The Gordon Brown QuoteBase™

Globalisation

Electoral Realism

Means and Ends

Christianity and upbringing

Blair dominance

Socialism

Radicalism

Markets

Privatisation

Fairness and Social Justice

Pragmitism

Scotland

"Stage one was getting the fundamentals right. Independence for the Bank of England and the tough rules for fiscal discipline were recognition of the realities of the new global economy. "You have got to have a foundation of stability before moving forward"

"We are gradually committing ourselves as a Labour party to a new understanding of what makes a radical economic and social policy. For a long time (socialism) meant no change, or returning to the policies we had in the years when we weren't very successful"

We must not adhere to failed means lest we fail to achieve enduring ends

The mining and textile industries were collapsing at the same time ... you can't fail to see the scar of unemployment and how poverty actually disfigures people. It is one of the greatest evils of all. To deprive people of opportunity is a sin.[1]

Why did Brown stand down, rather than Blair? ... "I think to some extent it was because I had set out on this course of changing economic policy and some felt the changes weren't for them..."

"I believe in socialist values, yes" ... "liberty, equality, democracy and internationalism"

"We are gradually committing ourselves as a Labour party to a new understanding of what makes a radical economic and social policy. For a long time (socialism) meant no change, or returning to the policies we had in the years when we weren't very successful"

"I think the old 1980s notion that to prove you were pro-business you had to renounce fairness, and that to support fairness you had to renounce business has been proved wrong."  ... "That kind of argument is based on a very pessimistic view - that you can't have both, you can't be both enterprising and socially cohesive."[2]

when Labour refused to update its conception of the respective roles of markets and state, and take on vested interests, the government also failed

It's a journey with stages. The purpose [of this government] is to build a stronger, fairer country, to build a truly classless society where there is economic, employment and educational opportunity for all, where you see government's role in the modern world as equipping people to meet all the challenges they will meet[3]

One more point should be noted in relation to positioning Brown in the 1970s namely he was never a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and he was an advocate of Scottish devolution, which perhaps alludes to a pragmatic streak that one biographer of Brown - William Keegan - has recorded as a ubiquitous characteristic of Brown the man and the politician. ... Therefore unlike most of the Old and New left of the Labour Party, Brown appeared to be politically pragmatic over the issue of unilateral nuclear disarmament.[4]

... but nor can they [Scottish socialists] give unconditional support to maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom - and all that that entails - without any guarantee of radical social change.

the impact of the phenomenon of globalisation has appeared to make the goals of social democratic governments more difficult due to the relative ease with which multinational corporations can relocate to more cost-effective nations with cheaper labour costs due to the absence of policies such as minimum wages, robust employment rights for individual workers and sufficient welfare provisions.[5]

"There is a very, very powerful thread of pragmatism in Gordon Brown's character. If you bring that up to the present day - what he did then and what he does now in terms of fiscal constraints he has adopted willingly to abolish Labour's tax and spend image and ensure victory - there is some kind of willingness to compromise in pursuit of a bigger objective that was already present in the 1970s." - Alf Young

for nearly a century the left in Britain wrongly equated the public interest with public ownership, and at times came near to redefining one means - public ownership - as a sole end in itself.

I was bought up to believe that everyone and not just a few should have opportunity and security, and I passionately believe that in a responsible society everyone should have the chance to react their potential.

the fact of the matter was that, although he kept his links to Labour traditionalists throughout the 1992-1997 period when he and Blair were forming New Labour, he had conceded a great deal of ground. [In reference to 1997 scrapped proposal to raise tax]

In many obvious ways Brown's [old] politics were essentially the politics of the New left with their focus on extra-parliamentary protest; widespread public ownership; workers' control of industry; and a commitment to a significant redistribution of wealth.

In the past Labour has sometimes been radical without being credible, and sometimes been credible without being radical. The challenge for Labour is to be both - to be competitive and efficient but also fair as a society[6]

* Brown says that higher spending on health and education is one of the stages on Labour's journey. But it had to wait until the government had established its credentials with the financial markets.[7]

As I would later argue in a speech to the Social Market Foundation in January 2003, there were fundamental limits to the ability of markets to provide a public service such as healthcare: because nobody can be sure if or when they will need medical treatment or of what sort, the consumer is simply unable - as in a conventional market - to seek out the best product at the lowest price.

