Was The Tension Between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown Constructive or Destructive Towards Policymaking

Was the tension between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown constructive or destructive towards good policymaking in government?

The relationship between a prime minister and a chancellor is undoubtedly the most important relationship between two politicians in British politics. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are no exception to this rule, with their relationship defining a decade of British politics and policymaking. Blair was Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007, with Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer during the same period, subsequently succeeding Blair as Prime Minister. Their relationship was so powerful, it ‘redefined the cabinet structure to a bipolar model’[1], with Brown being responsible for vast swathes of domestic policy with regards to both social care and elements of domestic reform, an unusual amount of power for a chancellor to hold. Traditionally tension develops between Number Ten and Number Eleven throughout a premiership, with Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson serving as a strong example of how a seemingly powerful relationship can break down over time. Additionally, it is not uncommon for prime ministers and chancellors to have personality differences, and generally not work well together in a personal capacity, as illustrated by Major and Lamont, who produced regular ‘lances to the ribs’ once their relationship had broken down and Lamont been replaced as Chancellor[2]. However, the Blair and Brown relationship was different, more than just a manifestation of these historic tensions between the two most powerful people in government.

To fully understand their relationship, one must examine its origins, forged over New Labour’s formative years in opposition, beginning with sharing an office together after becoming MPs[3]. Many of the differences and tensions between Blair and Brown arose over policy issues, such as the health reforms of 2003, or over the introduction of tuition fees, with Blair and Brown both leading different factions within the Labour Party, Blairites and Brownites[4]. From initially sharing an office together, to rising through the ranks of the party all the way to the top of the shadow cabinet, Blair and Brown were an inseparable, immovable force in Labour, and eventually British politics. Aside from representing different factions of the party, which began to evolve and unfold during their time in government, a significant part of the tension between Blair and Brown can be attributed to the Granita agreement in 1994, or more generally the events leading up to Blair becoming leader of the Labour Party. As the more senior member in terms of experience, age and shadow cabinet seniority, Brown ‘expected to run for the leadership with Blair by his side’[5]. However, Brown had ’not expected’[6] to have Blair regarded as the frontrunning modernising candidate and was furious to have seen Blair take the ascendency and become the leading candidate. Brown agreed to stand aside and back Blair’s candidacy at the infamous Granita meeting, on the promise that he would be Blair’s Shadow Chancellor with considerable influence over domestic policy, with Blair going ‘as far as he could without damaging his scope as leader[7]. It is disputed by both sides whether Blair made promises pertaining to the length of time he would spend in office, which is another considerable cause for disagreement. This became the catalyst for a sharper deterioration in their relationship as time progressed. This illustrates the already fraught relationship between Blair and Brown upon entering government in 1997, with Brown expecting Blair to step down to pave the way for him to become Prime Minister after two terms. The differences between them and the ensuing tensions were flared by difficult policy decisions such as the aforementioned health reforms, as well as other key areas of the New Labour domestic reform agenda. This essay will examine whether these differences and disagreements could be classified as ‘creative tension’ and constructive towards good policymaking, or whether they ultimately were destructive and made it more difficult to govern.

With the Conservatives consigned to virtual irrelevancy during the height of the initial Blair ministry, much of the media attention was focused upon the relationship between Blair and Brown, with some high profile aides claiming that a more effective opposition may have been a uniting force between them[8]. Browns exceptional dominance over economic and social policy afforded to him in the Granita agreement[9] lead to him having a significant hand in large swathes of Blair’s domestic reform agenda. One such example being the healthcare reforms of 2003, and earlier healthcare funding disputes in 2000. Government departments were effectively split between Brownites and Blairites [10], with Brownites reportedly getting favour with regards to public spending, with Health Secretary Alan Milburn describing himself as being in a ‘continuous battle’[11] to secure higher levels of public spending within his department. Health was an area in need of significant public investment, with Blair seeing the need for said investment and Brown refusing, Blair took the opportunity to announce new funding for healthcare live on television[12] without consulting Brown first[13], with Brown privately fuming to Blair that he had ‘stolen my f****** budget’. This exemplifies the highly fractious nature of the relationship between Blair and Brown, however it is a prime example of their relationship being positive towards policymaking, with the investment being direly needed and not watered down in subsequent budgets. Much of the tension around Blair reportedly stealing Brown’s budget appears to be exaggerated by the media, and as a surface level argument, not directly having an impact on the policy discussed,. This illustrates the lack of direct negative effect of disagreements on policymaking, helping to negate the argument that Blair and Brown’s relationship worsened policymaking.

