Tony Blair/Addendum

Introduction
Much of the contemporary comment on Tony Blair's premiership in the British press was about his strained relationship with Gordon Brown. Since much of what passed between them is known only to them, it is unlikely that an objective account of the matter will ever be available. Witness statements, in the form of memoirs and interviews by Tony Blair as one of the protagonists, and Peter Mandelson, their mutual colleague and confidante, became available for the first time, three or four years latter, in the Summer of 2010. There was no record available at that time of a corresponding statement by Gordon Brown.

"Brothers" (1983-1994)
When he was elected as a Member of Parliament at the age of 32, Gordon Brown was already an established figure in the Labour party, having been elected to its Scottish executive at the age of 24. According to Tony Blair's biographer, Anthony Seldon he was clearly the star of the 1983 intake of Labour MPs, whereas Tony Blair was a relative newcomer, having unexpectedly been elected in the same year. They soon acquired, what Tony Blair has described as "genuine and sincere liking for each other". For the next nine years they were virtually inseparable. They shared a tiny office at No1 Parliament Street and they were so often seen together that they became known as "the brothers". They were both recognised as high fliers by the party's seniors, but Tony was regarded as the protegé of the more experienced Gordon. In the early years of their relationship, Tony Blair was later to recall that he had obtained his grounding in politics from Gordon Brown: "he taught me the business of politics in roughly the same way as Derry  taught me the business of the Bar".

Their political views at that time were virtually identical. Both wanted to shift the Labour party away from its close linkage with the trade unions, and away from its "tax-and-spend" economic policy. Both were convinced that the "New Labour" party that they wanted to create could form a long- lasting high-achieving government. In temperament, however, they were very different. Tony Blair was a family man, Gordon Brown was single. Peter Mandelson had the impression that Tony Blair "if he wanted to, could walk away" tomorrow, but he could not imagine Gordon Brown as anything but a Labour MP. Gordon Brown was an avid reader: Tony Blair was not. In their office Gordon Brown would usually be hunched over has computer keyboard while Tony Blair would usually be laid back with his feet on his desk.

Rivals (1994)
In 1994, when the leader of the Labour party died, Gordon Brown confidently expected to succeed him. He told Peter Mandelson that he considerd the other contenders, Robin Cook and John Prescott, to stand no chance, and he did not mention the possibility that Tony Blair would stand. However, Tony Blair had by then formed a conviction that he had leadership qualities that Gordon Brown lacked, and that he himself could win the country over and lead a successful Labour government. He knew that he was more popular than Gordon Brown among Labour Members of Parliament and with the public (in a MORI opinion poll he had scored 32 percent against Gordon Brown's 9 per cent), but he  decided to try to "cajole him out" of a contest rather than confront him. In a series of discussions with Gordon Brown, he argued that he had by far the greater chance of success, but that they had a common objective and that Gordon Brown would in due course be his natural successor. According to Tony Blair, their discussions were difficult but not unfriendly - rather like a loving couple trying to decide whose career should come first.

It was reported ar the time, and widely accepted thereafter, that a deal was done at a meeting on 31st May at the Granita restaurant under which Gordon Brown's agreement to withdraw from the contest was conditional upon an undertaking that Tony Blair would hand over the premiership to him during his second term as prime minister. That has been denied by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (although they agree that such a deal was done later). Tony Blair has also denied that he agreed to yield full control of economic policy to Gordon Brown.

Uneasy partners (1995-2007)
The rivalry between them did not end with Gordon Brown's endorsement of Tony Blair's candidacy. In the course of the following twelve years it seems to have developed into wariness, then mutual suspicion, then discord and finally acrimony. There were some differences of political outlook and, although Tony Blair did not at first consider them to be serious, he concluded towards the end that Gordon Brown wanted to abandon some of the essentials of "New Labour". Policy conflicts arose over the relative importance of equity and efficiency with Tony Blair attaching somewhat more importance than Gordon Brown to the market mechanism and the encouragement of enterprise, and Gordon Brown attaching somewhat more importance to the effects of policy actions on income distribution. However Tony Blair's successful opposition to Gordon Brown's proposal to introduce an upper 50 per cent income tax band was one of the few occasions when that difference surfaced as a direct policy conflict. Differences that arose over the millenium dome, ID cards and the Euro were not of that sort and did not cause any serious friction, but Gordon Brown's opposition to university tuition fees and foundation hospitals was regarded by Tony Blair as obstruction. On the major domestic policy issues of raising the standards of education and health provision, however, they agreed and their objectives were largely achieved.

Problems are reported to have arisen from conflicting use of the machinery of government. Tony Blair considered his role to be like that of a CEO who, besides directing policy has to see it is followed, and was at first surprised by the absence of an established means by which a prime minister can give instructions to departmental ministers. Treasury control of annual departmental budgets had always given a substantial degree to Chancellors of the Exchequer, and Gordon Brown's introduction of the  3-year "Comprehensive Spending Review"  and of a system of "Public Service Agreements" had greatly strengthened that control. Tony Blair's No 10 staff found it difficult to get access to that machinery, and he created his own "Delivery Unit". The result gave rise to complaints about "conflicting and competing agendas" from the civil service, and may have created  a further source of tension.

After a speech by Gordon Brown that was widely interpreted as an attack on Tony Blair , the two had a meeting to resolve their differences at which, according to Tony Blair, he undertook to stand down befor the next election provided that he was given "full and unconditional support" by Gordon Brown. By October of the next year he had changed his mind, saying "If I am elected, I would serve a full third term" in a television interview by the BBC's Andrew Marr. Gordon Brown claimed that to have been a breach of their agreement but Tony Blair argued that the agreement had been broken by lack of support from Gordon Brown. The dispute was finally resolved in September 2006 by Tony Blair's announcement that he intended to quit within a year

Resumée
His relationship with Gordon Brown had a profound influence at every stage in Tony Blair's 14-year parliamentary career. Together, and each with his band of devoted followers, they conducted the business of government in a way had never happened before. They made less use of the established government machine than had any of their predecessors, and they  were even known to take major decisions  without involving any one else. Their actions nevertheless commanded widespread support at the time, although many of them have since become deeply unpopular. Although close (but not identical) in political outlook, they were poles apart in temperament: one (Brown) by far the more intense, introspective and intellectual, and the  other  (Blair) by far  the more  laid back, outgoing  and instinctual. Colleagues and biographers have observed a relationship of contradictions: a mixture of intimate friendship and distant hostility. Their exchanges appear to have been mostly supportive but frequently obstructive, and the outcomes appear to have been mainly constructive but often destructive. These are subjective impressions, however: the true nature of their relationship is known only to them.