Brown's fourth and final stage is tackling the unacceptable injustices in our economy that have left pensioners and children poorer." He says that child benefit will have doubled for most families by 2001, that maternity grants have been increased, and the 'sure start' programme introduced to tackle child deprivation from infancy.[8]

"There is a very, very powerful thread of pragmatism in Gordon Brown's character. If you bring that up to the present day - what he did then and what he does now in terms of fiscal constraints he has adopted willingly to abolish Labour's tax and spend image and ensure victory - there is some kind of willingness to compromise in pursuit of a bigger objective that was already present in the 1970s." - Alf Young [9]

And while I know that the big driver of that interdependence - globalisation - can make it feel like we are being buffeted by forces we cannot control, it is my belief that there is no country better placed to take advantage of it than Scotland.[10]

All throughout my thirty-two years in Parliament, and in the years since, the question the Labour Party has had to answer has been: can it be trusted with the economy? During the post-war years, every economic expedient in sight was tried in turn - tarifs, wage controls, national plans and social contracts, as well as full-blooded monetarism - but none prevented us falling down the international league table as other countries moved up. Neoliberalism held sway for a time because it offered a simple frame-work within which to understand the bewildering changes summed up in the world 'globalisation'.[11]

As an MP entering Parliament at the 1983 General Election Brown like Blair served his apprenticeship in national Labour politics with thirteen years in Opposition. This was sufficiently long enough for Brown's radical, New left socialism to be diluted and repackaged into the mainstream social democracy of New Labour.

For it is our Christian teaching - the faith I was bought up in - that when some are poor, our whole society is impovrished; that when there is an injustice anywhere, it is a threat to justice everywhere; that what - as Dr King said - selfish men tear down, selfless men and women must build anew.

Ed Balls, whose 'fiscal rules' were an essential part of the 'stability' that Brown would offer country and markets, dared to suggest that a Labour government could still responsibly raise the top rate of tax to 50%. Blair replied, 'Wash your mouth out'.[12]

The socialist ideal of a redistribution of wealth is, he says, enshrined in his promise of a fair taxation system.

People don't yet realise quite how radical the reforms have been and the difference they will make to people's lives. The minimum wage, the 10p starting rate of tax and the working families tax credit are designed to make work pay for those on low incomes.[13]

The challenge for New Labour is, while remaining true to our values and goals, to have the courage to affirm that markets are a means of advancing the public interest; to strengthen markets where they work and to tackle market failures to enable markets to work better; and instead of reverting to the left's old, often knee-jerk, anti-market sentiment, to assert with confidence that promoting the market economy helps us achieve our goals of a stronger economy and a fairer society[14]

Old-style national corporatist strategies, such as nationalisation, exchange controls and capital controls could not now work in an increasingly globalised economy[15]

"Today we argue for equality not just because of our belief in social justice but also because of our views of what is required for economic success... Democratic equality means we tackle unjustifiable inequalities, but it also, of course presupposes a guaranteed minimum below which no one should fall"[16]

It is the mark of a moderate who is too focused on implementing social justice to concern himself with ideological purity.[17]

The real question, then, is whether, as we chart a global future for our children, it makes sense to abandon all political connections with our neighbours in the rest of the United Kingdomn at a time when cooperation between nations, rather than separation, seems a better way forward.[18]

Old-style national corporatist strategies, such as nationalisation, exchange controls and capital controls could not now work in an increasingly globalised economy[19]

we also had to change from a tax-and-spend party that appeared willing to borrow, no matter the circumstances.

we are not here as self-interested individuals sufficient unto ourselves, with no obligations to each other, but we are a community bound together as citizens with shared needs, mutual responsibilities and linked destinies; a community where I am indeed my brother's keeper and that belief in right relationships - or, as the Bible calls it, righteousness - as the foundation of a just society lies, I suggest, at the root of everything[20]

"It is because of the importance which we attach to work and because people have been dealt sich a harsh blow over these last few years that we will leave the basic rate of tax unchanged"[21]

Scotland's social condition and political predicament cries out for a new commitment to socialist ideals ... and a searching for a new social vision for Scotland which begins from people's potentials, is sensitive to cultural needs, and is humane, democratic and revolutionary.

