What if Gordon Brown went first?

In 1994 after the death of John Smith Shadow Chancellor Gordon Brown and Shadow Home Secretary Tony Blair met at Granita restaurant to decide the future of the Labour Party, its not 100% known exactly what was agreed but essentially Brown agreed not to challenge for the leadership with the expectation that Blair would hand over to him at some point in the future.

But what if the deal had resulted in Brown becoming leader and Blair becoming the future leader?

Would Labour have performed as well in future elections?
How long would Brown stay in office?
What role would Tony Blair play? Would he stay in home, move to chancellor or run for deputy leader?
Who would replace Brown as shadow chancellor?
Would we see an similar pivot towards New Labour?
What would Browns relations with the US and EU be like? Would he still go to war in Iraq
When Brown stood down would Blair be able to replace him or be outflanked by one of Browns prodigies?

But most importantly what impact would Brown going first have on British politics?
 
Did Gordon Brown come across as an overly sincere guy who was clumsy too often?

(I'm a Yank, and I may be way off base regarding this)
 
I guess the closest American comparison would be Al Gore? Generally regarded as a competent back room guy and legislator, however bland and over shadowed by his more rockstar boss
 
Would Labour have performed as well in future elections?
They probably wouldn't get the huge majority that Blair did in 1997. But by 1994, the Conservatives were always going to lose that election comfortably to a semi competent challenger. They would still likely get something in the upper 300 range. Still the largest Labour majority since 1945. Portillo would probably survive in this scenario though, and take over as Tory leader in 1997. Brown probably wins another majority, but maybe something more like 2005 than 2001.
How long would Brown stay in office?
Hard to say, but I think Brown would be PM for a shorter period than Blair, if anything because the latter represents a more attractive alternative electorally to the former, and with a reduced majority, there might be more of a temptation to stick to the original plan, with Brown going around 2004.
What role would Tony Blair play? Would he stay in home, move to chancellor or run for deputy leader?
He wanted to run for Deputy on a joint ticket with Brown in 1992, so it's entirely possible he actually does it in 1994. Blair could have taken on any of the three other great offices of state. He had taken on shadow economic portfolios in opposition, so he could be Chancellor if he asked too be. If it wasn't him, it's hard to think who it would be. Brown was on bad terms with Robin Cook, so it wouldn't be him. Maybe Jack Cunningham? He was getting on a bit, but he was a right winger who was close to John Smith and had shadowed trade and industry for a while.
Would we see an similar pivot towards New Labour?
Yes, Brown believed in New Labour as much as Blair. He actually had stronger ties to Peter Mandelson than Blair did to start off with.
What would Browns relations with the US and EU be like? Would he still go to war in Iraq?
I can't see Brown being as close to GWB. Blair seemed to be the main instigator of the whole Iraq thing, and Brown was fairly apathetic. I don't think he would have risked so much of his personal reputation on invading Iraq, like Blair did. He'd probably go into Afghanistan though. Britain's stance toward the Euro would be broadly similar if Blair had a similar power sharing arrangement with Brown, except Brown would be PM and Blair would be the senior cabinet member in this scenario. A fudge would be agreed, the UK wouldn't join in Brown's premiership, and by the time he's gone it would probably be too late for Blair to successfully make the case as PM.
When Brown stood down would Blair be able to replace him or be outflanked by one of Browns prodigies?
No, because Blair was skillful and charismatic enough to not let that happen, and there weren't ever really many Brownites who were particularly impressive public performers. I could see the accession of Blair being met with a bit more apathy from the public, though, since he would have been an established figure by the time that it happened and they would have quite a while to prepare themselves for it.
But most importantly what impact would Brown going first have on British politics?
I think Blair takes power in 2004, probably beats Hague or someone with a similar level majority to 2005, but then goes onto lose the next election because of the financial crisis. Maybe he could salvage enough seats to forge a workable coalition with the Lib Dems. I don't think Blair would have been quite so discredited in this TL without Iraq. In fact, due to the economically interventionist measures he might be forced to take due to the pressures of the financial crisis, he might be viewed as a more left wing PM than Brown, and though he'd attract criticism from the left, he'd still be respected within Labour, much like Brown is now. Labour would probably stay in the centre for longer under David Miliband or someone like that.
 
Brown was not 'Cool Britannia' enough to convince voters that he was new labour enough to vote for nor did he have the 'charm' effect that Blair had
 
Brown was not 'Cool Britannia' enough to convince voters that he was new labour enough to vote for nor did he have the 'charm' effect that Blair had
John Smith didn't have either of those things either, but he was still able to build up a 20 point lead in the opinion polls by the time of his death. 1997 was a perfect storm of issues. Blair's charisma was certainly one of them, but so too was the Labour platform which was modernising but also moderate (which isn't changing under Brown) and the really unpopular Tory government that had been in power for 18 years and was led by a weak Prime Minister. A comfortable Labour victory would still be very much on the cards.
 
This is very difficult to deal with, because unless you either physically remove Blair, or remove him through some huge invented scandal, then Brown doesn't really stand any chance of coming out as leader. The mood in the party was very much in favour of Blair, even almost all the Scottish Labour MPs wanted Blair. Even if Brown directly contested the leadership he would have lost, which of course Brown was aware of, and gave rise to Granita. And if you do remove Blair completely then it would really change how things played out. It's very hard to imagine how factionalism within Labour would play out if Brown was always the uncontested frontman of New Labour.
 
John Smith didn't have either of those things either, but he was still able to build up a 20 point lead in the opinion polls by the time of his death. 1997 was a perfect storm of issues. Blair's charisma was certainly one of them, but so too was the Labour platform which was modernising but also moderate (which isn't changing under Brown) and the really unpopular Tory government that had been in power for 18 years and was led by a weak Prime Minister. A comfortable Labour victory would still be very much on the cards.

Totally agree - but Tony was labours poster boy and had been since the 80s when he was stood up as the Labour Candidate for the safe Tory seat of Beaconsfield (which many expected him to win) however his 'stance' on the Falklands war (which was ongoing at the time) backfired resulting in a far worse result for Labour than was normally the case.

I am however going to back off from my earlier opinion and change my mind, as Blair was expecting Brown to succeed John Smith (who I nearly met in 1991 as a Student Union Rep - but I declined - stupid boy - would have been interesting) - and as I understand it Brown was expecting Blair to back him (as was Blair) but opinion polls etc showed Blair as being the more popular choice - which resulted in Brown standing aside 'for the greater good' but the idea of Brown leading a labour victory in 97 as you say is not such a leap!
 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...sfree/2016/jul/05/tony-blair-iraq-war-chilcot

' . . . At the start of his second term in 2001, before the attacks on September 11, Blair told visitors to No 10 that one of his second-term objectives was to prove that a Labour prime minister could work with a Republican president of the US. . . '

Per this opinion piece, that's the issue Blair focused on.

And encouraging the U.S. to go to the UN was kind of the right way to do it. But then Blair was trapped. He couldn't then use his skepticism and independent judgment. And maybe (me speculating) his underlings overperceived the result he wanted.
 
Top