Brown: When I'm PM
Get unstitching those banners, comrades. Egality, Fraternity, Solidarity won't do any more. They're so 18th century.
Gordon Brown tonight unveils three new words to hold aloft in the fight with the forces of conservatism - Cameron and, whisper who dares, perhaps Blair too. Liberty, Responsibility and Fairness are the three words in question.
In a weighty speech in memory of the late great Hugo Young of the Guardian, the Chancellor argues that "the surest way in which our nation can succeed economically and socially in the 21st century will be by building a society in which there is liberty for all, responsibility by all and fairness to all".
He also begins to outline "ideas that should in my view be the foundation for a new agenda of political, economic, social and constitutional reform, a new settlement that will enable us to face up to the scale and size of the global challenges".
That's code - though not very coded code - for "what I would do when I finally get to be prime minister".
Naturally, as he's not yet PM, Gordon Brown is a little coy about giving us much detail. However, the Chancellor does remind us that in order to underpin liberty he would give Parliament a vote before going to war, complete the reform of the House of Lords and revive local government.
As for responsibility, he points to his recent announcement of funding for the first British youth national community service and says he wants to "energise a new debate on the vital future role of the voluntary charitable and community sector in our country".
Finally, and most importantly, he turns to fairness and makes clear that government and government alone can guarantee - even if they don't provide - childcare and the New Deal's training for the unemployed.
I say that fairness is the most important. That's because it is - in a favourite phrase of his - the real "dividing line" between New Improved New Labour and New Conservatives - between, in other words, Brown and Cameron.
"Britain can retreat," he argues tonight, "into the old narrow view of liberty as a form of libertarianism, responsibility as little more than paternalism, fairness as just formal rights before the law - leaving people and communities not only ill-equipped for challenges ahead, but with too little liberty, too little responsibility, and too little fairness."
Translated, that means that Cameron would not invest in child care, the New Deal or the environment. What though if Cameron says he would? Then Gordon believes that will split the Tories - or be simply less attractive to the public than sticking with the guys who really believe it.
I'm 
Comments
"not giving us much detail" is something of an understatement. Do you not sense that, after stating that he would be Blairite on the Today programme, his policy is to refrain from saying anything at all? I'll bet you a tenner he says nothing substantive until the next election but simply chants "investment" and "not return to Tory ways" incessantly in the face of growing economic problems.
So the question remains when will the reins of power be handed over.
I do wonder though whether it is moral for a party to arbitarily appoint a new Prime Minister without calling a General election.
I think you are right about the fairness aspect.After early retirement because of arthritic hands,my future looked bleak until Brown introduced the pension credit.At least,now,I have a reasonably comfortable few years to look forward to!
Completing the reform of the House of Lords would not underpin liberty. Indeed, as we have recently seen with ID cards/the NIR, it is the unelected Lords who are upholding liberty against the elected MPs who care more for party loyalty than freedom. Bringing in more Labour Lords (which is really what this "reform" is all about) will undermine one of the few effective checks on Labour's power
My tuppenceworth on "Brown's Abstract Nouns":
Liberty: how about repealing section 132 of SOCPA which has just seen a woman convicted for "demonstrating" by committing an act of remembrance at the Cenotaph, within the 1km "liberty" exclusion zone of Parliament Square
Responsibility: How about MPs bringing their bulging pension schemes in line with what they are forcing on everyone else
Fairness: if he seriously wants to finish the process of constitutional reform, how about introducing a fair voting system whereby everyone's vote counts and not just a few hundred thousand in marginal seats; and under which the composition of Parliament actually bears some resemblance to the overall support that the parties have achieved.
Well I could of told you that before, they've been in Brown's Rhetoric since the year dot.
Gordon Brown is a cynical social engineer. His understanding of the word fairness means taking from the hard-working and responsible, and giving to the lazy and irresponsible. Why stop there? He could genetically engineer future humans to have an average intelligence.
Isn't it time that some of the people making comments on future leadership of the London Government ought to consider getting angry about true democratic process and invoke a parliamentary system which is both less Political Party orientated and fairer to the views of the whole population. One positive change might include greater input from each voter through referendums and a hand in the choosing of candidates. Another positive change might include less all seeing all knowing input from journalists, over influencing the very way beliefs are created.....
Unfortunately the ultimate judge of what fairness is remains with Nanny Brown.
What Brown envisages is a system where you have to ask Nanny if you can do something before you can do it, so that Nanny can check if it is fair or not first.
In other words the replacement of nice simple black and white rules with a bunch of grey ones.
At least the lawyers and judges will be productive.
Well said William.
Let's talk about fairness: how about making the tax credit system work by preventing fraud and bringing it into line with the income tax system rather than harassing those of who were too honest to defraud it.