Tony and I recognised there were also such things as market failures. Effective as markets are as mechanisms for creating material prosperity, they come up against limits. Markets could not on their own account address pollution or deliver public goods, and even if the market could achieve a much-vaunted equilibrium - balancing demand and supply - that did little to counter inequality. Markets did not have the inbuilt mechanisms - that only government could provide - to correct their tendency to self-destruct.[22]

Does not want to give the impression "that the only kind of reform that is valuable is a form of privatisation"

Our objective is not simply economic stability nor even economic growth. We build this platform to achieve economic justice. Anything else would put not just our economy at risk but also our ideals at risk. And the first of those ideals remains full employment, a cause for which our movement has campaigned for a century.[23]

In Brown's case by embracing markets as a means to create prosperity and deliver social justice some inequalities are created but they appear to be mitigated by a prioritarian approach to the tax and benefit system.[24]

When we are trying to make globalisation work for us, is it to our advantage to break all constitutional connections with a neighbour that takes 70 per cent of our exports and end the collaboration with the rest of the United Kingdom which finances the vast majority of our scientific and technological research and innovation - the vital pathway to new products, new businesses and future employment here in Scotland? Severing the link with the rest of the UK seems particularly out of sync with Scotland's needs when economies are becoming more integrated, when there is increasing public recognition of nations' interdependence and when a fixation on the power of the state runs counter to the hemoraging of state power to citizens' networks and non-governmental institutions.

By the mid-1990s we had to offer something more. The left's traditional answers - to pull the levers of state power through nationalisation, currency and capital controls, and restrictions on imports - had failed to recognise the new reality: that national economies were interconnected in a global economy and that money and goods now moved freely across borders irrespective of national decisions. The prevailing neoliberal orthodoxy offered a simple but dishonest framework within which to understand globalisation. In response to a fast-changing world that had moved on from the 1980s, what approach would we propose instead? Voters knew what we were against, now they had to know what we were for.

I remember the bitter battles Neil Kinnock fought in order to make us credible radicals - against those who wanted telecom renationalisation, unilateral disarmament, no council-house sales and nothing to do with the private sector. Eventually most members came to accept that we could, at one and the same time, respect public opinion and honour our values. We need not be swayed by purely sectional interests. We could be the party that stood for fiscal realism and not just for more and more spending irrespective of whether it delivered better outcomes.

What is morally wrong cannot be economically right. In the words of Isaiah - we must 'undo the heavy burdens and let the oppressed go free'.[25]

[On cutting capital gains tax] I felt it was done more as a political sign to those he thought were designating him anti-business, and a product of those who were advising him, rather than an act born out of great conviction.

the social and economic problems confronting Scotland arise not from national suppression nor from London mismanagement (although we have had our share of both) but from the uneven and uncontrolled development of capitalism and the failure of successive governments to challenge and transform it.

Tony and I started with a blank sheet of paper and tried to set down from first principles what a modern social democracy would look like. The world was changing. Both Tony and I were in no doubt that we had to endorse markets, competition and the essential role of the private sector in achieving economic growth.

On Rail Privatisation: "This last desperate Conservative sell-off, this closing-down sale that signifies the moral bankruptcy of this Government.

[Our challenge:] To replace poverty and the denial of opportunity with fairness guaranteed to all.

