WASHINGTON — Noting the speed with which political fortunes can change, former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson once remarked: “A week is a long time in politics”. So imagine how Gordon Brown must be feeling after enduring three weeks of political to-and-fro, that have seen him under considerable pressure from buoyant opponents. Three weeks ago, I wrote that the rough and tumble of daily politics had not challenged Brown’s honeymoon with the voters. It has now.

When Brown took over from Tony Blair, he immediately set out presenting a new image of leadership to the electorate. He talked of humility, of his strong “moral compass”, of handing power from Downing Street to Parliament, of listening and consensus. A series of moderate crises were handled with a deft touch, reinforcing the impression of straight-talking, competent leadership without glitz or spin. A poster campaign captured the Brown image brilliantly: “Not flash, just Gordon”.

This looked like the first phase of a well thought-out strategy to renew the Labour government after 10 years of power. Having defined Brown’s image, the next stage, surely, would be to set out his vision for Britain, possibly culminating in an election next spring where Brown would secure his personal mandate from the electorate.

If that was the plan, something went badly wrong. And perversely, it seems to result from the somewhat startling warmth with which Brown appeared to be greeted as the new Prime Minister. Opinion polls showed Labour’s lead over the opposition Conservatives widening, suggesting Brown might win an increased majority if an election were held. Rumors of an impending election began to circulate, with the flames perhaps fanned by the thought that it would panic the Conservatives, and expose more sharply their internal divisions. By the time the Conservatives began their annual conference, election fever risked passing the point of no return.

The Conservatives, however, clearly hadn’t read the script. Fear of an election that they were unlikely to win helped unite them, and leader David Cameron’s speech to the conference received considerable praise; better still, they spelled out several policy proposals on tax that caught voters’ imagination. So much so, in fact, that polling, particularly in swing areas, suggested the government faced a considerable challenge. Within a few days, election expectations were quashed as Brown chose to rule out an election, not just this year, but almost certainly until 2009. The Conservatives responded by taunting Brown with the book on courage he had published earlier this year.

And almost immediately, the government announced tax policies in the same areas as those that had garnered the Conservatives such attention. However long those plans had been in the making, politics now left them exposed to the charge that the Conservatives were setting the political agenda. The shadow Chancellor (Finance Minister) George Osborne was not slow to make this point in Parliament: “[Gordon Brown] talks about setting out his vision of the country – but he has to wait for us to tell him what it is.”

Despite this turn-around, the tide has not permanently shifted in anyone’s favor. One recent poll suggests Brown remains voters preferred choice as Prime Minister. The Conservatives have, however, succeeded in delaying what would have been a tough election, and given the impression of leading the political debate in some areas. Cameron may also have taken several steps towards developing his party’s position and narrative. But that can also help Brown €“ one side-effect of this episode is that the government have teased out more of what the next Conservative election manifesto will look like. He also now has time to work with. And if a week is a long time in politics, just think how significant the next 18 months could be.

Only one thing is certain: British politics just became very interesting indeed.

Share/Bookmark

WASHINGTON — If you’ve not been brought up in the tribal politics of the UK, it might not have seemed so shocking when Prime Minister Gordon Brown welcomed Conservative former PM Lady Thatcher to Downing Street earlier this month. But Thatcher remains the ideological nemesis of Brown’s Labour Party: many of them see her as a symbol of privatizing, free-market liberalism run amok, and of the huge increases in unemployment and social unrest that accompanied her economic reforms. Brown himself had once argued that”Britain can no longer survive, far less prosper, on the simplicities of Mrs. Thatcher’s capitalism”.

And yet, this is much more than a surprise. It says a lot about how Brown wants to be seen – and that opposition parties may, in a critical area, have underestimated him.

In the pre-Brown world, the opposition Conservatives had scented an opportunity to paint their man David Cameron as the true heir of Blair’s legacy, while warning of a partisan lurch to left-wing politics with Brown. Brown has, after all, always been seen as a more authentic face of Labour politics than Blair, steeped in the party’s history in a way that Blair never was. Equally, Brown was the dour, serious Scottish politician relative to Blair’s English “ordinary guy”. The common assumption was that Brown would find it difficult to connect with the centrist and center-right voters that had put Blair in office.