By 2003, their relationship had become slightly more fraught due to Blair advancing his public service reform agenda, developing a more coherent vision as to how he wanted to define his premiership. A significant part of this was healthcare reform, with Alan Milburn being brought in as Secretary of State for Health in order to conceptualise and push through the reforms Blair had envisioned. Blair had envisaged significant reforms to the health service, re-organising much of the way the institution operates, beginning to create an internal marketplace to drive up standards and creating foundation hospitals. During the policymaking process, Blair found the Treasury ‘mildly obstructive’[14], whilst noting there was considerable opposition from ‘other factions’ within the Labour party, with Brown being largely conceptually opposed to some of the reforms proposed by Milburn, especially the way in which foundation hospitals were able to borrow unchallenged from the Treasury. With Brown’s significant opposition to some of the proposed reforms, and him and Milburn seemingly at an impasse unable to agree on a way forward, it was left for Blair to weigh in and decide which direction to take. He risked angering Milburn whom he had tasked with envisaging the NHS reforms. or risking a breakdown within the coalition he and Brown had created between their two warring factions within the Labour Party. Blair in the end sided with Brown, angering Milburn who claimed that having ‘twin centres of domestic policy does not work’[15], exemplifying the difficulties faced by the Blair Brown relationship, potentially suggesting it had a negative effect on policymaking. With Milburn creating ambitious reforms under the instruction of Blair, and Brown opposing these reforms, it created a significant opportunity for scrutiny of the policy, specifically regarding foundation hospitals. In this example, it can be argued that this heightened scrutiny as a result of initial division between Blair and Brown did in fact result in better policymaking, with many of the reforms remaining untouched today, and Blair commenting that their reforms ‘no doubt improved the state of the NHS’[16], and Brown sharing the view that the NHS was in a better place, partly as a result of spending increased[17].

Another area in which Blair and Brown demonstrated division was over the potential entry to the Euro, with both Blair and Brown flipping positions as to being for and against joining the Euro.[18]. Despite disagreement, with Blair becoming increasingly pro joining the single currency as Brown grew away from the idea, this is a significant example of how disagreements between the pair lead to exceptionally good policymaking. With the rumours and media coverage regarding Britain potentially joining the Euro beginning almost immediately after Blair came into power in 1997, it became a highly divisive issue amongst cabinet and the nation. Blair allowed Brown to commission the Treasury to undertake five economic tests to scrutinise whether or not Britain should join the Euro. With Brown undertaking the five tests as a way of removing the politics and ideology from the debate, the government was able to undertake a decision based on whether it would be better economically for Britain to join, or to stick with the Pound. The Treasury undertook an extensive economic analysis[19] of whether it would be economically beneficial to join the Euro or not, culminating in a report released in 2003.This highlights a clear benefit towards policymaking of the Blair-Brown relationship, with good quality policymaking being undertaken to prevent political arguments, ultimately leading the government to accept the Treasury’s 2003 recommendation that Britain should not join the Euro[20], a decision which the country has looked back upon favourably. Whilst this may be viewed as Brown winning the debate, and as a public disagreement between Brown and Blair, it remains a strong example of good policymaking emerging from their complicated relationship, which lead to a good policy outcome.

Tuition fees also serves as an example on which Blair and Brown were significantly divided, with Brown ‘insistent on resisting’[21] when Blair attempted to break a manifesto pledge to introduce top up fees to help aid financially starved universities. With Brown remaining against the idea, and Blair staunchly in favour, Brown requested that Blair and he undertook further evaluation of the subject in order to effectively scrutinise whether top up fees would in fact be the best course of action. The enhanced scrutiny as a result of political disagreement between Blair and Brown further aids the policymaking process, serving as an important check and balance in the policymaking process, perhaps as it should do between a prime minister and their chancellor. However, this ‘creative tension’ had become negative at this point[22], with the animosity between Blair and Brown making it significantly difficult for ministers such as Estelle Morris in this example, and Alan Milburn in the aforementioned example. With Secretaries of State feeling caught between the two opposing views from the two most powerful members of government, the policymaking process certainly suffered to an extent. Eventually, the top up tuition fees were introduced in 2003, with the government and the treasury agreeing on ‘some sort of compromise’[23]. This provides yet another example of how the Blair Brown disagreements brought greater scrutiny and compromise to the policymaking process, ultimately resulting in better policy. With the benefit of hindsight, the disagreements over tuition fees did ultimately lead to a good policy which left the universities in a much better state financially, without restricting access to poorer prospective students. As the replacement for Estelle Morris, Charles Clarke was able to push through the reforms to tuition fees, and John Reid and Patricia Hewitt were able to effectively implement the NHS reforms passed by parliament. The successes of subsequent Secretaries of State in these areas suggests that whilst Morris and Milburn were caught between a rock and a hard place, firmly between Blair and Brown, perhaps stronger and bolder characters were required in order to conjure and implement the compromises between Blair and Brown, which is not necessarily a disadvantage to the policymaking process.