...but first I had to deal with a thorny problem: our continuing commitment to renationalising telecommunications. It was not only unpopular; privatisation was all but irreversible because of the fast-changing nature of the industry and the fact that so many millions had already bought shares in the privatised companies. By now, I was thinking of an alternative policy which would secure benefits for the country through regulation without the expense of renationalisation. [26]

We had to change our economic policy to come to terms with the modern world, with the global economy. You can't just inject resources into the economy and make everything fine. But a lot of people in the Labour Party didn't accept that and that made us unpopular

We, in Labour, took a different view which did not dwell on the reality of relative decline but looked to building a New Britain fit for a new age. We could change Labour so that Labour could change Britain. Persuading the party to change was often a daunting and wearing task, but as an American writer put it, 'if you are not willing to spill blood between elections, you'll spill it on election day, and it'll be yours'.[27]

[On top rate of tax increase] For me, it was a total red line. After time, Gordon backed off.

what is required is planed control of our economy and a transformation of democracy at all levels.

We had to recognise that while markets need rules to underpin them, the public sector can only be paid for by a productive private sector.

... but nor can they [Scottish socialists] give unconditional support to maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom - and all that that entails - without any guarantee of radical social change.

And we are better of when we make the most of out interdependence. We are better off when, in recognition of our close connections with each other, we pool and share our resources equitably across the United Kingdom. And we are better off when we use the strength of our own relationships in the UK to project our collective power on the world stage.

Criticism of "the increased level of external control over the Scottish economy"[28]

I don't think people in the party quite realised just how big a change was necessary in our economic policy. We had lost four elections as the result of our failure to do so and so we had to deal first with the perception of Labour as the tax, spend, borrow party which was given over to vested interests. We had to change that perception, not just because of public opinion

Today the logic of present economic development, in inflation and stagnation, and at the same time the demand for the fullest use of material resources, makes it increasingly impossible to manage the economy both for private profit and the needs of society as a whole.[29]

I was fascinated by, and determined to, push through a streamlining and improvement of our regulatory system. Our plan was founded on a new evidence-based approach to measuring and assessing levels of risk. The theme was regulation only when necessary and, where possible, the elimination of unnecessary red tape.

His long study of the career of his hero, Clydeside MP James Maxton, had convinced him that principles were not enough if they kept a politician away from the practice of government.[30]

in general. Larger states have more influence in the EU than smaller ones. They have greater economic weight' … 'Small states cannot do this as easily as they have less to offer in return' … This level of external control is not of course unique to Scotland and there are advantages such as access to a bigger source of investment capital, but in an era where capital is inescapably mobile, the score for independent decision-making is more limited, and we are often subject to decisions that are made for other reasons elsewhere.[31]

as long as Scottish financiers maintain their dependent relationship to international capital, these policies may in the event not only increase the Scottish economy's powerlessness over world market trends but increase the relative underdevelopment of our economy.[32]

Labour's historic mission, creating equal opportunities for all, leads us to pursue policies for full employment and high-quality public services[33]

I was in no doubt where New Labour had to stand. We supported markets but resisted the automatic equation of markets with the public interest, so there were limits to the sale of nationally owned services that were often referred to as 'the family silver'. We supported fiscal realism but rejected the myth that national finances were the same as household budgets albiet on a larger scale, and with it the inflexible neoliberal insistence on a 'balanced budget', and so our fiscal rules would allow us to borrow in order to invest. We wanted to reward hard work, merit and the contribution citizens made to the strength of our communities, but we were not prepared to overlook the gross and glaring inequalities of income and wealth in our country. At the same time, while we stipulated that certain services - defence, law and order, health and education - could not be run on purely market principles, we needed to ensure that, within the public sector, all services were run efficiently and accountably.

[On PPP with the Tube] A chancellor who believed in 'what works' became hung-up on what often patently didn't work.[34]

Brown is seen pledging to tackle the crippling consequences of debt, while continuing to support the free trade model of the World Bank and the IMF.[35]

As trade and industry spokesperson before 1992 and shadow chancellor thereafter, I left my colleagues in no doubt that we had to embrace markets, competition and the essential role of the private sector in achieving economic growth. But we would not accept a private sector free-for-all. Competition was usually in the public interest - hence our support for new buisnesses joining the marketplace - but competition also required there to be laws that would challenge the power of monopolies and cartels as well, now, as the excesses of the privatised utilities. Liberalisation had a public purpose, but in areas like health and safety, environmental protection, and conditions in the workplace, it was often regulation, not deregulation, that would best serve the public interest. New Labour did not mean ditching our principles but, as John Prescott was right to keep reminding us, implementing our enduring values in a modern setting.