So far at least, reality looks very different. Brown has sought to cultivate an image of more consensual politics, with government drawn from experts on both sides of the political aisle. He has attracted one Conservative MP to defect to Labour, while another (plus a Liberal Democrat) have joined Brown’s government to advise on their areas of expertise. Tea with Lady Thatcher, meanwhile, is a potent symbol to centre-right voters that Brown can be trusted to preserve her legacy. And if the point needed hammering home, Brown had earlier emphasized the similarities between himself and Lady Thatcher, describing them both as “conviction politicians”.

A speech to the party conference this week developed this appeal. It had plenty of meat for his own party, but he also spoke to a more conservative (and Conservative) audience: his speech was sprinkled with references to Britain and British values, appealing to a patriotism with which the Conservatives have traditionally been more comfortable; and, he tackled issues like drugs, immigration, and crime in a way intended to reassure middle class voters. Significantly, there was no conference-rousing criticism of Cameron and the Conservatives (or by extension, natural Conservative voters) €“ in fact, he didn’t mention them once. The right-of-center Daily Mail was left to opine: “couldn’t much of his speech have come quite as naturally from a Conservative?”

Have Conservative strategists €˜mis-underestimated’ Brown’s appeal to voters? Perhaps – and far from simply challenging them in the political center-ground, his approach may also hit the Conservatives where it hurts most. I noted in an earlier post that while Cameron was attempting to re-brand his party along modern and inclusive lines, vocal critics argued that he was abandoning some of their most deeply held principles. Brown’s approach potentially deepens Cameron’s dilemma by saying what some social conservatives in his party want to hear, but which Cameron himself may be fearful of saying because it conflicts with that modernising agenda. As one conservative commentator put it, Brown is: “reaching out to the conservatives of middle Britain who have been so completely abandoned by the [Conservative Party].”

Time will tell what impact this will have. Recent opinion polls look good for Brown, and speculation that he will call a snap election within the next few weeks is rife (constitutionally, he does not have to do so until May 2010). But these are still early days for Brown’s “big tent” and it has yet to be tested in the daily rough-and-tumble of regular politics. Meanwhile, his approach so far suggests he’s taking the task of building a sustainable new coalition of support very seriously indeed.

Share/Bookmark

The difference in style was obvious: Gone were the chinos and unbuttoned shirt of Tony Blair’s first meeting with President Bush at Camp David, in their place a suit and tie that spoke more of business-like cooperation than  personal affinity. In their press conference, Gordon Brown addressed George Bush repeatedly as Mr. President, even as Mr. Bush referred to him as Gordon. And perhaps we’ll never know if the two leaders share the same brand of toothpaste.*

Was this evidence of a new British attitude to relations with the United States? In terms of appearance: yes. But that doesn’t mean that the U.K. is turning away from Washington. Instead, it is indicative of the fact that the British Prime Minister has, in his dealings with the U.S., an image problem to consider.

Mr. Brown’s predecessor, Tony Blair, had believed that, in a world where the U.S. is the only genuine global superpower, Britain’s interests were best served by being a faithful public ally to the U.S., using influence privately to advance British views. His reasoning was, in many ways, sound: The U.S. would, like any other country, act in its own interests, and certainly not against them simply because of vocal complaints. Moreover, he felt he was more likely to influence how the U.S. saw its interests if he was a constructive and helpful partner, confining his criticism to private talks.

Ultimately, however, Mr. Blair could not sell this argument politically. If he wasn’t going to be a public critic, it followed that he couldn’t easily claim credit when his influence had paid dividends. And as the smaller partner, it was easy then to become seen as the lapdog, however lazy €“ and wrong €“ a characterization that is (if you think Tony Blair was dragged by President Bush, against his wishes, into the invasion of Iraq, you really don’t understand Tony Blair). For many in the governing Labour party, the image of faithful ally might have been acceptable with Bill Clinton in the White House €“ but it wasn’t with George Bush. And as the Economist argued last year, it certainly wasn’t acceptable when it also, necessarily, implied being an uncritical ally of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. For Blair, the relationship became politically poisonous; for many in his party, it was beyond the pale.

