Re-Branded Brown Puts His Stamp on Britain's Leadership

Blair's old ally, widely expected to be the next Prime Minister reveals his vision for Britain.

By Liam Bailey

After Tony Blair finally announced Jun. 27 as the date he will step down as British Prime Minister May 10, May 11 became Gordon Brown's day to unveil, what he would do as Blair's successor. Of course, who becomes the next leader of the Labour party and British Prime Minister is pending a Labour party leadership race, but most analysts predict Prime Minister Brown is a forgone conclusion.

Gordon Brown's speech was as much like the re-branding of a pop star as it was an attempt to claw back support for a damaged Labour party. Almost every major policy was airing towards increasing Labour votes, in areas where Brown obviously felt Blair's policies had cost them. By showing the public that he shares their negative feelings over where Blair went wrong, and that his leadership will be very different -- in most cases opposite of Blair's -- throughout his speech, Brown sought to regain support for the Labour party and build support for himself.

The biggest example of this was Brown's attempting to capitalize on the public's deep running anger and in some cases hatred for Blair's overruling most of the Labour party and British public to send U.K. forces into Iraq. In that move, as Brown rightly pointed out, Blair cost Labour the trust of the British public, but not only in the Labour party, in the entire British political system of supposed democracy. Attempting to counteract this Brown said:

"One of my first acts as prime minister would be to restore power to parliament in order to build the trust of the British people in our democracy.

Government must be more open and more accountable to Parliament - for example in decisions about peace and war, in public appointments and in a new ministerial code of conduct.

Over the coming months, I want to build a shared national consensus for a programme of constitutional reform that strengthens the accountability of all who hold power; that is clear about the rights and responsibilities of being a citizen in Britain today; that defends the union and is vigilant about ensuring that the hard won liberties of the individual, for which Britain has for centuries been renowned round the world, are at all times upheld without relenting in our attack on terrorism."

So, Brown was not only telling the British public that he will make sure that neither he, nor anyone else can deploy the British military at will, but he was attacking the move, while attempting to reassure Britain's expanding ethnic minority who have been worried by Blair's ever-tightening laws to deal with terrorism.

Brown also said he will visit the Middle East, to meet with our Armed Forces and ensure we learn from our mistakes, in the interest of creating greater stability.

Another of Blair's controversial policies also with the potential to cost Labour thousands of votes, were policies designed to cap the maximum income of Britain's wealthiest people in an attempt to bridge the rich-poor divide. In an attempt to win back support from the very -- rich -- people, who Brown will need to assist in funding, perhaps his leadership campaign, but definitely Labours next election campaign, Brown said:

"People at the very top are doing a lot better in every country in the world in a global economy -- the task of a national government is to raise the income of the poorest as the best way of reducing inequality."

Brown's using massive public hatred of Blair to strengthen his own leadership prospects didn't stop there. Brown lacks Blair's flair at speechmaking and presentation, so he attempted to highlight Blair's talents as a negative in politics -- suggesting Blair put his image in the public eye before the substance of his policies Brown said:

"As a politician I have never sought the public eye for its own sake.

I have never believed presentation should be a substitute for policy.

I do not believe politics is about celebrity."

In an attempt to re-brand his image as "dour" at best, and at worst "Stalinist", as he was called by a senior civil servant, Brown went for the subliminal message approach. Derren Brown (U.K. performer using subliminal messaging to control people's actions and feint telepathy) must be on his speech writing team -- or maybe they're related?

To tackle the "dour" image Brown repeatedly used words like passion, optimistic, power, energy, drive/ing, inspired, flourishing and thrilling. An example of -- possibly subliminal -- re-branding:

"I am optimistic about Britain because I am inspired when I see the genius of our arts and creative industries, the flourishing of our universities, scientists, entrepreneurs and cities. A new energy, dynamism and often untapped talent which it is our patriotic duty to encourage and it would be thrilling to help unleash."

To tackle his image as "Stalinist" brown repeatedly used words like: involve, engage and shared. He repetitively used words like: listen/ing, learn/ed/, meet, visit, and discuss. In fact he said listen 5 times, learn or learned 9 times, discuss or discussion 5 times, and meet, 6 times. Not all that extraordinary -- but a few examples of extreme repetition suggest they may have been used subliminally:

"I have learned that when you get something right you build on it. But part of experience and judgement is to recognise that when you fall short, you listen, learn and then are confident enough to set new priorities. And I have learned also that the best way to meet peoples' priorities is to involve and engage people."

