasury...
 
How about this? After the 1997 general election, Blair appointed Frank Field as minister for welfare reform with a brief to "think the unthinkable". OTL Brown was opposed to what Field was coming and effectively forced him out of office the following year when Blair declined to throw his weight behind what Field was doing. Suppose Blair backs Field instead? I can't see Brown backing down and he was sufficiently obsessive that he'd probably force Field's resignation in another year or so anyway, but the fight would be much more poisonous and more out in the open and after Field is forced out Blair may this time decide that he can't be a proper prime minister until Brown is out of the treasury...

I don't think Brown would really play the "me or him" card this early when Blair was very popular, better to let off and then add that to the list of perceived slights and attacks on Brown's authority.

Field's reforms could have been a very radical move and may have set a tone for New Labour along with aiding Blair's arguments but at the cost of destroying relations with most of the Old Labour MPs and suffering a big revolt. It's what happened in my own TL.
 
An interesting idea, but I just don't think it's in Blair's character. He tended to avoid controversy and division wherever possible; one reason why Iraq was so defining of his premiership was precisely because it was the one exception.

I know you (and plenty of others in fairness) have this idee fixe of Blair the courageous liberal imperialist taking on public opinion in pursuit of a just cause, but that's not how Iraq was conceptualised in the beginning. Blair actually thought Iraq would be electorally popular and that all the divisions over the issue would fall away once the thing was done, just like in Kosovo. You might want to google 'Baghdad Bounce'. It was never, ever concieved as a premiership-wrecking quixotic cause of principle. That was merely the consolation argument when it had already become that.

Iraq actually confirms Blair's tendency to personally avoid controversy or rocking the boat, particularly when it came to vested interests: he was psychologically unable to effectively challenge Dubya on the idea or the execution.
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
Iraq actually confirms Blair's tendency to personally avoid controversy or rocking the boat, particularly when it came to vested interests: he was psychologically unable to effectively challenge Dubya on the idea or the execution.
While I think you are correct that Blair was convinced he would be proved right over Iraq and it would ultimately win votes, I do not agree with this: it's that myth that Blair was 'Bush's poodle' and was weedily bullied into Iraq, when Blair wanted Saddam gone before George W. Bush had won his first presidential primary. You can make the argument that Blair was pushed when his prized UN-legitimist attempt failed and Bush went unilateral, but I would read it as Blair's own decision, albeit a reluctantly taken one.

But of course we're a bit offtopic.
 
While I think you are correct that Blair was convinced he would be proved right over Iraq and it would ultimately win votes, I do not agree with this: it's that myth that Blair was 'Bush's poodle' and was weedily bullied into Iraq, when Blair wanted Saddam gone before George W. Bush had won his first presidential primary. You can make the argument that Blair was pushed when his prized UN-legitimist attempt failed and Bush went unilateral, but I would read it as Blair's own decision, albeit a reluctantly taken one.

But of course we're a bit offtopic.

Yes, make another thread if you want to discuss how to make Iraq go better in terms of Blair's career after 2003.
 
While I think you are correct that Blair was convinced he would be proved right over Iraq and it would ultimately win votes, I do not agree with this: it's that myth that Blair was 'Bush's poodle' and was weedily bullied into Iraq, when Blair wanted Saddam gone before George W. Bush had won his first presidential primary. You can make the argument that Blair was pushed when his prized UN-legitimist attempt failed and Bush went unilateral, but I would read it as Blair's own decision, albeit a reluctantly taken one.

But of course we're a bit offtopic.

Oh I didn't mean to suggest that Blair somehow regarded Iraq as wrong or unwise, I'm sure he didn't. (Though you're wrong in seeing this as unique to Blair; Clinton, Gore - by hook or by crook the goal of all Atlanticist policy thinking with regard to Iraq was to see Saddam gone, eventually) My point was he would have been unable to challenge Bush even if he had.

Yes, make another thread if you want to discuss how to make Iraq go better in terms of Blair's career after 2003.

Is there any particular reason to, considering we've already talked out the main point of discussion here? I mean I'm sure more of the BritPol contigent coming in and affirming for the fifth time the extreme unlikeliness of this will be fascinating reading, but I'd prefer to discuss some of the tangents here.
 
Is there any particular reason to, considering we've already talked out the main point of discussion here? I mean I'm sure more of the BritPol contigent coming in and affirming for the fifth time the extreme unlikeliness of this will be fascinating reading, but I'd prefer to discuss some of the tangents here.

Well my entertainment is one. :p

But yes, Iraq was a big thing but I'm of the theory that the Blair/Brown confrontation was going to happen at some point and that if the "marriage" continued to the financial crisis then I could see a blame game of "to me, to you, to me, to you" starting, ending with both of them sinking each other's ships and leaving the successor with two boatloads of problems.
 
Top