Gordon Brown knows all of this. Yet while Mr. Brown may have struck a very different pose to Mr. Blair at Camp David, he also knows that the basic facts of global power have not changed. The U.K. is an important player on the world stage, but the U.S. is still the most important global power €“ Mr. Brown seems to recognize that, if Britain wants to project its influence globally, it simply makes no sense to walk away from its close relationship with the U.S. Instead, he has been quick to stress the importance he attaches to the link, re-affirming that the U.S. remains Britain’s “single-most important bilateral relationship”. Of course, there will remain differences between the two countries, in tone, emphasis and policy – but the relationship will be made to work.

Neither does Mr. Brown dislike America. On the contrary, he often looks to the U.S. for policy ideas, admires America’s economic dynamism, and draws regularly on the political ideas and rhetoric of figures such as Kennedy. And as my colleague Ron Asmus pointed out recently, the ascendancy of Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy in Germany and France, both committed to improving their countries’ bilateral relations with the U.S., is hardly likely to encourage Brown in the opposite direction.

Nonetheless, Mr. Brown does have to consider how his relationship with Mr. Bush is perceived, and distinguish himself from his predecessor. The Bush Administration appear sensitive to that, and perhaps understand that they an interest in helping him €“ a task which may become harder if Mr. Brown begins an accelerated draw-down of British troops in Iraq later this year. But both sides will gain in the long run if Mr. Brown is seen as a more independent figure. The U.S. will not gain from another British Prime Minister seen as a faithful puppy.

Talking about suits, ties and Colgate toothpaste may seem superficial. But image and perceptions of this relationship matter €“ just ask Tony Blair.

*  At the first Camp David meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair, Mr. Bush responded to a question of what the two leaders had in common:”Well, we both use Colgate toothpaste.”  

Share/Bookmark

Now we know the shape of Gordon Brown’s first Cabinet. Several key changes catch the eye, among them some influential allies of Brown – while ten of the 23 members of the final Blair Cabinet have either resigned, or been demoted/sacked.

As expected, Brown’s replacement as Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister) is Alistair Darling, who has served as a Cabinet Minister in various guises throughout the 10 years since the Labour government came to power. Political correspondent Nick Assinder describes Darling as: “[a] quiet, thoughtful MP €¦ he can be trusted both as a safe pair of hands, but also [as] a minister who does not chase headlines.”  The UK also has its first female Home Secretary €“ Jacqui Smith, responsible for security, counter-terrorism and response to civil emergencies; Smith is only the third woman to hold one of the four main offices of state (Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary), and was previously the Blair government’s Chief Whip. Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who led Brown’s leadership election campaign, becomes Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor.

But some of the most interesting changes have been made in foreign affairs. The new Foreign Secretary is David Miliband €“ a former policy advisor to Tony Blair and a rising star of the party widely tipped as a future leader. Miliband is perhaps the most recognizable face of a younger Labour generation (at 41, he is also the youngest Foreign Secretary for 30 years). He has promised “a diplomacy that is patient, as well as purposeful, which listens as well as leads”; indeed, rumors suggest that Miliband privately expressed considerable skepticism over the decision to go to war with Iraq (although he voted with his party to authorize the invasion). He was previously Environment Secretary, and is a vocal advocate of action to address global warming.

Not only is the new Secretary of State for International Development, Douglas Alexander (another of the younger generation), a long-time Brown ally, but his department (DfID) has also gained influence over trade policy. DfID will share joint responsibility with the newly-created Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (the Department for Trade and Industry has been axed).

An emphasis on global development is also echoed by Brown’s choice of Sir Mark, soon-to-be Lord, Malloch-Brown to be Minister for Africa, Asia and the United Nations €“ Malloch-Brown  is perhaps best-known for his role as  Deputy Secretary General of the UN under Kofi Annan, prior to which he was Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme.

Finally, other rising stars to watch include two extremely close Brown allies: Ed Balls (perhaps Brown’s closest colleague and former Chief Economic Adviser to the Treasury) who becomes Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families; and, Ed Miliband (younger brother of David and, like Balls, a long-standing Brown confidante at the Treasury) who becomes Minister for the Cabinet Office, the department responsible for coordinating work across government…    

Of course, it shouldn’t be a suprise to anyone that  Brown has placed strong allies in key Cabinet posts. This was the first significant opportunity to reinvigorate the Labour government, emphasising something of a break with the Blair era, and shifting the government’s direction.

Brown seems to have grabbed that opportunity with both hands.

