Brown's British visionThe Guardian, Tuesday 25 September 2007
Yesterday Gordon Brown spoke for Britain, or at least about his vision of a nation that must improve itself through common endeavour. Respecting effort, opportunity and a collective sense of what is right, he addressed his party as a social democratic patriot, optimistic about the possibilities of progress achieved together and scornful of individual doubt or inaction. "If you liked school, you'll love work", as Mr Brown's fellow Scot Irvine Welsh puts it.More tour d'horizon than tour de force, it lacked both the illuminating drama of Tony Blair's former confrontational conference speeches and the thumping rhetoric of Mr Brown's own past appearances. Instead it offered an authentic picture of someone as bold in his aspirations as he is cautious about the manner in which he intends to achieve them.The prime minister linked his own character and life story to that of his country, presenting himself - the clever, hard-working boy from Kirkcaldy - as an embodiment of British determination. Whether in an ambitious age those values still thrive is uncertain. Mr Brown showed no doubt. Quoting "this island story" he insisted that Britain's better nature would prevail. He used the experiences of his first three months as leader - terror attacks, floods and foot and mouth - to show it.Rooted in a progressive nationalism that led him to mention Britain and the British at every turn, the speech tried to occupy conservative ground for the forces of change. Raising his vision above that of other parties (never mentioned) and excitement about a possible election (not mentioned either), Mr Brown turned to religion to define social justice underpinned by duty. Things work best when people are not merely out for themselves, he insisted. His championing of the underdog was heartfelt.Sometimes he fell well short of this ambition. In turn boastful, punitive and opportunistic, he lapsed into language that, were it to be used next week by David Cameron, would see him accused of a lurch to the right. He described a society in which those who do not behave as they should will suffer for it. Many will agree with that, but Mr Brown needs to be careful that his definition of Britain's collective destiny does not replace democratic discussion. Labour's big tent is open only to those who share his purpose. Those outside stand apart not just from his party but from his definition of the British way.
There was little discussion of civil liberties, or localism, or choice, or of the balance between collective action and individual freedom. He was short, too, on new policy, though his promise to be a good European was a welcome defiance of the Sun newspaper. He offered to personalise public services but did not explain how this is to be achieved. He failed to accept that past reforms and investment had sometimes not worked. Nor did he discuss how better services are to be paid for in a time of restricted spending growth and economic uncertainty; he only promised that economic stability would be sustained. He lapsed into a pedestrian, tick-box list of references to issues - Darfur, climate change, Northern Ireland - that went nowhere. His praise for Mr Blair sounded more like a necessary duty than a pleasure.
There can be no doubt, after yesterday, about Mr Brown's genuine and commendable ambitions for his country. No other contemporary politician has such a strong sense of purpose:a belief in equality and the possibilities that should be available to every citizen. But the foundations of this meritocratic ideal lie in a top-down sense of command that places too little importance on freedom and choice. This is a debate that should lie at the heart of the coming general election. Mr Brown's journey to a better Britain has begun. But he has not silenced doubt about whether he can reach his destination.