Whilst there were considerable upsides to the relationship between Blair and Brown, and examples of good policymaking emerging from the disagreements held between the pair, there was also a destructive element, which in some cases did have a negative effect on policymaking, Baroness Morgan described some of the debates as ‘tokenistic’ and ‘silly game playing’[24], using the example of Brown refusing to visit any school which was an academy. This was however surface level pettiness and didn’t directly impact policy. Blair however also described some of the disagreements between himself and Brown as a ‘total waste of energy’[25], as a busy prime minister where time is a valuable commodity, tokenistic disagreements and arguments serve as a significant sap on time and energy which could be much better spent involved in policymaking. This serves to highlight the negative aspects of Blair and Brown’s relationship and exemplifies that the disagreements held between the pair undoubtedly at times had a negative impact across government, sewing division between Blairites and Brownites, creating a divided government.

The development of both Blair’s vision of government and his domestic reform agenda over his first two ministries heightened the tensions between him and Brown, but did lead to an exceptional volume of policy making, and a significant domestic reform agenda. Baroness Sally Morgan, a key advisor to Blair, perpetuated this notion arguing that their relationship worsened over time, as Blair became more confident with pushing forwards with his vision for government[26]. Baroness Morgan elaborated that most of the disagreements were ‘genuine policy disagreements’, highlighting the fact that their differences were primarily ideological, especially with regards to Blair’s domestic reforms. Although, there were significant amounts of ‘creative tension’ which led to better policymaking, and government would be considerably worse off without one or the other[27]. The argument that the disagreements between Blair and Brown did ultimately lead to better policymaking is strong, with Blair himself commenting that their disagreements were ultimately a constructive force towards creating better policy.[28] Furthermore, Blair also divulged that bringing disagreements ‘inside the tent’ [29], allowed for more effective dialogue and discussion around policy making, affording a higher level of scrutiny. This further illustrates the point that whilst there were considerable disagreements between Blair and Brown and highly factious moments, the overall impact of having two intellectual heavyweights continuously compromising and working out an agreeable policy was significantly positive, and definitely led to greater policymaking during their time in government together. Although it may be true that Blair and Brown led a coalition of separate factions within the Labour Party, much of their overall direction remained similar, which significantly enhanced policymaking. Baroness Morgan describes them as ‘clearly in the same direction’, with Phillip Gould, a pivotal strategy and communications director describing the pair as ‘separate entities in the same convoy’[30], clearly illustrating that the surface level disagreements over policy did not distract from the overall job of policymaking.

Whilst subsequent Prime Minster David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne have attempted to negate the opportunity for disagreements on the scale of Blair and Brown, the argument can be made that government is significantly worse for it. It is undeniable that from the examples of both health reform and tuition fee policy, as well as the testimonies from those at the heart of government, that Blair and Brown’s relationship was ultimately good for policymaking. Government, and Britain in general, would’ve been significantly worse off without Blair and Brown at the top of government, and their disagreements lead to strong compromises [31]. Whilst there have been numerous conversations regarding Blair potentially wishing to move Brown to a different department where his influence may have been weaker [32], Blair himself remarks at how impressive and necessary Brown was at the Treasury[33], with his influence on policymaking remaining essential for the government. Alastair Campbell remarks that Blair viewed Brown as both ‘brilliant and a nightmare’ [34], with his brilliance meaning he cannot be moved from his position as Chancellor of the Exchequer. This strong praise for Brown and his abilities highlight that despite his continued disagreements with Blair, they were a force for good in policymaking. Whilst there were undoubtedly destructive elements towards the Blair-Brown relationship, resulting in Blair’s eventual resignation as Prime Minster, it was undoubtedly a catalyst to produce better policy throughout their tenure, highlighting the importance of creative tension and scrutiny of policy. The decision regarding the Euro serves as a strong example of just how effective the creative tension between Brown and Blair became with regards for policymaking. Whilst the NHS reforms and the introduction of top up tuition fees were ultimately more contentious reforms containing more public disagreement between Blair and Brown, they do still exemplify how a strained relationship can ultimately lead to better policymaking, and stronger decision making in government. Blair and Brown entered government with a complicated relationship, which became ever more strained as time passed as Brown became impatient, expecting to be prime minister in the eyes of Blair. However, the overall impact on policymaking has to be regarded as positive, with three critical examples of strong, effective compromises creating good policy.

Bibliography

Davis, J. and Rentoul, J., 2019. Heroes Or Villains?: The Blair Government Reconsidered. Oxford University Press

Major, J., 2013. John Major: the autobiography. HarperCollins UK.

BBC., 2021. Blair and Brown: The New Labour Revolution. Series 1, episode 1.

Mandelson, P., 2010. The third man: Life at the heart of New Labour (p. 422). London: HarperPress.

Ed Balls, “Speaking Out: Lessons in Life and Politics’

Peter Hennessy, The Prime Minister: The Office and Its Holders (London: Penguin Books, 2001), p.477.