Share/Bookmark

Tony Blair formally resigned as UK Prime Minister earlier today, before the Queen invited Gordon Brown to begin forming a new government. Prime Minister Brown entered 10 Downing Street shortly afterwards (more on that to come €¦).

Blair’s last act as Prime Minister was to face his final “Prime Minister’s Questions” in the House of Commons. This weekly session is usually great theater €“ albeit more as an (entertaining) opportunity for political point scoring between the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition than for the quality of the policy debate. But this week, we were treated to the unusual sight of a British Prime Minister leaving office, largely on his/her own terms, and without their party in open revolt.

What took place was striking for its aura of respect and good nature: Conservative leader David Cameron, like other party leaders that followed, asked a series of largely apolitical questions and chose to praise Blair’s achievements and approach. Blair seemingly enjoyed the occasion, joking about his impending unemployment, and dismissing one question from a renowned skeptic of Britain’s place in the European Union by wishing the questioner “au revoir, auf wiedersehen and arrivederci”.

Finally, precipitating an extremely unusual standing ovation across party boundaries (applause is rarely heard in the British Parliament), Blair signed off by saying” I wish everyone, friend or foe, well. That is that. The end.”

And so, it seemed, it was.

Blair’s “unemployment” was, however, short-lived – he has since been appointed as Middle East envoy on behalf of the EU, U.S., Russia and the Untied Nations. In anticipation of his assuming that post, Northern Ireland First Minister Ian Paisley spoke for many by drawing a parallel with one of Blair’s biggest successes in office €“ remarking: “The Prime Minister begins another colossal task. I hope that what happened in Northern Ireland will be repeated and that, at the end of the day, he can look back and say that it was well worth while.”

Indeed.

Share/Bookmark

It wasn’t supposed to be like this. The resurgent Conservative Party under David Cameron sensed that Tony Blair’s departure from office was a huge opportunity. With Gordon Brown taking over as Prime Minister when Blair resigns on 27 June, they argued, the Labour government would be pulled further to the left, away from the political center ground that the Conservatives were chasing. Indeed, David Cameron is reported to have said privately that he saw himself as the true “heir to Blair“. But one damaging internal argument later, and Cameron’s strategy has hit trouble. His team could be forgiven for wondering what hit them.

It began with an intelligent speech on education by a senior member of his team, David Willets, and seemingly innocuous remarks about the future of €˜grammar school’ education in the UK €“ academically selective schools open to all, regardless of family background, of which only around 150 still exist. Because of economic and social change, he argued, grammar schools could no longer promise to transform the opportunities of children from poor backgrounds.

So far, so consistent with Cameron’s efforts to re-brand the Conservatives as a modern, tolerant and inclusive party. Indeed, Willets was echoing a policy stance set out by Cameron himself 18 months ago.

But it hit a very raw nerve. It soon became clear that grammar schools remained, to many Conservative supporters, a symbol of the party’s claim to be the party of aspiration. Cameron’s Europe spokesman resigned in protest at the way the party had “undermined” the grammar schools in his constituency , and the party leadership were forced to back-pedal furiously when another senior member of his team appeared to publicly contradict the leader. Had Cameron backed away from a test of his authority?

The problem for Cameron is that the debate has had two effects. Firstly, it has starkly illustrated that a significant strand of his party is some way from following him willingly to the center-ground. Neither is that strand necessarily confined to the party’s grass roots: a straw  poll of Members of Parliament (MPs) released today suggests that a large percentage of Conservative MPs do not share the more liberal attitudes to gay rights, or racial and cultural diversity, that Cameron has embraced while aiming to reposition his party.

Secondly, it has seemingly emboldened those critics on the right of his party who feel that too many of the party’s shibboleths are being torn down by Cameron: his refusal to commit to specific tax cuts, for example, or his emphasis on quality-of-life issues rather than liberalization and free enterprise. A former Downing Street adviser to Margaret Thatcher recently wrote an article asking “Why does David Cameron despise the [Conservatives]?“; as blogger and former Conservative candidate, Iain Dale, recently put it, “[Conservative] party members are nervous. Some think their party is being taken away from them. It doesn’t matter whether they are right or wrong – that’s what some of them think.” The “heir to Blair” tag now seems politically toxic for Cameron.

None of this is to write off Cameron’s chances €“ he’s a smart politician who has done more to revive the Conservative party’s electoral fortunes than any of his three predecessors. But he has a huge task ahead of him. The events of the last few weeks should serve to illustrate just how big that task is.

