IT WAS a bigger deal than anything ever presided over than Noel Edmonds. After the tragic and sudden death of Labour leader John Smith in 1994, the party’s blue-eyed boys, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, apparently hammered out a gentlemen’s agreement in Islington’s Granita restaurant over would succeed him. This was allegedly accepted by the latter with all the alacrity and decorum of John Prescott discovering chips were not on the menu or conceding defeat on the croquet lawn.

Brown had long been regarded as a future Labour leader, not least by himself. However, there was a school of thought, with the MP for Sedgefield prominent among its star pupils, which considered that the brighter-eyed, bushier-tailed Blair (known as Bambi in those days) would be more alluring to Middle England citizens whose votes were deemed crucial. The story is that Brown was persuaded to give Blair a clear run in the leadership election. (Does this mean the plotting pair were fearful one of the other candidates, Prescott or Margaret Beckett, might otherwise have won?) In return, Brown would hold considerable sway over domestic policy. Assuming Labour won the next general election, Blair would stay as Prime Minister for an agreed period, although precisely what period they agreed is a matter of dispute. He would then resign and hand the top job over to Brown. Another leadership election does not seem to have entered into their calculations, but since there wasn’t one after Blair finally rode off into the sunset to bring peace to the Middle East, these were correct.

But what if the devious duo had concluded Brown was the more acceptable face to front their “project”? After all, he was the man Labour Party activists and trade unionists were far more likely to regard as one of their own. And he might have been best placed to woo the female vote. Men tend to think women find Blair extremely attractive, even though they don’t actually know of any woman who does – except, presumably, Cherie Booth. Could it be that the smouldering, brooding Brown – a sort of Heathcliffe with a thorough grasp of neo-classical endogenous growth theory – is the one that they want? How different would things have been if Blair had stood aside and anointed his rival? What if the Brown bounce had started 13 years ago?

It is a safe bet that Labour would still have won a massive general election victory in 1997, with John Major’s Tories continuing to be about as popular as Athlete’s Foot – even with one another. It is harder to countenance that Brown would have allowed Blair similar dominion over the financial system that he exercised for a decade. In any event, Blair’s enthusiasm for economics could never be described as a boundless and, had he ever been Chancellor, the hand of history he felt at his shoulder may well have been pointing to him as Labour’s equivalent of Norman Lamont. With Blair singing in his bath regretting nothing while the economy went down the plughole, other European countries might have had similar downturns or more serious dips.

We might well have signed up to the single European currency, but without fiscal stability and prudence to boast of, another landslide of 2001 proportions would not have been on the cards. More conceivably, Labour would have been returned to power with a much smaller majority and then lost in 2005 to a resurgent Tory Party led by William Hague who replaced Kenneth Clarke after the near miss in 2001. Those for whom the thought of Chancellor Blair is so unpalatable that they are having palpitations should consider what might have unravelled with Jack Straw in Number 11.

So it is more feasible that Brown as Prime Minister would have found his own Mini-me as a next-door neighbour – someone not unlike Alistair Darling, perhaps. Then economic policies would have been much as they have been loved and loathed over the past decade – from the national minimum wage to the controversial and costly Private Finance Initiative and public-private partnerships. Ken Clarke’s strategy and spending would still have been found so much to the liking of the Labour leadership that they would have kept to them. Indeed, Brown could have erected his “Big Tent” very much sooner and asked the avuncular tobacco salesman to advise him on monetary matters. John Major could have been kept around as guide on what not to do – the opposite of the grey man’s advocacy – and Margaret Thatcher might have been resuscitated as a style guru.

While there may actually have been less largesse for health and education, schools and hospitals might have been run a bit more efficiently with less interference from expensive but unproductive management consultants and fewer costly but pointless reorganisations. Saints preserve us, we would probably still be lumbered with faith schools.

Blair may well have wanted foreign affairs as his personal fiefdom, with an even shorter-lived ethical foreign policy as a consequence. But jaunts to exotic places, chin-wags with various potentates and sumptuously sunning himself at someone else’s expense would have been right up Blair’s street – or rather, up someone else’s street, which is what he prefers. Those for whom the thought of Foreign Secretary Blair is so unpalatable that they are having palpitations should contemplate what might have unravelled with David Blunkett in charge of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Those who imagine PM Brown would have meant no active British military support for the war in Iraq (the Americans would have gone ahead with their invasion anyway) may have to think again. Brown would have baulked at the cost and his spin-doctor, Charlie Whelan, may not have acquired a reputation for sexing-up anything (although how readable would his diaries have been?).