And:

"In the next few weeks I will also visit our armed forces and visit the Middle-East, to discuss with leaders and our forces so we learn the lessons we have to learn from the last few years as we focus on the best ways to achieve greater stability."

In his closing statements, Brown said:

"For me the weeks of this campaign are a chance to discuss new ideas but also to listen to your concerns. A chance to show how we will meet your aspirations - but also, as we listen, to learn what needs to change.

I will listen and I will learn. I will strive to meet people's aspirations."

So, subliminal re-branding or not, Brown has clearly tried to distance himself from Blair and show that he plans to forge his own path on matters foreign and domestic. But with Brown behind the scenes of most of Blair's domestic policy in his ten year role as Chancellor of the Exchequer, it remains to be seen just how much things will actually change.

One thing is clear, with brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer Britain has improved a great deal economically, so Brown is clearly capable of running the internal monetary matters of the country, and will no doubt do a shrewd job on the tax per benefit ratio.

Where Brown -- like most other candidates -- signifies the unknown is in areas of foreign policy. He has previously spoken of distancing himself from Washington -- another negative of Blair was his closeness with the U.S.. But in this latest speech Brown hinted at U.S. style control over public appointments -- suggesting a potential admiration for their political system, so who knows?

In all honesty no one knows how his foreign or domestic policy will differ from Blair's. But as a Brit, knowing his financial acumen and respecting his experience and strong reputation, I am happy to give Brown a chance -- re-branded or not.

Blair Announces Departure: A Legacy of Vanity

By Liam Bailey

Tony Blair has announced that he will resign on Jun 27 2007, after a decade as British Prime Minister. He has been refusing to set a date for months, when all he would have been remembered for was the Iraq fiasco. By announcing his departure so soon after his efforts at the Northern Ireland peace process seem to finally have come to fruition, Blair has shown that the legacy he leaves behind is one of his primary concerns.

How will history remember Tony Blair? Is I'm sure the question he asks himself now as he contemplates life after leadership. History used to be the realm of the few who sought to immerse their lives in the past. But now, with the World Wide Web it is as easy to find out what William Wallace liked for breakfast as it is to watch live news reports from around the world 24/7. Archives have gone live and are there to stay. Tony Blair and other world leaders like him know it -- he knew it when he came into office.

So, now when we look back at his premiership, it is easy to see how the thought of his legacy has influenced his policies. Perhaps his best legacy led drive was throwing himself into solving the Northern Ireland conflict.

His efforts achieved rapid success bringing all parties to the table and bringing some sort of resolution in the form of the 1998 Good-Friday agreement which ended most of the more serious violence. After stalls over disarming the I.R.A. and other issues there is now a power-sharing government in Northern Ireland, after two of the most prolific members from either side Martin McGuiness-Sinn Fein and Ian Paisley-Democratic Unionist Party, who would never have sat at the same table before Blair, took the oath of office May 8, as head and deputy respectively of the new Northern Ireland assembly. To bring a lasting peace (if it lasts) to one of the world's longest conflicts, and one that had never looked like it could be resolved, is a legacy that Tony Blair has every right to be proud of.

However, another of his attempts to secure his place in the history books did not go in his favour. Blair defied the entire U.K. political hierarchy to follow the U.S. into the Iraq war. If it had gone well he would have been remembered as a bold leader, not afraid to do the right thing whatever the cost. But it didn't go well and as we all now know, it will be remembered as a terrible error in judgement and undoubtedly the cause of his rapid fall from grace.

Blair saw the chance to add to his legacy from the successful interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo early in his premiership, by helping to save Iraqis and the world from the tyrannical and maniacal Saddam Hussein. Instead he has overshadowed the successes with what is seen as his blindly following the U.S. to help start a war of aggression based on lies and half-truths, against a regime that posed no threat to the U.K. or the world. A war that has resulted in countless hundreds of thousands of deaths -- for nothing. Sure, Iraqi's no longer have to deal with a vicious, murderous and genocidal dictator, but they are no more secure. In fact most are less secure and other aspects of their lives have gotten worse than they were under Saddam.