Our aim should be not just to build a better country, but to build a better world and to recognise that, in the age of economic interdependence, to build a better country we need to build a better world.[36]

The vision of the early socialists was of a society which had abolished for ever the dichotomy ... between man's personal and collective existence, by substituting communal co-operation for the divisive forces of competition.[37]

In the days before global capital markets, governments could disguise their problems for longer and shelter behind national barriers. Today they cannot do so. So while the rewards - in investment flows - for doing well are even greater today, the punishment for those who perform badly is now more instantaneous and more severe than in the past.[38]

The best industrial policy for success in a global economy is to help markets work better

Twenty years ago, even ten years ago, it was just about possible - if costly and wrong - for countries to shelter their industries and sectors, protecting them from global competition. But today there is no safe haven, no easy escape from global compeition without putting at risk long-term stability, growth and employment.[39]

the centralised state was wrongly seen to be the main, sometimes the sole, expression of community, often usurping the case for localities and neighbourhoods taking more responsibility for the decisions that affect their lives.

And while I know that the big driver of that interdependence - globalisation - can make it feel like we are being buffeted by forces we cannot control, it is my belief that there is no country better placed to take advantage of it than Scotland.

We must never again become a Party that is seen as anti-success, anti-competition, anti-profit, anti-markets. Our enemy is not markets but monopoly, not competition but cartels, not profits but privilege and greed. And it is because we are the party that understands the importance of opporunity for all, that we must be the party that promotes enterprise open to all.[40]

---

[1]

Peter Warrington:
- An excellent summation of the Christian influence in Brown's political philosophy
- Poverty as the main thing for politics to tackle - ends rather than means

[2]

Peter Warrington:
- Suggests that there was a change in what he believed, explained by the idea that you can have a pro-business economic policy and a fair society as proven in the 90s.
- But how was that proven?
- Was it the perception that Thatcher had created a wealthier society, it's just that the profits of that weren't used to create a fairer society?

[3]

Peter Warrington:
- Persuit of a classless society, in line with historic labour ideals, but also that of one-nation conservatism
- Political aim to eliminate inequality of opportunity

[4]

Peter Warrington:
- Devolution was seen in the 70s as an unsatisfactory comprimisory middle way between no home rule and independence, which was not popular at the time, despite thinking it would pragmatically suit the majority of Scots

[5]

Peter Warrington:
- Outlines why globalisation may have been so influential on Brown's political philosophy

[6]

Peter Warrington:
- Continued emphasis on being both radical and credible
- Sees his Labour government as radical
- But also repeats the analysis of the Red paper that past Labour governments were not radical enough to deliver meaningful change, despite criticism that his government did the same

[7]

Peter Warrington:
- Gradualist tradition
- Working with rather than challenging workings of financial markets, making change slower and arguably less effective

[8]

Peter Warrington:
- What Brown sees as radical
- But does not fundamentally change the way markets operate, a different definition of radicalism to that seen in the Red paper

[9]

Peter Warrington:
- Pragmatism as an electorally motivated philosophy

[10]

Peter Warrington:
Contrary to the views expressed in the Red Paper, explains how Globalisation must be embraced, and that Scotland is in a good place to do so. The exact opposite argument is made in the Red Paper.

[11]

Peter Warrington:
- Supports the idea that Brown's changes in political belief came about with disillusionment with both Old Labour and Tory policies, which comes across in the Red Paper.
- Accepts that neoliberalism has its benefits, though does not weigh it against any other philosophy here. Elsewhere in his memoirs he accepts globalisation as an inevitability for which both the benefits and drawbacks must be accepted, in sharp contrast to sentiments expressed in the Red Paper.