Share/Bookmark

GMF’s Economic Policy Program recently hosted Professor Dan Drezner of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, for a presentation of his new book, €˜All Politics is Global’ (Princeton University Press). You can read more about Drezner’s arguments here, and listen to a podcast interview here. I highly recommend the book for anyone who is interested in understanding why countries choose (or not) to coordinate on regulatory issues.

If Drezner’s analysis is right, it raises a question that may have significant implications for anyone who advocates efforts to deepen the transatlantic marketplace: are they making their arguments to the right people?

Briefly: Drezner’s argument posits that states remain the primary actors in the global economy, and that their power matters in determining the outcome of efforts to coordinate regulation: it will be effective if the interests of the €˜great powers’ (in today’s world, the EU and U.S.) are sufficiently closely-aligned. There is no role for companies, NGOs or other trans-national networks (‘non-state actors’) to affect the outcome of discussions that take place between states €“ but they can play a domestic role in determining the interests/preferences that each state takes to the negotiating table.

Think of this in the context of this year’s renewed efforts to deepen the transatlantic marketplace. Over the last few months, many organizations (particularly business groups, such as the Transatlantic Business Dialogue) have worked to influence the outcome of the recent EU/U.S. Summit, calling for an agreement to further regulatory cooperation across the Atlantic (i.e. influencing discussions between the EU and U.S.). Some of them have also been working to influence that discussion from the bottom up, through domestic political channels, attempting to build a broader domestic coalition that believes it is strongly in the interests of their own national economy to cooperate (i.e. influencing each state’s preferences).

If Drezner’s model is right, wouldn’t the latter channel be clearly more effective than the former?

In other words, would we see greater progress if interested groups focused their efforts on building a stronger and more cohesive domestic coalition (in each of the EU and U.S.) in favor of transatlantic regulatory cooperation €“ challenging the interests of domestic voices with incentives to maintain the status quo €“ instead of trying to build support at the trans-national Summit?

Share/Bookmark

What began only a few days ago as a contest to replace Tony Blair as leader of the British Labour Party and, thereby Prime Minister when Blair stands down on 27 June, has become a coronation. Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister) Gordon Brown has succeeded in garnering nominations from 313 of the 354 Labour Members of Parliament (including that of Blair), leaving his last-remaining opponent, left-winger John McDonnell, to admit defeat. Yesterday, Brown accepted the party’s nomination as leader.

But will the lack of contest ultimately prove harmful for Brown and his party? It has often been said that Brown wanted a contest; though it is probably also fair to say that the ideal contest would have been one with a left-winger like McDonnell that allowed Brown to present himself to the wider electorate as the centrist candidate building on the last 10 years of Blair’s government €“ of which he has been an integral figure. Being challenged from the (Blair-ite) right of the party would have made for a very different contest.

Indeed, some say an election would have benefited Labour, allowing it to reinvigorate itself with an open policy debate, and giving the winner a stronger position with respect to the party. The opposition Conservative Party certainly emerged from their last leadership election campaign both with renewed purpose and a telegenic new leader, David Cameron.

But it’s not clear that the absence of a similar contest will harm Brown. For a start, being able to openly discuss a wholesale change in approach and emphasis is easier done in opposition than in government. Cameron and the Conservatives at least knew they were likely to have several years in which to resolve an open debate well before any realistic prospect of having to govern €“ a luxury that Brown and Labour simply don’t have while in power.

In any event, Brown’s challenge is a different one. Only two years ago, his party won the right to govern until (potentially) May 2010. And his position in the party is already strong, evidenced by the fact that his succession to Blair has been seen as inevitable for most of the last 10 years in office, while the left wing of the party have, by failing to successfully nominate a candidate, demonstrated their own relative weakness.

Instead, he faces a tricky balancing act: how to reinvigorate the government and set a distinct and personal agenda, without entirely turning his back on the “New Labour” government, led by Blair, of which he was a co-architect and has been a high-profile member. The more that the next six weeks can be a positive and forward-looking statement of who Brown is, rather than becoming an assessment of his predecessor’s strengths and weaknesses, the better for Brown. And that may be where his unopposed election turns out to be an advantage; the risk of his party indulging in a public and politically damaging battle, fought over the legacy of the Blair era, now seems slight.