However, Foreign Secretary Blair would surely have insisted that George Bush was backed. Wiser counsels against the whole catastrophic debacle might have prevailed, in which case Blair would have resigned from the Government – perhaps to pursue a career in entertainment by hosting a chat show or reforming the Ugly Rumours. He may not be a good enough lawyer for a sufficiently profitable return to the bar. And he may have quit much earlier, perhaps over non-membership of the euro or when it became apparent that, much in the style of Blair himself, Brown had no intention of departing from Downing Street at the appointed time and would have to be dragged from it with his fingernails scraping along the pavement.

“Just rejoice at that news”, peaceniks would have proclaimed if Blair had resigned. Yet Blair’s absence from the scene could have meant other shortfalls and shortcomings on the foreign front. Brown would have been far more cautious about European expansion and tried to stop eastern European migrants from coming to Britain. Had he succeed, the continent would be plagued by even greater instability and this country might be seriously short of plumbers.

To what extent would there have been a settlement in the north of Ireland? Blair’s conviction that he was a blessed peacemaker, in spite of evidence to contrary in several other parts of the globe, means his contribution to the Irish peace process should be undersold.

Would Brown have gone even as far as Blair, in terms of legislation, with an equalities agenda (between sexes rather than classes)? Or would we simply have had to endure more sanctimonious, parsimonious clap-trap about hard work and its inestimable value and just as much sucking up to the super-rich?

Brown would still have given the nation(s) devolution and he would have found it unthinkable that he could have presided over a Labour defeat in Scotland – or Wales, for that matter.

What Blair and Brown have in common is a great lack of appreciation of Ken Livingstone and his talents. Under Brown, there would have been no Mayor Livingstone of London, not because his tactical wizardry would have seen off the people’s Ken at the polls, but because he wouldn’t have allowed directly-elected mayors. This would be an idea whose time would never come.

In case anyone hasn’t noticed yet, Brown is a man of contradictions. He is a believer in more collective Cabinet government, yet would probably have presided over even more policy-making strictly controlled from the centre. At least it is to be hoped he wouldn’t have bothered with such preposterous notions as rolling policy-making or tried to have a ridiculous “Big Conversation” with anyone. He could have treated the National Policy Forum with equal disdain and the trade unions with more respect than Blair but with the same end results. He would not have been scared of the Women’s Institute.

A Brown premiership would have spared us the hideous embarrassment of “Cool Britannia”. It is hard to envisage the pious Brown tolerating sleaze, which would have put paid to cash-for-peerage scandals and reduced the number of donations to the Labour Party from arch-capitalists.

Brown would have advanced the parliamentary careers of his friends – he does have a few – more comprehensively. That would have been good news for the likes of Nick Brown and Harriet Harman. Whiz-kids such as Ed Balls might have been promoted sooner.

Brown does not seem to have much time for flash Harrys, Johnny-come-latelys, outriders or flaky, preening politicians. This means the nation might have denied some of the talents of those such as Stephen Byers, Alan Milburn, Tessa Jowell and Patricia Hewitt. John Reid would have had far fewer Government jobs. There would have been no Deputy Prime Minster.

Assuming Peter Mandelson had still nailed his colours to the Blairite mast, Brown would still neither have forgotten nor forgiven him. Mandelson might not even have made it as far as the House of Commons, let alone the Cabinet table. We can only speculate on what this would have meant for house prices in Notting Hill and the smooth processing of passport applications.

As Chancellor, the cautious and circumspect Brown was adept at avoiding trouble – in part, by being conspicuous by his absence when there was any. Searches for his fingerprints on the misfortunes that beset the Blair years were unlikely to yield positive results. But as Prime Minister, there is nowhere to hide and this sensitive man is likely to find being buffeted by unpopularity much more unpleasant than Blair did. It may have been one of the latter’s strengths that he seems to regard abuse as no more than water off a duck’s back. How many years of insults could Brown have stood?

However, he would probably have been more successful than Blair at appointing his own successor.

Prime Minister’s Questions would have been less entertaining, although the PM would have been in the Commons chamber rather more often. There would have been at least as much waffle about “change” and perhaps just as little meaningful progress to accompany it.

A Brown premiership would have meant good news for Humphrey, the Downing Street cat, who would not have been hounded out of his home by the Blair brood.

What of wealth redistribution and the repeal of all the virulent and vindictive anti-trade union laws? Sadly, the prospect of those went out of the window with the untimely demise of John Smith. If only he had lived, what then? Now there’s a thought.

Thanks to Barckley Sumner for his help with this article

From Tribune, 21 September 2007

To subscribe to Tribune at the special rate of £64 per year or £33 for six months, visit our website, or call 01635 879 385

www.tribunemagazine.co.uk