[12]

Peter Warrington:
Shows that Blair had the final veto over fiscal policy despite Brownite briefings to the contrary.
Supports the idea that Blair's dominance in the relationship shaped the way Brown approached policy and policy presentation.

[13]

Peter Warrington:
- What Brown sees as radical
- But does not fundamentally change the way markets operate, a different definition of radicalism to that seen in the Red paper

[14]

Peter Warrington:
- Supports not just maintaining markets but promote them
- While still acknowledging failings of markets
- Criticises old left's views - which serve as a criticism of his old views
- Fairer society can only be achieved with efficient market economy

[15]

Peter Warrington:
Defeat of Old Labour economics to globalisation, an inevitability

[16]

Peter Warrington:
- Commitment to social justice, linked to economic success
- Guaranteed minimum
- Articulates modern social democracy

[17]

Peter Warrington:
- Social justice, Christian Socialism more consistent that strict threads of Socialist Economy

[18]

Peter Warrington:
Links Unionism to Globalisation by arguing that seperation is incompatible with globalisation, where economic ties must be as close as possible to secure good standards of living.

[19]

Peter Warrington:
Defeat of Old Labour economics to globalisation, an inevitability

[20]

Peter Warrington:
Rejects the Thatcherite view of society and individualism from a Christian and ethical socialist perspective.

[21]

Peter Warrington:
Change of presentation as a result of Blair dominance.

[22]

Peter Warrington:
- Favourable view of markets where possible, state where necessary
- Pragmatism
- Distinguished from neo-liberalism by accepting problems with markets and the important role of the public sector

[23]

Peter Warrington:
- Commitment to economic justice, requiring economic stability - which economic reorganisation would jeopardise, and harm rather than help people - putting Labour ideals at risk.
- Draws historic links by talking about full employment

[24]

Peter Warrington:
- Acknowledgment that supporting markets create inequalities, but a commitment to mitigating them

[25]

Peter Warrington:
Underpinning of morals to economic and political policy as first priority.

[26]

Peter Warrington:
- Nationalisation as unrealistic, due to costs involved and limited benefits
- Pragmatic approach to the public-private sectors, not nationalisation as an end in itself, as previously believed

[27]

Peter Warrington:
supports the idea that it was an electoral necessity to change the party's platform, and a necessary strategy to affect any progressive change.

[28]

Peter Warrington:
From something to challenge, to later something that had to be come to terms with

[29]

Peter Warrington:
Idea that this was proved wrong in the 80s and 90s, and the economic benefits merely weren't distributed fairly. A Marxist critique of the contradictions of capitalism that failed to materialise with Thatcherism.
- There is room for a reason why Brown's philosophy changed here, with the stipulation that it is only impossible to maintain private profit and the public interest so long as inflation and stagnation and material demand is high.

[30]

Peter Warrington:
p11

[31]

Peter Warrington:
Supports my argument that Gordon's opinions on independence changed as pathways to devolution were realised, and as globalisation meant that small states could no longer have independent economic and foreign politcy as it could as part of a bigger state.
Talk of external control directly links to the Red Paper.

[32]

Peter Warrington:
The means could no longer acheive the ends as globalisation took hold in the neoliberal and technological era

[33]

Peter Warrington:
Defines labour's "historic mission" divorced from Socialist economic prescriptions

[34]

Peter Warrington:
Evidence against pragmitism, in favour of other factors.

[35]

Peter Warrington:
- Acceptance of globalised world order

[36]

Peter Warrington:
- Globalised world order requires global rather than domestic action to challenge, as shown through cancellation of debt through international colaboration

[37]

Peter Warrington:
- Critical of competition

[38]

Peter Warrington:
Change in opinion from Red Paper, protectionism and national control became impossible, competition became necessary with international markets.

[39]

Peter Warrington:
Change in opinion from Red Paper, protectionism and national control became impossible, competition became necessary with international markets.

[40]

Peter Warrington:
- Profit, competition, and markets as a good thing.
- Not criticism of markets, but of monopolies and greed, without accepting markets as creating these like he once did
- Links opportunity to enterprise