Responsibility: how about letting those of us who choose (legally and according with our fundamental human rights) to exercise our responsibility to educate our children ourselves get on with it, instead of continually attempting to sneak legislation in to make our lives difficult.
Liberty: How about throwing money at the business end of schools and making them into resource centres that are interesting and useful for all ppl, instead of putting children who attempt to escape the juvenile prisons that they are into house arrest?
What, not happening? Take a look around you. Children who are excluded are going to be under curfew to stay in their houses. How is this going to affect other children who are not excluded? They will be under suspicion if they go into public places. Why are we criminalising an entire generation? Is it in the name of liberty and fairness for all then?
Far from being a cynical social engineer Brown has been a part of a government which has cleverly managed to make the lives of millions better whilst avoiding the worst the cynical 'me me me' attacks of the self centered Right in this country.
The vast majority of the people in this country are hard working and responsible and it is an insult to the majority and to the Labour party to argue otherwise. I am deeply disappointed in the less than average intelligence of the media and the opposition that might have honed and sharpened one of the finest governments we've ever had into an even more effective tool for fairness and social justice in the UK. Brown will be a very principled and fine leader if given the chance and the challenge.
I love the word fair, so vague as to be meaningless, and always freely available for both sides of an argument.
I don't understand why the discussion about Gordon Brown isn't around the issue of whether he's electable. Not by the Labour Party, who won't have a choice anyway, but by the electorate. He's created so many enemies, who are lying in wait for him (just ask someone running a small business). If an election happens where there is an open contest between an unelected successor to Blair, and an elected Conservative, I do not think that Brown could win.
I think pushing the notion that voluntary work underpins 'responsibility' is a crafty tactic which says a lot about how in-touch Brown really is. He is clearly trying to show that he has the more coherent ideas on social justice. However, my problem with left of centre ideas is that they frequently lack pragmatism, which could be his undoing.
Also, the theory that Brown will try to pull Cameron into conservative no-man's-land with a carrot on a string seems compelling, but I think it's more likely that Brown will move further to the left to cut out the LDs and reflect his obvious instincts.
Nick, could you explain to me why the Chancellor now needs to give this speech?
These kind of thing is called "trailing", isn't it? That's a euphemism for "he's told you what he's going to say and you've kindly told us what he's going to say". Couldn't Gordon just stay at home? Actually giving the speech is redundant.
Given the rigorous attention that political parties give to press coverage, I wonder how much of the "Brown Message" is actually approved by Labour for distribution.
It's interesting that Gordon Brown is being subltle in his attacks on David Cameron. Clearly the Government is dying to shout out "he's an old Etonian", "he wrote the last conservative manifesto" and "he worked for Norman Lamont during Black Wednesday", but Mr Cameron has short-circuited that approach by reflecting the public's dislike for "yah-boo" politics.
I wonder how long Labour can resist the tempation to raise these issues, and how long Mr Cameron can stick to his approach at the dispatch box and in journalists' briefings.
Good. This is the kind of new thinking the American Democratic Party could use. A little aggressive marketing, updating of ideas and packaging instead of just moaning and saying, well, we will do what the republicans are doing but nicer. Ideas are so scarce over here, maybe we can borrow this one from you all. God knows we need all the help we can get.
Will the real Mr. Brown please step forward!
I count three Mr Browns currently aspiring towards leadership.
Number 1. He is the canny Scott, with a background weaned on social need. A Bread and Butter man that signed on to the New Labour project as it raised the potential of funding long-term social reform. This is the Brown we are assured is the true pretender to the crown. He is the Mandelson created Brown.
Number 2. This brown has emerged from beneath a dispatch box piled high with complex economic argument and French style bureaucratic control. He clings to his closely guarded rulebook, watching for reaction and counter reaction from beneath muscular eyebrows. This man is the Tory invention - his financial power broking will only bring forth doom! Doom I tell ye!
Number 3. This is the Media inspired Brown. He is the entrepreneur, the fly-by-night, the scheming spiv. He is opportunistic and ambitious. Not for him the patient corridors of orderly queues. No, he builds allies, hires political hit men, briefs, but never comments, insinuates, but never declares. He is the cat waiting to pounce - and if waiting a little longer makes the kill more efficient, then wait he will.
But who is the real Mr. Brown? Do any of these truly fit? And, picking up what another commenter asked, are any really someone who should lead the Labour party?
Interesting article Nick: Gordon says this, Gordon says that. No critique on your part just report the Chancellors sound bites. Then at the end you give us your interpretation on something: Cameron would not invest in childcare; the newdeal or the environment...Tories are split...Tories are unbelievable.
Me thinks you are a lefty Nick.