British DUers, What is the deal with this Blair/Brown feud?

[LSdemocrat]

Do they actually disagree on any substantive matter other than who should be prime minister?

Would a Brown premiership actually change anything?

[Happywarmgun]

1. Brown/Blair

They are 'broadly' aligned on most issues. They are certainly of the same social democratic stock - with Gordon slighly more idealistic and less pragmatic than Blair (not always a bad thing).

At the route of it is Gordons impatience - he never thought he would be waiting for so long for 'his turn' - and probably senses with Blair's loss of public support over Iraq, that his time is near.

Brown has a lot going for him: He is without a doubt the best Chancellor of the Exchequor the UK has had in the last century. Our econmy is stable, strong and growing and beats our peers on most measures.

On the downside he has all the Charisma of a dead wet fish. Blair has Charisma in spades - even when you think he is wrong on an issue there is something about Blair that makes you give him the benefit of the doubt (which over Iraq has proved a devestating judgement for myself).

They do have one or two substantive disagreements - the timing of UK entry to the Euro being the most obvious.

Broadly though I would remain convinced Britain picked the best availble party if either were leader.

[T_i_B]

2. Nothing to do with policy really

From the stuff we hear about this supposed feud constantly in the UK press it's actually to do with power. Brown wants to be PM and Blair does not want to leave Downing Street in the slightest and that apparently causes a bit of tension.

Plus there is the infamous Granita deal and so on. The Blair/Brown feud stuff actually bores when I read about it. The two have stayed partners in modernisation from opposition through government for some time now.

[Englander]

3. In a way,Brown is already PM;

he deals with most of,and is trying to set, the domestic agenda,while Bliar gets to play at being a President. Gordie is an actual Labour politician,who talks of socialism,& redistribution,& no longer says Labour is "new". Bliar is,or wants to be,a "neo-con". He is a conservative cuckoo;he's doing his damnest to destroy the Labour party;he hates socialists,and liberals,and all who vote for them.

One difference would be the support for the Chimp; I hope that Gordie would end British involvement in the illegal war in Iraq.



http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,1216391,00.html

"Brown's Britain

He has been called dour, witty, passionate, nerdy, a control freak, a delegator, charming and charmless. But while millions of words have been devoted to Gordon Brown's prospects of winning the greatest political prize, little attention has been paid to what kind of prime minister he would make. Now, with the chancellor closer to No 10 than at any time since the infamous Granita dinner, Andy Beckett asks the people who know him best how Brown would govern

Friday May 14, 2004"

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Brown was never enthusiastic about invading Iraq

but then, he never objected to it either - and he made sure the money for it was available.

Things might have turned out differently if he had been PM in the lead up to the invasion - he might not have had the intelligence sexed up, so that the mood of the country might have stopped them committing the British forces. He wouldn't have been so enthusiastic to stand with Bush.

But now, I don't think he would make much difference to the policy of staying there 'until things are stable'.

[Englander]

5. I hope,and I'm probably being ridiculously optimistic here...

that Brown makes a similar decision to Zapatero & all the other members of the Coalition who have withdrawn their countries' troops.
This today;

"Ukraine announces Iraq pull-out"
Ukraine's outgoing President Leonid Kuchma has ordered a withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Iraq.

He said his government should draw up plans to withdraw the 1,600-strong contingent in the first half of 2005.

The decision follows an incident in which eight Ukrainian and one Kazakh servicemen were killed while defusing a bomb in Iraq.

The Ukrainian troops are under the command of the Polish contingent, which is also likely to withdraw.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4162367.stm

[Taxloss]

6. Iraq is Brown's insurance policy.

He's kept his powder dry, and if the moment is right he can kill Blair's premiership by resigning over Iraq. Then he can become PM.

[sweetheart]

7. There is the perception that blair gets middle england

There is a feeling in the labour party, that the party would not be
in power without blair, as they believe he's penetrated the tory
strongholds with his tory-lite thinking. Brown, by contrast is an old
labour socialist by history, and not that credible as a tory (To his
credit!). Now that labour has been in power, and the economy has not
melted down or any of the dire tory predictons, i think britain is
ready for Rt.Hon.Brown to assume the throne.

Blair is a lame duck and is fighting a rear guard to defend his page
in the history book from saying "war criminal" on it. Brown is in the
cat bird seat and need only wait until blair exhausts his diminishing
political momentum on the stone faces of his own back bench.