What do you do with a problem like Gordon?

by Stephen Tall on June 23, 2008

One year on, and Gordon Brown and the Labour party are in a mess. The PM’s popularity – and self-confidence – plummeted after he bottled out of calling a general election last October, since when Labour’s ratings have drifted downwards: they have been above 29% in only one poll out of 15 conducted in the last two months.

Some will say this is inevitable, that what is happening to Labour after Tony Blair is not so different to what happened to the Tories after Margaret Thatcher’s demise: as political giants depart the stage their shadows continue to dominate the stage. Both Blair and Thatcher shook up their parties, turned them inside out, so small wonder their successors should struggle to make sense of what they’ve been bequeathed. Yet Major won an election and his premiership endured for seven years. It’s hard to see Gordon pulling off the same trick.

Not even matching up to the standards of John Major: can there be a more cruel political epitaph?

So if Labour’s current woes are not inevitable, the question should be asked: what could Gordon have done differently? To which there is one over-riding, blunt answer: have a clue what he wanted to achieve as Prime Minister.

It’s hard to recall now, but one of the reasons Gordon’s entry to Number 10 was greeted with such enthusiasm was that most political observers assumed he had a radical vision for what he wanted to achieve when he was in power. We reckoned he’d have a packed legislative programme which reversed elements of Blair’s more controversial measures (eg, scrap ID cards, withdraw from Iraq) and introduced radical initiatives which Blair had flunked (eg, elected House of Lords, even proportional representation).

Instead of which, Gordon wore a suit when meeting President Bush, persuaded Tory Quentin Davies to defect, and did a U-turn on super-casinos. Brave New World, it wasn’t. Those of us who thought Gordon was fizzing with new ideas are now left wondering: why exactly did he want to be Prime Minister so much?

There are still some who put it about that Gordon’s failures are to do with ‘image’, that it’s because he looks uncomfortable perching on a GMTV sofa that the public hasn’t warmed to him. Nonsense: it’s because he’s so desperately trying to appear comfortable that we view him with suspicion. Leaders shouldn’t be so blatantly eager to please; they should be comfortable in their own skins, confident in themselves.

It is not that the public is pre-programmed to warm to smooth politicos like Blair and Cameron; what we want from our politicians is authenticity, for them to be themselves, and to be seen clearly to be doing what they believe in (regardless of whether we agree). Most of us are scratching our heads wondering what it is that Gordon Brown actually does believe.

It’s not that we weren’t warned. After all, he voted for the Iraq war – but was careful to leave the impression with those credulous enough to want to be fooled that it’s not something he would have done as Prime Minister. Do any of us really imagine that he really regarded 42 days as a crucial piece of legislation, fundamental to the UK’s security? Of course not. It was simply some neat tactics to show himself as strong on terror, and to put the Tories in a bit of a fix. Gordon portrayed it as a symbol of all his government believes in: he was probably right.

No vision, no beliefs, no policies. One year on, most of us are a bit wiser. But not Gordon.

Enjoy reading this? Please like and share:

No comments

I knew from the beginning that he would be no different from Blair, & those deluding themselves into thinking this was a new dawn were wrong, as the f***er managed to serve under Blair for 10 years without a squeak.

Surely after the lies & deceit Blair practiced on those liberals foolish enough to support him, people would have woken up long ago… but now it’s happened.

This is the ultimate evidence that having a high IQ doesn’t qualify anyone for anything.

Even if Camoron wins the next election, I’ll still be celebrating, because lowlife like Caroline Heart Of Flint & John Hutton have got to lose.

by asquith on June 23, 2008 at 6:31 pm. Reply #

Good post but I think another problem with Gordon is he exhudes a lack of confidence in himself and this comes through politically. I think he waited too long and that has affected him and this is a key difference with Blair. Love him or loathe him Blair was sure of what he wanted to do and where he was going and was totally confident that was right.

Brown has two years to recover…I dont for a second expect him to win next time bit it could be close…who knows….

by Darrell on June 23, 2008 at 6:39 pm. Reply #

Gordon Brown does not bring John Major to my mind. Rather, Gordon seems a more intellectual, more intelligent, less decisive and less likeable version of Alec Douglas-Hume. It seems a bit unfair that he is not also the umpteenth Earl of Fife.

by David Heigham on June 23, 2008 at 9:54 pm. Reply #

Great post but I still think Gordon will outlast Cameron and hold on to power (just) in 2010.

Then again, I tend to be wrong…

by wit and wisdom on June 24, 2008 at 10:40 am. Reply #

A serious interest in politics is so alien to the majority of the population that someone whose raison d’etre is politics is viewed with incomprehension. John Major was a decent bloke who enjoyed cricket; you could imagine having a pint in the saloon bar with Harold Wilson; Harold Macmillan went off in August and blasted small birds out of the sky; Ted Heath went sailing and enjoyed music. Gordon Brown’s problem is that he is only a politician: he could be the most successful Prime Minister in history and the general public would still not understand or warm to him

by tony hill on June 24, 2008 at 6:14 pm. Reply #

I think the Liberal Democrats should look to their own troubles and problems.

by Yasmin Zalzala on June 24, 2008 at 6:33 pm. Reply #

Leave your comment


Required. Not published.

If you have one.