Share/Bookmark

Europe is growing, and more strongly than was thought only a few months ago €“ that’s the positive message to come out of the European Commission’s spring economic forecasts, published on May 7th. Growth of 2.7% in 2006 represents the best performance by the euro area since 2000, and with forecast growth of around 2.5% in both 2007 and 2008, the upswing appears firmer than previously thought €“ helped in no small part by a more optimistic outlook for the euro area’s biggest economy, Germany.

So far, so good. But as economists will usually tell you at this point in the economic cycle: the work doesn’t stop here. Economic reform is a pill best swallowed when the economy is growing.

First, more flexible and competitive product, labor and capital markets remain critical to improving the euro area’s long run growth potential: the Commission’s forecasts suggest potential growth of around 2 ¼% per annum in the euro area over the coming years, still well below that of the United States. True, there are some strong performers, such as Spain, Finland and Ireland. But there are also those whose performance continues to act as a drag on the euro area as a whole €“ most notably, two of the euro area’s largest economies, Germany and Italy (where potential growth is estimated to be around 1 ½% to 1 ¾%). Reforming labor markets would also help ensure that the current declines in unemployment reflect not just a cyclical upswing, but a fall in structural unemployment over the long-run.

Second, the benefit of over 8 years experience with a single currency should have demonstrated the importance of making preparations during the good times, affording each economy the flexibility to respond to future economic shocks within the policy constraints inherent in a monetary union. Again, that means improving flexibility in labor, product and capital markets to help each economy adjust more rapidly to the next downturn.

And it means countries must not relax their commitments to continued fiscal consolidation, despite the temptation to spend the “growth dividend” rather than use it to improve their public finances. Governments need to build themselves the room, within the EU’s rules on government debt and deficits, for fiscal policy to respond in a future slowdown.

The European Commission has called on members of the euro area to strike while the iron is hot. When growth was slower, member countries perhaps found it politically more difficult to implement the reforms they know are necessary if the ambitious goals of the Lisbon Agenda are to be met; now, there is much less excuse. The true test of whether they meet this challenge may be several years away, but the Commission is absolutely right: a sunnier outlook is not an excuse to relax; it is exactly the right time to renew efforts.

Share/Bookmark

The final few days of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s time in office are well and truly underway. Damaged by the hugely unpopular Iraq War, and having already committed to resigning before September this year, he has now said he will announce his plans within the next week €“ beginning a process that will lead to the election of a new leader for the governing Labour Party and, therefore, Prime Minister for the remainder of the term won by Labour in 2005.

Blair will be leaving against a difficult electoral backdrop for his party. This week’s elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, and local authorities across England were never going to be a success story for a Labour government that trails the opposition Conservatives in opinion polls. And though results have not been as bad as some in government had feared, the Conservatives have succeeded in taking seats in England from both Labour and the third-biggest party, the Liberal Democrats. An even more difficult long term result for the government may come from elections to the Scottish Parliament, where  the success of the Scottish Nationalist Party in becoming the single largest party reinforces a growing headache for the government over whether Scotland’s future lies inside the United Kingdom. That will be particularly true for a British government that now looks set to be led by a Scot, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown.

But there are several reasons to believe that the government’s situation is not as electorally precarious as it might seem. Most immediately, May 8th will offer a reminder of what will surely be considered one of the finest achievements of Blair’s 10-year tenure in Downing Street: powers of government will be devolved from London to Northern Ireland, the strongest sign to date of a sustainable and peaceful solution to years of bitter conflict.

Furthermore, one participant at last week’s Brussels Forum noted that Blair’s government remains, after 10 years in power, relatively popular €“ despite polls suggesting that he is the most unpopular Prime Minister in modern history (similar polls once recorded his approval rating at 93% in the heady summer after coming to power). And, as Philip Stephens argues in a Financial Times column this week (registration required), his government have largely succeeded in transforming the terms of the political debate in the UK from the aftermath of the Thatcher era, to one in which a social democratic party is seen as a natural party of government €“ an achievement that largely eluded previous Labour governments. So while Gordon Brown will, should he take over, face the challenge of reinvigorating a government that faces effective opposition in parliament (something that Blair has faced in too few of his 10 years in power), then questions over Scotland’s future aside, he will at least be beginning on familiar territory.

Share/Bookmark