So with all Blair's attempts to go down in history as one of the world's great leaders, it remains to be seen whether or not his achievements in Sierra Leone, Kosovo and Northern Ireland will be enough to save his legacy from being: [U.S. President] "Bush's poodle", partly responsible for one of the worst wars of his generation.

Scottish Parliament: Feverous Nationalism Held at Bay – For Now

By Liam Bailey

It doesn't look like The Scottish National Party's plans to hold a referendum in 2010 and let Scots decide whether or not to split from England and the United Kingdom are going to become a reality -- despite their impressive victory in the Scottish elections. Nobody knows whether the estimated 140, 000 votes being scrapped because they were improperly filled out or otherwise inadmissible would have changed the overall result. I for one don't want to see an independent Scotland, after all, if something ain't broke don't fix it, so I am rather glad hopes of such a vote are at least postponed.

No, my reasoning for fearing independence is not based solely on that old proverb, but on listening to countless debates in the run up to both the 2003 and the recent election, where Labour and other anti-independence MP's made the nationalist policies sound unworkable and the ministers foolish.

Also, though I can not speak for all nationalists, all the people I have spoken to in favour of an independent Scotland don't care whether the policies of the S.N.P are workable, or whether the Scottish economy can survive alone, or that the E.U. might reject our application for membership, or if the whole nation collapses into anarchy and poverty -- as long as it's independent chaos.

Their desire for an independent Scotland has been passed down through the generations, and comes from a Braveheart like patriotism, mistrusting of English rule and more often than not hatred for the -- stereotypical -- "English". Don't get me wrong, if I lived in Scotland during those times I would have been at Wallace's right shoulder with whatever I could lay my hands on as a weapon, but times have changed. My dad is English and my mum Scottish so I have relations on both sides, I have also lived both sides of the border.

In England when Scotland are playing in the football World Cup qualifiers on pub TV's, most of the English people in the pub are supporting the Scotland side, as part of the U.K.. The same goes when Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Wales are playing. Obviously this would change in the later stages if one of the other sides were competing for the same place as England. But in Scotland, if England are playing on pub TV's, there is raucous support for whatever side is against England and abuse is hurled at the English side from the first game -- even after Scotland are out of the competition.

It was the same when I moved back to Scotland from England and went to a Scottish primary school, complete with the strong Yorkshire accent I had picked up. There was one boy who openly agreed with me that we should support all teams from the U.K. in the world cup, including England -- all the rest said they would support any team but England. I have lived in Scotland for most of my life including currently, but I am happy to be part of the United Kingdom and enjoy easy access and shared currencies when visiting relations over the border -- and all the other advantages unity brings. So, when I heard that the SNP had won the most seats in the recent election I was decidedly worried.

Thankfully, Scotland's electoral system is proportional representation. So, although the SNP had the most seats outright with 47 out of 129, 20 more than 2003 and one more than Labour with 46, with the Conservatives only managing 17, the S.N.P. needed to form a coalition with one of the other parties with 18 seats or more. A coalition was quickly agreed between the S.N.P. and Scotland's other pro-independence party -- the Green party --, who had secured two seats in the election. But the S.N.P. needed another 16 to form a majority government.

The S.N.P began to approach the Liberal Democrats with 16 seats, seeking a coalition with them, which would have given the S.N.P. a majority government by 1 seat. However, the S.N.P. wanted the coalition on the grounds that the independence referendum was guaranteed. The Lib Dem's said they would not meet to discuss such a coalition unless the S.N.P. dropped the plans for the independence referendum. As the S.N.P. attempted to lure the Lib Dem's to the table with offers to be flexible over the issue, refusing outright to drop the policy before talks were held, all hopes fizzled out.

The S.N.P. has retired -- on the surface quite happily -- to set up a minority government with the Greens.

As a minority, the S.N.P would be presenting the plan for a referendum to the house, almost guaranteed to get 49 votes for and 80 against. Suffice to say an independence referendum won't be held anytime soon. But given the growth of the S.N.P.'s vote, as feverous nationalism is passed down through generations of families growing larger and living longer, I fear that the longer the other parties can hold the S.N.P.'s plans at bay, the more likely that Scotland will become independent if a vote is ever held.