The Guardian., 2000. Blair’s £12bn pledge to the NHS. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2000/jan/17/futureofthenhs.health1 (last accessed 28/04/2022)

Blair, T., 2010. A journey: My political life. Vintage.

Brown, G., 2017. My life, our times. Random House pp170.

Richards, S. The Prime Ministers. London : Atlantic, 2019

Ramseden, D., 2021. The Treasury and an Introduction to Economic History Lecture. ‘The Euro’.

Morgan, S., 2022. The Blair Years Lecture, ‘SPADS and Civil Service’.

Blair, T., 2022. The Blair Years Lecture, ‘The Blair Years in Retrospect’.

Gould. P. 2011., The Unfinished Revolution : How New Labour Changed British Politics Forever.

Campbell, A., 2022. The Rest Is Politics Podcast, Episode 3.

[1] Davis, J. and Rentoul, J., 2019. Heroes Or Villains?: The Blair Government Reconsidered. Oxford University Press pp.15 [2] Major, J., 2013. John Major: the autobiography. HarperCollins UK. Pp601 [3] BBC., 2021. Blair and Brown: The New Labour Revolution. Series 1, episode 1. [4] Davis, J. and Rentoul, J., 2019. Heroes Or Villains?: The Blair Government Reconsidered. Oxford University Press pp.16 [5] Mandelson, P., 2010. The third man: Life at the heart of New Labour (p. 422). London: HarperPress. Pp161 [6] Mandelson, P., 2010. The third man: Life at the heart of New Labour (p. 422). London: HarperPress. Pp164 [7] Mandelson, P., 2010. The third man: Life at the heart of New Labour (p. 422). London: HarperPress. Pp167 [8] Ed Balls, “Speaking Out: Lessons in Life and Politics’ [9] Peter Hennessy, The Prime Minister: The Office and Its Holders (London: Penguin Books, 2001), p.477. [10] Wilson, R., BBC., 2021. Blair and Brown: The New Labour Revolution. Series 1, episode 3. [11] Milburn, A., BBC., 2021. Blair and Brown: The New Labour Revolution. Series 1, episode 3. [12] The Guardian., 2000. Blair’s £12bn pledge to the NHS. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2000/jan/17/futureofthenhs.health1 (last accessed 28/04/2022) [13] Hunter, A., BBC., 2021. Blair and Brown: The New Labour Revolution. Series 1, episode 3. [14] Blair, T., 2010. A journey: My political life. Vintage. Pp272 [15] Davis, J. and Rentoul, J., 2019. Heroes Or Villains?: The Blair Government Reconsidered. Oxford University Press pp.232 [16] Blair, T., 2010. A journey: My political life. Vintage. Pp660 [17] Brown, G., 2017. My life, our times. Random House pp170. [18] Richards, Steve. The Prime Ministers. London : Atlantic, 2019 pp230, Davis, J. and Rentoul, J., 2019. Heroes Or Villains?: The Blair Government Reconsidered. Oxford University Press pp.203 [19] Ramseden, D., 2021. The Treasury and an Introduction to Economic History Lecture. ‘The Euro’. [20] Davis, J. and Rentoul, J., 2019. Heroes Or Villains?: The Blair Government Reconsidered. Oxford University Press pp.213 [21] Blair, T., 2010. A journey: My political life. Vintage. Pp483 [22] Blair, T., 2010. A journey: My political life. Vintage. Pp484 [23] Blair, T., 2010. A journey: My political life. Vintage. Pp487 [24] Morgan, S., 2022. The Blair Years Lecture, ‘SPADS and Civil Service’ [25] Blair, T., BBC., 2021. Blair and Brown: The New Labour Revolution. Series 1, episode 3 [26] Morgan, S., 2022. The Blair Years Lecture, ‘SPADS and Civil Service’. [27] Morgan, S., 2022. The Blair Years Lecture, ‘SPADS and Civil Service’. [28] Blair, T., 2022. The Blair Years Lecture, ‘The Blair Years in Retrospect’. [29] Blair, T., 2022. The Blair Years Lecture, ‘The Blair Years in Retrospect’. [30] Gould. P. 2011., The Unfinished Revolution : How New Labour Changed British Politics Forever. p.187. [31] Blair, T., 2022. The Blair Years Lecture, ‘The Blair Years in Retrospect’. [32] BBC., 2021. Blair and Brown: The New Labour Revolution. Series 1, episode 3., Davis, J. and Rentoul, J., 2019. Heroes Or Villains?: The Blair Government Reconsidered. Oxford University Press, Blair, T., A Journey, pp117 [33] Blair, T., 2022. The Blair Years Lecture, ‘The Blair Years in Retrospect’. [34] Campbell, A., 2022. The Rest Is Politics Podcast, Episode 3.